 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/3/2004 10:42 PM (GMT -6) |   | The classical doctrine of the relationship of the Son of God to the Father God was that he was "begotten, not made," and further, that he was "eternally begotten," (i.e., not in time). Otherwise stated at Nicea, "there never was a time when the Son did not exist."
However, given that Open Theists deny the classical idea of "an eternal now," or "God outside of time," how can Open Theists also affirm the eternality of the Son of God? Or can they?
Let me be clear that I am not at all happy with the idea that Open Theism might seem to imply Arianism. I am very staunchly trinitarian in the sense that I believe the Nicene doctrine makes the most sense of the biblical data, and agrees with Scripture and Reason. My motivation for posing this question is simply to get feedback from some Open View adherents such as frequent this forum, not to provide more cannon fodder for the opponents of Open Theism.
Any input would be appreciated. Thanks.
John
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 7/3/2004 10:50 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
The classical doctrine of the relationship of the Son of God to the Father God was that he was "begotten, not made," and further, that he was "eternally begotten," (i.e., not in time). Otherwise stated at Nicea, "there never was a time when the Son did not exist."
However, given that Open Theists deny the classical idea of "an eternal now," or "God outside of time," how can Open Theists also affirm the eternality of the Son of God? Or can they?
Let me be clear that I am not at all happy with the idea that Open Theism might seem to imply Arianism. I am very staunchly trinitarian in the sense that I believe the Nicene doctrine makes the most sense of the biblical data, and agrees with Scripture and Reason. My motivation for posing this question is simply to get feedback from some Open View adherents such as frequent this forum, not to provide more cannon fodder for the opponents of Open Theism.
Any input would be appreciated. Thanks.
John
This is an area of open theism that I am not well aquainted with as yet. My understanding of open theism is that the future is both partly open and partly settled. That is its "selling feature." And it follows then, that God relates to us in the time that we are in now, and that He also is "outside of that" in that He knows the things that are partly settled in the future. I think this is outside of the realm of reason, of human logic, perhaps even defies the imagination.
I do not see the problem in proclaiming the eternality of God, as well as proclaiming that He is here, now, with us. He is God with us - Emmanuel. He is also the Alpha and Omega.
I have such limited knowledge in this area, and even more limited understanding - but consider myself to be a learner.
God Bless,
Jo-Anne 
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/4/2004 7:37 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
John,
quote:
The classical doctrine of the relationship of the Son of God to the Father God was that he was "begotten, not made," and further, that he was "eternally begotten," (i.e., not in time).
The word "begotten" is a verb which requires a tense. Thus, it implies a time relation. Moreover the word "begotten" is used to refer to Christ's conception in Mary and His ressurection - so it doesn't necessarily imply "coming" into existence. However, it does refer to a point in time in both of those instances. So I don't think we should use the word "begotten" in a way that denies it's implication of a point in time. Accordingly, "eternally begotten" is a meaningless phrase to me.
Hi Jeff,
I agree that "eternally begotten" is meaningless; however, this really is the classic watershed point for Orthodoxy vs. Arianism. I am currently working with the idea that you allude to, that "begotten" simply refers to his incarnation, not to his "eternal sonship," as orthodoxy has held since Nicea I.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/4/2004 7:54 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by moon_river_j
This is an area of open theism that I am not well aquainted with as yet. My understanding of open theism is that the future is both partly open and partly settled. That is its "selling feature." And it follows then, that God relates to us in the time that we are in now, and that He also is "outside of that" in that He knows the things that are partly settled in the future. I think this is outside of the realm of reason, of human logic, perhaps even defies the imagination.
Hi Jo-Anne,
The aspect of the future that is settled/foreordained by God is simply that which God determines He will make sure happens (when the time comes). A good example of this would be the following passage, often misquoted as indicating God's exhaustive definite knowledge of future events:
Isaiah 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand (note: "What I say will happen will happen), and I will do all my pleasure: (note: "What I'm gonna do, I'm gonna do!" 11Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.
In the above, notice God is NOT saying, "I KNOW this is going to happen," or even "I KNOW the end from the beginning." (As is often misquoted). What God IS saying in this passage is, "What I plan, I will bring to pass/accomplish, not "I already know everything that will ever happen in the future.
This is one example of how the Open View tends to approach the settled/foreordained aspect of the future; God says what GOD is going to do ahead of time, and then does it to prove not his foreknowledge but his POWER to bring His promises to pass. In other words, the Open View tends to view eternity as infinite duration of time, not a separate dimension (the so-called "eternal now") from us. In the original languages, eternity means "the age to come," and forever means "unto ages of ages."
Defining precisely what time is is a crucial distinction for Open Theism especially. Classical theists have tended to place God's existence as both outside of time and yet able to interact in time with us (i.e., the Incarnation). And this view of God "outside" of time or "transcending time" is part and parcel with the classical view of omniscience.
As far as I am aware, most Open Theists define time (as physicists do) as the measurement of change/duration, not a created "thing," but something truly integral to God's own existence and to existence itself. The biblical depiction of God as thinking one thought after another and indeed, even His deciding to create all would not be possible without sequence, and sequence would not be possible without duration/time/change.
Hope this helps,
John
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 7/4/2004 9:38 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
quote:
Originally posted by moon_river_j
This is an area of open theism that I am not well aquainted with as yet. My understanding of open theism is that the future is both partly open and partly settled. That is its "selling feature." And it follows then, that God relates to us in the time that we are in now, and that He also is "outside of that" in that He knows the things that are partly settled in the future. I think this is outside of the realm of reason, of human logic, perhaps even defies the imagination.
Hi Jo-Anne,
The aspect of the future that is settled/foreordained by God is simply that which God determines He will make sure happens (when the time comes). A good example of this would be the following passage, often misquoted as indicating God's exhaustive definite knowledge of future events:
Isaiah 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand (note: "What I say will happen will happen), and I will do all my pleasure: (note: "What I'm gonna do, I'm gonna do!" 11Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.
In the above, notice God is NOT saying, "I KNOW this is going to happen," or even "I KNOW the end from the beginning." (As is often misquoted). What God IS saying in this passage is, "What I plan, I will bring to pass/accomplish, not "I already know everything that will ever happen in the future.
This is one example of how the Open View tends to approach the settled/foreordained aspect of the future; God says what GOD is going to do ahead of time, and then does it to prove not his foreknowledge but his POWER to bring His promises to pass. In other words, the Open View tends to view eternity as infinite duration of time, not a separate dimension (the so-called "eternal now") from us. In the original languages, eternity means "the age to come," and forever means "unto ages of ages."
Defining precisely what time is is a crucial distinction for Open Theism especially. Classical theists have tended to place God's existence as both outside of time and yet able to interact in time with us (i.e., the Incarnation). And this view of God "outside" of time or "transcending time" is part and parcel with the classical view of omniscience.
As far as I am aware, most Open Theists define time (as physicists do) as the measurement of change/duration, not a created "thing," but something truly integral to God's own existence and to existence itself. The biblical depiction of God as thinking one thought after another and indeed, even His deciding to create all would not be possible without sequence, and sequence would not be possible without duration/time/change.
Hope this helps,
John
Hi,
Perhaps this is really outside the realm of what I am aquainted with. I do not see God as having exhaustive divine foreknowledge (and have been labelled quite harshly as a result of that conviction). When I say that He does not have absolute control (that He has chosen not to, because of His great love for us - eyebrows go up  , people even laugh in disbelief. I've learned to be quieter, subtler perhaps. If you talk about the open view "openly," you can expect scorn, disdain, laughter, ridicule, firm correction. A pastor friend told me that I would "wash up on the shores of destruction,' my husband referred to me as "wacked." It is a tough "row to hoe," but I have found it to be personally worthwhile despite the difficulties. Now, if asked, I explain from the point of view of "what difference this makes in my life." That seems to soften the response (most times).
Sorry, I've gotten off track here.
I do believe that He knows some things and not others; that the future is partly open and partly settled, and that we do not know how much is open and how much is settled. We know that we have free will, that non-human agents have free will, and that creation is complex. We know that we are in a cosmic battle, but that the God of the angel armies fights for us. I know He relates to me here, now, but somehow still believe that He transcends time. He must, or we would not have prophecy right?
Anyway, it's late, and I'm very, very tired, and probably not making a whole lot of sense.
And, I need prayer.
God Bless,
Jo-Anne 
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/5/2004 6:14 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Hi,
Perhaps this is really outside the realm of what I am aquainted with. I do not see God as having exhaustive divine foreknowledge (and have been labelled quite harshly as a result of that conviction). When I say that He does not have absolute control (that He has chosen not to, because of His great love for us - eyebrows go up , people even laugh in disbelief. I've learned to be quieter, subtler perhaps. If you talk about the open view "openly," you can expect scorn, disdain, laughter, ridicule, firm correction. A pastor friend told me that I would "wash up on the shores of destruction,' my husband referred to me as "wacked." It is a tough "row to hoe," but I have found it to be personally worthwhile despite the difficulties. Now, if asked, I explain from the point of view of "what difference this makes in my life." That seems to soften the response (most times).
Sorry, I've gotten off track here.
I do believe that He knows some things and not others; that the future is partly open and partly settled, and that we do not know how much is open and how much is settled. We know that we have free will, that non-human agents have free will, and that creation is complex. We know that we are in a cosmic battle, but that the God of the angel armies fights for us. I know He relates to me here, now, but somehow still believe that He transcends time. He must, or we would not have prophecy right?
Anyway, it's late, and I'm very, very tired, and probably not making a whole lot of sense.
And, I need prayer.
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
It's encouraging to hear that you hold your beliefs in the face of funny looks and harsh words. You're not alone. I disagree about God being outside of time, but it's not as important as the love that can keep you going through the tough times.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/5/2004 6:24 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
[quote]I agree that "eternally begotten" is meaningless; however, this really is the classic watershed point for Orthodoxy vs. Arianism. I am currently working with the idea that you allude to, that "begotten" simply refers to his incarnation, not to his "eternal sonship," as orthodoxy has held since Nicea I.
Hi, John. I'm glad to see this thread.
Sorry to tell you, but it takes A LOT of pretending to wish away the fact that this IS about the Son's being 'Begotten of the Father" and the Spirit's "procession from the Father." (RCC has admitted tha the Francs force the "filoque" with an army invading Rome, and that it does not belong as an origins statement--just one of economy as Christ sent the Spirit at Pentacost.)
Nicen Creed:
"We believe in one God. The Father Almighty. Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light; true God of true God; begotten not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man. And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose Kingdom shall have no end." (First Ecumenical Council) www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8062.asp
to which was also added:
"And (We believe) in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father: who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified: who spoke by the prophets. In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen." (Second Ecumenical Council) www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8065.asp
In Liturgy, the phrase "O, pre-eternal God have mercy on us" is common.
God made time. The Son "is begotten before all ages." God is Creator!
BTW -- God is not "outside of time" like the pagan Greek idea. They didn't like the incarnation or the crucifixion, and were scandalized by them. God act in time, and time itself is God's act. (It does not exist of itself.)
John, keep to the central economic tenants of God acting openly (adverb) and you will do fine. But resist the impulse to create a new religion.
Very important topic, John. Again, thanks.
- PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/5/2004 6:29 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/5/2004 7:22 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
quote:
As you are heading off to seminary, read this! Gregory of Nyssa, "On 'Not Three Gods'" http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-05/Npnf2-05-28.htm#P2559_1755103
Yikes! I'm either a lot smarter or a lot dumber now. I didn't see the social trinity in that, but I didn't see it as contradicting social trinity either. Was there a hint of modalism? (Check me out, dropping all these big words!) What I took from it was that the Trinity is united in nature and purpose, but the different persons have different parts to play in doing what God does. On the begottenness of the Son, it seems to say the Son comes from the Father, but is eternal. This jives with my not-yet-fully-formed version of the social trinity. But there's a good chance I didn't quite understand everything in the article.
I'm not going to hide that I don't like the Social model Augustine came up with -- one of three he invented. There is something nice in it, but as a whole I'd drop it. I think St. Gregory of Nyssa's (A.D. 331-396) writing disallows the Social Trinity. But the West is Augustinian, and used a theory of the three being defined by their contrast to the others, rather than their essential unity originating from the Father.
I'm not going to convince you, but check this out! www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Doctrine/Holy-Trinity.html
The Trinity is to be experienced in Christian life, not theorized about. (if you read!)
No, its not Modalism. (Read this new link.)
Sahid: On the begottenness of the Son, it seems to say the Son comes from the Father, but is eternal.
PoW: Yes.
Since the Capadocian's (Basil and the two Gregories) "wrote the book" on the Trinity you should read what the Eastern Orthodox have to say. This site is really well layed out. Look at the range of articles drawn from Thomas Hopko's book (former Seminary Dean), and the organization of it all.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/5/2004 7:26 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
What I took from it was that the Trinity is united in nature and purpose, but the different persons have different parts to play in doing what God does.
There you see a distinction between what is the actions of God in salvation--which is the limit to what we can know from experience--and what God is in the Trinity. What we DO know of God is TRUE. AND, say the Orthodox, we can have a personal relationship with God -- not through intermediaries like Thomas Aquinas said.
But back on track: (1) the "essential" trinity is one thing, and (2)the "economic trinity" (having to do with the economy/work of salvation) is another. | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 7/5/2004 8:23 PM (GMT -6) | | If the Son's eternality depends on being "begotten" outside of time and it cannot be affirmed without it, what about the eternality of the Father? Can that be affirmed in time, or must it also be denied because it too is in time. It would seem (to me at least) that if the Father is eternal, the Son is begotten by the Father and depends on the eternalness (if I may use that word) of the Father, not on the Father being outside of time.
POW, one cannot experience the Trinity without some knowledge of it and, given that the Bible implies the Trinity and does not specifically state it, one has to theorize about it in order to have a concept of it.
St. Gregory theorized about the Trinity just as much as SAINT Augustine did. Simply because you agree with one saint and not the other doesn't mean one is right and the other wrong.
Try to dialogue on the subject not propagandize. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/5/2004 10:00 PM (GMT -6) | | I don't agree with C. S. Lewis on a whole lot, but I think this quote comes close to how I understand the third Person of the Trinity.
quote:
God is not a static thing - not even a person - but a dynamic, pulsating activity, a life, almost a kind of drama. Almost, if you will not think me irreverent, a kind of dance. The union between the Father and Son is such a live concrete thing that this union itself is also a Person. I know this is almost inconceivable, but look at it thus. You know that among human beings, when they get together or in a family, or a club, or a trade union, people talk about the "spirit" of that family, or club, or trade union. They talk about its "spirit" because the individual members, when they are present, do really develop particular ways of talking and behaving that they would not do if they were apart. It is as if a sort of communal personality came into existence. Of course, it is not a real person: it is only rather like a person. But that is just one difference between God and us. What grows out of the joint life of the Father and Son is a real Person, is in fact the third of the three Persons who are God.
Jonathan Edwards is more complicated but also more precise. quote:
God's idea of himself [the Son] is absolutely perfect and therefore is an express and perfect image of Him, exactly like him in every respect; there is nothing in the pattern [Father] but what is in the representation [Son] - substance, life, power nor any thing else, and that in a most absolute perfection of similitude, otherwise it is not a perfect idea.
It's pretty obvious that Edwards pull a lot of this from Heb 1:3. He also decribes the relationship of the Spirit within the Trinity. quote:
There proceeds a most pure act, and an infinitely holy and sacred energy arises between the Father and Son in mutually loving and delighting in each other....The deity becomes all act, the divine essence itself flows out and is as it were breathed forth in love and joy. So that the Godhead therein stands forth in yet another manner of subsistence, and there proceeds the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit.
While I don't agree with everything in these quotes, they are just about the best descriptions I can find of what I mean by the social trinity. Hopefully, I will take an afternoon and, with much plagiarism, write my own version.
It seems to me that this version is more about how God is a trinity then the Eastern view which emphasizes how God acts as a trinity. It like the West emphasizes God being three and acting as one, and the East emphasizes God being one and acting as three. I suspect PoW will deny this, but it's the impression I get from reading his recommend sites.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 7/6/2004 5:13 AM (GMT -6) | | .
Thank you so much for compiling and posting these passages, Brother.
They're so indescribably beautiful that they take my breath away...
I look forward to reading your own version, as well.
Again, I thank you...
Peace & blessings,
<><
.
.
Sahid wrote:
quote:
I don't agree with C. S. Lewis on a whole lot, but I think this quote comes close to how I understand the third Person of the Trinity.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God is not a static thing - not even a person - but a dynamic, pulsating activity, a life, almost a kind of drama. Almost, if you will not think me irreverent, a kind of dance. The union between the Father and Son is such a live concrete thing that this union itself is also a Person. I know this is almost inconceivable, but look at it thus. You know that among human beings, when they get together or in a family, or a club, or a trade union, people talk about the "spirit" of that family, or club, or trade union. They talk about its "spirit" because the individual members, when they are present, do really develop particular ways of talking and behaving that they would not do if they were apart. It is as if a sort of communal personality came into existence. Of course, it is not a real person: it is only rather like a person. But that is just one difference between God and us. What grows out of the joint life of the Father and Son is a real Person, is in fact the third of the three Persons who are God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Jonathan Edwards is more complicated but also more precise.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God's idea of himself [the Son] is absolutely perfect and therefore is an express and perfect image of Him, exactly like him in every respect; there is nothing in the pattern [Father] but what is in the representation [Son] - substance, life, power nor any thing else, and that in a most absolute perfection of similitude, otherwise it is not a perfect idea.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
It's pretty obvious that Edwards pull a lot of this from Heb 1:3. He also decribes the relationship of the Spirit within the Trinity.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There proceeds a most pure act, and an infinitely holy and sacred energy arises between the Father and Son in mutually loving and delighting in each other....The deity becomes all act, the divine essence itself flows out and is as it were breathed forth in love and joy. So that the Godhead therein stands forth in yet another manner of subsistence, and there proceeds the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
While I don't agree with everything in these quotes, they are just about the best descriptions I can find of what I mean by the social trinity. Hopefully, I will take an afternoon and, with much plagiarism, write my own version.
.
.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/6/2004 5:59 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
I came upon a definition of theology today:
Theology is contemplation about revelation.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/6/2004 6:11 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
I think God can exist in time and the Son can be eternally begotten. Somehow eternity is taken to mean outside of time, but it seems simpler and more logical to think of eternity as time without endpoints. For me, it makes sense that the Son can be begotten in the sense that He is dependent upon and the natural consequence of the Father. So whenever the Father exists, so does the Son. (Kind of like saying when fire exists, so does smoke. But I know any analogy will come far short, so don't hold me to that one.) But since the Father has always existed, the Son has always existed.
Zach, Mr. serious student who's soon off to seminary... I invite you to study up on the HISTORY of what was at stake, what was under attack, etc. Theology as an intermural exercise amounts to things like the Westminister Confession. (Where they served way too much Coffee, I feel sure!)
"Of the same substance as the Father" was said for a reason. Find that reason out! History is great, and very important. Otherwise we are left with our own contemporary guesses as to what is said, and how far it is to be taken.
Athanasias used "different guys" for one issue, and then had to abandon it because the analogy wouldn't work with . I forget which, Trinity of Incarnation it was. But the point is, and we should recognize it as obvious, that Scripture and the Christian life revealed God. Theology is merely contemplation of that revelation. It is not philosophy, or metaphysics.
So, when THIS is said, it is not speculation or word-smithery:
quote:
“No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the splendor of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish them than I am carried back to the One. . . When I contemplate the Three together, I see but one torch, and cannot divide or measure out the undivided light.”
- St. Gregory Nazianzen (Gregory the Theologian)
I understand this. When I think of Christ or the Holy Spirit, immediately I think of God's love. (And as you said, God acts in Trinity!) And when I think of God's love, rather than arriving at some abstraction, immediately I am drawn to think of Christ on the Cross, or the Holy Spirit's comfort, etc. And the Father's love that He would "send his only Son."
St. Gregory is exactly correct. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/6/2004 6:13 AM (GMT -6) | |
quote:
“When I speak of God you must be illumined at once by one flash of light and by three. Three in Properties, or Hypostases, or Persons, if any prefer so to call them, for we will not quarrel about names so long as the syllables amount to the same meaning; but One in respect of … the Godhead. For they are divided indivisibly. . . and they are conjoined dividedly. For the Godhead is one in three, and the three are one. . .”
- St. Gregory Nazianzen
| | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 7/6/2004 6:15 AM (GMT -6) | | | Sahid: Excellant! Do you remember where you got the Lewis quote from? | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/6/2004 6:16 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
| 79 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:13 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|