SR Blog

Some of the most heated arguments usually happen because of a misunderstanding.  You know what I mean – one person doesn’t quite know what the other person said or, more importantly, what the other person meant and then, all of a sudden, World War III erupts, and everything goes downhill from there.  Just like clockwork, emotions run high and words are said in haste, sometimes without actually meaning them (which is the ironic thing) and it’s a free-for-all.  Misunderstandings happen over a phone call, a text message, an email or just place face-to-face.  But once someone “throws down,” the bottom quickly falls out, all because of misunderstanding.  This phenomenon of misunderstanding also happens when we read Scripture, usually not to the same degree, but it still happens.  So, how do we guard against misunderstanding what the divine Author said in Scripture?  The answer is hermeneutics and exegesis.

In the previous article, “The Main Course,” we discussed the various philosophical presuppositions people tend to bring to the table when reading Scripture.   How someone approaches the Text is the first critical step to getting the correct objective meaning out of the Text.  But once we have the Text in front of us, we must now first engage hermeneutically then semantically.  So that we are on the same page, hermeneutics is “the study of principles and methods of interpretation” and exegesis is “the explanation of a text” (Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. and Moises Silva, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007], 334-35); there’s a difference.  Without question, along with our presuppositions in mind, hermeneutics and exegesis will allow us to reach our ultimate goal: the objective meaning of the text, specifically the objective meaning of Scripture.  Indeed, if an absolute Mind (God) objectively spoke to man via an objective Text (Scripture), then we need to find (not determine) that objective meaning.

(more...)

It is true that a worldview is critical in how a person approaches life.  If the person already comes to the table with the idea that God does not exist (e.g., atheism is true), then it’s reasonable that the person will “filter” life’s experiences, dreams, desires, hopes and even aspirations through that worldview lens.  It can’t be helped.  It’s how we’re wired.  Since this phenomenon of a worldview philosophy is common to all men all over the world and at all times, then it should not be surprising that biblical scholars do the same – view life through a certain type lens (e.g., theism, atheism, pantheism).  For sure, not all biblical scholars are theists.  Some are pantheists (e.g., Benedict Spinoza) and some are atheists (e.g., Theodore Drange).  So the question for consideration today is this: what philosophical presuppositions are brought to the table with respect to theology, and what is the logical outcome (e.g., hermeneutics) of those presuppositions?  And since foundations are important, we begin there (“Philosophical Presuppositions of Biblical Inerrancy” by Norman L. Geisler in Inerrancy, ed. Norman L. Geisler [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980], 307-34).

Without question, some of the most ancient philosophies permeate theology even today.  For example, both Plato and Aristotle believed that matter is eternal.  The Mormon Church of today also believes that matter is eternal (cf. Doctrine and Covenants 93:33).  And if matter is eternal, then it’s not too far of a jump to say that man is also eternal (cf. D&C 93:29).  What’s the logical conclusion?  Because man is eternal, then there must not only be many gods (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 7:333) but the Mormon Elohim must also have a body of flesh and bones (cf. D&C 130:22).  With these philosophies firmly in place, the Mormon goal of becoming a god makes sense (cf. Joseph Smith, Jr., Journal of Discourses 6:4).

(more...)

The distinguishing feature between the god of pantheism and the God of theism is the event of creation.  Either God created the material universe out of himself (ex Deo), which means that anything created out of God is part and parcel of God or God created the material universe out of nothing (ex nihilo), which means that anything created out of nothing is wholly separate from God (cf. the Law of Excluded Middle).  The former is pantheism; the latter is theism.  Which is true?  Let’s find out.

Though certainly not the first, the Greek philosopher, Parmenides of Elea (b. 515 B.C.), was well known for asserting that all reality is one, that there is only one being.  This is known as monism – there cannot be more than one thing.  But why would Parmenides argue this?  He figured that the only distinguishing feature of all reality is the idea of existence – either something exists (i.e., being) or something does not exist (i.e., non-being).  Look at it this way: if there are two or more things in the universe (e.g., you and me), then they would have to differ in some aspect.  But, according to Parmenides, the only way for two things to differ is either by existence or non-existence (being or non-being).  Now, if they differ in being (existence), then there is no difference at all because being (existence) is what makes them identical.  And if they differ by non-being (non-existence), there’s still no real difference because two non-existent things can’t differ.  So, if two things exist and they share the commonality of existence, then those two things are the same.  Hence, it follows that God created out of himself (ex Deo is true) and monism is true.  (Technically speaking, ex Deo is not creation “out of god” but emanates or radiates from god since all is one.)

Now, there are four ways to counter monism: Atomism, Platonism, Aristoteleanism, and Thomism.  Atomism was championed by Democritus (c. 460-370 B.C.) who asserted that things actually differed by the space in between them.  He called this the Void.  That is, one atom (H) is different from another atom (O) because the hydrogen atom occupies a different space than the oxygen atom.  But this doesn’t necessarily solve the problem.  To counter Atomism, Parmenides could have simply said, “If the space in between the atoms is Void (nothing), then you are distinguishing the hydrogen atom from the oxygen atom based on nothing!”  Parmenides has a valid point – two things cannot be distinguished based on nothing.

(more...)

Most people are familiar with the story of David and Bathsheba, where David committed the murder of Uriah so that he could have Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba, as his own wife (cf. 2 Sam. 12).  This morning at church, the teacher mentioned 2 particular passages and then made a strange remark.  The particular verses are: “David therefore inquired of God for the child; and David fasted and went and lay all night on the ground” (2 Sam. 12:16).  And the second one is, “He [David] said, ‘While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, “Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me that the child may live’.”  The teacher then said, “David was hoping that God would change His mind about the death of the child (cf. 2 Sam. 12:14).  The question for consideration today is this: does God change His mind?  Is this even possible?  I suggest not, simply because of the simplicity of God’s Mind.

The simplicity of God is not one of the easier attributes to grasp.  So, we start with the basics and then build from that.  Simplicity, in general, is the opposite of compound or what is composed.  Because there is no division whatsoever in simplicity, it has no different parts.  With respect to God, the divine simplicity “is the absence of all compounding of different parts, the absence of all division” (Fr. Reginald Garrigou-LaGrange, Providence, trans. Dom Bede Rose [Rockford, IL: Tan Books and Publishers, 1998), 81); it is the undivided, pure spirit.  That God’s nature is simple is not only true via Scripture (cf. Deut 6:4), it is also true philosophically and logically.

The cosmological argument shows the existence of God and the uncaused Cause of all else that exists.  Now, “what has no cause of its existence is not actualized (caused) by another.  And what is not actualized has no potentiality, for potentiality for actualization is a condition for being actualized” (Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology: God and Creation, vol. 2 [Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2003], 32).  In other words, because God is the uncaused Cause of all else that exists, there is no potentiality in God for either His existence or nonexistence; that is, God does not have the potential to exist (because He’s the uncaused Cause) or the potential to not exist (because He is not actualized by another).  And if God does not have the potential to come into existence or go out of existence, then He simply exists in a pure spiritual state with no potentiality whatsoever.  The corollary is this: whatever has no potential is necessarily 100% actual.  God is 100% spirit with no potential to come into existence and no potential to go out of existence.  And because of this, another way to characterize God is to call Him Pure Act.

(more...)