Paul, Theology and Disagreement

"Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." -I Corinthians 1:10

There are numerous books on systematic theology. It is no surprise to the religiously savvy—those inclined to having a copious library—that multiple theologians make much ado about…well, everything. From writing about the Creation days in Genesis to eschatological paradigms in Revelations, Christian thought throughout history, and today, have been enveloped with religious perspectives. This presents a bit of a problem, but not an egregious one. Many Christians today disagree on just about any point of doctrine. It's almost ubiquitous to say that for every prayer and "amen" a Christian gives (assuming they pray), he or she has 10 woes to those with whom he or she disagrees. This is a serious problem for those involved in polemics or who wish to engage the unbeliever to account for his or her worldview, i.e., the apologetic task.

Such nuances in Christian experience don't necessarily lead to terrible portends that terminate in strife. Sure, there are ominous individuals who care little about Christian piety in order to trouble the household of God. But there are also those who care about the nature of true faith. This is where contention can serve the church. Throughout church history, the church has been able to answer almost every heresy through debate. Any modern heresy that buoys itself in the tavern of theological insight can almost certainly find its root in church history. Approbation can certainly be established with this sort of dialectic, and can serve the church. Tomes can fill the pages of history that testify to the nature of the apologetic task among church historians.

Notwithstanding the fecundity in church history, I think the first problem mentioned above needs meticulous consideration. In Paul's letter to the Corinthians (cf. I Corinthians 1:10), he prays that they [the Corinthian believers] be united in mind. Objecting to their party spirit, he chastises the Corinthians for being derisively divisive. It is no doubt, for this reason, that the Greek renders this verse as an exhortation. Parakaleo
specifically means to call forth or to implore. The Christian body is to be united in one mind, according to Paul. But what do we say about his words, "that you agree on everything?" or "speak the same thing" as the AV renders it? The ESV renders this portion, "that you all of you agree." Is this the case? Are we not allowed to disagree on points of doctrine or is Paul here referring to their indigent party spirit that is replete with bankrupt Christian ethics? Much can be said about the disparity of Christian uniformity, but what is symptomatic of that dissonance? We can surely disagree on the corpus of Christian doctrine, but we cannot perpetuate a docile and errant attitude that characterized the Corinthians, namely the party spirit of division.

Church-less Movement

This post is going to be more of a conversation with myself about theology in practice and how our church age (I'm not talking about eschatology directly, though in some way all events in history relate to eschatology) hates order than it loves truth. On the one side I see Christians—honest Christians—try to understand the Word of God; this is the first group. These people usually tend to sidestep from meaningless cavils—following Paul's example in 2 Timothy—but in effect employ a pacifist approach; they envelop a kind of "let's-all-get-along" attitude and encourage others do so out of love (1 Cor.8:1b). The results from this group leads many to question valid points in doctrine due to their indolent praxis. They only open themselves up to an internal dialog as long as it doesn't goad or prod the establishment.

On the other hand, the second group is even more virulent in its approach and akin to activist atheists. These people are doubly dangerous and perilous. They are the opposite of the first group and most likely don't have a home church themselves. They disrupt the establishment, unlike the first group, and in effect urge others to do the same. This kind of thinking culminates in the theology of "church-less Christianity" (see Horton, Christless Christianity). They sacrifice orthopraxy for a false sense of orthodoxy.

There has been a somewhat buoying movement among young Christians who are making a stand to leave churches in order to arouse the churches' suspicion. This, however, caricatures an orthodox view of ecclesiology (the study and nature of the church: its origins, functions, and institutions). I won't get into which theory best befits the theological and Biblical content of the merits of ecclesiology, but this movement is symptomatic of these young YRR ("Young, Restless and Reformed"). These youngsters couch themselves in Calvinism (Doctrines of Grace), but they also seem to ignore what Calvin himself wrote in his Institutes in book IV about the nature of the church.

Current Problems in Hermeneutics

A Spiritual Appraisal of Spiritual Things

In my studies of 1 Corinthians in both the King James Version (the Authorized Version) and the ESV and NASB (or Alexandrian Text), I've found a couple differences in terms of what is written in 1 Cor. 2:13. The last part of the verse really confuses the reader for the most part, if the reader considers the Greek while comparing the various translations. The verb that elicits "combining" or "comparing" seems to be a little misleading after reading the following word "spiritual." What most of the authorities tend to agree on is that the word suggest "binding together tightly" which is what the AV seems to purport. (However, this is universally known to be a point of contention among translators.) The following, therefore, makes it all the more difficult to interpret: "Spiritual things to Spiritual" (Authorized Version). The NASB reads this way: "Spiritual thoughts with Spiritual words." In trying to make sense of this verse, the NASB adds "thoughts" and "words," which are not found in the original text, the same for the word "things" found in the AV. The NASB I think gets the overall meaning of the context, albeit adding words. Previously the Apostle Paul wrote about human wisdom concerning their form of learning, i.e. "words." The concept here in the context is concerned with the thoughts conveyed in human wisdom communicated in words; in contrast, Paul writes our learning is in spiritual thoughts and words in the following verse. Therefore, the Apostle Paul is concerned with the form: one is appraised spiritually and the other isn't. This renders the text to say that the unbeliever doesn't have an appraisal of spiritual thoughts because he cannot (ability) appraise them. He is not able, in all his might, to appraise them—even if he wanted to (Romans 3:11; Acts 17:27).

As I started to read some commentaries on this problem, I have found that they don't spend much time on this clause since there's no uniform acceptance on how this verse should be rendered. The text, after all, only has three Greek words: pneumatikois pnuematika sugkrinonotes, which if we translate it literally reads, "Spiritual things to spiritual collate [or combine]." This is why this is so difficult.