|
The Reign of the Servant Kings By Joseph C. Dillow A Review-Summary-Outline
Chapter 2—Interpretation and Perseverance
It has become quite fashionable to speak of the power of paradigms. Originally a Greek scientific term, today the word “paradigm” more commonly refers to a perception, a model, or a frame of reference. It is the way we “see” the world. They are lurking in the background of virtually every conclusion we make. We seldom question their accuracy. We commonly assume that the way we see things is the way they really are.
The way we see things unconsciously affects our conclusions. This is why two theologians can look at the same data and come to radically opposite conclusions. It is not that the facts are different, but the paradigms that they bring to the facts determine the interpretations.
In order for some readers of this book to share the author’s conclusions, they will need to undergo a paradigm shift. All interpreters of Scripture bring certain paradigms to their reading of the Bible. Perhaps our paradigm is wrong. The reader is invited on a journey of discovery, a journey that will take him to familiar passages. Yet as he travels, he will be asked to consider the data from a different point of view.
There are two exegetical issues that must first be cleared away if we are to correctly understand how the New Testament writers viewed the perseverance of the saints. The paradigm shift begins.
Theological Exegesis
It is widely recognized that differing canons of interpretation play a determinative role in theological discussion. This same hermeneutical difference underlies much of the dispute on the doctrine of perseverance. What is the ultimate determinant of the meaning of a particular test: the intent of the original author or a comparison of that text with other texts (selected by the interpreter)?
Should the single intent of the original author be the primary determinant in our theological constructs? It seems that the answer to that question is obvious. Yes! If the intent of the original author does not determine meaning, then someone else’s intent (that of the interpreter) takes over and all controls are lost.
All of us approach the Bible with certain theological preunderstandings, certain paradigms. Even when we are conscious of them, it is still difficult to negate their controlling influence. These should not dictate our exegesis, substitute for exegesis, or simply be subsequent to exegesis. Rather, they are part of valid exegetical procedure, but their use should be postponed until a very late stage.
Illegitimate Totality Transfer
Another exegetical error that has tended to obfuscate the clarity of vision of the disputants over the doctrine of perseverance is illegitimate totality transfer—the error that arises, when the “meaning” of a word (understood as the total series of relations in which it is used in the literature) is read into a particular case as its sense and implication there. [In other words, it is the ascription of a predetermined meaning to a word, either derived from or concocted by other uses of the word elsewhere, to the word in a particular context even though the context of the passage may indicate otherwise]
A perfect example of this by Experimental Predestinarians [the term the Mr. Dillow uses to represent Calvinists—holders of the doctrine of the “perseverance of the saints”] is their interpretation of the word “repentance” (Gk. metanoeo) in support of their idea that submission to the lordship of Christ and perseverance in that submission to the final hour are the necessary evidences of the truly regenerate.
Most would agree that the basic meaning of metanoeo is simply to “change the mind.” But often Reformed writers go beyond this meaning and read into it the notion of “turn from sin.” [Even thou this meaning as it relates to conversion cannot be supported by Scripture], they have in mind a theological idea of repentance that involves turning from sin . . . and they read that theological idea into the various texts they quote.
Now it is clear that, in contexts where the meaning is “to change one’s mind about sin,” the word is not being used as condition of final deliverance from hell. We know this must be true for two reasons: (1) in no passage where “repentance” is used in the sense of “to turn from sin” can it be demonstrated that it is a condition of salvation, and (2) it is impossible that it could be because the Bible everywhere attests that salvation is by faith alone, and without cost (Revelation 21:6; 22:17; Romans 4:5; Galatians 3:2).
One writer forcefully insists, “No evangelism that omits the message of repentance can properly be called the gospel, for sinner cannot come to Jesus Christ apart from a radical change of heart, mind, and will.” Would it not follow then that the Gospel of John, which never mentions repentance, cannot properly be called the gospel? Nowhere does the apostle present any other means except “believe” as a means for salvation. If repentance and surrender to the lordship of Christ are necessary means of salvation, the Gospel of John would be incapable of achieving its intended aim (John 20:31).
When advocates of this position insist that faith includes the notion of repentance, they are again committing the error of the illegitimate totality transfer, this time in regard to faith. Beginning as they do with the theological idea that salvation must involve submission to Christ’s lordship and realizing that “faith” does not mean that, they import into it the conclusions of their views on conversion, turning from sin, and repentance, and make faith a very pregnant concept indeed!
However, if we understand repentance in its basic sense as “a change of mind” or “change of perspective,” then it is easy to see why the word was not included in John’s gospel. Anytime a man believes, a certain change of mind is involved. In fact, the change of mind demanded in the New Testament is to trust in Christ instead of institutional Judaism. That is why repentance can be used by itself, and when it is, it is virtually a synonym for faith. The problem for Experimental Predestinarians is that, even though usage and the standard lexicons admit that the words are primarily mental acts and not volitional surrender, they must be made to mean volitional surrender in order to square them with the Reformed doctrine of perseverance and with the notion that discipleship is a condition for becoming a Christian.
Space cannot be taken here to adequately discuss the question of the meaning of repentance in the New Testament. The point here is simply that the procedure used to settle the question is sometimes faulty. Is it acceptable to combine words like “turn” (GK. eptistrepho; Heb. shub) and “conversion” and “repentance” into a theological concept of repentance? Can we then invest the Greek word metanoeo with all these ideas and then read them into the usages of the word throughout the New Testament? The answer . . . is no. This pregnant meaning of “repentance” is far removed from its semantic value, “change of mind.” This new sense, now “great with child,” has given birth to a theology of faith and salvation that is far removed from the simple gospel offer.
This practice of going through the concordance, noting usage in various contexts, adding all the usages up, reading them into the semantic value of the word, and carrying that freighted new meaning into other contexts is an illegitimate totality transfer. A word does not have a meaning without a context; it only has possibilities of meaning. Frequency of use only suggests a probable meaning that would be suggested to a reader in the absence of any contextual indicators as to what is meant. The meanings of words are primarily determined by the usage in a particular context and that has more force than a hundred usages elsewhere. The study of usages helps determine the range of known meanings but not the meaning in a particular context.
An error related to the so-called illegitimate totality transfer is . . . the illegitimate identity transfer. This occurs when a meaning in one context is made to be the meaning in all contexts. A biblical illustration will be helpful—one is in the attempt to define the meaning of the “overcomer” in Revelation 2-3. In 1 John 5:4 it seems clear that the overcomer is a Christian and that all who are Christians are, in a particular sense, overcomers. Those who know the Lord have, according to John, overcome by virtue of the fact that they have believed and for no other reason. In Revelation, however, the overcomer is one who has “kept the word of My perseverance” (Revelation 3:10) and who “keeps My deeds until the end” (Revelation 2:26). As a result of this faithful behavior, the overcomer receives various rewards. All who are overcomers in 1 John, therefore, may or may not be walking in fellowship; all who are overcomers in Revelation are. An overcomer in 1 John is simply a Christian; an overcomer in Revelation is a persevering Christian.
In summary, meanings are to be derived from context.
Theological Science
It was Calvin who first formalized the science of theology. He insisted that interpretations had to have a scientific justification. By scientific justification we mean, first of all, that, in order for an interpretation to be true, it must be grounded in the objective data of history, lexicography, culture, grammar, and context. But secondly, it must submit to a “falsifiability criterion.” If contrary data invalidate it, it must be given up. In order for a theory to have any scientific value, it must be capable of being proved wrong. When dealing with an induction, we cannot always be sure that we have collected all the data, so the possibility of invalidation must always be part of the theory, or it is not a scientific theory. Similarly, a theological “theory” that is incapable of falsification is questionable in terms of its explanatory value.
The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints certainly qualifies as a valid scientific theory. It has been argued by capable men on the basis of a particular interpretation of many biblical passages. It qualifies as a scientific theory because it is capable of falsification. If there is one example in the Bible of a person who was born again, fell away from the Lord, and persisted in his disobedience up to the point of physical death, then the theory of the saints’ perseverance has been disproved and must, if we are honest, be abandoned. Deny this, and all theology is as worthless as straw.
In about A.D. 1300 William of Ockham introduced the scientific principle that whatever explanation involves the fewest assumptions is to be preferred. Called Ockham’s Razor, it posits that any theory that, when confronted with contrary evidence, must supply secondary explanations in order to justify its existence is a bad theory. The continued introductions of secondary assumptions in order to explain the theory in the light of seemingly contradictory evidence results in a crumbling house of cards.
In theology, when a particular theological position must be maintained by secondary assumptions, it is worthless. This is preeminently the case in the Experimental Predestinarians’ doctrine of the saints’ perseverance. When confronted with apparently contradictory evidence that a true saint in the Bible has persisted in disobedience, they will often offer the secondary assumption, based on their system [paradigm], that he could not really be a true saint at all. This addition of an ad hoc explanation, which is either not alluded to in the texts in question or is specifically refuted by it, renders the theory useless. It becomes incapable of falsification because any data contrary to it is simply negated by additional assumptions.
Theology is a science; in fact, it was once known as the queen of the sciences. Every science is composed of two things, facts and their interpretation. The task of a theologian is to collect, authenticate, arrange, and explain the facts of revelation. The natural scientist does the same with the facts of nature. When he does this, however, he must not modify one experimental fact in order to accommodate it with another apparently contradictory one. Instead, he searches for a higher synthesis, larger than each fact, which will explain both.
The theologian must show how facts in one part of Scripture correlate and explain facts in another part, but he must not modify the facts in order to do so. False theories in science and false doctrines in theology are often due to errors of fact. Furthermore, this collection must be comprehensive (for instance, an incomplete induction led men to believe that the sun moved around the earth).
Most important, as the student of nature must be honest, so must the theologian. Who among us, as students of the Word, has not at one time or another been tempted to make the biblical facts fit into our theological theories? If we come across biblical data that seem to contradict our system [paradigm], we must be honest and reassess our system and not reinterpret that fact in light of the system. It is a life-long work. Our goal is not to defend the viewpoint of the denomination but to know the mind of God. This means that the doctrines of the Bible, like the principles and laws of natural science, are not imposed upon the facts but are derived from them.
The theologians, perhaps even more than the natural scientist, is susceptible to the temptation to be dishonest with the facts because his facts are much more important. They concern eternal issues and not just the periodic table of the elements. The motivation for this is pure, if unconscious. It lies in the nagging fear that, if this doctrine is abandoned, then there is no answer to the Arminians with their denial of eternal security, and even more important, there is no answer to the charge of being antinomian [the concept that maintains that Christians are freed from the moral law by virtue of grace as set forth in the Gospel]. Indeed, to give up the doctrine of perseverance, according to Experimental Predestinarians, is to turn the grace of God into lasciviousness [inclined to wanton sex].
Now, of course, that does not necessarily follow, but there is no question that in some cases carnal believers will do just that. This is why Paul was charged with antinomianism (Romans 6:1). But the Partaker’s position satisfactorily answers the Arminian objections to eternal security by allowing the texts to speak plainly. The charge of antinomianism is also easily answered in that there is no greater inducement to godliness than the love of Christ, the unconditional acceptance of the Father, the hope of hearing Him say “Well done!” and the fear of millennial disinheritance.
We must derive our doctrine from the Bible and not make the Bible teach what we think is necessary. As natural science was a chaos until the principle of induction was admitted and faithfully carried out, so theology is a jumble of human speculations and not worth a straw when men refuse to apply the same principle to the study of the Word of God.
|