Diserner
Well-known member
As a Trinitarian I can honestly recognize some logical problems with Christology as classically stated. Why wasn’t Christ more clear about the formulation we’ve come to hold, and why would he leave us logical dilemmas concerning it? Honestly these logical problems can seem strange and daunting and I’ve found fault with a lot of classic Trinitarian definition and jargon matching up with exactly how Scripture has presented itself to me. Someone may find interest in some modifications I’ve felt I’ve had to make to these standard explanations and enjoy my journey of thought.
I want to be up front about my methodology. It may be considered that in the end, one cannot understand the Bible by logic or the mind alone, and taken without a lens or key of revelation, we will constantly find what seems to us contradictions or obscurity in the Bible. I will up front confess that I completely and firmly hold to the idea of revelation alone, and that conversely the mind or logic, however you may understand that, must be insufficient for understanding spiritual truths. In that case, I would consider it urgent that all our study not only be bathed in intellectual arguments, but deep prayer and sincerity about the matter. I would never hide the fact that my personal beliefs are based on actual experience and I think it is definitely Biblical to do so.
I believe God is one being containing or pertaining to three individual personalities such that whatever makes up the three does indeed separate the oneness without completely losing it. Although I feel I can hold this idea in my thoughts, it does seem like a real paradox; yet I would say we find other such paradoxes in Scripture in the oneness of Christ and his bride, the unity of humanity in Adam, the unity of believers in the body of Christ, and the unity of those joined in marriage. Although the Scripture clearly portrays each individual as a real and separate individual, it also just as clearly portrays the whole as one true and viable entity, thought of in the singular; and forcefully so that it seems more than just mere metaphor. I was raised in an individualistic Western culture and it’s personally difficult for me logically and emotionally to consider myself in a corporate unity, so I don't feel I easily grasp it.
So where I have problems with the classic formulation or definitions I’ve seen, is the lack of ontological change in the incarnation. I just honestly can’t see that in the Scripture, which seems to very vividly and markedly describe a real change in the nature of Christ. I wouldn’t say I knew exactly what that change was, but it was certainly a change if I am going to be honest with the text and not come with a precommitment to make it fit what I have already decided. Jesus is said to have “become” something, to have “left” something, to have “emptied” himself of something, to have “taken on” something, to have “impoverished” himself in some way. This is dishonest speech when applied to no real ontological change. Jesus uses descriptions of locality and identity such as “I came from X” or “I know X” and uses time tenses such as “I shared (past tense) glory” in a definite time in the past that he did not share in the same way currently. This is misleading and disingenuous speech if we are to assume that an omni-being is speaking.
Sure, we can attempt to explain this away as heavy metaphor for a human nature manifesting itself, and thus the “real” Christ is the divine side of him, separate from all this human nature talk. Intuitively Trinitarians gravitate to descriptions that include some kind of temporary “setting aside” of divine attributes, whether we call it “veiling” them or making them “dormant,” basically any speech that turns them off without completely eliminating them. And this idea can preserve the whole structure of a classic understanding of the Trinity, giving the third person two natures and localizing him in the divine side. But the question I stared frankly in the face is, is that really what Scripture is doing here, making the man Jesus Christ just an “add-on” nature to a divine person? I could not walk away honestly feeling the Bible does that, and so somewhere I had to rework my understanding.
I believe the case for Jesus being divine is unavoidable, and not just “god-like” but actually pertaining to the uncreated Creator. Jesus is said to be exalted to a point that would be completely inappropriate, idolatrous and blasphemous for any entity, even the most powerful angel or holy man ever created. Jesus is said to accomplish things that no creature has the resources or ability to do, to expiate an infinite crime against the holiness of God, to contain the concept of life itself inside of him, to conquer death by his own power, and even be an integral part in creating all things. These are things a mere creature cannot do, and no one should ever be convinced that they could. But the question that still haunts all these ideas unassailably is: How can God becoming a man to die for the sins of the world mean he experiences no real ontological change?
Where you see the Unitarian always gravitating towards in their “gotcha” questions and problems, is always this singular problem of a logical contradiction in one thing consisting of two contradictory properties: something that is genuinely a creation contradicts in its most essential ontological nature with the properties of something that is genuinely uncreated, such we find as much incompatibility as a square being a circle or a bachelor being married. We lose all sense of comprehensibility or unity of thought by positing definitions that no longer seem to fit. And every Trinitarian I’ve ever seen anyway, would willingly admit to a very high degree of mystery and a limitedness to really fully comprehend it; and sometimes even, when cornered particularly badly, just completely punt to mystery.
So when Jesus Christ says “I came from the Father into the world,” whom (or what?) might we ask is speaking under classic Trinitarian formula: a human nature that is not a localized person? A divine omni-being with no limits or physicality? A combined entity with contradicting properties? An add-on nature using “baby talk” that doesn’t literally mean anything we normally understand it to mean? All these options proved unacceptable to me if I were going to not simply find comfort in my previous understanding, but give the real, honest and utmost reverence to the words I read in the Holy Scripture.
I want to be up front about my methodology. It may be considered that in the end, one cannot understand the Bible by logic or the mind alone, and taken without a lens or key of revelation, we will constantly find what seems to us contradictions or obscurity in the Bible. I will up front confess that I completely and firmly hold to the idea of revelation alone, and that conversely the mind or logic, however you may understand that, must be insufficient for understanding spiritual truths. In that case, I would consider it urgent that all our study not only be bathed in intellectual arguments, but deep prayer and sincerity about the matter. I would never hide the fact that my personal beliefs are based on actual experience and I think it is definitely Biblical to do so.
I believe God is one being containing or pertaining to three individual personalities such that whatever makes up the three does indeed separate the oneness without completely losing it. Although I feel I can hold this idea in my thoughts, it does seem like a real paradox; yet I would say we find other such paradoxes in Scripture in the oneness of Christ and his bride, the unity of humanity in Adam, the unity of believers in the body of Christ, and the unity of those joined in marriage. Although the Scripture clearly portrays each individual as a real and separate individual, it also just as clearly portrays the whole as one true and viable entity, thought of in the singular; and forcefully so that it seems more than just mere metaphor. I was raised in an individualistic Western culture and it’s personally difficult for me logically and emotionally to consider myself in a corporate unity, so I don't feel I easily grasp it.
So where I have problems with the classic formulation or definitions I’ve seen, is the lack of ontological change in the incarnation. I just honestly can’t see that in the Scripture, which seems to very vividly and markedly describe a real change in the nature of Christ. I wouldn’t say I knew exactly what that change was, but it was certainly a change if I am going to be honest with the text and not come with a precommitment to make it fit what I have already decided. Jesus is said to have “become” something, to have “left” something, to have “emptied” himself of something, to have “taken on” something, to have “impoverished” himself in some way. This is dishonest speech when applied to no real ontological change. Jesus uses descriptions of locality and identity such as “I came from X” or “I know X” and uses time tenses such as “I shared (past tense) glory” in a definite time in the past that he did not share in the same way currently. This is misleading and disingenuous speech if we are to assume that an omni-being is speaking.
Sure, we can attempt to explain this away as heavy metaphor for a human nature manifesting itself, and thus the “real” Christ is the divine side of him, separate from all this human nature talk. Intuitively Trinitarians gravitate to descriptions that include some kind of temporary “setting aside” of divine attributes, whether we call it “veiling” them or making them “dormant,” basically any speech that turns them off without completely eliminating them. And this idea can preserve the whole structure of a classic understanding of the Trinity, giving the third person two natures and localizing him in the divine side. But the question I stared frankly in the face is, is that really what Scripture is doing here, making the man Jesus Christ just an “add-on” nature to a divine person? I could not walk away honestly feeling the Bible does that, and so somewhere I had to rework my understanding.
I believe the case for Jesus being divine is unavoidable, and not just “god-like” but actually pertaining to the uncreated Creator. Jesus is said to be exalted to a point that would be completely inappropriate, idolatrous and blasphemous for any entity, even the most powerful angel or holy man ever created. Jesus is said to accomplish things that no creature has the resources or ability to do, to expiate an infinite crime against the holiness of God, to contain the concept of life itself inside of him, to conquer death by his own power, and even be an integral part in creating all things. These are things a mere creature cannot do, and no one should ever be convinced that they could. But the question that still haunts all these ideas unassailably is: How can God becoming a man to die for the sins of the world mean he experiences no real ontological change?
Where you see the Unitarian always gravitating towards in their “gotcha” questions and problems, is always this singular problem of a logical contradiction in one thing consisting of two contradictory properties: something that is genuinely a creation contradicts in its most essential ontological nature with the properties of something that is genuinely uncreated, such we find as much incompatibility as a square being a circle or a bachelor being married. We lose all sense of comprehensibility or unity of thought by positing definitions that no longer seem to fit. And every Trinitarian I’ve ever seen anyway, would willingly admit to a very high degree of mystery and a limitedness to really fully comprehend it; and sometimes even, when cornered particularly badly, just completely punt to mystery.
So when Jesus Christ says “I came from the Father into the world,” whom (or what?) might we ask is speaking under classic Trinitarian formula: a human nature that is not a localized person? A divine omni-being with no limits or physicality? A combined entity with contradicting properties? An add-on nature using “baby talk” that doesn’t literally mean anything we normally understand it to mean? All these options proved unacceptable to me if I were going to not simply find comfort in my previous understanding, but give the real, honest and utmost reverence to the words I read in the Holy Scripture.
