- Jun 10, 2008
- 8,226
- 504
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
An explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity is called for. While there have been numerous threads on CF concerning the Trinity I have not read of any concise explanation. Indeed, I have not heard of any such explanation forthcoming from a pulpit - something is wrong. Yet the Trinity stands at the heart of Christianity.
This is my attempt at explaining the Trinity - not defending its doctrinal based. (For those who are interested in arguing about the doctrine you might like to look at Matt 18:19 and Acts 2:38).
In trying to explain the Trinity we are anchored, more by habit I suggest, to think about the Trinity in the form of 'persons'. Perhaps there is another way that bypasses this post-modern world and its focus on the individual.
At the outset any explanation of the Trinity suffers from its source - that of a theist God looking down on humanity. Here we append such images as omnipresence, omnipotent, immutable and unknowing and perhaps, in the mystery of it all, unknowable - one beyond our earthly existence and largely beyond our understanding - incommunicable. With big words like that being thrown about like than it is little wonder we have difficult with explaining the Trinity.
If we leave it there, captured by big words, we suffering from pushing God to the margins of existence. No wonder Israel had problems in approaching God at all. So, we need another way of thinking.
Here I utilize the thoughts of Daniel L. Migliore (2004), Professor of Systematic Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary. Migliore suggests, urges, us to consider the use such 'big words' centered within the person and work of Jesus Christ rather than using them independently to explain the Trinity.
If we focus on the life of Jesus we gain as sense of balance. Words associated with Jesus tend to be small and concrete. Words like, humility, poor, suffering, grace, freedom, grace, glory, abound in the NT. These are words that reflect our humanity rather then the theist's God holy other. The words of Jesus are close to us not far away - they have an immediacy rather than vague ethereal indirectness.
To marry the two - God (far) and Jesus (near) - we need to set these groups of words in a dialectic relation according to Migilore which I rework into concepts of 'near' and 'far'.
For example ...
Grace (near) might be better represented by Jesus while holiness (far) better represents God.
Immutable (far) might best portray God while faithfully and steadfast (near) might better portray Jesus.
Omnipotent (far) surely represents God while vulnerable (near) might better portray Jesus.
Jesus certainly talks about freedom (near) while God is sovereign (far).
There are any number of other arranged pairs that you might like to consider. My point is that within the Trinity we generate a spatial distance between Father (far), Son (near) and Holy Spirit (present) rather than remain with the image of 'persons'. In this way we can shorten the distance between a sovereign God and the presence of the Holy Spirt through the medium of Jesus Christ. By using common day words like 'present', 'near' and 'far', which have more meaning to us in our every day life, we include ourselves within a time/space image which embraces all three points of reference - and space, unlike 'persons,' does not provoke images of separate entities somehow squashed into one.
Well, there it is. Comments and critique are welcome. But please remember - this thread is NOT about defending the doctrine of the Trinity - it is about trying for a better explanation.
This is my attempt at explaining the Trinity - not defending its doctrinal based. (For those who are interested in arguing about the doctrine you might like to look at Matt 18:19 and Acts 2:38).
In trying to explain the Trinity we are anchored, more by habit I suggest, to think about the Trinity in the form of 'persons'. Perhaps there is another way that bypasses this post-modern world and its focus on the individual.
At the outset any explanation of the Trinity suffers from its source - that of a theist God looking down on humanity. Here we append such images as omnipresence, omnipotent, immutable and unknowing and perhaps, in the mystery of it all, unknowable - one beyond our earthly existence and largely beyond our understanding - incommunicable. With big words like that being thrown about like than it is little wonder we have difficult with explaining the Trinity.
If we leave it there, captured by big words, we suffering from pushing God to the margins of existence. No wonder Israel had problems in approaching God at all. So, we need another way of thinking.
Here I utilize the thoughts of Daniel L. Migliore (2004), Professor of Systematic Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary. Migliore suggests, urges, us to consider the use such 'big words' centered within the person and work of Jesus Christ rather than using them independently to explain the Trinity.
If we focus on the life of Jesus we gain as sense of balance. Words associated with Jesus tend to be small and concrete. Words like, humility, poor, suffering, grace, freedom, grace, glory, abound in the NT. These are words that reflect our humanity rather then the theist's God holy other. The words of Jesus are close to us not far away - they have an immediacy rather than vague ethereal indirectness.
To marry the two - God (far) and Jesus (near) - we need to set these groups of words in a dialectic relation according to Migilore which I rework into concepts of 'near' and 'far'.
For example ...
Grace (near) might be better represented by Jesus while holiness (far) better represents God.
Immutable (far) might best portray God while faithfully and steadfast (near) might better portray Jesus.
Omnipotent (far) surely represents God while vulnerable (near) might better portray Jesus.
Jesus certainly talks about freedom (near) while God is sovereign (far).
There are any number of other arranged pairs that you might like to consider. My point is that within the Trinity we generate a spatial distance between Father (far), Son (near) and Holy Spirit (present) rather than remain with the image of 'persons'. In this way we can shorten the distance between a sovereign God and the presence of the Holy Spirt through the medium of Jesus Christ. By using common day words like 'present', 'near' and 'far', which have more meaning to us in our every day life, we include ourselves within a time/space image which embraces all three points of reference - and space, unlike 'persons,' does not provoke images of separate entities somehow squashed into one.
Well, there it is. Comments and critique are welcome. But please remember - this thread is NOT about defending the doctrine of the Trinity - it is about trying for a better explanation.
