Biblical Studies and Theological Studies have been at war for almost 300 years, both civil, each with tribes within its own borders warring for the throne of definition, method, and object, and interdisciplinary, each fighting over to whom the scepter of Scripture rightfully belongs. For liberalism indeed entered the study of Scripture with Gabler’s address in 1787, yet death reigned from Gabler to Geerhardus Vos, who showed us the types of the one who came. Yet until Vos, biblical studies was a mere glorified historical sociology, being critical of the divine nature of Scripture. In theology, from Calvin to Bavinck to Van Til, God was the principium essendi (essential foundation, as in "essense"), and therefore his revelation as the principium cognescendi (foundation of knowledge) as his revelation in Scripture and creation were the determinative organic foundation for theological studies. From Kant to Schleiermacher to Lindbeck, principia become pretentious, and articulia (articles, or confessions) become the normative sphere of theology.
Now, if principia precede our consideration, and articulia proceed from our consideration, the question we must answer is: “Is systematic theology (henceforth ST) a principium or articuli?” “Does ST come before Scripture or after Scripture?” If it is an articuli, I can criticize it to death if it so pleases my principium. But there must be a principium on the basis of which I criticize it. If I appeal to the authority of Scripture as a principium to justify my criticism of ST (as an articuli), then I must provide a rationalization for its authority that is non-systematic theological by the nature of its critical stance toward ST. On the other hand, if ST is a principium, then it is the foundation for knowledge, and escapes criticism. Principia cannot be criticized, because if one forfeits the authority of a principium, he must either be standing on another principium or has forsaken principia altogether, upon which occasion there is nothing to be critical of. Criticism is allegiance, and allegiance is submission to something.
The biblical theologian will often err by relegating ST to a confessional corner. The systematic theologian will often err by maintaining that ST (as an articuli) is the principium, even for the authority of Scripture. The former is a disregard for principia altogether, and the latter is Roman Catholicism. Where is the resolution?
Bavinck puts it perfectly when he speaks of the divisions of ST: “[T]he order that is theological and at the same time historical-genetic in character deserves preference. It, too, takes its point of departure in God and views all creatures only in relation to him. But proceeding from God, it descends to his works, in order through them again to ascend to and end in him. So in this method as well, God is beginning, middle, and end.” (1:112) For Bavinck, then, there is an ordo theologia. It begins with God as the principium essendi (“it...takes its point of departure in God and views all creatures only in relation to him”), proceeds from that to the inerrant scriptures (and therein biblical theology as redemptive history) as the principium cognescendi (“it descends to his works, in order through them again to ascend to and end in him”), and ends with ST occurring again, but as an articuli fidei. And so, ST is “from Him and through Him and to Him” (Rom. 11:36).
My hope in writing this is that students of Scripture might finally take a stand for ST. Too often, lip service to ST as a bunch of “necessary theological presuppositions,” conceived of as mere articuli only, passes for an exegete’s Christian duty, fulfilled to let the big boys do the heavy interpretive lifting. Quite the contrary, the only reason that ST as an articuli means anything is because ST as principium essendi is the foundation for Scripture as principium cognescendi. Too often, we hear the rally cry “Sola Scriptura” by those who forget that (1) “Sola Scripture” is an interpretive tradition, and (2) “Sola Scriptura” is one of five “Solas,” perhaps the most important, and most hermeneutically relevant, being “Solus Christus” (not “Solo Christo”). Scripture is not the ultimate principium. God as the principium essendi is the ultimate principium, and to honor Him, the progressive nature of the principium cognescendi must not be seen as warrant to rip it out of the hands of God himself, to separate the two.
More particularly and simply, Scripture is either inspired by God and inerrant, or not inspired and impossible to understand. The fact that some evangelical scholars today reject inerrancy blows my mind. Hear this clearly: If you see Scripture as a problem to fix, you will never fix it. There are too many possible historical reconstructions, text-critical issues, form-critical developments, source-critical contradictions, and, plainly, too many historical, literary, sociological, and ideological weeds between the reader and God, in which case either (1) God is an incompetent communicator and has not provided men the sufficient means to be learned unto salvation, or (2) God does something extra scriptura in which case we encounter God through Scripture, but not as though the words themselves are inspired (Barth, contemporary TI movement), which takes its legs out from under itself by saying “There is no principium cognescendi, only the principium essendi,” in which case interpreters are wasting their time. Bavinck rightly asserts, “The foundations of faith (principia fidei) are themselves articles of faith (articuli fidei), based not on human arguments and proofs but divine authority.” (1:109)
Regarding inerrancy, then, Scripture is either our principium cognescendi or it is not. Contemporary trends in theology like to settle into whatever word of Rom. 11:36 fits them best, whether it is “from Him” (only essendi, Barth), “through Him” (only cognescendi, rejection of inerrancy), or “to Him” (only articuli, Frei, Lindbeck), when in reality, God calls us through Christ to accept all three (John 17:13-19) and believe that Scripture is God’s holy, inspired, and therefore inerrant word given for us Solus Christus.
No comments:
Post a Comment