I don’t see how acknowledging the reader’s role in the construction of meaning brings about the death of exegesis and hermeneutics. Such things are tools that are a part of an individual’s/community’s repetoire when going about meaning making. I don’t find the theoretical frameworks of poststructuralists like Derrida or Foucault without problems, but I do find valuable and helpful aspects of their work when I go about interpretation. It’s the same thing with exegetical models built on greek translation, grammatical mapping, etc.

I’m not overly familiar with what “propositional theology” means, but I’ve personally found a lot of harm done with dogmatic theology…it’s “death” might not be such a bad thing.

A new post on the topic of where meaning lies, and how we get to it, would probably be a good idea. This conversation has hit all sorts of topics, perhaps we should focus?

First, the string of questions you posed in your first four paragraphs are relevant, but lack any persuasive force in the postmodern’s arsenal. You forget that I not a modern, and I do (like many conservative, evangilical Christians) recognize the fact that everone has a preunderstanding that they bring to the text when they interpret the text. This preunderstanding conists in hermeneutical principles, historical theology, biblical theology, and systematic theology, all of which the exegete applies to the text deductively. However, I also believe that the exegete can inductively determine the meaning of the text, and this process is the “spiral” I mentioned above.

Yet, here is the rub. You believe the meaning of the text lies within the reader (like a good postmodern), yet I believe that the meaning lies within the author.* What needs to be discussed here is where we think the meaning lies and why? Also, what implications follow from our understanding of where the meaning of the text lies? I believe that if the meaning of the text lies within and the reader, then that would be the death of exegesis and hermeneutics altogether (thus, the death of propositional and dogmatic theology). A discussion like this would warrant its own post.

Best,
Travis

What do you mean by that? Do you mean the Bible? Whose Bible (for there are many different compilations, there have been many more throughout history, and our modern text-critical editions are compilations that never actually existed in history)? What constitutes the Word of God? How do we determine what the Word of God is? If it’s just scripture, we have to determine what scripture means, what constitutes it, and where we draw boundary lines. Do we simply appeal to past church councils? I’m willing to bet that if any of us had theological discussions with many of the men (they were all men afterall) who made those decisions, we’d often come away shocked at the things they believed.

Do you mean Jesus as the incarnate Word (logos)? How much of logos theology does one bring into this, how far back (Plato?), and how far forward (Origen/Justin Martyr?/later?) does one go. Justin Martyr’s study of logos theology ultimately led him toward beliefs bordering on Universal Salvation…I doubt many here would be comfortable with that conclusion of the Word of God.

Going with the Word of God as scripture…we can only say that it determines our theological dogmas and truths in the fact that we view it as authoritative. Beyond that, any text is by nature a fluid and changing object. The texts in and of themselves have no inherent meaning, other than the meaning we arrive at through interaction with the text.* Our influences change the way we read texts. The hermeneautical principles we apply play a role. The kind of day we’ve had, whether or not we’ve had coffee that morning, etc…a great many things play a role in the way we read and understand texts. How the text appears visually (red letter? leather bound? chapters and verses?) impacts the way we read and interact with scripture. I’ve listed all these things without even touching on translation…which as you know well, can be a very tricky and often tendentious process.

The problem arises when we pretend that none of the above matters, that we can just go with the “plain sense of the text” (whatever that means). What we’re really doing is placing our own conditioned reading of the text above others, without acknowledging some of the most base (yet important) assumptions we make. Some would say we must find authorial intent (which, depending on your view on inspiration, could actually refer to God as the author). Yet, authorial intent is nigh impossible to achieve, especially when reading across thousands of years of change in language and cultural conventions. There is a seduction to think that the single way we think the text should be read is the right way. Such hermeneutical principles allowed the biblical justification of the debasement of women for centuries (to this day in some places), America’s treatment of the Indians and Blacks, Germany’s treatment of the Jews, and South Africa’s treatment of Black Africans…when I think all of us would agree that they bible justifies no such thing. It is the hope of many people who approach texts with postmodern presuppositions, that we can be critical and creative enough to avoid such disasters in the future.

So, I’ll say that I agree with you…our sacred texts are infinitely valuable in the formation of our faith. But when one says we view the texts as an authority, do we really just mean our personal reading of the texts, and that other readings don’t really reflect the authority of scripture? These are questions we should all ask ourselves, post/non/modern.

* That being the case, there are limits to the amount of possible readings a text can have that are influenced by genre, date, etc. The Gospel of Mark, for instance, simply cannot be a recipe for hot dogs. Yet, well reasoned, honest, intelligent, and spiritually discerning people can come to very different conclusions on Mark’s presentation of atonement or the divinity of Jesus Christ.

So I have read through most of the posts here, and this is a great discussion. There is so much to say I don’t even know where to start. On a different discussion, JR and I got off onto a tangent, and I feel what I said there would be relevant here. Here is what I said:

“This tangent will probably warrant its on comment page :). I recognize the fact that overcoming one’s own preunderstanding is very very difficult, and I know some would say that this is impossible. I however disagree. Unlike many of conservative theologians, I acknowledge the fact that all have some preunderstanding through which they view the words of Scripture. Unlike the liberal theologians, I do believe that we can overcome our preunderstandings, and arrive at the objective truth.

How? Well take me for example. I would say my preunderstanding consists not so much along demonational ties (I grew up in three different churches, one being “non-demonational”), but I am heavly influenced by Western philosophical thought, Reformation theology, some of the Catholic scholastics, and a general attitude of faith seeking understanding. I find that great places to start with extra-Biblical literature would be Aquinas, Augustine, Anslem, Calvin, Luther (some), Bonhoeffer, Barth (some), Schaeffer, and Lewis. Of course all of these giants and their works have tempered my understanding of Scripture. But they do not get to have final say (or authority) over theological truths and the system these truths together build. That is only done by the Word of God.

How is this done? Well this is the “hermeneutical spiral” I mentioned earlier. This term is from Osbourne’s book “The Hermeneutical Spiral.” What he described in 500 pages, I am going to try to do in a couple :). In essence, this spiral is the path that the theologian takes in order to arrive at the ultimate and objective truth that God has given us. The theologian dedutively applies hermeneutical principles and theological descions to the text, while the text inductively informs the theologian of formulative truths.

So what influences theological dogma and truths? Community, experience, tradition, and philosophical outlooks.
What determines theological dogmas and truths? The Word of God alone.”

As an augment to this, I have to say to the postmodern defenders (seems ironic to speak of defending postmodernism or that which claims that nothing is defensible) that I agree with the ontological claims that that they have made (e.g. God does exists, there is an absolute truth, ect.), but their epistemological claims are ambigiuous and equivocal. This is a problem since this debate centers on what is the correct epistemology. So to the postmoderns I ask, how do we come to know this absolute truth or how God exists?

This tangent will probably warrant its on comment page :). I recognize the fact that overcoming one’s own preunderstanding is very very difficult, and I know some would say that this is impossible. I however disagree. Unlike many of conservative theologians, I acknowledge the fact that all have some preunderstanding through which they view the words of Scripture. Unlike the liberal theologians, I do believe that we can overcome our preunderstandings, and arrive at the objective truth.

How? Well take me for example. I would say my preunderstanding consists not so much along demonational ties (I grew up in three different churches, one being “non-demonational”), but I am heavly influenced by Western philosophical thought, Reformation theology, some of the Catholic scholastics, and a general attitude of faith seeking understanding. I find that great places to start with extra-Biblical literature would be Aquinas, Augustine, Anslem, Calvin, Luther (some), Bonhoeffer, Barth (some), Schaeffer, and Lewis. Of course all of these giants and their works have tempered my understanding of Scripture. But they do not get to have final say (or authority) over theological truths and the system these truths together build. That is only done by the Word of God.

How is this done? Well this is the “hermeneutical spiral” I mentioned earlier. This term is from Osbourne’s book “The Hermeneutical Spiral.” What he described in 500 pages, I am going to try to do in a couple :). In essence, this spiral is the path that the theologian takes in order to arrive at the ultimate and objective truth that God has given us. The theologian dedutively applies hermeneutical principles and theological descions to the text, while the text inductively informs the theologian of formulative truths.

So what influences theological dogma and truths? Community, experience, tradition, and philosophical outlooks.
What determines theological dogmas and truths? The Word of God alone.

On what is clearly a tangent

Why should we strive to be objective?  Why must we ‘overcome’ our preunderstanding?  (I doubt that’s even possible.)  Even logic and philosophy as systems of thought are culturally bound and defined.  Can’t we acknowledge that none of us is objective and proceed from there?

In this post, I just want to lay all my cards down. This topic has been a great discussion, and it has brought up some great points. Tom’s original argument looked, at least prima facia, valid and sound. However, under more careful consideration and analyzation, there are more problems to be found than solutions in this argument. I think one reason why this is the case is because it is far more difficult to nail down the exact intentions, desires, and Sovereign Wills of the Holy God.

This being said, our discussion took us along to a set I called set S1, which JR took to be contradictory. I have to say that I find S1 to be neither explicity contraditory (e.g a and not a) nor formally contradictory (e.g. 1. if p, then q, 2. p, 3. Therefore, not q), nor implicitally contradictory. I entertained the idea that set S1 was implicitly contradictory, but in order for it to be so, there would have to be found some propostion P were P is both necessarily true and when conjoined to S1 would form a formal contradiction. I believe one will not be able to find such a proposition P, and even if one could, the burden is on the Arminian to find this proposition, not on the Calvinist to prove that it is necessarily true that S1 is not necessarily false (i.e. possibly true).

However, what could the Calvinist say? A possible objection to JR’s previous post would be to (a). The attribute of God’s omnipotence is a highly nuanced and mysterioius attribute that has perplexed philosophers and theologians for centuries, for trying to define the limits and meaning of omnipotence is difficult to say the least. For example, to say that God can do anything would be to simplify the matter, for God cannot create a married bachelor. I believe that (a) is also a form of this simplification of omnipotence. Perhaps it is possible that God cannot save all people. Perhaps there is unknown intention of His divine will that prohibits God’s sovereign will from actualizing all people to be saved. I think one must at least say that this is at least possible, but if one does, then the idea that S1 is contradictory falls to the ground. (Yet, this talk of “necessity” and “probablility” is bringing us into the realm of modal systems of logic, which is beyond my knowledge of its exact and technical rules and laws. So I really can’t say too much more.)

On a personal note, I am not exactly sure where I fall on the Arminian/Calvinist debate. I would have to describe myself as a non-Arminian right now. I don’t think there has be any sufficient exegitical arguments for the libertarian stance in Scripture, but I don’t think there is a case for double predestination either. A lot more work needs to be done in the area of hermeneutics proper, exigetical theories, philosophy of language and science, church history and the development of its dogmas, and the discovery of primary sources and the use of epigraphical texts for better Biblical lexicons. I think by accepting that we all have a preunderstanding that we bring to the text of the Bible, we can over come this preunderstanding (which comes from our experiences and community) and better exegize the Bible by objective analysis and humility. This is what Grant Osborne calls the “hermeneutical spiral,” where scholars both inductively and deductively discover truths by a means of “faith seeking understanding.”

Soli Deo Gloria gentlemen,

Travis

For every verse you can quote me in favor of God’s delight in destruction, I can quote you one that says essentially the opposite.  I have made this point before on the site - quoting verses at one another back and forth isn’t going to solve anything.  If a certain set of verses could decide these issues definitively, then surely after 2,000 years we wouldn’t still be debating this.

But the fact of the matter is, godly, intelligent men and women on all sides of this debate STILL argue.  It doesn’t come down to verses; it comes down to the foundational assumptions with which we interpret these verses.  I am a pacifist with distinctly Open Theistic leanings (though I don’t embrace their whole system by any means).  I understand God’s defining attribute to be self-sacrificial love.  This colors my interpretation of all of those verses we quote back and forth.

So what about you (everyone)?  What colors your interpretation of this issue?  Why do you believe the way you do?

Can we all agree that there is no pure, objective reading of any text, or is that a whole separate discussion?