I Don't Want "My Understanding"—I Want "Biblical Exposition"

Excerpt from Frank's manuscript, "Epistemological Problems of Theology"

From the Reformation to the Enlightenment, and continuing into the evolution of modern scientific theory, one fatal error has persisted: an obsession with treating natural science as a tool to explain theology, or conversely, forcibly imposing theology onto the territory of natural science.

Theology is a discipline with its own distinct boundaries. The Bible cannot be used to deduce knowledge in the field of natural science, nor can scientific theories be used to dissect the Bible. If we insist on doing so, our actions differ little from those of street fortune tellers. These charlatans pick up the basics of astronomy and astrology only to attach them to human destiny, or worse, analyze vague theories of fate to reverse-engineer the trajectories of planets.

This is a fundamental methodological error. The reason it is so difficult to detect—and why even mainstream contemporary theologians often fail to avoid it—lies in their background. They are often products of the modern educational system. The machinery of this system was never designed for the pure, rational logical deduction of Scripture. Most people are raised in an academic environment that emphasizes positivism, an environment that is structurally at odds with the pure, a priori logical deduction required for biblical study.

My objection here is not directed at theology or the Bible itself. The logic is obvious: just because I advise someone against eating glass doesn't mean I am opposed to the existence of glass; rather, I am firmly opposed to the absurd and lethal method of "eating it." As a Christian, I cannot stand idly by when I see others applying flawed logic to deduce biblical and theological theories.

Now, some brothers and sisters might say, "You lack love, and you lack self-reflection." Where does this accusation come from? It is rooted in "Affect" (Latin: Affectus). Let us dissect the terms "Affect" and "Reason" (Latin: Ratio). "Affect" merely implies a psychological touch or emotional reaction. "Reason" implies inferring from one’s past experiences—its boundaries, therefore, can never exceed those experiences. To approach things that transcend experience or the senses via the path of "Reason" is like climbing a tree to catch fish—a futile endeavor. Neither "Affect" nor "Reason" has any bearing on theological logical deduction. "My understanding" does not shift the iron law of the Ten Commandments one iota. Even if I hypothesize ten thousand times that "premarital sex is fine—I don't consider it a sin," it does not change the fact that premarital sex is a sin. Sin is self-evident; it possesses an explanatory power that precedes all personal feelings. Whether one "understands" it or not, or however one feels about it, sin remains standing there, immovable. For any believer, what the Bible expounds is absolute truth; nothing is more truthful 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 a Christian's feelings and experiences are worthless? Absolutely not. We must distinguish between the Root and the Fruit. The objective truth of the Bible is the Root of faith; it is firm and unshakeable. When we truly align with this truth, the Holy Spirit works within us to bear Fruit—peace, joy, and assurance. These are things we can "feel" and "experience." However, these precious experiences are the result of submitting to the truth, not the standard by which we judge the truth. We do not seek to define truth by our feelings; rather, we seek to live out a renewed life within the truth, thereby obtaining the beautiful feelings that befit the truth.

Theological deduction must transcend the realm of experience, just as "sin" has been innate since Adam and Eve (Original Sin). Relying solely on the pure biblical text, everyone should realize that humanity possesses original sin. We do not express this by saying "I feel I have original sin" or "I understand I have original sin." Such statements are meaningless because today’s "feeling" and "understanding" could be entirely different tomorrow.

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

My Understanding	The Bible's Exposition
→ Fallible (Error-prone)	→ Infallible
→ Open to discussion	→ Requires clarification (Truth)
→ Imports personal experience & stance	→ Lets Truth speak (No personal opinion inserted)

Developments in the natural sciences have led to many explanations that seemingly "overturn" the Bible. Even elementary school students can effortlessly cite the most striking examples: "Biological Evolution," "The Big Bang," "Creationism issues"...

We must clarify that we are not denying science. On the contrary, theology holds that God 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 actually exploring the traces of God's work, revealing His power and wisdom. However, General Revelation can only lead man to know "there is a God," not "who God is." It raises questions but cannot provide ultimate answers, nor can it reveal the path of redemption. This is why we need the Bible, the clearer and more complete "Special Revelation."²

Someone says: "I believe in science, I don't believe in Jesus, and I can't believe He resurrected. The reason is that science cannot explain the resurrection. Science cannot understand it, nor can it expound upon it."

He then claims: "Human descriptions of everything are based on their own understanding, so time, space, etc., in the universe are all defined by humans..."

Faced with such questions, most people either choose to escape, saying, "We believe because of faith, not because of science," or they simply cannot logically refute these statements.

All of these consequences are entirely due to humanity attempting to understand through a chaotic framework that mixes natural science with theology.

As for the statement "Time and space in the universe are defined by humans"—who defined that statement? This definition certainly does not belong to science either.

Natural science has only existed for a few hundred years, yet it is astonishing that hardly anyone explicitly points out this fundamental contradiction.

Theology is an independent discipline; it has never sought to prove anything through science.

Adhering to objective truth is not equivalent to personal pride. One deduces purely from the biblical text—which transcends experience—the logic is unassailable. Handing the authority of judging truth over to one's own fickle "understanding" and "feelings" is what actually constitutes self-righteousness. For centuries, countless theologians have fallen into this chaotic quagmire. What we uphold is not the correctness of "me," but the authority of the Bible.

In this regard, many fall into a fixed mindset: "Our perception of the world is either emotional or rational."

Why does this oversimplified dichotomy still have a market? If the world exists only in the dimensions of emotion and reason, then the "spirituality of sanctification" spoken of by Christians would not exist. Where does this error originate? In the history of human development, natural science spawned a wave of "Rationalism," leading many to purely believe that we are "Rationalists." This is a complete fallacy. God's creation of humanity was absolutely not some so-called "Rationalist" project. And what does the Bible explain? The Bible explains nothing of the sort. "Rationalism" is a term born of the evolution of natural science and philosophy; it has absolutely nothing to do with the system of theology.

Needless to say, the guidance and application of the Bible in daily life do not belong to the category of theological reasoning. Because life itself involves making mistakes; living implies entering a field full of human sin. After all, for every believer, what awaits is the Messiah's Paradise.

Notes

The Belgic Confession (1561), Article 2. This confession explicitly 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..." ↩
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 chapters, Calvin systematically expounds on the function and limitations of general revelation, emphasizing that without the "spectacles" of Scripture, fallen humanity cannot correctly interpret the "book" of nature. ↩