Epiphanius
Here is a quote from a Patristic theologian (so a theologian from the early church), his name is Epiphanius, and he communicates something about who the Christian God is that will be fundamental for us moving forward in regards to understanding who the Christian God is, and thus is not. I will have to come back an unpack what Epiphanius is articulating later, since the implications of what he is getting at are deep and wide. Here is Epiphanius:
God is one, the Father in the Son, the Son in the Father with the Holy Spirit . . . true enhypostatic Father, and true enhypostatic Son, and true enhypostatic Holy Spirit, three Persons, one Godhead, one being, one glory, one God. In thinking of God you conceive of the Trinity, but without confusing in your mind the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Father is the Father, the Son is the Son, the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit, but there is no deviation in the Trinity from oneness and identity. (Epiphanius, “Anc., 10,” cited by T. F. Torrance, “The Trinitarian Faith,” 234-35)
As you see in the biblio information, Thomas Torrance is the one constructively appropriating Epiphanius for his own unique way of articulating his Doctrine of God as Triune. We will get into this later, and in fact this quote actually is jumping the gun a bit, as far as how I want to go about this series—meaning that I want to move a bit slower than this, by way of introducing key terms, and providing a grammar through which we as Christians can better grasp and understand who are God actually is. This quote presupposes quite a bit, as far as the definitions and grammar that stands behind it; and it is fleshing out this grammar that we will be engaging in the days to come.
Happy Lord’s Day.
The Face Of Christ 
Bobby I am very much looking forward to this series. I agree with you that this is such a neglected doctrine among many christians today, and agreeing with Torrance that this is the ground of all other doctrines, it is something that needs to be studied and shared. I am currently reading TFT’s Trinitarian Theology, and Barths dogmatics in outline, and have been intensly thinking through my understanding of the Trinity, even listening to those seven lectures by Mccormack which after listening I have many problems with. Anyway I really just wanted to encourage you in your decision to do this series and say that I look forward to reading it.
Hi Cody,
What problems do you have with McCormack’s presentations? I remain much more trad and classic, actually, when it comes to this issue–in line with TFT–versus McCormack’s Barthian thesis.
Well for starters I don’t buy his new definition of freedom, he still causes creation to be necessary for God, which if im not mistaken is one of the things origen was condemned for, and it would undermine grace. He also seems to make in God a decision to be triune out of this so called free eternal decision, which to me makes it impossible not to say that He could have chosen to be other than triune, and here we would again have some god who is not ultimately revealed as he truely is in his own being as god. Mccormack tries to side step all this by redifining freedom, by making God’s decision the only one He can make and calling it free, thats when I go “what?!” Freedom just seems to be a word to him, and it makes creation absolutely necessary for the being of God. Another thing is that no matter how many times he says he’s not I don’t see how he is not modalistic, even saying that for the Son to talk to the Father before the incarnation He would be talking to Himself. I think he confuses Person and nature.
Cody,
I agree with your general critique of McCormack’s thesis. I don’t see what he is doing escaping something like Origen did, in regards to their God-world relating of things in Christ; albeit of course, McCormack has resource to much more theological development (just given the space of time) than did Origen. But I can’t escape the notion that McCormack’s thesis, in the end, does indeed make God’s being contingent upon creation; since for his thesis, God has chosen (constitutively) to not be God without us (meaning, by implication, that God needs creation to be God, crudely stated). I know that McCormack, along with Barth, is appealing to a highly nuanced Christological ‘actualism’ (being in becoming); but this seems to be an ad hoc measure intended to make the theory work. I don’t see this, in the way it is employed, anyway, as a necessary corollary of God’s Self-revelation in Christ; and this, of course, is why, ultimately, I follow TF Torrance and not Barth on this fundamental issue of a theology proper.
Is the middle road from indifference and necessity, faithfulness?
God chooses to be for us in Christ (the Mediator) before Creation and no matter how far we descend into oblivion, His arm never drops them into utter oblivion. That’s something like Torrance isn’t it?
Cal,
What do you mean by this?:
Is the middle road from indifference and necessity, faithfulness?
As far as oblivion; no, I think there is a point, for Torrance, that utter oblivion for an unbelieving individual is realized (or hell). But the source of that ‘oblivion’ or damnation is the unspeakable reality that someone could actually end up in hell, even given the reconciling love of God for them in Christ.
It is important to not try and impose a logical-deductive schemata on the way that Torrance is construing things relative to salvation, Cal. This will miss Torrance’s point every time; i.e. that salvation is triune, Christ conditioned, personal/relational V. static, monadic, impersonal etc.
I wrote this rather late, and it turned out rather confusing:
I meant my comment in response to you and Cody. In terms of the relationship between Creator and Creation. It’s not necessity ala. Origen and it’s not abject indifference (which appears in some Evangelical writings).
It has to do with Faithfulness and in that Eternal Decree (being for us; Christ). That is the ‘middle road’ and I thought, at least from what I understand of Torrance, that may be more of his opinion. It is more Reformed than anything else.
Slipping into oblivion was in reference not to Hell per se but merely existence. God gives rain to the just and unjust, He keeps His common grace from letting the whole world plunge too deep.
In terms of Hell and faithfulness. When God restores Creation, creating the New Heavens and New Earth, the old passes away. Those who are not inside the Kingdom, left in the old (or refuse to enter the New, however one wants to conceptualize it) pass away with the rest of the corrupt age. In this sense and understanding, I’m a shade of Annihilationist.
Cal,
I’m still not sure even with your explanation how you feel that ‘faithfullness’ is a middle road. I dont know if you have listened to Mccormack’s lectures or know his position, but in my mind God either had a ‘real’ choice or He didn’t. Anything outside of saying He would be the same God eternally in His being without us is in my conviction wrong, contrary to Nicea, the fathers, and is anti eccumenical.
I also dont know how familiar you are with Torrance, I’m still learning too, but I dont believe he would allow for your idea of ‘common grace’ as it seems to have an underlying view of created grace driving it. In Torrance’s view, which is Nicene, Grace is none other than Christ Himself, its not something other than God otherwise it would fall on the other side of the line that seperates uncreated from created. Its not just ‘unmerritted favor’ either, which it is that, but it’s also more than that, it’s God become flesh uniting all humanity to Himself for as long as the incarnation lasts, which is eternity. Therefore Grace is also God come to us by the Holy Spirit uniting us to Chist. The point is the Gift is the Giver and not something external to Him.
With this understanding in place then any form of anhialationnism would be untennable becasue the only reason anyone can be resurrected in the first place is because the Logos has taken up our humanity and resurrected it so that all humanity has been resurrected in Christ. To say that someone could cease to exist on this view would mean that the incarnation would cease, which is impossible. Thats my take anyway
Cody:
I’m only responding to what is given in the comments though I am familiar with the view of “God is only God with Creation”. Faithfulness is that in His creating, He is now in relationship with the created. That isn’t something new or a change for God and He would be the same either way (He is Triune). He just won’t let us plunge because of who He is and goes into the depths of the darkness to find us. I guess I’m agreeing with you but adding into it the covenantal aspect of humanity’s relationship with God.
I’m defining Common Grace as the concept in Scripture: “He gives rain to the just and the unjust”. I’m not making it a thing outside of Christ because that very common grace is sustained by Christ “Holding all things together by the power of His word”. In Gifting the Giver, He maintains a world in which He gives Himself. This is in accord with the same covenantal faithfulness above.
You’re allowing resurrection to be, perhaps, too broad. What does it mean for some to rise to eternal life and others to eternal shame? Does it mean both are given glorified bodies? Does it mean that either are indestructible? I can’t see your view unless it leads to Universalism, which I don’t think is warranted either.
God in Christ is reconciling the world yet the world is remade New and the Old fades. The Old Age passes away and those who refuse the New choose the Old and pass away with it, along with Satan, Sin and Death. This is what I take as meaning the Second Death.
Much love,
Cal
Cal,
I understand what you are saying about God’s faithfulness and i agree that He is faithful to His promises, after all titus 1:2 🙂
I’m not wanting to say that you actually hold to a view of created grace, but I do want to push a little further. When you say that you don’t make grace something other than Christ and then say that common grace is sustained by Him then you do make it sound like grace is something outside Christ that He is actively sustaining. Instead I would say that the incarnation is Gods grace come to us and that Christ Himself is the Gift. Creation is held together by the Person of the Logos, not by something emanating from Him as something exterior which would have to either be eternal with Him which would make a fourth thing in God, or it would be created and thus created grace. When the Person of the Logos incarnated He united humanity and Divinity in His Person, this is the Grace of God.
Also you said God is ‘reconciling’ the world. I would like to draw your attention to both Rom5:10,11 and 2Cor5:19, as they both speak of reconciliation taking place ‘in’ Christ as a ‘past’ event, one saying we were reconciled, and the other He was reconciling. God has objectively accomplished something in Christ and I feel that in order to be consistent with the text of scripture we must take that very seriously. Now this doesn’t make me a universalist because I’m not working with a purely legalistic view of atonement, but instead a more ontologic. This is how I understand the resurrection, as grounded in Christ, which means that the only reason that we will be resurrected is because the Logos has taken up our finite humanity and united it to divinity and it has already been resurrected, therefore there is only One resurrection and that is Christ’s on our behalf and in our place and we shall share in that. Now I still leave room for appropriation because of course there is a subjective side to receiving our salvation and that will determine how someone experiences that resurrection etc. but I wouldn’t say that all are resurrected because of some grace emanating from God like some external power in which you will have to then explain, and ultimately do so without appealing to the incarnation, resurrection, assention, or anything else, which is dualistic and not Christ centered and ultimately not grounded in the Trinity which would be un Christian and more like Greek philosophy, but that’s just my understanding of it. We will live eternally because the second Person of the Trinity has become a man while still being God.
I’ve rambled on enough, maybe Bobby can shed some light.
I would say that I agree with Cody’s points contra annihilationism. The ground, I think, of all life is Christ’s life, and thus the corollary of this is that God does not annihilate his creation; and I think the ontological theory of the atonement (as the frame) V. a juridic or forensic frame makes all the difference. Since it understands that the nature of the atonement has to do with ‘being’ (first) and not (primarily) behavior or ‘accidental’ things (to use a Thomism).
Cody:
Ok, let me use language more suitable. Christ sustains the world/creation by the very power of His being. His sustaining of a plane is Common Grace.
As for Annihilation, I guess I’m not seeing your point. Life is sustained in Christ as the Root and the Father cuts branches that have become dead. Ontologically or Judicially, being cut off is no longer in Union (or forensically in Covenant) and such is fully revealed at the Harvest (wheats and tares).
My question is a reversal: If one is cut off from the life of Christ in Union, how is he/she still sustained?
I agree with you Cody that the Resurrection is in Christ, the revelation of its place when He rose. As Christ represented all man, in Christ and “not”, all are raised from the dead. I’m keeping this in mind as I’m arguing.
However, in the end, I don’t really much care to discuss or brawl over the issue of “What is “Hell”?”. I know whatever happens will be just but my conscience led me to question whether typical conceptions of eternal conscious torment will be the reality. I don’t see it in Scripture and can’t conceive of it in Christ, but it is a widely affirmed tradition. Like Stott, I see no warrant for it in Scripture, find the idea horrendous but ultimately will remain agnostic; it’s not a hill to die on.
Cal,
Have you ever read Athanasuis’ ‘On the Incarnation of the Word’? I recomend it, you will see how he ties together the fact that what Adam did effected all of humanity, as well as what Christ has done again effecting all of humanity, which is exactly what Paul says too. Athansius draws it out a little and adresses some reasons it must be this way, I believe you will find it interesting.
To me it seems like in your view Adam had a greater effect on humanity than Christ did, like what Adam did was able to effect humanity ontologically, but what Christ has done only effects them by their appropriation. Dont get me wrong I believ very much that we have to personally trust in Christ by the Spirit to be in union and communion with Him, but I also see that there is already a sort of union between Christ and all men already, an ontological one, which is how God has grabbed a hold of us and can not let us go, otherwise as Athanasius says, we would have lapsed back into non existance.