Hairsplitting Minutiae and a Question for You
Thursday, March 3, 2011 at 9:56AM 
There’s a comment from Kane Augustus on the last theological term post and I’ve decided to respond to it in a post.
When I was in Bible College and Seminary, I really enjoyed all the differences, shades, hues, and hair-splitting in theology. Now I wonder at it all: what’s the point of it?
First of all, this question seems to assume that differences in theology are “hairsplitting.” I would disagree. The differences—at least the ones that usually come up in the Theological Term of the Week posts—are more important than that. Here’s the thing about theological “minutiae”: they fit together to form a system. If we change what we believe on one detail, our whole system tends to change over time to make all our beliefs more consistent. Kind of like the “butterfly flapping his wings in Asia” thing. That means that what we may see as trivial or unimportant because we don’t see the whole picture at once, might, in the end, change the whole picture.
This is not to say that everyone needs to be as interested in the details of theology as I am. God gifts people differently and gives them different interests.
But it is right to value theology, because at its core, theology is about knowing God by studying what he is and who he is. For instance, in the post where you left your comment, the issue in question is what God purposed to accomplish in Christ’s death and what he actually accomplished in it. Answering those questions helps us know more about God himself and his work in our world. Wrestling with those questions is about valuing God himself by valuing knowledge about him. It’s about “loving God with all our minds” which is, after all, part of the first and greatest commandment.
Isn’t a personal confession enough?
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by personal confession. But I can say this: Confession is acknowledging something to be true. Whether by personal confession you mean acknowledging something about ourselves or acknowledging something about God, it involves theology. Underneath our personal confessions are answers to the questions, “Who am I, as a human being, before God?” and “Who and what is God that I should confess something to—or about—him?”
So, how do the minutiae in theology benefit, or bolster your life?
There’s an assumption behind this question, too, and it’s that the ultimate purpose of theology is to benefit or bolster our own lives. But isn’t the ultimate purpose of theology to give God honor by studying him and his work? It’s not that studying theology doesn’t benefit us, but that our benefit is not the ultimate reason to do it. The ultimate reason for studying the details of theology is the same as what should be the ultimate reason for everything we do: Giving God glory.
That said, I’d say one of the personal benefit of studying God and his works is that it builds my faith in God and his promises. And I’m sure there are other personal benefits as well, but rather than listing them myself, I’d like to ask the readers of this blog: How do you benefit from studying the details of theology?
Reader Comments (13)
Rebecca,
Oh, dear! After reading my questions and comments, and your responses to them, I really should've followed my first instinct and written in to your blog when I wasn't so tired. Neverthelesss, I was unwise and dogged, so I'll suck-up my foible and interact with your letter back to me. Thank you, also, for engaging with me in this exchange; I appreciate your willingness.
"First of all, this question seems to assume that differences in theology are “hairsplitting.” I would disagree. The differences—at least the ones that usually come up in the Theological Term of the Week posts—are more important than that. Here’s the thing about theological “minutiae”: they fit together to form a system."
Yes, you are entirely right. However, I think that your comment serves to prove a wider point of mine: that because there are different systems of theology, the differences included in those particular systems are more often than not comparative contrasts (e.g., the difference between transubstantiation, the Real Presence, and memorialism). This does not mean that those comparative differences are unimportant to the systems they belong to; they are notable differences because they are important to those systems. So what happens when there are differences within the same system--like within Calvinism--that result in pronouncements and anathemas?
When taken in a wider context, Amyraldism is just one point shy of pure Calvinism: Amyraut vouched for unlimited atonement, while Calvin staked his claim on limited atonement. They agree on everything else. Thus they are both forms of the same system: Calvinism. Amyraldism may be a "moderate" form of Calvinism, but so what?! The point is, it is a variation within the system of Calvinism and is, ergo, a minute difference. Some would say it is a split-hair.
Let me clarify here before I go on: I think there are times when it is absolutely necessary to split hairs. For example, it was an important difference to make between 'homoousious' and 'homoiousios' because it was important to establish what people believed Jesus to be, rather than what people believed Jesus was similar to. Such hair-splitting (i.e., whether to include an iota or not) inevitably ended up being beneficial for Christianity to flourish like it has, and to make a clear statement against so-called heretics. Because nobody actually knows anything about the essential natures of Jesus's incarnation, though, it really doesn't make a 'real' or 'palpable' difference to subtract the iota: it's a faith-based claim nonetheless.
That's all I can write to you for now. I'll have to write more tomorrow, if you don't mind. I want to go hold my baby girl. She's saying, "Dada, dada, ppppbbbb...", which is my cue to go get covered in drool! ;)
Studying theology (and I'm nowhere near the student that you are) gives me a bigger picture of the magnificence of God and of his love for His people. It also helps me focus on God and His work on our behalf and less focus on "me, me, me".
Kane,
Enjoy your little girl.
So what happens when there are differences within the same system--like within Calvinism--that result in pronouncements and anathemas?
I'm just saying the issues are important. Not saying, for instance, that limited vs unlimited atonement is worth anathamatizing over.
For example, it was an important difference to make between 'homoousious' and 'homoiousios' because it was important to establish what people believed Jesus to be, rather than what people believed Jesus was similar to.
See, I'd not agree with this....at all. I'd put it like this: It was an important difference to make between 'homoousious' and 'homoiousios' because it was important to affirm what Jesus was. The creed doesn't establish anything. It affirms what was established by the existence of the Son.
That's a big difference, don't you think? So then where you say "it's a faith-based claim," I'd say it's a reality-based claim. It's truth is established by the objective existence of the Son.
Studying the details of theology continues to remind me how little I know and how much more there is to know about God. I need to be reminded of this. It also continues to expand my view of God. The more I study, the bigger He gets.
Amyraldism may sound similar to Calvinism, but the distinction is by no means a split hair. At stake is the nature of the atonement itself. Did Christ's death satisfy sin's debt, or did it only make such satisfaction possible? If Christ's death only made satisfaction possible, then it did not provide any actual atonement, Whatever else Christ's death was, it can't rightly be called an atonement unless God's wrath over our sin is satisfied by it,
Thus the person who says that Christ's death was an unlimited atonement does not mean, by the word "atonement", the same thing as the person who says that Christ's death only atoned for those whom He saved. The former invent a new meaning by which the atonement accomplishes nothing in actuality, but introduces a subsequent potential - the later accept the plain meaning, and conclude Jesus did not satisfy God's wrath for those sinners presently, or soon to be, in hell.
curse those fruitless html tags! lol.
Daniel,
I fixed the tags. It seems they need to be lower case to work. (I learn something every day. :) )
I agree that limited vs unlimited atonement is important. If Christ's work is the centerpoint of God's work in history, then the nature of the atonement is one of the big issues.
"If we change what we believe on one detail, our whole system tends to change over time to make all our beliefs more consistent. Kind of like the “butterfly flapping his wings in Asia” thing. That means that what we may see as trivial or unimportant because we don’t see the whole picture at once, might, in the end, change the whole picture."
I suppose this is true, yes. Still, that really only pertains to our epistemological limitations now, and from what I can tell, won't make a spit of difference then; in the end, that is. And this is where I criticise theological systems for requiring faith in a particular system over and above the simple confession of faith in God. Eventually, such faith in a certain system of theology reduces into a belief in belief. God becomes a secondary consideration.
Does that make theology worthless, or useless? Not at all. Theology is useful as a guide, but--I think--can't be absolutist in its pronouncements or it ends up requiring faith in the theology espoused rather than the God it points to.
"This is not to say that everyone needs to be as interested in the details of theology as I am. God gifts people differently and gives them different interests."
That's fair. I used to be intensely interested in the details of theology. I've since branched out and become more of a generalist.
"But it is right to value theology, because at its core, theology is about knowing God by studying what he is and who he is. For instance, in the post where you left your comment, the issue in question is what God purposed to accomplish in Christ’s death and what he actually accomplished in it. Answering those questions helps us know more about God himself and his work in our world. Wrestling with those questions is about valuing God himself by valuing knowledge about him. It’s about “loving God with all our minds” which is, after all, part of the first and greatest commandment."
Very nicely stated. I agree. And, philosophically speaking, I have held to the notion for many years now that there is a difference between valuing what one perceives as true and finalizing what one perceives to be true as ultimately true, no matter what. In that respect, I consider theology to be valuable but not necessarily conclusive.
"I’m not sure exactly what you mean by personal confession. But I can say this: Confession is acknowledging something to be true. Whether by personal confession you mean acknowledging something about ourselves or acknowledging something about God, it involves theology. Underneath our personal confessions are answers to the questions, “Who am I, as a human being, before God?” and “Who and what is God that I should confess something to—or about—him?”"
I agree that theology underwrites our concerns as human beings. I personally think theology is a substrate of the larger, more general inclination to philosophise. So, from my perspective, confessing something means acknowledging something to be true as you presently perceive it, not as an absolute, which is what 'systems' of theology imply.
"There’s an assumption behind this question, too, and it’s that the ultimate purpose of theology is to benefit or bolster our own lives. But isn’t the ultimate purpose of theology to give God honor by studying him and his work? It’s not that studying theology doesn’t benefit us, but that our benefit is not the ultimate reason to do it. The ultimate reason for studying the details of theology is the same as what should be the ultimate reason for everything we do: Giving God glory."
Respectfully, I disagree. I think it is bad practice to attribute to someone else the reason for doing the things you do. Unless you are treating God as a muse from which you draw inspiration, the sole purpose for doing anything that interests you is simply because it interests you. Why give to another agent that which you have done for yourself? That is how I see things, anyway. I know you consider the purpose of theology differently: it is not a matter of self-interest but personal devotion. Nevertheless, no matter which way you look at it, you are the person interested in theology, and the pursuit of theological knowledge benefits you, not God.
Daniel,
"Amyraldism may sound similar to Calvinism, but the distinction is by no means a split hair. At stake is the nature of the atonement itself. Did Christ's death satisfy sin's debt, or did it only make such satisfaction possible? If Christ's death only made satisfaction possible, then it did not provide any actual atonement, Whatever else Christ's death was, it can't rightly be called an atonement unless God's wrath over our sin is satisfied by it."
Amyraldism is a form of Calvinism. It is considered "moderate Calvinism," even if its detractors consider it an unstable form of the same. I have no issues with you if you want to consider the difference between limited and unlimited atonement an important issue. But the fact remains: you really don't know the extent to which Christ's salvation extends. It is an assertion with no evidence, no assurance. It is, by definition, a faith-claim: you believe that Christ died for the sins of people, and you believe that a certain formulation of Christ's atonement is correct above all others. You therefore have faith not only in Christ, but also in the particular definition of soteriology you subscribe to. You have a belief, and you also have a belief in a belief.
"Thus the person who says that Christ's death was an unlimited atonement does not mean, by the word "atonement", the same thing as the person who says that Christ's death only atoned for those whom He saved. The former invent a new meaning by which the atonement accomplishes nothing in actuality, but introduces a subsequent potential - the later accept the plain meaning, and conclude Jesus did not satisfy God's wrath for those sinners presently, or soon to be, in hell."
Where is your evidence for what Christ has actually accomplished? What can you point to about the final state of the human soul that lets you know anything at all about its address? And do you really think that God is so dependent on our definitions of his work that if we get it wrong we may endanger the souls of those who, as of yet, do not believe? Further to that, why do you believe in hell at all? The notion of hell is a ridiculous, and monstrous rip-off of final sufferings found in Greek and Norse mythology, and that predate the Christian concept of eternal torture by almost a millenia. How wide is God's mercy and love, in your opinion?
Kane, thank you for taking a moment to address my comment.
I am not sure I can agree with you when you suggest that I have no evidence for my assurances regarding the nature of the atonement.
If we accept what the author of Hebrews writes concerning the old testament sacrificial system, and my presumption is that you do accept the authority of scripture, then we must conclude along with the author of Hebrews that the commands given the Levitical priests served to copy and shadow the things in heaven - things that waited until the Christ for their full earthly realization (cf. Hebrews 8). Thus we find tangible, clear, and even hard evidence to support a definition of the atonement that doesn't rely upon such vacuous things as soteriological bias.
Once each year, on the day of atonement, the High Priest offered up the atonement sacrifice for the sins of Israel, and not (I hasten to add with a sagely wink) the sins of the world. The atonement was not applied to those outside Israel. If you wanted the atonement sacrifice to apply to you, you had to become a Jew.
Even if you are not (for whatever reason) able to regard the Levitical system that as 'evidence', it is not correct to say that there is no evidence. Rather say you deny that evidence is evidential.
Thank God that He has not left us to invent our own soteriological systems, but has put them plainly in the pages of scripture, open and available to all who are willing to read the whole counsel of God.
I think, given your last few sentences, that we would disagree on the authority of scripture. Can I assume that you either believe the bible is not to be trusted as the last word on spiritual matters, or that you are so given to relativism that you honestly believe truth is unknowable?
me and my capital tags.. Sorry about that Rebecca.
Fixed it again. :)
And this is where I criticise theological systems for requiring faith in a particular system over and above the simple confession of faith in God.
How do we have faith in someone we don't know? And how do we know someone unless we know real things about them and real things about what they've done and are doing?
. So, from my perspective, confessing something means acknowledging something to be true as you presently perceive it, not as an absolute, which is what 'systems' of theology imply.
Yep. Systems of theology assume absolute truth. They assume that there is something beyond our present perceptions, and that our present perceptions may be true or may be false, depending on whether they match up (or not) with what is really there. If (or since) God exists, and if (or since) he's rational, and if (or since) he's revealed himself so that he can be known truly (although not fully), we'd expect that what is true of him and his work to form a system of theology.
My job and the job of every human being is to think God's thoughts after him, to acknowledge the truth that he's revealed. None of us does it perfectly—or anywhere close to perfectly— but that doesn't keep it from being our responsibility to do it.
I think it is bad practice to attribute to someone else the reason for doing the things you do. Unless you are treating God as a muse from which you draw inspiration, the sole purpose for doing anything that interests you is simply because it interests you. Why give to another agent that which you have done for yourself? That is how I see things, anyway.
This all seems so self-centered. As if each individual human being is the center of their own universe. As if we each inhabit our own story and that's all there is. As if there's nothing transcendent, no purpose beyond our own self-interests. As if there's no big story that makes sense of each of our individual stories. As if there's no meaning beyond....
Can you live like this? When you cuddle your daughter, is it always ultimately for your own benefit?
Nevertheless, no matter which way you look at it, you are the person interested in theology, and the pursuit of theological knowledge benefits you, not God.
I didn't say it benefited God, as if God were not a se, nor did I say it doesn't benefit me. But my benefit isn't the ultimate purpose, because I'm not the center of the universe. There is someone beyond me, and a purpose bigger than me, so if I'm living according to what is true, that means acknowledging the One beyond "from whom and through whom and to whom are all things." That means doing everything I do "to God"—to the one "to whom are all things."