Entries in theology proper (4)

A Question on God's Immutability

and a grammar question, too.
 
mailbag.jpg
My email inbox can be a fun place, so I’m letting you in on the fun by responding to one piece of mail right here on the blog. I have two reasons for doing it that way. First, the questions and responses might be of general interest; and second, I could use my readers’ help.
 
Here goes. From the email, first question: 
I read your post regarding God’s immutability that you posted on Sept 27, 2005:  http://theologica.worldmagblog.com/theologica/archives/2005/09/gods_immutabili_1.html
This link no longer works, but you’ll find what is essentially the same post here: God’s Immutability. 
You stated, “And while it seems certain that he does not feel emotions in exactly the same way we do, we still need to take seriously the statements of scripture that show him exercising love or joy or anger or wrath.” 
Since I posted on Theologica, I’ve gone through all the posts on God’s attributes and  revised them, and that statement is one of the places I changed things. I changed the word exercising to manifesting because, after some thought, I decided it more accurately describes what scripture intends to express when it talks about God rejoicing or being grieved, etc.
Recently, I’ve been trying to find verses that show God is completely content with Himself and does not need us for His joy. You stated that you knew of verses that illustrate Him exercising His joy; have you ever seen any verses that demonstrate the concept I’ve been searching for? 
This question touches on the subject of God’s impassibility, along with his immutability, independence and asceity (or self-existence). I think it is right to say that God is not dependent on us for his joy, or anything else, for that matter. He is independent, so if he expresses joy, this expression of joy is willingly initiated by him and is not caused by his creatures or his creation.
 
Moreover, God has always existed and will always exist in constant fullness or perfection, so it would be wrong for us to think that our existence or our actions have in any way added to his joy or any other of his affections.
 
If I were going to support that from scripture, here are some of the texts I’d use:
 
The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 
In other words, everything comes from God. He is not dependent on us for anything, and anything would include his own feelings or emotions, or, more precisely, his affections. God is the source of all things, including his own joy.
 
For from him and through him and to him are all things.
This comes right after a statement saying that no one can be God’s counselor or give anything to him. We are unable to actually give anything to God because everything flows the other way. Everything originates within him, is worked by him, and flows back to him. When God rejoices over his people, his joy comes from within himself and he independently wills his expression of it.
 
At the same time, we can glean from what scripture says about God’s activities in his creation that the constant fullness of his affections is manifested differently according to the nature of specific events in history. Confusing? Yep, but we only really know emotions as they exist for us as dependent, changing, finite creatures. I suppose this is another one of those things that we just have to file under the incomprehensibility of God.
 
I welcome additional responses to this question. What would you add? What would you disagree with and why?
 
Now the second question, and here’s where I really need extra help:
Off topic, but also recently, heh, I’ve been trying to improve my grammar skills. I’ve checked out multiple books from the library, and I have learned a lot, but at the same time, I’m left with many questions that these books fail to answer….I was wondering if you know of any grammar books that go into extreme depth, or grammar books that you find helpful.
I’m going to have to admit that what grammar I know I learned from my mother’s constant correction and my own constant reading, not from grammar books or lessons. Mostly, I just do whatever feels, looks, or sounds right to me, and figure that’ll be good enough.
 
If I have a question, I look it up in The Chicago Manual of Style, which is a family favorite.
 
What help can you give to someone who wants to learn grammar? What books would you suggest? 
Posted on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 at 03:50PM by Registered Commenterrebecca in , | Comments8 Comments | EmailEmail | PrintPrint

Answers to Quiz on the Trinity

Time to post the answers to Monday’s quiz on the Trinity. Here are a few definitions of the Trinity that may be helpful in explaining the correct answers to the quiz.

The doctrine of the Trinity is simply that there is one eternal being of God - indivisible, infinite. This one being of God is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.

The source for this definition is James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries.  (The whole of the linked article may be helpful to you as well.)

Wayne Grudem gives three statements that summarize the Biblical teaching on the Trinity in his Systematic Theology. 

  1. God is three persons
  2. Each person is fully God.
  3. There is one God.1
And for good measure, John Frame, in Salvation Belongs to the Lord, gives us five summary assertions:

(1) God is one; (2) God is three; (3) the three persons are each fully God; (4) each of the persons is distinct from the others; and (5) the three persons are eternally related as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.2

Longer than these summary statements, but extremely important, is the historical Athanasian creed. Quoting from the section that pertains to the Trinity:

  1. Now the catholic faith is that we worship
  2. One God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity,
  3. neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance.
  4. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit.
  5. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is One, the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal.
  6. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit;
  7. the Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated;
  8. the father infinite, the Son infinite, and the Holy Spirit infinite;
  9. the Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
  10. And yet not three eternals but one eternal,
  11. as also not three infinites, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one infinite.
  12. So, likewise, the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty;
  13. and yet not three almighties but one almighty.
  14. So the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God;
  15. and yet not three Gods but one God.
  16. So the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
  17. and yet not three Lords but one Lord.
  18. For like as we are compelled by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be both God and Lord;
  19. so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, there be three Gods or three Lords.
  20. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
  21. The Son is of the Father alone, not made nor created but begotten.
  22. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten but proceeding.
  23. So there is one Father not three Fathers, one Son not three Sons, and one Holy Spirit not three Holy Spirits.
  24. And in this Trinity there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less,
  25. but the whole three Persons are coeternal together and coequal.
  26. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Trinity in Unity and the Unity in Trinity is to be worshipped.
  27. He therefore who wills to be in a state of salvation, let him think thus of the Trinity.3

Now onto the answers, although I’m betting that if you read through those statements quoted above, you already know most of the answers.

Remember, the point was to determine which statements are untrue according to the Biblical and historical doctrine of the Trinity. I’ve given short defenses of some of the answers, but doing it for every one seemed unnecessary and repetitive. If you want to know the reasoning behind any of the undefended answers, just ask.

  1. There is one God. True.
  2. God is one person. False. See, for instance, statement 4 in the Athanasian creed.
  3. God is one being. True. See James White’s definition of the Trinity.
  4. There are three persons in the Godhead. True.  Statement 4, Athanasian creed.
  5. The three persons in the Godhead are related eternally as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  True. Statement 5, John Frame’s five assertions.
  6. Each of the three persons of the Godhead is one-third of God. False. Each person is fully God; the Trinity is indivisible.
  7. The Father is fully God. True.
  8. The Father has the whole fullness of God’s being in himself. True.
  9. The Father is eternal. True.
  10. The Father is not the Son. True. The persons are distinct and not confounded.
  11. The Father is not the Holy Spirit. True.
  12. The Son is fully God. True.
  13. The Son has the whole fullness if God’s being in himself. True.
  14. The Son came into being at the time of the incarnation.  False. The Son is eternal and uncreated according to statements 7 and 9 of the Athanasian Creed. And of course, we have the scriptural statements that say that Christ was the agent of  the creation of everything as proof that he existed eternally. He is not a created being, but the Creator.
  15. The Son was brought into being in eternity past. False, see directly above. That Christ was created by the Father before the rest of  creation is one of the doctrines of Arianism, a heresy denounced by both the Council of Nicea and the Council of Constantanople, but which nonetheless still exists today, for instance, in the teaching of the Jehovah’s witnesses.
  16. The Son is eternal. True.
  17. The Son is not the Father. True.
  18. The Son is not the Holy Spirit. True.
  19. The Holy Spirit is fully God. True.
  20. The Holy Spirit has the whole fullness of God’s being in himself. True.
  21. The Holy Spirit is eternal. True.
  22. The Holy Spirit is not the Father. True.
  23. The Holy Spirit is not the Son. True.
  24. The persons of the Trinity are distinct. True.
  25. In their nature, the Son and the Holy Spirit are co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.  True. See especially statement  26 of the Athansian Creed, although other statements pertain as well.     
  26. The Son and the Spirit are subordinate to the Father in their essence or nature. False. In essence and nature they are all equal—equal majesty and glory; all three uncreated, eternal, infinite, etc. This false statement is one affirming a form of subordinationism, a heresy rejected by the early church.
  27. The Trinity is unique. True.
  28. There is both unity and diversity in the being of God. True.
  29. The persons of the Trinity have distinct primary roles. True. This is hinted at in statements 20-23 of the Athanasian Creed and supported in scripture. Although all three persons are involved in all of God’s work, there are distinctions in their focus. We might summarize their roles like this: the Father plans, the Son accomplishes, the Spirit applies.
  30. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are simply different names for the one person of God showing himself to us in three distinct roles. False.  Since the Trinity consist of three persons (not one) who exist co-eternally, God cannot be just one person manifesting himself in different roles. Melanie gives a scriptural argument that this statement is false in the comments of the quiz. This false statement is a modalistic one, and modalism (or Sabellianism) is a heresy that has always been condemned within Christianity, but one that also continues to exist. The United Pentecostal Church (Jesus-onlyism), for example, affirms a form of modalism.
  31. A right understanding of the Trinity is vital to right worship of God. True. Right worship is worship done for right reasons. An accurate view of God as Trinity is the foundation upon which we can worship each of the three persons in the Godhead. We know that only God himself is to be worshipped, right? So since the Son is fully God, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, we have justification for worshipping him; but if he were not fully God, and a created being subordinate to the Father, we would not have justification for worshipping him.
  32. A right understanding of the Trinity is vital to a right understanding of redemption. True. For one thing, in order for the Father to pour out his wrath on his Son and for the Father to accept Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf, the persons must be distinct. That the Son is infinite God also explains how his death can infinitely valuable and thus able to pay the just penalty of eternity in hell for all those he redeems.
  33. Any analogy used to explain the Trinity will not represent it completely accurately. True, as we ought to expect, since the Trinity is unique. Nothing else is like it, so there is no good analogy for it. Most analogies used to explain the Trinity do a better job explaining a heretical view of God than the orthodox Trinitarian one. And do we really need analogies, anyway? God is incomprehensible; the Trinity is incomprehensible. While there are many true things we can know about it, I’d think we should be satisfied to live with a great deal of mystery in regards to it. In fact, one could argue that the errors in regards to God in Trinity have come from attempts to make the incomprehensible into something simpler to understand.
  34. The doctrine of the Trinity cannot be derived from the Biblical text. False. The word “Trinity” is not in scripture, but the doctrine of the trinity comes directly from all the statements made about God and the persons of the Godhead in scripture.
There you go. For those keeping count, there were 7 false statements. How did you do? 
 
1 Page 231. 
2 Page 30. 
3 The statements are not numbered in the original. I numbered them to make referencing the statements simpler.
Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 at 02:09PM by Registered Commenterrebecca in , | Comments6 Comments | References1 Reference | EmailEmail | PrintPrint

Quiz on the Biblical and Historical Doctrine of the Trinity

I’m in the quiz making business again and this one’s on the Trinity. The directions are simple: Indicate which of the following statements are not true according to the Biblical and historical doctrine of the Trinity.

  1. There is one God.
  2. God is one person.
  3. God is one being.
  4. There are three persons in the Godhead.
  5. The three persons in the Godhead are related eternally as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 
  6. Each of the three persons of the Godhead is one-third of God.
  7. The Father is fully God.
  8. The Father has the whole fullness of God’s being in himself.
  9. The Father is eternal.
  10. The Father is not the Son.
  11. The Father is not the Holy Spirit.
  12. The Son is fully God.
  13. The Son has the whole fullness if God’s being in himself.
  14. The Son came into being at the time of the incarnation. 
  15. The Son was brought into being in eternity past.
  16. The Son is eternal.
  17. The Son is not the Father.
  18. The Son is not the Holy Spirit.
  19. The Holy Spirit is fully God.
  20. The Holy Spirit has the whole fullness of God’s being in himself.
  21. The Holy Spirit is eternal.
  22. The Holy Spirit is not the Father.
  23. The Holy Spirit is not the Son.
  24. The persons of the Trinity are distinct.
  25. In their nature, the Son and the Holy Spirit are co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.           
  26. The Son and the Spirit are subordinate to the Father in their essence or nature.
  27. The Trinity is unique.
  28. There is both unity and diversity in the being of God.
  29. The persons of the Trinity have distinct primary roles.
  30. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are simply different names for the one person of God showing himself to us in three distinct roles.
  31. A right understanding of the Trinity is vital to right worship of God.
  32. A right understanding of the Trinity is vital to a right understanding of redemption.
  33. Any analogy used to explain the Trinity will not represent it completely accurately.
  34. The doctrine of the Trinity cannot be derived from the Biblical text.

Look for the answers to be posted on Wednesday or thereabout.

Like theology quizzes? Here are some that were posted  previously:

Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 at 08:56AM by Registered Commenterrebecca in , | Comments5 Comments | References2 References | EmailEmail | PrintPrint

A Question of Time

[See update below.]

I’ve been busy on other projects, one to be unveiled soon, so I haven’t had much time to blog. I do have a question for you, though.

What does the word omnitemporal mean? How does it differ from eternal? How does it differ from atemporal?

And who made up that word, anyway? It’s not in my spell check, so is it a real word?

Here’s one explanation for omnitemporal that’s been given: It means “in all times at the same time”. I thought time was a succession of moments. How can something be in all of a succession at one point in the succession? Isn’t that contradictory?

And yes, that’s more than one question. If all times can be at one time, then several questions can be one question. Right?

Help!


Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 at 10:12AM by Registered Commenterrebecca in | CommentsPost a Comment | EmailEmail | PrintPrint