The Word as a person of the trinity

[Paidion]

You seem to need Him to pre-exist Creation because God can't (somehow) love without another to love, and so He "emanated (or something) Jesus (or the Logos or something) at some point in time, but that begs the question of whether He was love before that point in time.

This would be a consideration only if the begetting of the Son occured, as you suggest, "at some point in time." But if that begetting were God's first act and actually marked THE BEGINNING OF TIME, then there was no "before that point in time." If that were the case, then God loved His Son at ALL times!

[darinhouston]

You seem to need Him to pre-exist Creation because God can't (somehow) love without another to love, and so He "emanated (or something) Jesus (or the Logos or something) at some point in time, but that begs the question of whether He was love before that point in time.

This would be a consideration only if the begetting of the Son occured, as you suggest, "at some point in time." But if that begetting were God's first act and actually marked THE BEGINNING OF TIME, then there was no "before that point in time." If that were the case, then God loved His Son at ALL times!

So, if there was a beginning of time, then there was still some state of existence without it, whether or not time existed -- what then? I think this whole issue illustrates the fallacy of trying to figure out what was not revealed and that which is unknowable this side of glory.

[Homer]

-what Darin said---

Paidion wrote:

But if that begetting were God's first act and actually marked THE BEGINNING OF TIME

So God in eternity past (or the timelessness before time ) never acted before He begot Christ. Was God in a sort of frozen state of inaction? Jesus was the word, words are signs representing thoughts or ideas in the mind, so it would seem the Apostle John was telling us God and The Word are coetaneous.

[morbo3000]

Darin wrote:

So, if there was a beginning of time, then there was still some state of existence without it, whether or not time existed -- what then? I think this whole issue illustrates the fallacy of trying to figure out what was not revealed and that which is unknowable this side of glory.

...what he said...

[Paidion]

So God in eternity past (or the timelessness before time )

"Eternity past" is an expression normally used to denote an infinite regression of time into the past. If time actually had a beginning, then "eternity past" has no referent.

...never acted before He begot Christ. Was God in a sort of frozen state of inaction?

What do you think He was doing during that infinite stretch of past time? Planning how he was going to beget His Son and create the universe of physical matter, sentient beings, etc.? Would it take an infinite amount of time to do that? Couldn't God do it in an instant? Or at most a million years or so should have been sufficient. But whenever He did it there was an infinite amount of time PRIOR to that!!! What do you think He was doing for all those billions and billions of years? Or much more time than that—an INFINITE amount of time?

However, if we really believe in a BEGINNING to time, then the question is meaningless. For we can't speak of "BEFORE God begat His Son." There WAS no "BEFORE." His Son has existed from the beginning of time, just as His Father has. The Father did not precede the Son temporally—only causally.

Jesus was the word, words are signs representing thoughts or ideas in the mind, so it would seem the Apostle John was telling us God and The Word are coetaneous.

I have no argument with God and the Word (His Son) being coetaneous! And thanks for the word "coetaneous." It is the first time I've encountered it.

[mattrose]

You seem to need Him to pre-exist Creation because God can't (somehow) love without another to love, and so He "emanated (or something) Jesus (or the Logos or something) at some point in time, but that begs the question of whether He was love before that point in time. If we can't agree there's unreconcilable mystery in this, we aren't being intellectually honest. Just considering eternity is incomprehensible.

It's one thing to admit there is mystery involved (anytime you are thinking about a being that is eternal you are thinking beyond your ability to think).

It's another thing to be non-dogmatic about beliefs.

It's yet another thing to not take a position at all

I think we're agreeing that there is mystery. It seems to me that I'm wanting to take a position and non-dogmatic about the Trinity and your'e wanting to not take a position at all. I take no issue with this. I think we are not so much disagreeing (Though we clearly would disagree on the strengths and/or weaknesses of various points and interpretations), as demonstrating different mentalities in regards to doctrine. I prefer to pick positions, apply them to my theology as a whole, and make ammendments where necessary. You prefer, I think, to not pick positions (at least on this topic) and hold the whole set of doctrines more loosely than I do.

[mattrose]

First, I think too much is being made of the verse "God is love," as necessitating there be an internal relationship in the Godhead prior to creation

By no means was the phrase "God is love" being used to make the entire case for the trinitarian understanding of God. The verse doesn't necessitate trinitarian doctrine. It simply fits well with it.

He did not write so that we could know God's form before the incarnation. We can't know. He wrote so we could know about the atom bomb that came from God to us, that brings life, and empowers us to take that life to others.

To say we can't know is a pretty huge statement. It may be that God's revelation does indeed suggest the Trinity (That's what we're debating!) The atom bomb of Jesus Christ is the VERY material that led to belief in a plurality within the Godhead.

[mattrose]

A couple more thoughts on the state of this conversation.

I think God wants us to continue developing our theology, even after the close of the canon.... just with canon-parameters in mind.

Think about Jesus' attitude toward various Jewish people during his time on earth. All they had to work with in terms of written revelation was the OT. Almost all of us would agree, I bet, that the Old Testament is not super clear about the Messiah prophecies (even after the fact many passages are still debated in this regard!). Yet Jesus was actually upset and critical of many Jews for their failure to recognize him. Even after his resurrection, he gently rebuked the 2 disciples on the road to emmaus for not knowing from the Old Testament that what happened had to happen that way.

My point is, I think God expects us to 'do theology'... to put 2 and 2 together... to formulate theories. This doesn't mean we should act like we have it all figured out. It simply means we should, led by the Spirit, try. Jesus even said that when the Holy Spirit came, he would lead us into all truth.

[darinhouston]

Matt, you keep saying I don't want to decide -- nothing could be further from the truth. I'd love to have the degree of certainty to "close this loop." But, intellectual honesty presently precludes me from doing so. This is why I continue to explore the topic and don't just ignore it.

[mattrose]

Matt, you keep saying I don't want to decide -- nothing could be further from the truth. I'd love to have the degree of certainty to "close this loop." But, intellectual honesty presently precludes me from doing so. This is why I continue to explore the topic and don't just ignore it.

I'm sorry. I don't feel like I'm communicating very well in this thread (maybe I'm not as good at multi-tasking as I think I am!).

What I meant by my statement is that we seem to have a difference in strategy. We obviously both want to discover the truth about God's nature. We both admit that the revelation is too limited to justify dogmatism. Where we differ, it seems to me, is in strategy from that point onward.

I prefer to pick a theological theory and press it in to service.... connect it with other parts of Christian theology, defend it, etc. I believe that in doing so I have a better shot at discovering its truthfulness.

You seem to prefer not to do that, eh? While you'd like to know which theory is true.... and while you'll continue to explore the case for and against the different theories... you'd rather not pick one and run with it, so to speak.

My point is mainly that this is more of a difference of strategy than a real difference of opinion