Read on Twitter
There is no such thing as a doctrine which "makes good sense theologically but not exegetically." We need to stop saying this. Good theology is exegetically sound, and good exegesis is theologically consistent. 1/8
Such thinking misconceives theology as something other than the coherent holding-together of the exegesis of individual texts of Scripture. And it misconceives exegesis as something other than that which must press to a conclusion -- a conclusion which must be... 2/8
...coherently held together with the exegetical conclusions of all the rest of Scripture. In reality, genuine theology can only arise from sound exegesis, and genuine exegesis must issue in sound theology. The same can be said in response to those... 3/8
...who similarly dichotomize exegesis and "logic," i.e., sound reasoning. Nothing follows from the truth except that which is true. The implications of Scripture deduced by good and necessary consequence are no less biblical than that which is expressly set down in Scripture. 4/8
So, to reject a doctrine because "it makes sense logically but not exegetically" is implicitly to suppose that sound exegesis could be illogical, or that truth could follow from falsehood. Such a supposition is, quite literally, nonsense. 5/8
And so I would say that its proponents are welcome to and may keep their nonsense exegesis. Scripture may transcend reason, but it is never contrary to reason. And so while God is incomprehensible, He is genuinely knowable by virtue of the revelation of His mind in Scripture. 6/8
Since that one Mind that produced the Scriptures is not the author of confusion but is entirely consistent with Himself, God intends each passage of Scripture to be understood as part of a coherent whole. 7/8
If your exegesis leads to a conclusion that does not cohere with the exegetical conclusions of any other passage of Scripture, it's your exegesis that's unsound. 8/8
