Hidden pitfalls

Originally posted on June 16, 2007 – by Andre Piet

Several weblogs ago, I pointed to the extremely sound rule of thumb that Dr. W.J. Ouweneel formulated in 1975:

Healthy Bible study is safe Bible study, and it is safe when it stays as close as possible to Scripture and uses only the terminology of Scripture…

Now it so happens that just recently another article by his hand came to my attention. It appeared in De Bode (1987) under the title “Philosophy, Theology and the Person of Christ.” I definitely do not want to withhold a few quotes from it. Ouweneel puts forward how we are all human beings…

…that are ‘embedded’ in a culture thousands of years old, which is by no means purely Christian, but also has strong pagan roots. This mixed culture has a greater influence on us than many realize (…) Take, for example, an expression like: “Christ: two natures, one Person” — where does this expression come from? Certainly not from Scripture! The New Testament does contain a word for ‘nature’ and for ‘person,’ but uses those words in this sense very rarely, and in any case never in connection with the Lord (…) In other words: the statement that Christ is two natures in one Person is not found in Scripture.

So what do we do with such a statement that we do not find in the Bible? Do we say then: it is unscriptural to say that Christ is two natures in one Person?

Indeed, that is what we say. At least, if we truly choose to “stay as close as possible to Scripture and use only the terminology of Scripture.” Ouweneel’s answer nevertheless differs, despite the fact that (as he himself writes!) there are ‘many hidden pitfalls’ involved in the terminology of the ancient Councils.”

Where does the speaking of “two natures” and “one Person” in connection with the Lord actually come from? It was not the “Brethren” or even the Reformers who first taught these things in this way! The speaking of the two natures and the one Person of Christ originates from the early Christian Church (…) That is where our present-day formulations come from entirely! Our way of speaking about the natures and the Person of Christ is not drawn from ‘ordinary Bible study’ by every ‘simple believer’ out of Scripture, but is stored in our memory because we were raised in an environment that has spoken for fifteen centuries about the ‘natures’ and the ‘Person’ of Christ.

Exactly! That means that if we want to return—not to ‘the confession’ but to Scripture—we cannot avoid rejecting such terminology. All the more so because, as Ouweneel writes…

…this theological language, by which we are all influenced, is certainly not harmless.

I think that is reason enough to, especially in these weighty matters, “use only the terminology of Scripture.”
Biblicist or not…

Delen: