[TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and the Canucks

[Judy Taylor]

Since we are involved in exchanging thoughts here, let me share one or two about the theology that has arisen from the idea of  'perichoresis' a seemingly ALL important 'trinitarian doctrine of God' as a 'relational being'; a trinity of three individuals all doing this divine dance with one another....   In a search for the roots of this concept I found that the first person to use the word perichoresis is one Gregory of Nazainzos who was an ordained priest, a onetime ascentic and eventually Bishop of Constantinople (378AD) during the age of the so called Christian Empire (312-390).  Scripture (which is always in the now) exhorts us to "prove all things and hold fast to that which is good" soooo Can Gregory's revelation stand in the light of God's Word?  Do we see this divine dance going on in scripture?  I can not find it. I see a Godhead in total harmony.  Wikipedia says about Gregory: In his theology, Gregory advocated the doctrine of the Trinity, including the full divinity of both Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. He emphasized that Jesus did not cease to be God when he became a man, nor did he lose any of his divine attributes when he took on human nature. He also proclaimed the eternality of the Holy Spirit, saying that the Holy Spirit's actions were somewhat hidden in the Old Testament but much clearer since the ascension of Jesus into Heaven and the descent of the Holy Spirit at the feast of Pentecost. Gregory Nazianzus is given the title 'Gregory the Theologian' by Eastern Orthodoxy, a title he shares with John the Apostle, also known as John the Theologian. He is widely quoted by Eastern Orthodox theologians and highly regarded as a defender of the Christian faith. Following his death, Saint Gregory's body was buried at Nazianzos. His relics were transferred to Constantinople in 950, into the church of the Holy Apostles. Part of the relics were transferred to Rome at a later date. So, it's nice that Gregory believed and taught that the Godhead was all God, but he did not understand the incarnation because he is in error about this aspect.  Scripture teaches us that Jesus layed aside the glory he had with the Father to take upon himself the form of a man which means that during his earthly ministry he had some limitations.  He only spoke what the Father told him to speak and he only did what he first saw the Father doing.  The Holy Spirit, of course, was the facilitator as He is for us today.  My question is "Why, when we have God's Word and the third member of the Godhead to reveal it to us - do we need to go back to a 4th Century RC Church Father and build upon his error, complicating the simplicity of the gospel of Christ and laying a different foundation than the "faith" once delivered to the saints?  The use of words such as "essence" and even "substance" in the Apostles Creed are no more spiritual than the word "perichoresis" - although substance is at least a word that is used in scripture (for material substance). The apostle Paul made it a point to say that he did not come to teach using enticing words of "man's wisdom"  He ministered by the Holy Spirit and with power.  Paul used spiritual words to convey spiritual truth and God follows His Words with signs..  God is Spirit - Jesus said He and the Father are ONE.  God is Spirit, Jesus is Spirit, the Holy Spirit is Spirit.  We need to remember the warning about 'TAKING HEED HOW WE HEAR'  It's impossible to make a silk purse out of a sows ear. Flesh will always be flesh.  We must be BORN OF THE SPIRIT.  The sons of God are those who are  led by the SPIRIT OF GOD. John 8:14. (Not those who have gone before and others who follow them building on their error) Jesus said "My sheep hear MY voice and they follow ME" Let's follow the lamb withersoever He goeth - and let the spirit of Gregory of Nazianzos RIP........ From: "Wm. Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Not offended in the least, Chris, just a bit slow. Thanks for the clarification -- it makes great sense now. The Trinitarian doctrine of God does not, as I see it, exclude from the Faith once delivered people as yourself who do not ascribe to it, not as long as you are not denying the full deity of Jesus in the process. The concern I have about your view of God is a relational one and not one that necessarily throws you out of Christian fellowship (and I hope that is not offensive to you either).   I once heard a sermon, the theme being "Everything God does, he does for himself." I would be glad to go into the details if you wish but that should not be necessary to make my point. When we as people do things only for ourselves, we think of it in terms of psychosis, a unhealthy self-preoccupation: selfish, self-centered, self-serving, egotistical, the list is long. We are not whole and complete and healthy unless we are other-centered in our thoughts and service. In other words, Christians believe we (humans) must be relational in our activities or we cannot love God with all our being and our neighbors as ourselves.   When we say that everything God does he does for himself, we must interject into that statement some sort of relational element within the Godhead or, it seems to me, we have projected onto God what we consider sick about ourselves; either that, or we have no basis to think poorly of those around us who do live for and love only themselves. Having been created in the image of God, they are the healthy ones. We call the excessive love and admiration of oneself narcissism and hardly think of it as a godly attribute. How wrong we are! It is we who sadly suffer low self-esteem. The empathy we feel for others is but a symptom of our own deep psychosis.   I know you have never thought of it in these terms (or at least I suspect you have not). But it seems to me we cannot call God a relational being unless he is relational within the properties of his own being (I would say essence but Judy wouldn't understand). If he is one in terms of a singularity instead of unity (as I understand the Hebrew to mean) then he had to create in order to relate; for with whom was there to relate when all there was was God? Yet we are taught in Scripture that God's desire is for relationship with us.   On the other hand, the heart of God, as I see it, is the other-centered love the Father has for the Son and the Son for the Father both in and through the Holy Spirit. The early church called this relationship perichoresis, likening the give and take between the Three to a dance. Here we have a God whose heart it is to share his love with others and to bring his creation into that dance. This does not change the nature of God or make him dependant upon his creation; for he is relational in his own essence (I know, I know, but I just couldn't help myself) and the nature of love, being healthy, is always and still other-preoccupied.   Anyway, I didn't mean to ramble, but thought you may be interested in any thoughts sparked by your comments.   Blessings,   Bill