Paul's Passing Thoughts

I confess that I love God’s word with all of my heart. Before I became a Christian, it was apparent to me that the world didn’t know what truth is. I was probably a lot like Pontius Pilot who replied to Jesus in cynical disdain: “What is truth?” When I found the truth in 1982, I embraced it with all of my life. I loved to read God’s truth and was continually amazed by what God was teaching me.

But in regard to the spiritual sound-bites of our day, someone might well ask me: “Paul, you love God’s word, but do you love God?” My reply would be, and often is, what’s the difference? Besides, what does it mean to “love God” exactly? Our love of God must be based on true knowledge of Him. We must love God the way He wants to be loved. When loving God is not based on objective knowledge, it is really just backdoor anti-law philosophy. Invariably, it just leads to everyone doing what is right in their own eyes with spiritual sounding nomenclature.

So, isn’t it awesome being a Christian? We have a love for God’s truth, and we can learn more and more about God and His truth via what the Apostle Paul called the “sacred writings.” We also have the Holy Spirit to guide us and help in our understanding. But according to some: “Not so fast bubba.” Well, the particular person of the some I am going to write about probably wouldn’t call you “bubba” because he is a “scholarly theologian” by the name of  Graeme Goldsworthy. He is a proponent of a certain method of interpreting the Bible called *Biblical Theology.* Oou, sounds good doesn’t it? Who could argue with a title like that? You see, what many, many, Christians don’t know is the following: you have to know how to interpret the Bible. It isn’t enough that you can find it in your native tongue, you must also know how to interpret it. So, to the degree that Biblical Theology is not understood, the Christian world dwells in darkness (for those of you who advocate Biblical Theology, this sentence contains sarcasm). But let us not miss an important point (my first one), Biblical Theology is either critical to Bible interpretation or it’s not. But if it is, then its advocates must necessarily take themselves very seriously (and trust me, they do).

Biblical Theology is an incredibly complex concept to grasp. It deals with the belief that biblical truth is historically organic, but don’t worry, we ain’t even goin’ there. We are going to make this very simple. But we have already backed the Biblical Theology advocate into a corner by making him proclaim how serious the world must take the proclamation that Biblical Theology is critical to understanding the Scriptures. To answer no is to give permission to reject it out of hand. To say yes is to dwell precariously close to an abyss of arrogance, unless the theory is not found wanting. But the theory finds its roots in the eighteenth century. Christians have not had a proper understanding of Scripture until then? Now the abyss has no bottom! But before we continue with my argument regarding a major tenant of  BT that can be easily understood, let us consider one more pre-spanking. The theory is so complex (read the massive volumes on the subject written by Goldsworthy for yourself, not to mention Geerhardus Vos) that God’s people would certainly be in utter dependence on Pope-like scholars. In other words, like Catholics, why bother reading the word for ourselves?  So to summarize the pre-spanking:

1. Its claims are gargantuan and most likely not in the realm of reality.
2. It’s new.
3. It enslaves God’s people to biblical scholars.

But lets look at one of the easily understood tenets of BT, that of *presupposition.* I have chosen this one because it lends a great look at true biblical interpretation by antithesis. Goldsworthy and many other BT proponents argue that an objective approach to the Scriptures is a myth. They teach that everybody comes to the Scriptures with a presupposition (a pre-supposed idea concerning what the primary theme of Scripture is). So, (and don’t miss this) since everybody comes to the Scriptures with a presupposition (which is also a presuppositional theory), Goldsworthy is merely fulfilling his place in reformation history by presenting the correct presupposition. Wow, awesome. In other words, Goldsworthy clearly rejects the whole concept of exegesis. What’s that? It is the discipline that says all ideas about truth are taken from what the biblical text conveys, and thereby educating and correcting. In spite of Goldworthy and his many minions being the sultans of doublespeak, it all boils down to this: is exegesis true?

Actually, if it is true that exegesis both educates (fills voids of knowledge that teaches about God and His truth) and corrects, then exegesis is a merciless death blow to Biblical Theology. Why? Becomes Exegesis merely replies to the BT theory of presupposition this way: “I will correct your presuppositions if your heart is teachable.” Exegesis also argues to Biblical Theology: “You say that my nemesis, Eisegesis, has no nemesis, namely me, and that I don‘t exist” Who is Eisegesis? He is the antithesis of  Exegesis, he says that you must go to the biblical text with the right idea beforehand in order to correctly understand. Therefore, BT teaches that there is no such thing as exegesis, and that all Christians are helplessly enslaved to presuppositions. Therefore, the only cure is the right presupposition. But who is the judge of that? Well, but of course, Graeme Goldsworthy and Geerhardus Voss. So, this is the fourth and fifth points: Bt teaches that Christians are helplessly enslaved to presuppostions (eisegesis) and must be harnessed by the proper presupposition, and exegesis is a myth. In fact, Goldsworthy says the following on page 21 of “Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics”:

“Neutrality and complete objectivity are the presuppositional myths of the modern secular outlook, and they are also the assumptions, sometimes unexamined, of many Christian thinkers”

In other words, in reality, there are nothing but presuppositions, and one of them is the whole idea of neutrality and objectively, which is supposedly the wrong presupposition. Therefore, exegesis cannot exist because it obviously requires objectivity to enable the text to educate and correct.

So, what to do? Where does one find the right presupposition? Answer: history. What is known as *Historicism,*  teaches that truth must be found in the meta-narrative (grand story) of history. So therefore, the right presupposition to interpret truth must be found by determining the correct meta-narrative (primary theme of history). Geerhardus Voss, the father of BT, believed that the right meta-narrative was the redemptive history, or grand story of Jesus Christ. Therefore, we must go to the Scriptures with that presupposition. This is actually no different than postmodernism, which also rejects objective truth for a historical meta-narrative. John MacArthur bemoans this fact (that postmoderns trade objective truth for a historical narrative; namely, a Christocentric historical meta-narrative) in his book, “The Truth War.” Specifically, see pages 12, 14,and 36. There is absolutely no difference, which is my sixth point; BT is nothing more than postmodern thought in evangelical clothing. Absolutely.

Lastly, there is no possible way that Christians can follow Christ in objective love based on knowledge through a single presupposition. Christ said, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” We are to make disciples by “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded” (Matthew 28:19,20). In reality, BT rejects God’s law for the nebulous.

Let me conclude by reviewing my  seven points concerning BT:

1. Its claims are gargantuan and most likely not in the realm of reality.
2. It’s new.
3. It enslaves God’s people to biblical scholars.
4. It teaches that Christians are enslaved to presuppositions.
5. It rejects exegesis and objective truth.
6. It is postmodern thought.
7. It is anti-law

paul