You are here: Home › Theology

Archive | Theology RSS feed for this section

A Defense of Objective Truth

By in Theology

Truth is subjective to many people and relative to Christians and atheists alike. Subjectivism, as such, is the rejection of objective truth for a wide array of reasons. Atheists and anti-theists generally share a secular creed tacit in nature to declare there is no God. There is no objective truth. There is no ground for Reason. There are no absolute Morals. There is no ultimate Value. There is no ultimate Meaning. There is no eternal hope.1 In the mind of those who hold a worldview of subjectivism, everything is permitted without social constraints—notably, including people who attend and lead churches who do not accept the authority and truth of Scripture as God’s word. To “believers” or “Christians” who live as there is only limited objective truth, do so from a position of upholding the mantra of diversity, equity, and inclusion as a necessary and overriding social doctrine to shape false faith and errant practices.

Anti-theists or atheists outright opposed or indifferent to the existence of God make it clear and consistent that Christians who believe in God are deluded, misguided, or just people who never really grew up. Christians, across the board among every denomination or tradition without exception, hold varying degrees of acceptance concerning the objective truth of the gospel and Scripture. Consequently, most congregations are egalitarian. Very many favor same-sex marriage, tolerate promiscuous lifestyles, advocate homosexuality, ordain female pastors, adopt critical theory, accede to social justice violence, liberation theology, feminism, and numerous other conditions of social decay within the church. In contradiction to Jesus, our Messiah, and Apostles James, John, Peter, Paul, and others were crystal clear about objective truth concerning the gospel, repentance, sin, and Godly living. A survey of social media interaction among too many clergies and laity across a wide swath of denominations, from conservative to liberal ideologies, informs the culture of social positions opposed to objective truth as made clear through the authority of God’s word as His voice of instruction, redemption, and warning to humanity. The poison of subjectivism is thoroughly ingrained within the culture and the church. Where C.S. Lewis informs his readers that beliefs about moral judgments which are exclusively subjective to the individual or community are the poison of subjectivism that eventually leads to the destruction of society, beginning with traditional Christian morality.2

This post offers a defense of objective truth as made clear through the intent and meaning of canonical Holy Scripture as transmitted from ancient manuscripts. Conversely, when Pontius Pilate asked Jesus, “what is truth,” he spoke from a position of cynically subjective understanding to show itself as spiritually vacant from Christ and His word as Truth. To define truth is itself an objectivist position. An alternative or relative definition of truth per se to the subjectivist is unwanted or strained at best. According to Aristotle, truth is defined in terms of ordinary people in a pragmatic sense, “To say that what is is not, or that what is not is, is false; but to say that what is is, and what is not is not, is true; and therefore also he who says that a thing is or is not will say either what is true or what is false.” 3

Jesus defined Himself as the embodiment of Truth (Jn 1:14, 17, 14:6, 1 Jn 5:20). As transliterated from Greek as alētheia, He spoke of Himself in conformance to reality. His being as the embodiment of truth concerns Himself as Messiah and all He claimed, especially about a person’s access to eternal life and God the Father. True God revealed in Christ Jesus was and is made objectively evident “as what is is, and what is not is not, is true,” as Aristotle has put it. Not from subjective rationale stemming from alternate theories of truth to escape revelatory details of actual reality with corresponding metaphysical and philosophical support. “Telling it like it is” corresponds to facts about a matter objectively ascertained independently of a knower and his consciousness. Truth, in general, presupposes commonsense notions of reality, and if anything does not conform to reality, as a practical matter, theory or otherwise, that is by definition false.4 Therefore, a person can consequently frame observation of reality and its corresponding truth in terms of denial or acceptance.

Alternative theories of truth to counter subjectivistic thought, or subjective truth, can offer some perspective as conversations involving disbelief among atheists or unbiblical and sinful behaviors from Christians become evident or come up in conversations. The “what is true for me is not necessarily true for you” holds no credibility in opposition to objective truth. Four theories are generally understood to render universal and religious subjectivism meaningless.

First, a pragmatic theory of truth is Truth that works relatively. It’s a relativistic form of thought that ultimately becomes impractical because it devolves into an unending pursuit of pragmatic or destructive outcomes as an ongoing means to an end until circularity or exhaustion is reached. Second, the empiricist’s theory of truth is what someone would view truth as a function of sensory perception. Without empirical evidence to support rationalistic assertions concerning God and spiritual or supernatural objects of faith, false conclusions are made a priori that such terms and meaning are incomprehensible. Third, rationalists’ view of truth concerns human reason as the judge of reality and must distinctly be understood within cognitive reasoning alone. It is the denial that many truths cannot be proved, such as the law of noncontradiction. Finally, the coherence theory of truth that considers various sets of ideas can yield contradictory conclusions that are actually incoherent. Facts the way they really are can correspond to coherence theory, while a situation evident from another perspective can demonstrate otherwise to produce another contradiction. Coherence theory generally relies upon presuppositions of truth without objective and comprehensive facts as evidentially valid.

Individual abandonment of objective truth would cause a further precipitous decay within society and civilization in general. Atheist and Christian denials of truth as revealed through Creation and God’s word for purposes of convenience, preferences, or social utility erode an ability to comprehend revelation by grace either way. People are not created as necessary beings, but contingent beings grounded by actual alētheic existence with objective truth as a divinely instituted construct and requirement. Without being in fellowship with God, who expects acceptance and adherence to objective truth, both atheists and professing Christians naturally arrive at a place of confusion and misery, often eternally. The objective truth of the gospel and Scripture points to Jesus, who wants people to accept objective truth and come into fellowship with Him and the Father for salvific purposes. People who deny objective truth, or passively dismiss it, have no room for repentance and recognition of sin as made explicit by the authority of Scripture.5 To deny objective truth is what Apostle Paul warns about as a matter of principle with eternally damning consequences (Rom 1:18-32).

Paradoxical truth does not contradict objective truth as revealed and made evident in a natural sense throughout creation. Collisions in faith and reason do not somehow run up against the consistency of logic, but merely point to an inability to process observations and arrive at coherent conclusions due to the limitations of human cognition. While Richard Niebuhr’s (1894-1962) theological work attempted to shape knowledge of objective truth within a relativistic framework, he reasoned that universal truth could be obtained through historical traditions and relativism. Partially to explain the Western drive of denominationalism, he took a specific long-term interest between unity and diversity within the church. It was splintering at a growing rate in the 1950s, and he sought to bring the church into wider cultural acceptance within secular society to suit modern life. 6 The proliferation of church denominations is in the thousands. The largest convention in the U.S. (Southern Baptist Convention) is in a crisis of unity due to its partial acceptance of objective truth. For the same reason, Episcopalian and Lutheran churches have lost hundreds of thousands of members over the course of recent years. Other denominations have become more fragmented.

By further comparison, John Stott (1921-2011), an Anglican priest of evangelical tradition, wrote, “In our post-modern era, the self-confidence of the Enlightenment has gone, the very concept of objective ‘truth’ is rejected, and all that remains are purely personal and subjective opinions.” He wrote this perspective in 2001 to indicate the trajectory of social culture downstream from the church. Consequently, the state of civilization is in upheaval with violence, gender dysphoria, political unrest, political corruption, wars, and corporate greed, unlike any time before in history. Every bit of which serves as evidence of a departure from objective truth as the grounding of faith and morality in obedience to God’s prescriptive order. Consider entertainment and the state of academic institutions. Consider the widespread and deep infestation of subjectivism within local churches at the hands of leaders who believe what God has revealed in His Word but have not surrendered to objective truth to the growing demise of society at large.

Citations

________________
1 Gary DeMar, ed., Pushing the Antithesis: The Apologetic Methodology of Greg L. Bahnsen (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2007), 67.
2 Dr. Alan K. Snyder, “Lewis’s “Poison of Subjectivism” in Our Day” Southeastern University, Lakeland Florida, Accessed 11 April. 2022. https://ponderingprinciples.com/2017/12/16/lewiss-poison-of-subjectivism-in-our-day/
3 Aristotle, Metaphysics, Books I–XIV; Oeconomica; Magna Moralia, ed. Jeffrey Henderson, trans. Hugh Tredennick and G. Cyril Armstrong, vol. 1, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press, 1933–1935), 201.
4 Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, Pocket Handbook of Christian Apologetics, The IVP Pocket Reference Series (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003), 135.
5 John R. Franke, “Recasting Inerrancy: The Bible as Witness to Missional Plurality,” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. J. Merrick, Stephen M. Garrett, and Stanley N. Gundry, Zondervan Counterpoints Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 288.
6 Daniel G. Reid et al., Dictionary of Christianity in America (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990).
7 John Stott, The Incomparable Christ (Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 2001), 66.

Continue Reading ·

The Triadic Contour

By in Theology

The interpretive grounds and soteriological purpose of the Trinity are based solely upon the authority and meaning of Scripture revealed by God as transmitted by the biblical authors. From the Old Testament to the New, God revealed Himself as three persons in one essence. And the biblical authors wrote about that under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit. From creation, through the covenants, redemptive history, and eschatological trajectories, each person of the Trinity was at work as recorded throughout Scripture.

Doctrinal Assertions

There are four ways, among many, to understand the doctrine of the Trinity.

  1. There is One God, Elohim, Plural (Deut 6:4)
  2. There is One God, Eternal, Immutable, Transcendent (Heb 7:3)
  3. There is One God, Exclusive, Distinct (Isa 45:5)
  4. There is One God, Modeless (John 17:5, John 1:1, John 14:26)

Doctrinal Approaches

The Trinity is revealed by divine presence, activity, and instruction; not derived through human attainment of knowledge, reason, or inference.

A. Subjects of Scripture

Structured summarization of Trinitarian functions and assessment of affected topics (i.e., deconstructed doctrines without the Trinity):

  1. God the Father    Doctrine of God
  2. Pneumatology     Doctrine of the Holy Spirit
  3. Christology          Doctrine of Christ
  4. Angelology           Doctrine of Creation (bene-elohim)
  5. Anthropology      Doctrine of Man
  6. Hamartiology       Doctrine of Sin
  7. Soteriology          Doctrine of Human Salvation
  8. Eschatology         Doctrine of Last Things
  9. Bibliology             Doctrine of God’s Word
  10. Ecclesiology         Doctrine of the Church

B. Storyline of Scripture

Genesis to Revelation, the Scriptural presence of the Trinity and its productivity (i.e., coherent involvement of the Trinity through biblical events) were prominent for the overall creative and soteriological purpose among both old and new covenants. Specific events communicated through the various literary genres involved all three persons of the Trinity.

Tracing events through scripture narratives across generations to corroborate the existence and work of the Trinity is an interpretive necessity through the formation of comprehensive biblical theology.

C. Statements of Scripture

Explicit attestations concerning the Trinty – Individual truths, promises, and themes are consistent throughout the Bible. The doctrinal implications of the relational nature between the members of the Trinity affect covenants, marriages, parenting, contracts, mediation, communication, and relationships.

The Glory of Triune God

While the soteriological purposes of God are highly evident throughout both the Old and New Testaments, what we recognized about His glory is, I am convinced, a part of a larger meta-narrative. There is much more at work than what we realize. James Hamilton Jr writes an excellent biblical theology around the salvation of people as a central theme throughout Scripture. Hamilton’s work is an exhaustive book-by-book horizontal examination of how triune God attains glory in salvation through the judgment of disobedient people.

He writes from the various events that coalesce into biblical theology, but I happen to think there is a vertical narrative as made evident by revelatory detail. Especially from a first-century New Testament perspective. A solely human-centered theology presents a limited one-dimensional horizontal perspective, but the soteriological value of comprehensive biblical theology speaks to who God is and what He has done for humanity as recorded in the pages of Scripture. I have nothing but heartfelt gratitude for Hamilton’s work. I study a range of his materials.

I’m highly sympathetic to Karl Barth (renowned most influential theologian of the 20th-century). He didn’t like the phrase, “systematic theology” because it suggested to readers a root of human reason to discern spiritual truth to shape harmful ecclesiological outcomes (like socialist liberal tolerance and acceptance of the Jewish holocaust). He got a lot of pushback from that among socialists and liberals within his time (thus his “Church Dogmatics”). It’s also why we see “Reformed Dogmatics” (Bavinck) and other similar titles from Reformed theologians who object to liberalism or socialist thought stemming from Aristotle and Kant (i.e., modernity and the ensuing enlightenment). 

Assumptions about the supremacy of human thought and reason outside what specific truths, principles, and imperatives are revealed in Scripture can form categories of doctrine that misguide church polity and social structures contrary to the explicit interests of God as recorded in His Word, the Bible. Modernity and post-modern thought contribute to a low view of Scripture. – For example, a complementary perspective concerns God’s glory in the realm beyond ours (a vertical dimensionality). While Hamilton comprehensively and deeply writes about the redemptive human history (a horizontal dimensionality), Michael Heiser writes of nations reclaimed (salvation) through a process of judgment for God’s glory. Where those judged are not human, but spiritual as Yahweh reclaims humanity for His interests. See video: Heiser’s Biblical Theology (Biblical & ANE Cosmology).

Continue Reading ·

The Triadic Decision

By in Theology

There are distinctions between Eastern and Western doctrines of the Trinity that reveal a separation of thought about its internal relations. The Eastern (Greek) and Western (Latin) formations of Trinitarian theology amount to historically propagative thought from Augustine, Aquinas, and Rahner, among others. Yet the most grounded and meaningful interpretive understanding of the triune God originates from Scripture. Throughout the Old and New Testaments, God was revealed as persons who performed specific work within Creation to interact with humanity as recorded across many centuries. Recognition of God down through time is made clear through distinctions between God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The way God is in Himself is trinitarian.

From the gospel of John, it is clear that the Son is begotten of God the Father as incarnate (Jn 5:26) God coequal yet in temporal subordination to accomplish a function of outworking love between them toward humanity (Jn 5:19, 8:28, 1 Jn 4:9). Jesus begotten of the Father is also indicative of a derivative subordination function of the Holy Spirit. Just as Jesus was sent for a specific purpose, the Holy Spirit was sent to accomplish another function. However, they together remain present as God through what objectives are achieved throughout history. It is by Eastern Greek thought that the Trinity is a metaphysical procession where the Son and Holy Spirit proceed as persons to cause existence. Whereas the causation of everything is of a hypostasis referring to each concrete and distinct trinitarian persons who share a single diving nature or essence. Hypostasis is a theological concept in contrast to the doctrine of the hypostatic union of Christ to describe the bringing together of Jesus’ divine and human nature.

In the tradition of Latin or Western theology, the approach to understanding the Trinity concerns a principle of personhood to describe the members of God as a single substance. Paul, the apostle, referred to God as God, Lord Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit to indicate his frame of reference as a worshiper. Within Paul’s thought, the essence of the Trinity is Scripturally evident as individual names as positional or relational to him. In comparison to “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit,” Paul consistently wrote of the Trinity from the standpoint of a created being in reverence to God as three persons holding office separately as One (i.e., the Father as God, the Son as Lord, and Holy Spirit as Holy Spirit). John and Jesus referred to the persons as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to exemplify the Eastern approach to suggest a less formal way of identification as compared to the title or function designation through Paul.

While there is explicit scriptural support for persons of the Trinity sent and begotten, there is an interpretative view of the doctrine about how procession occurred. From eternity past, in a temporal sense, a mutual decision was made about Creation involving the redemption of chosen people through belief. There “was” an original decision together made about what was to occur through the entire sinful course of history. Salvation would be made possible through One becoming incarnate and Who would accomplish specific work through mutual submission and eternal symmetry as three persons. Without distinction concerning origination, the three as One God is ever explicitly made as such in Scripture or by revelatory detail. Other than statements and declarations of interpersonal unity and identity, expressed description of triune presence is never revealed as understandable within humanity’s three-dimensional domain. Sent and begotten God acted to produce Creation in the sense that subordinate functional objectives were met without any notion of inferiority in status or nature of aseity, presence, and limitless co-eternal power to accomplish salvation for glory and love.

Continue Reading ·

The Triadic Vortex

By in Theology

This afternoon I finished reading the entirety of God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity (342-pages). The whole effort was time well spent because it concerns the doctrine of the Trinity upon which various other doctrines rest. The book was a comprehensive look at the doctrine and the Trinity itself from the author (Millard Erickson, 1995) yet from the perspectives of various 18th, 19th, and 20th-century theologies as well. Moreover, the scope of the book covered the councils of Nicea (325 A.D.) and Constantinople (381 A.D.) to assert the relevance and consequences of the doctrine, including the safety and survival of Rome.1

While the book thoroughly covers the history of the doctrine’s development and its interpretive approaches, it highlights with careful attention the importance of what it is and what it does. The well-known and highly influential German theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg (1923-2014) asserted without hesitation that the doctrine of the Trinity is the most important among all doctrines by comparison. With numerous historical citations involving early church patristics, Erickson traverses the formulaic development of the doctrines from the first through fourth centuries. The apostolic fathers, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, and Athanasius formed instruction and traditions around the doctrine to counter opposing thoughts and assertions about the triadic form of God. Furthermore, over decades, modalism, tri-theism, Arianism, and other disputes concerned the developing church where the formation of the doctrine of the Trinity had to become a priority to settle.

From the earliest understanding of authoritative and inspired Scripture, the biblical meaning of the doctrine appeared on a scale. A valid and necessary interpretation of the Trinity was at rest on a sort of conceptual fulcrum on a scale. Move too much one way in understanding and interpretation slides to a form of modalism (liberation theology & feminism), move in the opposite direction on the scale, and interpretation moves to tri-theism, or Arianism. While tri-theism tends to be an errant way of thinking about the Trinity today, Arianism purported that Jesus could not have been truly God. The teaching of Arius (335/336 A.D.) was deemed heretical at the council of Nicea in 325 A.D.

Erickson enumerates the numerous passages that biblically reference the doctrine of the Trinity from the Old to New Testaments. Historical and cultural narratives concerning the nature and triadic unity of God across Old Testament covenants involved God’s interaction with individuals, groups, tribes, and nations. To further extend the presence of God as triune in the New Testament, numerous gospel and Pauline references point to the truth of God’s Being as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as separate yet One. The various triadic passages and references within Pauline writings and the baptismal formula set the doctrine’s foundation to assure interpreted revelation for humanity to recognize God as He is.

To further narrow the meaning of the triadic union of God, the gospel of John makes extensive reference to the relationship between all members of the Trinity. In contrast to the Old Testament, the members of the Trinity are identified explicitly to indicate their function, momentary subordination, incarnation, and the relationship between each other and humanity. Taken together, the compiled meaning of God’s identity as revealed in Scripture is nothing short of astonishing and profound. The testimony of Old and New Testament witnesses to God, His activity, and work through the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles made a punctuated and alarming impression about reality beyond day-to-day recognition that is certain to last until the Parousia.

As Greek and Latin recognition of the revelatory witness began, numerous approaches to the understanding of the Trinity ensued. Philosophical assertions about the metaphysical nature of Trinitarian theology took shape from early Greek thought to more scholastic and postmodern perspectives. Erickson does an exceptional job outlining the substance of various contributors to philosophical and theological engagement. From Aquinas and Kant to Schleiermacher, Barth, Rahner, and more contemporary contributors of Henry, Davis, and Lacugna, different competing perspectives are presented, emphasizing a process of elimination given biblically grounded rationale. Tradition, utilitarian, or social preferences carried no interpretive weight with the author.

To make a case for the understanding and correct interpretation of the doctrine of the Trinity, the author covers various objections to the Trinity in painstaking detail. Moreover, the author effectively argues for the necessity of instruction on the doctrine as a matter of pressing discipleship or catechesis. A proper understanding and interpretation of the doctrine are foundational and practical as it concerns prayer life, worship, apologetical contention, interpersonal relationships, and church governance. The doctrine of the Trinity is such a crucial area of instruction that it affects the future health and development of the Church and Christianity in general.

[1] Erickson cites on page 13: Adolf Harnack, History of Dogma (New York: Dover, 1961), 4:60–67.

Continue Reading ·

The Triadic State

By in Theology

Throughout section three of God in Three Persons – A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, Erickson offers comprehensive and compelling scriptural evidence for the Trinity as a way to understand the identity and interwoven roles of each member. Each in a single essence as God, they together and separately work from distant history to first century and contemporary activity through God incarnate as Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit within the new covenant context. Recorded historical accounts of various events and narratives involving God in different forms of persons and pluralities bring a fuller understanding of the nature of God’s unity. Still today, through the work of the Holy Spirit, God’s involvement in a new covenant context from the first century to the present and future fulfillment of promises, there is a reconciliation evident as a continuum of combined effort.

Through a plurality of presence, as God manifests in Spirit and observed corporeal reality from the Old Testament, there is a continuing thread of literary witness accounts of what occurred as a matter of course. The fulfillment of prophecies and historical events factually confirmed assembled in Scripture to involve God at work in the lives of people point to covenant promises kept. During that progression of time, it revealed the essence and nature of God’s unity and plurality to carry meaning formative to what He does to redeem people and build His kingdom. The presence of the Trinity in the Old Testament is communicated as divine truth to offer concrete interpretive recognition of both states of plurality and unity. Story after story involves nature or Being to produce the highest confidence in the doctrine of the Trinity.

It is also trustworthy as accurate the correspondence of Christ’s witness to what and who God is. The New Testament and especially the gospel of John is replete with writings that attest to the same manner of recognition about how to view God as Creator, Spirit, and Incarnate Word. Historical, biblical, and extracanonical writings offer a significant depth and range of rationale concerning triadic references important to developing Christianity down through the centuries. Whether from the synoptic gospels, Pauline texts, or other books and letters of Scripture, numerous triadic passages of interest involved many people firsthand. Corroboration from affected societies, cultures, individuals, synagogues, and churches that were immersed in the time of Jesus, James, Peter, Paul, John, and later others produced a way of recognizing who God was and how He was made evident by what was accomplished.

It was not by happenstance that the gospels were written with a commonality of meaning meant for consistent interpretation of the triadic nature of God’s existence. There is a certain sense of security and relief in recognizing Trinity’s meaning as “persons.” The Father bestows everything upon the Son and Holy Spirit except for being the Father. Likewise, the Son and Holy Spirit everything to each without yielding identity is a form of interrelated communication and mutual communion. The interrelated nature of God as a society of persons is together shared love and not an exclusive one-to-one arrangement; as Erickson wrote love, to be love must have both a subject and an object. The triadic expression of unconditional love and interrelated selflessness further explains the nature of God as love. As presented in Scripture (1 John 4:16), God is love, yet distinct individual beings not separate or isolated from one another.

To the extent that separation is impossible within the Trinity, the Son took on flesh to become incarnate God, fulfill the triadic work on Earth, and return to His position ascendant in a resurrected and glorified body to become the firstborn of the dead. A new Adam to fulfill the Genesis 3:15 covenant where the love of triune God becomes shared with humanity.

Continue Reading ·

Immanence & Immutability

By in Theology

In my reading this week, an author at length wrote about God’s metaphysical and logical nature of existence. Specifically, it concerns the intelligibility and coherence of the doctrine of the Trinity when considering the doctrine of God. Relying upon Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Schleiermacher to frame philosophical and theological thought within the framework of human reason, 18th and 19th-century conclusions were prescribed around philosophy and theology from a human-centered rationale. Doctrines of religion were not spiritual but pragmatic and narrow from perspectives constrained by the limited domains in which they exist. To philosophical and humanistic reasons that deny spiritual and metaphysical realities as merely speculative in thought are generally dismissed from secular worldviews arising from Kant. Schleiermacher, a prominent liberal theologian, developed his doctrinal positions from Kant to surmise that religion is subject to feeling and experience as validated by human interaction or engagement.

Kantian epistemology brought further liberal reason that doctrines were subject to religious consciousness. The truth of spiritual realities was contingent upon receptive and permissive human acceptance or interaction. While supported by theological and biblical truth, God as a “Trinitary” Being is necessary in all possible worlds. Creation (humanity) is entirely contingent on the physical, abstract, and metaphysical realities they are set within. These are not theological judgments to which Trinitarian and Christological doctrines are formulated. They are from revelatory truth made from God’s presence within creation. The testimonial witness of the patriarchs, prophets, Christ, and apostles carry far more significant credibility and bearing of truth without our realm of existence than the philosophical and scientific speculations and descriptions concerning our limited 3-dimensional space of reality. Consciousness as emergent within physically contingent beings is a constructed object. The noetic equipment serves as an interface of the mind and spirit to recognize God and truth as expressed.

As a sort of checkmate against liberal notions of God’s existence speculatively within people’s minds (as expressed by the doctrine of the Trinity). Or by a process theology that claims God exists unchanging and infinite as only governed by the laws of the universe (Erickson, 122), there are biblical truths and philosophical reasons to conclude otherwise. For example, see Peter van Inwagen’s views about contingency theory that points to the necessity of God (video (Links to an external site.)) to dismiss dependency upon contingent beings (liberal view of theological pragmatism). Or by the existence of God as Being outside Creation in its entirety (real, physical, abstract, metaphysical, spiritual) as stated by a primitive sense of where in this video (Links to an external site.) (4D space). Or watch the full video (Links to an external site.) here to understand how space constrains perception outside our realm of existence.

Logic as a construct is abstract and not a physical thing to experience. Meaning, God created EVERYTHING perceptive, imagined, or observed by His created beings, sentient or otherwise. I’m not entirely convinced that God is neither logical nor illogical but alogical. To help further, I still have this book, Infinity, Causation, & Paradox (Links to an external site.), on my bookshelf to delve through. The author covers topics such as Satan’s apple and Beam’s paradox (probability and decision theory), divine motivation, knowledge, and action. That is to infer God is to be outside of Creation for Him to create everything (including time, space, and the laws that govern the universe). By comparison, Millard Erickson’s book God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity often communicates from a process theology framework (at least section two). Moreover, at times, the book presupposes that eternal God exclusively operates within temporality and the presence of time. Eschatologically speaking, for example, where His people will take on resurrected bodies that are no longer subject to the second law of thermodynamics (i.e., entropy or decay and death) present throughout the universe. The states of all three persons of the Trinity within a single essence as Elohim exist as a personal identity, without modal functionality, in Spirit to create and encounter. God as Trinity is transcendent, immutable, and immanent.

So basically, in my view, Kant and Schleiermacher were well-intentioned but often in error. But more than that, counterproductive as speculations presented to others built erroneous systems of thought off the mark from the truth of the Creator as Trinitary Being in perichoresis by “His” aseity. Even our perception of Him as given to us by the pronoun “His” is anthropomorphic (i.e., human-centered) as a divine act of will, grace, and mercy as He is the source of all such attributes, including love.

Getting beyond the what and how (science, philosophy) to the why (philosophy, theology), I often think its futile were it not for God’s Word and His Spirit within us. With all our searching for God as a people who grope in the dark (Isa. 59:10), here is such a poignant point to remember as the doctrine of the Trinity is modeled to us. 

“Jesus replied, ‘If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.’ ” Not only does obedience to Jesus’ words bring a relationship to both the Father and the Son; the words are not even simply the Son’s words, but belong to the Father. The relationship between the Father and the Son is such that to be related to one is to be related to the other, but they are not simply different names for the same person. They are two closely related persons, whose actions are very much intertwined (Erickson, 201).”

Jesus’ spoken words for you in Scripture are from Creator God who gave His son to take our sins. It just doesn’t seem enough to understand the sacrifice on its face for what it did, but also the gravity of temporary intentional loss of perfect love between all members of the Trinity. When I think about that exchange, it kills me. Makes me think that nothing else matters whatsoever. 

Continue Reading ·

Metaphysical Transcendence & Meaning

By in Theology

As many have observed throughout centuries past, the doctrine of the Trinity isn’t explicitly identified as a term or concept to present to us how we are to identify or interpret God. In his book, God in Three Persons – A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, Millard Erickson presents to readers the biblical basis for the existence of the Trinity.1 In defense of the doctrine of the Trinity, Erickson lists several vulnerabilities concerning some views of Richardson’s work on the subject.2 The work involves process theology which is a philosophical theology concerning the world having two natures. To describe process theology as the “primordial” transcendence of God and the “consequent,’ or imminent nature by which God is part of the cosmic process.3 While Erickson lists many valuable points of refutation or objections against a process theology interpretation of the Trinity, and he also makes sound biblical arguments about the existence of the Trinity implicit from the patriarchs, prophets, Christ, and the apostles. Within this monograph, and from his work Making Sense of the Trinity, 3 Crucial Questions, exact details and references are made about the case for the Trinity as a formative doctrine by which humanity is to recognize God.4 The doctrine of the Trinity assembled from Scripture as the revealed Word of God presents to people across all time the nature of Trinitarian existence.

God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are the same essence who have separate identities and are knowable as God. God, by name YHWH, is a single Being comprised of three together in perfect relationship and essence as one. Readers of Scripture see the interaction between members of the Trinity as God is revealed to people within Creation. He interacts with generations of individuals and nations through various covenants, interventions, and creative efforts to redeem humanity from corruption by the errant free will of persons. Erickson meticulously addressed the biblical problems caused by Richardson’s interpretation of the Trinity. There were eight separate enumerated issues around Richardson’s arguments covered by Erickson. From a range of erroneous thoughts around the authority of Scripture to human-centered logical arguments that arrive at modalism, there were numerous counterpoints of biblical evidence and interpretation. Erickson gives explicit reason for how Richardson works from false premise to conclude flawed outcomes of reason.

The doctrine of the Trinity matters pragmatically as it is a model of the relationship between God and His created beings. Invited into fellowship between Creator and created beings, the redemptive process itself is a part of the creative work to derive creatures with a free will made eligible and acceptable to God. The love of others, marriage covenants, and vows to involve the perfect form of relationship has implications about how people are to live out loyalty and obligations centered upon love and commitment. The doctrine of the Trinity provides a theological grounding for human interaction as imagers of God who will at some point be in fellowship with Him as He intended and promised from His revealed Word.

Contested thoughts around the pragmatic interests of people without concern for the Creator is an exercise in futility. The self-serving philosophical rationale that ingratiates itself with interest to improve the human condition doesn’t go far enough because everyone dies. Worse, everyone dies from a position of corruption and suffering by obvious and continued rebellion against natural order in defiance of its Creator (sin), if not just from creation itself. People unredeemed without purpose from God who live and die with philosophical and metaphysical convictions are still empty, albeit temporarily satisfied by answers to practical problems. That is to say, soothe yourself with pseudo-intellectual reasons to ignore God and His revelatory essence to abide in self with contradictory interests.

Objections to Trinitarian Christianity and its uniqueness have concentrated around feminism and liberation theology, where they together form an alternative to “extremities of patriarchal trinitarianism” (Erickson, 147). A range of feminist cases that argue for feminist theology stems from objections around the male gender identity of the trinitarian doctrines explicitly communicated in Scripture. Concepts of domination, power, and authority as masculine traits to express God as a trinitarian form of Being contradict the interests and preferences of females who conceive God as almighty Creator. Their efforts are then to appeal to a tradition of female social prominence and recast it into feminine consciousness. As gender-Trinity is set aside to reshape worship and objects of worship, idolatrous forms of veneration emerge.

Historical female interests in poetry, myth, legend, ritual, and nature worship were elements of common interest in magic to practice goddess worship (Erickson, 144). By what is sometimes known as witchcraft extending back 35,000 years, objections to patriarchal trinitarianism of the last 5,000 years arrived later on the scene to oppose female power according to developing feminine thought. Universal Trinitarian Christianity, with its heritage and bedrock patriarchal foundation, formed its doctrinal system to arrive at well-formed beliefs altogether Scripturally and objectively anchored. In contrast, feminine interest in goddess religion throughout the centuries (pagan, Greco-Roman, and contemporary) was more subjective without concrete tethering to Truth. In the mind of the historical feminist, male patriarchy was and is ascendant to function as a repressive force to which liberation becomes necessary in common cause with liberation theologians who believe a different gospel contrary to the revealed Word of God in Scripture. To deny Scripture as patriarchal (or toxically masculine) and dismiss its authority is to abandon or forsake complementarian order. It is an intentional effort to exchange female will to power for feminist claims toward the worship of feminine deity in the name of liberation. The erasure of a masculine trinitarian concept contrary to the historical work of God interpreted through Scripture is a less than obvious aspiration of historical female theologians.

The formation and acceptance of generic religion as an objection to the uniqueness of Christianity is yet another effort to bring the Creator and creation into subjection to social interests. It is the removal and dilution of the Trinity as unique to Christianity as it must give way to a homogenous interreligious discussion because exclusive claims are viewed as unacceptable. As it is with feminists who view the masculine trinitarian view of Christianity as objectionable, there are those within Islam, Hinduism, and other religions unable to accept the Trinitarian doctrine and theological traditions. Consequently, to those who object and instead press toward a generic religion or a homogenous spirituality, it is Christianity that must conform to social expectations more palatable to belief in an effort to satisfy its interests. The assimilation of new values to transform human understanding of the Christian faith is a necessary sociological pursuit in the mind of those who object to the doctrine of the Trinity as it is participative of creation having exclusive obligations to YHWH, the only God.

__________________________

Citations

1 Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995), 100.
2 Cyril C. Richardson, The Doctrine of the Trinity (Nashville: Abingdon, 1958).
3 Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki, and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 95–96.
4 Millard J. Erickson, Making Sense of the Trinity, 3 Crucial Questions (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2000), 15–16.

Continue Reading ·

The Locality of Inspiration

By in Theology

Two years ago, when I joined the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), I was required to affirm the inerrancy of Scripture. While I’m not a literalist or fundamentalist, I still willingly and whole-heartedly embrace the doctrine of inerrancy as essential to faith and practice (as upheld by CSBI). Not expedient for strained acceptance, but essential. I publicly confess that the truth of God’s word is inspired, inerrant, infallible, sufficient, reliable, authoritative, and clear from the intent of the biblical authors. I utterly delight in God’s word. As necessary for truth and reason, epistemic and existential knowledge of God through divine encounter is shaped by being conformed to Christ.

Yesterday I finished carefully and completely reading through Five Views of Biblical Inerrancy (about 325-pages). Sometimes I take notes and highlight areas of the book to fully ingest the meaning of the subject matter, which I did this time. Aside from my written work reviewing the material, I have numerous notes for continuing interest. To get the various perspectives from prominent members of three evangelical and two secular academic institutions, I’ve taken a macro and micro look at the different topics and perspectives it contains. The five participants came from scholars who wrote their essays as respected and influential people from Cambridge (Vanhoozer), Harvard (Enns), Oxford (Franke), Queensland University (Bird), and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Mohler). Each participant has a Ph.D., and all of them vary widely about the doctrine of inerrancy. While all five participants are self-identified evangelical, their distinctions are between conservative and liberal worldviews.

Franke and Enns would call evangelicalism to a postconservative society-centered way of faith and practice concerning interpretive and sapiential meaning. Conversely, Vanhoozer and Mohler have a God-centered view of faith and practice with a more objectively truth-based historical-grammatical approach to sapiential interpretation. While Bird appears somewhere in between the two pairs. Vanhoozer and Mohler embrace an authorial intent hermeneutic, while Bird does as well to a limited extent contingent upon validated merits of biblical meaning. While it isn’t apparent if Enns and Franke apply a reader-response form of interpretation, they both seem to advocate an altogether different categorization of interpretation for social utility. Enns and Franke are not hostile to truth. They are deconstructive of Truth in exchange for small t – truth.

The reading readily shows who subscribes to truth in relativistic terms and who wants to define it or redefine it to suit social interests for a plurality of cultural and missional outcomes. To the liberal worldview, Enns and Franke appear to subordinate evangelicalism as an instrument of society to satisfy and affirm a divergence of human interests. The others are more sensitive to the value and necessity of theological doctrines that arise from revelatory truth. Including the doctrine of inerrancy, but even further retroactive to other doctrines of the faith to reshape Christian thought, commitments, and trajectories. By inference, Enns (Harvard) and Franke (Oxford) have hyper-radical ideologies concerning Christianity and therefore do not fully accept the core tenets of the faith. Their departure from evangelicalism appears inevitable. Otherwise, what they profess is in contradiction to their beliefs and worldview.

All participants had much to say about the doctrine of inerrancy and the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI). Those who were not U.S. citizens rejected the CSBI for various reasons, while it seems apparent there’s a not-invented-here (NIH) perspective at work. Some residents outside the U.S. can have a sense of resentment that the CSBI originated from American evangelicalism. If the statement were to become otherwise revised from a global (worldly) perspective, it would become shaped toward infalliblistic interpretation at best, while the doctrine of inerrancy would become surrendered entirely. While “progressive” or postliberal “Christians” decry colonialism or imperialistic export of Western or American foundations of theological doctrines, there is an oppositional posture toward Christ’s commission concerning the gospel and discipleship. Paul the Apostle, an Israelite Hebrew, originated cross-national mission work that spanned languages, cultures, time zones, historical religious commitments, and indigenous (Gentile) people groups to spread the gospel, plant churches, and develop the spiritual well-being of believers in Christ. He took absolute Truth to a harvest field of people for the Kingdom without liberal or “progressive” impediments. Instead, he faced cultural and philosophical opposition, much like we see among academics and scholars today. Particularly against the doctrine of inerrancy.

Continue Reading ·