** Thank-you too, Andy, and everyone else who participated in this discussion.  I don’t mean to act like I’m ignoring things here, but I’ve gotta prepare for finals next week, and plus, I think that it’s good to back off every once and a while and pray, rather than imagining that we can “think” all the way into the heart of God’s mystery, and then write down precisely everything.
. . . But i sure would like to see Giles in here :-)
Adios and all the best.  Do keep in touch.
Matt

[quote author="Andrew Moody"]Matt it looks like the discussion is winding down here. If that’s the case I just wanted to say thanks so much for joining in on the discussion. We have all learned a lot from your comments and understanding.

God bless,
am

Amen to all that.

Thank you to everyone who has been part of this conversation, but especially Matt for being prepared to get involved in a debate that is not in his ‘backyard’ either geographically or ecclessiologically.  I’ve found it all very helpful and thought provoking.

I’d like to summarise what I think Matt has said to make sure I’ve understood it. 

My impression of what Matt has said is that Matt considers the sort of view outlined in my article basically correct in its general thrust, but that he has concerns about the wisdom of using words such as ‘submit’, ‘obey’, and ‘subordinate’ for the way that they can so easily miscommunicate and trap the relations within the Godhead into ‘the Father tells the Son and the Spirit what to do over and against their own will’.  Matt has a similar concern about the use of analogies drawn from interpersonal interactions (e.g. marriage) for the way that they reflect our fallen experience. 

So Matt’s understanding of historic orthodoxy would see Dr Giles’s position as fundementally wrong, but that some of Dr Giles’s concerns about how the other position is expressed needs to be taken very seriously.

Is this a fair reading?  (Matt, if you can join in again post-finals, I’d be a happy man :) ).

My question then, would revolve around this issue of whether we should or should not use language like ‘obedience’ or ‘submission’ to refer to the Son’s relationship of the Father in eternity - even if it is carefully qualified to ensure that it is not the same in every way with the incarnate Jesus.

Thinking about this, I’ve had three thoughts that I’d love some interaction on.

1. Both Cyril of Jerusalem and Hilary of Potiers use this sort of controverted language.  So I’m wondering if it might not be that such language doesn’t best reflect the mainstream, but more doesn’t best reflect Athanasius’ and the Cappadocians’ way of discussing the issue.  In other words, it fits more comfortably into the Western tradition of discussing God than the Eastern tradition? 

Surely if Cyril and Hilary (particularly Hilary!) use this kind of language, then such language is a valid mainstream way of explaining the nature of the relationships within the immanent Trinity? 

It may need to be very carefully defined, but it is valid.

2. If we drop such language, and all social analogies, then aren’t we left in a place where it is hard to do justice to the fact that the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father?  Does the sun love its light?  Does the light love the sun?  Obviously analogies can’t do everything.  But if we drop all interpersonal analogies because of our fallen experience then how will we show that the persons love each other (apart from a bare assertion that it is the case)? 

I suppose my thinking on this is being shaped a lot by John’s Gospel which seems to discuss at length the relationship between the Father and the Son.  If we don’t simply relegate every (or even most) statement/s to a function of Christ’s humanity, then John speaks a lot about the relationship between Father and Son both in the economy and in eternity.  And John doesn’t use impersonal analogies, he gives content to the love the Father has for the Son and the Son has for the Father.  For example John 5:20 -

For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works

As I look at it, as soon as I try to explain what it means for the Father to love the Son and the Son to love the Father, then I have to start down the route that leads to using words like ‘submit’ and ‘obey’.  (An egalitarian Trinity doesn’t take that route because it seeks to impose an understanding of ‘equality’ that comes from the Enlightenment onto the Christian knowledge of God.)

If the Son is the agent of the Father’s will, and is, in some sense, the Father’s will (so that the will of the Father is proper to the will of the Son) and if Father and Son know each other and love each other - then surely the Son’s love in action is going to look analagous to submission and obedience isn’t it?  Not the sort of submission whereby someone else’s will overrules your own, admittedly, but still something like the sort of submission where both parties will the same thing and yet there is an asymetry to the relationship. 

That is, if we drop language of submit and obedience totally, how will we then help people see, not just the asymetry and interconnectedness of the relationships (which the sun analogy does really well) but the fact that these asymetrical and interconnected relationships are relationships of love?

3. I agree that we can’t simply equate the immanent Trinity with the economic - that Rahner’s rule is overstated. 

However, I’m not sure that I want to drop the idea that because the incarnate Son submits to the Father that this tells me something about the Son - Father relationship in eternity. 

It seems to me that there are two ways to see this:

a. The first is that only the Son could be incarnate because the Son is the image of the Father, the Father’s Word, the person of the Trinity who, by the very nature of his person, is the self-revelation of the Father.  As this self-revelation required taking on human nature, then the Son (and only the Son) could become a man - and had to accept what came with that. 

On this view Christ Jesus’ submission to the Father, his obedience to the Father, praying to the Father - none of these show me anything much about the Son’s relationshp to the Father in eternity.  He does these as a man and only as a man.

b. The second agrees that only the Son could be incarnate for exactly the same reasons as the first view.  But it takes the ‘theo-logic’ one step further. 

Humanity is made in “the image of God”.  The Son is “the image of God”.  The incarnation isn’t an afterthought that happened after God created humanity, but God’s purpose was always that the Son would be the head of all things, particularly the Church.  Thus, the incarnation was on view in the creation of the human race - we were made with the intention that we would share in the Son’s sonship, that we would become sons of God (both men and women). 

If this is true (and I know that point is not a given in the Church’s reflection on the Scriptures) then it seems to me that the submission, obedience, dependence and the like are not simply accidental consequences to the incarnation.  They are, to use Rahner’s phrase, “constitutive moments” of Christ’s Sonship.  They are the Logos revealing himself, his own particular features within the Godhead.  They are a manifestation of eternal realities that take a particular shape because they are done in a creaturely way in space and time.  But they are proper to the Son, and not simply accidents of the incarnation.  In other words, you can’t simply read them back into eternity, but they are analagous to the way in which the Son is from the Father in being and in act.  As I see the relationship that Jesus Christ has with the Father in the Gospels it reveals the shape of the relationship between the Father and the Son in themselves, it does not hide it.

I’m not sure how clear this has been.  Any thoughts would be welcome.

In Christ,
Mark Baddeley

Say hey Mark,

Just wanted to let you know that I’m done with school, and I should be able to post a response to your latest submission some time this weekend.  You raise several good points.

In passing, I must say that I find it most disappointing that the Very Rev’d Kevin Giles has failed to show up.

Peace and all the best,

Matt

Sounds great Matt, I hope the exams went well.  Look forward to hearing from you soon. 

Who knows, maybe Dr Giles will yet take up this chance to dialogue that he said that he wanted.  I agree that that could advance this debate.

in Christ,
Mark

Reply to Mark :-)

** Say hey Mark, here’s my promised response.

So Matt’s understanding of historic orthodoxy would see Dr Giles’s position as fundementally wrong, but that some of Dr Giles’s concerns about how the other position is expressed needs to be taken very seriously.
Is this a fair reading?  (Matt, if you can join in again post-finals, I’d be a happy man :) ).

** Yes, this is a fair reading.

1. Both Cyril of Jerusalem and Hilary of Potiers use this sort of controverted language. 

** So too do others.  Though I affirm such language in a very real sense, I’d simply like to see such be interpreted within a larger context which takes into account the OTHER PERSONS as well--ALONGSIDE constantly keeping in mind the fact that there is no separation between the persons.  When this latter is taken into account, the psychological difficulties that Giles’ argument relies on disappear on their own AND the actual giving of one person to another remains.
More below on the first point.
At any rate . . .

It may need to be very carefully defined, but it is valid.

** Agreed; accent on “very carefully defined” :-)

2. If we drop such language, and all social analogies, then aren’t we left in a place where it is hard to do justice to the fact that the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father?  Does the sun love its light?  Does the light love the sun?  Obviously analogies can’t do everything.  But if we drop all interpersonal analogies because of our fallen experience then how will we show that the persons love each other (apart from a bare assertion that it is the case)? 

** A good question.  I’m very much in favor of analogies, but my concern is with what may be called the phenomenology of analogical interpretation.  Athanasius’ foremost hermeneutical principle was that OUR ANALOGIES’ MEANING IS DRAWN FROM THE THING ITSELF.  In other words, if we have had an experience of Juliet, it is unlikely that we’ll MIStake the claim that “Juliet is the sun”.
Likewise, once we have a healthy, actual perception of the Trinity, pretty much any analogy can be useful.  Scripture has many analogies for God; Christ can describe himself as a mother bird.
But our understanding of God doesn’t START from analogies; our understanding begins from a direct perception (no, I don’t mean to imply that the perception is exhaustive).  Analogies and perceptions then interpenetrate one another.

And John doesn’t use impersonal analogies, he gives content to the love the Father has for the Son and the Son has for the Father.  For example John 5:20 -
For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works

** I think that this verse actually makes more sense if understood as primarily referred to the Son as incarnate.  Surely the Father’s own Logos and Wisdom who exists in eternity does not sit about waiting to see what to do?
Reception does not (I don’t think) necessarily entail sequential time.  But since there IS an asymmetrical relationship per reception (i.e., e.g., as Athanasius says, all that the Son eternally has, he has from the Father), a solution opens itself up.
Since the Son IS the Image and Expression, he will therefore be the one who reveals God (Jn. 1:1, 18).  Since the Son receives AND is, in this instance, human, his reception of the Father’s will and perception of the Father’s works is confluent with his manner of subsistence in the immanent Trinity.
But surely, you do not wish to imply that the reception in both cases is identical?  You don’t intend to imply the following:
In eternity, at 7:47 a.m. the Father does an action.
At 7:47:13 the Son sees it.
At 7:47:17 the Son understands it.
At 7:47:58 a sudden desire to do an action arises in the Son.
At 7:48 the Father gives the Son a command, which is not identical with the desire the Son had a moment earlier.
At 7:48:13 the Son feels something like a “pang,” realizing that (rum thing!) his prior desire is not identical with what the Father just told him to do.
At 7:49:11, the Son forms the resolution to supress his own will, and defer to his Father’s.
Surely something like THAT is not what you have in mind?  Surely, to truly GIVE ONESELF to another does not require such--even though it often does in our fallen world?

As I look at it, as soon as I try to explain what it means for the Father to love the Son and the Son to love the Father, then I have to start down the route that leads to using words like ‘submit’ and ‘obey’. 

** Would not such words as “give” and “receive” do a better job?  For in our world, to obey or submit almost ALWAYS carries the connotation of “suppressing my own desires in order that I may do yours"--it almost always implies a FRUSTRATION of one person’s will.
This cannot be claimed of the Trinity.  While I think that there is more than a grain of truth in what you suggest, I also believe we need to start developing the analogy in a different direction.  True--the Son delights in doing the will of the Father, and the Son receives his will from the Father.  But more can be said.

(An egalitarian Trinity doesn’t take that route because it seeks to impose an understanding of ‘equality’ that comes from the Enlightenment onto the Christian knowledge of God.)

** Agreed.  Monarchial modalistic tritheism is ever a threat. 

If the Son is the agent of the Father’s will, and is, in some sense, the Father’s will (so that the will of the Father is proper to the will of the Son) and if Father and Son know each other and love each other - then surely the Son’s love in action is going to look analagous to submission and obedience isn’t it? 

** Surely, it will look something like that.
But let us not forget the fact that the Son is the Image of the Father.  Hans urs von Balthasar sees the relationship thusly.  The Father eternally gives himself to the Son; the Son IN RESPONSE TO THAT LOVING SELF GIFT mirrors the Father and gives himself to the Father.
The movement thus begins in the Father.  Thus if we accept your analogy, we must not simply see the Father as “the boss” and the Son as a “yes sir! yes sir!” employee.  Rather, we must see the Son’s self-gift to the Father as a response to the ORIGINAL SELF GIFT which is FROM the Father TO the Son.
The poem quoted previously from St. John of the Cross brings this point home nicely.  See also Hans urs von Balthasar’s _Credo_ (very short book, and easy to follow).

Not the sort of submission whereby someone else’s will overrules your own, admittedly, but still something like the sort of submission where both parties will the same thing and yet there is an asymetry to the relationship. 

** What do you think of the above?  Can we develop this so that it will work for you?  The relationship--the giving and receiving--is still asymmetrical.  It begins in the Father.  But the Son’s “submitting” (here I prefer the word “self-giving") mirrors the Father.  It is the expression of the Father’s manner of subsistence in such a way as befits the person of the Son, and how the Son is related to the Father.
Can we work with this?

a. The first is that only the Son could be incarnate because the Son is the image of the Father, the Father’s Word, the person of the Trinity who, by the very nature of his person, is the self-revelation of the Father.  [. . .  ]He does these as a man and only as a man.

** Hopefully what I said above goes some way in addressing this. 

If this is true (and I know that point is not a given in the Church’s reflection on the Scriptures) then it seems to me that the submission, obedience, dependence and the like are not simply accidental consequences to the incarnation.  They are, to use Rahner’s phrase, “constitutive moments” of Christ’s Sonship.  They are the Logos revealing himself, his own particular features within the Godhead.  They are a manifestation of eternal realities that take a particular shape because they are done in a creaturely way in space and time.  But they are proper to the Son, and not simply accidents of the incarnation. 

** First, let me say that I wholly agree that our salvation (= participation in the Son’s sonship) indeed does presuppose the Son’s own sonship.  Likewise, Athanasius and Gregory of Nyssa held that God’s ability to create depends upon God’s eternal generation of the Son.
But I think you may be taking it too far.  The immanent Trinity is not ontologically dependent upon, or informed by, the economy of creation and salvation.  Thus humankind’s being “the image” must be taken in an analogous sense, similar to describing God as “a wise king upon his throne,” or similar predications.
I fear if I go too far into this at present, I’ll become dizzy.  At present, let me simply say that I am unwilling to press the analogy as far as you imply.
Hope that helped somewhat.  If anything, I think that it is clear that we are in substantial agreement, and that there is plenty of room for dialogue.
Adios and all the best,
Matt

TRINITY

In Matthew 3:13-17, do we not see a demonstration of what the Trinity is all about.

As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

We have the relationship between the three elements, which is to continue its eternal path.

Following Jesus resurrection, believers/followers become part of this relationship, having a relationship with the Father through the Son, with the daily help of the Spirit.

Ken

Re: TRINITY

** I agree Ken.

[quote author="Ken Austin"]In Matthew 3:13-17, do we not see a demonstration of what the Trinity is all about.

As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

We have the relationship between the three elements, which is to continue its eternal path.

Following Jesus resurrection, believers/followers become part of this relationship, having a relationship with the Father through the Son, with the daily help of the Spirit.

Ken

Two Articles in today’s SMH:

An Article

and

An opinion piece from Kevin Giles

-A-

And from Kevin’s opinion piece, linked above came this opening comment;

[quote author="Kevin Giles"]Birth control is the great irrelevancy that divides the Catholics; for Sydney evangelical Anglicans it is the ordination of women. Most lay people and many of the best theologians in both churches think what those in power teach on these matters is simply mistaken and so they ignore it in practice.

Any evidence to back that up? IMO, that’s rubbish.

-A-

None is before...none is greater...

This single line from the Athanasian Creed seems to be Kevin’s big proof of his position in this article.

“And in this Trinity none is afore, nor after another; none is greater, or less than another. “

Here are some things people should know about this creed and Kevin’s arguments about it;

1. It’s not a creed. The pseudonymous document originates in France somewhere around the 5th century. No council formulated it. The Eastern Church rejects it. It is not therefore a legitimate test of orthodoxy despite its inclusion in the Anglican articles.

2. Kevin acknowledges this and admits that if his interpretation of the Creed is right then it condemns the Cappadocian Fathers to hell (see the first and last lines) because they profess the monarche of the Father. To his credit, Kevin does not actually believe the creed at this point.

3. Thus Kevin only believes those parts of the creed which might useful in skewering his oponents.

Let me say it again plainly: Kevin Giles *openly rejects parts of the Athanasian Creed*. This is different from the Sydney position which professes to believe it (whether we find that interpretation persuasive or not).

4. Kevin’s interpretation may be wrong. A plain reading makes it difficult for relational subordinationsists.

But historical context must be considered:

Everyone agrees that the AC is an exposition of Augustinian trinitarianism and this makes things complicated. Augustine has two modes of speaking about the persons and sees two sets of attributes inherent to them. He speaks of them in terms of:

a. the divine attributes which should always be predicated singly to all persons

b. the relative personal attributes which apply to the persons individually and exclusively

If the lines of the AC we are discussing are speaking of (a)divine attributes then there can never be a before or after or degree of greatness because in Augustinianism the divine nature is singular and absolutely simple. As the creed says;

So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty; And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

But if this is what the creed is talking about then it still leaves the door open for order between the persons when (b) relative attributes are on view.

5. There are two great authorities on this Creed; Waterland and Kelly. Let’s look at what Waterland says;

When it is said, “none is afore or after the other,” we are not to understand it of order: for the Father is first, the Son second, and the Holy Ghost third, in order. Neither are we to understand it of office; for the Father is supreme in office, while the Son and Holy Ghost condescend to inferior offices. But we are to understand it, as the creed itself explains it, of duration and of dignity…

Looking at the Holy and Undivided Trinity as expressed in the Nicene Creed, does the Western Church really need to hang on to the filioque (”...The Holy Spirit, the Lord the Giver of life who proceeds from the Father and the Son?

Didn’t the Latin Church sneak this into the Creed at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215)?

Is adherence to the double procession essential?

[quote author="Samuel Blanch"]Looking at the Holy and Undivided Trinity as expressed in the Nicene Creed, does the Western Church really need to hang on to the filioque (”...The Holy Spirit, the Lord the Giver of life who proceeds from the Father and the Son?

Didn’t the Latin Church sneak this into the Creed at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215)?

Is adherence to the double procession essential?

Really depends on what you mean by “sneak in”!
A lot of creedal statements don’t get defined until they get denied.

In terms of the filioque, the Western argument is that John 15:26 involves both the Father and Son in sending the Spirit.

John 15:26 “When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.

Perhaps it didn’t get argued until that point, perhaps there were political considerations at play; who knows?

Even if it was “sneaked in”, isn’t it what John 15:26 says? ;-)

it was an arrogant blunder

Well everyone agrees that the Spirit is from the Son in *some* sense. In fact the sorry whole thing could have been avoided if they had just written from the Father *through* the Son as numerous theologians and dialogues have noted. That also seems to be the gist of John and Acts 2:33 etc.

But the unilateral insertion of words into an ecumenical creed was a act of high handed arrogance. Matt Paulson says that there is a real prospect of the filioque’s removal from Catholic formulary.

St Athanasius of Alexandria on the Trinity

St. Athanasius of Alexandria (295-373) who accompanied his bishop, Alexander, to the Council of Nicaea and who fought against the Arian heresy of his time, wrote in his first letter to Serapion, 28-30:  It will not be irrelevant to examine the ancient tradition and the doctrine and the faith of the Catholic Church, which, as we know, the Lord handed down, the apostles preached and the fathers preserved.  For on this tradition the Church is founded, and if anyone abandons it, he cannot be a Christian nor have any right to the name.

And so the Trinity, which is recognized in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is holy and perfect, and has no adulteration of that which is foreign or external.  Nor is it compounded of creator and created matter, but it is endowed with the complete power of creating and energizing; its nature also is consistent with itself and undivided, and its energy and activity is one.  For the Father makes all things through the Word in the Holy Spirit, and in that way the unity of the Holy Trinity is preserved.  Thus in the Church one God is preached, who is ‘above all things and through all things and in all things’.  Yes, certainly, ‘above all things’ as the Father, the first principle and origin; and truly ‘through all things’, that is through the Word, and finally ‘in all things’ in the Holy Spirit.

When Saint Paul was writing to the Corinthians about spiritual matters, he traced all things back to one God the Father as to the fountain-head in these words: ‘Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord:  and there are varieties of working, but it is the same God who inspires them all in every one.’

The gifts which the Spirit distributes to individuals are given by the Father through the Word.  For all things which belong to the Father likewise belong to the Son:  so that those things which are given by the Son in the Spirit, are true gifts of the Father.  Similarly when the Spirit is in us, the Word by whom we receive him is also in us, and in the Word is also the Father, and this is the meaning of the text: ‘We (that is, my Father and I) will come to him and make our home with him.’ For where there is light, there also is brilliance, and where there is brilliance, there the power and the glory of the light shine out.

Paul also in the second letter to the Corinthians gives the same teaching in these words:  ‘The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.’ For grace and the gift which is given in the Trinity is given by the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.  For just as grace is given from the Father through the Son, so within us the fellowship in the gift cannot be brought about except in the Holy Spirit.  If we have received the Spirit, then we have the love of the Father, the grace of the Son and the fellowship of the Spirit himself.