A Proper Framework Bailey Towne, April 28, 2022March 12, 2023 Quantum mechanics cannot be explained in the framework of classical mechanics. Likewise, the salvific truths in Scripture cannot be explained in the framework of human philosophy. Unfortunately, this error has become all too prevalent in seminaries and churches around the world. I have spent many years trying to understand why it is that we have so many divisions within the church. Some of these minor divisions are relatively obvious and can be traced back to denominational traditions or interpretive nuances. This however does not explain the major divisions within the church, specifically those that relate to soteriology and Christology. Through my studies I have come to recognize an underlying framework that tends to pull people away from the truths found in Scripture and pushes them towards an Arminian understanding of theology and sometimes even a unitarian understanding of the nature of our Lord Jesus Christ. What I mean by ‘framework’ is a set or system of axioms used to explain and understand relevant subjects. For example, going back to the physics statement, if I want to understand quarks (subatomic particles) I would need to stay within the confines of quantum mechanics, regardless of whether or not I fully understood this discipline (which I do not). If I were to try to apply it to the more comfortable framework of classical mechanics I would not be able to do so without distorting the truth. The nature of God and of heavenly things are incredibly complex, far more complex than even quantum physics I can assure you. After all, we are talking about the one who created the very universe that we are still struggling to understand using such disciplines. So when the Bible says something that is complex and confusing we should not be surprised. Likewise we must be careful not to misinterpret the Word of Truth by forcing it into a more comfortable framework, specifically human philosophy. All too often I read theologians who write things like: “sound reason demands that there is no responsibility where there is no ability to respond… reason also demands that all moral creatures are morally free”1. or: “He/she has just proposed something entirely illogical according to the rules of simple language… The proposition “Jesus is God and the Father is God, but that is not two Gods” sounds like the Athanasian Creed which involves a blatant contradiction and results in a non-scriptural and non-intelligible statement about God.”2. The problem with these statements again resides in the framework. Sound reason? Illogical? According to what framework? It is ‘reasonable’ to say that if God so loved the World that everyone that ever lived will be saved. And the Universalists have come to that conclusion. Or that since God is sovereign and His providence transcends all of creation people are not really responsible for their actions. This however rejects the divine framework in which the Bible was written. Scripture teaches us that God is sovereign (Job 42:2, Isa. 45:7-9, Mat. 10:29, Col. 1:16-17, Eph. 1:11) but also teaches us that we are responsible for our actions (Eze. 18:20, Luk. 12:48, Rom. 14:12, 2 Cor. 5:10). That does not make a whole lot of sense in the framework of human philosophy because, well, its just not fair. Also, how can it be that the Son of God could be both man and God at the same time? And why, if Jesus is God, did He pray to God? How does that make any rational sense? Again, in the framework of human philosophy or the natural world it does not make sense. We must change our framework which is defined by the whole counsel of God – tota Scriptura. We must recognize that even the greatest theological minds have only scratched the surface of the divine nature of God and His ways. Therefore we must accept what Scripture teaches; both what the Holy Spirit has revealed to us as well as those things that leave us scratching our heads. It is better for us to say, “the Bible teaches this and I do not understand it”, than to say, “the Bible teaches this and since it does not make sense to me the way it is written it must mean [enter rational statement here]”. Norman Geisler. Chosen But Free. Bethany House Publishers. Bloomington, MN, 2010. p. 42. Anthony Buzzard. How Many Yahwehs are There? 21st Century Reformation. 25 October 2018. Theology Hermeneutics; Theology; Framework