Home » doctrine and application » Page 2

Tag: doctrine and application

Applying the Scriptures: Introduction

This is just a heads-up. I have been trying to get to this for a while, but it is a tough subject and I’ve needed to cull a few resources.

This week I am going to make two or three posts on the proper application of the Scriptures. The first will deal with the dreaded subject of the relationship of ‘meaning and application’ and the second will deal with the application of Law and Gospel. From there, it may or may not take a third to tie up loose ends. That is all.

Recent Reading: The Mind of the Maker, by Dorothy Sayers: Part 3 – The Problem of Trinitarian Analogies

I have wrestled with this issue in my reading of Dorothy Sayers’ book, The Mind of the Maker. The entire work, essentially, draws an analogy to the Trinitarian Being of God from the experience of the human creator of art. It is not hard to quickly see that this analogy falls far short of conveying the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

Sayers’ principle is that the human author’s creative work is Idea, Energy, and Power, and that each of these reflect the three persons of the Trinity. I appreciate this analogy, and see its validity so far as it goes, but the great problem with it is evident – all three of these are the work of the author. They are not ‘one Being.’ Rather, they are ideas in the mind of man finding expression in writing – whereas God is a Being, indeed Being itself, rather than a notion.

Years ago I read Robert Letham’s book, The Holy Trinity. It has been paradigmatic for me in many ways ever since. He strongly suggests that analogies are, more often than not, more harmful than good:

As Gregory of Nazianzen stresses at the end of his fifth theological oration, there are no analogies in the world around us that adequately convey the Christian doctrine of the Trinity (p. 6).

The common analogies for the Trinity are egregious. One of the first I encountered was H2O in its various forms as water, ice, and vapor (yet all remaining H2O). This analogy leads to Modalism – three manifestations, or appearances, of the same thing. There is no mystery in ice, water, and vapor – they are simply manifestations of H20 completely dependent upon external forces (i.e. temperature). The same is the case with the analogy of one Man as Son, Husband, and father. He is one Man, says the analogy, and yet as one Man is Son, Husband, and Father at the same time. Again, this is rank Modalism – one person performing three functions. Once I even heard someone go so far as to use the Bat-Mobile (the more modern form of it, as opposed to the old TV show I watched reruns of as a kid) as an analogy. It is one Bat-Mobile, but it can be a car, or a boat, or a plane, depending on the need of the moment. That is brash Modalism – straight heresy.

Historically the analogy of humanity was used – many humans, all sharing one human nature. But there are millions of humans (not three only) and thus the analogy breaks down. Besides this we have the fact that humans do not share precisely the same mind, will, or affections. It is a transformer, not a Trinity. Another common analogy is that of a clover leaf – three proportional leafs in one plant, sharing one branch. Yet these are three separate leaves held together by a stem. Each leaf only makes up a part of the plant, no one leaf can be ‘clover’ in itself. Each is only a third of the clover, and therefore this is no Trinity.

Analogies – all analogies – fail. None of them hit the nail on the head. We must therefore be very careful as we approach this great doctrine. John Calvin puts it this way:

Here, if anywhere, in considering the hidden mysteries of Scripture, we should speculate soberly and with great moderation, cautiously guarding against allowing either our mind or our tongue to go a step beyond the confines of God’s word.  For how can the human mind, which has not yet been able to ascertain of what the body of the sun consists, though it is daily presented to the eye, bring down the boundless essence of God to its little measure?  No, how can it, under its own guidance, penetrate to a knowledge of the substance of God while unable to understand its own?  Wherefore, let us willingly leave to God the knowledge of himself.  In the words of Hilary, ‘He alone is a fit witness to himself who is known only by himself.’  This knowledge, then, if we would leave to God, we must conceive of him as he has made himself known, and in our inquiries make application to no other quarter than his word (Institutes, 1:13:21).

Letham summarizes Calvin:’ The Trinity is a mystery, as Calvin said, more to be adored than investigated’ (p. 11).

But, with that said, this is not what Sayers is trying to do. She is not trying to ‘prove’ the Trinity from human experience (or even, necessarily, to illustrate it). Rather, she is reflecting upon the correspondence of the Trinity to human experience. She is not saying, ‘God is like this. Become a writer and you will better understand Him’ Rather, she is saying that we are the way we are because we are created in the image of God, who is like this in some respects. And, she adds, as it were, that the more we develop this ‘God-likeness’ in our art, the better artists we will become.

In other words, she is letting her doctrine of God, which is derived from the Scriptures, come to bear on her experience. And in her experience she sees a correspondence to the doctrine. And having seen this correspondence, she sees a need to make it stick – to conform her writing more to what she knows of God. She is doing precisely what we should be doing – letting God stand as the basic presupposition, our Governor, governing, even implicitly, all that we do, including art.

Let me put it this way, using the analogy of one Man as Son, Husband, and Father. Sayers is not saying that this man exists as a trinity per se, or that he can understand the Trinity because of his various roles as one man. Rather, she is, as it were, saying that by understanding God correctly we can better understand what it means to be a son, and a husband, and a father. He can learn sonship by looking upon Christ in his perfect sonship in relation to the Father. Indeed we can become sons of God the Father through faith in Christ. We can learn about true Fatherhood from the perfect Father. We can learn to be a better husband by viewing the Son’s relationship to His bride, the church. Put simply, our doctrine of God informs our practice, and not the other way around.

Letham argues that a great need of the modern Western church is that she reawaken to her fellowship with, and foundation of, the Triune God. And correspondingly to explicitly state her (that is, the church’s) beliefs robustly:

Prayer, worship, and communion with God are by definition Trinitarian. As the Father has made himself known through the Son ‘for us and our salvation’ in or by the Spirit, so we are all caught up in this reverse movement. We live, move, and have our being in a pervasively Trinitarian atmosphere. We recall too the words of Jesus to the Samaritan woman, that the true worshipers will from now on worship the Father in Spirit and in truth (John 4:21-24). How often have we heard this referred to  inwardness in contrast to externals, to spirituality rather than material worship, to sincerity as opposed to formalism? Instead [of], with many of the Greek fathers, such as Basil the Great and Cyril of Alexandria, a more immediate and pertinent reference to the Holy Spirit…and to the living embodiment of truth, Jesus Christ….The point is that Christian experience of God in its entirety, including worship, prayer, or what have you, is inescapably Trinitarian…The important point is that at the most fundamental level of Christian experience, corresponding to what Polanyi termed the ‘tacit dimension’ of scientific knowledge, this is common to all Christian believers. The need is to bridge the gap between this prearticulated level of experience and developed theological understanding, so that this is explicitly, demonstrably, and strategically realized in the understanding of the church and its members (p. 8).

Sayers’ work then, in my view, is quite helpful in many respects, so long as you do not mistake it for a true analysis of the Being of God. In other words, we must view her work in this way: I cannot learn about the Trinity from my natural experience, but, conversely, a foundational knowledge of the Trinity can greatly illumine my experience. Understanding who God is, as a storyteller Himself, can greatly improve my own telling of stories as I conform my actions to his self-revelation. But, conversely, being a decent storyteller will not necessarily make me a good theologian.

She puts it this way:

In the metaphors used by the Christian creeds about the mind of the maker, the creative artist can recognize a true relation to his own experience… (The Mind of the Maker, p. 45).

No analogy can ‘convey’ the Trinity. Yet the Trinity can inform, implicitly and explicitly, many things we do. The problem is that we are not inherently ‘Trinitarian enough’ for our beliefs to control us to that degree. Sayers was. She was applying the doctrine to experience, rather than trying to infer doctrine from experience. She therefore stands as an example to us of one who let her doctrine guide her practice, and always examined her practice in light of her doctrine.

Snippets: Go and Learn What This Means (Matt. 9:13)

Matthew 9:13 Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

It amazes me that there are so many who would question the person and work of Christ, or spout nonsense about Jesus Christ, or even presume to speak about Jesus Christ at all if they have not spent much time in studying and applying the Scriptures (both to Jesus Christ and to himself).

Christ did not need to defend himself during the events recorded in Matthew 9, he only needed to point the religious leaders to the Old Testament, and bid them, ‘Go and learn what this means…’ Go and learn your Old Testament, written many years before the birth of Christ, before you question his person or actions.

Do you wonder why Christ was born of a virgin? Go and learn. Do you wonder why he healed the sick and raised the dead? Go and learn. Do you wonder why he died upon a cross? Go and learn. Do you wonder why he rose from the dead? Go and learn. The answers are only found in the Scriptures. If you have questions, why do you not study them? We would do well to follow the example of Jonathan Edwards:

11. Resolved, when I think of any theorem in divinity to be solved, immediately to do what I can towards solving it, if circumstances don’t hinder (From Jonathan Edwards’ Resolutions).

And in studying the Scriptures, surely Christ implies that we must come under their authority, and learn them not only abstractly, but apply them to ourselves vigorously. A reading that fails to make application is no true reading at all, for it does not enable us to learn the meaning.

Go and learn what this means, implies that a misapplication of the Scriptures is tantamount to a total misunderstanding (cf. Matt. 12:2-5, 19:4) . If you would learn the meaning of the Scriptures, then learn to apply them to yourself, and your world, in the modern context.

Go and learn what this means implies also that a reading of the Scripture which does not shed light on the person and work of Christ is no true reading at all.

Note, It is not enough to be acquainted with the letter of scripture, but we must learn to understand the meaning of it. And they have best learned the meaning of the Scriptures that have not only learned how to apply them as a reproof to their own faults and a rule for their own practice but also as pointing to Christ and his gospel in every place.

Study of the Scripture that does not lead to the contemplation and understanding of the person and work of Christ is faulty. We have not, according to Jesus, learned what the Scriptures mean. Therefore go and learn.