How to Solve a Theological Dilemma when Scripture Doesn’t Clearly Solve It: An Exercise in Theological Method

Last updated on: January 23, 2014 at 1:35 pm by Roger E. Olson

How to Solve a Theological Dilemma when Scripture Doesn’t Clearly Solve It: An Exercise in Theological Method 2014-01-23T13:35:02-05:00 Roger E. Olson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

How to Solve a Theological Dilemma when Scripture Doesn’t Clearly Solve It

Roger E. Olson

When I teach or speak on theology I often say “The Bible is not as clear about many things as we wish it were.”

1. One of the major differences between “fundamentalists” and others (e.g., “moderates”) is the belief that Scripture alone does settle every important theological issue. To fundamentalists, there can only be one right “biblical” belief about every given important issue of Christian life and thought. The Bible is viewed as a comprehensive source book of revealed doctrines (and ethical rules). Thus, when two Christians disagree about the Bible’s meaning as it pertains to a doctrinal or theological issue, the fundamentalist believes one of them (or both) must necessarily be misinterpreting and even perhaps dishonoring the Bible. The non-fundamentalist, on the other hand, will often say the Bible is not perfectly clear about some important issues and therefore we need to use other sources and norms if the issue must be settled at all. (“Settled” here does not necessarily mean “imposed” on anyone, but it might mean a pastor, for example, needs to decide what he or she believes in order to communicate that to a congregation or inquiring parishioner.)

2. The problem with the fundamentalist approach is that equally God-fearing, Jesus-loving, Bible-believing Christians have disagreed for centuries (sometimes all the way back to the earliest Christians) about the Bible’s meaning on some important issues. Also, on some important issues fundamentalists themselves disagree among themselves about the Bible’s meaning. (Of course, in that case, they will usually divide and cast aspersions at the other fundamentalists as not truly fundamentalists but something else.)

3. Another problem with the fundamentalist approach is that it ignores or overlooks the fact that on some important issues the Bible seems to speak with more than one “voice.” On some such issues most Christians have simply agreed to disagree and “move on.” Does the Bible have to always speak with one “voice?” Is it possible that the Bible is not perfectly clear in some cases? Could it be that we want and even need answers the Bible doesn’t clearly give us?

4. When an issue is a pressing one, moderate, non-fundamentalist Christians often take an approach to solving the dilemma the Bible does not solve by turning to tradition. But, of course, whose tradition? then becomes the question. And, as all Protestants admit, even the “Great Tradition” can be wrong. Tradition gets a vote, but never a veto. Luther himself approached the issue of justification this way. He appealed to “reason” and “conscience” over against tradition to interpret the Bible.

5. Assuming the issue is not settled by tradition (or the person needing to settle it for himself or herself does not agree with tradition)—what then? Reason is the third criterion. By “reason” I mean logical consistency between doctrines and consistency of doctrines with the “material facts” of the world. Begin by asking “What bearing does what I believe the Bible is clear about and/or tradition says have on this dilemma?” In other words, turn to more basic beliefs and draw a line of reason from them to what must be the right answer in the dilemma under consideration. For example: If you are unsure whether a truly saved person can ever fall away from salvation and be eternally lost, and you don’t think Scripture settles the question, ask whether you are a Calvinist. If you are a Calvinist, that settles the question. It is logically impossible to be a true Calvinist and believe in real apostasy (falling away entirely and forever from God’s saving grace). That is because if you are saved it is because you are one of God’s elect and if you are elect God has drawn you to himself irresistibly… If you are not a Calvinist and you find that Scripture does not settle the issue, ask yourself what other beliefs can guide you to the right answer. You might be guided there by belief in God’s keeping power based on his character and omnipotence. But, then, you might ask yourself about free will. Why would a saved person no longer have free will to reject grace?

6. If reason does not solve the issue (e.g., by appeal to more basic beliefs and logic), turn to experience. “Experience” here does not necessarily mean your own private, subjective experience. As Luther said, that can be a “wax nose that any knave [villain] can twist to suit his own countenance.” So what “experience,” then? Perhaps the collective experience of the people of God in your community of faith. But, in the end, sometimes you do have to appeal to your own personal experience when Scripture, tradition and reason do not settle the issue. Some Christians, for example, are convinced that the issue of possible apostasy versus eternal security is not settled by Scripture, tradition or reason. But they believe they know of people who were once really saved and then fell totally away. Or, on the contrary, a person might “feel” such a strong keeping power of God in their own life in spite of temptation and even “backsliding” that they are convinced God never allows a saved person totally to fall away.

7. Sometimes Scripture is so unclear about an issue that needs to be decided (for an individual or a group) that the only way to settle on one belief about the issue is to decide which of two or more beliefs permitted by Scripture, tradition, reason and experience has the fewest problems and/or the problem(s) you can live with better than the others. For example, both Calvinism and Arminianism can be supported from Scripture, tradition, reason and experience. Debates over “predestination” and “free will” have gone on for centuries and always end in an impasse between equally God-fearing, Bible-believing Christians. So how to decide? For many people the only way to decide is to embrace the view that has the least problems and ones that they can live with.

8. Back to fundamentalism versus non-fundamentalism: A fundamentalist will reject this entire method of solving theological and doctrinal dilemmas because it admits ambiguity in the Bible about even some important theological and doctrinal issues which is impossible from a fundamentalist point of view. Many non-fundamentalists will also reject this method for a very different reason: they are so comfortable with ambiguity (and perhaps afraid of fundamentalism) that they don’t feel any need to settle doctrinal and theological issues about which the Bible is not crystal clear. Both approaches have problems, however. The fundamentalist approach leads to numerous schisms and divisions to say nothing of imposing personal opinions on the Bible and making all doctrinal and theological issues equally important. The opposite approach leads to warm, fuzzy spirituality devoid of cognitive content and leaves inquiring minds without satisfying answers.

(Illustrating anecdote: Some years ago I attended a meeting of theologians where the main topic of discussion was Calvinism, Arminianism, and Open Theism. There were advocates of the three views present. Two well-known Calvinist theologians fell into disagreement over whether the Bible settles the Calvinism versus Arminianism issue: Do humans have free will, even when enabled by prevenient grace, to resist grace intended by God for their salvation? A leading British Calvinist philosopher-theologian argued it does not, much to the chagrin of his American counterpart. The British theologian argued that because the Bible is not as clear about this as we wish it were, we must turn to systematic theology and base Calvinism on justification by grace alone through faith alone. The American Calvinist emphatically stated that such a crucial doctrine as effectual grace must be found clearly taught in Scripture and it is.)

Uncategorized

Previous Post

January 20, 2014

Why I Am Not a Deist (No Offense to Deists)

Next Post

January 24, 2014 Brian Abasciano's Response to Responses to His Guest Blog Post Here re: Arminianism

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Against Liberal Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

In the Parable of the Good Samaritan, who ignored the injured man before the Samaritan helped?

Select your answer to see how you score.

A farmer and a shepherd A fisherman and a tax collector A Roman soldier and a scribe A priest and a Levite