Words & Their Meaning

I write this post with some level of uncertainty. My motivation and purpose is to make our deliberations in the BLOG world fruitful and productive. I trust that this will be the result.

First, several Principles that guide the development of this material:

1.  Words and their relationship give meaning to language.

2.  Words are symbols and those symbols convey meaning.

3.  Unless and until we define what I/we mean by our choice of words/symbols, there can be little if any progress in our understanding of one another.

4.  The languages of the OT & NT are ‘dead languages’. As such the meaning of words does not change and we discover the correct meaning of words through the use of credible lexical sources. Cf. the interview with Mr. Joe Aguillard on this matter; listen to the definition he offered of election. There is no credible lexical source to support what he declared.

5.  Unity is not something we develop or produce. Rather, it is by the clear expression of the text of Scripture a reality that we are to preserve, guard, protect (Eph. 4:1-3) I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called,  with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. (Ephesians 4:1-3)

6.  The Principle of Non-Contradiction. Scripture is perspicuous, clear. It does not say one thing in one place and contradict that in another. There is one and only one correct interpretation of each portion of God’s Word. This leaves us with the following options: 

A. One is correct and the other incorrect. 

B. Both are incorrect. 

C. But, we cannot come to opposing interpretations and declare that BOTH are correct.

In recent exchanges in the BLOG world some have said “I am not – a Calvinist; an Arminian; a Semi-Pelagian, etc. Simply saying I am or I am not this or that does not make it true. Exegesis of the text, Systematic Theology and the historical unfolding of the beliefs, practices and doctrines of the church determine whether a particular belief or conviction fits or is properly characterized by a particular definition. Church history has had multiple Councils that deliberated these matters, often for years, and the conclusions they reached shape the theology the church embraces today.

Therefore, if what I express as a conviction or belief is determined by the criteria stated above to be true and accurate, I should not take offense when others correctly apply the label that has been established by accurate exegesis and the history of doctrine. 

True unity is a theological issue. We have unity when we align ourselves with the correct understanding of God’s word. God is not schizophrenic and neither is His Word. We cannot embrace diametrically opposed interpretations and say that both are correct. That is not unity as defined by Scripture.

We must be irenic, gracious, humble and civil in our discourse. We must also not capitulate to a pseudo unity, one that sacrifices accuracy and integrity in dealing with God’s Word for a “Rodney King Theology”, can’t we all just get along?

I do not claim to have all the answers to our differences but I believe what I have stated in this post is consistent with the character and nature of Truth. We can and must strive for an accurate interpretation of God’s Word and simultaneously with passion, prayer and persistence bring this Truth to the world around us.