It’s fascinating to think about what I’m actually trying to achieve with these posts. I didn’t have a goal in sight, I just started by posting a few posts to push all the right buttons on some friends of mine, and now am working through my ideas of theological method and being dissected by one of my Doctrine lecturers. Its almost like stream-of-consciousness theology. I wonder where I will end?
I know I don’t like people who say “this passage disagrees with my theological system so I’m going to ignore it, use bizarre exegesis to change it, or “read it through the lense of this other passage”.
I know I don’t like people who say that our doctrine must fit in with whatever conceptions of rationality are currently fasionable.
I know I don’t like Doctrine lecturers. Wait, did I say that one out loud?
I think what I want to say is: Even the simplest inkling of Jesus – even his name – pushes us to the Bible as the onlyreliable source of information about him (from both a theological and historical stand point). Therefore, to understand Jesus, we need to pick up this Bible thing with as clear a mind as possible, and start to read. Then we can start putting things together.
Ad we’ll never get a clear mind. But one way to further “clear” our mind is to observe when the Bible challenges our theological assumptions, and to let the text trump those assumptions. From my understanding, this is exactly what the Reformers had to do. Piece by piece, dissolve the bad assumptions by letting the plain text speak to them.
Of course, in that process, we can build the most stounding theological structures, and gather greater understanding of how the different things that the Bible says fit together, and how fitting them together reveals even more things. Doctrine like this can make our minds soar into the highest heavens, but at all times, keeping us anchored in the Bible.
To an extent, then, I think my prolegomena is almost a negative prolegomena. Having no foundations other than “let’s start reading the Bible.”