Comments on: CBE International Conference :: 12th June 2010 :: Graham Cole – The Trinity without Tiers

By: Andrew Moody

Andrew Moody — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:45:27 +0000

Yes that’s interesting.
Sounds good
Thanks Mark.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:39:48 +0000

G’day Andrew,

My pleasure mate – you would have found it fascinating. I’ve read your interaction with Kevin Giles, and I’m sure you both would have had a bit to chew the fat over!

Re: my reference to Doyle and Barth etc was a little convoluted and unhelpful. Let me clarify. The most interesting point for me in Cole’s lecture was his discussion of Rahner. He mentioned Barth, but hardly touched on him.

As distinct from what Rahner wants, Barth wants to go one direction (God as he is towards us). That’s Robert Doyle’s first of three maxims to maintain in moving from the economic submission of Christ to the inter-trinitarian relations. Robert wants to do this analogically, rather than univocally, and in such a way as not to render the Father-Son relation reversible.

Hope that clarifies a bit – I’ve taken the above points from Robert’s lectures @ Moore.

Blessings mate,
Mark

By: Andrew Moody

Andrew Moody — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 04:29:02 +0000

Thanks so much for posting this summary, Mark. I was hoping to get to this but couldn’t so I appreciate it very much.

BTW – I’m interested in your reference to Dr Doyle’s work on this (re. Barth/Far Country) is this new and is it published somewhere?

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 01:10:52 +0000

Ah, that’s a good point! I didn’t remember him making that point about a distinction between F/S and G/C…

Even so, I think his point about the communication of the attributes still protects his argument. Ie., that we can attribute human things to the Person of the Son of God doesn’t imply that they *do* anything to the intra-trinitarian relationships of God in se. Ie., we could say that the Person of the Son of God sat on a well, but what does this mean for the eternal Son? Not much – but the communication of the attributes is a shorthand way of God’s accommodation to us. Or, that the Son of God died on the cross – this doesn’t imply that the 2nd Person of the Trinity actually ceased to exist, but again, it’s shorthand accommodation. I assume the communication of the attributes continues to function with the ascended Christ too (thus, Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper).

All that said though, I went back and checked Doyle’s lecture notes (on those three axioms you mentioned). I’m going to have to mull over them, because I think they speak directly to this issue!

Nice hanging out with you on the w/e Louisa!
M.

By: Louisa

Louisa — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 10:19:55 +0000

Mandy and I were chatting about the end of 1Cor 15:20-28, although on reflection GC didn’t speak about those last two verses. His point was that Paul doesn’t use the Father/Son terminology rather the God/Christ terminology and thus it’s all about the economy and not about the immanent Trinity. As Andrew points out if he’d kept working through to v27-28 then we do get to Son language, which would I think tend to undermine his argument… Someone else has pointed out (can’t remember which scholar) that Jesus tends to use more Father/Son language because that’s the relationship he’s in, Paul tends to use more God/Christ language because that reflects more closely the relationship he has to the Trinity… This might explain why Paul doesn’t use much Father/Son language, rather than him purely referring to God in the economy and not in his essence. Food for thought anyway…

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 06:49:18 +0000

G’day Melbourne guy!

Thanks for dropping by!
M.

By: a melbourne guy

a melbourne guy — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 00:59:20 +0000

Cole wants a moratorium? I can’t help but suspect that egalitarians want to stop talking about the Trinity because they’re realising that their teachings about this topic are unbiblical, unhistorical and simply false. The longer the debate goes on for, the deeper the hole into which they dig themselves. Shut it down now and no one emerges as a loser.

Or maybe I’m being too cynical…

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:05:46 +0000

@Andrew – thanks for your comment, and for your question. Graham did touch on that verse and spent a little bit of time there. It seemed as if he’d thought about it a great deal, yet could only spend a short bit of time on it during the lecture. I honestly, can’t add much more to what Mandy’s already said. Perhaps only that Graham draw the distinction between the reign of Christ (Regnum Christi) and the reign of God (Regnum Dei), then went on to discuss the communication of the idioms (Communicatio Idiomatum).

@Rachel, thanks for saying G’day! The conference has been really good – people from different positions and different parts of the world, and different denominations! Lots of food for thought. Glad these posts are of some benefit

@Mandy, thanks for chiming in! See ya tomorrow

By: Darren

Darren — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:30:59 +0000

Thanks, Mark and Mandy, for the clarification.

I’ll be interested to read more from the conference!

By: Mandy

Mandy — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 13:09:31 +0000

Mark, I think you’ve accurately captured what Graham was saying in your response to Darren.

The morotorium he called for is on using the trinity, and especially the relationships within the trinity, as the basis for discussing male/female relationships.

Andrew, not sure if this is what you are getting at, but Graham was very hesitant at any reading upwards from what we see in the economy of salvation into the eternal trinitarian relationships. He pushed strongly that Paul uses the language of Christ/Messiah and God not Son and Father as the basis for supporting that.