Yes that sounds nice.
I have to leave for the time being though and can continue tomorrow.
You're also welcome to PM me if you like.
Some of these posts may be lengthy but this is where we need to start with understanding the basic problem that man has in trying to conceptualize God.
LINGUISTIC VALENCE
The problem most people have in trying to grasp the concept of the nature of God is that they have not first wrestled with how scripture itself deals with the concept of God. Trying to get our minds wrapped around the concept of God, particularly as it relates to Jesus is a difficult undertaking. The difficulty is in our language use. Linguistic valence refers to the definitions that we attach to words in order to connect language to an idea. The problem that shows up in defining the nature of God is that we connect definitions to human language to help us create a picture of God with which we are comfortable. I offer the following well-known definition as an example. "God is one single unified essence. Yet, within this single unified essence of God are three separate and distinct persons of deity who are one God, each member having his part in the creation and redemption of man" (unknown source). Now, I am not at all sure when or where this definition of God originated, but it is one that I have heard from a number of different sources over the years. While this definition may represent a not altogether invalid understand of the triadic unity it does present three immediate problems.
1. The definition itself; Man is not prone to accept anything on faith. Man feels he must be able to define, explain, and classify a thing before he will accept it. This of course, becomes problematic when we think in terms of the nature of God. It is impossible to reduce God to a linguistic formula.
2. The use of the word ‘unified’. We can only comprehend unity as we see it within the confines of our own human experience, not as it applies to God.
3. The use of the word ‘essence’: The word essence is a good enough word I suppose. I am hard pressed to find a better one, but the way in which we have used this word in relationship to God does not seem to fit the profile of God in scripture. Strictly speaking, essence is that which makes a thing what it is. It is the inward nature of a thing underlying its manifestations. Essence refers to the characteristics and relations of a thing.
In his book THE TIMELESS TRINITY, Roy Lanier Jr. assigns this definition to the triadic unity. "God is one ‘being’ consisting of three persons, one essence, one ‘being’; an undivided essence."
The use of the term God in scripture does not seem to describe a single being as expressed by Mr. Lanier, but a single collective of three beings. Not one being made up of three parts but three beings united in one nature. The word God itself describes a perfect ontological state or quality of existence. God is not who he is, but what he is. Who he is, is Jehovah. What he is should be understood as an anthology of perfect attributes represented in three hypostatic distinctions.
God has never given us anything by which to formulate a picture of him as a spiritual being outside of his intrinsic attributes. What he has given us defines certain aspects of his nature, character, and function. When we talk about the nature of anything, it must be understood bi-camerally. The nature of any object or person is always made up of two parts. The first part is essence. Essence refers to those qualities that make a thing what it is. Take for example a flower. The essence of any flower is those traits that classify it as a flower. A flower is a seed producing plant consisting of four sets of organs - carpels, stamens, petals, and sepals. These traits typically classify the object as a flower. The second part is character. Each flower has its own distinguishing characteristics that define it still further. These characteristics separate it from all other flowers and give it individuality. These would be such traits as structure, type, shape, color, fragrance, type of fruit, and the type of climate and soil it requires. These are all qualities that define what kind of flower it is. Now, if we may be permitted to assign this definition to the nature of God, then the essence of God would be those qualities that make God, God. These would be qualities like Eternal, Self-existing, self-sustaining, Transcendent, All-powerful, All-knowing, All-wise, and Ever-present. The character of God would be those qualities that describe what kind of God he is. He is HOLY, loving, just, righteous, gentle, merciful, and so on. You may prefer to think of them as primary and secondary attributes.
These attributes do not constitute a substance or some type of spiritual equivalent to material form. They represent a quality of existence. This quality of existence is further amplified by what may be regarded as extended attributes that describe what kind of God this is. Both the intrinsic qualities and the extended properties are elements of all three hypostatic distinctions. While each member of the triadic unity seems to constitute some type of spiritual substance, the singularity of the three exists not only in the quality of existence but also in the attributes of their character, not in substance. We can never find a passage that relegates the term God to substance except within the framework of each individual member.
When we try to get our mind wrapped around the concept of a triune God that the scriptures describes as ONE GOD, we typically regard this as a paradox that is beyond the ability of the human mind to grasp or explain, so we simply accept it and move on. Over the past two centuries, four major theological theories have surfaced that have attempted to either explain the unity of one God or to refute or at least minimize the idea of triadic unity altogether. These are Monotheism (which is divided into two camps – Adoptionism and Modalism), Unitarianism, Tritheism, and Trinitarianism. To me, these terms are quite irrelevant. I really do not care what difference or similarities may exist between these four theological diciplines. I am only concerned with trying to understand how the Word of God represents the triadic unity without regard to any human classifications. If I may, I would like to offer a simple explanation that I believe might help us better grasp the idea of the oneness of the triadic unity.
Music is created around the structuring of chords. A chord is a collection of notes that form a harmonic. The ‘c’ cord for example, is a triad consisting of the notes c, e, and g. Each individual note within the triad functions in a specific relationship to the others creating a pleasing sound. These are three separate and distinct notes that function within given parameters yet, they are one chord. We do not have a problem understanding this concept as it relates to something as simple as music, but somehow when we think of God as a triadic ONE, our minds go into melt down. This illustration is by no means without its inadequacies and limitations but it does help us to understand the viability of the oneness of unity. Divine triadic function is a harmonic. It is an arrangement of parts rooted in the nature of God.
Scripture reveals God in three distinct facets. These functions involve intelligent design, active cause, and organization. For now, I will only refer to each of these in terms of his respective position within the triadic structure. I use the idea of position simply to show the functional relationship that each appears to have with the others and to define the role that each has within the triadic structure. The First Position (occupied by the Father) will always appear as the one who represents the idea or the planning. It is also the position of command. The Second Position (that occupied by the Logos) will always be the avenue of communication between the two worlds as well as the causative agent. He will be the one who gives substance to the idea. He takes what is abstract (the idea of the Father) and gives it form and substance. The Third Position (occupied by the Holy Spirit) will always serve as the linking agent. He is the one who brings order to the work of the Second Position. He organizes the work of the Second Position so that it conforms exactly to the idea of the First Position. He shapes a finished product.
These positional functions of each appear to be exclusive. In all of my 40 plus years as a student of scripture, I find it quite interesting that I have been unable to find a single textual example where one member of the Triadic Unity is seen operating in the function of another member. For example, we never seem to find the Third Position functioning as the active cause or the Second Position functioning as the linking agent. Each member of the triadic unity always appears to function within the parameters of his exclusive dynamic.
We attempt to describe God as a being with a spiritual substance that encapsulates three persons. This seems to be the only way we have been able to conceptualize the idea of a triadic ONE. The Hebrew, term for ONE in Deuteronomy 6:4 defines a unique ontological quality, not a numeric essence of being. There are places where some of these may appear to overlap but this does not change the basic parameters of positional function.
I am not sure if there is a better word to be used here than essence, but this emphasizes my point that the nature of God cannot be understood within the parameters of human language. The use of this term is one of our own creation. This word conveys on one level the idea of material existence suggesting form or shape, but this definition does not seem to be expressed in scripture. At the same time, it defines intrinsic qualities and characteristics that may have nothing to do with form, shape, or substance. It often refers to intrinsic attributes that are abstract. For example, one cannot see love. One can only see the evidence of love when it demonstrated in one's conduct. One cannot see kindness. One can only see the effects of kindness. This is how the word essence should be understood in relation to the nature of God. It is important that we do not equate essence with matter, form, or some type of spiritual equivalent to material substance when speaking of God. Remember, we are attempting to use human language to explain what is unexplainable this side of the eternal dimension. There have been many attempts to create models to help us understand the unity of ‘One’ God. I suppose I am no different in this regard. However, we must acknowledge the fact that it is impossible to create a definitive model of something we cannot see. How does one reduce God to a diagram on a piece of paper?
He'll be the perfect King
