As far as epistemology is concerned, it does not matter if the leaders of the church at a given point in history were preterists or futurists, Calvinists or Armenians, annihilationists or traditionalists (on the subject of hell), theonomists or anti-nomians, complementarians or egalitarians, or Arians or Trinitarians. The mere fact that renowned figures hold to certain worldviews is not evidence for those worldviews, much less proof that they are correct!
Thus, whether an ideology was championed for prolonged periods of time or was proposed somewhat recently is a red herring at best. Showing which beliefs a group of people adopted throughout history is of no relevance to proving the veracity or probability of a philosophical stance--whether the stance pertains to theology, science, or philosophy as a whole. It is the consistency and verifiability of a claim that are of utmost importance. Unfortunately, these are the factors that are often trivialized in favor of assumptions.
Do the conclusions of an ideology follow from their premises? Is it logically possible for the premises to be true? If it is possible that they are true, can they be proven? These are the issues that sincere seekers of truth are concerned with, not whether specific theological ideas ever enjoyed popularity. There is no reason to harbor some special degree of respect for past Christians simply because they came before us, especially in light of the fact that they developed and popularized many of the heresies and theological fallacies that have never completely left the church.
No comments:
Post a Comment