Post Edited (One Love) : 3/8/2009 11:13:12 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Similtude) : 3/8/2009 7:33:44 PM (GMT-5)

Jeff: I like Dale's approach. He doesn't feel the least bit obligated to bind himself to post-scriptural definitions of heresy. That allows him to focus on scripture and coherence. I see no other way to go.

Tom: I think that’s a good general rule. At the very least we have to START with Scripture and also GROUND in Scripture anything we might say beyond what Scripture explicitly says. It’s just not always so easy to show how extra-biblical theological claims cohere with Scripture’s explicit statements (like Western vs Eastern views of the tri-unity of God).

Jeff: If we take scripture as authoritative, we have to make sense of the fact that Christ is all in all AND that Christ will reign UNTIL he delivers the kingdom to the Father so that HE may be all in all. This has only one logical solution to my mind. When Colossians says that it pleased the Father that the fullness of the godhead dwell in Christ bodily, it is saying that for NOW, Christ is all in all. But that SOFA will return to the Father at some time in the future.

Tom: So what are the pieces of the puzzle: (a) the Kingdom, (b) the Son’s present reign, (c) the turning over of the Kingdom to the Father, (d) God’s being “all in all.”

I’d love to talk about these. (1) Just what IS the “kingdom” that’s gained/built and then “surrendered” by Christ “to the Father”? (2) What about the relationship between the “present reign of Christ” and the “Father’s being all in all”? It seems like the former is the means to the latter (Jeff is saying) and that the surrendering of the Kingdom by the Son to the Father marks the transition from the former (reign and pre-eminence of the Son) to the latter (the Father’s being ‘all in all’). And beneath all this is the question of ontology vs economy; the relationship between the essential and unchanging God-defining triune relations and the non-essential relations (economy) adopted within the trinity to accommodate creation and its perfection but which (it seems) shall be abandoned when the Kingdom (the creational project in its perfect?) is surrendered to the Father. Which parts are unchanging and essential and which are temporary accommodations?

There is of course that very interesting verse in Rev. 11.15, “The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever.”

It’s more natural to assume that the “he” refers to the closest referent “Christ.” But it’s not impossible that it refers to “Lord” (viz., God). But at the same time, the kingdoms are become the kingdoms of “both.” So that’s kinda interesting. And then there’s the issue of how to interpret “forever and ever,” as unending temporal duration or (as many do with ‘aion’) as an age-appropriate duration which eventually ends?

Jeff: What is awesome about the biblical view of the godhead is that it allows for divine BECOMING without a violation of something essential grounded in the Spirit.

Tom: What is that something essential, Jeff? That would presumably be those God-defining properties that constitute divine aseity, right? The triune essence of God, right? So you’re saying there’s no ‘becoming’ when it comes to what God essentially is ‘as God’ but there is divine becoming when it comes to the Kingdom. Right? It don’t think anybody would dispute that. It’s just knowing what items to line up under the right categories, so to speak.

Jeff: Indeed, if Christ has to assume to heal (as D words it), BECOMING is a necessary capacity for the godhead to competently fulfill the end(s) of creation in a loving way while still allowing significant freedom in the short run. That "BECOMING" language must be truly descriptive of something real and not mere mystery. Our conceptions of the godhead must NON-mystically account for that becoming.

Tom: We must account for it as best we can, right. But you’re also agreeing that there are essential, God-defining attributes that cannot be subject to temporal becoming. I’m cool with the two categories. It makes sense. I’m just not sure where you line things up, except that you see the present reign of Christ over creation as a temporary, economic relation necessary to perfecting the Kingdom, until such a time as Christ surrenders that relation in all its perfection to the Father and ceases his reign and is (as Paul says in 1Cor 15) “subject to him [Father] who placed everything under him.”

I don’t know what the Orthodox do with this. But I know they will not want to say that the Logos stops being the Logos with respect to Creation (as its all-pervasive rationality, the seat of the ‘logoi’ of all created things [which are just “God’s inviting creation to be/become this or that”], an object of worship [the Lamb on the throne, etc.], the revealer of the Father, etc.). So whatever limited, economic SOFA presently defines Christ’s “reigning” and which some day shall stop, the Orthodox won’t want it to strip the Incarnate Word of these Word-defining relations.

So give me some explanation of what you think that ‘essence’ is. What about the triune God is NOT subject to ‘becoming’? Do you think the ‘triune’ relations themselves are an economic accommodation for the perfecting of Creation? That is, do you think God is triune only relative to Creation and that the triune relations will one day cease when the Kingdom is turned over to the Father? Is that what you hear Dale saying?

T

Post Edited (Tom) : 3/9/2009 4:29:38 AM (GMT-5)

**************************************************************

Tom:

I don’t know what the Orthodox do with this. But I know they will not want to say that the Logos stops being the Logos with respect to Creation (as its all-pervasive rationality, the seat of the ‘logoi’ of all created things [which are just “God’s inviting creation to be/become this or that”], an object of worship [the Lamb on the throne, etc.], the revealer of the Father, etc.). So whatever limited, economic SOFA presently defines Christ’s “reigning” and which some day shall stop, the Orthodox won’t want it to strip the Incarnate Word of these Word-defining relations.

Right, homie. These are two things that I believe cannot be sacrificed:

1) God the Son, an Uncreated Person, is unchangably the Logos of Creation, meaning the Son never ceases being Uncreated Creator in becoming the Incarnate Word. Only God can be Creator. 

2) God the Son, as Incarnate Word, is the agent of human salvation from death/union with God.  Only God can be Savior.

3) God the Son, as Incarnate Word, is the High Priest of Humanity, who in his very being, is the reconciliation/union of God and Creation(humanity).  Only a "Second Adam", a human being, can be a high priest for humanity.

I believe that all of us would accept these ideas, right?  Right, Jeff?

So, if we are going to say that there is only ONE person in the TWO-natured Jesus of Nazereth, the Eternal Son/Word/Logos of God, then we gotta make sense of this. Things get interesting when we think of the following things:

1) Where was God the Son/Word/Logos when only dinosaurs roamed the earth?  Was he in the "center" of all created experience even then?

2) Was God the Son creating Creation as a the Incarnate Word was a zygote in Mary's Womb? If so, did he do it through his zygotic humanity?

3) Was God the Son creating Creation even as he was walking up the hile with his Cross?  If so, did he do it through his human mind as he bore his Cross?

I know this seem like weird questions...but just take some time to think about them.  They DO have to be answered, don't they?

Post Edited (One Love) : 3/9/2009 10:32:25 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (One Love) : 3/9/2009 10:41:22 AM (GMT-5)

Something else.  He exposed death as impotent ON THE CROSS.  He demonstrated to Satan and the whole world that death could NOT conquer God's Love working in human flesh.  The power of death to obscure the face of God was destroyed on the Cross!

Post Edited (One Love) : 3/9/2009 4:13:18 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (One Love) : 3/9/2009 11:10:22 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (One Love) : 3/9/2009 4:19:14 PM (GMT-5)

Tom: So what are the pieces of the puzzle: (a) the Kingdom, (b) the Son’s present reign, (c) the turning over of the Kingdom to the Father, (d) God’s being “all in all.”

I’d love to talk about these. (1) Just what IS the “kingdom” that’s gained/built and then “surrendered” by Christ “to the Father”?

Jeff: Think of Hebrews: "We do not yet see all things subected unto his feet." As a pre-millenialist, I think Paul is saying that Christ will reign on the earth after his parousia in the same sense that you mentioned (namely, Rev. 11.15, “The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever.”) At that time, the earth will be subject to him as the King of kings. Eventually, death itself will be subjected at the end of that kingdom when "death" is thrown into hades. I think this means inevitable mortality--that death which Rom. 5 claims "entered" the world by sin. But there will be a great degree of subjection to the Son during his earthly reign to that point.

Tom: (2) What about the relationship between the “present reign of Christ” and the “Father’s being all in all”? It seems like the former is the means to the latter (Jeff is saying) and that the surrendering of the Kingdom by the Son to the Father marks the transition from the former (reign and pre-eminence of the Son) to the latter (the Father’s being ‘all in all’).

Jeff: I think in a sense Christ's reign IS a means to the Father being all in all. Though in the same way that Rev. 11:15 seems to imply that there is a "jointness" of the kingdom at the parousia, I think there always is in some sense. But in another sense, there are distinctions between the two. Christ "acquired" his distinctive "phase" of the kingdom by suffering for it. Thus, that "PHASE" of the kingdom is such that God is not "all in all." Once, however, Christ obtains the joy that he suffered for, he delivers in love that kingdom to God. But as you say, there is always some sense of jointness in the kingdom reign. For all things exist for BOTH of them.

Tom:  And beneath all this is the question of ontology vs economy; the relationship between the essential and unchanging God-defining triune relations and the non-essential relations (economy) adopted within the trinity to accommodate creation and its perfection but which (it seems) shall be abandoned when the Kingdom (the creational project in its perfect?) is surrendered to the Father. Which parts are unchanging and essential and which are temporary accommodations?

Jeff: To the extent that the reigning is attained by suffering, it seems that the kingdom is God's mode of subjecting the world back under the divine order once the "redemption" takes place. And since this unsubject condition came about by the misuse of (or failure TO use) volition, the kingdom, in this sense, is CONTINGENT since a non-sinful human society would never have occasioned it. This is why I think that the kingdom aspect of creation is temporal.

Tom: It’s more natural to assume that the “he” refers to the closest referent “Christ.” But it’s not impossible that it refers to “Lord” (viz., God). But at the same time, the kingdoms are become the kingdoms of “both.” So that’s kinda interesting. And then there’s the issue of how to interpret “forever and ever,” as unending temporal duration or (as many do with ‘aion’) as an age-appropriate duration which eventually ends?

Jeff: I think there is a sense in which they belong to "both." For sure. I don't assume age-abiding language implies infinite duration, here.

Tom: So give me some explanation of what you think that ‘essence’ is. What about the triune God is NOT subject to ‘becoming’? Do you think the ‘triune’ relations themselves are an economic accommodation for the perfecting of Creation? That is, do you think God is triune only relative to Creation and that the triune relations will one day cease when the Kingdom is turned over to the Father? Is that what you hear Dale saying?

Jeff: There are relations in the godhead that are essential. For example, the Father and the Son are relational. I think this is where the process theists are on-track. They see the bizarreness of a deity that would create if He were not intrinsically relational in the first place. But if He is intrinsically relational, why did He sit alone for so long before creation (i.e., assuming God is temporal, as I and process theists do)? Our view explains that without having to posit an ETERNAL world that exists independently of God.

But I think the Son is relational as we are. I.e., he is relational in the sense that he can be unconscious and still have the CAPACITY to relate while he is unconscious, just as we can. But I'm not sure the Father can ever be unconscious.

Like D, I think the Spirit directly or indirectly grounds what the Father and Son are and can be. There are limits to that. God is LOVE. This can not cease to be. So, as for aseity, I'd start with:

1) the godhead is relational, though the different members of the godhead may be diverse in how that plays out.

2) the godhead is eternally existent, unlike creatures.

3) the godhead is benevolent, though this too can be played out and expressed diversely by the members of the godhead. Consequently, God would never purpose anything that is not benevolent, nor would He purpose a benevolent end unless He was competent to ASSURE the means to that end were within His capacity to implement.

4) the persons of the godhead have the capacities for personhood, which I think are sentience, intelligence, and volition. This may be the very attributes necessary for relationality.

What I hear Dale saying is that he is not satisfied with traditional notions of the trinity. I don't know that I would agree with him. But I do think he's asking some proper questions. He's trying to see whether the statements made in the NT really require us to posit the orthodox views. Is that about right?