One in Three, or Three in One?
One of the more perplexing concepts for Christians is the notion of the Trinity. For many, this "doctrine" (if that's what you must call it) is a marginal issue that is to be dealt with after all the important ones are mastered, and even then it is more of an inconvenience imposed on them by dogmatic tradition. Granted, most Christians would never say such a thing, yet I am confident that is truly where many of them are. There are many contributing factors to this situation, none of which I am concerned with here. But this is where I believe we are, and relegating the Trinity to the margin is a sad state of affairs.Who God is means everything. Our prevailing notion of the nature of God frames all the structures of our thoughts and beliefs. Who you think God is will touch every subsequent belief, bar none. This isn't just true of Christianity, but of any worldview. Whatever is most ultimate in your system of belief will determine how you view everything else. Nothing is left untouched.
It is in this vein of thought that I want to bring the Trinity back to the center. As we do that, what shall we say? Shall we say God is One in three Persons? Or shall we say God is three Persons who are One? Maybe this doesn't trouble you or seem significant. But I find it very significant.
We're not just splitting theological hairs here. And I suppose that ultimately both ways of stating it are true. But do these two options have any implications for all the rest of our Christian belief?
Those who say that God is One God in three Persons always tend to emphasize the "oneness" of God over and above His threeness. This usually lies in a preexisting commitment to some static philosophical notion of oneness. They point to the emphatic teaching in the Old Testament that there is one God as opposed to many. But I would like to advocate for an alternative.
Let's not begin our view of God with any preconceived notions of static being. What is being anyway? Is being something static that we have to somehow divide in order to make room for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Can this lead anywhere other than an inescapable modalism? Maybe being isn't something that precedes a communion of Persons. Perhaps being is constituted by a communion of Persons. Perhaps we could think of being as communion. When we begin our view of being as communion, suddenly personhood is not the key to God’s division, but to His unity. Rather than being forced to figure out how on earth we make room for distinction in our Platonic oneness, let's allow God's tri-personhood to be the key to just what exactly His oneness is. Rather than saying, "How on earth can one be three?" let us say, "Communion is how the three are one."
When we start to think this way, suddenly things are put into a new perspective. It all starts to make sense. There was never a time when God was not a Trinity of three Persons. God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have always been three Persons who in their inner communion of self-giving holy love are One. This does not diminish God's oneness, but clarifies, makes sense of, and (in my estimation) glorifies it. Suddenly both the Old and New Testaments make more sense. Yes, in the Old Testament God is fighting for the reorientation of the minds of the Hebrews toward monotheism within a pagan culture. But Jesus, in his glorious incarnate life, makes clear to us just what exactly the oneness of God is. It is not static impersonal being divided by three, but rather a dynamic interrelated loving communion of three divine Persons. This rules out any notion of tritheism or modalism. He is three Persons who are One. Bless His holy name!What is the orienting center of all your Christian beliefs? What is your base truth? What is your dogma? What is ultimate reality? If it is static divided oneness then I challenge you to consider reorienting your mind and follow that change to its logical conclusions. I believe your life just might be changed. Take the red pill and see just how deep the rabbit-hole goes.
16 Comments:
I was all out of Tylenol, but I did have a little blue pill.:)
Sean, this was a very thought provoking post...for me I will have to chew on it a while. I do think it is much needed. Ury last week made the point on the Hour of Holiness; what if we read the scripture Trinitarian what would happen and you know when you do things make a lot more sense.
Stephen Seamands says in Ministry in the Image of God that:he "is convinced that no doctrine is, in fact more relevant to our identity and calling as ministers than the Trinity" "As the Christian grammar, trinitarian doctrine enables us to speak rightly about God..."
Coppedge in his new book really open my eyes to how central the Trinity is in all of scripture. He says the problem has been we only examen those verses that mention all three persons and not those that in which two Person are mentioned Father/Spirit, Son/Spirit or Father/Son. He also points out how most of the New Testament Gospels and Epistles start and end with the Trinity.
For me this had become central in ministry as I try to ministry to people in my church.
I think for so long it has been taught that God the Father does something for you and then Jesus and then the Spirit. We often split the Trinity up...but as Coppedge points out all three are at work in everything from Creation, Salvation, Sanctification (to name a few) and even the "Gifts of the Spirit" which are really the gifts of the Triune God.
The other problem is that for most people they do not see Jesus as eternal. They think the Son was birthed when Marry gave birth to Jesus. The think there was a time when He was not.
Just Thinking...hope it makes some sense.
Heath
By the way, I do know what the reference to the little red pill was about. <:)
Sean/Heath,
Good post and comments. I've been chewing on and thinking about a lot of this myself. I really liked Seamands' book. What do you think of Coppedges? What's the title?
What do you think about this...I had a lady in my church tell me that her six year old son was asking her how Jesus can be God if God is God. She asked me how I could help explain the Trinity to him? After laughing hysterically at the notion of simply explaining the Trinity to a six year old, I advised her to tell her son that the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are each a Person. Once he understands that each is a Person, I then told her to stress that they are God. I didn't tell her to say that they are all three Gods, but I'm sure I errored close to Tritheism. But, in doing so, I safely avoided modalism. Anyway, what do you guys think? This seems to be in line with some of Sean's suggestions...did I go too far?
On a related, but somewhat unrelated point...I was listening to Christian radio yesterday (something I don't do very often) and I heard some new Christian pop-song. I have no idea who the song is by, but the words just reminded me how bad we are as evangelical Christians in properly articulating who God is. The chorus went, "God is love and love is God...." Am I correct in thinking that saying "love is God" is heretical? Saying "love is God" sounds more like some New Age catch-phrase than a Christian expression of reality to me. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the "artist" wasn't intending to be heretical. He was probably just trying to be catchy, and we all know that writing a catchy song is much more important that properly articulating truth!
My wife thinks I need to clarify that the blue pill I referred to is "Aleve.". Tristian Coppedge's new book is The God who is Triune...so far I have read only the intro and first chapter, but it is great.
Heath,
Thanks for the book references. I'm glad you picked up on Coppedge's theme that each of the Persons is involved at every point of creation/recreation. Never does one Person operate apart from the other two. It helps when we keep close to mind the idea of perichoresis/circumincession -- that each Person is in the other two. The life is shared. They, in communion, are one, both in their inward life and its outward expression.
--------------------
Tristan,
For starters, I don't think we should be afraid to talk about the Trinity to a child (I'm not insinuating that you were). I believe that God has made human beings capable of Himself -- not to exhaustively know, but to know in relationship. Can a six year old understand the Trinity? Sure, insofar as that knowledge is saving. I guess in the end the issue is more about knowing than understanding, although knowing always contains a rational element.
As for your suggestion, I think that being in your position yours was a very pastoral response. You did well in saying what you said, just as long as it is followed up with a discussion of what a "person" is. But these are things that are not succinctly stated in one breath to the rational satisfaction of all. Fortunately, that's not what your calling is to do. Your job is to work in cooperation with the Spirit to lead people into a transforming relationship with the Trinity. This takes place over the steady, consistent, and accurate pastoral articulation through word and deed over the course of people's lives within the ecclesial context.
Yeah, I would definitely not say "love is God." I cannot think of any time or context or possible meaning where that would be acceptable. I agree with your observation of how poorly evangelicals articulate who God is, thus reinforcing the needs I expressed in the previous paragraph.
Good comments, guys. Anyone else?
When Coppedge's method is used when reading Wesley...we can see just how Trinitarian he was.
aTrue religion consists in the living relationship of God, made alive in us by the Holy Spirit who comes to us through the witness of the revelation in Jesus Christ, recorded in the Scripture, proclaimed in preaching, and practiced in the fellowship of the church. --John Wesley
Try going through a sermon and keeping an eye out for the word "Father." His theology was saturated with the Fatherhood (Trinitology) of God.
though this would still be no excuse for terrible theology in practical ministry, what the artist(s) could have meant to articulate is the idea that love is OF God. whether or not that is what they genuinely intended is certainly something none of us can probably know for certain.
even still, in relation to what they did, however, say - c. s. lewis had an interesting thought... in a discussion of the Christian affirmation that "God is love", he briefly noted that what many really mean is the reverse (i.e., that "love is God"). according to lewis, when we stress such, we are, indeed, trying to fit God arround what we understand love to be, whether good or bad. [if this is, according to me, really love, then God must be cool with it, right? not so fast!]
assuming the possibilities that lewis's comments are valid and that this artist did, in fact, mean what he actually said, i think our culture (including evangelicalism) is in pretty poor condition to attempt to define God by our standards - if we could even call them that - of love.
Good thoughts, Adam. I had forgotten the C.S. Lewis quote.
Is unity in the Trinity a departure or arrival point?
Historically, the western church tends to view the Trinity from a hierarchical point of view, one in three, or unity leading to plurality, one essence in their union of three Persons. This is best illustrated in the Nativity, Jesus's baptism, and Good Friday.
The eastern church tends to view the Trinity from a community point of view, three in one, or plurality leading to unity, the union of three Persons in their one essence. The perichoresis (interpenetration or dependence of persons or natures) is "the unity of activity within the Three toward one another." In other words, each of them, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, "teaches us not to speak his own name but the name of the other Two persons."
Both visions of the Mystery of the Trinity are correct but partial. Since neither is wholly complete, each has it advantages and disadvantages from the human point of view as you pointed out in your post.
In trying to hold these opposing views together, a sort of dynamism occurs. The Trinity is both one in three and three in one, both static and dynamic, both giving and receiving.
St. Basil tended to use two different forms of doxology. One confirmed the equalness of the Three Persons: "to the Father, together with the Son and the Holy Spirit." The other form implies the dynamics you alluded to in your post, "to the Father through the Son and in the Holy Spirit."
I highly recommend an excellent little book called Contemplating the Trinity by Raniero Cantalamessa. The book is based on good solid orthodox Christianity with each of the seven chapters focusing on a different aspects of the Trinity, i.e. the Trinitarian dynamics of prayer, overcoming the allure of false beauty, the Trinity in eastern and western spirituality, and "We will arrive where we started" in reaching for eternity.
Hello to all…
I have read each post, and have chewed on this topic a great deal.
A wise man once told me, “I don’t know if we can ever talk about the Trinity without minutes amount of blaspheme and heresy, as we do not and can not every truly understand Them.” (Or something to that effect) – Sean Scribner 2005 or so..
Sean, I would be one of those who emphasizes that God is One (first and foremost). Then after you realize that God is One… go ahead and start to try and grasp the Trinity. See, I thought a lot about what you said about trying to set aside my current understanding, and reorienting my mind.
One thing that I can not come to grips with, and I am absolutely sure that I am not fully understanding what you are saying or mean, is when you say, “Communion is how the three are one.”
This entails three coming together or being held together by a single element. Communion can be broken. I did take the red pill, and I am still within the matrix trying to figure this out. However, I am not able to look at the screen and see all of the zeros and ones and visualize my greatest dreams just yet. I still just see a bunch of scrolling zeros and ones.
God The Father is. God the Son is. God the Holy Spirit is. Of that I am certain. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are One God. God is. They are not “held” or tied together by any element. They simply “are.”
I don’t believe that we should think of God as three “persons” as that does lead to modelism. However, our minds need something to associate with the Trinity. Obviously we can not go down the old heretical path of tritheism. But I do like to say that He is One God, made of three persons. Together They are One, yet they can not be separate… or can they?
Through God the Son we are justified. We are not justified by the Holy Spirit. It is a completely separate act. Only God the Father knows the time and the hour of His will for His Son, and only by the will of the Holy Spirit does He give each of us our gifts.
Does the Trinity act in unison? Absolutely! Please do not take what I am saying to mean that they act on their own, without the knowledge of each other.
I really only came to post and tell you that you have my mind doing overtime trying to look at the Trinity without “any” preconceived ideas. It is a work in progress… I have not done a very good job of explaining my concept of the Trinity… I do not do so well when I must put it into words… I could explain it in tongues, with the help of the Holy Spirit, but typing tongues can be far too confusing for certain readers. ;)
-Matt
Sean,
A few things:
(1) Nice post. I came across this from Tristan's blog.
(2) I think the more natural and appropriate starting point is to take God as one and then explain how God can be three persons. The reason why I think this is important is that it naturally pays deference to the Old Testament. Don't we want to say that when Paul and Abraham referred to "God" that they were talking about the same thing/being? It's not as if Paul has a knew concept of God in mind and is trying to convince Jews that there God doesn't exist; rather, he thinks that THAT VERY SAME GOD is Jesus, the Father, and the H.S.
(3) It's hard to drop off "being" talk if one wants to remain creedal, given the use of "ousia" in reference to God.
(4) On the theory that God is constituted by communion, what does "is God," e.g., mean in "Jesus is God" and "The Father is God" and "The Holy Spirit is God"(i.e., truths that an orthodox view of the Trinity must maintain)? Do they mean that Jesus, the Father, and the H.S. are in communion with some 4th thing, God? That can't be right.
Nor can "is God" mean "in communion with (say) the Father" since this would make no sense of the meaning of "The Father is God."
So I'm still left wondering, in what sense is there only one God even though each person is God?
Matt,
Glad to see you back. Let me try to respond to all your comments in order.
Reading that quote I was surprised to find that I was the “wise man” you were quoting. I would like to see the original quote and read it in context. Assuming that’s what I actually said, I think I would revise that and delete the first half of it altogether, and then edit the second half to just say something about the mystery of the Trinity. But I do not for a second ascribe to the idea that the Trinity is absolutely unknowable. I think God has revealed Himself in a way perfectly understandable by people, and while it may not necessarily be “exhaustive,” it certainly is accurate and real. God is knowable. He is not beyond discussion, and we can discuss Him without becoming heretics.
You said, “I would be one of those who emphasizes that God is One (first and foremost). Then after you realize that God is One… go ahead and start to try and grasp the Trinity.” Matt, the whole point of my original post was that this is what causes problems. You say, “after you realize that God is One…” but what does that even mean? What does it mean that God is one? One in the sense that there is no other God? Of course. But you cannot understand what His “oneness” entails until Jesus reveals the whole picture. The problem in the West is we begin our understanding of God as being “one” in some philosophical sense. We have our own presupposed ideas of what “one” means and then we try to figure out how persons fit into that understanding. But when you start your theology with Jesus instead of Plato you learn that to be “one” means you are only complete in another. God cannot be “one” unless He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Their interpenetrating life of self-giving love (perichoresis) is what makes them One. I am convinced that as long as we start with Greek philosophical notions of what “one” is, we will never make heads or tails of the Trinity. So you cannot “start with one” and then “go ahead and start to try and grasp the Trinity.” It’s impossible. And the confusion you see in every American Christian trying to talk about the Trinity is proof.
You have trouble with the phrase, “Communion is how the three are one.” Then you say, “God The Father is. God the Son is. God the Holy Spirit is. Of that I am certain. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are One God. God is. They are not. They simply ‘are.’” Once again, you begin with static oneness. There is nothing dynamic or interpersonal in your articulation of God here. You have one “thing” (the Father) next to another “thing” (the Son) next to another “thing” (the H.S.), and somehow these “things,” while “not ‘held’ or tied together by any element,” “are.” This description is entirely incompatible with Nicene/Cappadocian theology. Persons are not static “things” that just “exist.” Persons are from, in, and for another. I think that the issue of what a person is might be the problem in this discussion.
You said, “I don’t believe that we should think of God as three ‘persons’ as that does lead to modelism.” Explain to me how this is so? That God is three “persons” is precisely the language that has defined and preserved orthodoxy for 2,000 years! Find me a better word than “person,” please.
You said, “Through God the Son we are justified. We are not justified by the Holy Spirit. It is a completely separate act.” So you are saying that the “persons” act independently of one another? How can the Son, who is “in” the Father, ever do anything apart from Him? I see the point you are trying to make, but in trying to make it you are making some HUGE statements with even bigger implications. When you say things like “completely separate” you might be saying more than you want to say. But once again, perhaps a definition of personhood will help here as well.
I appreciate your humility. You have always been very humble on here. May God grant all of us an extra measure of humility, especially on issues pertaining to who He is. But, Matt, articulating God is what you are called to do. What is ministry if we cannot sensibly tell others about Him? Don’t give up on staring at the Matrix characters falling down the screen. It eventually begins to make sense, but only when you try to stop thinking the way you have always thought. We all need to be able to think outside of our own paradigms. The salvation of the world depends on your ability to do that.
Let me now respond to Scotus, and then I will try to make heads and tails of all this.
Scotus,
Thanks for visiting. You’re always welcome here.
Let me try to respond to your comments in the order they came.
(1) Thanks for the compliment.
(2) I’m not for a second suggesting that Paul and Abraham knew two different Gods, or that Paul was arguing for a different God. The Old Testament provided Paul’s worldview, and he thought like a Hebrew would think. The question isn’t whether or not God “is one,” but what it means for Him to be one, especially in light of the incarnation of Jesus. Jesus reveals that, while God is one, there is distinction within His oneness. “In the beginning the Word was with (pros - toward) God, and the Word was God.” None of the New Testament writers are trying to convince the Jews that their God is wrong. Instead they are bringing into crystal clarity exactly who God is in light of His full revelation through Christ in the Spirit.
In addition, I think it is a tragic mistake to assume that the Jews in the Old Testament ever thought that God’s oneness excluded distinction in His being. From the first chapters in Genesis God has revealed plurality in His being. Jesus brings that plurality into focus and makes sense of it.
(3) I’m not dropping off “being” talk. This whole discussion is about “being.” The question is what God’s being is. In fact, if you reread my original post I ask point blank, “What is being anyway?” My argument is that when we try to understand God’s being we need to do so by starting with the person of Jesus and not Greek philosophical presuppositions. Jesus, as the Son of the Father, reveals the being of God, not Plato or Aristotle or anyone else with all their “omnis.” So please hear me: This whole discussion is one on ontology (God’s being). I’m arguing for a different approach to the discussion, not for dropping it out altogether.
(4) Not for one second am I arguing for a quadrinity. Here’s what I am trying to say. God is one. Yes. But how? If Jesus is God, but is not the Father, and if the Holy Spirit is God, but is not the Father or the Son, how are they one? As persons (once again, an understanding of personhood is the key here), the Father, Son and Spirit are in, from, and for the other. While not the Father, the Son is begotten of the Father. While not the Father or the Son, the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. There is interpersonal distinction within the Godhead. But what makes them one? I believe that it is communion that constitutes their oneness. Each person gives Himself to the other freely and fully, and each person receives the other freely and fully. The dynamic interpersonal exchange of life and love in communion constitutes the Godhead.
God created human beings in His image. The greatest expression of this image is in marriage. “In the image of God He created them; male and female He created them,” and these two “shall become one.” Men and women, therefore, image God in their distinctiveness as male and female yet in their oneness in covenantal marriage. But how are they one? Well, I would be lying if I said I fully understood this mystery. But I can tell you this: There is something mystical about marriage. I am not Rebecca (my wife). Rebecca is not me. Yet somehow, in our very beings, we are one. How? The answer lies in my relationship to her, a relationship that is characterized by mutual self-giving exclusive love. It is love, therefore, that unites us in our being. This images God, for God, within His very essence, is three persons who give themselves to each other in love, and this communion is constitutive of their being. There is no God above and beyond the Trinity. The Trinity is God. God is the Trinity. He never wasn’t three persons. This is the revelation of Jesus Christ, the Image of the invisible God, in whom the Father and the Spirit abide.
So, in sum, I am not a modalist. God is three persons, not one person changing masks. I am not a tritheist. The three persons are one.
Because of philosophical presuppositions, the West is always struggling to answer the question of how they are three. We begin with God’s “being” and then talk about the persons. But how do we know what his being is apart from the persons? The East approaches the topic from a different perspective. By starting with the persons they must answer the question of how the three are one. The answer lies in communion. They don’t think of God’s being as some kind of “stuff” (being as being), but rather as communion (being as communion). Therein lies my approach. Three who in communion are one, not one who is somehow divided into three.
I know this stuff is heady and sounds like pointless talk. But I think this is THE issue we all must grapple with. Like I said in my original post, “Who God is means everything. Our prevailing notion of the nature of God frames all the structures of our thoughts and beliefs. Who you think God is will touch every subsequent belief, bar none.” For example, it is my strong opinion that the self-centered individualism we see in the American church today is the logical conclusion of Western theology. Ideas have consequences. If we don’t at least try to think outside of our own paradigms, we will never arrive at a sound, biblical understanding of who God is, and all of our doctrines, belief, and experience will suffer as a result.
As for my persistent deferment to the issue of personhood, just let me say that I will type up a whole new topic on the issue of personhood over the Christmas break sometime. Until then, feel free to continue the dialogue right here, or check out my previous topic on “Is a Fetus a Person” here. It can be a primer for our future discussions on personhood.
Thanks to all who have commented. Forgive me for taking so long to respond. My life is crazy right now. I look forward to continuing the dialogue.
Sorry, I'm still having trouble seeing how communion or love explains the oneness of God. I'll focus on communion as love, since this seems to be the type of communion you have in mind.
Love, I'll understand as a relation (an emotive disposition) or, perhaps, an action. The question is whether or not this notion explains the meaning of "God" in a way that makes sense of these four statements:
1. Jesus is God.
2. The Father is God.
3. The H.S. is God.
4. There is only one God.
There seem to me at least three distinct loves involved in the Trinity:
Jesus's love is his love for the Father and H.S.
The Father's love is his love for Jesus and the H.S.
The H.S.'s love is his love for Jesus and the Father.
The reason I think that there are three distinct loves is that Orthodoxy requires that, in some sense, the H.S. and Son proceed from the Father (and perhaps the H.S. proceeds from the Son as well). The relations that hold between them aren't the same. E.g. The Son is not related to the father by "paternity" even though the Father is related to Jesus by paternity. I take it that this holds true for love as well, since the Father's "generating" the Son and H.S. and loving them is logically (not temporally) prior to their loving him.
So one problem is how to explain ONE God in terms of THREE loves. I don't see how we can do it.
A related problem is semantical, which I discussed in my last post.
What does "God" mean according to the "love" interpration?
Let's try this:
1. Jesus is the love he has towards the Persons.
So is Jesus an action, or a relation? Surely not an action, for presupposed is that it is JESUS that is ACTING.
Is he, then a relation? Well, if he is, and there is only one God, then it looks like there is only one relation. But then it's hard to see the distinction between the persons.
That's the problem in a nutshell.
Finally, with regard to this statement of your(below) here are a couple thoughts:
"My argument is that when we try to understand God’s being we need to do so by starting with the person of Jesus and not Greek philosophical presuppositions."
On one way of understanding this, I don't see how this squares with Abraham. He surely understood God, and "tried" to understand God, but he didn't start with Jesus.
We can only "start with Jesus" if we have some prior conception of God. In fact, the early Church CAME to an understanding THAT Jesus is God.
But I'll agree that to have the fullest understanding of God, we need to look to Jesus and not simply Plato. Perhaps that's what you were getting at.
Sean,
I will look for the comment... I do not remember if it was in an email, on MyPraize.com, or in a discussion in here...
I believe your point was that it is impossible to exactly define the Trinity with 100% accuracy as to the perfect union of God, without a small amount of hersey.
Maybe I took it the wrong way...
I will search for it...
-Matt
Duns Scotus,
Forgive me for an unforgivably tardy reply. I have been very, very busy these last couple of months. Consequently, my response to your last comment will be brief, and in the interest of moving on to new topics I will allow you the final word if you so choose.
I see where you are coming from. However, from my perspective your understanding -- or at least your articulation -- of the Trinity is just too Augustinian/Western for me. He, as we all know, had real problems with the word "person". Therein lies the problem. When you start with a Neoplatonic metaphysical concept of God as "one" and then try to identify distinctions within that one you have some real issues. That is precisely what I am trying to avoid.
When you begin your theology with Jesus, you do so not with Greek philosophical oneness but with the person. I know the eastern approach can run into tritheism, but it can account for the threeness AND the oneness, for it is in their threeness that they are one. How? Through the interpenetrating exchange of life and love among the persons. Jesus says that the Father is "in" him, and this is true among the three. That they coindwell one another through an act of the will in love is how they are one. Love, which by nature is permeable, is the key to their tri-unity.
I don't prefer the word "relations" at all, simply because it is too impersonal. Maybe if Augustine could have read Greek, or at least have traveled east like St. Hilary, we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now.
In sum, Jesus is neither an action nor a "relation", but a person. The three persons do "relate" to one another, but they are more than "relations". Plumbing the depths of that distinction means all the difference in the world to me.
As for starting with Jesus, I see what you're saying about Abraham. But Abraham's understanding of God, like anyone else's, was based on revelation. Jesus Christ, the God-man, is the pinnacle of God's revelation, the one to whom the Old Testament points and in whom it finds fulfillment. Therefore, while Abraham did not "know Christ" as you put it, the revelation he received, like all Old Testament revelation, undoubtedly had a Christological trajectory. But in the end, the point I'm trying to make is that, on this side of the Incarnation, our understanding of "God" should begin with His most supreme personal revelation of Himself and not with Greek metaphysics or philosophy. Contrary to the likes of Tertullian, I wholeheartedly like the idea of "plundering the Egyptians", but starting with Jesus is an epistemological commitment that makes the most sense.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
Back to Blog