Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Can independent, critical thinking exist within Reformed circles?

Alex Guggenheim has been commenting at SI and his own blog concerning the debacle that is ongoing at SGM. He, that is Alex, has written recently about the need for critical, independent thinking that is for our own spiritual development and maturity. His articulation of the need is well put (you will find his article here).
 
This begs the question that is the title to my article, can this kind of thinking exist in the Reformed arena? I answer with a no. I will explain why I answer negatively.

In a book titled, An Introduction to Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics, Dr. Mal Couch does an excellent job researching and expounding a literal, historical, grammatical approach to interpreting the Scriptures (i.e. Dispensationalism). I would encourage you to find a copy and add it to your library. In chapter 8, titled, The Allegorists Who Undermined the Normal Interpretation of Scripture (pp. 96, 97), he writes,

“With allegory the antics of the gods were purified, but who determined the allegorical interpretations? By whose authority were words and concepts changed? If there were no ‘guidelines’ as to the meaning of the ‘new’ message, how did readers know the authors’ intentions? These problems consistently overshadow allegorical interpretation
The personality most cited for the change to allegorical interpretation is Philo (ca. 20 B.C.-A.D. 54), ‘A philosophical Jew who possessed both reverence for the Mosaic revelation and fondness for Grecian metaphysics, [who] aimed to explore the mystical depths of significances allegedly concealed beneath the Old Testament Scripture.
Philo taught that the milk of Scripture was the literal but the meat was allegory. Thus, there was hidden meaning. The Word of God had two levels: the literal was on the surface, but the allegorical represented the deeper, more spiritual meaning. Therefore, anyone who simply interpreted the Bible on its most natural, normal way was simple and missing the great meanings of the Scriptures. Ramm writes,
Philo did not think that the literal meaning was useless, but it represented the immature level of understanding. The literal sense was the body of Scripture, and the allegorical sense its soul. Accordingly the literal was for the immature, and the allegorical for the mature.
To reiterate, allegorical interpretation creates meaning through the interpreter. Accordingly, allegorist believes the average person may be reading and interpreting wrongly without the help of a scholar or, in the case of Scripture, a wise, well-trained theologian. Often, even today, allegorists look down their noses at those who take the Bible at face value with a normal, literal hermeneutic.” (emphasis mine)
Since this system of interpretation (which is the basis for Reformed theology) requires “a wise, well-trained theologian” to give the fuller, deeper understanding of the Scriptures, then those who are confessedly not a theologian must locate someone who they believe is and place themselves at his or her feet for further instruction. This leaves them at the mercy of the “theologian” for spiritual growth/maturity rather than where the Scriptures places that responsibility which is on the individual (II Peter 3:18 for starters). I think we can see part of the “why” for the problems within SGM.

History is replete with these independent, critical thinkers who then found themselves on the adversarial side of various reformed men. Take Felix Manz, George Blaurock, Conrad Grebel, and Balthazar Hubmaer, who at one time were friends and co-workers with Ulrich Zwingli. However, as they continued their study of the Word of God found themselves removed from that fellowship and eventually hunted down and persecuted. Manz was drowned in Lake Zurich for his beliefs. Hubmaer and Blaurock were burned at the stake. Grebel may have died from the plague.

Our own American history is full of others who sought to be independent, critical thinkers and wound up persecuted by those of the Reformed persuasion. Roger Williams comes to mind, who was let go in the dead of winter banished from the Massachusetts Bay colony. The list goes on, just pick up the three volumes of, This Day in Baptist History and you can read for yourself of those men and women of bygone days who sought for their own spiritual maturity in the Book of books only to be persecuted by others who held to different religious views.

No, I don’t believe it is possible to be an independent, critical thinker and remain Reformed. These are two mutually exclusive concepts that cannot peacefully coexist, our Baptist history, I believe confirms this.

2 comments:

johngpsa911@gmail.com said...

My father was a Christian, a judge,
a vet of World War One, and a Baptist. He left me his King James
Bible and a very old book entitled
" The Art of Cross Examination".
He died when I was eight years old.
Of course I consumed both books!
There is no way as a Biblicist
that Calvinism can be true. The
teachings of TULIP are NOT Biblical.
God bless You for your stand for the truth of Scriptures.
John Gregory

Brian said...

Thanks for stopping by John, appreciate the glimpse of your past and its impact on your life.