Second, he endorses his own brand of perspectivalism, which he consciously derives from Van Til, Frame, and Kenneth Pike.214 That said, we will focus primarily on his more conscious use of Van Til.
Poythress argues for the triune character of meaning, relying on both Van Til’s formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity and his concept of analogy (based on the Creator-creature distinction, with human knowledge as derivative, dependent, and genuine).215 Similarly, he emphasizes that the nature of God affects how we know him and his revelation.216 Moreover, Poythress, like Van Til, speaks of the nature of God and Scripture in similar terms. One may view the meaning of Scripture as tri-perspectival, analogous to aspects of the Trinity. He suggests a triad of attributes of God which reflect the diversity, relational communion, and deity of each person as a perspective on the entire Godhead.217 They can be seen as corresponding to certain attributes of Scripture with regard to meaning: instantiational (particular text), associational (connections or relations with other texts), and classificational (stable meaning). While each person of the Trinity has all three of these attributes, each is particularly associated with an attribute: the Father with classificational, the Son with instantational, and the Spirit with associational.218 In sum, when seeking the meaning of a text of Scripture, it is important to appreciate the Trinitarian qualities of it as the word of the triune God.
Poythress goes on to argue that various non-Christian philosophies are guilty of exalting one particular perspective at the expense of others. In terms of ontology, he observes that the realist-nominalist categories have suffered from an unbiblical exaltation of unity (tendency of realism) and diversity (tendency of nominalism), which are actually equally ultimate in the doctrine of the Trinity. Furthermore, he argues for other philosophical tendencies: rationalism exalts the classificational aspect, empiricism exalts the instantational aspect, and subjectivism exalts the associational aspect.219 Each is ultimately an assault on the triune nature of God. Van Til’s notion of the non-Christian rationalistic and irrationalistic tendencies is used to expose ontological assumptions present in unbelieving philosophy which subvert the Creator-creature distinction.220 He sums up his argument for Trinitarian logic by admitting and embracing its circularity, in accordance with Van Til.221 He uses Trinitarian logic in order to argue for it. This is something unavoidable in light of the ultimate authority and ontological status of the triune God. There is no possibility of neutral reasoning in this respect.222 Van Til’s ontological emphases are used to evaluate various philosophies relevant to hermeneutics.
Another relevant way in which Poythress applies his Van Tillian-influenced Trinitarian ontology to hermeneutics is through its relation to another triad, concerning verbal communication.223 In redemption, the persons of the Trinity perform particular roles analogous to roles seen in God’s verbal communication: the Father as author, the Son as text, and the Spirit closely associated with the reader. The practical effect is that the ultimate archetype behind all human communication, in terms of its key categories (author, text, and reader), is the Trinitarian being of God. This accounts for seeing an ultimate unity and diversity concerning all three. Consequently, we must avoid Trinitarian heresies present in certain conceptions of the communication triad. For example, Unitarianism would evidence itself in collapsing author, text, and reader into one meaning, thereby stripping away the essential complexity of human communication. Polytheism, on the other hand, would evidence itself in multiplying meanings related to each aspect of the triad, thereby driving a wedge between each, resulting in at least three separate, potentially contradictory, meanings.224
Third, Poythress uses Van Til’s ideas in articulating the fullness of meaning found in biblical interpretation. Seeking to do justice to the divine meaning of Scripture, he considers the relationship between the God and the human authors in terms of the incarnational analogy. Just as in the Chalcedonian definition regarding the two natures of Christ, the human and the divine must not be identified or separated in terms of meaning. Ultimately, meaning is what God intended through the various human authors to their intended hearers.225 However we conceive of this complex process, we must keep the Creator-creature distinction intact when considering the roles of the human and divine author in the interpretation of Scripture. For example, the divine message cannot be trimmed down to the limits of human reason.226 God’s speech is, at the same time, propositional, personal, and perspectival.227 It is rooted in God’s triune nature and knowledge.
Since the fullness of meaning is rooted in God, it follows that the meaning of Scripture, whether looked at narrowly or canonically, is infinite in its fullness.228 Unless this fact is recognized, there is a tendency toward reductionism, especially if comprehensive precision is sought in such areas as historical understanding,229 language, or philosophical theology.230 As we are confronted with the divine author at every point in interpreting the Bible, we must avoid the false ideal of exhaustive comprehension of meaning, either in the human interpreter or human author.231 Only in this way will we preserve the Creator-creature distinction. It is important to recall the necessity of perspectives as Poythress sees it. They are necessary because no single human model or viewpoint can exhaust or capture God’s intended meaning through Scripture, since it is rooted in his infinite self-knowledge. Multiple perspectives are needed to appreciate its fullness. Hermeneutical techniques do not exhaust this meaning. God is not a “prisoner of mechanism,” nor can he be reduced to mechanical calculation.232 After all, even the most apparently sterile scientific study is not mere technique, but involves many vital assumptions.233 After surveying such modern theories of meaning as symbolic logic, structural linguistics, and translation theory, he concludes that reductionism is present wherever scientific rigor (undergirded by unbiblical presuppositions) is enforced.234 If human language and communication are intelligible only against the backdrop of intra-Trinitarian communication, then “the category of mystery accordingly belongs to meaning and to hermeneutical reflections on meaning,” and reductionistic approaches must be critically evaluated.235
Lastly, Poythress discusses hermeneutics in terms of God’s Lordship and Christ’s redemption. The Enlightenment desire for neutral, self-sufficient interpretation is impossible in understanding the Bible’s message (or anything else for that matter). God is sovereignly and personally present in all interpretive endeavors. Consequently, our thoughts in these matters are ethically related to God, under his authority.236 “We ought to have God as the standard in judging all rules in interpretation.” Without his standard, our interpretation