Source: The Trinity — Evidence and Issues, Robert Morey, Chapter 2, pp. 21-37
While the battle between Christianity and humanism, theism and atheism, faith and unbelief remains the same, the battlefield has shifted from the doctrinal to the pre-doctrinal, the theological to the philosophical, the theoretical to the pre-theoretical, the precepts to the presuppositions, the biblical to the pre-biblical, and from exegesis to hermeneutics.
Most modern humanistic theologians are no longer interested in the careful exegesis of Scripture for several reasons. First, they assume that it is impossible to get back to the original text of Scripture. In other words, no one can really know for sure what Jesus or the apostles actually did or said. They do not trust the Gospels or the Epistles because they assume that the New Testament is fraudulent in content as well as in authorship.
Second, they also assume that if, by some kind of miracle, we could get back to the original text, it would not do us any good because it is impossible to know what the authors of the Bible meant by their words.
Subjectivistic hermeneutics such as deconstructionism and contextualism, in which the interpreter is encourage to "enter into" and "interact with" the meaning of the text, actually destroys any hope of discovering what the author was saying. In effect, they have reduced theology to psychology and anthropology. "What does the text say to me in the matrix of my own personal experience?" is the only politically correct hermeneutic today.
Humanistic theologians are no longer interested in debating whose revelation is "true" because they assume that there are no "true" revelations; that all religions are subjective ad relative; and that an objective, propositional, special revelation from a personal, infinite, triune God is simply not possible. The Bible has been reduced to the level of the Muslim Qur’an and the Hindu Vedas. Pay your nickel and take your choice because none of them are really "true" in the objective sense. If a religion makes you happy, it is subjectively true for you. But never forget that one man's truth is another man's lie.
Given the humanistic context of modern theology, it is no surprise to find that it has already been decided, on pre-biblical grounds, that the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be objectively "true." Thus the Trinity is summarily dismissed by shouting it down with cries of "illogical," "incoherent" or "out of the question." This cavalier approach to theology is the product of an a priori commitment to a relativistic epistemology in which man is the measure of all things including God.
It is this humanistic assumption which has led to the death of meaning not only in philosophy, but also in theology. In the history of Western philosophy, the meaning of things was first thought to exist above in the world of ideas. The meaning was then brought down to earth and mixed with the object itself. Thus, you had to grasp the essence of an object from within that object.
Then it was assumed that meaning was in the object and in the human mind at the same time. When the two came into contact with each other, knowledge happened. But it was not long before it was suggested that meaning was entirely in the mind of the beholder and not in the ideas above or in the objects below.
Once meaning was reduced to man's mind, humanistic philosophers came to the conclusion that all is subjective and relative to the beholder. There is no truth to discover, no meaning to find, no morality to follow and no justice to establish. Western philosophy has gone from Plato to Aristotle to Leibniz to Kant to Sartre and ended in the abyss of meaninglessness.
Since humanism starts with man as the Origin, it has never been able to break free from the shackles of its own inherent relativism. This is why the denial of meaning, truth, morals, justice, beauty, dignity and significance has become the new orthodoxy and any attempt to sustain any absolutes in any field is vigorously attacked as "incoherent" or "reactionary."
This is also why liberal theology has collapsed within itself. In the nineteenth century, the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man were viewed as absolute truths. But liberalism today does not claim to hold to any absolutes. The feminist's vicious attack on the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man, has destroyed the old liberal ideals as well as the basis of their social gospel.
Modern theology does not really have a clue as to who or what God is. Bereft of any special revelation from their god or gods or goddesses, they have become quite schizophrenic. They pride themselves on being "non-judgmental" and claim that they do not believe in putting down any theological system as "false" because they do not believe that any system is "true." Yet, while they say that they do not judge other belief systems, they turn right around and attack the Bible and those who believe in it! This blatant hypocrisy needs to be pointed out to them.
If the feminists, the witches, the Marxists, the gays, etc., all can define God anyway they want, why is it that evangelicals are condemned for believing in the triune God of the Bible? If the feminists can pray to a mother god, why are evangelicals condemned for praying to God the Father?
Any concept of God is allowable in liberal circles today except for biblical concepts such as the Trinity and the deity of Christ. This has resulted in utter chaos where feminist, Marxist, homosexual, existential, occultic, liberationist, pagan, and process theologians will not be bound by any absolutes, not even by "liberal" ones.
Once the a priori humanistic doctrine of human autonomy is granted, then it does not really matter what anyone thinks or says about God because all of theology has been reduced to mere god-talk. If someone wants to define "God" as a lesbian, black, Marxist, so be it. Theological fads come and go so fast in liberal circles today that it has become a veritable "god of the month" club.
| The Humanist A Priori | The Christian A Priori |
|---|---|
| Man starting from and by himself without any outside information can understand himself and the world around him. | God has revealed to us in the Bible the information we need to understand ourselves and the world around us. |
| Man is the measure of all things, including God. | God is the measure of all things, including man. |
| Man created god in his own image. | God created man in His own image. |
| If God actually exists, he, she, or it is unknowable. | We can know God because He has revealed Himself. |
| Theology is the study of man's feelings, hopes, wishes, and fears. | Theology is the study of God's self-disclosure in Scripture. |
| All concepts of God are relative, subjective, cultural, and existential. No concept is true or false. | To think of God in any other way than how He has revealed Himself in Scripture is idolatry. |
| The Word "God" can mean whetever you need to find self-fulfillment. | There is but one true God. All other gods are false. |
| All religions are "true" to the degree they satisfy the psychological and social needs of those who believe in them. | Christianity is the one true religion. All other religions are false and idolatrous. |
| Everything is relative. There are no absolutes. Man is accountable only to himself. | God has revealed in Scripture the absolutes by which He will judge us one day. |
| History is an evolutionary chance-driven process which does not follow any predetermined plan or path. | All things happen according to the will and predetermined plan of God. Things do not happen by chance. |
| History has no meaning other than what man projects upon it. | Everything has meaning and significance because it is a part of God's plan of the ages. |
| All beliefs arise from the surrounding culture which is the product of meaningless chance. Thus all beliefs are meaningless. | Christianity is not derived from culture, but from Christ. Its source is special revelation and, thus, it has meaning. |
| The Bible is guilty until proven innocent. | The Bible is innocent until proven guilty. |
| The Bible is not inspired anymore than the Qur'an or the Vedas. | The Bible is the inspired Word of God and all other books, such as the Qur'an, are false in content and satanic in origin. |
| We must get "behind" the text of the Bible to the psychological makeup and experience of those who wrote it. | We must not venture beyond the text into wild speculations as to who was feeling what. To psychologize the Bible is to corrupt it. |
| We must project our own subjective feelings into the text to understand what the text is saying to use today. | The meaning of the text lies in the text itself and not in the interpreter. |
| The Bible is fraudulent in its claim of authorship. Moses did not write the Pentateuch, Isaiah did not write Isaiah, Daniel did not write Daniel, etc. | The Bible was written by the authors assigned to each book. Moses wrote the Pentateuch, Isaiah wrote Isaiah, etc. |
| The Gospels were written by early Christians as a witness to what the word "Jesus" meant to them in the context of their lives. | The Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. |
| The Gospels do not tell us anything about the historical Jesus. | The Gospels tell us who the historical Jesus was and what He said and did. |
| The Gospels are fictional in nature and contain myths and legends created by the early Christian community as a faith response to their existential encounter with the Other. We need to "get behind" those myths to get to the historical Jesus. | The Gospels give us a true historical account of the birth, life, ministry, teaching, miracles, death, burial and resurrection of Christ. There are no legends or myths in the Gospels. |
| All attempts to "get behind" the Gospels to the real Jesus have failed. No one knows anything about the historical Jesus. | The historical Jesus is revealed in the Gospels. We can know who Jesus is only by the Bible. |
| If Jesus existed, He did not think of Himself as the Messiah or as God and He did not claim such to His disciples. | Jesus knew that He was both God and Christ. He taught His disciples that He was such. |
| Jesus was "divine" only in the same sense in which we are all divine. | Jesus Christ was the only incarnation of deity. |
| Jesus was mistaken on many things. For example, He thought that the end of the world would happen in his day. | As incarnate deity, Jesus was not mistaken on anything. He did not teach that the end of the world would happen in His life-time. |
| The apostles mistakenly believed that the end of the world would take place in their life-time. | While the return of Christ could take place, the apostles never claimed that it would definitely take place in their life-time. |
| If someone uses the terminology of contemporary philosophies to express his ideas, then those ideas actually come from those contemporary philosophies. Common terms imply common ideas and origins. | You can use contemporary terminology while deriving your ideas elsewhere. It is a logical fallacy to think that common terms means common ideas or origins. |
| Since the early Church used Platonic terminology in its creeds, it derived its concept of the Trinity from Plato instead of from the Bible. | Early Christians used those contemporary terms which best expressed the teachings of Scripture. They did not derive their ideas of God from Plato, but from the Bible. |
| Paul created Christianity out of the pagan Greek mystery religions. | Paul did not derive the Gospel from the mystery religions. God revealed it to him through special revelation. |
| The attributes of man determine the attributes of god. What man is, God can be. What man is not, God cannot be. | We must not make the error of thinking that God is like us. |
| Christianity as a religion was not created by Jesus but by Paul. If Jesus were alive today, he would not be a Christian but a Jew. | Christianity is the religion based upon the person and work of Christ as interpreted by the apostles. There is no conflict between what Jesus and Paul taught. |
| Since god is created in the image of man, no god should be conceived of as being greater or better than man or as having greater capabilities than man. | God is better and greater than man in all respects. Any god made by man is not worthy of respect or worship. |
| Since man is personal and finite, then God must be finite and personal. | God is both personal and infinite at the same time. |
| Since man is not a person or being but only a process, then God must be a process as well. | God is a perfect Being and not just a process. The continuity of God's Being is the basis of His personhood. |
| Since man cannot know or control the future, then God cannot know or control the future. | God both knows and control the future. |
| Since man is not omniscient, omnipotent, immutable or perfect, the neither is God. | The one true God is omniscient, ominpotent, omnipresent, immutable and perfect. Any god less than this is not GOD. |
| Since any god which man creates would be comprehensible to the man who created him, the doctrine of the incomprehensibility of God is false. | God is incomprehensible in the sense of man's not being able to fully understand or explain God. Any god that we could fully understand and explain would be less than what we are and hence no God at all. |
False interpretations usually arise because the reader is not paying attention to the text. Thus, the authors of Scripture warn their readers not to twist what they were saying (2Pe 3:16). Twisting Scripture is effected by doing the following:
The Bible cannot be interpreted just anyway one wants. This is not how we treat other literature. The Bible should be
subject only to those normal rules of interpretation which we all follow when reading any piece of literature. No special
rules should be used which, if applied to any other, ancient or modern literature, would be disastrous.