Well,
last Sunday we had a wonderful time discussing John 5, which presents us with a
very full theological framework of the Trinity. The Trinity is
that doctrine which teaches us that "In the unity of the Godhead there
[are] three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; God the Father, God
the Son, and God the Holy Ghost."[i]. John
chapter 5 shows us some of the dynamics of this relationship, as Michael
pointed out, such as reciprocal purity and divine unity. To Michael’s
(and I believe most of the class’s) despair, we were unable to really talk
about it in much detail, as we all longed to do.
Therefore,
here we are going to attempt to do just that. I have opened up this blog
post for us to spend some time discussing the Trinity; its dynamics and
importance as a Christian doctrine, the logic of it, and how God relates to us
as the Triune God.
Feel
free to comment (really, it’s ok!). If you have trouble of where to start, here
are some questions that might help you:
1.
The Trinity is what is known as an “incomprehensible”
doctrine, meaning that it can never be fully understood by any
but the divine mind. How might we explain the difference between incomprehensible and nonsensical (meaning
that the doctrine makes no sense at all) doctrines? What other things about
life, nature, and even the universe would you put under the “incomprehensible”
category, but still in reality exist?
2.
There are two big explanations for the
relationship of the persons of the Trinity, which each play off of one another:
That the Trinity is separated by role: that the Son is “begotten” of the
Father, that the Spirit “proceeds” from the Father and the Son, and that the
Father is unbegotten nor does he proceed from anyone, is the first, and
earliest explanation. Athanasius, a theologian in the fourth century, leaned
heavily on this definition when he was defending the Trinity from Arians, people
who believed that Jesus was not God but rather the first of
the created beings. Athanasius emphasized that Jesus was “begotten, not made”[ii], and existed
in a relationship of “eternal generation”[iii]with
God. Just God is the Father eternally, so is Jesus the Son eternally The
next explanation of the Trinity does not deny this relationship, but rather
builds on it. It says that God exists in a mutua circumplexio (‘mutual
indwelling’) of the three persons. Augustine, who came shortly after
Athanasius, formulated this view. To him, God was a “community of love” before
time began, and that the three persons found their identity in relation to one another
rather than in their differing roles. How would you understand the
relationship between the three persons of the Trinity? What evidence of the validity
of these two views do you see in John 5? Which one do you find more helpful?
3.
It sometimes is easier to explain doctrines negatively rather
than positively; when we say that God is “immutable”, that
means that he cannot be moved; when we say that God is
“eternal”, we can understand that as meaning that God is not constrained
by time. How might you explain the Trinity negatively? What is
it “not?”
And
if you need some reference works, here are some good articles written by
theologians both Modern and Classic:
John Owen on the Trinity: John Owen was a Puritan who taught and preached at Oxford during the seventeenth Century
B.B.Warfield, The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity:
Warfield was a theologian at Princeton in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
century. He is widely regarded as the last great evangelical Princeton
theologian.
D.A.Carson and Tim Keller, misunderstandings of the Trinity:
This is in response to a new movement to re-install "modalism" to
church doctrine, which says that there is one God, but that he simply
"manifests" himself in three "manifestations.
Bruce Ware, The masculine language of the Trinity and submission:
Bruce Ware is a theological professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
in Louisville, Kentucky, and has served as the president of the Evangelical
Theological Society.
I
look forward to your thoughts!
God
Bless,
Casey
D.
No comments:
Post a Comment