Too many conservative Christians view the Bible the way Muslims view the Qur'an -- they act as if the Bible fell out of heaven in a heavenly language. But our God is a God who works in history. And in the incarnation, the Son of God came down from heaven and took on flesh, lived and spoke, died, and was resurrected in history.

You will find that there is similar literature to what is in Scripture in the Ancient Near East (ANE). Moreover, Scripture is not written in a heavenly language. Some assumed that the New Testament's Greek was unique until they discovered everyday documents proving that it was the common Greek of the common people at the time. The cosmology of Scripture is not unique, the authors of Scripture use the normal ANE framework in their descriptions. Scripture is fully the words of its human authors. We should expect that on this level Scripture would "fit in" in the world when it was written. In other words, we should expect that on this level Scripture would not be strange in the ANE. What makes Scripture unique is that it is fully the word of the true and living God.

Reformed theologians have been apt defenders of the doctrine of inerrancy (Scripture is without error) and infallibility (Scripture is unable to err). They have positively set forth how Scripture is fully the word of God written down. And they began to positively set forth how Scripture is fully the words of its human authors. But this point was not developed and stressed. We can only speculate on the question of "What if?" If they had developed the full humanity of Scripture, would Barthianism have become so popular? And perhaps if they had done so then the multitudes that become convinced intellectually (even if the Spirit is testifying to Scripture as the word of God in their hearts) that Scripture has errors would not have been so convinced.

One of the problems is that most conservatives and liberals share the same set of modern presuppositions. That is, they both begin from the same assumptions about what would make Scripture err and anyone who is intellectually honest would have to admit that on this foundation the liberals would be right. In other words, both come to the text expecting that Scripture has to speak the way a modern would or it is in error. They impose upon the text their own criteria for truth. They set themselves up as gods judging the word of the true God.

Take for example something as simple as the classification of plants and animals. The modern method of classification relies on dissection to know what is going on in the inside of the plant or animal. The ANE method of classification relied on looking at the outside of the plant or animal. In both systems there are plants and animals that do not quite fit. Which animals chew the cud again? Is the tomato really a fruit? Both systems can be valid ways of classifying plants and animals. Just because moderns use the one and ancients used the other does not mean that the ancient system is in error when it conflicts with the modern system. Scripture is not a science textbook. It does say things that are binding on science, but to expect it to be a science textbook is imposing upon the text external criteria for determining if it is inerrant.

Instead, what we need to do is to see what Scripture says about itself and what Scripture is actually saying and doing. It is important to know what genre of literature one is reading, for example, before one hastily jumps to the conclusion that Scripture is in error.

Speaking of jumping to conclusions, the simple answer is not often the right answer. Too often conservative Christians look for the simple answer. Take, for example, Chronicles. Some would want to harmonize what it says with what historical books in the Prophets say. But then they would miss what Scripture is doing. Chronicles is not making mistakes in telling about the history of Israel. Every word was intentional. So we need to begin asking, "Why?" Why is the author of Chronicles doing what he is doing?

If you want to understand why Scripture looks like it does, begin with the incarnational analogy. It is an analogy so do not force it to fit every detail. Let us state it: Scripture is fully the words of its human authors and fully the word of God just as Jesus Christ is fully human and fully divine. We might also note that as Jesus was without sin, all of the teaching of Scripture is without error and actually unable to err. You will run into problems any time you deny the humanity of Scripture or the divinity of Scripture. Both are true. Our God is a God who works in history.

It is also worth noting that it is only by the Holy Spirit that one can come to see the full divinity of Scripture.

This post sets forward nothing new than what I learned at Westminster Theological Seminary, though any mistakes are my own. A particularly helpful book is Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament by Peter Enns. You may also find his further reflections online helpful. See http://peterennsonline.com/ii/

Labels: barthianism, hebrew scriptures, incarnation, incarnational analogy, inerrancy, infallibility, islam

What follows are some reflections on the implications of the doctrine of the Trinity - that God is one and God is three (thus I prefer Triunity of God). I may add to this list from time to time, please comment with your suggestions and reflections.

The Doctrine: The Triunity of God. The Application:

1. Everything. Our ultimate presupposition in life, as Christians, is that the God of the Scriptures is God. We do not serve a generic god, we worship a specific God who has revealed His name in Scripture. The Gospel of Matthew tells us that the name (singular) of God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (the three-fold name). Our God is a personal God, one in essence and three in persons. This is our starting point for everything.

2. How do we relate to other religions? Some Mosques, over the doorway, say Allah is not three. This means that they do not worship the God of Christianity. Modern Jewish synagogues do not accept the Triunity of God because they reject Jesus of Nazareth's claim to divinity. This means they do not worship the God of Christianity. Unitarians, who sometimes consider themselves Christians and sometimes do not, do not believe that God is three persons. This means they do not worship the God of Christianity. And Christians are not tri-theists - they do not worship three gods, as some heretical groups and Muslims claim. Christians worship one God - the Triune God, the God who is one and three. This surely has implications for interfaith dialogue.

3. The three persons of the eternal Triune God display perfect unity and communion/fellowship. Therefore, Christians are united and in communion with one another through Jesus Christ. As Jesus prayed to God the Father, "that they may be one, even as we are one" (John 17:11).

4. The eternal Triune God displays perfect unity and diversity in roles. It is as God is one (unity) and three (diversity in persons and roles) that we are to be united as the body of Christ and each different Christian (diversity in persons) has different gifts, service, and activities in the kingdom of God. So the doctrine of the Triunity of God should lead us to realize that we will do different things and have different gifts but be one people. For this application you might begin with 1 Corinthians 12:3-6 (and context) - Spirit, Lord, God is Trinitarian reflection.

5. Knowledge of the infinite, incomprehensible God is only possible because He has revealed Himself. Nature reveals God in truth, but not in completeness. We would never come to the doctrine of the Trinity from nature not only because of our total depravity but because there is simply no way we could know that God is one and God is three from nature - special revelation was necessary to tell us this. The Old Testament reveals God in truth, but not in completeness. There are hints of the divinity of Christ and the Spirit in the Old Testament, but we could not build this doctrine from the Old Testament without the New Testament. Much more is clear, including the full name of God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in the New Testament. Still God is incomprehensible. He is only knowable because He has revealed Himself to us through faith. The basic application being that we can try to make the incomprehensible (like that for God 1=3) make sense to people (an impossible task - we cannot make the incomprehensible comprehensible), but only those to whom God grants faith will receive this revelation (God makes the incomprehensible knowable). It is worth noting that our knowledge is creaturely knowledge (Christians cannot know exhaustively but can know truly). Remember these things when asked to make a defense of your faith.

Also, from Herman Bavinck, three points on the significance of the doctrine:

A. God is in perfect fullness of life apart from the creation. God is distinct in essence from the creature and creation in general. These two points rule out deism and pantheism respectively. The basic point is to say that the doctrine makes clear to us how God, apart from the universe He created, can be perfect in love, knowledge, and the rest of His attributes. "Apart from the Trinity," Bavinck says, "these attributes are mere names, sounds without connotation, empty concepts" (quoting from the Hendricksen translation The Doctrine of God, 330-331). For example, to explain it in my own way, to say that God is love would be an empty statement before the creation of the universe for God, except that love is an attribute of God shared within the Trinity. Love existed between the persons of the Trinity from eternity because God is love. Therefore, God does not need us to be love.

B. Creation presupposes the Triune God. This is the only way to distinguish from deism and pantheism. God relates to His creation but is separate from creation.

C. Bavinck's third point is that the doctrine of the Trinity is important for practical religion. He says, "Whenever any one rejects God's tri-unity, he destroys the very foundation of Christian belief, and casts aside all of special revelation. The doctrine of the trinity is the sum and substance of Christian faith, the root of all dogmas, the essence of the new covenant" (333). The work of redemption is one divine act with a three-fold distinction: the love of the Father, the grace of the Son, and the communion of the Spirit.

These are just a few reflections on the implications and applications we can derive from the doctrine of God's Triunity. Please send me corrections, improvements, additions, comments, etc. I have posted elsewhere the implications of the doctrine of the trinity according to John Flavel.

Labels: bavinck, islam, judaism, reformed theology, trinity, unitarianism