Eugene Peterson structures his course on "Biblical Spirituality" like the following boxes. He admits that there is a lot of bleed between them (e.g. that all three persons of the Trinity are involved in creation, justification and sanctification; and that creation, justification and sanctification are all of a piece, as is Christ's atoning work).
Given those caveats, is there enough distinction to use this as a structure? The early church in the creeds certainly agreed about the first two columns tying together in some way.
| God the Father | Creation | Christ's birth |
| God the Son | Redemption | Christ's death |
| God the Holy Spirit | Holy Living | Christ's resurrection |
Incidentally, I think, having just heard Tim Chester on Eschatology, I might add a fourth column:
| God the Father | Creation | Christ's birth | First Creation |
| God the Son | Redemption | Christ's death | Death of Fallen Creation |
| God the Holy Spirit | Holy Living | Christ's resurrection | New Creation |
...I don't know there are things I like and dislike.
I like the fact that events in Christ's life are in all three - that maybe goes someway to hinting at the 'bleed' (which surely is perichoresis rather than the 'mixing' that is implied by 'bleed').
ReplyDeleteThere's a problem in leaving Christ's resurrection (and for that matter, incarnation as a whole) out of the 'redemption' column isn't there?
Yes, perichoresis is definitely a better word.
ReplyDelete