Christian Theology

Hello.

This is the thread in which I'd like to occasionally post musings regarding Christian theology which is based on the Bible.

It is a fundamentalism approach so probably won't be too popular. It could be worth examine the basis for a fundamentalism approach too.

However, that is not theology. I do not agree that the text itself can "self-validate" for this purpose. Nor do I believe that this is the correct way to approach it.

To reason from fundamentals is the basis of "rationality). In the theology this is an intellectual endeavor. Such things are not demanded inherently for the gift of grace.

It is written that faith comes from hearing the Word (Scripture) and that by faith we are given grace (not by works to earn it) which regenerates our nature to become born of God such that our works then bear the fruits of God.

This reveals that the reasonableness of the faith is irrelevant. However for my own contemplation I seek to understand the theological foundation.

The argument for fundamentalism is simple. It can last. It can endure time. The argument FOR a foundation and the argument for what that foundation IS are different conversations.

I am not much curious about the argument FOR a foundation. To me it is just obvious that there is a need for a foundation. If someone disagrees they are free to do so. I don't want to talk about. However if someone has a wise view about it I'm keeping my mind open to learning more about it. Otherwise if the goal is to persuade me it would save time for all to leave it alone.

Then the conversation for me is how should the Bible be the foundation, why, and which parts.

How? This question approaches interpretation methods and is crucial to the way I think about this theme.

Why? My reason is my choice. I don't feel like I should reveal it. It's my choice. Someone else might choose differently. I am not a proselytizer nor an apologist. In fact, at this moment, I don't quite feel such things are the correct approach to sharing the gospel in my case. I don't think I would do it well.

Which parts? This is also a question of where to start and how to proceed. It is related to the How.

So here is the crux. There are two essential methods to interpreting the text. Some suggest a third and I'll mention it, but I don't think I'll be referencing it later.

The foundational method is exegesis. This is using the text to interpret the text. It requires understanding the context to get the meaning.

The secondary method is eisegesis. It brings the readers own context to the text. It has the risk of making the reader blind to what is written there. For example, even a single word or negation can alter the interpretation of the later words, if misread. This can also make it confusing to understand.

So exegesis is the foundational method (primary method) because it maintains the faithfulness to the text itself prior to the readers own context. The goal is seeking relationship with God is cleansing and renewal of one's soul. It is unlikely that this soul is well enough on its own in the first place. So it's context isn't that important.

This doesn't demean the soul or its life story in any way. The emphasis is more on the grace that even a sinful context doesn't bar the reader from reaching to God.

Finally the other method mentioned is narcigesis. It is an important term I encountered in the internet which called out my tendency to make the bible all about myself, rather than God and his Son Jesus. The story is about Jesus. It isn't about me.

In those places where my eisegetical approach overwhelmed my exegetical faithfulness to the text, I would sometimes interpret the scripture "narcissistically" as if it's all about me. This is the meaning of what is called narcigesis. However keeping to the exegetical method protects from this. So that is the important one to remember.

This crux of Exegetical and Eisegetical is not possible to purify to "only exegetical" interpretation. A purely eisegetical interpretation is a waste of time. It is so irrational it doesn't even need a foundation and so the Scripture has no use for such a reader.

There is a part of reading that opens up the reader's own revelation. This is related to a prayer or similar to a deep spiritual communication with God. However, the impurities of the reader prevent the exegetical understanding (what God is actually saying) to form. In fact, it is risky to study the text to experience revelations without having any spiritual protection.

The Bible is a holy text. Read correctly, it can protect the soul from harmful spirits. Read improperly it may only result in exposing the reader's soul to dangerous influence they do not understand (because they've never kept the commandments of God and such are not prepared to witness their own depraved state upon exposure to the reality of what is Holy)

However it is because of the Mercy and Grace given by the Son of God Jesus Christ that anyone can even be saved by reading it. The reasoning is given in the Gospel of John.

In the Beginning is Christ. We begin with Christ. Christ is the source of mercy and grace for the reader who believes he is the Son of God.

(He is. It is not really up for debate. However for the inquiring mind similar to my own, just read the Bible. Yes, seriously, read it in whatever order you prefer, though work with the exegetical method and you'll get it. Nobody is too stupid to see it.)

This is why it is enough to believe Christ is Son of God and can save you from your sins. It is far more difficult to search it out with doubts but it can be done. Christ performed miracles (supernatural actions) to bolster faith. However he said it is better to believe without requiring "evidence".

This is an important point to understand because the scientific mind always wants evidence. However evidence is always requested within the parameters of the natural world and its laws. Then it seeks proof of supernatural actions within those constraints. This is incoherent. Supernatural actions operate above and beyond the naturalistic limits of scientific doubts.

The main reason it is better to believe Jesus Christ is Son of God is because you can get all the evidence you need (this is assuming you aren't lying to yourself and God about your intentions, which only fools you and doesn't fool God). It's just going to take longer for you to get to what is essentially the starting point.

The ability to believe is enough to get started where it counts. Get started with Jesus Christ. He is a real man with real flesh and blood who existed as a manifested, embodied incarnation of God's mercy to humankind.

There is no reason to doubt that and there is no reason not to believe it. There is a choice of how to understand it and no persuasion is needed.

So, in the Gospel of John, written by the Love Apostle, whom Jesus loved, begins the story of God's Love abiding in human form. It is a story about Love.

For, God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him, shall not perish confronted by the Holiness of God, but have everlasting life.

In the beginning was the Son of God. Through him all things were made, by him they were made and there is no thing which was made that was not by him made.

The exegetical method faces a dilemma. The phrase is that in the beginning was the Word. Yet, historical records (say some) suggest this text was written in Greek. (No one disputes the Torah is written in Hebrew, though the English text may source from the Septuagint).

So.

The exegetical method uses context analysis to understand the essence of the meaning of the words written. At the least, it refers to direct context of surrounding text and the Canon itself.

How far does the context analysis go?

This is the theological crux of this thread.