THE BIBLE AND THEOLOGY

The second major issue which I mentioned above was that of the way we obtain truth from Scripture. The relation between Scripture and theology has become especially problematical. Once again it is difficult to tell exactly what is being said. For the Presbyterian one of the problems is that “theology” is described in a way that has little relationship to the way he has experienced theology. Theology is depicted in an abstruse, theoretical discipline conducted by ivory-tower academics with no contact with the real, practical world of every day faith. One can understand how such a view might arise in the Dutch cultural context with its sharp distinction between professionals and ordinary people. The distinction between theoretical theology and practical faith fits such a distinction.

The Westminster Confession is particularly attacked for being theoretical theology. I realize that with adherents to the Philosophy of the Cosmonomic Idea (Dooyeweerdians) this is part of an adherence to a whole philosophical system. For the moment I am concerned with the believability of the charge that theology has no contact with real, personal Christian faith. May I be allowed a personal reminiscence? During my days in the Presbyterian Church of Australia I once belonged to a youth group that, of its own volition, chose the Westminster Confession for its midweek studies. Of course there were those who disapproved. The powers that be in a church that had long since forsaken the Reformed faith did not take kindly to the fact that we had rediscovered the gospel! If farmers, clerks, secretaries, students (of agriculture, physics, zoology etc.) may be “theologians” then we were theologians. We did not find the Confession a “theoretical,” impractical document. We found it intensely relevant to our struggle to bring the church back to the gospel. That may seem far from the experience of many Reformed youth groups. If the churches are constantly being told, directly or indirectly, that there is a cleavage between theology and practical faith then it is not surprising if they believe the confessions to be incomprehensible to ordinary believers.

Is There A System Of Doctrine?

The issue is, however, more serious than if it were only a different experience of the relevance of the confessions. Even the possibility of a system of doctrine, such as is embodied in the confessions is being questioned. Along with this goes a questioning of the way Reformed theology has obtained truth from the Scriptures. The heaviest attack falls upon the Westminster Confession which explicitly makes not only Scripture but also what may “by good and necessary consequence be deduced from Scripture” authoritative. We also hear the accusation that older Reformed theology saw the Scripture as a series of unconnected statements of philosophical truth from which other statements of truth were to be derived by logical deduction.

Certainly there is a danger of quoting of proof-texts out of their context. This problem was weighing on the Orthodox Presbyterians when some years ago they appointed a committee to revise the proof texts of the confession. Using statements by Job’s friends as proof texts for orthodox doctrine was felt to be unacceptable!

However the issues go beyond the simple question of whether a particular text has been quoted in context or not. The point at issue is whether statements of Scripture (in context) should be taken as statements of truth on the basis of which we may make theological conclusions. Once again I am not certain of what the Neo-Reformed would propose as an alternative. Sometimes it seems as though the possibility of any certain theology is denied.

Berkhouwer

As an illustration of this I will take a passage from Berkouwer. The context is the discussion of what in older theological terminology would have been called the relationship between God’s omnipotence and Christ’s humiliation but which in modern discussion emerges more as the dialectic of the power and the weakness of God:

“Thus it is that we encounter various expressions, all of them inadequate, and all of which need qualification to ward off misunderstanding. Interpretations, for this reason, are never dead-end. Each one is open to new insights. Trying to avoid empty notions of transcendence and facile notions of supernaturalism, we counter with insights that come as a shock to many. But they come as a shock because they express what the heart already experiences of the emptiness of many older concepts that no longer are in touch with reality (of H.M. Kuitert, The Necessity of Faith, E.T. 1975). In the environs of Jesus Christ, we are conscious of both transcendence and closeness. It is a transcendence, however, that is not an empty transcendence. And it is a closeness that reveals that God’s answer transcends even our highest concepts. If we keep this transcendence in view, we will not be easily shocked by the protests against miscontrued ‘theism’ and empty ‘supernaturalism’.” (A Half Century Of Theology, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1977 pp. 257f).

One could cite many similar passages out of Berkouwer. Does Berkouwer merely wish to remind us of the incomprehensibility and transcendence of God as it was confessed in older Reformed theology? Or does he go beyond so that this transcendence has results far different from the classical view: that is, it calls in question the certainty of every theological statement? If as Berkouwer says a little earlier quoting Von Balthasar “every human formulation is found wanting” (ibid pp. 255f), can there be any certainty in our talk about God?

An Appeal To “Intent” Behind Scripture And Creed

I think we have to balance this and understand t his along with another dominant element in Berkouwer. That is the appeal to an “intent” behind a document, be it a Biblical or creedal document. It is as though there lurks something behind the text that is more ultimate than the text could ever express in words. Thus in his article on the Canons of Dordt Berkouwer makes the contrast clear: “If one starts from faithfulness to the confession and only regards it as present if there is an integral and total reception of the text, which lies before us with all its words, concepts, conclusive turnings plus all the Scripture proofs, then one must call the shift in the confession of election unfaithfulness with respect to the confession. In contrast it seems to me however legitimate to enquire after the deepest intent of the confession.” (Vragen Rondom de Belijdents, Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift 63 (1963), 19).

Here there is a faithfulness to the total text of the confession and its conceptual framework which can be set in contrast to a faithfulness to the deepest intent of the confession. For the moment what concerns me about this is the fact that it represents a very different way of arriving at the meaning of a text than historical–grammatical exegesis. In some ways it overcomes the problems that have already been mentioned. Berkouwer basically accepts the judgment that the Canons of Dordt, with their viewing of God as a cause of election and reprobation, have accepted a contemporary philosophical framework. Historical relativism thus threatens the Canons. The appeal to the deeper intent is an attempt to save something from the Canons. It also lessens the problem that the actual formulations may attempt to express what lies beyond all human formulations. The focus turns from the precise phraseology to something far less definable.

Substituting In tuition For Intelligible Words

I think it fair to say that instead of a theological truth logically deduced. from what the words say we now have an intuitive approach to theological truth. I would not for a moment want to attack the legitimate place of intuition. We probably reach far more conclusions by intuition than we realize. However an intuitive understanding that can be set in actual contrast to the specific words of a text is another matter.

For the subject that primarily concerns us there is another problem: communication. How do the Neo-Reformed communicate their intuitively grasped insights to those who expect proof from the actual words? The problems that the adherents to the Cosmonomic Idea Philosophy have experienced is a good illustration. Here also you have an intuitively grasped insight. The adherent sees the system as solving so many problems and putting so many things in perspective. Yet how can he communicate that? There is no one fact, truth or logic or even Biblical passage, (or series of them for that matter) upon which to build his proof. The potential convert must be fed illustrations or anecdotes or exposures of the pitfalls of all other systems, until he sees that this is indeed the way the world is made. If he proves obdurate he is dismissed as in the grip of a deadly “ism.” I think this dilemma of communication plays a major role in the tendency of people to polarize into defenders of attackers of Dooyeweerd. I fear the same thing in the case of the attempt to replace verbal exegesis by intuitional exegesis.

Attack On God‘s Sovereignty And Escape From Scripture

Intuitional exegesis brings with it the danger of the “hidden agenda.” A certain insight may be reached for reasons which do not have to be argued out. One may “see” certain things in the text which no exegesis of the words could ever establish. Thus one can think of all sorts of philosophical reasons why any notion of God as “cause” of election or reprobation must be banished from theology. Are these the reasons why Ridderbos and Berkouwer so adamantly affirm that the Pauline doctrine of election bears no relation to the doctrine in older Reformed theology? There is an embarrassment with the idea of God as cause t hat did not seem to trouble Paul! One is inclined to wonder why Paul talked about an election determined before the foundation of the world when his real deepest intent (according to these theologians) was only to stress the gracious character of salvation. Has an “intent” been perceived that does not fit with Paul’s actual words on the subject? Perhaps the more basic question would be: Does not this method of exegesis allow freedom for the interpreter to find intentions that were far from the mind of the writer?

The older way of arguing from the express statements of Scripture can be compared with various philosophical notions of deductive reasoning. However intuitional reasoning is not without its philosophical promoters. Even the dabbler in philosophy like myself cannot help but be struck by parallels to the phenomenology of Husserl in some of this. Given Dooyeweerd’s acknowledged influence from Husserl and the occurrence of other elements in common like the naive/theoretical distinction, one grows rather suspicious. Just as the charge of historical relativism can rebound upon one making it, charging all one’s theological opponents with secret loyalty to an apostate philosophical system can do the same. Perhaps those who so quickly accuse the older. Reformed theology of philosophical attachments have some of their own.

Scripture, Not Philosophy Must Guide

In the last analysis Scripture and not philosophy must be the test. It is of course very “Biblicist” to look to Scripture for the methods to interpret Scripture but let us do it anyway. One can say, of course, as some do, that the N.T. writer s were misquoting the O.T. but were nevertheless true to its “deepest intent.” But that is reading our methods of exegesis into the N.T. writers. What do the writers depict themselves as doing? Obviously they are appealing to the words of the Scripture. Is it not at least strange that they should be doing what we are not supposed to do? As they build arguments from the wording of O.T. texts do they not show a curious resemblance to what Christians have done ever since? If I were committed to historical relativism then what Paul does could have no relevance for me. But I am not committed to relativism; I am committed Scripture.

Noel Weeks of Sydney, Australia, continues his comments on problems which arise as Reformed and Presbyterians seek to cooperate there.