The following info comes from https://www.christianstudylibrary.org/article/bavinck-person-christ
[BEGIN QUOTE]
It is no accident, therefore, that the reality of the incarnation stimulated the Christian church to formulate more fully the doctrine of the Trinity. Over against the heresy of patripassianism (literally, "Father-suffering"), which taught that the person of the Son who suffered upon the cross was identical with the person of the Father, the church recognized that scriptural teaching could only be understood within the framework of a clear distinction between the three persons of the Trinity. The history of redemption recounted in Scripture requires that a distinction be drawn between the person of the Father who sends the Son in the fullness of time, the person of the Son who voluntarily condescends to assume our humanity, and the person of the Holy Spirit who equips the incarnate Son for his mediatorial work and communicates the benefits of it to believers. It is simply impossible to do justice to the data of biblical revelation without acknowledging the distinction of the three persons of the Holy Trinity, who remain one in being, purpose, and love in all of their respective works.
Furthermore, even though the church has always insisted that all of the works of the triune God are indivisibly the works of the holy Trinity, the church also taught that the economy of redemption distinguishes the three persons in their respective works. As Bavinck notes,
The Father could not be sent, for he is the first in order and is self-existent; the Spirit proceeds from the Son, succeeds him, and is sent by him. But the Son was the one suited for the incarnation. In the divine being he occupies the place between the Father and the Spirit, is by nature the son and image of God, was mediator already in the first creation, and as Son could restore us to our position as children of God. RD 3:276
5 comments:
@E.Foster"the spirit proceeds from the son?"
"Countering the idea that the Spirit may proceed from the Son, John suggests that with its unique purpose and character, the Spirit "is one Spirit, going forth from the Father, not in the manner of Sonship but of procession" (Damascus, 11). Jesus may have been begotten, but the Spirit was not. He points out that to say that the very force that helped incarnate the Son could even proceed from the Son would be illogical (if not impossible).
As Gregory states, the Spirit is not just a "grandson God" (Nazianzus, The Fifth Theological Oration - On The Spirit, 197). Additionally, when the New Testament speaks of the "Spirit of the Son," John asserts that the term refers to the confession that the Spirit is manifested and imparted to humanity through the Son much like the way the Sun is manifested through its rays and radiance to the one seeing it. It is in the profound sense of revelation, not just association." John of Damascus and Gregory of Nazianus on the procession of the spirit. As tends to be the case it depends whom one asks.
@E.Foster:"In his work, The Fifth Theological Oration - On The Spirit, Gregory of Nazianzus argues for the divinity of the Spirit. In this oration, he provides his exhaustive depiction and discussion of the ontology and functionality of the Spirit and asserts its equality within the Divine Family. Opposing some 4th-century theologians who believed the Spirit to be subordinate to the Father and Son" I find it interesting that even at this late date there are ongoing disputes re:the status of the Spirit.
@aservantofJehovah:
The issue over the spirit's eternal proceeding split the eastern church from the western church: it's known as the Filioque controversy. Trinitarians disagree over whether the spirit eternally proceeds from the Father or from the Father and the Son. Hence, the term filioque in Latin. See the Nicene Creed.
Compare https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2017/08/robert-w-jenson-and-pneumatological.html
Yes, it depends on whom one asks.
Those debates circa 380 are interesting, and historic. They precipitated the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Council of 381.
Here's something I wrote earlier abou this issue:
One early witness who testifies to these early developments regarding
the Trinity doctrine is Gregory of Nazianzus. In the work _Epistles 58_ Gregory Nazianzus explained the absence of the Holy Spirit from the ancient discussions about the Godhead by stating that "the Old Testament proclaimed the Father manifestly, and the Son more hiddenly. The New [Testament] manifested the Son and suggested the deity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit himself is resident among us, and provides a clearer explanation of himself." As late as 380, he wrote, "to be slightly in error [about the Holy Spirit] was to be orthodox." This statement too proves that the "orthodox" understanding of the Holy Spirit was not "clear" until 381. As a matter of fact, this statement further demonstrates that the church neither subscribed to nor affirmed the teaching of the Trinity until 381 C.E. It is clear that the "details" of the Trinity still had to be worked out (The Christian Tradition, Jaroslav Pelikan, Vol. I, p. 213. Cf. also Gregory Nazianzus--Orations 31.5). From a brief look at these developments, it seems warranted to conclude that the NT does not present a clear expression of the Triune Godhead. Therefore, we could reasonably conclude that neither the primitive church nor the ante-Nicene fathers taught the Trinity. Gregory Nazianzus even proclaimed that Scripture did not, "very clearly or very often call him [the Holy Spirit] God in so many words, as it does the Father and later on the Son" (Gregory Nazianzus, Orations 31.12).
Gregory's testimony is so important because he lived at the time when the Trinity assimilated its way into Christian didache. Concerning this prominent Christian "father," Jaroslav Pelikan says: "In remarkable summary of the controversy within the orthodox camp, composed in the same year, he [Gregory Nazianzus] declared: "Of the wise men among ourselves, some have conceived of him [the Holy spirit] as an activity, some as a creature, some as God; and some have been uncertain which to call him . . . And therefore they neither worship him nor treat him with dishonor, but take up a neutral position." He did add, however, that "of those who consider him to be God, some are orthodox in mind only, while others venture to be so with the lips also."
@E.Foster: Let me say that I find that last pair of quotations particularly amazing. As you know there are pastors who with one hand on the good book will solemnly declare that the teaching of the deity of the spirit is from the very mouth of the original twelve apostles.
I agree, they certainly will. Such pastors need to read Pelikan and other church historians.
Post a Comment