The Hermeneutics of Deception

¹⁴ But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it ¹⁵ and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. ¹⁶ All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, ¹⁷ that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

2 Timothy 3:14-17

           

            The Hermeneutics of Unbelief gives birth to a son.  And his son’s name is the Hermeneutics of Deception.  Unbelief makes life difficult to bear.  The imprint of the image of God in humanity cannot be denied.  The spirit of man continues to search for God.  John Calvin called that tendency as the seed of religion.  Cornelius Van Til called it as

The Hermeneutics of Unbelief

¹⁴ But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it ¹⁵ and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. ¹⁶ All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, ¹⁷ that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

2 Timothy 3:14-17

           

            The biggest problem in Christianity is the problem of hermeneutics.  Since the beginning, the way humans interpret the word of God has become the source of grief.  In the Reformed tradition, we recognize that there are two revelations of God.  One is called General Revelation, which we can find

The New “Gnosticism” of the 20th and 21st Centuries

¹⁸ For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. ¹⁹ For it is written,“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

²⁰ Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? ²¹ For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. ²² For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, ²³ but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, ²⁴ but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. ²⁵ For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

²⁶ For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. ²⁷ But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; ²⁸ God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, ²⁹ so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. ³⁰ And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, ³¹ so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

1 Corinthians 1:18-31

           

            In the “Christian History Magazine – Issue 96: The Gnostic Hunger for Secret Knowledge,” there is a subheading under “Defining the Faith” that spells: “Gnosticism emerged during a time when Christians faced an identity crisis.”  Church Fathers such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement, and so on, battled Ancient Gnosticism fiercely.  Gnostic heresy led a lot of Christians astray.  One of its dangerous teachings is mentioned in the Christian History Magazine – Issue 96:

The Impact of Consumerism and Market Oriented Culture to Human Spirituality

²⁷ And Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. And on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” ²⁸ And they told him, “John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others, one of the prophets.” ²⁹ And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.” ³⁰ And he strictly charged them to tell no one about him.

³¹ And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again. ³² And he said this plainly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. ³³ But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

³⁴ And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. ³⁵ For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it. ³⁶ For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? ³⁷ For what can a man give in return for his soul? ³⁸ For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”

Mark 8:27-38

           

            Mark records one of the most important events in the life of Jesus.  Peter, as the main source of the gospel of Mark, gives Mark firsthand experience of the event.  It happens when Jesus asks his disciples the most crucial question of all time.  This is the question that shakes every foundation.  This is the question that challenges every belief.  This is the question that reorients people to the right direction.  Only by answering this question right that people may begin to live properly.  His disciples are pushed to the limit by two simple questions.  First question is about what people say regarding Jesus.  This is an easier version of the question, because it only requires research.  A simple investigation and reporting skill will suffice in

The Voice of the Pulpit : The Business of Christian Education LXXIX

¹⁸ Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. ¹⁹ But Peter and John replied, “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges! ²⁰ As for us, we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.”

Acts 4:18-20

            The elite religious leaders of the time were gathered together and threatened Peter and John.  They used their position in power to stop God’s works.  Earlier, Peter and John performed a miracle.  They healed a lame man in the name of Jesus Christ.  And every day they came to the temple to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ’ salvation to the people.  Many believed.  But the religious leaders did not like what they saw.  After all, they were the ones conspiring to murder Jesus through the hands of the Gentiles.  They were the ones refusing to believe in the word of Jesus Christ.  But Peter and John received a vivid command from their Master.  And they intended to keep the command and obediently making sure that his command was followed every step of the way.  So when the religious leaders, scary and intimidating they were, made a serious threat to them, Peter and John spoke boldly and they stood their ground saying: “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges! ²⁰ As for us, we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.”

To Believe or To Reason

Apakah agamawan mendasarkan worldview nya kepada iman saja tanpa rasio? Apakah ilmuwan mendasarkan worldview nya kepada rasio saja tanpa iman? Dua pertanyaan itu jawabnya TIDAK.

Rene Descartes membuat tonggak di mana rasio dan iman independen antara satu sama lain. Dengan keunikan argumentasinya yang dimulai dari doubt, dia berupaya membuktikan keberadaan Allah. Dengan demikian Descartes melandaskan pembuktian keberadaan Allah atas argumentasi logika saja. Tetapi bila diteliti lebih lanjut, upaya Descartes mengundang banyak pertanyaan, sebab di dalamnya banyak asumsi2 yang bisa diragukan. Misalnya ketika dia pada akhirnya menyimpulkan "I Think Therefore I AM," maka bisa ditanyakan "How do you know that you think? Why your thinking isn't an illusion? How do you know that when you think you exist?" Maka mau tidak mau Descartes seharusnya sudah memiliki presuposisi tertentu yang mendasari pemikirannya. Alvin Plantinga dan Nicholas Wolterstorff berargumentasi bahwa presuposisi dasar itu adalah Faith.

Secara khusus Plantinga menekankan bahwa faith itu basic. Dalam hal ini, Plantinga berbicara soal method dan bukan content dari knowledge. Di dalam argumentasi epistemolgi antara foundationalism, coherentism, atau warrantism, kesemuanya berbicara mengenai content. Faith itu basic, dan penjelasan akan hal ini sudah dimulai sejak Agustinus, yang diteruskan ke Anselm, Calvin, dst. Paul Hiebert di dalam konsep cirtical realism epistemology, memberikan penjelasan bahwa pembentukan grid kategori seseorang dimulai dengan iman dan bukan reason. Dia memberi contoh seorang anak yang baru pertama kali diajak oleh ibunya melihat bebek, maka baru pertama kali bertemu bebek, bertanya kepada ibunya: "Itu apa?" Maka ibunya menjawab: "Bebek." Dan si anak menerima dengan iman jawaban ibunya, dan di register kan ke dalam grid kategorinya. Dalam kenyataannya, si anak tidak meragukan ibunya, lalu lari ke perpustakaan mencari ensiklopedia untuk menyelidiki apakah benar binatang tadi itu bebek. Kalaupun dia konsultasi dengan ensiklopedia, bukankah jika dia menerima jawaban ensiklopedia itu, dia sudah menaruh iman kepada ensiklopedia itu? Kembali kepada ibu dan anak tadi. Mereka akhirnya bertemu dengan angsa, lalu si anak berteriak "Bebek, bebek!" sambil menunjuk kepada angsa. Si ibunya bilang: "Bukan, itu bukan bebek, itu angsa." Kembali si anak menerima dengan iman jawaban ibunya, dan me register kan jawaban itu ke dalam grid kategori nya. Demikian ketika seorang dewasa beroperasi, iman tetaplah menjadi landasan-thus faith is basic. Misalnya, di pengadilan ada kasus pembunuhan. Si A dituduh membunuh Z. Pisau yang dianggap dipakai untuk membunuh dijadikan bukti. Dikatakan pada pisau tsb ada sidik jari A, dan darah Z. Maka kelihatannya kesimpulan pasti konklusif bahwa A membunuh Z. Tetapi sistem pengadilan tidak bisa demikian, harus die stablish motive, dan membuktikan bahwa A memang membunuh Z. Dan usaha pembuktian ditimbang melalui STORY. Lho, bukankah evidence sudah nyata? Betul, tetapi evidence bisa dipalsu ataupun kesimpulan bisa keliru. Misal, pisau itu, atas dasar pisau itu sendiri tidak bisa membuktikan pembunuhan apa2. BIsakah ceritanya si Z bunuh diri, dan kebetulan A berada di sana untuk berusaha mencegah, dan memegang pisau tersebut, maka karenanya sidik jari A ada di sana? Atau, bisakah orang lain yang membunuh Z, dan menjebak A dengan meletakkan pisau yang ada sidik jari A di sana dan dilumuri darah Z? Lagi, bagaimana bisa yakin bahwa pisau itu ditemukan di tempat kejadian pembunuhan, dan bukan disisipkan setelahnya? Untuk hal ini, iman diletakkan kepada pihak kepolisian yang mencatat dan melaporkan apa2 yang ditemui di tkp. Oleh karena banyak hal yang tidak jelas itu, maka pembuktian harus melewati story. Pertanyaannya sekarang, story siapa y ang bisa lebih dipercayai? Mau tidak mau semua kembali kepada faith.

Lanjut, bila orang mempertanyakan historisitas Yesus atau Musa atau Abraham misalnya, maka dengan pertanyaan yang sama historisitas orang yang bertanya juga bisa dipertanyakan. [Heran, jarang orang mempertanyakan historisitas Napoleon atau Hitler misalnya. Atau, apakah WW2 benar2 terjadi?]. Misal, sederhana saja. Jika si A tidak percaya Yesus pernah ada di dunia ini, maka dengan sistem yang sama kakek buyut si A bisa dipertanyakan historisitasnya. Atau, untuk ilustrasi lebih jauh, bisa ditanyakan apakah si A memang anak dari K & L, orang2 yang sampai sekarang ini mengasuhnya dan terus berperan sebagai orang tua A? Ada yang menjawab ya, kan ada akte lahir. Hold on, bukankah akte lahir juga bisa dipalsu? Bagaimana tahu kalau akte lahir itu asli? Jawaban yang lebih baik adalah pada testimony K & L. Di dalam penjelasan filosofis, adalah reasonable bagi A mempercayai K & L, walaupun K & L bisa bohong. Dan justru irrational jika A tidak mempercayai K & L, orang yang sudah mengasuh dan berperan sebagai orang tua A. Jadi sistem knowledge orang tetap berpaku kepada iman atas testimony. Demikian juga ttg historisitas Yesus, Abraham, dan Musa - diestablish atas testimony dan bukan bukti fisik - seperti misalnya pakaian Yesus, rambut Yesus, tulang Yesus dll. Dan testimony dari orang Israel, para nabi, rasul, saksi mata, bapa gereja, umat Allah, malaikat, dan Allah sendiri. Ketika Yesus datang ke dunia ini, kesaksian datang dari semua pihak2 yang credible ini. Apalagi Allah yang memberikan testimony, maka bukan hanya irasional jika tidak mempercayai kesaksian Allah, tetapi berat konsekuensinya.

Tuhan tidak pernah memaksa orang untuk percaya. Hal ini terserah kepada manusia, mau percaya atau tidak - hanya saja semua tindakan atau non-tindakan memiliki konsekuensinya masing2 (hal yang mana ada pada God's wisdom). Jika orang kristen dituduh memaksakan imannya kepada orang lain, dhi non kristen, maka sebetulnya jika dilihat argumentasi balik dari pihak non-kristen, kelihatannya orang kristen yang sekarang dipaksa untuk percaya iman orang non kristen. How, then, do they differ from each other? They both operate in faith, although the faith is different. Jadi adalah salah kaprah jika berpikir bahwa orang Kristen hanya beroperasi dengan iman dan karenanya tidak rasional, sedangkan yang menolak iman kristen beroperasi secara rasional dan karenanya tidak bias oleh iman. Memang sulit menganalisa diri sendiri ketika sedang sibuk menganalisa orang lain.

Orang2 Kristen di segala tempat dan di sepanjang segala abad, termasuk Abraham, Musa, Daud, sampai sekarang, termasuk saya, bersaksi bahwa Yesus Kristus menjadi manusia untuk menyelamatkan manusia dari kematian kekal.