Thread: Purgatory: Eternal Subordination of Son to Father Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001324
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
So there's a bit of a war amongst conservative evangelicals at the moment on the nature of the Trinity. One group are arguing that the Son eternally submits to the Father, that is, pre and post (so to speak) the incarnation one person of the Trinity submits to another.
The basic criticism of this is that if this is so then there must be 2 divine wills. Those for asymmetric relations within the Godhead claim that they are not reinventing the Trinity and that subordination is not the same as the old heresy, subordinationism. The stakes were raised when somebody claimed that those believing in eternal subordination of the son should resign their posts because they are heretics.
What do you think about the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? I'm also interested in thoughts on defining heresy-where do we/should we draw the line? The nature of the Trinity has caused some pretty big rifts before and I'm struggling to see how this view differs from subordinationism which was declared heretical centuries ago.
A useful guide to the arguments is here if anyone wants more info webpage
[ 05. December 2016, 00:51: Message edited by: Gwai ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I found this neat summary in the Wiki article on subordinationism.
quote:
In most orthodox Christian theological circles, Arian subordinationism is treated as heresy, while "relational subordination" is not.[citation needed] In other circles, subordinationism is seen as biblical middle ground between extremes of Modalism and Unitarianism. (Christology has been the source of many (but not all) hot disputes and subsequent divisions of Christianity since the 1st century AD)
(I do like that "citation needed" from the Wiki editors!)
My own view is that relational subordination of the Eternal Son to the Eternal Father doesn't make sense. Whereas some measure of relational subordination of the Incarnate Son to the Eternal Father seems to be born out pretty powerfully by lots of gospel references.
It would seem that the scriptural evidence of the earthly subordination of Jesus is a consequence of kenosis. "Our Gpd contracted to a span, incomprehensibly made Man" - as an old protestant hymn put it. (I like that "incomprehensibly" as well). I would have thought that understanding was common to Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism. I stand to be corrected on that, of course.
But taking such thinking about the relationship between the Son and Father into the eternal realm seems speculative, presumptuous and problematical.
And why would anybody want to go down this road anyway, unless it is some kind of stalking horse for other issues? That's the real question.
[ 08. August 2016, 22:59: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
There's also the question of what exactly we mean by subordination--are we talking being, or attitude, or ... ? If we mean that the Son honors the Father, well, so also the Father seeks the Son's glory. That kind of thing (showing respect and deferring to one another) can easily go round in a circle among those who are in nature equal--and it is a gracious thing, not a power struggle. I wouldn't fuss over courtesy within the Trinity, I'm sure that exists.
But trying to establish power controls and gradations is not only foolish, it's presumptuous.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Sounds like some fundamentalists rode their hobby horse over the line into heresy territory.
[ 09. August 2016, 00:06: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
One thing I learned about the difference between Paradiso and Inferno in Dante's Divine Comedy is that the saints in heaven are always "other-centred" whether it be worshipping the divine Trinity, or honoring their fellow saints, whereas the tormented in inferno are always consciously self-absorbed and concerned with themselves. Dante's point is that the life of God is always one of self-giving love to the other.
If there is "eternal subordination" in the life of God, it is one of mutual giving, between Father and Son and Holy Spirit. In Hebrews 1:8, understood through Trinitarian lenses, it is the Father who actually praises the Son, "Your throne, O God is forever and ever."
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And why would anybody want to go down this road anyway, unless it is some kind of stalking horse for other issues? That's the real question. [/QB]
The stalking horse is the dead horse of gender relations but I'm not wanting to stray into dead equine territory, genuinely interested in the Trinity and orthodoxy.
LC the theory is definitely not about mutual submission, the theory is the father never submits to the son but the son is sent to do the father's will.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
What I suspected from the use of submission.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I first became alert to this being tied up with the Dead Horse when I heard Wayne Grudem explain that upholding male headship was of priority importance because failing to do so would be an attack on the fundamental nature of the Godhead!!1!!!111!!1!
As it happens, this wasn't the first time I'd heard such an appeal to the Trinity made to defend a particular theological standpoint.
I've decided that invoking heresy involving the Trinity is a sort of last-ditch nuclear option to attempt to defend indefensible views. It's intimidation, not argument.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And why would anybody want to go down this road anyway, unless it is some kind of stalking horse for other issues? That's the real question.
The stalking horse is the dead horse of gender relations but I'm not wanting to stray into dead equine territory, genuinely interested in the Trinity and orthodoxy.
LC the theory is definitely not about mutual submission, the theory is the father never submits to the son but the son is sent to do the father's will. [/QB]
I have no idea about stalking horses, so won't go there. But as far as the Father never submitting to the Son--
I'd like to throw out that word "submit" completely from this conversation, at least when we're speaking of intra-Trinitarian relations outwith the Incarnation.
You realize there's a problem talking about submission when all three Persons are already and always of the same heart and desire. The word "submit" only makes sense where there is at least the bare possibility of conflict. And there isn't here.
We're discussing intra-Trinitarian relations now per the OP, not the unusual situation that occurred when the Second Person took on humanity and thereby acquired the bare possibility of a conflicting will (not that he did in fact conflict with the Father, but "submit" actually means something when you are experiencing real temptation to do otherwise).
What I mean is that the Trinity is a consensus--a Unity, in fact. To speak of submission between three persons who never disagree nor have any real prospect of ever disagreeing is IMHO to misuse the word.
You can speak of honoring, yes; the Son honors the Father as Father, and the Father honors his Son as Son. You can speak of glorifying, you can even speak of honoring one another above the self. The Spirit glorifies Christ, Christ glorifies the Father, the Father is concerned for the glory of the Son, etc. etc. An exchange of courtesy and love. You can even get positional if you please and note that the term "Father" is "higher" in glory than "Son," and argue that the Son delights in that fact, and the Father accepts it, and all three are glad together. I could go that far. It still doesn't contradict "one in essence" and "of Majesty co-equal" or the biblical "I and the Father are one."
You mention the Son being sent. That is perfectly possible between those who are by nature co-equal and does not require submission unless the Son has any desire NOT to be sent. (It is also related to the Incarnation, which begins to muddy the waters immediately with the human will there introduced.)
I and my husband are co-equal in human nature. He is not greater than I nor I than him. Those who think male humanity is somehow intrinsically better than female humanity are full of horseshit. Mr. Lamb is not one of them.
Positionally there is a difference between us; for certain intents and purposes he is the "head of the household" and we honor him as such. But at no time does that mean he denies me full agency (he's no fool ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) nor does it mean that he fails in any way to honor me equally.
In practice he is "greater than I" only in the sense that I have chosen to have it so in certain areas, almost wholly ceremonial ones.* The day-to-day living responsibilities are divided up not by gender but by aptitude. (He cooks better than I and does a mean load of laundry too, though he's crap at folding and hanging up stuff.)
* example of ceremonial role: If we had been playing the Khan family's role at the DNC, I would certainly have let my husband do the speaking just as Mrs. Khan did--not because I have no tongue of my own, but because that is my way of honoring him in a ceremonial situation. He in turn would quickly recognize that his accent is so thick you could cut it with a knife and would turn to me to finish off the speech, a decision made on the basis of aptitude (I'm a native English speaker) and not on rank. We've done dog-and-pony shows together at conventions, churches, etc. and it always goes that way. He speaks first, he hands it off to me, and the rest of the presentation is Mutt and Jeff time.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Holy crosspost! Well, now I think I understand what you all meant by stalking horses, and I suppose I've answered without having a clue at the time of writing what y'all were hinting at.
I really do loathe the word "submission" except in very specific contexts because it's been so badly misused. IMHO any man who has to insist on (or even mention) his own "headship" is already in trouble, and so is the marriage. It betrays a total misunderstanding of what a good marriage ought to be--and yes, I do think that a good marriage is in some sense a mirror of the Trinity.
[ 09. August 2016, 05:39: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
The Father begets the Son. The Son does not beget the Father. The Father is in some sense the "source" of the Son, in a way that is not reciprocal.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
If a good marriage reflects the trinity, how does the Holy Spirit fit in there?
MT, how do you differentiate your position from Arianism?
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Evangeline:
quote:
If a good marriage reflects the trinity, how does the Holy Spirit fit in there?
Three way? ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
[ 09. August 2016, 06:13: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
The Holy Spirit is the momento of happier days left behind in the house when the bride and groom have fucked off somewhere else.
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
If a good marriage reflects the trinity, how does the Holy Spirit fit in there?
Evangeline, I believe the problem to be right there. People who are arguing today for subordination, do so to argue for subordination in marriage. This to me seems to be getting things the wrong way round.
Marriage does not exist to reflect the Trinity. Paul uses marriage in an attempt to describe one of the relationships within the godhead. Not the other way round. As with all images, it is partial and does not fit perfectly.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I've decided that invoking heresy involving the Trinity is a sort of last-ditch nuclear option to attempt to defend indefensible views. It's intimidation, not argument. [/QB]
Do you mean accusing somebody of heresy against the trinity is intimidation or using a heresy about the trinity to support an indefensible view is the problem?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
If a good marriage reflects the trinity, how does the Holy Spirit fit in there?
I said "reflects," not "is equivalent in every way to." Sheesh.
Really, everything in creation in some way or another reflects the glory of God. The union of marriage seems to me to reflect specifically the union of the Persons. A reflection only, not a perfect one-to-one correspondence.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
If a good marriage reflects the trinity, how does the Holy Spirit fit in there?
MT, how do you differentiate your position from Arianism?
In Arianism Christ is created, and had a beginning in time. In Trinitarianism, Christ is coeternal and consubstantial with the Father. He existed from eternity just as the Father did. He did not come into being at any point in time because he was before time.
In Arianism, there is a point in time before which the Son was not.
-------------------------
Regarding marriage, the dominical teaching is that it reflects the relationship between Christ and the Church.
[ 09. August 2016, 06:28: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Do you mean accusing somebody of heresy against the trinity is intimidation
This one.
Of course some such accusations may be serious and immediate, as we understand them to have been at the time the doctrine of the Trinity was hammered out in the early church.
In the present day, though, in my view either debates on the Trinity are simply rehashes of the original ones or they are stalking horses attempting to use the collective memory of those early debates as leverage.
As I said I've experienced this twice regarding two completely separate issues.
As regards headship, I experienced it from the other side of the argument to those mentioned in your OP, but either way I think it's puerile to reach for the doctrine of the Trinity to defend unrelated subjects.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
I think only conservative evangelicals would try to turn a question on the nature of the Holy Trinity into a gender/headship argument, when it's so much more important than that. In Orthodox theology, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. To me, this makes the Father the "senior partner" in the Trinity, at the pinnacle of the triangle. Wheras St Augustine's description of the Holy Spirit as the love that binds the Father and Son wrongly inverts the triangle. But we are dealing here with metaphors of things beyond human comprehension.
I have no problem with terms like Father and Son because they are terms which go back to the origins of Christianity. Being "The Son" implies, within the metaphor,subordination to "The Father" who is always going to be the originator of even that which He begets. But we shouldn't get hung up on images used to help our understanding otherwise they become idols. Gregory Palamas claimed that "efforts at demonstrating the nature of God (specifically, the nature of the Holy Spirit) should be abandoned, because God is ultimately unknowable and undemonstrable to humans."
He claimed that God can only be known by His energies, ie the way He interacts with humans, but in His nature He is unknowable. So even if we say that God is an eternal Trinity, we are only describing His energies as we can't possibly know more. Never being afraid to court heresy, I suspect that God is a single unified Spirit who approaches humanity as a Trinity, but none of us knows the reality of God.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I still quite like this from Jonathan Edwards on the Trinity: quote:
The Father is the Deity subsisting in the prime, un-originated and most absolute manner, or the Deity in its direct existence. The Son is the Deity generated by God's understanding, or having an idea of Himself and subsisting in that idea. The Holy Ghost is the Deity subsisting in act, or the Divine essence flowing out and breathed forth in God's Infinite love to and delight in Himself. And I believe the whole Divine essence does truly and distinctly subsist both in the Divine idea and Divine love, and that each of them are properly distinct Persons.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
, but either way I think it's puerile to reach for the doctrine of the Trinity to defend unrelated subjects. [/QB]
yes I agree with that but if you are going to do that, then both your attempt to use the theory AND the theory must be subject to challenge, surely?
In relation to the opening question, I think if 'we're' going to go into defining the relationships within the Trinity and teaching this to others (this definition of the Trinity is taught as THE orthodox doctrine at at least 1 Anglican theological college) we need to be able to justify it. Whether or not the charge of heresy is justified is debatable.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
if you are going to do that, then both your attempt to use the theory AND the theory must be subject to challenge, surely?
It's true that a refresher course in the historic views of the Trinity and related heresies can't do any harm, but with regard to the context in which you place the debate (and I knew at once from your physical location which Dead Horse the OP was going to relate to!) I think there's a huge danger of it being a ginormous red herring.
As PaulTH says, it's not as though some major theologian suddenly came along and challenged prevailing doctrines of the Trinity. It's that the proponents of a DH went looking for impressive and intimidating ways of defending it and thought the Trinity might fit the requirements. It sounds as if some people on the other side have taken the bait.
Your local argument is not really about the Trinity at all, it's about power in relationships and in the church, and I myself would be dragging the debate back there rather than duking it out as though we were at the Nicene Council.
(In my own journey on this DH issue, reading The Trinity and Subordinationism was the last nail in the coffin of my complementarianism, rather than the Damascus road point).
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
if you are going to do that, then both your attempt to use the theory AND the theory must be subject to challenge, surely?
It's true that a refresher course in the historic views of the Trinity and related heresies can't do any harm, but with regard to the context in which you place the debate (and I knew at once from your physical location which Dead Horse the OP was going to relate to!) I think there's a huge danger of it being a ginormous red herring.
As PaulTH says, it's not as though some major theologian suddenly came along and challenged prevailing doctrines of the Trinity. It's that the proponents of a DH went looking for impressive and intimidating ways of defending it and thought the Trinity might fit the requirements. It sounds as if some people on the other side have taken the bait.
Your local argument is not really about the Trinity at all, it's about power in relationships and in the church, and I myself would be dragging the debate back there rather than duking it out as though we were at the Nicene Council.
(In my own journey on this DH issue, reading The Trinity and Subordinationism was the last nail in the coffin of my complementarianism, rather than the Damascus road point).
I disagree with your interpretation of my context. I am not interested in the dead horse issue at all in this discussion-this has been settled locally through teaching "the plain and literal sense" of various bible verses. How this issue is settled (if that is at all possible) will not impact the role of women at all IMO.
I am interested in the doctrine of the trinity because I'm studying theology and I"m interested in definitions of heresy and resolving disputes because I work in the church.
My understanding of the history of this barney about the trinity is, you're right somebody made an appeal to the trinity to support their view of gender hierarchy. Opponents of those who dominate the diocese with their insistence that they are the defenders of the true faith and everyone else is an evil liberal leading all astray, seized upon this, not to win the DH issue but as well as worrying about the truth, to score a big point against those who are adamant that they, and they alone teach the truth. There is also a minor issue of showing how far these 'truth tellers' will go tying themselves in knots and some veering at times into intellectual dishonesty to defend their position.
So the DH isn't THE issue here at all, it's a relatively minor symptom.
It's funny you mention the last nail in the coffin. I recently said I think this misuse of the trinity is the final nail in the coffin of my attempts to stay within my denomination.
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on
:
Subordination doesn't come into it. The three Persons are eternally engaged in a ceaseless and joyful dance about each other. To seek to deconstruct this is pointless and dangerous.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
There is also a minor issue of showing how far these 'truth tellers' will go tying themselves in knots and some veering at times into intellectual dishonesty to defend their position.
With you all the way there.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Holy crosspost! Well, now I think I understand what you all meant by stalking horses, and I suppose I've answered without having a clue at the time of writing what y'all were hinting at.
I really do loathe the word "submission" except in very specific contexts because it's been so badly misused. IMHO any man who has to insist on (or even mention) his own "headship" is already in trouble, and so is the marriage. It betrays a total misunderstanding of what a good marriage ought to be--and yes, I do think that a good marriage is in some sense a mirror of the Trinity.
Amen ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Clever how folk often bring the 'nature of God' on to their side in any argument.
Ho-hum. How do atheists manage to get the upper hand without this useful tool?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Wayne Grudem, yeah. Along with all patriarchy. One step away from saying that denying YEC is denying Christ.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Subordination doesn't come into it. The three Persons are eternally engaged in a ceaseless and joyful dance about each other. To seek to deconstruct this is pointless and dangerous.
This.
It strikes me that the image of the Trinity we're given means we're all supposed to be subordinate to each other all the time. I think it's called love. So I'm not sure what the complementarians call what they have.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Subordination doesn't come into it. The three Persons are eternally engaged in a ceaseless and joyful dance about each other. To seek to deconstruct this is pointless and dangerous.
Exactly.
The subordination of the Son to the Father is not only used as an argument in favour of male headship, but the Moore College group use it as support for Penal Substitutionary Atonement. The dance as Eirenist sets it out is a powerful case against that doctrine.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I have to admit I've not met this argument before. Perhaps we're all too theologically illiterate in the dear old CofE - or just thick - to have picked this one up. Do those that are advocating this also insist on single progression? Or is that irrelevant to their concerns? Or if they adopted single progression, would they also feel obliged to accept all Seven Councils and not just pick and choose the ones they like?
If they are choosing their take on the Trinity because it supports something else they want to argue for, then obviously that's the wrong way round. But they would none of them be the first people to do that. How many of the Keynesians you have encountered, are Keynesians because it justifies the sort of public expenditure programmes they would like to be able to afford, rather than because they are convinced of the economic arguments. 75% in my experience would be an underestimate.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Subordination doesn't come into it. The three Persons are eternally engaged in a ceaseless and joyful dance about each other. To seek to deconstruct this is pointless and dangerous.
This.
It strikes me that the image of the Trinity we're given means we're all supposed to be subordinate to each other all the time. I think it's called love. So I'm not sure what the complementarians call what they have.
Another
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I have to admit I've not met this argument before. Perhaps we're all too theologically illiterate in the dear old CofE - or just thick - to have picked this one up. Do those that are advocating this also insist on single progression?
Do you mean single procession? I've never met with this use of "progression" but I will admit my theological reading is limited.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I still quite like this from Jonathan Edwards on the Trinity: quote:
The Father is the Deity subsisting in the prime, un-originated and most absolute manner, or the Deity in its direct existence. The Son is the Deity generated by God's understanding, or having an idea of Himself and subsisting in that idea. The Holy Ghost is the Deity subsisting in act, or the Divine essence flowing out and breathed forth in God's Infinite love to and delight in Himself. And I believe the whole Divine essence does truly and distinctly subsist both in the Divine idea and Divine love, and that each of them are properly distinct Persons.
That sounds thoroughly like modalism.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
How do atheists manage to get the upper hand without this useful tool?
Atheists don't get the upper hand.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I still quite like this from Jonathan Edwards on the Trinity:
That sounds thoroughly like modalism.
I don't see why? He's not implying that the existence of three persons is solely economic.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
It sounds to me like it's saying the Father is God as source, the Son is God as thought, and the Spirit is God as action.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Like every image it has its limits. For a more visual one, I like the carved base of some African tripod tables.
A single piece of wood (one essence!) in three distinct, distinctly identifiable, yet indissociable parts ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It sounds to me like it's saying the Father is God as source, the Son is God as thought, and the Spirit is God as action.
Firstly, I think the final sentence of the quote is explicitly warding off any purely monist or modalist view of God.
Secondly, being, thought, and act or love aren't modes, since they co-exist. There's no act without also being and thought. There's an irreducible threeness there, which there isn't in modalism.
It is of course only an approach, since in finite agents being, thought, and act aren't persons, nor each contain the whole of the essence; and as I said Edwards says that in God they are so.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The subordination of the Son to the Father is not only used as an argument in favour of male headship, but the Moore College group use it as support for Penal Substitutionary Atonement. The dance as Eirenist sets it out is a powerful case against that doctrine. [/QB]
Yes & this I find really strange. If there is a difference in wills between the eternal son (not just the incarnation) & the father then all those cosmic child abuse comments seem quite valid. Let alone that the father sends the son to suffer an horrific punishment in order to assuage his wrath (according to the PSAers) AND THEN they say this is a model for husband/wife relations.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
A single piece of wood (one essence!) in three distinct, distinctly identifiable, yet indissociable parts
Strictly the persons of the Trinity are not parts of a whole. But as you say all images have limits.
[ 09. August 2016, 22:58: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
St Patrick's bad analogies seems appropriate at this stage, all analogies have problems.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
A single piece of wood (one essence!) in three distinct, distinctly identifiable, yet indissociable parts
Strictly the persons of the Trinity are not parts of a whole. But as you say all images have limits.
What?!
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
First and second paragraphs of the Wiki article, Martin. In particular, this.
quote:
..in their relations with one another, they are stated to be one in all else, co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial, and each is God, whole and entire
Of course it is a paradox. It is meant to be. As Evagrius of Pontus said. "God cannot be grasped by the mind. If he could be grasped, he would not be God."
Humbling stuff. Again, in traditional belief, it is meant to be.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I know that the three perichoretic Persons are distinct, of course, but are we saying that the ONE God that they constitute is 'only' a what not a who?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It sounds to me like it's saying the Father is God as source, the Son is God as thought, and the Spirit is God as action.
Firstly, I think the final sentence of the quote is explicitly warding off any purely monist or modalist view of God.
Secondly, being, thought, and act or love aren't modes, since they co-exist. There's no act without also being and thought. There's an irreducible threeness there, which there isn't in modalism.
It is of course only an approach, since in finite agents being, thought, and act aren't persons, nor each contain the whole of the essence; and as I said Edwards says that in God they are so.
I think that these comments go down the right road.
It's like the distinction between the sun and light from the sun. If you see the light you see the sun.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0