1. Why the loving community of the Trinity is terrifying
The Father has loved the Son by the Spirit for all eternity. Before we were born the three persons of the Trinity were dancing and conversing together singing the praises of one another. They couldn't love each other more.
...and we killed the Father's only Son.
His wrath will be devastating (Mark 12:1-9).
2. Why the loving community of the Trinity is comforting
The Father has loved the Son by the Spirit for all eternity. Before we were born the three persons of the Trinity were dancing and conversing together singing the praises of one another. They couldn't love each other more.
...and the Father gave us his relationship with his only Son when he sent his Son to die and raised the New Adam from the dead; and the Son gave us his relationship with the Father by calling us brothers as he queued with sinners to be baptised by John and went to die between two robbers; and the Spirit has caught us up into this eternal loving community by breaking into our hearts and opening them to God.
We rejoice, and by his Spirit we intensely and eternally love the Father and Son.
What is the difference?
- is the Trinity expelling foreign objects and destroying them.
- is the Trinity including foreign objects in Christ and transforming them.
- is the Trinity acting understandably.
- is the Trinity acting incomprehensibly in Christ crucified.
- is the Trinity acting in the Son's divine nature.
- is the Trinity acting in the Son's hypostatic union.
- is the Trinity speaking to us.
- is the Trinity speaking to us by speaking to the Father in Christ.
- is God in his eternal being, our act apart from Christ, and his response.
- is God in his eternal being, his act in Christ on our behalf, and our response.
- is thinking about the Trinity from the outside - looking in through the windows.
- is thinking about the Trinity when we've been brought in from the cold.
- is law.
- is Gospel.
- is death to us.
- is life to us.
The difference is not whether we are talking about the Triune God who is love or some other God.
The loving community of the Trinity is never good news apart from Christ going to the cross for us.
Hi Dave, very well thought through post.
ReplyDeleteI share some of your misgivings about "trinity talk" that's not Christ-centred. There's a definite danger of talking about an eternal love-fest rather than the Father of Jesus and His Spirit. We can lose the concreteness, the Jesus-shapedness of it and most worryingly we can lose the Way in if we're not Jesus-focused.
To pursue that thought would mean ensuring that both the terrifying and the comforting trinity are revealed in Jesus.
And then the question is about the relationship between the terrifying and the comforting in Jesus. The way I'd frame it is that the Son has always had His being towards resurrection. (He is eternally begotten but no less is He begotten on Easter morning). There isn't therefore *first* a Son who is against enemies and *then* incomprehensibly welcoming of the other. He is only ever for the other, which then includes encounter with enemies. His deepest reality is comforting but the terrifying is included - "they *will* respect my Son" says the Father even before He sends Him.
This seems to me the kind of way Jenson - another trinitarian Lutheran - frames it. But it does do some fairly radical re-working of law-gospel!
But perhaps
cheers dave. first paragraph hit me like a bolt out of the blue. really heavy. Have you read Fred Sanders, Embracing the Trinity? I've found it very moving stuff:
ReplyDeletee.g. 'The deeper we dig into the message of the cross, the deeper we go into the mystery of the Trinity. The puritan theologian Thomas Goodwin taught that the proclamation of the gospel was the “bringing forth and publishing” of a secret that God had treasured from all eternity and that “the things of the gospel are depths – the things of the gospel are…the deep things of God”' (p.13)
Hi guys,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments. I'd like to think about them more, but I'm tired and got a load of study to do for tomorrow today. Too much going on in my life at the mo! Anyway, that's the reason for the lack of blogging and why most of my posts are so poor (or in this case blunt). That is also the reason why I haven't read the Sander's book. I love Sander's blog, and I love what I've read about Embracing the Trinity but I haven't got to read it. I particularly like how he ties our knowledge of the Trinity to God's saving acts both in the cross and resurrection, and in our lives.
I guess I'm always wary of "Trinity talk" that isn't pro nobis (for us) from the beginning. Theology without proclamation (as Forde would say). I'm suspicious of the idea that we can talk about God, and THEN draw implications for how he will relate to us. I think we always have to talk about God IN his relation to us (i.e. in Christ, and in proclamation).
Glen,
You do right to challenge me on the relation of the terrifying to the comforting. I didn’t do that well.
You say:
"There isn't therefore *first* a Son who is against enemies [death] and *then* incomprehensibly welcoming of the other [life]. He is only ever for the other [life], which then includes encounter with enemies [death]."
I thought this was an interesting paragraph, as you reverse the law/Gospel, death/life ordering. I don't know that the second sentence is better. It suggests wrath is never left behind or exhausted. I look forward to the day when I will rise again because I know that then there will be no more death. No more anger. No more sin. It will all be past.
Now I agree that God's wrath comes out of his love. He loves his Son, so he hates those who despise him. He loves his people (because he loves his Son - "the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me", John 16), so he defeats their enemies ("I will curse those who curse you"). So God's wrath is good news for those in Christ oppressed by corrupt government, the devil etc.
But that is from a God's eye view. It is only our point of view by grace when we are invited to sit in the seat of the Son and see things from there. From our post-fall point of view, we begin outside of God's people (Eph 2:12), and wrath is what we are born into. From this point of view I don’t think God isn’t “only ever for the other”, because there was a time when he was against us. But then comes grace and Christ dying for the ungodly. And I do think that is always incomprehensible and a surprise. Although when it happens it seems the most natural thing in the world, and there is no way back to seeing things the old way. We just can’t see our past life as under wrath anymore, only discipline. The wrath has disappeared along with our old self – and yet it was there!
...(cont)...
ReplyDeleteExperientially, it is always death then life, even if objectively it is life (In the beginning God [life himself]) and then death (the curse).
It is difficult because in our language "first" both refers to both time and importance. What is first in time is seen as what is most fundamental. But what if the opposite is the case? What if the final word is more important than the second? What is past is past, it is the future that matters. Also, “first” from who’s perspective? My “first” is different from God’s “first”.
I certainly don't want to line up the bad news and good news and call them equal. I think that Luther's 'alien' and 'proper' language is key. But I do think they need to be kept separate and not to try and subsume one into the other. That is why your sentence "His deepest reality is comforting but the terrifying is included" gave me a little shudder. A comfort with the terror included doesn't sound quite so comforting. Terror belongs to the outside of God. What is terrifying is creation cut off from him. In God, there is only love and comfort.
Still, I think what Jenson does (and I’ve seen you doing in talking about “begotten”) is the way to go. I recently read Michael Horton (who I usually like) say: “Even faith, if not directed toward God’s special act of justifying sinners through the righteousness of Christ, cannot save. The special object of faith is not God in se (in himself), but is God in Christ justifying” (p.119, the Devoted Life). But that makes God in Christ sound like an optional bolt on to his nature. I’ve read enough Torrance to baulk at that idea, and don’t want to suggest what Horton hints at. We need to stress that God in Christ is God acting properly, instead of strangely.
And that is what Luther says. He says that if you embrace the Revealed God/ Christ in the manger/ God FOR us, then you will get the Hidden God/ the glorified God/ the God in himself(?). But if you bypass the Revealed God (by reason), Christ in the manger (by way of Christ the strong), or God FOR us (by God IN HIMSELF before creation) then what you will get is God experienced as the Devil (our enemy and accuser).
Sorry. All that is heavy too. I’ve just tried to throw more words at things which hasn’t really made things clearer. I really need to ask questions more, and talk less. When I’m tired it is harder to step back. There is a lot of deep thought hidden behind your comment, and I guess it is too much for me to engage with properly.
I may sound like I have so fairly strong opinions, but especially on the Jenson bit I agree with you. Also “we can lose the Way in if we're not Jesus-focused” – I like that. “Way in” is just right. But I think we have to think about from what perspective, looking in at the window, or included inside?
I’d love to know what the rest of your comment was going to be!
Hi Chris,
ReplyDeleteSorry if it was heavy. I don’t think I should have been gentler at the beginning, but I do think I should have made clearer that these aren’t two equal and opposite points of view, and that the good news is the ‘proper work’, of the ‘Revealed God’. God in his essence is love after all. And, by the end of any sermon (or any blog post) the melody of the Gospel should have driven the jarring chords of the ‘law’ from our memory (“because the former troubles are forgotten and are hidden from my eyes”, Is 65). I don’t think I achieved that.
And as you quote, and as Glen said, the deep things of God found by digging into the cross are beautiful treasures. How can we ever do them justice?
... I talk too much!
PS. Glen. I was musing on your comment '"they *will* respect my Son" says the Father even before He sends Him.' Fancy unpacking that a little? I'm not 100% sure I understand what you are saying, although I could guess.
ReplyDelete