Everyone has a theology (literally "study of God"), whether he actually believes in a god or not. The title is very clear: as a Christian, I felt the necessity of writing about my faith and about what I believe in because of that faith. I struggle daily to fully understand what my "theology" is about, but I believe this is a good way not only of getting my thoughts in place, but also of preaching the Gospel.
If you have questions, just ask!
What is "the pillar of a theology?" What is the core of a belief? From what do today's worldviews get all of their intricacies and complexities?
The answer is not too hard: an assumption.
That's it. Every belief, every religion, every set of principles you follow sprung from one assumption. Can you think of any worldview, any creed, any group of tenets which are not rooted in a certain assumption? I cannot. Christianity has one. Islam has one. Transcendentalism has one. Even Atheism has one, which is perhaps the most obvious of all. The initial assumption is, therefore, the seed of the personal dogma. Without it, there is no dogma - just loads of unanswered questions.
I am a Christian. If I asked you what my initial assumption for my belief is, what would you say? This may be a trick question or not, but ponder for a few moments.
The correct answer is: the Bible is true. Not that God exists, nor that Jesus is my Savior. One cannot believe in Christ and disregard the Bible. But by believing the Bible, I believe in Christ as well. Makes sense, right? If you believe the Word, you also believe the one who spoke the Word.
The Bible is true. What does this entail? It means that all facts and knowledge in the Bible are absolutely true; therefore, they cannot be debated as if they weren't.
For example, I believe Stephen was judged and stoned to death by the Pharisees as depicted in Acts 7. I believe God loved us so much that He gave His Son so that those who believe Him have eternal life as written in John 3:16. Since the Bible, as a whole, is true, its individual events and revelations must also be true.
Such cannot be said of its interpretation. Interpretation is personal and cannot be accounted as irrefutable. For example, 2 Timothy 3:16, a well-known verse among Christians.
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." [NIV]
I believe this is true because I believe the Bible is true. But suppose this is what I inferred from reading it: "this verse explains how the Bible is true." Can I say that? Does the verse give me authority to say that? Do I have the evidence to say that?
No, no, and no. Why? Because it is not only an inaccurate claim, but it is also my interpretation of the verse - a personal conclusion from an ascertained fact.
And how is it inaccurate? Well, the second letter to Timothy was probably the last of Apostle Paul's epistles (letters). Paul would die in between AD 65-67; however, the collection of canonical texts we call "the Bible" only came to being in the 2nd century AD, and it included the Gospel of John, his epistles and the Book of Revelations, also by Apostle John. These were all written after Paul's death. They do not account as the "All Scripture" that Paul referred to. That is one reason (and more than enough to prove) why the claim is inaccurate, even though I believe the Bible is true. If I believed in everything the Bible says because of that verse alone, I now had no justification to keep believing so.
Would I need a justification? No, since it starts with an assumption. The assumption.