Dr. Harmon just made a statement that was pretty profound - here's the paraphrase: all doctrinal issues come down to an issue of theological exegesis.
sounds like a statement of the obvious, but in realms where theology and philosophy make the waters a bit muddy, it's refreshing to be pulled back to something resembling a foundation - the scriptures.
we are talking in particular about Arius and Alexander and Athanasius... you know, the crew who shook up Nicea in 325... and all of the theological rhetoric that was debated was ultimately rooted in issues of exegesis of the scriptures (and the canon was just being finished at this point!). Something that i find ironic is that Arius and his party were prone to interpret John 1 'literally,' and Athanasius and his party (who ultimately won the council) interpreted John 1 more philosophically/metaphorically.
here's where the irony comes in - if you are an Evangelical today, then most if not all scripture is to be interpreted 'literally,' as opposed to philosophically or metaphorically.
just let that be another indication of the fact that doctrinal issues are all rooted in exegesis.
(and the question is begged, 'what is good exegesis?')
the Trinity's scriptural bases are many, and diverse, but in no way explicit. I'm thankful that the Church fathers (and mothers) wrestled with the issues of articulating the Trinity so that we would not have to till the same ground, but it is SO important that we continue to cultivate the seeds and bring the concepts to harvest by raising our awareness and exploring on our own initiative the exegetical and thus theological roots of the Trinity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I hope you meant that the canon was in the process of being "finalized," as in the list determined, and not "finished," as in you believe that some of the canonical books are actually being written that late. Otherwise, yes, the question of what is good exesis is absolutely crucial. Any suggestions?
AC
Slater,
i apologize of my phrasing was in any way misleading - but i feel like it's a little defensive to assume that i meant the writing of the actual books being that late... where's that coming from?
i definitely think that the letters and books were done much, much earlier, and i was indeed referring to the list itself when i said "canon."
and, unfortunately, no, i don't have any good suggestions formulated yet for how to summarize 'good' theological exegesis :-) i don't feel like i'm equipped with the right terminology (as my miscommunication with 'canon' might indicate) and/or the best context for application - i'm only just now beginning to teach, and i don't forsee myself preaching any time soon, and i think that preaching the Word is probably the best context for good theological exegesis, because it puts one in the right frame of mind - a Christ-centered, Spirit-led, critical appraisal so that Jesus Christ is lifted up and the Body might be edified and challenged.
Post a Comment