The Word as a person of the trinity

[morbo3000]

I need to say it again, since that probably sounded harsh.

You're all good guys. I liked Darin's original question because I appreciate a quote from Hans Denck that "We hold nothing in higher regard than the Bible, except the Word of God." Asking that question about the use of the word "Word" in John has a devotional quality to us. Seeing "The Word" in us, Jesus not leaving us behind when He died.. Having the mind of Christ are very important devotional ideas. Getting caught up in the formulas misses that point.

[darinhouston]

morbo3000, no need to flame -- you get at the heart of it for me but I don't want to confess something that's not clearly and unequivocally and necessarily true -- remove it from credal statements and the like (formal or informal), and I'm pretty happy. But, I still want to answer my children's questions with integrity and also to try with all my heart and mind to understand God's word, provided it doesn't get in my way of following him.

Matt...

I resonate with your willingness to be open to mystery. I also resonate with your position that people with different formulations (within reason) shouldn't be treated as heretics.

If you have time and interest, feel free to respond to my responses to some of your statements. I wouldn't mind identifying where your interests lie in these regards.

I don’t feel a need to have a complex Godhead (so-called)

I'm taking this to mean that you don't need to have a fully formulated theology (whether it be trinitarian, binatarian, or whatever). You're comfortable just worshiping God in your limited understanding. Is this what you are saying? If so, I don't take much issue with it. The only thing I would say is that there is nothing wrong with attempting to understand (and very much RIGHT with doing so, so long as we don't become too dogmatic about our conclusions).

No, I am personally compelled (as you seem to be also) to have a fully formulated theology (ironically, logos theos) and I am continually frustrated by people who don’t care to have a fully developed theology. But, that does not mean that I need to have a complete and perfect understanding of God beyond what He has chosen to reveal. I believe too much heresy and most cults result from well-intended people who are rebelling not against God, but against an “over-developed” theology that doesn’t conform necessarily to scripture. I believe if we were to be more willing to permit variations of opinions and were more reluctant to even formalize (if not dogmatize) theological positions that aren’t plainly and necessarily taught by scripture, we would avoid many of the divisions and errors in the church. Error tends (from my perspective) to appear the most when it is attempting to correct other error, and especially “official” error.

I consider these questions more of a thought experiment to explore and seek truth where our “official” positions don’t resonate as I read Scripture. I also believe that if we adhere to unfounded presuppositions on even such basic issues, we can lose the intended richness and context of a scripture by assuming it as a mere proof-text for our position. Our pastor is undertaking a year-long sermon series on Jesus. I have taken this opportunity as we progress through the Scriptures to re-evaluate the historic positions and my own Christology as we address each passage. I find we tend to take these related passages to mean more than they appear to be intended to convey. For example, I don’t see any basis to equate the (so-called) “I am” passages of Christ with the great “I am” proclamation of the Father. We have no suggestion from the apostles in making these statements that this is what he had in mind or that they interpreted them in this way.

Basically, I feel that our theology should end and mystery should begin where scriptural revelation ends. When we go further to resolve “mysteries” and unresolved apparent conflicts, we enter not theology but hypothetical and theoretical philosophies. That’s ok to explore and can be fun and intellectually interesting and often spiritually edifying (at least for folks like us), but formulating and formalizing and teaching them as truths (even if not dogmatically so) seems dangerous to me and can even lead to others falling away (witness historic reactions and treatments of good, Christian men seeking truth).

Jesus went out of his way to distinguish himself... why do we feel such a need

I don't want to misunderstand your point here. Are you saying that Jesus distinguished himself from the Father... so we shouldn't be so adamant about equating them? This seems to be a reaction against over-emphasized monotheism within Christianity. It seems to me that some Christians start with monotheism and subsequently develop the trinity. Others, though, start with the trinity and then develop their monotheism. If I am reading you correctly, you are pretty much against both directions. You'd rather just leave it as there being 1 God (The Father) and then a distinct entity (The Word which took on flesh in the Son). Is this right?

Not exactly. I’m not so sure I’d even call the Logos an “entity.” But, if we’re trying to shoehorn scripture into a largely artificial “personhood” theory of a complex Godhead, I’m suggesting that might be a better distinction than the Son and Spirit.

God is Spirit – in John 4 Jesus goes out of his way to tell them that they aren’t going to be worshiping there on the mountain (with him) or in Jerusalem (in the Temple) but God is spirit and we worship him in spirit and truth.

Is your point here that 'God' and 'Spirit' should be equated? Just making sure I don't misunderstand you.

I’m not sure what “equated” means in this context, but I don’t see any reason to separate them. I am flesh, blood, and spirit – do I equate myself with “flesh” as something “separate?” No. Flesh just describes my essence – it’s not a separate but equal thing. Why create an “other” thing with regard to God which we call Spirit. We don’t think of “Love” as something “separate” from God. It describes him. I don’t see it as a thing, but if we insist that the Holy Spirit is a separate person, why not “Love” ? These categories and formulations are nonsensical to me and not in any way critical to understanding God’s revealed Word.

He had so many opportunities to formulate a Trinitarian view of the godhead and he seemed to avoid it.

This is a bit of a false test, in my opinion. Jesus wasn't particularly interested in teaching theology as we imagine it today. He was interested in conveying the character of God (perhaps that is your point?). In any case, I don't think the lack of systematic trinitarian teaching in the New Testament is evidence for or against trinitarianism. It's just not the genre of the literature.[/quote

Yes, that is my point. And exactly why we should use care in extrapolating derived theological constructs from plain statements not clearly intending to convey those truths. I approach Genesis in much the same way.

What I'm going to say next may (probably will) sound rude or condescending, but I genuinely don't mean it as such. I think people like you (who question the doctrine of the trinity) are wrong, but for the right reasons. I believe the doctrine of the trinity is correct (though, like you, I think we are too dogmatic about the exact way to describe the relation of the Father, Son, and Spirit). But many Christians are trinitarians for the wrong reasons (they've just accepted what they've been told without ever really thinking about it). You are thinking about it and questioning the value of the formulation. I think the kingdom/church NEEDS people to do this... not so that we will see the truth and abandon the trinitarian view, but so that we'll actually examine our own views and hold them for the right reasons.

I don’t see that as condescending, but it is a bit presumptuous (but that’s ok). I do disagree that it’s “wrong” to question the doctrine, though I respect your opinion that it’s wrong to hold a non-trinitarian view. I’m personally uncommitted but questioning and testing it. Some of Paidion’s points on the translation of John 1 is very interesting, and I do think we lose a lot in translation and in cultural/philosophical context of the age. We read experts opining on what the Logos meant, of course, but I suspect it was a pretty diverse view at the time as so many philosophical things like this always are.

The one thing I am VERY adamant about maintaining, no matter what formulation is come up with, is that God IS a loving relationship within God's self. I, myself, think this is essential to Christianity. God is love. Love is only present in relationship. Before anything else was created (in fact, the very reason anything else was created), God was already experiencing love within God's self. How? Because God's self is made up of multiple lovers.

This seems a bit artificial. I don’t think we know enough about how God might be able to “be love” (stated in scripture) and be “loving” in his eternal essence (not actually taught in Scripture) to be so adamant/dogmatic about that presupposition which seems to color and underly the Trinitarian doctrines. It is quite possible in the spiritual realm that it does not take multiple persons or even a complex being to be in a relationship – or to “love” (or rather, to be love). The statement that God’s self is made up of multiple lovers seems entirely extrabiblical and hypothetical to me. Though I certainly confess it “could” be true, I have no reason to hold such as a fundamental truth, and certainly would never question one’s intellectual honesty or love for truth or love for / surrender to Jesus as Lord or the Father as God. (not that you have done)

[Homer]

I hope no one thinks what I posted is an attack on anyone, or that I judge anyone here on this matter. That is God's prerogative, not mine.

I fully agree with what Darin has said about not going beyond what scriptures says. My concern is primarily personal. If I worship Jesus or pray to Jesus, do I offend God? It is not going beyond scripture, I think, to say we are to "worship God alone". It appears to me Jesus endorsed that stipulation, yet He accepted worship. We say we are monotheists and I say I am trinitarian but can not get the "three persons" idea in my head alongside "one God". Three persons are three individuals, thus three Gods, it seems to me.

Paidion thinks I am a modalist unawares. As I understand modalism, God plays three roles, one at a time. The way I resolve the problem, rather than God being three persons, I see Him as three personae simultaneously.

As was alluded to earlier, I think we have a crude model of my idea (actually an old idea) in the human body. My brain communicates to my hand, telling it to grasp something. My hand communicates back to my brain that the object it was instructed to grasp is too hot to handle. My brain answers back "drop it". And there are bodily reponses that bypass the thinking (conscious) part of the brain entirely. So I have no difficulty believing that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all one God and communicate with each other.

If I am wrong, I will gladly be corrected. Thankfully, I do not see anything in scripture that speaks about a pass/fail test regarding the trinity on judgement day. Rather I read that if we confess Jesus as Lord and believe God raised Him from the dead we will be saved.

[darinhouston]

I hope no one thinks what I posted is an attack on anyone, or that I judge anyone here on this matter. That is God's prerogative, not mine.

I fully agree with what Darin has said about not going beyond what scriptures says. My concern is primarily personal. If I worship Jesus or pray to Jesus, do I offend God? It is not going beyond scripture, I think, to say we are to "worship God alone". It appears to me Jesus endorsed that stipulation, yet He accepted worship. We say we are monotheists and I say I am trinitarian but can not get the "three persons" idea in my head alongside "one God". Three persons are three individuals, thus three Gods, it seems to me.

Paidion thinks I am a modalist unawares. As I understand modalism, God plays three roles, one at a time. The way I resolve the problem, rather than God being three persons, I see Him as three personae simultaneously.

As was alluded to earlier, I think we have a crude model of my idea (actually an old idea) in the human body. My brain communicates to my hand, telling it to grasp something. My hand communicates back to my brain that the object it was instructed to grasp is too hot to handle. My brain answers back "drop it". And there are bodily reponses that bypass the thinking (conscious) part of the brain entirely. So I have no difficulty believing that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all one God and communicate with each other.

If I am wrong, I will gladly be corrected. Thankfully, I do not see anything in scripture that speaks about a pass/fail test regarding the trinity on judgement day. Rather I read that if we confess Jesus as Lord and believe God raised Him from the dead we will be saved.

Hey, Homer -- I'm not all that influenced by the "worship" argument -- I've heard some pretty compelling debates on this subject, and I don't think the various forms and meanings of honor and worship can be conflated when compared to "worship only God." For starters, we can bow and (in a sense) worship a king, but not in the sense of divine worship that the bible refers to in that statement. Apart from that, though, Jesus may be an understood exception/special case in the same way one might say you only bow to the King, but if the prince comes by (who shares his royalty and may have his signet ring), you would bow to him as if he was the king -- based on my understanding of those monarchical systems, the assumption was that you were bowing to the King when you bowed to his right hand man who shared his authority. Jesus clearly has that authority from God no matter his position or not in the godhead. I just think that if it was important to Him for us to see Him as God per se, He would have clearly told us so.

[mattrose]

I believe if we were to be more willing to permit variations of opinions and were more reluctant to even formalize (if not dogmatize) theological positions that aren’t plainly and necessarily taught by scripture, we would avoid many of the divisions and errors in the church. Error tends (from my perspective) to appear the most when it is attempting to correct other error, and especially “official” error.

I agree with this. I think Christians should be less dogmatic about most of their theology. Now we know in part.

I find we tend to take these related passages to mean more than they appear to be intended to convey. For example, I don’t see any basis to equate the (so-called) “I am” passages of Christ with the great “I am” proclamation of the Father. We have no suggestion from the apostles in making these statements that this is what he had in mind or that they interpreted them in this way.

Even if you don't find it persuasive to take these statements as evidence that Jesus is God (or a member of 'the Trinity'), the author of the 4th Gospel certainly meant to utilize these statements to convey the idea that Jesus was/is utterly unique among men, no? Referring to an earlier statement of yours, when Jesus said he was the light of the world, he certainly meant it in a greater sense that we are called to be light, eh?

Basically, I feel that our theology should end and mystery should begin where scriptural revelation ends. When we go further to resolve “mysteries” and unresolved apparent conflicts, we enter not theology but hypothetical and theoretical philosophies. That’s ok to explore and can be fun and intellectually interesting and often spiritually edifying (at least for folks like us), but formulating and formalizing and teaching them as truths (even if not dogmatically so) seems dangerous to me and can even lead to others falling away (witness historic reactions and treatments of good, Christian men seeking truth).

I'd be hesitant to say that our theology ends when scriptural revelation ends. Is scriptural revelation the only, or last, form of revelation? I think God can reveal truth through reason, his church through history, and experience as well. Such revelation must be in accordance with Scripture, but that doesn't make it not revelation it and of itself, eh?

And your reluctance to formulate/formalize theology (even if not dogmatically so) seems like overkill because of your parenthesis. I would welcome a teacher that had taken the time to formalize his theology, especially if he did it humbly. In fact, I'd be frustrated by a teacher that didn't attempt to do this.

I’m not so sure I’d even call the Logos an “entity.” But, if we’re trying to shoehorn scripture into a largely artificial “personhood” theory of a complex Godhead...

By complex do you just mean non-unitarian? Because if you're frustration with trinitarian theology has to do simply with the fact that it is trinitarian (and how that renders Christian monotheism complicated), then have you considered that many (certainly I) would find your ideas of a unitarian God whose word is able to transfer into human flesh and talk to God independently from him EVEN MORE confusing?

Sure, dogmatism about using the term 'persons' for '3 members of the Trinity' is somewhat artificial. But let's be real here. The Father is certainly a personal entity. Jesus certainly was too. The Spirit seems to have been (though I'll grant the evidence for that is more scanty than the Father and Son). If you wish to object to the idea that the Son is fully God, I can understand that. But I can't see objecting to the idea that the Son is distinct from the Father and not simply another human being.

I’m not sure what “equated” means in this context, but I don’t see any reason to separate them.

I think you should be just as careful about overstatement as trinitarians (and any other system). You don't see ANY reason to distinguish between the Father and the Spirit in Scripture? I can understand someone saying they don't find the evidence overwhelming... perhaps even compelling... but certainly there is evidence that could support the hypothesis that the Spirit is a distinct entity.

but if we insist that the Holy Spirit is a separate person, why not “Love” ?

Again, I think scriptural revelation has caused us to think of the Spirit and not love as a personal entity. You insist on wanting to stick with scriptural revelation, but you must be aware that the doctrine of the person of the Holy Spirit did not formulate in a vacuum. It was developed by scripture loving believers.

What I'm going to say next may (probably will) sound rude or condescending, but I genuinely don't mean it as such. I think people like you (who question the doctrine of the trinity) are wrong, but for the right reasons. I believe the doctrine of the trinity is correct (though, like you, I think we are too dogmatic about the exact way to describe the relation of the Father, Son, and Spirit). But many Christians are trinitarians for the wrong reasons (they've just accepted what they've been told without ever really thinking about it). You are thinking about it and questioning the value of the formulation. I think the kingdom/church NEEDS people to do this... not so that we will see the truth and abandon the trinitarian view, but so that we'll actually examine our own views and hold them for the right reasons.[/quote]

I do disagree that it’s “wrong” to question the doctrine

My wording was, perhaps, poor. I don't disagree with you about that. I think it is legitimate to question the doctrine of the Trinity. What I meant was that people like you are wrong about the Trinity (since I believe it exists), but for the right reasons (you are willing to question traditional truths).

It is quite possible in the spiritual realm that it does not take multiple persons or even a complex being to be in a relationship – or to “love” (or rather, to be love). The statement that God’s self is made up of multiple lovers seems entirely extrabiblical and hypothetical to me. Though I certainly confess it “could” be true, I have no reason to hold such as a fundamental truth

I can't comprehend how love could exist with only 1 individual in existence. Is it possible? I suppose so, but not the kind of possibility worth considering in my estimation.

Ultimately, I find unitarianism inefficient. I can't comprehend how "God is love" makes sense in such a system. I can't understand how redemption works if Jesus is not the 'God-man.' I can't comprehend what to make of scriptural revelation that routinely equates Jesus with Yahweh of the OT, emphasizes His uniqueness, has his enemies accuse him of claiming to be God, quite possibly directly labels Him as God at numerous points (though I realize each of those references is debatable), and even records Jesus praying in John 17... “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world." Here, using Father/Son wording, Jesus refers to the love exchanged between himself and His Father even before the creation of the world. The Father loved someone before creation. And it wasn't His own language.

[steve7150]

and I say I am trinitarian but can not get the "three persons" idea in my head alongside "one God". Three persons are three individuals, thus three Gods, it seems to me.










But if Jesus divinity originates from his Father , wouldn't that leave intact the principal of "one God" since Jesus or "the Word" would be an extension of God rather then a separate God. Like the Sun exists and emits rays which reach the earth. The rays are separate in a way but really an extension of the sun.

[Paidion]

Paidion thinks I am a modalist unawares. As I understand modalism, God plays three roles, one at a time. The way I resolve the problem, rather than God being three persons, I see Him as three personae simultaneously.

"Personae" as you know, does not mean "Persons." It's meaning is closer to "masks." In ancient times, an actor would wear various masks before taking on particular roles. I still think your understanding is Modalistic, or if you prefer, "Monarchianistic." A true Trinitarian believes that God is three Persons, each with His own consciousness—sort of a compound God—like the mythical Cerberus, a three-headed hound. However, if your belief is that there is only one Person and three Personae, then how do you explain Jesus talking to the Father as another Person? Was He talking to Himself? You haven't yet addressed that. I am not arguing with you. I just want to know how you understand that communication between the Father and the Son. Jesus prayed to the Father, and He said that He did only what the Father TOLD Him. Also, I ask you to explain what Jesus meant when He prayed that His disciples might become ONE as He and His Father were ONE. Would that mean that Jesus was asking that His disciples would lose their individual identities and become a single person?

Yes, some claim that Modalists believed God played the role of the Father in the ancient Hebrew days, the Son during Jesus life on earth, and the Spirit during the church age. But I'm not at all sure that early Modalists, such as Sabellius, actually saw God in that way.

I think this understanding (or possibly misunderstanding) or "Modalism" explains why the United Pentercostal Church and Apostolic Churches deny being Modalists — because they believe that God exists in all three modes simultaneously. Actually, I have encountered no evidence that Sabellius and other early Modalists didn't see God in that way, too.

[darinhouston]

Even if you don't find it persuasive to take these statements as evidence that Jesus is God (or a member of 'the Trinity'), the author of the 4th Gospel certainly meant to utilize these statements to convey the idea that Jesus was/is utterly unique among men, no? Referring to an earlier statement of yours, when Jesus said he was the light of the world, he certainly meant it in a greater sense that we are called to be light, eh?

Of course, unique - absolutely! Re: light? Of course -- he was fully what we are in part - he perfectly reflected the Logos and illuminated the world with the Truth perfectly because He had the fullness of the Spirit, which we could not receive at all prior to the atonement and which afterwards we only experience in part (at least until we are resurrected perhaps). Our light is dimmed or filtered or flawed in so far as our communion with and response to the Holy Spirit is impaired.

I'd be hesitant to say that our theology ends when scriptural revelation ends. Is scriptural revelation the only, or last, form of revelation? I think God can reveal truth through reason, his church through history, and experience as well. Such revelation must be in accordance with Scripture, but that doesn't make it not revelation it and of itself, eh?

And your reluctance to formulate/formalize theology (even if not dogmatically so) seems like overkill because of your parenthesis. I would welcome a teacher that had taken the time to formalize his theology, especially if he did it humbly. In fact, I'd be frustrated by a teacher that didn't attempt to do this.

I agree with this to a degree -- however, the only revelation we can afford to be dogmatic or otherwise exclusionarily certain (did I just coin that word?) is plain and unequivocal teaching directly from scripture. Reason is necessary and is helpful, but can fail (witness the historic arguments on this topic). Even a direct reading can be somewhat challenging today in some cases due to lost semantic knowledge, etc. I strive to formalize my theology, and have even written a number of my own "credal statements" of sorts -- I even have a very personal document I return to throughout the years with the filename "What I believe" which I find changes on occasion. My certainty in areas like this certainly changes even when my position doesn't. I have simply come to a point on this one where I am uncommitted but searching -- I do not equate that with reluctance to formulate a theology.

By complex do you just mean non-unitarian? Because if you're frustration with trinitarian theology has to do simply with the fact that it is trinitarian (and how that renders Christian monotheism complicated), then have you considered that many (certainly I) would find your ideas of a unitarian God whose word is able to transfer into human flesh and talk to God independently from him EVEN MORE confusing?

Sure, dogmatism about using the term 'persons' for '3 members of the Trinity' is somewhat artificial. But let's be real here. The Father is certainly a personal entity. Jesus certainly was too. The Spirit seems to have been (though I'll grant the evidence for that is more scanty than the Father and Son). If you wish to object to the idea that the Son is fully God, I can understand that. But I can't see objecting to the idea that the Son is distinct from the Father and not simply another human being.

Hmmmm -- I think that's a "term of art" in theological circles in connection with "Divine Simplicity" but perhaps. That doesn't mean he doesn't have aspects that appear to us as "compound." I understand Thomas Aquinas' position is "that because God is infinitely simple, God can only appear to the finite mind as infinitely complex." (from wikipedia entry on Divine Simplicity)

I didn't understand your last sentence.

I’m not sure what “equated” means in this context, but I don’t see any reason to separate them.

I think you should be just as careful about overstatement as trinitarians (and any other system). You don't see ANY reason to distinguish between the Father and the Spirit in Scripture? I can understand someone saying they don't find the evidence overwhelming... perhaps even compelling... but certainly there is evidence that could support the hypothesis that the Spirit is a distinct entity.

I think you're right -- I probably overstated that -- I meant I don't see any evidence which overwhelmingly brings me to this conclusion. Certainly, there is "evidence," but much of it is limited to such things as use of personal pronouns. Grammatical arguments from an ancient language and culture alone are pretty underwhelming to me.

Again, I think scriptural revelation has caused us to think of the Spirit and not love as a personal entity. You insist on wanting to stick with scriptural revelation, but you must be aware that the doctrine of the person of the Holy Spirit did not formulate in a vacuum. It was developed by scripture loving believers.

Ditto with non-Trinitartian theologians.

I do disagree that it’s “wrong” to question the doctrine

My wording was, perhaps, poor. I don't disagree with you about that. I think it is legitimate to question the doctrine of the Trinity. What I meant was that people like you are wrong about the Trinity (since I believe it exists), but for the right reasons (you are willing to question traditional truths).

Ummm - how can I be wrong? I don't deny it -- I just question it and am having trouble accepting it presently. I haven't taken a stance (at least personally -- in a thought-experiement, perhaps, or for the sake of argument, etc...)

I can't comprehend how love could exist with only 1 individual in existence. Is it possible? I suppose so, but not the kind of possibility worth considering in my estimation.

Ultimately, I find unitarianism inefficient. I can't comprehend how "God is love" makes sense in such a system. I can't understand how redemption works if Jesus is not the 'God-man.' I can't comprehend what to make of scriptural revelation that routinely equates Jesus with Yahweh of the OT, emphasizes His uniqueness, has his enemies accuse him of claiming to be God, quite possibly directly labels Him as God at numerous points (though I realize each of those references is debatable), and even records Jesus praying in John 17... “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world." Here, using Father/Son wording, Jesus refers to the love exchanged between himself and His Father even before the creation of the world. The Father loved someone before creation. And it wasn't His own language.

I often can't understand either, but I feel no need to hold a doctrine for the sake of "closing the loop" in my theology. I think we are unable to comprehend anything outside our space time reality (I know Paidion has opinions here, but most astrophysicists agree that time isn't eternal). Let's just explore your statement about a pre-creation Jesus. 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.

[morbo3000]

Well... now that I've got my curmudgeonliness out of the way.. I might as well wade in here.

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 [I have no idea what is supposed to and not supposed to be capitalized in this discussion.] Is it correct to say that this phrase "God is love," comes solely from 1John 4:8? The cross-references from TSK don't point to anything that makes that statement so plainly. Someone with more Greek than I do (I have none) might be able to parse that verb "is" to mean "eternally" but I think that would be going too far since it is one verse.

Second, I think we are missing the forest for the trees. John was making a devotional point, not theological. That the essence of God became flesh in Jesus at just the right moment, and that through His decision to then depart from us, that essence came to dwell in us who came after Him. a). God's power was in spirit b) He came in flesh, so that c). His power could be manifest in the world through indwelling us.

John himself stated the limitations of his gospel: John 20:30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

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.

[darinhouston]

Well... now that I've got my curmudgeonliness out of the way.. I might as well wade in here.

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 [I have no idea what is supposed to and not supposed to be capitalized in this discussion.] Is it correct to say that this phrase "God is love," comes solely from 1John 4:8? The cross-references from TSK don't point to anything that makes that statement so plainly. Someone with more Greek than I do (I have none) might be able to parse that verb "is" to mean "eternally" but I think that would be going too far since it is one verse.

Second, I think we are missing the forest for the trees. John was making a devotional point, not theological. That the essence of God became flesh in Jesus at just the right moment, and that through His decision to then depart from us, that essence came to dwell in us who came after Him. a). God's power was in spirit b) He came in flesh, so that c). His power could be manifest in the world through indwelling us.

John himself stated the limitations of his gospel: John 20:30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

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.

...what he said...