Love and the Trinity

jeremiah · Post by **jeremiah** » Sat Nov 30, 2013 1:53 am

Darin,
Much thanks man, that first paragraph was precisely what I was thinking but couldn't communicate.

Matt,
In my response, I didn't intend to imply that God's holiness is preferred over his love as the proper center of my theology. It's of vital importance as is God's love, but I'm not even sure it's correct for us to be thinking in such categories as this is the center or another is further out from it.

I probably should have made the last sentence in that response more clear. It was meant as an example of taking one of God's attributes, applying emphatic preference, then saying all others follow after. This looks arbitrary. Why not his goodness, his mercy, the life he has within himself, his creativity, his justice, or his faithfulness?

If this formulation is what you see as most beautiful and find yourself growing in these days, that's beautiful. And I don't care to change your mind. Though I would like to hear your basis for saying love is God's "core" characteristic.

Grace and peace be with you guys.

darinhouston · Post by **darinhouston** » Sat Nov 30, 2013 8:07 am

Pragmatically speaking, I've seen Peter Kreeft and others try to use this as an apologetic (particularly with Islam) and I have never seen it be really effective.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

darinhouston · Post by **darinhouston** » Sat Nov 30, 2013 8:23 am

mattrose wrote:
I believe justice is something love does in a given context. There was no need for justice before sin. God's love (the core characteristic) took the form of justice (an attribute) in the context of a fallen world.

What is so unique about love that it isn't seen the same way? Like justice, perhaps love is just a word that defines the relationship God has in the context of an existing creation.

I understand this helps make sense of things in your mind, but I'm not content simply finding something that makes sense. I'm seeking truth and doctrinal integrity. That can mean leaving mystery or recognizing some translational or transmission all ambiguities in our Scriptures. For some reason, that really scares some people. I don't think we're doing them a long term favor merely finding them a hook to hang their doubts on. Perhaps we'd have more love within the church throughout history if we tried less to define things like this so dogmatically. Exploring he, together has great value, but finding and defining them as practical dogma is wrong-headed in my view, and I think this is one if those areas where evangelicals have a tremendous blind spot and fail to recognize they adhere to and let Tradition guide their doctrine as much as most Roman Catholics. I don't care how old the creed is, eternal Sonship is a crazy concept I don't find in Scripture. Paidion's argument a the only one I've heard that even partially explains how it could be and that's so speculative and metaphysical hat it really serves no useful purpose in resolving uncertainty for most people. So, what's the point?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

steve7150 · Post by **steve7150** » Sat Nov 30, 2013 9:33 am

The Greek word rendered as "beget" by the King James translators is "γενναω" (gennaO), a word from which we get the English word "generate" (or else we get it from the Latin "generatus" which is either derived from the Greek or both Greek and Latin derive it from some common root). The word "γενναω" is used in the geneology of Matthew 1, where Abraham begat Isaac, etc. (or one could say that Abraham generated Isaac).

OK Paidion so in generating Jesus at some point , what do you think of the KJV John 16.27 "that i came out of God"? Did Jesus come out of God literally? Other versions say "came forth from God."

mattrose · Post by **mattrose** » Sat Nov 30, 2013 11:11 am

The major objection to my thoughts seems to be that placing love at the core of God's character is arbitrary.

To be frank, I find this utterly baffling. The love of God is what speaks most clearly through the entire biblical narrative in my opinion. It is also what speaks most clearly to my real life. It also makes sense that if the Trinity is a true doctrine, love is fascinatingly essential to what it means to be God.

But like I said, I don't really care to persuade anyone. I was just sharing my perspective. I have found it personally refreshing and, contrary to Darin's observation, persuasive in evangelism and apologetics.

Homer · Post by **Homer** » Sat Nov 30, 2013 11:49 am

Hi matt,

You wrote:

To be frank, I find this utterly baffling. The love of God is what speaks most clearly through the entire biblical narrative in my opinion.

But was John's statement that "God is love" meant to be any more than a partial description? What, scripturally, would cause us to think so, any more than He is holy and He is just? It would seem the greatest emphasis throughout scripture is that He is Lord, since we are informed of this over 4,000 times. And this is what Christians have historically confessed (and commanded to do so).

Now it might be objected that Lord is a description of His position, or what He does, but then love is an action word and is also what He does, perhaps best translated "charity".

In saying this I am not disagreeing with your thoughts about love among the Trinity prior to creation. God's purpose in creation may have been to share this love.

mattrose · Post by **mattrose** » Sat Nov 30, 2013 1:06 pm

Homer wrote:Hi matt,

You wrote:

To be frank, I find this utterly baffling. The love of God is what speaks most clearly through the entire biblical narrative in my opinion.
But was John's statement that "God is love" meant to be any more than a partial description? What, scripturally, would cause us to think so, any more than He is holy and He is just? It would seem the greatest emphasis throughout scripture is that He is Lord, since we are informed of this over 4,000 times. And this is what Christians have historically confessed (and commanded to do so).

Now it might be objected that Lord is a description of His position, or what He does, but then love is an action word and is also what He does, perhaps best translated "charity".

In saying this I am not disagreeing with your thoughts about love among the Trinity prior to creation. God's purpose in creation may have been to share this love.

I don't base my argument on the passage in 1 John. I base it on Jesus. Jesus is God in the flesh. Jesus is fullest revelation of God there is. We know more about God through Jesus than we do through the Bible. The best the Bible can do is get us to Jesus. And what do we learn about God from Jesus? It is not primarily justice (He wasn't just... He was gracious). It wasn't holiness (He wasn't set apart... He hung out with sinners). It wasn't sovereignty (He wasn't sovereign... He laid that aside). All the attributes of God are non-essential in the sense that Jesus gave them up without giving up His deity. This shows us that the truest truth about God is nothing other than His sacrificial love.

jriccitelli · Post by **jriccitelli** » Sat Nov 30, 2013 2:00 pm

'... and they said to the mountains and to the rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?" (Rev.6:16-17)
Is this same Jesus you are talking of Matt?

Paidion · Post by **Paidion** » Sat Nov 30, 2013 2:25 pm

Matt wrote:I believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is essential (in the sense that it is most consistent with) a theology of love. The Bible says that God is love. I am of the school of thought that LOVE is God's core characteristic. Indeed, all other 'attributes' of God are simply His love playing out in context. I believe belief in the Trinity is part and parcel with this theology.

The Father, Son & Spirit are, and always have been, a loving relationship. In trinitarian thought, love is not just something God does... love is something God is. God is a loving relationship. There was never a reality where only the Father existed. If such a time had existed, love could only be at best a potential attribute to be displayed at some future date.

Matt, I have been thinking about your argument as you expressed it above in the first two paragraphs of your original post.

I think your argument goes something like this.

1. God is LOVE.
2. In order for LOVE to exist, it has to be expressed.
3. In order for LOVE to be expressed, there has to be another (or others) with whom it is shared.
4. Therefore, a Plurality of Divine Persons must have always existed.
5. This Plurality is best expressed in the doctrine of the Trinity.

My question is this:
Let's assume your argument is successful, and has proven that a Plurality of Divine Persons having always existed is necessary. Would not that Plurality also be sufficient to express that mutual LOVE? Why did God see fit to create angels and mankind?

mattrose · Post by **mattrose** » Sat Nov 30, 2013 6:21 pm

jriccitelli wrote:'... and they said to the mountains and to the rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?" (Rev.6:16-17)
Is this same Jesus you are talking of Matt?

Yes, of course.

When I speak of the love of God I do not have in mind some 'hippy' sort of love. I was not even around in the 70's. God's love is sacrifical.... powerful... sometimes tough... always truthful, etc. Wrath is love expressed in the context of rebellion.

The Narrow Path Ministries