In my systematic theology classes at Moody Theological Seminary, I read through Millard Erickson's book, "Christian Theology", which guided me in my understanding about the essential attributes of God:
A table has attributes such as “red” or “round” or “four legs”, but a table’s essence is found in its function (i.e.: “able to hold objects”). Yet, God’s essence is not in His function. The essence of “iron,” on the other hand, is found not in its function, but in its essential attribute, “rock”, or in more specific terms: “substance with 26 protons and 30 neutrons”. Similarly, God’s essence, at the very least, consists of His essential attributes. Therefore, God’s essential attributes are permanent and intrinsic qualities which cannot be gained or lost. God’s essential attributes are “spirit” (John 4:24) and “person.” “Spirit” is the invisible, not-of-the-flesh, renovative, creative, life-giving quality (Carson 1991, 225). A “person” has intellect (Isaiah 55:8-9), emotion (Exodus 34:5-7; Nehemiah 9:13-21), and will (Isaiah 14:24).
Other attributes of God, which also are unable to be gained or lost, are eternality (Psalm 90:2), immutability (James 1:17), holiness (Psalm 99), infinity (Psalm 139:1-11; Jeremiah 32:17), light (1 John 1:7), and love (1 John 4:8).Now, with this understanding of God's attributes, I also reflect on the Trinity. There is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4-5), but three persons (Matthew 28:19-20; 2 Corinthians 13:14).
At the ETS Conference I came to understand that the definition of the word "person" as I defined in my discussion of God's essential attributes is different than the definition of the word "person" as used in traditional Trinitarian teaching. And the question that came to my mind is "what exactly is a person in the traditional teaching?" From my discussion with them, I was told that "person" merely refers to "one who generates", "one who is generated", and "one who proceeds" and nothing else. Checking wikipedia, I find this confirmed.
Additionally, I heard a debate at ETS in favor of the three members (I'll use the word "members" instead of "persons" to avoid confusion) of the Trinity in perfect submission against the idea that each are exactly equal in authority. This was essentially a recount of a Grudem vs. Erickson debate. In the discussion, the traditional position was arguing against this because having three members in perfect submission implies that there are three wills, which would seem to imply three gods. Thus, I learned of the social Trinitiarianism view.
Now, just simply looking at New Testament scriptures, we can see examples of each member of the Trinity having intellect, emotion, and will. It is important to remember then that this is an essential element of God. It is essential because, without it, we merely have a "force" in the Star Wars sense. Yet, God, as defined in the Bible is not a "force" in the Star Wars sense exactly because God has personhood (i.e.: intellect, emotion, and will).
So, if each member of the Trinity has a will, and part of the essence (i.e.: substance, ousia) of God is His will, would this mean that the three members of the Trinity are not of the same substance, but rather similar substance? Oy Vay! May it never be!
There does seem to be clear evidence from scripture that the Son's will was completely obedient to the Father's will. But, how are we to understand this then?
Yet, an analogy here is helpful. The well-known analogy of ice/water/gas for the Trinity is modalist. But, I think this analogy can perhaps be modified to make it traditionally Trinitiarian.
We've all seen a block of ice turn into water and the water into gas. But, imagine that the ice quickly turns to water and then to gas and then quickly back to water and then to ice. Imagine that this happens over and over again. Imagine that this happens so quickly that it appears that the entirety of the H2O is ice, water, and gas at the same time. Now, imagine that the H2O actually IS, in its entirety, in the state of ice, water and gas at the same time. Each state is not a part of the H2O rather it is the entire H2O. This is the Trinity. One God, three members, exactly at the same time entirely God.
Now, if we apply this analogy to the essential attributes of God, namely Spirit and Person, I think this can bring some understanding out of confusion. The description as seen in the New Testament shows us each person of the Trinity having a will. This is like the ice, water, gas. Just as there are to be three states in entirety of H20, there here are three wills in entirety of God's Will. Just as there is one God, there is one Spirit, and one Person (i.e.: one intellect, one emotion, one will).
Thus, viewing the members of the Trinity this way, we can understand how each member in the Trinity can be described with different wills, yet there being only one single will of God. Indeed, the three members are certainly in perfect submission. But submission is only part of the picture. If submission were the whole picture, it would almost be as if there were three homunculi inside that which is God containing different wills with an external single will being expressed out to the world. Thus you'd have the Cerebus three headed dog, which actually is three similar substances tied together in a body. But, in fact, because there is only one will of God as the essential substance, we avoid this. The Father, Son, and Spirit are each entirely the same substance of a singular will. The Father, Son, and Spirit are each entirely the same substance of a singular emotion. The Father, Son, and Spirit are each entirely the same substance of a singular intellect. Yet, each member can be meaningfully described having will and submission toward each other.
The distinction is indeed how they relate to each other. The Father is the one who generates. The Son is the one who is generated(begotten) but not created. The Spirit is the one who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Soli Deo Gloria!
Amen.
No comments:
Post a Comment