A Response to an Answer: On the Trinity, God's Word and the Inerrancy of Scripture as espoused by the Evangelical Theological Society

I was recently challenged about my views of the Evangelical Theological Society's doctrinal subscription. Allow me to respond:

The following doctrinal basis must be subscribed to by all members annually with the renewal of their membership in the Society:

"The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory."

Looks like I'll never be a member of the Evangelical Theological Society.

First, I have a problem with the idea that the Bible is the Word of God. I believe it is the record of the revelation from God in which God's Word comes to the reader. The Bible is not God's Word but it is the vehicle by which we receive God's Word.

Second, I have a problem with the notion that God is three individual persons. The Bible nowhere teaches this doctrine. God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit but He is One Person, One Personality. The tradition of describing God as three persons comes about by mistranslation of the word "persona" in the Western Church Councils. What they meant by "persona" is not the same thing as our "person."

I am okay with using the term" inerrant" as long as I am able to supply my own interpretation of what "inerrant" means.

My problems are slight variations in meaning and context but they are still enough to keep me from this society.


PC,

I'll answer in reverse order. Unfortunately, we don't get to make up our own definitions of terms brother. Inerrant means without error. It just does. Whether for definitions of ETS or anything else, it means without errors. Notice it also said the "original autographs" so that removes the problem of making mistakes on future copies.

Well, there are numerous definitions of inerrancy that are used by various conservative scholars. The spectrum of definitions of what inerrancy means goes to the very strict to the very broad. These various definitions have been formulated throughout the last century and all of them before I was born, let alone before I began to think about this issue. Because there are various definitions of the scope of inerrancy many different conservatives can have completely different views about the nature of Scripture and both still affirm inerrancy.

Now when we look at the different definitions of inerrancy we each arrive at a conclusion to the one which we think most accurately reflects our own understanding of the nature of Scriptural inerrancy. A Fundamentalist may see the various definitions of inerrancy and pick one that is “stricter” because such a definition confirms to his understanding of the nature of Scripture. A moderate evangelical may see the various definitions of inerrancy and pick one that is “broader” because such a definition confirms to his understanding of Scripture. The evangelical world is broad and incorporates all such definitions.

Now all these definitions are man-made. Each of the definitions of inerrancy were formulated by men in order to describe what they believe to be the nature of Scripture. Because these various definitions are man-made they are fallible and errant. They are incomplete and imperfect. To say that any definition of inerrancy is the only one or the complete and perfect one is to raise the thoughts of man to the level of Holy Scripture.

For these reasons I prefer to make my own definition of inerrancy by selecting the various parts of the other definitions of inerrancy that I feel accurately reflect the nature of Scriptural inerrancy. Those particular aspects of the various definitions of inerrancy which I feel inaccurately reflects the proper nature of Scriptural inerrancy are discarded.

When I “supply my own interpretation of what "inerrant" means” I am simply doing what we all do. I am developing a definition of a concept which accurately reflects my understanding of that concept. I’ll make no apologies for this.

However, the main problem with the issue of inerrancy has always been that too many people cannot separate their interpretations of Scripture from the meaning of Scripture. Because of this, when people hear an interpretation of Scripture which drastically differs from their own they believe that the person with the different view doesn’t believe the Bible.

Now it appears that main problem with the issue of inerrancy is that too many people cannot separate their interpretations of inerrancy from the meaning of inerrancy that is truly reflected in Scripture. Because of this, when people hear an interpretation of inerrancy which drastically differs from their own they believe that the person with the different view doesn’t believe in inerrancy.

With conservatism, the issue is not the question of WHETHER what the Scripture asserts is of error; that matter has been decided among conservatives. Rather, the question is of WHAT the Scripture is asserting.

You are making the same case as the ETS. You say God is F, S, HS but one "personality. The ETS says "essence" instead. Same case. Only difference may be the "each an uncreated person" part. However, I would hazard a guess that they are not implying 3 individual people "persons" but rather 3-uncreated-individual personalities with the Son being incarnated in the human person of Christ. This is not anti-scriptural nor is it wrong.

As I stated at the end of my response to Travis: “My problems are slight variations in meaning and context.” And, yes, the only difference is “the ‘each an uncreated person’ part.”

The problem is that in contemporary English “person” denotes “personality” and “personality” denotes “person”.

Here are the various English definitions of “person” and “personality”:

Person = an individual of specified character; composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.

[Middle English, from Old French persone, from Latin pers na, mask, role, person, probably from Etruscan phersu, mask.]

Personality = The quality or condition of being a person; The totality of qualities and traits, as of character or behavior, that are peculiar to a specific person; The pattern of collective character, behavioral, temperamental, emotional, and mental traits of a person.

[Middle English personalite, from Old French, from Late Latin pers n lit s, from Latin pers n lis, personal, from pers na, person; see person.]

Here are the various English definitions of “essence”:

Essence:

1. The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something.
2. The most important ingredient; the crucial element.
3. The inherent, unchanging nature of a thing or class of things.

Based on these definitions I cannot (in English) employ the term “person” or “personality” to denote each aspect of the Godhead. My understanding of Scripture is that God is only one person and has only one personality.

God is One Person and One Personality. God the Father’s Person and Personality is fully revealed in the Person and Personality of the man Jesus Christ, the Son of God, because the Person and Personality of the man Jesus IS the Person and Personality of God. The Spirit of God IS the Spirit of the Person and Personality of God. The Spirit of God IS the Spirit of Christ, the man Jesus. The Person and Personality of the Spirit of God is the Person and Personality of the man Jesus Christ, the Son of God. There is NOT three Persons or three Personalities. There is One Person and Personality which is known as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

This is what I believe is taught in Scripture and this is what I hold to. Again, “my problems are slight variations in meaning and context,” but they are important distinctions for me as I try to practice and profess my faith in God through Jesus Christ. It is quite probable that the ETS would understand my issue and give me a grammatical waiver but I shall wait and see if the moment ever comes up.


If the bible is only "the vehicle by which we receive God's Word", then what was the point of God being so specific in His wording of the book. Seems to me it could have been filled with abstract concepts by which we make our own interpretations of the sayings to "receive God's word". Would have been easier than going into such great detail. But then again, that would remove our ability to properly exegete scripture, just as your process does. We don't do our own interpretations for what the bible means to us today. For that we find practical applications for what the bile means to us today. When it comes to meaning, a passage can never mean what it never mean, no matter how many applications it has. Therefore, we "receive God's word" by noticing what the original message was to the original audience and finding a practical application. But the interpretion isn't accurate unless it would have been the intentional interpretation.

This is a very difficult issue. It is the issue that emerged out of neo-orthodoxy, defeating nineteenth century liberalism and saving conservative orthodoxy from dustbin of history. Unfortunately, it is also the issue that fundamentalists have largely never understood nor accepted. It is this issue that started fundamentalism as a reaction to modernity and liberalism, but it is also the issue that has kept them as a reactionary movement of negation and not as affirming movement. Again, this is an issue that projected neo-orthodoxy beyond both liberalism and fundamentalism. Proponents of either such strands of Christendom will always generally falter when confronted with this issue.

I do not know who you are and I do not know how familiar you are with me, my beliefs, and my understanding of the faith and how I believe it is to be practiced. Therefore, I do not know what you mean when you say, “that would remove our ability to properly exegete scripture, just as your process does.”

However, I do feel safe in assuming that you are on the conservative side of Christian orthodoxy. I can also be reasonably certain that you do not hold to some of the more distinct features of neo-orthodox theories of the doctrines of God’s Word, Revelation, and Scripture. Again, this is a complex issue but I will make a few points and comments.

When I say that the Bible is not God’s Word but the vehicle by which we receive God's Word I am using very specific terminology. This concept involves three things:

First, this involves a very high view of revelation. This view of revelation is so high and so specific that such neo-orthodox scholars as Barth and Brunner had a serious debate in various books and articles for several years on issues of general revelation versus special revelation and whether or not there was such a thing as natural theology. I usually tend to side with Brunner on such matters.
To give a brief description and explanation of what is meant: God’s Word is Revelation. Revelation is God’s Word. The Bible as Scripture is not Revelation but is the record of that Revelation. The Christian focus of Scripture is the intended meaning that the Scriptures are conveying to the individual. God’s Word as Revelation is the sole property of God. Revelation is the activity of God and not man. He reveals it to who He wishes in the manner in which He desires. The meaning of Scripture becomes the Word of God by and from God when it is truly understood in its context and applied to a specific context in a life-altering manner by the individual. Because of our sin, biases, and finitude this understanding of God’s Word can only occur by God and not by man. This is the reason why so many individuals throughout history have read the Scriptures, heard the prophets and apostles, even heard and seen the incarnate Word Jesus Christ and have still not understood and accepted the Word of God.

Second, this involves a serious distinction between the meaning of Scripture and the means by which this meaning is communicated, i.e., the symbols which reflect that meaning. The Scriptures as language of communication are not the Word of God but they reflect the Word of God when God so chooses. God’s Word is communicated through language which is spoken, written, or enacted. It is not synonymous with that language of communication. This is why a paraphrase of an English translation of the original Greek language written down by the apostles that they translated from the original Aramaic by Jesus is considered by many to be God’s Word. It is because there are other avenues besides Scripture in which God’s Word is revealed. There are other contexts in which God’s Word can be revealed. However, the Bible as Scripture is uniquely inspired by God and is a trustworthy when properly interpreted and properly applied. This cannot be said of any other religious scripture or work written, spoken, or created by man.

Lastly, we have to give special and unique attention to Jesus as the perfect, fullest, and final Revelation of God’s Word. In the past God’s Word was spoken via the prophets (Hebrews 1:1). But while the prophets communicated God’s Word, they were not God’s Word. But now God speaks through His Son (Hebrews 1:1) who communicates God’s Word and is God’s Word. God’s Word iss revealed in Christ, but not just by His words but also by His actions. Christ communicates God’s Word in a non-verbal manner like healings, miracles, obedience, and His crucifixion and resurrection. We as Christians, like Jesus, also communicate God’s Word in our actions and example. We are witnesses of God’s Word spoken through Christ by our witness of Christ.

Furthermore, and this is extremely important, Jesus interprets Scripture and has authority to do so. He interprets the Old Testament for his followers. This is one point that fundamentalists have never understood and the reason why the Southern Baptist Faith and Message was altered. The Old Testament has a particular ethic that is dramatically different from that of the New Testament. At the time it was written, the Old Testament ethic was a remarkable document of monumental advancement in how man related with man and God. However, at the coming of the kingdom with the advent of Christ, God through Jesus revealed a new and final ethic so dramatically different from that of this world and from that of the Old Testament that even to this day believers in God and followers of Christ (liberal and conservative) have a tremendous difficulty in recognizing and accepting it. The intended meaning of many Old Testament commands is either to kill the sinner or to cast him out. In the New Testament Jesus commands us to forgive and fellowship. At one time the Old Testament ethical commands became God’s Word for them, but it is not God’s Word for us. We as Christian must always use Christ as our hermeneutic for applying the Scriptures.

“What was the point of God being so specific in His wording of the book?” Because He had a specific meaning to convey through these words in that book. Allow me to leave you with a few questions:

Is it the words themselves or the meaning of those words in their proper context that is God’s Word?

Is it God’s Word when we misinterpret its meaning?

If our interpretation is correct but our application is incorrect, is it still God’s Word?

If our interpretation is only partially correct is it only partially God’s Word?

Recall Stephen’s speech in Acts 7. As a text now written and recorded in Scripture, it is believed to God’s Word. But was it God’s Word when it was originally spoken by Stephen?

The false words and phrases spoken by the Pharisees in reaction to Jesus were, in isolation, not God’s Word. However, as written and recorded in the context of the Scriptures, we say that it is. Why?

We believe in the historicity of Job’s discussion with his three friends and with God. But while we acknowledge that we are given the general words of discussion in that encounter, we also recognize that it is given to us in Scripture as poetry. The poetry has no exact basis in historicity; they didn’t all converse with each other in poetry. Is it still God’s Word if not historically accurate?


PC, while the bible has many different styles (many which are difficult to understand at times) it is NOT an abstract book. God meant what He wrote through the writers by His inspiration. That's one thing that sets us apart from other religions. We know what our God meant when he said "....." fill in the blank with a passage. It's not open to our personal interpretation.

Do we know what God mean when He said "....."? I must confess that I have serious doubts about that.

The disciples heard what God said directly through Christ and didn’t always understand. The early church heard what God said directly through the apostles and didn’t understand. The early church fathers from Papias and Polycarp down to Augustine read the same Scriptures that we did (with a lot less autographic errors) and still maintained the perpetual virginity of Mary, the ransom theory of atonement, apostasy, infant baptism, the papacy, and numerous other ideas that today’s conservative Christians find unscriptural. Up until the time of Martin Luther in the 16th century, the Western Church read the Bible and maintained that it taught transubstantiation, the bishop of Rome was the vicar of Christ and sole interpreter of Scripture, seven sacraments as the method of God’s grace, indulgences, and many other doctrines that today’s conservative Christians find unscriptural. For the next 400 yrs, various conservative Christian groups in various countries and cultures at various times in these last 400 years have maintained various other doctrines and various other traditions that are quite different from everyone else. Yet each generation of Southern Baptist Christians believe that THEY are the one group of Christian believers who out of all the other generations, denominations and traditions in Christendom that has accurately understood all the teachings that God has taught through His Word. We will not go so far back as to mention the previous years of church segregation or even the recent years of denominational takeovers, demagoguery, firings, lawsuits, and malicious political machinations directed at those within their denomination and to those in other groups. We will not even mention the past year’s support of gender inequality, capital punishment, anti-ecumenicalism, political activism by non-kingdom methodology, second-degree separation, unscriptural ethical laws, and voluminous other examples of non-Christian behavior. No, I do not think that any of us know all what God has said.

Of course the Bible is open to our interpretation. The Bible asks us to interpret it. The Bible needs to be interpreted. If we do not interpret it we might as well go home now and return to the dust from which we came. The Bible interprets history, it interprets creation, it interprets events, people, and places. More importantly, it interprets God and Jesus. More importantly than even that: the Bible is God interpreting reality Himself and giving us the tools we need to interpret the interpretation that God has revealed.

I take the interpretation of Scripture very seriously. While I take the traditional interpretations of the church fathers from Origen to Augustine with due consideration and may agree with some of their interpretations from time to time, I do not take their interpretations as infallible. While I take the interpretations of the popes of the Roman Catholic Church with due consideration (and sometimes we do agree), I believe his interpretations are also fallible. The interpretations of Luther, Calvin and Zwingli are also fallible. Even those of Kierkegaard, Brunner, Niebuhr, and Moody are not without failure. And, yes, the interpretation of Scripture of the 2000 Southern Baptist Faith and Message and the doctrinal statements of the Evangelical Theological Society are not without errors. While I take their opinions with due seriousness, I do not consider them infallible. They maybe right and they may be wrong. Church history suggests that they are both right and wrong on various matters. I maybe right and I maybe wrong. My one personal history suggests this to be the case. However, God has given me the right to choose with whom I agree with and with whom I do not. He gives me the right to be right and the right to be wrong.

While the true meaning of Scripture does not depend upon anyone’s interpretation, the effect of Scripture as it works in the world does largely depend upon our own personal subjective interpretation.

Concerning whether or not the Bible is an abstract book:

Abstract:

1. “Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept.”

This is debatable. Are symbolic expressions, truncated histories, and apocalyptic passages partly abstract constructions? I’ll have to think about that one.

2. “Not applied or practical; theoretical.”

Yes, in this I would agree. The Bible is designed to be practical.

3. “Difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract philosophical problems.”

Well, the apocalypses alone are difficult to understand. And much of the rest of the Bible, well …

4. “Thought of or stated without reference to a specific instance: abstract words like truth and justice.”

Yes, I agree, the Bible is a very contextual work; its thoughts always refer to a specific reference or instance. However, the Psalms, while specific in reference, are meant to be read subjectively by the believer. Furthermore, the Proverbs, while referring to specific instances of life experiences, are generally true in nature and can be particularly true but are not universally true. That’s why they are called “proverbs”.

5. “Impersonal, as in attitude or views.”

Yes, I agree. The Bible is VERY personal. That’s its point.

6. “Having an intellectual and affective artistic content that depends solely on intrinsic form rather than on narrative content or pictorial representation: abstract painting and sculpture.”

That’s an interesting thought. My first response is to say that aspects of the Bible are abstract in this regard. However, I question whether we can apply modern notions of this form of abstract to the Bible. If we could, possibly the gospels and the historical books to some degree, certainly the apocalypses. I’ll have to think about this one as well.


In conclusion, some might argue that my rejection of their terms amounts to little more than petty distinctions and hair-splitting. This is perhaps true insofar that it is slight enough to permit me to be quite tolerant of differing opinions. However, to me these terms reflect a particular reality. I prefer to use terms that reflect my understanding of that reality.

The basic question that I offer is who interprets Scripture? How do we decide whose interpretation is correct? By tradition? By the pope? By the consensus of the majority? By our SBC leaders? Who interprets Scripture?