DEF

Thanks for your response. I have only one ‘caution.’ The ‘spirit’ of ecumenicalism must not override our insistence that biblical truth can be arrived at. We need not understand absolute truth absolutely; we can know absolute truth partially, but that partial understanding can be unequivocally true.

We will always encounter competing and diverse viewpoints. This is to be expected, but this should not influence our responsibility to understand and teach biblical truths, and to correct false teachings. I realize this puts us in an uncomfortable position, and moving in an ecumenical direction can often lessen our uneasiness. I just want to encourage others to listen to others, accept others, yet, in the midst of these exchanges, put theological truth about the ecumenical spirit. Biblical truth must be the dividing line; never shrink from this.

Thanks again for your reply.

Eddie

Eddie,

I understand your concern about “eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.” The Church Fathers also shared this concern. That said, the the East and West split over the filioque, a distinction between the two. The Eastern-Church rejected it; the Western-Church espoused it.

Despite this split over this issue, I think it is important to approach this with an ecumenical attitude. Each side has much to learn from each other, especially as it relates to theology of religions.

Also, what if we use “hierarchy” linguistically to understand the relationship among the Trinity. However, we espouse metaphysically that the trinity shares in this relationship, rather than subordination among the Trinity. This is just one interpretation to further explore. Thank you for making this point.

DEF

This idea of the Holy Spirit: “eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son” has no biblical support. None of the Members of the Godhead “proceeded” for the Others. They are all eternal. Just as the Son has not proceeded from the Father, nor has the Holy Spirit proceeded from A(a)nyone. We just can’t get out of our minds this “hierarchy” within the Godhead. These are roles they assumed with creation. It is how we as creatures relate to the Godhead. Sans (not Before) creation (this includes angelic beings) there was no such “hierarchy” in the sense that we have misunderstood it.

Eddie

Such an encouraging reminder! And it is this blessed truth….the truth that God desires to be in loving relationship with His creation, which compels us to tell others about Him. Maybe a question we should ask ourselves often, when sharing the Gospel is, “How can I best communicate God’s love?” That will always bring us to the cross…the most loving act of all human history. The gaping hole in all other religion is that there is no loving relationship with the creator. The gaping hole in the human heart, is loneliness apart from God. Oh that God would constantly use me as a vessel to communicate this truth, to my children, and to others!

Thanks, James! ….and thanks for Reinventing Jesus…..a very worthwhile read.

Although, as you said, God didn’t gain anything for Himself by creating us, nevertheless now that He has created us He loves us more than Himself (from Torrence). God knew that would be the case, so is that the reason He created? A starting point for Emanuel Swedenborg was that God’s love compelled Him to create us.

Simply brilliant!

This post did me quite well. I personally have been inoculated with so much traditional theology that it is sometimes overwhelming and frees me of burden when I read truth. Obviously, that is why reading Scripture with proper hermeneutics is so important! Loved the blog! Awesome, simply awesome.

-Zach

“But if in our study of God we dissect Him and split Him up into various parts do we really get to know Him?” This is an excellent question, especially for those who study theology or philosophy of religion.

However, we need to identify the false dichotomy in this statement: we either grow in our relationship with God or analyze him and don’t grow in our intimacy with him. I think we can do both.

As a philosopher of religion, I remember studying the arguments for God existence and the doctrine of God in college. Yes, my intimacy with God began to deteriorate. However, I realized it wasn’t the act of studying God or analyzing him, but rather it was the attitude in which I approached philosophy of religion. That said, I began to examine the material with my relationship with God at the center of the questions about God and philosophy, seeing the relationship between faith and reason too. As a result, my passion has never waned for God and philosophy of religion. Today, I teach both subjects to college students.

Thank you for reminding us of the danger of studying God without the right attitude. We need to glorify him all we do.

Great post!