For clarity of thought and expression, it is important to distinguish between two domains of discourse, viz. exegesis and theology. Of course, for those who want the “norming norm” of their theology to be Scripture, the links between the two disciplines must be much more than casual. Nevertheless, not only their respective methods, but even their respective vocabularies, can be very different.
Carson then discusses the different ways in which the Bible and Systematic/Historical Theology uses the words sanctification and reconciliation. He believes that the Bible teaches that sanctification is progressive, and God is reconciled to humanity, even if it never uses the terms sanctification and reconciliation to describe it.
He concludes, applying it to the doctrine of imputation, although its application is broader:
The bearing of these reflections is obvious. Even if we agree that there is no Pauline passage that explicitly says, in so many words, that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to his people, is there biblical evidence to substantiate the view that the substance of this thought is conveyed? And if such a case can be made, should the exegete be encouraged to look at the matter through a wider aperture than that provided by philology and formulae? And should we ask the theologian to be a tad more careful with texts called up to support the doctrine?
('The Vindication of Imputation: On Fields of Discourse and Semantic Fields')
0 comments:
Post a Comment