----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 4:03
AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Smithson, Taylor and
the Canucks
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
