Here is just part of a discussion that I've had recently with a Liberal Theological Professor. This is one of his responses to some of my questions.
"I think it is rather reductionistic to follow certain streams that disavows biblical theologization from philosophy - yes, I do appreciate their reasons for attempting to separate the two disciplines from one another and it merits some valid consideration. But, that ideology is itself a problematic notion in hermeneutical theory. You probably know too that Van Til's presuppositional apologetical theology like many early twentieth century older fundamentalism rests on a number of philosophical principles, such as a Baconian Scottish Common Sense Realism among others. These streams continue today, and is seen most evidently in certain evangelical traditions. Here, see Harriet Harris' Fundamentalism & Evangelicals by Oxford University Press. By the way, Van Til's methodology has been severely critiqued for making false conundrums. I would take him seriously but with lots of moderation. Scholars have written theological monographs reviewing his work among others. If you follow the general leads in the books I have offered you, you will be able to work it out, especially because you appear to have a passion in this area. Returning to our conversation, to claim that we can do theology or biblical exegesis as a separable discipline from philosophical underpinings is itself open to challenge. If we take seriously Gadamerian Truth & Method that hermeneutics is always a project of a fusion of horizons and through what he calls, historically-effected consciousness, and undergirded by certain philosophical perspectives that always informs how one performs the tasks of exegesis and interpretation, then, the task is uphill climb for those who hold a plain a-philosophical method of reading and theologizing. Many of the issues I have raised in my short response to you may be found variously in Stanley Grenz and Roger Olson's 20th Century Theology and Kevin Vanhoozer's Is There Meaning in This Text, and Drama of Doctrine. There is much ground covered between Olson and Vanhoozer, let alone Anthony Thiselton's Doctrine of Hermeneutics among others and Gadamer's significant body of literature, these inform our topic of discussion."
First off - He is making it very clear that he is writing me off as a "Fundamentalist." and therefor, I am being quickly relegated to complete non-consideration for future dialog.
Second - The assertion here is that we can not do proper Biblical exegesis and Hermeneutics without the aid of philosophy.
Basically the reasoning here is that the Bible isn't the infallible, inspired Word of an infallible, providential, sovereign, holy and righteous God; but rather a collection of historical documents; written by fallible men who were trying to understand a almost unknowable, transcendent God. So, the Bible then becomes just another fallible guide that points to a mostly unknowable God. So, this then opens up a Christian faith that is open to any medium of knowing God. Everything in a sense now can point to God; any other religion, our feelings and thoughts, i.e., anything written and or expressed by anyone. etc.. etc..
During our conversation, I addressed the topics of Atonement and Final Judgement and Original Sin.
He did not comment on those topics, but instead evaded them and by purposely doing so, affirmed to me that he in fact does not believe in those Biblical truths.
Wow. I'm thinking.... what in the world has people like him made into Christianity? It's absolutely sickening.
I think of all the old preachers who spent most of their time on their knees and in the Word. So much so that when they preached, Scripture would just poor out of them in a continuous flow; sweet like honey. I love listening to the old Reformed Preachers, their absolute love for God's Word and Truth is so precious. I image what they would think if we could show them the state of affairs in the Church today.
