My Theological Pigeonhole

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.)

Back to noble-minded.org home page