My Theological Pigeonhole
(Current Statement of Beliefs)
Note:
The danger of pigeonholing others on the basis of their beliefs is often rightly warned
against, and probably applies in some ways to pigeonholing oneself as well. The practice
might easily be seen as an inappropriate elevation of the importance of doctrinal detail
over brotherly relationships and Godly love. There is also the related risk of seeming
too confrontational, as if the motive were to convince everyone who disagrees that they
are wrong. The failure to communicate and appreciate crucial nuances is almost
inevitable. Nevertheless, when such dangers are openly admitted, I think there is a place
for theological pigeonholing. Simply refraining from ever stating one’s beliefs is
not the answer, and in fact carries its own risk of potentially shocking and offending
others when they find out indirectly that you do not hold the views they may have always
assumed you did. Plus, sometimes it’s just plain interesting and instructive to
learn about other people’s positions. So I don’t think we have to be shy or
evasive about what we believe. Better to get it out in the open for all who care to see,
and just respect each others’ different interpretations.
Introduction
I am generally suspicious of those who never have to change their minds about anything.
I suspect it usually shows that they do not think deeply about their own beliefs. In my
case, at any rate, I admit that my theological outlook has undergone some fairly
significant modifications over the years. This has the unfortunate side-effect of
rendering some of my earlier writings not quite fully representative of my current
beliefs. Rather than retracting them all wholesale, or spending the time necessary to
fully update them in every case, I have decided to devote this page to the effort of
stating as systematically and succinctly as I can my current theological positions.
I will try to keep this page up-to-date as I go. I do not intend to address every
possible Christian belief, of course, but only those that seem to me to be significantly
debated in orthodox Christianity. This is, in other words, my attempt to map out my
basic set of beliefs within the vast, multidimensional world of Christian theology.
I hope it is helpful.
Fundamental view of God
-
I am a monotheist of a loosely trinitarian variety in that I affirm the oneness of God
as well as the deity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I’m not convinced that the
historical formulations of the doctrine of the Trinity (such as there being three
“persons” eternally existent in one “substance”) are necessarily
completely accurate, however, and I certainly don’t hold that all deviations from
these historical formulations are automatically out of bounds. I also think there’s
still a lot of mystery to be explored in what it means for Christ to be both human and
divine, and it seems to me that much of evangelicalism downplays this mystery somewhat
by taking an almost Docetic approach that sometimes fears to consider the probable noetic
limitations of His humanity, including on the development of His own understanding of who
He was.
-
I hold to the absolute sovereignty of God in ultimately determining everything that has
ever or will ever come to be (as opposed to the Arminian and open theism perspectives,
for example, which deny His sovereignty over human will).
Epistemological/apologetic framework
-
I hold to a mitigated skepticism, necessitating the courage to walk by faith, not sight
or absolute certainty. I would classify myself as having a rationalist, evidentialist
approach, as opposed to a presuppositionalist approach. I see much of evangelicalism as
tending too much toward mysticism and fideism in practice, not really bothering to dig
into why they believe what they do.
-
I believe God has given special revelation on significant occasions in the past,
authenticated by miraculous signs, but I am highly skeptical that He continues to give
such prophetic direction/communication, or any other miraculous sign gift, today.
(I do believe He continues to give wisdom and insight to those who ask and genuinely
seek.)
-
I affirm the value of general revelation and natural theology for genuine knowledge about
God. In practice this leads me to hold to theistic evolution (though not in any way
implying the absence of divine design). I take the creation and fall narratives as
examples of non-historical genre, intended to convey fundamental theological truths, not
literal history.
View of the Bible
-
I hold to Sola Scriptura in the sense of affirming the complete sufficiency of Scripture
to carry the saving and sanctifying message that God intended and providentially
preserved, with no additional special revelation (e.g., creedal statements or
authoritative decrees) expected or required.
-
I do not hold to absolute inerrancy. I believe Scripture is the word of God in roughly
the same sense that Paul’s preaching was the word of God, namely, in that it is
the basically accurate record and interpretation of God’s special revelation to
man through various events in redemptive history, including most importantly the events
surrounding the work of Jesus Christ. I therefore hold the Bible to be a container of
much objective truth rather than merely a vehicle for subjective or existentential
encounter as generally emphasized in liberalism and neo-orthodoxy. I affirm the value
of literary criticism in general, though I believe its adherents often take their
conclusions much farther than actually warranted.
Biblical hermeneutic and eschatology
-
I hold to neither dispensationalism nor covenant theology. I am closer to what is
sometimes called new covenant theology, seeing the Mosaic law as foreshadowing what was
to come rather than as an earlier stage of the same fundamental covenant as in covenant
theology. I see elements of both continuity and discontinuity between Israel (the true,
believing Israel) and the church.
-
I am an amillennialist, affirming both present and future (eternal) aspects of the kingdom
of God, but not an Israel-centric millennial form.
-
I believe in the resurrection and final judgment of both the saved and the lost, though I
do not insist that the judgment of the lost will necessarily consist in a literal
conscious torment throughout all eternity.
Soteriology
-
I hold to Sola Gratia and Sola Fide with an essentially Calvinist/Reformed view of salvation,
though with qualifications to the doctrine of limited atonement, since I think the atonement
is broader than the simple penal substitution view that Calvinism traditionally focuses on.
(I am open to idea of penal substitution as an aspect of the atonement, and I think it is at
the least a valid symbol of the atonement, but I am not necessarily convinced that it is the
fundamental nature of the atonement.)
-
I hold to what is sometimes termed Lordship salvation, affirming that true faith includes
a fundamental acknowledgment of oneself as under the authority of God.
-
Though not pluralist, I am basically inclusivist in that I hold to a very real possibility
for regeneration (by grace through faith) without specific knowledge of and belief in the
facts of the gospel, in a similar way to how people could be followers of God in the Old
Testament.
Ecclesiology and related issues
-
I am somewhat flexible on church practice and government. I value simplicity and spontaneity,
open participation in worship, active development of gift, and familial care for one another.
These are the primary reasons I currently fellowship with a small church that essentially
follows the Open Plymouth Brethren tradition, even though I do not agree with all of their
official doctrines.
-
I hold to credobaptism (i.e., for believers, not infants) and to the significance of the
ordinance of the Lord’s Supper being fundamentally symbolic in nature rather than
as an intrinsic channel of grace. I take both of these institutions to be valid apostolic
traditions that we have no reason to discontinue, even though as traditions I believe we
should also be somewhat flexible in the specifics of how we observe them, and not claim
any particular mode of observation is strictly commanded by God.
Morality and ethics
-
I believe in the objective reality of good and evil, not necessarily in the sense of having
some kind of ontological existence, but at least in the sense of having a real basis in the
character of God. I am not convinced of the personality of Satan and the demonic forces
behind the existence of evil. (I do not believe Scripture teaches that demons are fallen
angels, as is commonly supposed, but rather suspect they may be personifications of evil
“spirits,” which I think is a broad enough term to be used of various unseen
and impersonal but nevertheless very real influences of the flesh and present age, like
selfishness and materialism.)
-
I take morality to be based fundamentally on the valuation of what can be considered
intrinsically valuable in that it is apparently valued by God. This includes the valuation
of human life and on how God has created that life to relate to others, itself, and Him.
I believe God expects us to discover these truths through general revelation and through
the principles taught by Jesus and further elaborated by His apostles.
-
Although Jesus did not specifically address many sexual issues that are so debated in
today’s climate, I believe He taught the physical marriage relationship as portrayed
in Genesis 1 and 2 to be the sacred and intrinsically beautiful ideal, and I think that would
exclude homosexual and polygamous variations. Similar considerations lead me to a somewhat
complementarian stance with respect to gender roles, so that I think something of value would
be lost if the distinction between male and female were completely obliterated in our praxis.
I see the specifics of how this distinction should play out as being rather dependent on
cultural considerations, however, so that I am usually in practice more closely aligned with
the egalitarian position than the patriarchal view, with a general reluctance to make
absolute rules about such things.
-
I hold to the separation of church and state, not in any way necessitating the withdrawal
of Christians from the political process, but recognizing the state as responsible for
upholding a naturally revealed form of righteousness rather than a specifically Christian
worldview. (I am highly suspicious of the bias I sense in much of evangelical Christianity
in favor of political conservatism, though I am more moderate myself and equally skeptical
of political liberalism.)
This page copyright © 2011 Edward A. Morris.
Created May 12, 2011.
Last updated February 14, 2012.
Back to noble-minded.org home page