McCall's CV

Theology as History and Hermeneutics

Wood, Larry.

Theology as History and Hermeneutics, pp. vii-xii, 1-26.

 

Interactive Questions for Chapter 1

 

  1. Explain briefly what it means to say that the premodern world emphasized ontology; the modern world emphasized epistemology; the postmodern world emphasizes hermeneutics.

The premodern world emphasized the ontological reality of things, e.g. in their primacy of “being”. In addition, the premodern era focused more-so upon cognition of facts, and objectivity. The modern world, in contrast, focused on the consciousness of being, or epistemology. This modern worldview was more rational. The postmodern worldview, differing from the first two mentioned, focuses on language or semantics, which overcomes the difficulties associate with both objectivity and subjectivity (xi).

  1. What is the difference between the traditional, premodern definition of revelation and Karl Barth’s definition of revelation?

The premodern view of revelation saw it primarily as consisting of the Bible, and its inspiration, whereas Barth thought this made the Bible a dead book (10). Therefore, he attempted to define revelation as the word event, in which the Word of Scripture becomes life-giving to us, in that it is linked to the Jesus of History, who was the original Word of God (11). Revelation, then, was the self-disclosure of God, which is totally a matter of faith (12).

  1. What does Barth when he says that only Jesus Christ is revelation?

Barth defined revelation as God’s self-disclosure, which is preeminently done in the personhood of Jesus of Nazareth, who in Himself showed all the characteristics of the Godhead bodily.

 

  1. What are some of the different meanings of the concept of the Word of God in Scripture?

The Holy Scriptures are referred to as the Word of God, as is Jesus, and the signs of God being in Jesus (11).

  1. What do you think of H. Orton Wiley’s explanation of the meaning of the Word of God?

I appreciated his concept of the concentric circles. It seemed to illustrate the importance of each concept, as one further moves from the core, i.e. the eternal Word.

  1. What does Barth [mean?] when he says the Scriptures are not the Word of God, but a witness to the Word of God? Do you think this is a helpful distinction?

Barth’s emphasis was important, I believe, as a healthy correction (note corrections are often bipolar in their nature, as to over-correct). Scriptures, according to Barth, are only a testament, or witness, to the Word of God in Christ Jesus. However, Scripture is linked to the Word of God, because it is linked to the original Word of God in the person of Jesus (11).

  1. What does Pannenberg mean by an indirect self-revelation of God? Is this an important correction to Barth’s view?

The Bible tells us about God, and that is only an indirect testimony. The direct revelation will come at the Eschaton, when the Lord Jesus descends from Heaven with a shout, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ rise first to meet Him in the air (1 Thess. 4:13).

  1. What do you think about Barr’s critique of the concept of revelation history?

I think it is liberal hogwash, bluntly. If one reads the Bible contextually, the problems that Barr raises would be eliminated. Therefore, I shun the notion of “meta-history”, and the term taught in IS501, “meta-narrative”, for they implicate the Bible into bearing falsehood.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read Theology as History and Hermeneutics, pp. 27-60

 

Interactive Questions for Chapter 2

  1. What is the connection between biblical literalism and fundamentalism? Do you consider yourself a fundamentalist in the classic and best sense?

The idea of Biblical Literalism posited that if one tenet of the Bible’s assertions was proven inaccurate, the rest would fall (as in dominoes) with that one. The Fundamentalist movement embraced this idea of Biblical Literalism and ran with it, so to speak. I will note that the “literalistic” approach by these Fundamentalists was essentially “wooden” in its scope.

I am not a Fundamentalist in the classic sense, but am a Fundamental believer. I ascribe to the virgin birth, the inerrancy of Scriptures (in their original tongues), the substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection, and in the eventual second coming of Christ.

  1. Does Pannenberg have some legitimate concerns about the way the doctrine of inspiration is often used?

Yes. P did not want the Bible to be removed from criticism, for it then would be largely discredited, he thought (30). Additionally, P thought that God should ultimately be the defender of Scripture, which I must concede is pretty convincing (31). However, I was disturbed by the statement of P that the Bible contains the Word of God. By merely containing the Word of God, this makes the Bible not be the Word of God. I contend vehemently, along with Wesley, that the Bible is the Word of God, not merely a vehicle containing it. P also contends that the word has no automonous status, which is distressing to me (33). Although, I virtually adore and completely concur with his notion that the Bible is the reservoir of the Holy Spirit (yes, I am sympathetic with the Lutherans here).

  1. What do you think of Cullmann’s idea of biblical inspiration?

I appreciate Cullman’s integration of the ideas of Biblical inspiration and historical criticism, I must state firstly. I like Cullman’s assertion that the early church viewed Jesus through the lens of His resurrection, and wrote the gospels in that light, but made sure not to impose any counterfactuals in them. Thus Cullman can correctly argue that the Christ of faith is one and the same as the historical Jesus. The terminology of Christological epistemology is ever clever, I must concede. Cullman made it possible to be reasonably assured of the reliability of the gospels., for they are consistent with historical criticism.

  1. Do you agree with Pannenberg that Jesus did not have an explicit awareness of his divine sonship until after the resurrection?

No. I think that Jesus knew He was the Son of God. In the temple at or about the age of 12, Jesus remarked that He had to be about His Father’s business when asked what He was doing by His mother Mary. Jesus knew. It became apparent to others, but not to Him, only after the Easter event (oh how I abhor labeling the resurrection of my Lord in terms of the pagan festival of Easterae!).

  1. Explain Cullmann’s idea that controllable historical events indirectly guarantee the historically uncontrollable events.

The historically controllable events happened in close proximity to those which are considered historically uncontrollable (e.g. the creation, the second coming, etc), and thereby extend credence to those events. The eye-witnessed events of Jesus (by the apostles) confirm those revelations of former witnesses (45).

  1. Do you think N. T. Wright’s quest for the historical Jesus is methodologically correct? Why?

I do think his methodology is sound, but I do not necessarily agree with all of his conclusions regarding the historical Jesus, for I do affirm the usefulness of enlightenment-related apologetics in establishing the historical Jesus (I like, for example, Habermas and Geisler). I appreciate Wright’s emphasis on the Jewish-ness of Jesus, and how He came to recapitulate Judaism. I particularly like Wright’s emphasis on the Kingdom of God in his studies of Jesus.

  1. Do you think Wright is a historicist?

I believe that all of history is only known on the basis of probabilities. Wright’s usage of hypothetical reconstructions are only probable at best. In reference to the sources of Wright’s information, I think he is realistic in his assertions regarding the historical validity of oral traditions in Eastern societies. I do not like his usage of metanarrative, however. I distinctly remember abhorring that term in IS501 also, for the term connotes uncertainty. I am not sure that I adequately answered this question, honestly.

  1. Why does Wright think that Second-Temple Judaism is an important interpretative key for discovering the historical Jesus?

Because Jesus’ attack on the Temple, in part, was instrumental in Him being killed (51). He replaced the Temple, it is reckoned by Wright. Therefore, if one can understand the Temple, one may more fully understand the Jesus of history.

  1. Do you think that the doctrine of biblical inspiration and historical criticism are compatible or incompatible? Why?

Entirely compatible. There is more “proof” for the inspiration of the Bible by God than there is “proof” for the inspiration of The Odyssey by Homer. Historical criticism is a useful tool in so much as it can give credence to a belief by increasing probabilities, which it does for the idea of inspiration for the Bible. All non-certainties require a level of faith, but by increasing the probability of inspiration, historical criticism does a good deed for believers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Theology as History and Hermeneutics, pp. 61-104

Interactive Questions for Chapter 3

 

  1. Did you find John Macmurray helpful understanding the “failure of modern philosophy”?  Explain

No. I find his premiose to be faulty. He states that acting is the decisive component of personhood, and thinking is merely secondary (62). I take issue here, and reply instead that action flows from thought. He replies to me that thinking already supposes knowledge (64), and that knowledge is derived from action. I then posit back to him that one cannot act if he has no knowledge of the action. So then, this is a classic case of reducito ad absurdom. We merely go in circles.

  1. Did John McIntrye help to clarify for you how the concept of substance could be used so that it would not be burdened down with Greek substantialism?

Yes, he made his point clear. His elaboration/extension of the thoughts of Jean-Paul Sartre was insightful, but I did not agree with them. I do not like his assertion that existence preceds essence (72). I do think there is a universal human nature, which was sealed and given to us by our progenitors from Eden.

  1. Explain what you think Paul Ricoeur meant when he said that a new understanding of being (ontology) emerged with the Hebrews?

The revelation of God to the Hebrews, “I am who I am”, necessitates the usage of ontology (beuing) in reference to God (71). God’s existence and God’s essence conincide (70). The translatyion of this verse (i.e. Exodus 3:14) in the Septuagint by the verb “to be” (einai) further corroborates his idea.

Interactive Questions for Chapter 4

  1. Do you consideryourself premodern, modern, or postmodern as a general label to characterize your worldview?

I am a modern, most definitely. I highly exalt the usage of empiricism, and discount subjectivity as such. I exalt the usage of expreimentation, which decreases subjectivity, and also exalt the usage of quantitative thinking by employing mathmatics. I am a scientist, and attribute my modern worldview to my studies therein. Although quantom physics do present a problem, I posit that as time goes forward it will be more readily understood.

  1. How would you compare and contrast the worldviews of Richard Rorty and Michael Polanyi?

Both Rorty and Polyani seem to agree that it is impossible to sepearate interpertation (i.e. subjectivity) from historical events. They are both considered, today, as being “postmodern”. Poyani argued that a modernist view of science, one that is impersoanl and emotionally detached, is impracticle, and seemingly Rorty would agree (81). Honestly, after reading this material several times, I still cannot get the meat from it, and this embarrasses me infinitely.

  1. What do you think Lyotard means by “metanarrative”? Is Christian theology a “metanarrative”?

I can offer no better explanation than Wood, in saying that he means the idea that there is a universal truth that can be communicated between the sender and the addressee of a statementthat is intellectually binding for all rational minds (85). Although I dislike the term metanarrative, for I deem it to be less authoratative than simply saying “Truth”, I do like the definition offered by Wood. So then, although disliking the terminology, I do consider Christianity to be universal truth that can be communicated between two parties, which has permanence to rational minds.

 

  1. Do you consider yourself a foundationalist or post-foundationalist?

I am a foundationalist, if I understand the term correctly. I believe that something universally true can emerge from history. I further believe in objective truth.

 

Interactive Questions for Chapter 5

  1. Why cannot theology begin with foundationalist principles if faith is based in history?

It was argued by P that if all events are cause-effect, closed, contingent, and on the same plane, that Jesus Christ could not have been raised from the dead, because we have no modern corrollary (?,92). This allows for, purportedly, no discontinuities in history, according to P, but I must interject and say that the definition of a miracle is just that— an odd ocurrence, unduplicable.

 

 

 

  1. What is distinctive about the Old Testament concept of truth?

Emeth does not connote a timeless aspect, but a recurring temporal event instead, one which is reliable. Truth is only true if it is proven to be such over time, by this Hebrew definition. Thus the Hebrew term has a connotation to the future (93).

  1. What does Pannenberg think splitting up fact and value does the history of salvation and Christian faith? Do you agree?

It confuses the proper interpretation of the Christian faith (95). Further, it is largely responsible for the modernist’s interpretation of Jesus’ resurrection as a subjective concept lacking objective (TYPE-O,ly) validity (95).

  1. Do you think the Greek and the biblical view of truth can be reconciled?

I do not like the implications of the presented view of the Hebrew concept of truth, frankly. If truth is merely historical, looking into the future, and is not exhausted in the past, this implicitly means that we have ONGOING revelation of truth. Further, this means that God’s Word is not the end-all of truth. I abhor these implications. If I have to make a decision on this issue, based on the way that the Hebrew concept of truth is here laid-out, I must say that the 2 views are entirely irreconcillable. However, I am positive that other scholars do not insist that the Hebrew idea of truth has these exact connotations, for opinions are like, well, you know…

I believe truth is timeless, but was once delivered to all the saints. For in the beginning was the Word (timeless), and the world was created through the Word (timelessness created time), and the Word was made flesh (the timeless entered time).

  1. Do you think Pannenberg’s distinctions of faith as insight, volition, and trust is helpful?

I do think that the Reformer’s distinctions between the three connotations of faith is helpful, but I do not like how P is here attributed as making them. I was taught this distinction at a Calvinistic-leaning seminary (NOBTS), which would hang P if they had a chance, so P obviously did not make these distinctions.

  1. Why does Pannenberg refer to the resurrection as a metaphor?

Although the event happened in truth, P states that b/c it speaks of a reality beyond human experience, it should be titled properly a metaphor, a figure of speech.

  1. Do you think Pannenberg’s “proof” of the resurrection is adequate or irrelevant?

I do. Particularly, I posit that a mere exegesis of the texts, and historical-critical analysis would be quite enough to be adequate (#2 & #3, 98).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Theology as History and Hermeneutics, pp. 105-152

 

 

Interactive Questions for Chapter 6

  1. What do you think of Schleiermacher’s concept that today that the reader can interpret the biblical author better than he understood his own writings?

Frankly, I reckon it to be hogwash. This is merely another attempt by liberals to discredit and reinterpret the “plain meaning” of the text. Refute vehemently therefore do I.

  1. Why does Dilthey distinguish between “understanding” and “explanation”?

Explanation is the meat behind the meaning, according to D, whereas understanding is the meaning attached to the explanation.

  1. What does Bultmann mean a “preunderstanding” in hermeneutics?

He recognized that each writer had a thrust for his writing, and as such, we must apprehend their intentions to discover their meaning(s). All of our interpretations are inherently conditioned by our presuppositions, and as such, we must recognize that fact.

  1. What does Ebeling mean by authentic language?

Authentic language is the message of truth, the gospel of God, Jesus Christ incarnate (the Word).

  1. Why does Pannenberg propose that history and hermeneutics must be integrated?

He understands that the text needs to have historical reliability and contemporary applicability, and he arrives at such by his method, at least purportedly.

 

Interactive Questions for Chapter 7

  1. What does Ricoeur mean by the phrase, “to believe again”?

He searches for nuggets of truth in various propositions and garners from them bits of information to apply to Christianity’s beliefs. Search for truth in falshood, and believe again. This topic was difficult for me to grasp, note.

  1. Why is Ricoeur’s hermeneutic called phenomenological?

He integrated phenomenology with heremneutics.

  1. What does Ricoeur mean by poetic language? Do this mean he does not believe in the real history of salvation?

Poetry often delivers truth in kernels, which can later be expanded into wide applications. Such is the history of salvation.

  1. What do you think of his concept of testifying truth?

This postulation of his own finds no advesarial response from me.

  1. What does Ricoeur think of the Romanticist idea of Scheliermacher and Dilthey that one can re-enact the selfhood of the biblical authors? Do you agree or disagree with his rejection of authorial intent?

I disagree with him in his rejection of authorial intent. I exalt objectivity, as has been stated many a time over again, and as such, discount any and all philosophies that destroy it or lessen it. Authorial intent is foundational for Bible Study, I contend.

  1. What is meant by “reader response” interpretation? Do you agree with it?

No. In fact, I detest it. The truth is the truth whether I reckon it true or not. If I state that a hot iron will not burn me, does that change the truth that it will?— NO! The response of the reader is likewise not a determinative factor of the validity of the claim.

  1. What is meant by deconstructionism?

As properly defined, it is an unpacking of concepts. In theory, it is a productive idea. However, it is often, and mostly pervasively used to destroy historical truth, and in this manner, I abhor it.

  1. What do you think about Derrida’s critique of modernism?

I agree with D’s note that all language is transiry and changing in its meaning, and as such we must condition our interpretations appropriately.

  1. What is meant by a “surplus of meaning” in the text? Is this a slippery term, or a helpful one for understanding the ongoing relevance of the biblical text for today?

That the meaning of a text is applicable to various situations. In that I agree, but one must be sure to appropriate the principle derived from the original to the contemporary, and not totally lift the text from its meaning so as to pervert its original intent. In today’s church, unfortunately, the latter is done to the detriment of the church at large.

 

 

 

Many of you will be going before your Board of Ordained Ministry, or whatevery committee you go before in your particular denomination. One of the questions that always comes up is the candidate’s understanding of the central contemporary issues in theology.

 

This material you have discussed this week could not be more methodologically central, particularly the assumptions involved in biblical and theological interpretation. Modernist hermeneutics assumed an objectivist view that supposedly allowed the interpreter to read between the lines (so to speak) and to get a better view of things than what is contained in the actual text of Scripture. Schleiermacher thought we could divine the author’s intent and understand what he really meant better than he was able to explain himself in his own writings.

 

This idea of authorial intent as opposed to what the text actually says spelled the death of historic Christian belief in modernism. This is particularly seen in the theology of Bultmann who believed the really decisive intent of the author was to talk about the meaningfulness of human existence in the face of death. Hence the biblical authors were really intending to talk about authentic existence as articulated in existentialist philosophy. You can see how the concept of authorial intent undermines biblical revelation that assumes the realism of historical events and the ability of the witnesses to explain their meanings.

 

If you will retain some of your understanding of Paul Ricoeur’s notions of hemeneutics, it will stand you in good stead in many ways, especially as you explain your views of biblical truth to unsympathetic Boards of Ordained Ministry whose members have generally been trained in modernist hermeneutics. That you understand the hermeneutical issues will certainly command their respect of you, even if they don’t agree with you. When you are able to cite modern authors and show an understanding of their ideas, this gives you credibility and shows that you have thought about these issues and that your Trinitarian orthodoxy is well based.

 

More importantly, for yourself personally, to gain an understanding of these hermeneutical issues will enrich your own reading of the Bible and give you more confidence as you seek to understand Christian theology.

 

All of this to say that I am impressed that you are staying with this difficult material and are showing excellent signs of understanding it and interacting with it. I believe you will feel good about yourself and your accomplishment as you come to know the central issues in contemporary theology and can see that your faith is intellectually responsible and personally meaningful. Evangelicals have the best reasons for faith on their side of the debate!

 

I believe Wesleyan theology in particular utilized the best insights of modernism and postmodernism by stressing on the one hand that our faith is based in objective reality (the realism of salvation history, although modernist objectivist thought miscontrued this objectivity in terms of rational principles without any reference to the realism of salvation history) and on the other hand by stressing the subjective, personal dimensions of truth–that what is true is related to personal experience and personal response, although postmodernism often misconstrued the personal element in an extreme nihlisitc way as if there is no objective dimension to reality as such.

Larry

=============================================

Theology as History and Hermeneutics, pp. 153-196

 

 

Interactive Questions for Chapter 8

  1. Define realistic narrative?  What are its weakness(es) and strength(s)?

The NT is “history-like” (153). It should therefore be read literally. I like the notion that we listen to the Bible on its own terms, and concur wholeheartedly. However, I do not believe Frei appropriates that statement to his own readings of the Bible.

  1. What does Lindbeck mean by the cultural-linguistic method?

He posits that we should understand religion through the culture it was poisted by, for he believes that religious affiliation and participation is culturally bound and determined.

  1. What is meant by postliberal?

This movement exphasizes the practical aspects of a faith, its moral-ethical power. It reduces the cognitive dimesion of faith, and places it subordinate at least to the practicality of the faith.

  1. Do you agree with Hauerwas’ idea of friendship as a method for doing theology?

In theory, i.e. on paper, Huerwas’s posits are pretty. But they can be reduced to licentiousness and to absurdity in practicality. I have found other of Huerwas’s theories, from previous texts of his that I have read, to be likewise pretty on paper, but lacking in efficacy.

  1. Is homosexual practice a legitimate lifestyle?

Me genito! It is abberrant, a perversion, and an aborrence. But so are other forms of sexual license. Our culture is one large abomination.

  1. What are the weaknesses and strengths of a liberal-pietistic method?

I know no strengths, but only weaknesses instead. In its logical extrapolation, utter subjectivity, this liberal-pietistic method reduces to a “Free-for-all”, anything goes, licentious situation.

 

 

Interactive Questions for Chapter 9

  1. Define ideology as it is used in hermeneutical theory?

Ideologies are agendas used by certain groups to further their own cause(s).

  1. What does Ricoeur mean by the “masters of suspicion”?

These are people who use their influence to foster a false perception within the culture of a topic or group of topics. Such people have included, for example, Freud, Nietzsche, and Karl Marx.

  1. What does de-ideologizing mean? Is it a helpful notion?

It returns Biblical meaning back to is context, purportedly (177). In its purest form, perhaps it is a helpful notion. However, it has no paramters to check its proliferation, and as such with humans, we will take it to extremes and forever change the meaning of explicit texts b/c of our vatrious whims.

  1. What is the basic weakness and strength of Latin American Liberation theology?

I see no strengths, only weaknesses once more. It has reduced the faith once delivered to the saints to a mere political construction and tool. It is similar, then, in some ways, to a radical form of African American liberation theology (I am sure I will draw praise here…). It makes the gospel to be a mere puppet of politics, an agent to change culture at large from the outside in, and not a transformer of individuals (which would transform culture, note, from the inside out).

  1. Is Cone on good hermeneutic ground when he calls for black theology to interpret the Bible from the standpoint of rascism?

I was personally disqusted with his assertion that he was “black first”, and ignored the rest of his diatribe. In Christ Jesus, oh ignorant dude, there is neither jew nor greek, male nor female, slave nor free.

  1. Does the resurrection have hermeneutical relevance to the poor?

Personally I hold that it does. Those who have not will receive their due in the ressurrection. And those who have received their part here on earth shall be neglected of the quality eternal life at the eschaton.

  1. Do White people generally interpret the Bible from the standpoint of their whiteness? Explain

Unfortunately, yes. Our “Jesus” is usually a white man (as evidenced by those be-damned pictures that hang on our church walls often). Our Jesus is also Western in orientation, even though He is in truth a Near Easterner. Our Jesus also highly exalts America, as if it is the New Jerusalem. We worship not the true Jesus, but far too often an idol of Him.

  1. Why is patriarchy the basis problem that worries feminists? Or is it?

They believe it puts them into an inferior class. But hey, wait for a minute. I ask people to call me, “Bradford”, for that is my given name. That’s what I want to be called. Likewise, God revealed Himself as Father. By golly, that’s what He wants to be called. Period.

  1. Is the doctrine of the Trinity a helpful way to resolve the concern of feminism, or this a diversionary attempt to avoid the real issue? Explain

I think it is merely diversionary.

  1. Do you think it is okay to call God, “Mother”?

NO! When God reveals Himself to me as “Father”, through the Prophets, that shuts my mouth of any arguments to the contrary. True, He revealed Himself into a Patriarchal society, admittedly, but He also revealed Himself into a Jewish enthocentrc society with the message that the gospel was for the gentiles too. This means, then, that if God had wanted to have Himself referred to as “Mother”, as He apparently wanted the gentiles included within salvation history, He could have done so. But He did not. Period.

  1. Was it child abuse for God send his only Son into the world to die?

This is comical. He was born to die. That was His mission and plan. Child abuse is something aberrant, and Christ’s death was not abberrant, but necessary instead.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We are just about at the end of a long summer–at least for some of you who have tried to do many things this summer. You have covered a lot of territory and are now informed on the key theological issues which any generation has had to face. You are conversant with the major theological trends and movements in the contemporary world. Hopefully this will help you to be better able to speak to the current age in which we live as well as contribute to your own theological understanding. More practically, this course should be a help to you as you prepare to meet with your boards of ordained ministry.

 

I think you can see how easy it is for really intelligent people to get off base in their theology, especially when they no longer embrace the Scriptures as the final authority in all things pertaining to faith and practice. Hopefully you can see how important it is to be aware of the methodological issues and that if one’s presuppositions and methods are inadequate then one’s interpretation of the Bible will be inadequate as well. I was particularly interested to read your response to Hauerwas’ notion of friendship as a methodological presupposition.  Whenever experience is more fundamental methodologically than the biblical narrative, one may fail into a subjectivism that leads to serious theological error. Jesus was a friend to a sinners as well as to Pharisees, but he used friendship as means of transforming them to live according to God’s laws. I must say, of all the things that I have read by Hauerwas, his book on Sanctify Them was a huge disappointment.  It certainly did not reflect a Wesleyan view of sanctification!

 

A post-critical evangelical interpretation is an attempt to be faithful to the Scriptures as any evangelical should want to do, as well as incorporate the best of human wisdom and insight into the nature of truth. It is possible in an unwitting manner to confuse our interpretation of the Scriptures with our cultural and philosophical agendas. I tried to argue that much of contemporary American evangelicalism is modernistic without being aware of that fact because it treats the Scriptures primarily as a doctrinal textbook containing objectivist teachings. A more modest approach is to be aware of the limitations of human knoweldge and to recognize the purpose of Scripture is not to compete with rational attempts to set up an alternative basis for truth, but rather theology seeks to understand, recognizing that human understanding is fallible, and it bases its truth on the history of salvation (the Bible). This entails the realization that what we believe comes from our faith in God’s self-revelation, not from human reason. Yet we must use human reason to understand it. God’s self-revelation is infallible, but our interpretations are fallible. This is why William Abraham says the Scriptures have a soteriological intent, not an objectivist epistemological interest. Hence he distinguishes between the canonical tradition and epistemological criteria. I believe this distinction is helpful in avoiding some forms of Evangelicalism with its extreme objectivist presuppositions on the one hand, and postmodern subjectivism on the other hand. Hence friendship is very important as a means of knowing. Friends convey insight and help us to see the personal elements of faith. The ultimate goal of salvation history is to establish friendship with God. But to make friendship in general the basis of theology without it being rooted in the history of salvation is dangerous, in my view.

 

Thanks for your participation in this course. I trust the Lord will continue to bless you and enrich your life as you prepare further for ministry.

Blessings,

Larry

 

 

=============================================

Laurence W. Wood

Frank Paul Morris Professor of Theology

Editor, The Asbury Theological Journal

Asbury Theological Seminary

Wilmore, KY 40390

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Theology as History and Hermeneutics, pp. 197-242

 

 

Interactive Questions for Chapter 10

  1. Why can it be said that the modern, Enlightenment worldview is a secularized version of pietism and the doctrine of the Holy Spirit?

The two, i.e. rationality and the focus on the subjective element of the Spirit, are oppositte sides of the same coin, one that emphasize self (198).

  1. Does Barth’s view of supernaturalism seem extreme to you? Does it appear to be autocratic?

No. I particularly like it. Note that I do agree with the later Barth and not the early Barth. I concur with his emphasis on the necessity and primacy of divine revelation to substantiate belief. I further appreciate his emphasis on interpreting the Bible through the lens of Jesus.

  1. What does Moltmann mean by a Trinitarian history of God? Does this eliminate divine transcendence?

In Moltmann’s rejection of “of an artificial distinction between God and the world”, it seems as if he decends into panthiesm, which would be exclusively immanent, and therefore by exclusion not transcendant (200).

 

  1. Do you think it was a wise choice for Moltmann to use the term panentheism? Why or why not?

Everything contains, or is “in” God, but is not God, according to Panentheism (as taught by Erickson, Christian Theology). This means that God is more than the sum parts of everything, which differs from pantheism that states everything is God. I must admit that I am a traditional Thomist in the sense that I believe God to be outside of Time, and as such have problems with Moltmann’s view of God “becoming” and being “immanent”(211). I also heartily contend for the transcendence of God, as an outflow of my belief that He is outside of Time. Therefore, I reject vehemently the assertion of panentheism. Panentheism is is too conducive to a process view of God, which I ardently deny, as well.

  1. Do you think Moltmann’s pneumatological emphasis upon the Trinity has any postmodern relevance?

I am not a postmodern, so although I see how Moltmann could apply to postmodernism, I reject it. I am an overly rationalistic modern, and as such embrace Barth. Moltmann, I will concede, however, gives the postmoderns some “ammo” with his assertion of panentheism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interactive Questions for Chapter 11

  1. What does Ricoeur mean by the question, “Do we have the right to invest a moment of history with an absolute character?”

He wondered if we could actually place an absolute definition on something that he viewed as inherently existential, and therefore above qualifying by objectivity.

  1. How does Ricoeur answer the above question?

Ricoeur embraced an existential view of the validation of truth. He categorically rejected objectivism, as such, and embraced, seemingly, instead a radical subjectivism (225).

 

  1. Is the distinction between epistemology and hermeneutics a good one? What does it mean?

I find it to be particularly effective, yes, in distinguishing two concepts that need to be separated and viewed independently. Epistemology is viewed as criterion, whereas hermeneutics is viewed as the study of interpretation. So then, epsitemology deals with the derivation of a text, whereas hermeneutics deals with the application of a text.

 

  1. What does Abraham mean by the canonical heritage of the Church?

He means that the church has as its basis of belief that which derives from the Scriptures. I am resistant to my perception that it is being argued that the Scriptures should not be primal in the life of the Christian in terms of belief formation. Even John Wesley, the founder of the now UMC, exalted Scripture above the remainder of his later entitled “quadrilateral”. He recognized, then, that experience, tradition, and reason, though additive to belief, were not constitutive of it in and of themsleves.

 

  1. What does Abraham mean by the epistemizing of Scripture? Does he think this is a good thing?

He notes that epistemizing the Bible makes it into a sort of handbook (226). I ask him, ‘and what is the problem with that, buddy?’ Merely reducing the Bible down to a witness of God’s saving acts in history implicitly attacks its credibility in being truthful about all things that it affirms. It morphs the Bible into merely containing the Word of God instead of being the Word of God, which I dissallow emphatically. I therefore thrust Abraham’s assertions onto my theological “dump list”. It is proto-intellectual dung. And that’s about all I have to say about that.

 

  1. What does Abraham think the confusion of canon and criterion has had disastrous results in contemporary theology?

Should this read “why” instead of “what”? I will answer it as such, note. He thinks that the canonical tradition has been put into competition with rational criteria as a result. The conteporary church, he postulates, as a result, has forgotten who it is (227).

 

 

 

 

 

  1. Why did the church include in its canon the 27 books of our New Testament?

They were recognized by the church universal (226). Apostolic authority, at least by affiliation was also required for canonicty. It had to have the right “age” (i.e. antiquity), orthodoxy, universality (i.e. catholicity), traditional usage, and the perception of divine inspiration also to be included within the canon (229).

 

  1. Why did the early Church Fathers reject the Old Testament apocrypha as part of the inspired Scriptures?

The apocrphya is useful for a historical reading, but is not considered to be inspired text. But why? The early church father, Irenaeus, for example, made no mention of it as being canonical. The apocrypha also is not consistent internally with the other recognized books of the Bible. Further, they were not widely used in the early church (not marked by catholicity, i.e.).