It's time to ask, but who?

[bricklayer]

I don't know where to ask these questions, but I do know that the people in this reformed area are the ones from who I want responses.
Some of you guys have really given me a lot to chew on.

I've never read this anywhere, so I might be way out on a limb here.

I think that I may have made some observations that seem, to me, to be very obvious.
It's been a couple of years now and so far they stand.
Perhaps someone can show me where I'm wrong.

It seems to me that the only time there is ever a distinction made between God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit is when God acts. In His essence, God is one. There is one God, but when God acts the intent is attributed to God the Father the affect is attributed to God the Holy Spirit and the effect is attributed to God the Son.

I was left to believe some years ago that an act is triune in nature; having intent, affect and effect.

The distinctions made between the Father, Spirit and Son seem to fall consistently along those lines.

The quintessential act is speach, it embodies intent (purpose), affect(breath) and effect (word). But what does one know of another's intent of affect? All one knows is the word. That is the contact, the only contact.

Could one say that Jesus is effectively God, the Holy Spirit is affectively God
and the Father is for all intents and purposes God?

My words are the effect of the affect of the intent of me.
Could one say that Jesus is the effect of the affect of the intent of God, the fullness of God bodily?

I'm not so much for using the bible as a positive check. I'm more apt to use it as a negitive check. And so far, it stands. I'm no bible scholar, I'm just a bible reader. I have been for many years, so all I have is a daily familiarity, not unlike a marriage.

I like to hear from some of you guys.
Perhaps someone could show me where God acts in a different economy.

 

[mlqurgw]

I don't know where to ask these questions, but I do know that the people in this reformed area are the ones from who I want responses.
Some of you guys have really given me a lot to chew on.

I've never read this anywhere, so I might be way out on a limb here.

I think that I may have made some observations that seem, to me, to be very obvious.
It's been a couple of years now and so far they stand.
Perhaps someone can show me where I'm wrong.

It seems to me that the only time there is ever a distinction made between God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit is when God acts. In His essence, God is one. There is one God, but when God acts the intent is attributed to God the Father the affect is attributed to God the Holy Spirit and the effect is attributed to God the Son.

I was left to believe some years ago that an act is triune in nature; having intent, affect and effect.

The distinctions made between the Father, Spirit and Son seem to fall consistently along those lines.

The quintessential act is speach, it embodies intent (purpose), affect(breath) and effect (word). But what does one know of another's intent of affect? All one knows is the word. That is the contact, the only contact.

Could one say that Jesus is effectively God, the Holy Spirit is affectively God
and the Father is for all intents and purposes God?

My words are the effect of the affect of the intent of me.
Could one say that Jesus is the effect of the affect of the intent of God, the fullness of God bodily?

I'm not so much for using the bible as a positive check. I'm more apt to use it as a negitive check. And so far, it stands. I'm no bible scholar, I'm just a bible reader. I have been for many years, so all I have is a daily familiarity, not unlike a marriage.

I like to hear from some of you guys.
Perhaps someone could show me where God acts in a different economy.

I don't think you are way off base in what you have written but I would caution you to be careful in how we separate God in the Trinity. God the Father acts, God the Spirit acts and God the son acts. Each acts according to one eternal purpose purposed in Christ Jesus before the world began. Every illustration I have ever heard concerning the three Persons of the Godhead have fallen very short. Yours, though not entirely off base, could easily lead into Modalism. I do know that all natural thoughts of God are wrong. I wish to ask you how much you know or understand of the eternal covenant of grace and how each Person of the Godhead acts according to it? The Triune God determined to bring glory to His name. God the Gather loved and chose a people out of the fallen race of humanity and gave them to the Son as His bride and portion. God the Son came and accomplished all that was needed to make them fit to be glorified with Him in eternity. God the Spirit applies to each one that accomplished salvation and makes them to be His by faith. Each Person of the Godhead has an office to perform in the covenant. God is spirit and we cannot see spirit but we do see Christ Jesus. All that can be known of God can be seen in Christ. In Him we see the love of the Father and the Spirit. In Him wee see the justice of God and the forgiveness of God according to righteousness. In Him we see all the fullness of the Godhead in a body. He is the brightness of the glory of God and the express image of His person.

Sometimes we fall, in our desire to know God, into the trap of overthinking. When we do we miss the simplicity that is in Christ. Rather than starting with the simple and working our way to the complicated we need to start with what we know and work back to the simple. I have found this to be the most enlightening method of learning of God.


Edit for additional comments:

Theology for the sake of theology is a pointless excercise that profits little. The whole point of theology ought to be shoe leather. If it doesn't fit my shoes it has no real use.

 

[bricklayer]

In your comments about God's covenent of grace above, the Father , Holy Spirit and Son act in the economy of intent, affect and effect.

As to it's application. beyond theological curiousity;
I was reading in the bible how I was to consider the "spirit" of a thing.
This was very nebulous, to me.
Then I considered that the affect of God is always attributed to the Holy Spirit. In that light, the spirit of a thing is niether the intent or the effect of a thing but the affect of a thing. This helped me understand.

Are their any biblical examples of God acting in a different economy?

The Nicean Creed reads well along these lines of intent-affect-effect.

I am aware that the finite cannot express the infinite (analogy principle).
Even if I were given the univocal concept, as soon as I put it in words, it becomes again analogous.

This intent-affect-effect economy has helped me understand scripture in a very clear and understandable way. For the last couple of years, it has helped answer some questions that I have harbored since my youth.

You are one of the people I was hoping would respond.
Please don't hold back.

 

[mlqurgw]

In your comments about God's covenent of grace above, the Father , Holy Spirit and Son act in the economy of intent, affect and effect.

As to it's application. beyond theological curiousity;
I was reading in the bible how I was to consider the "spirit" of a thing.
This was very nebulous, to me.
Then I considered that the affect of God is always attributed to the Holy Spirit. In that light, the spirit of a thing is niether the intent or the effect of a thing but the affect of a thing. This helped me understand.

Are their any biblical examples of God acting in a different economy?

The Nicean Creed reads well along these lines of intent-affect-effect.

I am aware that the finite cannot express the infinite (analogy principle).
Even if I were given the univocal concept, as soon as I put it in words, it becomes again analogous.

This intent-affect-effect economy has helped me understand scripture in a very clear and understandable way. For the last couple of years, it has helped answer some questions that I have harbored since my youth.

You are one of the people I was hoping would respond.
Please don't hold back.

I am both thankful and humbled that you think so highly of me that you would hope I respond to your post. If I am enabled to help at all it is only by the grace of God in Christ.

Now, of course you can apply the intent, affect, and effect view to each of the acts of God individually. God the Father intentionally chose a people, affectually made them to be His own by agreeing with the Spirit to apply that grace to them and effectually made them His by the substitutionary death and resurrection of the Son. God the Son intentionally made the elect His by agreeing to be their surety, substitute and representative. He effectually did so by agreeing with the Spirit to apply His death and life to them and effectually did so by actually doing all that was required in time. The Spirit intentionally made the elect the objects of the love of God when He agreed to apply and indwell all of those whom the Father chose and the Son redeemed. He affectually did it by the means of the Father's choice and the Son's accomplishment. He effectually did it by working in every believer throughout all time. You see that in all things God works as one God in three persons. We may strive to grasp it in various manners but it is still one God working in all things. That is about as far as my poor aching head can go. While I do understand what you mean and see the reason for it in Scripture I am not sure whether it actually has any shoe leather though. I find it enough to know that my salvation was purposed, accomplished and applied by the whole of the Godhead. God the Father loved me enough to give His Son. God the Son loved me enough to come and live among sinners and die in my place accomplishing all I need to be not only acceptable to God but completely and fully a joint-heir with Him. God the Spirit loved me enough to work in my depraved heart and give me life and faith in Christ, guide me into all truth and make me to know that I am loved of God. Those things give me reason to live in this depraved world as an outcast and pilgrim. The concept of intent, affect and effect is only another way of saying purposed, accomplished and applied. I have no problem with it but prefer purposed, accomplished and applied. I am your simple servant in Christ, Ron.

 

[bricklayer]

I'm sure you are right, but in the bible, God's intent is never attributed to the Holy Spirit or the Son. The affect is never attributed to the Father or the Son, and the effect is never attributed to the Father or the Holy Spirit.

My words are the effect of the affect of the intent of me, but I am "disjointed". I often don't affect what I intend. The effects of my actions are often not what I intend. God however does not suffer this. His actions are in perfect alignment.

It's just that for the last couple of years, I have been looking on a daily basis, and it seems to be consistent. The intent of God's actions is always attributed to the Father, the affect to the Holy Spirit and the effect to the Son. Their very names bespeak this enconoy.

The Nicean Creed reads well along theses lines.

It's like sovereignty, grace or election; when I finally see it, it's eveywhere.

Can you think of an instance in scripture where God acts in a different economy?

For some reason, I am not impressed that this is a trivial thing. To me, it has been a very important insight. It was a "piece of the puzzle" that made clear a significant portion of what little I know.

As far as your input goes, you have no idea how your comments have dove-tailed with my sanctification. Spiritual things are spooky, sometimes.

 

[mlqurgw]

I'm sure you are right, but in the bible, God's intent is never attributed to the Holy Spirit or the Son. The affect is never attributed to the Father or the Son, and the effect is never attributed to the Father or the Holy Spirit.

My words are the effect of the affect of the intent of me, but I am "disjointed". I often don't affect what I intend. The effects of my actions are often not what I intend. God however does not suffer this. His actions are in perfect alignment.

It's just that for the last couple of years, I have been looking on a daily basis, and it seems to be consistent. The intent of God's actions is always attributed to the Father, the affect to the Holy Spirit and the effect to the Son. Their very names bespeak this enconoy.

The Nicean Creed reads well along theses lines.

It's like sovereignty, grace or election; when I finally see it, it's eveywhere.

Can you think of an instance in scripture where God acts in a different economy?

For some reason, I am not impressed that this is a trivial thing. To me, it has been a very important insight. It was a "piece of the puzzle" that made clear a significant portion of what little I know.

As far as your input goes, you have no idea how your comments have dove-tailed with my sanctification. Spiritual things are spooky, sometimes.

I don't mean to trivialize your thoughts at all. As I said I think that perhaps what you term as intent, affect and effect are only another way of saying purpose, accomplish and apply. Now that does have some shoe leather. God the Father loved me and purposed to save me. God the Son loved me and accomplished my salvation and God the Spirit loved me and applied that salvatiuon to my heart.

 

[bradfordl]

"Dubito ergo sum." Descarte's famous line, often misquoted "I think, therefore I am" actually means "I doubt, therefore I am". His principle was that to arrive at truth one must doubt everything until it was no longer doubtable (indubitable) by one's own faculties of reason by overwhelming evidence. When you have said "I am left to believe" in various threads here, Bricklayer, this axiom has come to mind. Do you agree with it? Is this how you determine truth?

 

[bricklayer]

"I think, therefore I am"; could not be further from the truth.
That is the quintessential anthropocentric statement.


I did not come to my faith by proof positive means, so I try not to couch it in proof positve terms.
I can point to Romans 9 and say, "that's what I believe",
but I can't point to Romans 9 and say, "that's why I believe it".

A subjective being is not, by definition, objective, and therfore can not determine truth.
A subjective being can, at best, discover truth.

I cannot point to any thing as proof of the things I cannot see, the things I hope for.
Nothing is ever really proven, to me.
It's just that all the other ideas I've considered have been des-proven,
and what remains is my faith.

I am therefore left to believe this or that.

This reminds me of Rom. 10:9-10.
(Although I am very poorly educated, words are very important, to me.)
The first thing that I noticed about those verses is that a confession is reactionary. It is what one does not deny about what has already happened. But the statement "believe in your heart" was very nebulous, to me. But as we are discussing, If I want to say exacly what I mean and mean exaclty what I say, I should say that, "I AM LEFT TO BELIEVE THAT JESUS CHRIST IS LORD". But, if I said that while I was hooked up to a polygraph, my heart rate would betray me a liar; because, in my heart, I believe.

So, for me, the only sure truth is my faith in Jesus Christ.
To me, my faith is what I'm left to believe in my mind and what I cannot deny in my heart.

I don't know if I'm confusing the matter, but I look at it this way;
All of creation is a prescribed cause and effect sequence.
God starts the sequence, He is the efficient cause.
Therfore, for example, my prayer is an effect, God's action regarding that prayer is a cause and then I again respond. I don't believe that God's actions are ever an effect of something a creature does. He is always the cause, we are always the effect. He is neceesary, everything else is contingent. For example, I don't believe that God does or even can dialogue with us. I am left to believe that God condescends to us.
A dialogue has a sequence wherein an effect becomes a cause. God cannot do that anymore than a human author could dialogue with his characters.

I am left to believe that God is necessary and everything else is contingent. This leaves no one to occupy an objective position.
I am left to believe that the belief in objectivity and indepentent trials (chance) are some of the insidious presuppositions that underpin and calibrate the "way of this world".

My goodness, I have gone off on a tangent.

 

[bradfordl]

"I think, therefore I am"; could not be further from the truth.
That is the quintessential anthropocentric statement.

Glad to hear you say that, bro.