From here:
Michael S. Horton (“Historical Theology†In Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Ed. K. J. Vanhoozer. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005) notes four dangers in a historical-theological approach to theology and biblical interpretation. It may have wider theological application.
1. “golden-age thinking†that occurs when a movement selects one period or hero to emulate and makes that the entire source of their theological perspective
2. a “timeless view of church dogmas,†in which one fails to recognize that the models drawn from the past were the product of particular social and cultural factors and treats them as God-given truths
3. “Biblicism,†in which the interpreter identifies their particular understanding with Scripture itself and adopts a “thus sayeth the Lord†stance
4. “speculative tendencies,†in which the tradition or logic of the interpreter is the origin of the belief rather than Scripture
Those sounds… familiar.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
28 Comments(+Add)
Good points. You still could embrace those four things and be loving and humble, so what is it that poisons the waters? It is the assumption that we speak for God in all things while losing the sensitivity that the Spirit desires to continue the process of transformation in us personally.
–1. “golden-age thinking†that occurs when a movement selects one period or hero to emulate and makes that the entire source of their theological perspective–
I can agree with this being a possible danger, a sort of ‘remember the good old days’ mindset. Though I would also say that a ‘forget the past look to the future’ outlook can be just as harmful.
–2. a “timeless view of church dogmas,†in which one fails to recognize that the models drawn from the past were the product of particular social and cultural factors and treats them as God-given truths–
I wish this one were demostrated more. Maybe some examples given of what is meant.
–3. “Biblicism,†in which the interpreter identifies their particular understanding with Scripture itself and adopts a “thus sayeth the Lord†stance
4. “speculative tendencies,†in which the tradition or logic of the interpreter is the origin of the belief rather than Scripture –
I wonder how these two significantly differ from each other.
1. “golden-age thinking†that occurs when a movement selects one period or hero to emulate and makes that the entire source of their theological perspective
This applies to those who think the “golden age” is right now. Things are not getting better gentlemen; nor will they.
2. a “timeless view of church dogmas,†in which one fails to recognize that the models drawn from the past were the product of particular social and cultural factors and treats them as God-given truths.
Which is why I care only for the Truth of the Word. “Speaking the Truth in love.” Today “the truth” is either eliminated or changed to “whatever”
Wouls Horton onclude looking at Jesus only through the “lens” of 1st century talmudic rabbinicalism?
3. “Biblicism,†in which the interpreter identifies their particular understanding with Scripture itself and adopts a “thus sayeth the Lord†stance
Again just what does the Word say? I don’t think Horton is advocating a forsaking of Biblical foundation.
Read some of his other writings.
4. “speculative tendencies,†in which the tradition or logic of the interpreter is the origin of the belief rather than Scripture
This is why I do not adhere to “movements of God” e.g. charismatic/pentecosttal, ecm, etc or traditions of men (why don’t you pick on the rcc, they are virtually all traditions?)
Ths Scriptures transcend time and culture. Truth transcends time and cultures. What you are doing here is taking Horton’s writings out of the context of all his writings (does that sound familiar to anyone?) and using it to say that all past teaching is relegated only to the time and culture in which it first appeared. Truth is tuth, and truth stands forever. The only things tossed are those which do not line up with the Word.
And yes, if the bible is the inerrant,infallible auhtoritative Word of God, and it is, i.e. it is the same as hearing Him speak right in front of you, then yes it did fall out of the sky, so to speak, and yes it ALL applies today.
I already here the derision, so spare me, I have been blogging longer than most of youand I could care less.
Deut 29:29 tells that what is revealed is for our understanding. The Scriptures through the Holy Spirit’s revelation are for our understanding.
The post-modern world wants the churches filled with sociologists, cultural anthroplogists, and historians to lead the way. I am looking for spirit-filled (and no I do not mean speaking in tongues as evidence), people of God.
I would not mind seeing the church go back to “house to house” and shut the buildings down.
Im love serving on the “rez” as we are able to keep 99% of the garbage that is out there out of church.
No we are not a cult.
We teach/sing/pray the Word alone, and our pastor is not afraid to tell the people what is off the wall.
We also teach complete freedom in Christ and we exhort all to be Bereans. This is the best “organized church” I have ever been in.
I am not saying that historical scholarship etc does not have its place. I read tons of history, theology etc. All things are in submission to the Word.
BTW a good study of history would show what an occultic abomination Rome is specifically, and western civilization in general.
The problem here is the most of the contributors are on a “get CRN agenda” and don’t really care about any of the rotten fruit that is out there.
At least CRN recognizes the problems.
This is what happens when you worry more about methods and “tone” rather than content.
Speculative tendencies is descriptive. It describes how people sometimes go about doing theology. Biblicism is normative. It’s about a principle to avoid… don’t go about equating your particular theology with God Himself.
It’s the third one that is so pernicious. How can one go about discussing theology when the other side really, honestly, believes that five-point Calvinism is as clear as day, as if it’s stapled to the back of the Bible, (or should be.)
Why can’t people understand that’s hubris? Where does faith in God’s word stop, and faith in my unfaltering capacity for interpreting it start?
I suppose, in the end, there’s just a subset of Christians who really believe that there really is no such thing as Biblical interpretation. The Bible says what it says, and if you disagree with what it says (i.e. what I believe) than you are a hell-bound reprobate.
“I am looking for spirit-filled (and no I do not mean speaking in tongues as evidence), people of God. I would not mind seeing the church go back to “house to house†and shut the buildings down.”Â
Yes and Amen!
“The problem here is the most of the contributors are on a “get CRN agenda†and don’t really care about any of the rotten fruit that is out there.”
I refernce you to the archives of FJL. I personally see pragmaticism, intellectualism, liberalism, and strang etymologism as major problems. Worldy lifestyles that care nothing for appearance and practice, as well as legalism that over concentrates on those things, are problems. Idolization of men, both alive and dead, is a problem. Church building debt is a problem. The condoning of sin in an attempt to show love, as well as a judging of sin without showing love are problems.
The modern mircurial essence of the Emergent Church, as well as the intransigent pride of the orthodox crowd are both problems. Problems and unbiblical behavior and atttudes are legion in all movements. We all need a revival so the Spirit can empower each group to repent of the things THAT THEY DON’T EVEN SEE NOW!
I am not out to “get” CRN, however, who speaks to them (Ken)? I am a contributor here who is allowed to voice some views that others do not share, would Ken invite me to post on CRN and voice things he may not agree with? I do not believe he would and the reason is self explanatory.
Rotten fruit? It hangs from the trees in all camps in abundance, it’s just that we cannot see clearly the rotten fruit within the tree we’re in.
Ultimately that’s what we see out of the watchdoggies. Its also why you can see so much derision gets poured out onto discussion and conversation. Just look at Chris P’s comment on Dazed and Confused where he states that the apostles didn’t have conversations, they only rebuked one another. After all, once you’ve set yourself up as inerrant why discuss anything with anyone who disagrees with you?
Apples, and oranges, I would say – and in fact, it is the application of Horton’s second point to avoid this type of error.
His point:
Viewing the New Testament as drawn from first century culture seeks to 1) determine the cultural context of a passage or narrative; 2) evaluate the principal being demonstrated apart from the culture; 3) determine the application of the principal in the present context.
Example (albeit a simple one): 1) Original Context: Women should not braid their hair, as temple prostitutes advertised via their hair style; 2) Principal: Do not dress in ways that are sexually suggestive or that would give honor to other gods; 3) Present Context (at least in central Indiana) – don’t wear hip-hugging shorts with thong underwear, displaying a “whale tail”.
Were this to be what Horton warns of in point #2, we would still be counseling women not to braid their hair, per 1 Timothy 2:9
At least where I am living, the RCC is somewhat of a dying breed, hand-in-hand with mainline churches. The RCC folks I talk with can’t (and don’t) even put up a fight with any scripture when asked about the pletora of issues in which traditions have been piled upon tradition, with no general appearance to anything scriptural.
What is funny, is that most of the RCC folks I know anymore are the ones who have left the RCC to one in my own tradition (or similar ones), and who are still trying to get used to actually reading the Bible to determine what it says, rather than have the church in Rome dictate what it means.
I suppose if we ever had a Catholic show up here, we would likely have some questions (and numerous disagreements). Since you deal with them more than we do, are you suggesting there is a “Catholic” watchdog site that we might view as analogous to CR?N?
I will saythis: There are some doctrines that alter the truth of redemption, those must be defended or the basis of Christianity is changed. What are those doctrines that are essential to an understanding of salvation and the gospel itself?
And this is one of the big questions I have, why can methodology be so offensive and yet salvation by baptism isn’t? Why is lively worship worldly but litergical worship isn’t. So why must there be separation from non salvidic issues but redemptive differences are no problem. That to me is confusing.
A book I’m reading right now, The Message and the Kingdom: How Jesus and Paul Ignited a Revolution and Transformed the Ancient World
, touches on this subject. The ‘house church’ nature of the movement in most of Asia Minor was a product of a) deep-seated poverty throughout the Empire; and b) Gentile-dominated churches which were not welcome to meet in the synagogues (though some still allowed it). After Constantine declared Christianity the ‘official’ religion of the Roman Empire, Christians were able to afford buildings and such.
Each model has its own strengths and weaknesses, which a number of churches today attempt to mitigate through the use of strong ‘cell groups’ and ‘community gatherings’.
I’m almost to the point where I cannot in good conscience support today’s country club facilities (e.g., gym, softball fields, workout rooms, etc.) that are built in the name of outreach vs housing, soup kitches, support centers, etc. “But John . . . these are outreach tools”. Well, umm, really?
Chris P.
I’m really not sure where to start…Perhaps I would ask for some clarification on a few points.
I’m assuming (which is a dangerous pastime in blogs) that you’re suggesting that CRN is really concerned with content. Where as .info is more concerned about method and “negative tone”. I guess I would ask for evidence that CRN is really concerned with content. Sure their able to spot and shout what they percieve as shallow but I’ve yet to really see them prove, with scripture, that some (not all) that they slander are light on content. Additionally most of what I see them pointing as error is based more on style and not on substance. So I ask; who is more consumed with method, CRN or .info? In fact they scrutinize the most mundane and frivolous things that people in the ECM say it is really difficult to say “they are concerned with content”.
I would really love for you to “unpack” this for me.
And this:
I’m not quite sure what evidence there is for this or even why this is an issue. Read below.
Then I need some help with this:
I guess the only derision is that of point 4.
Sincerely,
Chris
“I have been blogging long than most of you and I could really care less!” I completely missed that nugget of maturity!
And, for what it’s worth, it’s “couldn’t care less.” “Could care less,” as an expression of boredom, does not make any sense.
The Lone Prairie Blog since early 2002! — five years of blogging! Do I get some kind of prize? Respect? What kind of arguments and discussions can I win and supplement with my five-year tally?
Let’s just keep the extraneous comment filler to a bare minimum, how about, and stick with the specifics and things that matter.
But Julie, it wouldn’t be the internet then.
Five years! So step in line, Tim, step in line…because I’ve got five years!
December 4th will be my 4 year anniversary.
I was on Deadjournal way back in the day. Not sure how long ago that was.
Ok…off the wall here but….what’s wrong with speaking in tongues?
Enlighten me o wise one.
FIVE YEARS JIMMY!!!!
I have been using computers before most of you!
My first computer was an Apple machine back in 1985.
NOW TAKE THAT!
I’ve been verbally blogging since 1954, I just didn’t realize it!
Now David, everyone knows that Apples aren’t real computers.
I speak in tongues. Assembly of God pentecostal, you know.
Like a stealth bomber he swoops in and lays down a heavy attack of verbal weaponry. When the dust settles and the sun rises there is no visible sign of him; only the destruction he has left.
*hyperbole off*
Chris P. where are you?
The pilot has turned on the “No Hyperbole” sign, please be advised.
Just kidding.
Julie, I would like to see you blog in tongues.