Monday, January 07, 2008

A marking post on my journey in Trinitarian Theology

[A comment of mine on Dan Hames' blog]

Hello everyone,

I thought I best account for my absence in case it appear rude especially as I am really thankful for this conversation.

Unfortunately I have had not more than 30min at a computer at any one time for the last week (except at work) and I have been given so much to think about that I can't possibly respond properly without a couple of hours! Nevertheless I have not stopped thinking about what has been discussed and I have been able to read things and listen to lectures on my commute, which has been amazing.

In case any of you cared where I am in my journey through Trinitarian Theology, I thought I would do a summary for myself more than anything. But seeing as it has been formed in conversation with you all (esp. Dan and Glen – not because Martin and Paul don’t have good things to say but because they were there first and there when I had the time to read properly) I thought I would post it in a comment here.

0. God is definitely revealed and Glen was right to pick me up on where my rash comments led, but that doesn't mean that he is fully revealed. However I still think that God is primarily (I think I was wrong to say 'only') revealed in relation to creation, and particularly in our redemption.

1. I’m still not convinced that the Trinity is revealed in the OT in the way in which Glen appears to think it is. So many other people have made the argument better than me that I won’t dwell here.

2. I do think the Trinity is revealed in the OT but not because there are plurals in the names of God, an Angel of YHWH, Wisdom of God etc but because the Trinity is revealed in the unity of God too, just as the Trinity is revealed in the one Son so it can be revealed in the one Elohim.

3. Augustine is getting a horribly rough deal. I think he took into account the three much more he has been given credit for in recent discussion. I also have noted that: (i) some seem to think that he was much less neo-platonic on the Trinity than he has Glen and Dan say (ii) he was combating genuine concerns that were as real as the concerns of Glen and Dan (iii) On his book on the Trinity he spends the first third of the book in the Scriptures before moving on to Philosophy (iv) 'substance' was not 'stuff' for him. In all these things I can't help thinking that Augustine is a hook to hang the faults of the worst of post-Enlightenment Protestantism, much as Tom Wright hangs many of the faults of the worst of Evangelicalism on Luther.

4. I have been reading quite a few creeds and catechisms recently and the Apostles/Nicene creed are remarkably focused on the three - as in fact they are remarkably focused on history and the church.

5. Dan and Glen's thoughts about what makes the Trinity one make remarkable sense logically.

6. They also make remarkable sense of the bible’s own discussion about unity in married couples and the church. - incidentally it would be interesting to read something about the connection between monks and celibacy and conceptions of the Trinity. It is striking that whereas Augustine does go to Gen 1:26-27 to learn of the Trinity in the Trinity's image (apparently he was one of the first to do so) he focuses on the individual that is in the image of God and not the couple ('in the image of God...he created them').

7. This MP3 by Mike Ovey on the inseparable operation of the members of the trinity is the highlight of my listening/reading so far (other than this blog of course). It would be worth listening to while bearing in mind Glen's helpful post.

8. In the light of Mike Ovey's talk I wonder what Dan and Glen would do with: "whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise." "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works." "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father." Although something similar could be said of the perfect human relationship this is a quantum leap in magnitude.

9. Is "God is love" any more important than "God is true" "God is spirit" "God is faithful" etc or even "God is a consuming fire". In which case does Augustine have a thought when he says "For we are not going to say that God is called Love because love itself is a substance worthy of the name of God, but because it is a gift of God, as it is said to God" and goes on to identify the Holy Spirit as love because he is a gift. Again we have come round to God’s revelation in relation to his creation and not primarily in himself.

10. So I’m still wondering: How bound to the creation is the revelation of God? The Word of God is a title which begs the question 'Word to who?'. Similarly Father and Son all could be related firstly to God's relationship to his people before to intra-Trinitarian discussion. As Calvin says on John 17:24 which Glen brought up earlier:

"This also agrees better with the person of the Mediator than with Christ’s Divinity alone. It would be harsh to say that the Father loved his Wisdom; and though we were to admit it, the connection of the passage leads us to a different view. Christ, unquestionably, spoke as the Head of the Church, when he formerly prayed that the apostles might be united with him, and might behold the glory of his reign. He now says that the love of the Father is the cause of it; and, therefore, it follows that he was beloved, in so far as he was appointed to be the Redeemer of the world. With such a love did the Father love him before the creation of the world, that he might be the person in whom the Father would love his elect."

Reminds me of Ephesians: “he chose us in him before the foundation of the world”. After all ‘Son of God’ was a title for Israel and her king first in the bible. Father was a title for Israel’s God before it was Jesus’ name for the first person of the Trinity. Although this is a facile discussion in some sense as God is the creator of time. Nevertheless he identified with us, and we identify with him – which came first (1 John says the former)?

11. Praise God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit that all three in unity chose to bring me into that community to their own glory!

3 comments:

  1. Hi Dave,

    Thanks for some thoughtful responses.

    I'm off blogging this week. If you're still interested next week I'll leave some thoughts.

    Glen

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've very interested to hear your thoughts, although please be gentle, I know I'm probably wrong about 80% of them!

    I would be also interested in any reading you would point me in the direction of.

    Thanks

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Dave

    Back in the saddle!

    Right. Um, let me just list some bullet points as they occur...

    * You said: "However I still think that God is primarily (I think I was wrong to say 'only') revealed in relation to creation, and particularly in our redemption."

    You were right to say God is *only* revealed through creation and in redemption. God's Word (whether Jesus or the Bible) meets us as a worldly Word because it meets us in our creatureliness. If it wasn't worldly it wouldn't meet us. Also God's Word is always a redemptive Word - God's Word is saving and only the saved know God. So the word 'only' is not my challenge. We must hold onto that 'only'.

    My challenge was for you to see that this revelation is *actually* revelation. In all its worldliness the Word actually does meet us and actually does communicate the Lord as He really is. He does not hide behind His Word. His revelation is not concealment. God is as He is in His approach towards us.

    This is right at the heart of the Nicene homo-ousios - God's Word, Jesus, (even in all His worldliness - fully God and fully man) does not leave us short of the divine life but introduces us to the very being of God. Only a proper trinitarian theology can actually guarantee real revelation. But once the homo-ousios is pronounced we cannot be dubious about the revelation we receive in Jesus - to do so is to think of Jesus as homoi-ousios (Arius' position). This is what I was trying to warn you away from.

    * You say:

    "...just as the Trinity is revealed in the one Son so it can be revealed in the one Elohim."

    These statements are not at all parallel. The one Son is a concrete Person of the Godhead who is encountered as the Father's Son, Anointed in the Spirit. He shows us the Father and baptises us in the Spirit. To know Him is to be immediately caught up in the triune ways and works. I'm not sure how you're considering 'Elohim', but unless it's as a name of a particular Person then this is quite a different prospect.

    At this point I'd remind you that 'Christ alone' is a revelatory as well as soteriological point and one that has historically been considered to apply to OT as much as NT. Therefore this encounter with the Anointed Son of the Father is a necessarily and irreducibly trinitarian experience and one that must be at the heart of Old and New Testament revelation. Now unless you start to see the OT as a multi-Personal revelation I just don't see how you can make the parallel with meeting the 'Trinity' in 'Elohim'.

    * Augustine says lots of great things. But because of his methodology they get lost. *Because* he assumes a divine simplicity as his one-ness he can wax lyrical all he likes about the concrete particularity of the Persons but unfortunately he can never allow this to impinge on his designation of the divine being as an absolutely monadic one-ness. He can talk about distinction, differentiation, mutuality, reciprocity at the Personal level, but he will never allow these things into his definition of God's being. And this is a problem. It strait-jackets him. And all because of philosophical commitments (to divine simplicity etc).

    * I'm glad you're seeing the force of our position on the issue of one-ness. This is at the heart of these discussions. Once you see that Scripturally the one-ness is communion then you are freed from the philosophical designations that (as I've said) strait-jacket the western position.

    My latest post is a challenge to take this one-ness seriously and not to try to re-introduce a 'fourth thing' to God.

    http://christthetruth.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/avoiding-a-fourth/

    * Whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise. Amen. And even as Jesus says that He is revealing that His *role* in this doing is different to His Father's. His Father wills it, the Son effects it, the Spirit empowers it. They do the same work but all in different ways.

    Perhaps my post on "God is not revealed in His Twin" would be helpful here:

    http://christthetruth.wordpress.com/2007/11/15/god-is-not-revealed-in-his-twin/

    * As for other rescources that are helpful:

    Anything by Gunton.

    TF Torrance - Trinitarian Faith. (This lays out the history of the doctrine and all its implications - it's brilliant! Best thing I read at college)

    Tom Smail's "the Forgotten Father" is very readable and very good.

    Jurgen Moltmann's "Trinity and the Kingdom of God" is a beautiful read. You won't agree with everything in it (I hope) but extremely stimulating in laying out what's at stake in thes debates.

    Anyway, that would be a good start.

    ReplyDelete