Tag Archives | trinity

Mere Christianity

By on in Literary

Mere Christianity is a profound work of theological literature written by British writer and lay theologian C.S. Lewis. First published in 1942, the book is a timeless and influential work in Christian apologetics. Much of its content originated from a series of BBC radio talks made by Lewis during World War II, from 1941 to 1944. The book is a compelling testament to Lewis’s thoughtfulness, creativity, and ability to articulate complex theological concepts in a manner that is engaging and accessible to everyone.

Having completely read through this book, it is obvious how it came to be a foundational text for many individuals exploring Christian belief. Especially as its significance lies not only in its clear, inviting prose but also in the scope and depth of its thought. Lewis’s intellectual approach to the Christian faith and his rational arguments for its principles and tenets are aimed at a broad audience. He hoped to describe a “mere” Christianity, a set of core beliefs that all Christians, regardless of their denominational background, could agree upon.

Introduction

Mere Christianity is divided into four parts, each addressing a distinct area of Christian belief and practice. The first section, titled “Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe,” proposes the existence of a universal moral law that all humans innately understand. Lewis argues that this moral law cannot result from biological or social evolution but must come from a divine source, thereby providing a moral argument for the existence of God.

The second part, “What Christians Believe,” delves deeper into Christian doctrine. Here, Lewis explores the nature of good and evil, the concepts of free will, and the Christian understanding of God and the universe. He discusses the concept of dualism and then introduces the Christian understanding of God’s nature, presenting Jesus not merely as a good moral teacher, but as the Son of God, thereby addressing the crux of Christian belief.

“Christian Behavior,” the third part of the book, elaborates on the practical application of Christianity in daily life. Lewis talks about Christian morality in terms of personal ethics and the broader context of justice, charity, forgiveness, and the importance of love, amongst others. He illuminates the concept of ‘the cardinal virtues,’ the theological virtues, and discusses topics like sexual morality, marriage, forgiveness, and the love of God.

In the final section, “Beyond Personality: Or First Steps in the Doctrine of the Trinity,” Lewis explores the concept of the Trinity and explains the transformation process of a human becoming a part of the “Body of Christ.” This section presents some of Christian doctrine’s more complex theological aspects, which Lewis simplifies with brilliant and relatable analogies.

Throughout Mere Christianity, Lewis’s style is conversational yet scholarly, with a thought-provoking approach that invites believers and skeptics to examine their beliefs. The book uniquely blends philosophical argumentation, theological instruction, and spiritual encouragement. With his literary talent and depth of understanding, Lewis provides a persuasive case for the Christian faith.

At the same time, Lewis carefully avoids delving into the divisive specifics of different Christian denominations, focusing instead on the shared tenets of the faith. This is the ‘mere’ Christianity he proposes – a vision of faith that aims to be inclusive rather than exclusive. This focus on shared belief has helped the book gain wide acceptance among Christians of many different traditions.

Mere Christianity is more than just a book; it is an immersive experience in understanding one’s faith. Whether you are a devoted believer, a skeptic exploring the Christian faith, or someone interested in religious philosophy, this classic work provides deep insights and promotes thoughtful reflection. Regardless of your perspective, Mere Christianity invites you on a journey of exploration and discovery that has the potential to transform your understanding of Christianity and the world.

Book I

RIGHT AND WRONG AS A CLUE TO THE MEANING OF THE UNIVERSE

Book One of Mere Christianity begins with Lewis’s exploration of morality and the concept of right and wrong, which he uses as a clue to discerning the existence and nature of God. He argues that moral law, the internal code of conduct recognized universally by humans, points to a lawgiver—God.

The first chapter, “The Law of Human Nature,” introduces the notion that humans have an innate sense of right and wrong, an idea that transcends cultural differences. Despite varied societal norms and customs, people universally understand fundamental concepts of fairness, justice, and moral conduct. Lewis argues that this moral law or ‘Law of Human Nature’ suggests the existence of a moral lawgiver, or God.

In “Some Objections,” the second chapter, Lewis refutes the notion that morality is a social or biological construct. He suggests that while instincts may often guide our actions, the decisions we make when instincts conflict reveal a deeper moral law. He also contends that societal norms, though influential, don’t define morality because societies themselves can be corrupt or unjust.

“The Reality of the Law” is the third chapter. Here, Lewis discusses how people often fail to follow the moral code they recognize, a state he terms ‘quarreling.’ Quarreling, he argues, is an implicit recognition of a universal moral law because it entails appealing to an accepted standard of fairness when one feels wronged. Lewis implies that the regularity of quarreling in human interaction signifies the universal reality of moral law.

In the fourth chapter, “What Lies Behind the Law,” Lewis moves from discussing moral law’s existence to speculation about the universe’s nature. He proposes two views: the Materialist view, which states that the universe is a random occurrence without a higher power, and the Religious view, which argues that a mind orchestrates the universe. Lewis suggests that the existence of the moral law, which does not fit into the mechanics of the survival of the fittest, supports the religious view.

“We Have Cause to Be Uneasy” is the last chapter of the first book. Lewis concludes that God, as the moral lawgiver, must be righteous and just, implying that humans, who frequently disobey this moral law, have cause to be concerned. Despite this, he also points to the sense of comfort people find in recognizing this moral lawgiver, suggesting that the Christian journey provides hope.

By the end of Book One, Lewis lays a foundation for the Christian faith by arguing that humanity’s shared, universal morality indicates a shared source of this morality, a higher power or God. According to Lewis, moral law is not a creation of humanity but an indication of the divine within and beyond us. This line of reasoning establishes a context for Lewis’s subsequent discussion of Christian doctrine and beliefs in the remaining sections of this book.

Book II

WHAT CHRISTIANS BELIEVE

Book 2, titled “What Christians Believe,” elucidates key Christian doctrines, making them accessible to his lay readership. His central themes include the nature of God, the concept of the Trinity, the nature of good and evil, and the figure of Jesus Christ. Lewis begins this book by clarifying what God is not. He argues against the popular notion of God as a vague spiritual force, instead asserting the Christian belief in a personal God, the sort of God who has a will, can love, and can relate to us as individuals. This is the foundation of Lewis’s theistic view, where God is both the cause and the purpose of the universe.

From there, Lewis moves on to the question of the nature of good and evil, arguing against a dualistic interpretation of the universe. Dualists, according to Lewis, see the world as a battleground of equal opposing forces of good and evil. But Lewis maintains that evil is not a thing in its own right, but rather a perversion or corruption of good. Evil is parasitic on good and is only possible when good things go wrong. In this perspective, God is entirely good, and evil originated from free will when creatures chose to misuse their God-given freedom. Lewis stresses that, despite evil’s apparent power, it is ultimately subordinate to God’s goodness.

The problem of evil leads Lewis to the figure of Christ. He addresses the issue of why, if God is good, the world is filled with suffering. Lewis introduces the idea of the Fall, the moment when human beings first chose to turn away from God. According to Lewis, this choice introduced sin and suffering into the world. Yet, God, in his mercy, offered a solution to the problem of sin: Jesus Christ.

Lewis then takes on one of his most famous arguments: “Liar, Lunatic, or Lord,” often paraphrased as “Mad, Bad, or God.” Lewis argues against those who would relegate Jesus to the status of a great moral teacher but deny his divinity. Lewis points out that Jesus made claims that would, if not true, make him either a madman or a devil. He claims that he will forgive people their sins; he says that he has always existed; he says he is coming to judge the world at the end of time. No one who made such claims could be considered a great moral teacher but not divine. Thus, we are left with three options: Jesus was a liar (a deliberate fraud), a lunatic (a man of unsound mind), or he was who he said he was: Lord.

In the final chapters, Lewis grapples with the Christian concept of the Trinity. Lewis analogizes the Trinity with the dimensions of space. Just as a single dimension can contain an infinite number of lines, and two dimensions can contain an infinite number of lines and shapes, so too, he argues, can God be both three and one. The three persons of the Trinity – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – are distinct, but they are all contained within the oneness of God.

Lewis continues to use everyday language and familiar analogies to unpack the essential beliefs of the Christian faith. His approachable style and thoughtful arguments continue to make this book a valuable resource for both Christians seeking to deepen their understanding of their faith and skeptics exploring Christianity.

Book III

CHRISTIAN BEHAVIOR

The third book, “Christian Behavior,” lays out Lewis’s vision of what ethical conduct, under the influence of Christian teachings, should look like. In this book, Lewis explores different virtues and vices, the nature of morality, and the character of a ‘good man’ according to Christian morality. Here Lewis begins by suggesting that Christian morality is like a map. Just as maps help us navigate the physical world, so Christian morals help us navigate the spiritual world. He then proceeds to discuss the ‘Cardinal Virtues’, which are wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice. These virtues are not exclusive to Christianity and are recognized by various philosophical traditions as key aspects of good moral character.

The conversation then shifts to social morality. Lewis contends that Christianity does not dictate a specific political or economic system. Instead, it sets forth general principles that should guide human interactions. He argues that Christianity encourages a love that extends beyond personal affections. This is ‘Agape,’ an unconditional love that expects nothing in return, a love that should be extended to all, including enemies.

Lewis also emphasizes the importance of sexual morality, devoting a significant portion of this book to the subject. He clarifies that he does not see sex as evil, but argues that, like all powerful desires, it can be dangerous when not properly controlled. He is critical of the prudishness about sex and the modern casual attitude toward it. Lewis supports traditional Christian teachings about marriage and sexual purity, arguing that casual sex treats people as objects rather than as individuals with inherent dignity.

In subsequent chapters, Lewis explores a variety of other ethical topics. He argues that the Christian virtues of hope and charity should guide all aspects of life, including work, play, and even laughter. He explains that Christianity teaches the importance of individual morality and the necessity of a just and compassionate society.

He then moves to the topics of forgiveness and pride. Lewis contends that forgiveness is a crucial virtue for Christians, even when it’s hard. He acknowledges that forgiving those who’ve wronged us can be extremely difficult but asserts that it’s a necessary part of following Christ. He considers pride the ‘great sin,’ the root of all evil, and humility its antidote.

Book III concludes with a chapter on faith, in which Lewis distinguishes between the faith that affirms belief in Christian doctrines and the faith that continues to trust God even in the face of difficulties and doubts. Lewis presents the moral and ethical standards set forth by Christianity rationally and logically, aiming to demonstrate that these standards, while challenging, are designed for the good of individuals and societies alike. His discussions are not solely based on faith; they also integrate philosophical, psychological, and social perspectives to examine Christian morality comprehensively.

Book IV

BEYOND PERSONALITY; OR FIRST STEPS IN THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

In this final book, Lewis investigates the nature of God as a trinity, a concept central to Christian doctrine but often difficult to understand. He admits that human language is inadequate to express this complex idea fully, but still, he uses accessible metaphors and analogies to give us a glimpse of the idea.

Lewis starts by discussing the distinction between begetting and making, which he uses to explain the relationship within the Godhead further. God the Father “begets” God the Son, but doesn’t “make” Him, in the sense that human parents beget their children, but a carpenter makes a table. In the former, the offspring share the same nature as the parents, while in the latter, the creation is fundamentally different from the creator. Hence, Jesus, the Son of God, shares the same divine nature as God the Father, and isn’t a created being.

Next, Lewis explores the idea of God as a timeless entity existing in the eternal present. God isn’t limited by past, present, and future constraints in the way humans are. As such, he explains that when Christians talk about Christ being begotten “before all worlds,” it doesn’t mean there was a time when He wasn’t. It means that Christ is eternally begotten, always coming from the Father but never separate from Him.

In addition, Lewis discusses the concept of the Holy Spirit and His role in the lives of Christians. Lewis presents the Holy Spirit as the very life of God living within believers, transforming them into the likeness of Christ. This transformative process, which he calls “good infection,” is the crux of Christian morality and spirituality.

Furthermore, Lewis addresses the importance of prayer and the Christian’s direct interaction with God. He emphasizes that prayer isn’t a way of making God do what we want but a process of learning to align ourselves with what He wants. He likens God to a new dimension of existence that humans can’t comprehend, and states that through prayer, a divine life enters and transforms us.

Toward the end of the book, Lewis discusses the paradoxical concept of surrendering to gain, arguing that a person can only find true life and self by giving it up to God. He also clarifies misconceptions about God’s omnipresence, asserting that God isn’t spread thinly across the universe, but entirely present at every point of it.

Lastly, he grapples with the idea of God’s joy, which results from our unity with Him. Our true nature, he says, is derived from God, and we are most ourselves when we align with His will. Lewis doesn’t aim to provide a comprehensive or exact explanation of the complex doctrine of the Trinity. Instead, he uses his unique approach to make these profound ideas more accessible and relatable, guiding readers to understand the Christian conception of God and the transformative nature of His relationship with humanity.

The Triadic Contour

By on in Theology

The interpretive grounds and soteriological purpose of the Trinity are based solely upon the authority and meaning of Scripture revealed by God as transmitted by the biblical authors. From the Old Testament to the New, God revealed Himself as three persons in one essence. And the biblical authors wrote about that under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit. From creation, through the covenants, redemptive history, and eschatological trajectories, each person of the Trinity was at work as recorded throughout Scripture.

Doctrinal Assertions

There are four ways, among many, to understand the doctrine of the Trinity.

There is One God, Elohim, Plural (Deut 6:4)
There is One God, Eternal, Immutable, Transcendent (Heb 7:3)
There is One God, Exclusive, Distinct (Isa 45:5)
There is One God, Modeless (John 17:5, John 1:1, John 14:26)

Doctrinal Approaches

The Trinity is revealed by divine presence, activity, and instruction; not derived through human attainment of knowledge, reason, or inference.

A. Subjects of Scripture

Structured summarization of Trinitarian functions and assessment of affected topics (i.e., deconstructed doctrines without the Trinity):

God the Father Doctrine of God
Pneumatology Doctrine of the Holy Spirit
Christology Doctrine of Christ
Angelology Doctrine of Creation (bene-elohim)
Anthropology Doctrine of Man
Hamartiology Doctrine of Sin
Soteriology Doctrine of Human Salvation
Eschatology Doctrine of Last Things
Bibliology Doctrine of God’s Word
Ecclesiology Doctrine of the Church

B. Storyline of Scripture

Genesis to Revelation, the Scriptural presence of the Trinity and its productivity (i.e., coherent involvement of the Trinity through biblical events) were prominent for the overall creative and soteriological purpose among both old and new covenants. Specific events communicated through the various literary genres involved all three persons of the Trinity.

Tracing events through scripture narratives across generations to corroborate the existence and work of the Trinity is an interpretive necessity through the formation of comprehensive biblical theology.

C. Statements of Scripture

Explicit attestations concerning the Trinty – Individual truths, promises, and themes are consistent throughout the Bible. The doctrinal implications of the relational nature between the members of the Trinity affect covenants, marriages, parenting, contracts, mediation, communication, and relationships.

The Glory of Triune God

While the soteriological purposes of God are highly evident throughout both the Old and New Testaments, what we recognized about His glory is, I am convinced, a part of a larger meta-narrative. There is much more at work than what we realize. James Hamilton Jr writes an excellent biblical theology around the salvation of people as a central theme throughout Scripture. Hamilton’s work is an exhaustive book-by-book horizontal examination of how triune God attains glory in salvation through the judgment of disobedient people.

He writes from the various events that coalesce into biblical theology, but I happen to think there is a vertical narrative as made evident by revelatory detail. Especially from a first-century New Testament perspective. A solely human-centered theology presents a limited one-dimensional horizontal perspective, but the soteriological value of comprehensive biblical theology speaks to who God is and what He has done for humanity as recorded in the pages of Scripture. I have nothing but heartfelt gratitude for Hamilton’s work. I study a range of his materials.

I’m highly sympathetic to Karl Barth (renowned most influential theologian of the 20th-century). He didn’t like the phrase, “systematic theology” because it suggested to readers a root of human reason to discern spiritual truth to shape harmful ecclesiological outcomes (like socialist liberal tolerance and acceptance of the Jewish holocaust). He got a lot of pushback from that among socialists and liberals within his time (thus his “Church Dogmatics”). It’s also why we see “Reformed Dogmatics” (Bavinck) and other similar titles from Reformed theologians who object to liberalism or socialist thought stemming from Aristotle and Kant (i.e., modernity and the ensuing enlightenment).

Assumptions about the supremacy of human thought and reason outside what specific truths, principles, and imperatives are revealed in Scripture can form categories of doctrine that misguide church polity and social structures contrary to the explicit interests of God as recorded in His Word, the Bible. Modernity and post-modern thought contribute to a low view of Scripture. – For example, a complementary perspective concerns God’s glory in the realm beyond ours (a vertical dimensionality). While Hamilton comprehensively and deeply writes about the redemptive human history (a horizontal dimensionality), Michael Heiser writes of nations reclaimed (salvation) through a process of judgment for God’s glory. Where those judged are not human, but spiritual as Yahweh reclaims humanity for His interests. See video: Heiser’s Biblical Theology (Biblical & ANE Cosmology).

The Triadic Decision

By on in Theology

There are distinctions between Eastern and Western doctrines of the Trinity that reveal a separation of thought about its internal relations. The Eastern (Greek) and Western (Latin) formations of Trinitarian theology amount to historically propagative thought from Augustine, Aquinas, and Rahner, among others. Yet the most grounded and meaningful interpretive understanding of the triune God originates from Scripture. Throughout the Old and New Testaments, God was revealed as persons who performed specific work within Creation to interact with humanity as recorded across many centuries. Recognition of God down through time is made clear through distinctions between God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The way God is in Himself is trinitarian.

From the gospel of John, it is clear that the Son is begotten of God the Father as incarnate (Jn 5:26) God coequal yet in temporal subordination to accomplish a function of outworking love between them toward humanity (Jn 5:19, 8:28, 1 Jn 4:9). Jesus begotten of the Father is also indicative of a derivative subordination function of the Holy Spirit. Just as Jesus was sent for a specific purpose, the Holy Spirit was sent to accomplish another function. However, they together remain present as God through what objectives are achieved throughout history. It is by Eastern Greek thought that the Trinity is a metaphysical procession where the Son and Holy Spirit proceed as persons to cause existence. Whereas the causation of everything is of a hypostasis referring to each concrete and distinct trinitarian persons who share a single diving nature or essence. Hypostasis is a theological concept in contrast to the doctrine of the hypostatic union of Christ to describe the bringing together of Jesus’ divine and human nature.

In the tradition of Latin or Western theology, the approach to understanding the Trinity concerns a principle of personhood to describe the members of God as a single substance. Paul, the apostle, referred to God as God, Lord Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit to indicate his frame of reference as a worshiper. Within Paul’s thought, the essence of the Trinity is Scripturally evident as individual names as positional or relational to him. In comparison to “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit,” Paul consistently wrote of the Trinity from the standpoint of a created being in reverence to God as three persons holding office separately as One (i.e., the Father as God, the Son as Lord, and Holy Spirit as Holy Spirit). John and Jesus referred to the persons as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to exemplify the Eastern approach to suggest a less formal way of identification as compared to the title or function designation through Paul.

While there is explicit scriptural support for persons of the Trinity sent and begotten, there is an interpretative view of the doctrine about how procession occurred. From eternity past, in a temporal sense, a mutual decision was made about Creation involving the redemption of chosen people through belief. There “was” an original decision together made about what was to occur through the entire sinful course of history. Salvation would be made possible through One becoming incarnate and Who would accomplish specific work through mutual submission and eternal symmetry as three persons. Without distinction concerning origination, the three as One God is ever explicitly made as such in Scripture or by revelatory detail. Other than statements and declarations of interpersonal unity and identity, expressed description of triune presence is never revealed as understandable within humanity’s three-dimensional domain. Sent and begotten God acted to produce Creation in the sense that subordinate functional objectives were met without any notion of inferiority in status or nature of aseity, presence, and limitless co-eternal power to accomplish salvation for glory and love.

The Triadic Vortex

By on in Theology

This afternoon I finished reading the entirety of God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity (342-pages). The whole effort was time well spent because it concerns the doctrine of the Trinity upon which various other doctrines rest. The book was a comprehensive look at the doctrine and the Trinity itself from the author (Millard Erickson, 1995) yet from the perspectives of various 18^th, 19^th, and 20^th-century theologies as well. Moreover, the scope of the book covered the councils of Nicea (325 A.D.) and Constantinople (381 A.D.) to assert the relevance and consequences of the doctrine, including the safety and survival of Rome.¹

While the book thoroughly covers the history of the doctrine’s development and its interpretive approaches, it highlights with careful attention the importance of what it is and what it does. The well-known and highly influential German theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg (1923-2014) asserted without hesitation that the doctrine of the Trinity is the most important among all doctrines by comparison. With numerous historical citations involving early church patristics, Erickson traverses the formulaic development of the doctrines from the first through fourth centuries. The apostolic fathers, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, and Athanasius formed instruction and traditions around the doctrine to counter opposing thoughts and assertions about the triadic form of God. Furthermore, over decades, modalism, tri-theism, Arianism, and other disputes concerned the developing church where the formation of the doctrine of the Trinity had to become a priority to settle.

From the earliest understanding of authoritative and inspired Scripture, the biblical meaning of the doctrine appeared on a scale. A valid and necessary interpretation of the Trinity was at rest on a sort of conceptual fulcrum on a scale. Move too much one way in understanding and interpretation slides to a form of modalism (liberation theology & feminism), move in the opposite direction on the scale, and interpretation moves to tri-theism, or Arianism. While tri-theism tends to be an errant way of thinking about the Trinity today, Arianism purported that Jesus could not have been truly God. The teaching of Arius (335/336 A.D.) was deemed heretical at the council of Nicea in 325 A.D.

Erickson enumerates the numerous passages that biblically reference the doctrine of the Trinity from the Old to New Testaments. Historical and cultural narratives concerning the nature and triadic unity of God across Old Testament covenants involved God’s interaction with individuals, groups, tribes, and nations. To further extend the presence of God as triune in the New Testament, numerous gospel and Pauline references point to the truth of God’s Being as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as separate yet One. The various triadic passages and references within Pauline writings and the baptismal formula set the doctrine’s foundation to assure interpreted revelation for humanity to recognize God as He is.

To further narrow the meaning of the triadic union of God, the gospel of John makes extensive reference to the relationship between all members of the Trinity. In contrast to the Old Testament, the members of the Trinity are identified explicitly to indicate their function, momentary subordination, incarnation, and the relationship between each other and humanity. Taken together, the compiled meaning of God’s identity as revealed in Scripture is nothing short of astonishing and profound. The testimony of Old and New Testament witnesses to God, His activity, and work through the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles made a punctuated and alarming impression about reality beyond day-to-day recognition that is certain to last until the Parousia.

As Greek and Latin recognition of the revelatory witness began, numerous approaches to the understanding of the Trinity ensued. Philosophical assertions about the metaphysical nature of Trinitarian theology took shape from early Greek thought to more scholastic and postmodern perspectives. Erickson does an exceptional job outlining the substance of various contributors to philosophical and theological engagement. From Aquinas and Kant to Schleiermacher, Barth, Rahner, and more contemporary contributors of Henry, Davis, and Lacugna, different competing perspectives are presented, emphasizing a process of elimination given biblically grounded rationale. Tradition, utilitarian, or social preferences carried no interpretive weight with the author.

To make a case for the understanding and correct interpretation of the doctrine of the Trinity, the author covers various objections to the Trinity in painstaking detail. Moreover, the author effectively argues for the necessity of instruction on the doctrine as a matter of pressing discipleship or catechesis. A proper understanding and interpretation of the doctrine are foundational and practical as it concerns prayer life, worship, apologetical contention, interpersonal relationships, and church governance. The doctrine of the Trinity is such a crucial area of instruction that it affects the future health and development of the Church and Christianity in general.

^[1] Erickson cites on page 13: Adolf Harnack, History of Dogma (New York: Dover, 1961), 4:60–67.

The Triadic State

By on in Theology

Throughout section three of God in Three Persons – A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, Erickson offers comprehensive and compelling scriptural evidence for the Trinity as a way to understand the identity and interwoven roles of each member. Each in a single essence as God, they together and separately work from distant history to first century and contemporary activity through God incarnate as Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit within the new covenant context. Recorded historical accounts of various events and narratives involving God in different forms of persons and pluralities bring a fuller understanding of the nature of God’s unity. Still today, through the work of the Holy Spirit, God’s involvement in a new covenant context from the first century to the present and future fulfillment of promises, there is a reconciliation evident as a continuum of combined effort.

Through a plurality of presence, as God manifests in Spirit and observed corporeal reality from the Old Testament, there is a continuing thread of literary witness accounts of what occurred as a matter of course. The fulfillment of prophecies and historical events factually confirmed assembled in Scripture to involve God at work in the lives of people point to covenant promises kept. During that progression of time, it revealed the essence and nature of God’s unity and plurality to carry meaning formative to what He does to redeem people and build His kingdom. The presence of the Trinity in the Old Testament is communicated as divine truth to offer concrete interpretive recognition of both states of plurality and unity. Story after story involves nature or Being to produce the highest confidence in the doctrine of the Trinity.

It is also trustworthy as accurate the correspondence of Christ’s witness to what and who God is. The New Testament and especially the gospel of John is replete with writings that attest to the same manner of recognition about how to view God as Creator, Spirit, and Incarnate Word. Historical, biblical, and extracanonical writings offer a significant depth and range of rationale concerning triadic references important to developing Christianity down through the centuries. Whether from the synoptic gospels, Pauline texts, or other books and letters of Scripture, numerous triadic passages of interest involved many people firsthand. Corroboration from affected societies, cultures, individuals, synagogues, and churches that were immersed in the time of Jesus, James, Peter, Paul, John, and later others produced a way of recognizing who God was and how He was made evident by what was accomplished.

It was not by happenstance that the gospels were written with a commonality of meaning meant for consistent interpretation of the triadic nature of God’s existence. There is a certain sense of security and relief in recognizing Trinity’s meaning as “persons.” The Father bestows everything upon the Son and Holy Spirit except for being the Father. Likewise, the Son and Holy Spirit everything to each without yielding identity is a form of interrelated communication and mutual communion. The interrelated nature of God as a society of persons is together shared love and not an exclusive one-to-one arrangement; as Erickson wrote love, to be love must have both a subject and an object. The triadic expression of unconditional love and interrelated selflessness further explains the nature of God as love. As presented in Scripture (1 John 4:16), God is love, yet distinct individual beings not separate or isolated from one another.

To the extent that separation is impossible within the Trinity, the Son took on flesh to become incarnate God, fulfill the triadic work on Earth, and return to His position ascendant in a resurrected and glorified body to become the firstborn of the dead. A new Adam to fulfill the Genesis 3:15 covenant where the love of triune God becomes shared with humanity.

Immanence & Immutability

By on in Theology

In my reading this week, an author at length wrote about God’s metaphysical and logical nature of existence. Specifically, it concerns the intelligibility and coherence of the doctrine of the Trinity when considering the doctrine of God. Relying upon Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Schleiermacher to frame philosophical and theological thought within the framework of human reason, 18^th and 19^th-century conclusions were prescribed around philosophy and theology from a human-centered rationale. Doctrines of religion were not spiritual but pragmatic and narrow from perspectives constrained by the limited domains in which they exist. To philosophical and humanistic reasons that deny spiritual and metaphysical realities as merely speculative in thought are generally dismissed from secular worldviews arising from Kant. Schleiermacher, a prominent liberal theologian, developed his doctrinal positions from Kant to surmise that religion is subject to feeling and experience as validated by human interaction or engagement.

Kantian epistemology brought further liberal reason that doctrines were subject to religious consciousness. The truth of spiritual realities was contingent upon receptive and permissive human acceptance or interaction. While supported by theological and biblical truth, God as a “Trinitary” Being is necessary in all possible worlds. Creation (humanity) is entirely contingent on the physical, abstract, and metaphysical realities they are set within. These are not theological judgments to which Trinitarian and Christological doctrines are formulated. They are from revelatory truth made from God’s presence within creation. The testimonial witness of the patriarchs, prophets, Christ, and apostles carry far more significant credibility and bearing of truth without our realm of existence than the philosophical and scientific speculations and descriptions concerning our limited 3-dimensional space of reality. Consciousness as emergent within physically contingent beings is a constructed object. The noetic equipment serves as an interface of the mind and spirit to recognize God and truth as expressed.

As a sort of checkmate against liberal notions of God’s existence speculatively within people’s minds (as expressed by the doctrine of the Trinity). Or by a process theology that claims God exists unchanging and infinite as only governed by the laws of the universe (Erickson, 122), there are biblical truths and philosophical reasons to conclude otherwise. For example, see Peter van Inwagen’s views about contingency theory that points to the necessity of God (video (Links to an external site.)) to dismiss dependency upon contingent beings (liberal view of theological pragmatism). Or by the existence of God as Being outside Creation in its entirety (real, physical, abstract, metaphysical, spiritual) as stated by a primitive sense of where in this video (Links to an external site.) (4D space). Or watch the full video (Links to an external site.) here to understand how space constrains perception outside our realm of existence.

Logic as a construct is abstract and not a physical thing to experience. Meaning, God created EVERYTHING perceptive, imagined, or observed by His created beings, sentient or otherwise. I’m not entirely convinced that God is neither logical nor illogical but alogical. To help further, I still have this book, Infinity, Causation, & Paradox (Links to an external site.), on my bookshelf to delve through. The author covers topics such as Satan’s apple and Beam’s paradox (probability and decision theory), divine motivation, knowledge, and action. That is to infer God is to be outside of Creation for Him to create everything (including time, space, and the laws that govern the universe). By comparison, Millard Erickson’s book God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity often communicates from a process theology framework (at least section two). Moreover, at times, the book presupposes that eternal God exclusively operates within temporality and the presence of time. Eschatologically speaking, for example, where His people will take on resurrected bodies that are no longer subject to the second law of thermodynamics (i.e., entropy or decay and death) present throughout the universe. The states of all three persons of the Trinity within a single essence as Elohim exist as a personal identity, without modal functionality, in Spirit to create and encounter. God as Trinity is transcendent, immutable, and immanent.

So basically, in my view, Kant and Schleiermacher were well-intentioned but often in error. But more than that, counterproductive as speculations presented to others built erroneous systems of thought off the mark from the truth of the Creator as Trinitary Being in perichoresis by “His” aseity. Even our perception of Him as given to us by the pronoun “His” is anthropomorphic (i.e., human-centered) as a divine act of will, grace, and mercy as He is the source of all such attributes, including love.

Getting beyond the what and how (science, philosophy) to the why (philosophy, theology), I often think its futile were it not for God’s Word and His Spirit within us. With all our searching for God as a people who grope in the dark (Isa. 59:10), here is such a poignant point to remember as the doctrine of the Trinity is modeled to us.

“Jesus replied, ‘If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.’ ” Not only does obedience to Jesus’ words bring a relationship to both the Father and the Son; the words are not even simply the Son’s words, but belong to the Father. The relationship between the Father and the Son is such that to be related to one is to be related to the other, but they are not simply different names for the same person. They are two closely related persons, whose actions are very much intertwined (Erickson, 201).”

Jesus’ spoken words for you in Scripture are from Creator God who gave His son to take our sins. It just doesn’t seem enough to understand the sacrifice on its face for what it did, but also the gravity of temporary intentional loss of perfect love between all members of the Trinity. When I think about that exchange, it kills me. Makes me think that nothing else matters whatsoever.

Metaphysical Transcendence & Meaning

By on in Theology

As many have observed throughout centuries past, the doctrine of the Trinity isn’t explicitly identified as a term or concept to present to us how we are to identify or interpret God. In his book, God in Three Persons – A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, Millard Erickson presents to readers the biblical basis for the existence of the Trinity.¹ In defense of the doctrine of the Trinity, Erickson lists several vulnerabilities concerning some views of Richardson’s work on the subject.² The work involves process theology which is a philosophical theology concerning the world having two natures. To describe process theology as the “primordial” transcendence of God and the “consequent,’ or imminent nature by which God is part of the cosmic process.³ While Erickson lists many valuable points of refutation or objections against a process theology interpretation of the Trinity, and he also makes sound biblical arguments about the existence of the Trinity implicit from the patriarchs, prophets, Christ, and the apostles. Within this monograph, and from his work Making Sense of the Trinity, 3 Crucial Questions, exact details and references are made about the case for the Trinity as a formative doctrine by which humanity is to recognize God.⁴ The doctrine of the Trinity assembled from Scripture as the revealed Word of God presents to people across all time the nature of Trinitarian existence.

God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are the same essence who have separate identities and are knowable as God. God, by name YHWH, is a single Being comprised of three together in perfect relationship and essence as one. Readers of Scripture see the interaction between members of the Trinity as God is revealed to people within Creation. He interacts with generations of individuals and nations through various covenants, interventions, and creative efforts to redeem humanity from corruption by the errant free will of persons. Erickson meticulously addressed the biblical problems caused by Richardson’s interpretation of the Trinity. There were eight separate enumerated issues around Richardson’s arguments covered by Erickson. From a range of erroneous thoughts around the authority of Scripture to human-centered logical arguments that arrive at modalism, there were numerous counterpoints of biblical evidence and interpretation. Erickson gives explicit reason for how Richardson works from false premise to conclude flawed outcomes of reason.

The doctrine of the Trinity matters pragmatically as it is a model of the relationship between God and His created beings. Invited into fellowship between Creator and created beings, the redemptive process itself is a part of the creative work to derive creatures with a free will made eligible and acceptable to God. The love of others, marriage covenants, and vows to involve the perfect form of relationship has implications about how people are to live out loyalty and obligations centered upon love and commitment. The doctrine of the Trinity provides a theological grounding for human interaction as imagers of God who will at some point be in fellowship with Him as He intended and promised from His revealed Word.

Contested thoughts around the pragmatic interests of people without concern for the Creator is an exercise in futility. The self-serving philosophical rationale that ingratiates itself with interest to improve the human condition doesn’t go far enough because everyone dies. Worse, everyone dies from a position of corruption and suffering by obvious and continued rebellion against natural order in defiance of its Creator (sin), if not just from creation itself. People unredeemed without purpose from God who live and die with philosophical and metaphysical convictions are still empty, albeit temporarily satisfied by answers to practical problems. That is to say, soothe yourself with pseudo-intellectual reasons to ignore God and His revelatory essence to abide in self with contradictory interests.

Objections to Trinitarian Christianity and its uniqueness have concentrated around feminism and liberation theology, where they together form an alternative to “extremities of patriarchal trinitarianism” (Erickson, 147). A range of feminist cases that argue for feminist theology stems from objections around the male gender identity of the trinitarian doctrines explicitly communicated in Scripture. Concepts of domination, power, and authority as masculine traits to express God as a trinitarian form of Being contradict the interests and preferences of females who conceive God as almighty Creator. Their efforts are then to appeal to a tradition of female social prominence and recast it into feminine consciousness. As gender-Trinity is set aside to reshape worship and objects of worship, idolatrous forms of veneration emerge.

Historical female interests in poetry, myth, legend, ritual, and nature worship were elements of common interest in magic to practice goddess worship (Erickson, 144). By what is sometimes known as witchcraft extending back 35,000 years, objections to patriarchal trinitarianism of the last 5,000 years arrived later on the scene to oppose female power according to developing feminine thought. Universal Trinitarian Christianity, with its heritage and bedrock patriarchal foundation, formed its doctrinal system to arrive at well-formed beliefs altogether Scripturally and objectively anchored. In contrast, feminine interest in goddess religion throughout the centuries (pagan, Greco-Roman, and contemporary) was more subjective without concrete tethering to Truth. In the mind of the historical feminist, male patriarchy was and is ascendant to function as a repressive force to which liberation becomes necessary in common cause with liberation theologians who believe a different gospel contrary to the revealed Word of God in Scripture. To deny Scripture as patriarchal (or toxically masculine) and dismiss its authority is to abandon or forsake complementarian order. It is an intentional effort to exchange female will to power for feminist claims toward the worship of feminine deity in the name of liberation. The erasure of a masculine trinitarian concept contrary to the historical work of God interpreted through Scripture is a less than obvious aspiration of historical female theologians.

The formation and acceptance of generic religion as an objection to the uniqueness of Christianity is yet another effort to bring the Creator and creation into subjection to social interests. It is the removal and dilution of the Trinity as unique to Christianity as it must give way to a homogenous interreligious discussion because exclusive claims are viewed as unacceptable. As it is with feminists who view the masculine trinitarian view of Christianity as objectionable, there are those within Islam, Hinduism, and other religions unable to accept the Trinitarian doctrine and theological traditions. Consequently, to those who object and instead press toward a generic religion or a homogenous spirituality, it is Christianity that must conform to social expectations more palatable to belief in an effort to satisfy its interests. The assimilation of new values to transform human understanding of the Christian faith is a necessary sociological pursuit in the mind of those who object to the doctrine of the Trinity as it is participative of creation having exclusive obligations to YHWH, the only God.

^{__________________________}

Citations

¹Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995), 100.
²Cyril C. Richardson, The Doctrine of the Trinity (Nashville: Abingdon, 1958).
³Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki, and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 95–96.
⁴Millard J. Erickson, Making Sense of the Trinity, 3 Crucial Questions (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2000), 15–16.

The Name Above All

By on in Theology

The Lord (YHWH) is the name of elō·hîm (God). Elohim is plural for God; namely the Father, Son & Holy Spirit. YHWH is a Him who is three that bears one name elō·hîm among many others. So it appears from personal study, but there are other perspectives also.

GOD:
430. אֱלֹהִים elohim (43b); pl (plural). of 433; God, god:—divine(1), divine being(1), exceedingly(1), God(2326), god(45), God’s(14), goddess(2), godly(1), gods(204), great(2), judges(3), mighty(2), rulers(1), shrine*(1).

Thomas, R. L. (1998). New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries : updated edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc.

LORD:
3068. יהוה YHWH (i.e. יְהוָֹה Yehovah or יַהְוֶה Yahweh) (217d); from 1933b; the proper name of the God of Israel:—GOD(314), LORD(6399), LORDS(111).

Thomas, R. L. (1998). New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries : updated edition. Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc.

(1) Proper names: El, Yahweh, Adonai, Theos, Kurios (God).
(2) Personal names: Father, Abba, Son, Jesus, Holy Spirit.
(3) Titles: Creator, Messiah/Christ, Paraclete/Comforter.
(4) Essential names: Light, Love, Spirit.
(5) Descriptive names: Rock, Ba’al, Master, Rabboni, Shepherd.
(6) Attributes: names of virtues or characteristics of the triune God-head.

Van Groningen, G. (1988). God, Names Of. In Baker encyclopedia of the Bible (Vol. 1, p. 881). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

El in the OT is used particularly in the earlier books, where it describes God’s exercising dynamic power as distinguished from authority. El speaks of God as the great doer and producer. He is the One who exercises such power that whatever is made, done, kept, or destroyed is his doing (cf. Ex 15). El is also used to express the idea that God is not to be identified as part of creation but as the One who is above, behind, and beyond creation (Ps 19:1). In relation to man, the crown of creation, God as El is totally other (Ez 28:2; Hos 11:9).

Elohim is also commonly used as the name of God, occurring over 2500 times in the OT. There are differences of opinion concerning the exact origin and meaning of this plural name. Some have suggested that Elohim is the plural form of El, but it seems more likely that it is a plural of Eloah, which appears in the poetical writings. Some critical writers have suggested that this plural form is borrowed from pagan polytheistic sources; but no such plural form is found among pagans as the name of a deity. Others have suggested that the plural form is used to indicate the triune nature of God, and support for this has been seen in the use of a singular verb with this plural noun. The biblical doctrine of the Trinity, as it is developed throughout the Scriptures, does not appear to be based on the use of this plural form of God’s name, even though the two positions are not contradictory.

The plural form, Elohim, is best understood as expressing intensity. God makes himself known by this name as the Lord of intense and extensive glory and richness as he exercises his preeminence and power in the created cosmos. Hence, when the Scripture speaks of creation, it states, “In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth” (Gn 1:1). This name is repeated 35 times in Genesis 1 and 2 in connection with God’s power revealed in creation. In the Book of Deuteronomy the name Elohim is used repeatedly to stress the majestic power of God which was shown in Israel’s release from bondage in Egypt, her preservation in the wilderness, and her preparation for entrance into the Promised Land. In this context, God (Elohim) is also recognized as the lawgiver who will powerfully execute judgment on covenant-breakers. The psalmists also used this name repeatedly as they acknowledged and praised God the majestic ruler who had demonstrated his omnipotence in many dimensions of life (see Ps 68, in which Elohim appears 26 times.)

Evangelical scholars such as A. Juke and G. Campbell Morgan have interpreted Elohim as an expression of God’s covenant relationship with his people. They point to the use of Elohim when God spoke to Abraham and said he would be Elohim to the patriarch and his seed, that is, God would be in a covenant relationship to them (Gn 17:1–8). Included in this relationship is the idea that God is ever ready to use his power on behalf of those who are in covenant with him. Thus Elohim also expresses the concept of God’s faithfulness in regard to the covenant and the promises and blessings involved in it.

Van Groningen, G. (1988). God, Names Of. In Baker encyclopedia of the Bible (Vol. 1, pp. 881–882). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House..

Yahweh (Joseph). Yahweh is a distinctly proper name of God. It is never used to refer to any pagan gods; neither is it used in regard to men. It appears 6823 times in the OT, occurring first in Genesis 2:4, where it is joined with Elohim. Yahweh is used 164 times in Genesis, and it appears 1800 times in Exodus through Joshua. It never appears in a declined form in the Hebrew language, and it never occurs in the plural form or with suffixes. It is abbreviated as Yah and Yahu (cf. Ex 15:2; Ps 68:4; Is 12:2, etc.).

The exact meaning of the name “Yahweh” is difficult to determine. Some have sought the root in the verb hayah (“to be”) or in an ancient form of that same verb hawah. There is no agreement as to whether or not the qal or hiphil form of the verb should be considered as the root. Those who opt for the hiphil form read Yahweh to mean, “cause to be”; thus Exodus 3:14 would read, “I will cause to be what has come to be.” Others look to the qal form and then translate the name as “I Am” or “I Shall Be.” Still others are inclined to disassociate the name from the verb hayah and regard it as an original and independent term, expressing the uniqueness of Israel’s gracious God.

Translators of the OT have not agreed upon the correct translation of the name “Yahweh.” Since it is translated into the Greek as kurios, which means “Lord,” many have rendered Yahweh as “Lord.” But “Adonai,” which is best rendered “Lord,” appears with Yahweh in various instances. The KJV, for example, translates “Yahweh” as “God,” and “Adonai” as “Lord.” Many modern translators have chosen to use Yahweh. The name “Jehovah,” as used in the ARV (1901) is judged unacceptable. This name arose due to the Jewish practice of not pronouncing Yahweh because of Leviticus 24:16, “He that names the name of Yahweh shall surely be put to death.” This warning against a vain or blasphemous use of the name was taken in an absolute sense, especially after Israel’s deportation (cf. Am 6:10). Hence, when reading the OT the Jews substituted either Elohim or Adonai for Yahweh. From this, the practice of adding the vowels of Adonai to YHWH (JeHoWaH) became established.

An interesting question is whether Yahweh was used initially in a specifically geographical area. Some scholars have concluded that Moses first learned of the god called Yahweh while in the desert of Midian. Later it became the name used of the god worshiped in southern Canaan, that is, the area of Judah and Simeon. These scholars posit that Elohim was the name used in northern Canaan. They also suggest that each area developed its own religious traditions and wrote its “records of religious beliefs,” each employing the divine name in use in its respective area. Later, when the nation of Israel was united, the two documents were joined, and the names “Yahweh” and “Elohim” were both used to refer to their common god. This view of the origin and use of the names of God finds no basis in the text of the OT. Both names are used in unique combinations and are also shown to have been known and used long before the time of the exodus. Abraham, for example, spoke of lifting his hand to Yahweh, El Elyon (Gn 14:19–22), and Abraham and Isaac built altars to Yahweh and called on his name (13:4; 26:25).

The interpretation of Exodus 6:2, 3 has caused much debate. “And God said to Moses, ‘I am Yahweh; I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as El Shaddai, but by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them.’ ” This passage has been understood to mean that the name Yahweh was not known or used prior to the time of Moses. But that is not what the passage states; rather it speaks of the patriarchs not knowing God as Yahweh. They knew him as El Shaddai in actual revelatory historical deeds. They had not come to know God according to his unique character, that is, as Yahweh. In other words, God had always been Yahweh; he is saying to Moses that the descendants of the patriarchs would come to know the full rich meaning of the name by the way God dealt with them.

This name “Yahweh” reveals God’s nature in the highest and fullest sense possible. It includes, or presupposes, the meaning of the other names. Yahweh particularly stresses the absolute faithfulness of God. God had promised the patriarchs that he would be their God, that he would be with them, would deliver and bless them, keep them, and give them a land as a place of service and inheritance. Moses is told by God that Israel is about to behold and experience the unchangeableness of God as he steadfastly and wondrously remembers his word and executes it to the fullest degree. God would prove to be a faithful, redeeming, upholding, restoring God. In working out this redemption, God would demonstrate that he is all that his name implies: merciful, gracious, patient, full of loving-kindness, truthful, faithful, forgiving, just, and righteous (Ex 34:5, 6). Truly, Jacob had received an insight into the meaning of the name when he exclaimed, “I wait for thy salvation, O Yahweh” (Gn 49:18).

Yahweh, then, is the name par excellence of Israel’s God. As Yahweh, he is a faithful covenant God who, having given his Word of love and life, keeps that Word by bestowing love and life abundantly on his own.

In view of the richness of the name Yahweh, it can be understood why there were stringent rules regarding its proper use (Lv 24:11, 16). It also explains why thankful, rejoicing, worshiping Israelites used the abbreviated form of Yahweh in song when they sang Hallelujah: “Praise Yah” (Pss 104:35; 106:1; 149:1; 150:1).

Yahweh is used in a number of phrases which are considered names of or ascriptions of God. The most common of these compound names is Yahweh Sabaoth (“hosts”). The word “hosts” is used very frequently in the Pentateuch to refer to the armies of Israel (cf. e.g., Nm 10:14–28). This is because the word is derived from the verb saba which means “to wage” war. It also means “to serve” in some contexts; for example, Numbers 8:24 clearly has reference to the service performed in the tabernacle. The noun sabaoth first occurs in Genesis 2:1, where it refers to the many components of the earth and heaven. Some would limit the reference in these contexts to the stars. Still others would suggest that the sabaoth refers to the angels, appealing to Psalm 33:6 for confirmation.

The compound name, Yahweh Sabaoth first appears in 1 Samuel 1:3. In view of the frequent use of sabaoth in 1 and 2 Samuel to refer to armies (1 Sm 12:9; 14:50; 17:55; 2 Sm 2:8; 8:16; 10:16, etc.), it is thought that the compound name refers to Yahweh as the God of armies, that is, God has his armies to serve him. These are considered to be armies of angels who are ministering servants to God. It has been correctly pointed out that the compound name, Yahweh Sabaoth, is used most frequently by the prophets (Jeremiah 88 times, Zechariah 55 times, Malachi 25 times, Haggai 14 times) at times when God’s people had either suffered defeat at the hands of enemy armies or were threatened by defeat. So the compound name was used to remind them that their covenant God had great hosts to fight and work for him on behalf of his people. Thus, though Israel’s armies failed, their covenant God was sufficient for every possible circumstance. And it was to this Yahweh Sabaoth that Israel’s commanders were to give allegiance (Jos 5:14, 15), and in whose name Israel was blessed (2 Sm 6:18).

Van Groningen, G. (1988). God, Names Of. In Baker encyclopedia of the Bible (Vol. 1, pp. 883–884). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.