I don't think in my theological studies nothing was harder to understand than the nature of the Trinity. Fortunately for me, Church History's struggle in the first few centuries turned out to be an apt teacher for understanding the delicate balance or nuances of words that are crucial to use in understanding the nature of God as three in One.
In Book 1 of Calvin's Institutes, Calvin dives into the relationship of the Father to the Son and the Father and Son to the Spirit, and if you read carefully you'll notice how he walks this delicate line that keeps things both in balance, and most importantly in truth.
We begin with Calvin explaining the distinction that must be kept as the Trinity relates to individual persons - Father, Son, Spirit. The technical Greek word "hypostasis" is an important theological term, since it means the "essence", or "being", and "substance". So the writer of Hebrews says in 11:1 in the King James translation: "Faith is the 'substance' (hypostasis) of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." By that, it means "faith is the real thing - a reality to be counted on". The NIV translated it, "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." As you read Calvin's argument on the nature of the Trinity keep in mind this tension of person, or being in the three persons of the Godhead and the underlying Unity that makes them one. He says it this way:
"[concerning] the most perfect unity of God, the Son may thereby be proved to be one God with the Father, inasmuch as he constitutes one Spirit with him, and that the Spirit is not different from the Father and the Son, inasmuch as he is the Spirit of the Father and the Son. In each hypostasis the whole nature is understood the only difference being that each has his own peculiar subsistence. The whole Father is in the Son, and the whole Son in the Father, as the Son himself also declares (John 14:10), “I am in the Father, and the Father in me;” nor do ecclesiastical writers admit that the one is separated from the other by any difference of essence. “By those names which denote distinctions” says Augustine “is meant the relation which they mutually bear to each other, not the very substance by which they are one.” In this way, the sentiments of the Fathers, which might sometimes appear to be at variance with each other, are to be reconciled. At one time they teach that the Father is the beginning of the Son, at another they assert that the Son has both divinity and essence from himself, and therefore is one beginning with the Father. The cause of this discrepancy is well and clearly explained by Augustine, when he says, “Christ, as to himself, is called God, as to the Father he is called Son.” And again, “The Father, as to himself, is called God, as to the Son he is called Father. He who, as to the Son, is called Father, is not Son; and he who, as to himself, is called Father, and he who, as to himself, is called Son, is the same God.”
You might want to read it again, and even again. The Father to the Son is the Father. The Son to the Father is the Son. Each retains their personhood...but ultimately they are one and so in a Unity of God also. Calvin goes on:
"Let those, then, who love soberness, and are contented with the measure of faith, briefly receive what is useful to be known. It is as follows:—When we profess to believe in one God, by the name God is understood the one simple essence, comprehending three persons or hypostases; and, accordingly, whenever the name of God is used indefinitely, the Son and Spirit, not less than the Father, is meant. But when the Son is joined with the Father, relation comes into view, and so we distinguish between the Persons. But as the Personal subsistence carry an order with them, the principle and origin being in the Father, whenever mention is made of the Father and Son, or of the Father and Spirit together, the name of God is specially given to the Father. In this way the unity of essence is retained, and respect is had to the order, which, however derogates (ie. distracts) in no respect from the divinity of the Son and Spirit. And surely since we have already seen how the apostles declare the Son of God to have been He whom Moses and the prophets declared to be Jehovah, we must always arrive at a unity of essence. We, therefore, hold it detestable blasphemy to call the Son a different God from the Father, because the simple name God admits not of relation, nor can God, considered in himself, be said to be this or that...
Paul besought the Lord in the same sense in which Peter quotes the passage of Joel, “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved,” (Acts 2:21; Joel 2:28). Where this name is specially applied to the Son, there is a different ground for it, as will be seen in its own place; at present it is sufficient to remember, that Paul, after praying to God absolutely, immediately subjoins the name of Christ. Thus, too, the Spirit is called God absolutely by Christ himself. For nothing prevents us from holding that he is the entire spiritual essence of God, in which are comprehended Father, Son, and Spirit. This is plain from Scripture. For as God is there called a Spirit, so the Holy Spirit also, in so far as he is a hypostasis of the whole essence, is said to be both of God and from God."
Ok, to this I leave you with theological musing time. Think about the relationship of the Father to the Son, and the Son to the Father and Spirit. We keep these in tension lest we fall into error of creating in our minds three Gods, or in an opposite way create one God with no divinity ascribed to the Son and the Spirit.
Peace
In Book 1 of Calvin's Institutes, Calvin dives into the relationship of the Father to the Son and the Father and Son to the Spirit, and if you read carefully you'll notice how he walks this delicate line that keeps things both in balance, and most importantly in truth.
We begin with Calvin explaining the distinction that must be kept as the Trinity relates to individual persons - Father, Son, Spirit. The technical Greek word "hypostasis" is an important theological term, since it means the "essence", or "being", and "substance". So the writer of Hebrews says in 11:1 in the King James translation: "Faith is the 'substance' (hypostasis) of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." By that, it means "faith is the real thing - a reality to be counted on". The NIV translated it, "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." As you read Calvin's argument on the nature of the Trinity keep in mind this tension of person, or being in the three persons of the Godhead and the underlying Unity that makes them one. He says it this way:
"[concerning] the most perfect unity of God, the Son may thereby be proved to be one God with the Father, inasmuch as he constitutes one Spirit with him, and that the Spirit is not different from the Father and the Son, inasmuch as he is the Spirit of the Father and the Son. In each hypostasis the whole nature is understood the only difference being that each has his own peculiar subsistence. The whole Father is in the Son, and the whole Son in the Father, as the Son himself also declares (John 14:10), “I am in the Father, and the Father in me;” nor do ecclesiastical writers admit that the one is separated from the other by any difference of essence. “By those names which denote distinctions” says Augustine “is meant the relation which they mutually bear to each other, not the very substance by which they are one.” In this way, the sentiments of the Fathers, which might sometimes appear to be at variance with each other, are to be reconciled. At one time they teach that the Father is the beginning of the Son, at another they assert that the Son has both divinity and essence from himself, and therefore is one beginning with the Father. The cause of this discrepancy is well and clearly explained by Augustine, when he says, “Christ, as to himself, is called God, as to the Father he is called Son.” And again, “The Father, as to himself, is called God, as to the Son he is called Father. He who, as to the Son, is called Father, is not Son; and he who, as to himself, is called Father, and he who, as to himself, is called Son, is the same God.”
You might want to read it again, and even again. The Father to the Son is the Father. The Son to the Father is the Son. Each retains their personhood...but ultimately they are one and so in a Unity of God also. Calvin goes on:
"Let those, then, who love soberness, and are contented with the measure of faith, briefly receive what is useful to be known. It is as follows:—When we profess to believe in one God, by the name God is understood the one simple essence, comprehending three persons or hypostases; and, accordingly, whenever the name of God is used indefinitely, the Son and Spirit, not less than the Father, is meant. But when the Son is joined with the Father, relation comes into view, and so we distinguish between the Persons. But as the Personal subsistence carry an order with them, the principle and origin being in the Father, whenever mention is made of the Father and Son, or of the Father and Spirit together, the name of God is specially given to the Father. In this way the unity of essence is retained, and respect is had to the order, which, however derogates (ie. distracts) in no respect from the divinity of the Son and Spirit. And surely since we have already seen how the apostles declare the Son of God to have been He whom Moses and the prophets declared to be Jehovah, we must always arrive at a unity of essence. We, therefore, hold it detestable blasphemy to call the Son a different God from the Father, because the simple name God admits not of relation, nor can God, considered in himself, be said to be this or that...
Paul besought the Lord in the same sense in which Peter quotes the passage of Joel, “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved,” (Acts 2:21; Joel 2:28). Where this name is specially applied to the Son, there is a different ground for it, as will be seen in its own place; at present it is sufficient to remember, that Paul, after praying to God absolutely, immediately subjoins the name of Christ. Thus, too, the Spirit is called God absolutely by Christ himself. For nothing prevents us from holding that he is the entire spiritual essence of God, in which are comprehended Father, Son, and Spirit. This is plain from Scripture. For as God is there called a Spirit, so the Holy Spirit also, in so far as he is a hypostasis of the whole essence, is said to be both of God and from God."
Ok, to this I leave you with theological musing time. Think about the relationship of the Father to the Son, and the Son to the Father and Spirit. We keep these in tension lest we fall into error of creating in our minds three Gods, or in an opposite way create one God with no divinity ascribed to the Son and the Spirit.
Peace
Comments