Not "My Understanding," But "The Bible's Exposition"

From the Reformation to the Enlightenment, and down to the evolution of modern scientific theories, a fatal error has consistently run through it all: people are obsessed with treating natural science as a tool to interpret theology, or conversely, with forcibly applying theology to the domain of natural science.

Theology, by its nature, is a discipline with independent boundaries. The Bible can never be made to yield knowledge in any field of natural science, nor can it be dissected by scientific theories. If we insist on doing so, our actions are little different from those of a street-corner fortune-teller. The fortune-teller, after all, learns a smattering of astronomy and astrology to project onto a person's fate; or, after analyzing some vague theory of destiny, turns back to deduce the trajectories of planets.

This is a fundamental methodological error. The reason this error is not easily detected, and that even mainstream contemporary theologians may not avoid it, is rooted in their origins within the modern educational system. The work of this educational machine has never been the pure and rational logical deduction of Scripture. Because most people are raised in an academic environment that emphasizes positivism, this environment itself is in structural conflict with the pure, a priori logical deduction of the Bible.

The reason I raise this objection is not to oppose theology or the Bible itself. The principle is self-evident. Just as my objection to a person eating glass is not an objection to the substance of glass itself, I staunchly oppose the absurd and potentially fatal method of "eating glass." If I see someone using flawed logic to deduce the theories of the Bible and theology, as a Christian, I cannot stand idly by.

Now, a brother or sister might say, "You have no love; you have no introspection." Where does this statement come from? It is rooted in "affect" (Latin: *Affectus*). Let us dissect the words "affect" and "reason" (Latin: *Ratio*). "Affect" merely signifies a psychological stirring or an emotional reaction, whereas "reason" means to draw conclusions based on one's personal past experiences—its boundaries, therefore, can never transcend one's own experience. For anything that transcends experience or is beyond the reach of the senses, to approach it through the path of "reason" is to look for fish in a tree. "Affect" and "reason" have nothing to do with theological deduction, because "my understanding" does not alter the ironclad law of the Ten Commandments in the slightest, just as it makes no difference if I were to suppose a thousand times, "What's the harm in premarital sex? I don't consider it a sin." This does not affect the fact that premarital sex is a sin. Sin is self-evident; its authority to define precedes all personal feelings. Regardless of whether a person "understands" it or how a person "feels" about it, sin is still there, standing firm. What the Bible expounds is absolute truth; nothing is more true than the Bible.

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

— John 14:6

Does this mean, then, that a Christian's feelings and experiences are worthless? By no means. We must distinguish between the Foundation and the Fruit. The objective truth of Scripture is the Foundation of our faith, and it is unshakable. When we genuinely align ourselves with this truth, the Holy Spirit works within us to bear Fruit—peace, joy, assurance—which we can indeed "feel" and "experience." But these precious experiences are the result of submitting to the truth; they are not the standard by which we judge the truth. Our pursuit, therefore, is not to define truth by our feelings, but to live out a renewed life in the truth and thereby come to possess the beautiful feelings that correspond to it.

Theological deduction must transcend the realm of experience, just as original sin is congenital after Adam and Eve. Through the pure text of Scripture alone, any person should recognize that humanity has original sin, rather than expressing it with words like "I feel I have original sin" or "I understand I have original sin." Such expressions are meaningless, for today's "feeling" and "understanding" will be completely different tomorrow.

I do not want "my understanding"; I want "what the Bible expounds."

My Understanding The Bible's Exposition
→ Fallible / Can be wrong → Infallible / Cannot be wrong
→ Debatable / Open to discussion → Requires clarification (of the Truth)
→ Brings in personal experience, stance → Lets the Truth speak (without expressing personal opinions)

The development of the natural sciences has led to many explanations that seemingly "overturn" the Bible. The most memorable examples can be readily cited even by schoolchildren: "the theory of evolution," "the Big Bang," "the problem with creationism"...

It must be clarified here that we are not denying science. On the contrary, theology holds that God has left two books: one is the Bible (special revelation), and the other is the universe He created (general revelation).1 When science studies the universe, it is in fact exploring the traces of God's work, which can reveal His power and wisdom. However, general revelation can only let people "know that God exists, but not who God is." It can raise questions but cannot provide the final answers, much less reveal the path to salvation. This is why we need the Bible, the clearer and more complete "special revelation."2

A schoolchild says, "I believe in science, not Jesus. I can't possibly believe He was resurrected. The reason is that science cannot explain resurrection. Science can neither understand nor articulate resurrection."

Next, he claims, "Humanity's descriptions of all things are based on our own understanding, so time, space, and so on in the universe are all defined by humans..."

Faced with these kinds of questions, most people either choose to evade, saying, "We believe because of faith, not because of science," or they are unable to logically refute the schoolchild's statements directly.

All of these consequences are entirely due to humanity's attempt to understand through a chaotic framework that mixes natural science and theology.

Regarding the schoolchild's question, I have a question that he might be angered to hear: "Then, who defined the statement, 'time, space, and so on in the universe are all defined by humans'? It was heard, at least, from your mouth. You made that definition, but that definition itself certainly does not belong to science."

Although natural science has only been around for a few hundred years, it is astonishing that so few people have explicitly pointed out this fundamental contradiction.

Theology must become an independent discipline. This is a question worthy of serious consideration by every theologian; otherwise, we will always be trapped in the mire of self-righteousness.

Some might consider my words to be "self-righteous." But behind this rebuttal may lie a misunderstanding that equates insisting on objective truth with personal pride. We need to gently but firmly distinguish: if making deductions purely based on the supra-experiential text of the Bible is self-righteous, then what does it mean to hand over the authority to judge truth to one's own ever-changing "understanding" and "feelings"? What we insist on is not the correctness of "me," but the authority of the Bible.

On this point, many fall into a fixed mindset: "When it comes to our perception of the world, we are either emotional or rational."

Why does this oversimplified dichotomy still have a market? If the world only existed in these two dimensions, emotion and reason, then the "sanctified spirituality" that Christians speak of would not exist. So where does this error come from? In the history of human development, natural science gave birth to a "Rationalist" trend of thought, and many people purely believe we are "rationalists"—this is a complete fallacy. God's creation of humanity was by no means a "rationalist" project. And what does the Bible explain? The Bible explains nothing related to "rationalism." You've guessed it: "rationalism" is a term created by the development of natural science and philosophy; it has nothing to do with the system of theology.

Another brother or sister might say, "What you're saying is too one-sided."

Yes, if I could be comprehensive, I would be God. Let's think about it this way: since this brother or sister says so, does that mean your thinking is comprehensive? Or rather, how should we define "comprehensive"? Oh, just because a coin is tossed, and I conclude, "it's either heads or tails," and I say, "I can draw no other conclusion"—I sometimes hear the critique of being "one-sided." Well, regarding this coin, what other conclusion can I possibly reach besides it being either heads or tails? I'm afraid no one can reach any other conclusion. What we are pursuing is precisely to arrive at the most logical, least "one-sided" conclusion possible within the bounds of what Scripture has revealed.

Needless to say, the guidance and application of the Bible in life do not fall within the scope of theological deduction. Because life itself is prone to error; life means entering a domain filled with human sin. After all, we are waiting for the Messiah's paradise.

Brothers and sisters, I am not being insolent or arrogant. Before God, I have nothing I can give Him.

Who has measured the Spirit of the LORD, or what man shows him his counsel?
— Isaiah 40:13

Who has first given to me, that I should repay him? Whatever is under the whole heaven is mine.
— Job 41:11

Who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?
— Romans 11:35

This text is a draft excerpt from a chapter of Frank Xiang's forthcoming book, Epistemological Problems of Theology, which is projected for completion in the next five to six years.

Notes

  1. The Belgic Confession (1561), Article 2. This confession clearly states: "We know Him by two means: First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe, which is before our eyes as a most elegant book..." ↩

  2. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 1.6.1. Here and in subsequent sections, Calvin systematically explains the function and limitations of general revelation, emphasizing that without the "spectacles" of Scripture, fallen humanity cannot correctly interpret the "book" of nature. ↩