Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: drew@anucsd.anu.oz.au (Drew Corrigan) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: How does the Godhead function? Message-ID: Date: 23 Nov 90 08:59:47 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 112 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes: >Steve Peterson listed several passages of Scripture to show his doctrine >concerning the Deity of Jesus Christ. I have chosen to deal with two of >those passages. One in some depth. I have been reading the responses to the passages and questions originally raised by Steve Peterson. With due respect, I do not feel his question(s) about Jesus praying to, and worshipping God the Father, as his (Jesus') God have been answered. What exactly did Jesus mean when he spoke of the Father as *his* God? This question in particular does not appear to have been answered. I have another question. How do Trinitarians see the Godhead as functioning? That is, do you see the persons in the Godhead as capable of making individual decisions but agreeing to act in concert? Do the members of the Godhead have their own distinct personalities and reasoning capacities and wills? The reason I ask, is that the way I read the NT, there appears to be a clear chain of authority within the Godhead. God the Father is in charge and Jesus Christ is the "executor" of the Father's will. The Father told Jesus what message to say when he came to earth as a man. The time of Jesus' return is (will be) a decision of the Father. Jesus is described as God the Father's "Christ" - ie the Messiah sent by the Father. I am not disagreeing with Jesus being a part of the Godhead, and him enjoying a level of existence of equal to the Father, but the NT picture clearly seems to portray a difference in ultimate authority and decision making. Replys to these two questions (why Jesus calls the Father his God, and how the Godhead functions) are welcomed. Drew Corrigan (drew@anucsd.anu.oz.au) [I'm going to try to give an orthodox response. In fact I have some qualms about whether the philosophical categories used in the orthodox formulations are the right ones to answer some of your questions, but I'd rather do more speculative theology in my own name rather than as moderator. (1) on prayer to his Father. The orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation (which is probably more relevant to this question than the Trinity) says that God took to himself a human life in such a way that the human life was His life. However it retained its original character as human. There was a normal human mind, human will, etc. This is basic to the "two-nature" doctrine of the Incarnation. Christ has two natures, which did not merge to form single "compromise" nature having some properties of humanity and some of divinity. Rather than being a demigod, Christ is fully God and fully human, and has all the properties of each, uncompromised. Since his human nature is normal, without any extra parts or supernatural capabilities, in his human life he had no way to communicate with his Father other than the way the rest of us do: prayer. Since the human form of the Son reflects exactly the nature of the divine form, we may say that this worship and prayer reflects on a human level the relationship of dependence and obedience existing in eternity between the Father and Son in the Trinity. (2) on the functioning of the Godhead. The doctrinal standards allow a certain degree of freedom in how the Trinity is thought of. The Western church, going back to Augustine and before him the Alexandrians, tended to start with God as one, and to emphasize his unity. The Antiochene tradition tended to start with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as three persons. It seems clear that in Augustine, God has a single will. I was unable to find that stated clearly for Antiochene theology. I believe some of those who agreed to the Nicene compromise would have held that there were three wills that were completely in agreement. However later discussion slightly tightened up the concepts, and outlawed certain of the Antiochene views (including some that I think they ought not to have). The Cappadocian Fathers, who represent what I think is the final form of the Antiochene tradition, said that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit acted with a single action. Action was initiated by the will of the Father, and was completed through the Son and Spirit. I did not find a precise statement that there was only one will, and indeed the repeated reference to the will of the Father tends to suggest that they may not have thought the other Persons had their own wills. I generally use Augustine's thoughts on the Trinity as the basis for my theology. However there is a problem with saying that the Trinity has a single will. As indicated above, I think that the submission of Jesus to his Father's will reflects the relationship between the Father and Son in eternity, with the Son being obedient to the Father. Since obedience implies submission of one's will to another's, it's hard to see how this can have any meaning unless there is at least some distinction in will among the Persons of the Trinity. However for various reasons I'm reluctant to say simply that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have separate wills, since this would seem to violate the basic understanding that the Trinity acts with a single action. I'm pushed into the somewhat wierd position of saying that the Trinity has a single will that exists in three modes. The issue of personality is difficult because the classicial discussions were done in philosophical terms that are simply different from ours. I don't think personality in the modern sense was one of the terms they thought of. I think it's fairly clear that Christ's human nature has a human personality. I'm not at all sure what to say about personality for the Trinity. My reflex is to say that as the Trinity acts with one action, it has a single personality. But I have a feeling that someone with a more Antiochene view would see three personalities. At any rate, I don't think there is an official orthodox answer to this question. On your comment about Jesus having a difference in ultimate authority and decision making, I believe you are right. The three persons of the Trinity have different roles. Otherwise there would be no distinction between them. The Son is obedient to the Father. --clh]