Inner Logic is an important concept to realize when approaching Scripture and its interpretation. These two words actually signify another way of saying theological exegesis; yet I find that many in my own tradition of “Evangelicalism” shy away from such thinking when it comes to Biblical interpretation. There is this unspoken (but often spoken) belief that when we interpret scripture that it is simply a staightforward exercise (of course the multitudinous interpretations of scripture put this belief to death quickly). The irony of this perspective is that so many of our Essential Christian Beliefs are grounded in anything but straightforward exegesis. Let me provide an example:
One of the bedrock, touchstone foundations of Historic Christian Belief is the doctrine of God known as the Trinity. Of course nowhere in the Bible will we find the nomenclature of Trinity; in fact one of the so called church Fathers, Tertullian, 
coined the term Trinitas very early on in the Churches’ genesis; here’s what J. N. D. Kelly says:
. . . He, too, is a ‘Person’, so that the Godhead is a ‘trinity’ (trinitas: Tertullian is the first to employ the word). The three are indeed numerically distinct, being ‘capable of being counted’. . . . Thus Tertullian can state: ‘We believe in on only one God, yet subject to this dispensation, which is our word for economy, that the one only God has also a Son, His Word, Who has issued out of Himself . . . which Son then sent, according to His promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete out of the Father’; and later in the same context he can balance the divine unity with ‘the mystery of the economy, which distributes the unity in Trinity, setting forth Father, Son and Spirit as three’. (J.N.D. Kelly, “Early Christian Doctrines,” 113)
I mention this to further substantiate that the language of Trinity, itself, is indeed foreign to the text of scripture; in fact as Kelly notes it came from a church Father. What I would like to further add, in flow with the context of this post, is that while the language of “Trinity” may be foreign to the text of Scripture; indeed, the grammar or concept is not. This brings us back to the language of inner logic or theological exegesis. In other words, how did Tertullian and the other church Father’s come to conclude that God is not only one (de deo uno); but in fact He is three (de deo trino) in one and one in three? Simple they read scripture, and discerned that when they read the Apostle Paul, for example, that there was an unstated theological concept about God that Paul was assuming in order to make benedictions like this:
“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.” ~II Corinithians 13:13
As you engage the rest of Paul’s writings (like all of II Corinthians for example) there is this constant assumption that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are at work in salvation. This is what discerning the inner logic leads to; i.e. key and fundamental doctrines upon which the Christian faith hangs — starting in the early church and into the present.
So there is more to scripture interpretation and exegesis than engaging in exegetical and syntactical analysis of the Koine Greek of the New Testament; there in fact is an inner logic that holds the text of scripture together. It is the theologian’s job to discern and lay bare this “logic” and work out the implications of that “inner logic” for the church and all of her exegetes. The Trinity is just one example of working out the inner logic of scripture; all of Scripture actually hangs together on Christo-logic, but this is discussion for another post.
I hope folks realize the depth embedded within the scriptures themselves; if you do you will be set up to enjoy the richness and freshness that scripture has to offer.
Amen, Bobby. You’re speaking my language! Actually, this whole post is close to verbatim of some of the opening lecture of the Christology class I took from Ray Anderson at Fuller.
Well that’s encouraging. I’ve only read a couple of things from Anderson, but his love of Torrance certainly resonates with me. π
Who are you, oh masked abwf?
Love J.N.D. Kelly’s book! He has a few others also. He was a good Anglican and scholar!
Hey Bobby, abwf was me – sorry, I accidently logged in under my wife’s Aberdeen women’s fellowship account.
I thought it was probably you π . I saw the email plus Fuller, but wasn’t totally sure.
Happy New Year!
Robert,
Yep, Kelly’s book is the one we used for my Patristics class in seminary.
Sorry people, but just because the Patristics used the “inner logic” of the text doesn’t mean they got it right. Jewish ideas translated into the Greek language interpreted by antisemitic Greek/Turkish/Roman men seem to lend to problems no matter what so called “inner logic” they used. It’s funny that that “inner logic” can so easily be dismissed when we disagree with the other weird stuff they said.
Oh Kenny, you’re so contrairian π .
So Bobby, your not a something of a Voluntarist?
Fr Robert,
No, I don’t think so. In fact, really the opposite as far as I want to see everything in “personal” ways. Probably more of an actualist, but not exactly Barthian; more Torrancean π .
Bobby, I just wanted to hear you express your Torrancean logic (on this). π Can you guess where I am right now? lol
No, where are you? Seriously. How would the EO view be construed? π
Bobby,
I am still something of an Augustinian, even with my Anglo-Orthodoxy. But note, that is not a modern Reformed Augustinian, but much more classic Catholic. I am not really sure for the pure EO? I will check on that however. I do know many of the US Antiochian EO like Pascal & Kierkegaard however.
I have a few friends who are up at the St. Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology, Elk Grove CA. I should check with them.
You might find this of interest?
http://www.iep.utm.edu/voluntar/
PS >> But note with the contrast with “Intellectualism”, to favor God’s reason. I bet the majority will go with that. Just a guess?
Fr Robert,
Thanks. That article was good! It would be interesting to see how EO works this out.
Sorry for being contentious, I just think the facts of history are important and need to not be forgotten. Theory is fun, but reality is the real teacher. The Political/social factors need to be brought into our understanding of Theory/Theology to see how they could produce the thoughts they did. In the case of the fathers and their “inner logic” how could the situatedness of their time lend to there views – for me this is a more interesting question.
I guess my Point is that it would be fun to read this blog if the “sitz im laben” of the theories were added to the theological theories espoused.
It is an interesting question, Kenny; I wish I had the time to get into it more. I was just messing with you, I don’t care; I like pushy-ness. I think so many of us get too worried about being sensitive; so much so that we just don’t say it like it is — this isn’t you π !
Kenny, I’d be interested in how one might conceive of discussions of political and social realities as any less theoretical than discussions of the inner logic of theological realities. Of course there is a proper differentiation between facts and theories which organize and explain the meaning of these facts, but that differentiation can’t, I would think, be mapped as factual/theoretical => historical-social/theological. I would think it would run more factual/theoretical => historical actions-social relations-acts of God/history-sociology-theology. The notion that biblical studies or historical theology is somehow more objective and factual than systematic or dogmatic theology just seems to rely too much on an unworkable theoretical model of academic disciplines.
I would also add to Adam’s point that there is also a dialectic that takes place between the social/theoretical factual/historical matrix; which is axiomatic for all periods of conceptual development. In other words, I don’t situadeness marginalizes or relativizes the veracity of something whether it be pre or post nicene for example.
@ Bobby and Adam I agree, but still, it would be nice to have a little more historical context included into these discussions of theology, at least in broad strokes. That’s all I’m saying.
Kenny,
Can you give an “for example.” For a blog post I would think this post, by appealing to JND Kelly for example does get into the historical shaping of particular doctrines.
I.e. Are you looking for some discussion on what kind of philosophical categories, say, the Cappadocians might have appropriated for their constructive theological articulation?