Trinity question

[Billy Cox]

Since almost all of the doctrine of the Trinity centers around the question of "who is Jesus?", how did the Holy Spirit come to be seen as a distinct divine person?

Did the Church Fathers have to graft another person onto the Godhead so as to not play into the clutches of Platonists, for whom everything exists in dualities??

On the flipside of this question, I don't hear much about the Holy Spirit in Nazarene circles. When I do hear the Spirit mentioned it's usually circumspect, as in "We believe in the Holy Spirit", end of topic. Are we Nazarenes functional dualists with regard to God?

Or is it like our belief in plenary inspiration, in which we believe in the inspiration of 66 books, but we largely ignore 50 of them. (hint: this is where you can boast about preaching the entire Bible because you use the lectionary) :)

[Billie Goodson]

Since almost all of the doctrine of the Trinity centers around the question of "who is Jesus?", how did the Holy Spirit come to be seen as a distinct divine person?



It would seem that John 14:16 would almost require "another" divine being. The word "allos" translated as "another" could be construed to carry an idea of equivalence with Jesus. If he had said simply, "I will pray that the Father will give you a Helper", then perhaps that connotation would not be there. Was this because of their experience with the Spirit at Pentecost? Given the context of the writing, it seems that could play into the discussion.


"I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever;


On the flipside of this question, I don't hear much about the Holy Spirit in Nazarene circles. When I do hear the Spirit mentioned it's usually circumspect, as in "We believe in the Holy Spirit", end of topic. Are we Nazarenes functional dualists with regard to God?

I think he does seem to take a back seat in how many talk about their faith. Then again, in some theologies, He practically does not exist. Some just want to move from Salvation to Glorification, which seems to really give the Spirit a limited time of involvement.

[Jim Chabot]

Did the Church Fathers have to graft another person onto the Godhead so as to not play into the clutches of Platonists, for whom everything exists in dualities??

Jesus said he would send us a Parakeet!:smilies1722:

[Rich Schmidt]

Since almost all of the doctrine of the Trinity centers around the question of "who is Jesus?", how did the Holy Spirit come to be seen as a distinct divine person?

Did the Church Fathers have to graft another person onto the Godhead so as to not play into the clutches of Platonists, for whom everything exists in dualities??

This is a historical question, not a question of personal observation or opinion... which means most of us aren't equipped to answer it off the top of our heads. Unfortunately, that includes me.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

All great questions, Billy. Thanks for the thread. I don't know the history, that's for someone else. But I do believe we need to come to better faith understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit today.

After all, Jesus Christ ain't here. He's ascended.


Or is it like our belief in plenary inspiration, in which we believe in the inspiration of 66 books, but we largely ignore 50 of them. (hint: this is where you can boast about preaching the entire Bible because you use the lectionary) :)

The lectionary hardly uses the whole of the Bible. It's actually a sometimes stated complaint against it.

[Steven Martinez]

The long and short of the first part of the question is that there was not really that much doubt about how the Holy Spirit and the Trinity. The question was who was Jesus and what was the relationship between the Father and the Son. That took about 300 or so years and then once they settled that they moved on with the Spirit. The relationship between the Spirit and the Son and the Spirit with the Father were pretty much solved with the relationship between Father and Son. In other words, once the Church agreed that the Father and Son always existed and were of the same nature but different persons, then the Spirit is simply added into the Divine Community.
As far as the present day issue with regards to the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church, the issue to me is two fold. First is a constant struggle to emphasize Penal Substitutionary atonement and second is a lack of theological understanding of a doctrine of holiness. Penal Substitution makes the entire focus of salvation between Jesus and the Father. Holiness, sadly is an often talked about doctrine but seldom is it actually discussed and preached upon outside of a legal framework of individual piety. We often attribute the power and authority side of the holiness coin to Pentecostalism and therefore shun the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church.

[Ryan Scott]

For me the question has always been about, "who decided the Spirit was a person?" I don't know that I have the best answer, but I'm satisfied on a basic level by the way Jesus spoke of the Comforter - very personal.

[Todd Erickson]

One of the interesting things about coming from a Dispensationalist background is how we were all taught that the Holy Spirit didn't do anything actively until Jesus left and Pentecost happened, but in reality, we can see the Hand of the Spirit throughout the bible...a pillar of smoke by day and a column of flame by night, speaking extensively through various prophets and men sent by prophets (In II Kings, a man is sent by Elisha to say something to a King, a short sentence, and instead an entire speech pours out of him that could only have come from God, and this man is not by any means a prophet), speaking through asses...

The Spirit is, by some measure, mischievous, and quirky, and always doing something slightly different than what may have been expected. This is not the sort of thing that is easy for stolid, humorless minded preaching. *grin* The spirit defies definition far more than the Father (Judge, Creator, Parent) or Jesus (Sacrifice, Word, Lord) and so tends to go unfocused...he covers up for "the other % we couldn't pin to the other two". But that may be precisely the point...

[Billy Cox]

This is a historical question, not a question of personal observation or opinion... which means most of us aren't equipped to answer it off the top of our heads. Unfortunately, that includes me.

Sure. I just thought somebody might know the history.

[Billy Cox]

All great questions, Billy. Thanks for the thread. I don't know the history, that's for someone else. But I do believe we need to come to better faith understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit today.

After all, Jesus Christ ain't here. He's ascended.

I suspect that revisiting/revitalized our doctrine of the Holy Spirit is the best counterpoint to fundamentalism and would perhaps staunch some of the outflow of younger people from what they see as a cerebral, stodgy denomination to nondenominational or charismatic churches where God's power seems to be abundant.

I perceive that fundamentalists elevate the authority of Scripture to the exclusion of any other source of divine authority, including the Holy Spirit.


The lectionary hardly uses the whole of the Bible. It's actually a sometimes stated complaint against it.

Yes, I just thought I would tweak the lectionary people. Maybe the lectionary doesn't make a whistle stop at every book, but at least it doesn't spend all of it's energy re-treading the well-worn paths in Genesis (1-12), Matthew, John, Romans, Ephesians, and James.

[Roland Hearn]

We talk about the Holy Spirit quite alot at NewStart. After all He is the executive of the Godhead.

[Billy Cox]

We talk about the Holy Spirit quite alot at NewStart. After all He is the executive of the Godhead.

I contend that the Holy Spirit doesn't mesh well with systematic theology, and so we make him/her stand outside the tent.

[Rich Schmidt]

I contend that the Holy Spirit doesn't mesh well with systematic theology, and so we make him/her stand outside the tent.

Hmm... It's been a while since I've read any systematic theologies... but the Holy Spirit fit right into the ones I remember... In fact, it was an integral part of them...

What systematic theology are you thinking of that doesn't "mesh well" with the Holy Spirit?

[Hans Deventer]

What systematic theology are you thinking of that doesn't "mesh well" with the Holy Spirit?

[internal communication] Hans, shut up. Hans, you don't really need to answer. Hans, you actually can just leave this alone [/internal communication]

[Rich Schmidt]

[internal communication] Hans, shut up. Hans, you don't really need to answer. Hans, you actually can just leave this alone [/internal communication]

Feel free to chime in if you'd like, Hans. I quite enjoyed the systematic theologies that I read back in my college and seminary days. The one by Pannenberg especially stands out in my memory. Anyway, the Spirit wasn't just "tacked onto" these systems of theology but was an integral part of them. If you removed the Spirit, they no longer functioned or made sense. That's why I'm confused by Billy's comment.

Perhaps he meant that "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." I.e., the Spirit can't be contained in the neat categories of a "systematic theology." Is that the idea here?

[Hans Deventer]

Feel free to chime in if you'd like, Hans.

If you want...... I don't believe the Bible was ever intended to be turned into a systematic theology, and that doing so inevitably distorts more than it solves. So to me, the very idea of systematizing the Scriptures, as if they were a code to be cracked, is a mistake. Against that background I read Billy's remark. It's not just that the Spirit cannot contained in the neat categories of a "systematic theology", is that the entire revelation of God cannot be contained in the neat categories of a "systematic theology" without distorting it, because the philosophy that underlies the system will be paramount in the systematizing, rather than the Scriptures themselves.

Now for the record, this does NOT mean we can't use our minds when reading the Scriptures. It just relates to the goal of the Scriptures versus the modern attempt to understand everything by systematizing it.

[John Reilly]

We talk about the Holy Spirit quite alot at NewStart. After all He is the executive of the Godhead.

Actually the Holy Spirit is an "Emerging Nazarene"

[Roland Hearn]

If you want...... I don't believe the Bible was ever intended to be turned into a systematic theology, and that doing so inevitably distorts more than it solves. So to me, the very idea of systematizing the Scriptures, as if they were a code to be cracked, is a mistake. Against that background I read Billy's remark. It's not just that the Spirit cannot contained in the neat categories of a "systematic theology", is that the entire revelation of God cannot be contained in the neat categories of a "systematic theology" without distorting it, because the philosophy that underlies the system will be paramount in the systematizing, rather than the Scriptures themselves.

Now for the record, this does NOT mean we can't use our minds when reading the Scriptures. It just relates to the goal of the Scriptures versus the modern attempt to understand everything by systematizing it.

Hans I agree to a point. The evidence reflects that no matter how thorough an attempt is made to make a cohesive perspective of faith things always seem sightly amis. However, I don't think it is possible to not try and draw things together in a way that makes sense. Any attempt to do so is a systematic theology. We human being seem to love to have straw men that we can attack and blame for the troubles we see in whatever context we are looking at. It is my observation that systematic theology has been one of those things in the last couple of decades. Systematic theology isn't the final word but it is an important part of being human and attempting to understand the divine.

I would suggest that the one component of systematic theology that probably can work pretty well is an understanding of the Holy Spirit. In fact nothing that is known about God is known independent of the Holy Spirit. We can theorise all we want about the Father and the Son but it is the Holy Spirit that makes such theorising possible.

BTW my last observation is that once you start to make love the central theme of understanding the scriptures you are forced into a systmatic thrology because you must by definition find love at work in all places if you are to find it at work in any and when one has done so one has found the Holy Spiirt.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans I agree to a point. The evidence reflects that no matter how thorough an attempt is made to make a cohesive perspective of faith things always seem sightly amis. However, I don't think it is possible to not try and draw things together in a way that makes sense. Any attempt to do so is a systematic theology.

May I humbly disagree? As Wikipedia says, "In the context of Christianity, systematic theology is a discipline of Christian theology that attempts to formulate an orderly, rational, and coherent account of the Christian faith and beliefs." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_theology)

This not simply trying to "draw things together in a way that makes sense". We all do that, I don't think that can, nor should be avoided. But a systematic theology attempts to encompass the entire Christian faith and beliefs and present them in a systematic and logically coherent way. In my view, that is impossible without distortion.


We human being seem to love to have straw men that we can attack and blame for the troubles we see in whatever context we are looking at. It is my observation that systematic theology has been one of those things in the last couple of decades.

Perhaps the above paints a more nuanced picture?


BTW my last observation is that once you start to make love the central theme of understanding the scriptures you are forced into a systmatic thrology because you must by definition find love at work in all places if you are to find it at work in any and when one has done so one has found the Holy Spirit.

And as admirable as I think that attempt is, I believe it cannot be found everywhere. I can't see love in all of the Scriptures, nor can I see it in all of the world's history. Too often, we see through a glass darkly, and the statement that "God is love", is a statement of faith rather than the logical conclusion from a study of history. I believe God is love because of (mainly) Jesus. But at times, that belief is almost balanced by what I see around me. A couple of years ago, I read from a pastor who said that he is a believer, but there are times that it is 51/49. I can understand that. I think you can as well.

[Roland Hearn]

May I humbly disagree? As Wikipedia says, "In the context of Christianity, systematic theology is a discipline of Christian theology that attempts to formulate an orderly, rational, and coherent account of the Christian faith and beliefs." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_theology)

This not simply trying to "draw things together in a way that makes sense".

Well if it isn't trying to draw things together in a way that makes sense - heaven help us. I'm pretty confident that most systematic theologians would desire that their work makes sense and has in fact "drawn things together" otherwise what in the world does this mean: orderly, rational, and coherent account of the Christian faith and beliefs. I know that my informal language leaves plenty of room for tinkering but I was not making an attempt to be definitive. I know that not all people that attempt to "draw things together" are working on a systematic theology but certainly systematic theologies are an attempt to "draw things together." A square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square.


We all do that, I don't think that can, nor should be avoided. But a systematic theology attempts to encompass the entire Christian faith and beliefs and present them in a systematic and logically coherent way. In my view, that is impossible without distortion.

Of course I conceded that but I know you don't believe that scripture stands alone without interpretation. Your suggestion that a systematic theology must reflect the philosophies and understandings of the writer goes without saying - however I know if you thought about it more you want to have your life hanging on the idea that a scriptural underpinning of our understanding does not suffer from the same fate. If the scripture was self evident and beyond misinterpretation we probably would not have a theology discussion board we would simply have a statement with a large number of agreements.




And as admirable as I think that attempt is, I believe it cannot be found everywhere. I can't see love in all of the Scriptures, nor can I see it in all of the world's history. Too often, we see through a glass darkly, and the statement that "God is love", is a statement of faith rather than the logical conclusion from a study of history. I believe God is love because of (mainly) Jesus. But at times, that belief is almost balanced by what I see around me. A couple of years ago, I read from a pastor who said that he is a believer, but there are times that it is 51/49. I can understand that. I think you can as well.

Ok, show me where I said it can be found everywhere. I think I said it can be found at work everywhere and I'll grant that may be a hasty statement that needs more thought but my emphasis was the opening line and that is that it is the "central theme" of scripture. A lot of the places that we struggle to see love are the very places where we are considering our understanding of scriptural inerrancy. In the things that we see as contrary to love we are indeed asking ourselves questions about context, about perspectives, about cultural overlays and about errors. That is because we struggle with the idea of God not being love in all situations. Love has become an important component of understanding God and it preconditions the way we read scripture.

[Billy Cox]

Hmm... It's been a while since I've read any systematic theologies... but the Holy Spirit fit right into the ones I remember... In fact, it was an integral part of them...

What systematic theology are you thinking of that doesn't "mesh well" with the Holy Spirit?

Any system that depends on logical consistency will have difficulty containing the Holy Spirit. So by definition, every systematic theology will have to keep the Holy Spirit in a pet crate...maybe speaking glowingly about the Spirit or mystery or paradox, but not to the extent that the house of cards is threatened.

[Billy Cox]

Actually the Holy Spirit is an "Emerging Nazarene"

Actually, Jesus was a Nazarene...at least until the Nazarenes ran him out of town. :)

[Hans Deventer]

Of course I conceded that but I know you don't believe that scripture stands alone without interpretation. Your suggestion that a systematic theology must reflect the philosophies and understandings of the writer goes without saying - however I know if you thought about it more you want to have your life hanging on the idea that a scriptural underpinning of our understanding does not suffer from the same fate. If the scripture was self evident and beyond misinterpretation we probably would not have a theology discussion board we would simply have a statement with a large number of agreements.

Sure! Which is exactly why I believe my faith in Jesus is more important than my nice little theologies. I've been changing them through the years too often anyway. As they are now, some I deem useful, some are certainly not. I guess the proof ot the pudding is in the eating: Do they lead to more trust in Christ, or not?


Ok, show me where I said it can be found everywhere. I think I said it can be found at work everywhere and I'll grant that may be a hasty statement that needs more thought but my emphasis was the opening line and that is that it is the "central theme" of scripture.

Oh, I agree there.


A lot of the places that we struggle to see love are the very places where we are considering our understanding of scriptural inerrancy. In the things that we see as contrary to love we are indeed asking ourselves questions about context, about perspectives, about cultural overlays and about errors. That is because we struggle with the idea of God not being love in all situations. Love has become an important component of understanding God and it preconditions the way we read scripture.

I agree again. I really don't have a problem with a central theme. I actually believe there is one and love has a lot to do with it. But I'm not building a system around it. And the reason that I don't, is that before you know it, you start to interpret Scripture based on your system, and that is what I would want to avoid.

At some point I want to be able to say, I do believe that God is love, but for the life of me, I can't see it here if I'm honest. As Margaret Becker used to sing, "God's not afraid of you honesty". That's not in the Bible but it probably should be :)

228

[Rich Schmidt]

Any system that depends on logical consistency will have difficulty containing the Holy Spirit. So by definition, every systematic theology will have to keep the Holy Spirit in a pet crate...maybe speaking glowingly about the Spirit or mystery or paradox, but not to the extent that the house of cards is threatened.

I think you and I may have read different systematic theologies.

[Billy Cox]

I think you and I may have read different systematic theologies.

So aside from a glib retort, do you have any defense for the tendency of extended logical proofs (a.k.a. systematic theologies) to reduce the Holy Spirit to predictable, measurable propositions?

If you can recommend a systematic theology that does justice to the wild, untamed nature of Spirit, I am willing to be shown otherwise. I have a seminary background, so it doesn't have to be diluted for layperson consumption.

[Todd Erickson]

Hmm... It's been a while since I've read any systematic theologies... but the Holy Spirit fit right into the ones I remember... In fact, it was an integral part of them...

What systematic theology are you thinking of that doesn't "mesh well" with the Holy Spirit?

I think that what Billy may (possibly) mean is that the version of the Spirit found within the Systematic Theologies that he's been exposed to in his seminary experience seem to neuter or confine the Spirit...the Spirit works like an internal agent producing results, but is not, perhaps, an actual person...simply an expression of power that enables the system.

Or not.

[Rich Schmidt]

So aside from a glib retort, do you have any defense for the tendency of extended logical proofs (a.k.a. systematic theologies) to reduce the Holy Spirit to predictable, measurable propositions?

If you can recommend a systematic theology that does justice to the wild, untamed nature of Spirit, I am willing to be shown otherwise. I have a seminary background, so it doesn't have to be diluted for layperson consumption.

That "glib retort" was my attempt to stay out of it.

Like I said earlier, it's been a long time (over 10 years) since I've read a systematic theology. So perhaps it's my memory that's the problem. Or perhaps it was the context in which I was reading them. But I don't remember ever thinking that those theologies were in any way reducing or taming the Spirit.

Roland has already expressed a perspective on this that's fairly similar to my own. I was a bright kid, and Dr. Craig Keen's emphasis at ONU on loving God with one's mind (in addition to one's heart, soul, and strength) really resonated with me. Some of the times I felt closest to God were when I was studying these things, caught up in wonder at how the transcendent God has come beyond close in Jesus Christ and is drawing us to himself by/in his Spirit. I guess I'm hearing in your statements a tendency toward shutting down one's mind, because hey, why bother puzzling over how it all fits together, when it's an impossible task? (That may not be what you're saying, but that's what I'm hearing.)

My memories of systematic theologies aren't of "extended logical proofs." My memories are of intelligent people bringing together what Scripture says with what we know of life and the world to form, as Hans defined, "orderly, rational, and coherent account[s]." That's part of what it means, in my opinion, to love God with your mind.

[Todd Erickson]

The trick with systematic theologies are knowing where the edges are, beyond which the Spirit continues, rather than treating them as walls beyond which the Spirit cannot exist. Some people are very good at that...some people are very afraid of that.

[Steven Martinez]

I think the dilemma here is the same dilemma of the first 6 centuries which is how do we define or explain a person who seems to be known only by what he does? In other words, the biblical witness reveals to us a Person in the Holy Spirit who makes Himself known by the works He does in the lives of people. For example, we have a Spirit who hovers over the creation, sustaining it and a Spirit who is breathed into the nostril of humanity, giving it life. There is no way to capture the Spirit in a box to dissect the Spirit. In physics we say that at any given time we can experience an object as it is or we can measure the impact the object has in the world but not both at the same time. The classic example is a thrown object, like a ball. We can either focus on the ball itself and the rest of the picture is blurry or out of focus or we can focus on the impact around the ball while the ball remains blurry or out of focus. Therefore it is impossible to define or capture wild and untamed because by definition those terms conclude that something is beyond grasp. Systematics must then define the Spirit by the visible works of the Spirit in life of believers and the Church. Dr Noble's recent article in Holiness Today (http://www.ncnnews.com/nphweb/html/ht/article.jsp?id=10009630) reveals how we as humans respond to a such a transcendent God. It is my opinion then, that the best systematics are those who best capture the wild and untamed moments of the Church as they exercise purity and power in the world around them as we journey toward the coming kingdom. So going with Panneberg and Moltmann and their various works is probably a best approach to finding a more dynamic approach to the Holy Spirit. At the same time, Daniel Migliore's Faith Seeking Understanding (2nd edition) is a contemporary systematic text that pushes the envelope further in the work of the Holy Spirit as a challenge to the Church in a contemporary setting of violence, injustice and prejudice.

[Todd Erickson]

I own a copy of Faith Seeking Understanding, but have never been able to make my way through it, even when it was our classroom text. One of these days I'll hopefully force myself to do it. :P

[Billy Cox]

I guess I'm hearing in your statements a tendency toward shutting down one's mind, because hey, why bother puzzling over how it all fits together, when it's an impossible task? (That may not be what you're saying, but that's what I'm hearing.)

Actually my skepticism regarding systematic theology is how much whitewash seems to be required in order to neatly categorize and reconcile various theological convictions. It's not a 'why-bother' approach but I can see why it might appear so. On the contrary, I think that systematic theology comes to some conclusions that are 'too easy'...and it seems that other theologians spend considerable time pointing out the logical inconsistencies in religious equations published by their colleagues.


My memories of systematic theologies aren't of "extended logical proofs." My memories are of intelligent people bringing together what Scripture says with what we know of life and the world to form, as Hans defined, "orderly, rational, and coherent account[s]." That's part of what it means, in my opinion, to love God with your mind.

I think that with the decline of modernism, systematic theology is in decline. For that, I am not sad because the life cycle of most theological systems is that they begin with an exploration of spiritual truth, followed by illumination of spiritual truth, and then the theological system takes on a life of its own and becomes truth in its own right.

There's more to say, but I'll have to come back to it later. Let's just say that 'orderly rational and coherent' presuppositions about God and about faith may actually be alien constructs. Maybe loving God with our mind includes acknowledging that we might not be able to nail everything down, smooth out every rough edge, and round off every corner.

[Billie Goodson]

Maybe loving God with our mind includes acknowledging that we might not be able to nail everything down, smooth out every rough edge, and round off every corner.

I honestly thought that was a given.

There seems to be a confusion of terms. Are you talking about systematic or dogmatic theology?

[Steven Martinez]

I own a copy of Faith Seeking Understanding, but have never been able to make my way through it, even when it was our classroom text. One of these days I'll hopefully force myself to do it. :P

Well the 2nd edition is way better then the first. I had trouble reading through the 1st edition but the 2nd edition was hard for me to put it down.

[Billy Cox]

I honestly thought that was a given.

There seems to be a confusion of terms. Are you talking about systematic or dogmatic theology?

Taken in context with the other things that I said, it is far from a given. And since nobody these days talks about 'dogmatic' theology, I am talking about systematic theology.

[Hans Deventer]

Roland has already expressed a perspective on this that's fairly similar to my own. I was a bright kid, and Dr. Craig Keen's emphasis at ONU on loving God with one's mind (in addition to one's heart, soul, and strength) really resonated with me. Some of the times I felt closest to God were when I was studying these things, caught up in wonder at how the transcendent God has come beyond close in Jesus Christ and is drawing us to himself by/in his Spirit. I guess I'm hearing in your statements a tendency toward shutting down one's mind, because hey, why bother puzzling over how it all fits together, when it's an impossible task? (That may not be what you're saying, but that's what I'm hearing.)

Perhaps you should try to listen better! (Chances are, I need to listen better as well). :)

If you feel like I'm one who's "shutting down his mind", I would be quite surprised. Been accused of a lot but not yet of that one. It's definitely not what I intend to do. But I do reject that the goal is "puzzling over how it all fits together", and the reason is because I do not believe God meant the Scriptures to be some kind of jigsaw puzzle for us to figure out. As if this were some kind of game He's playing with us. And the one who finishes the puzzle wins. That very idea, in my view, is mistaken and hence leads to mistaken views in systematic theologies. Because when we try to create "orderly, rational, and coherent account[s]" of what isn't an "orderly, rational, and coherent account", we cannot but distort by definition.

So I think our task is far more modest. We are indeed to be the one "who meditates on his law day and night", but not in order to solve a riddle, to crack a code. But in order to get to know the One who through feeble and fallible people, expressed His message of salvation, and ultimately, through the Son. For me, John 20:31 is a crucial verse when it comes to the Scriptures: "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

The issue as I see it is the goal, Rich. To love God with you mind is to get to know Him. It's not to solve Biblical riddles, though we should certainly study the Scriptures, learn about the cultures and times in which they were written and generally try to understand what the authors (and the Author) meant.

I once heard Brian McLaren explain that you can analyse a frog, dissect it till the smallest parts. And you learn a great deal. But you've also killed it. I think we can learn more from the Scriptures, and its Author, if we don't attempt to cast it into a mould. And love God with our minds better.

[Rich Schmidt]

Perhaps you should try to listen better! (Chances are, I need to listen better as well). :)

If you feel like I'm one who's "shutting down his mind", I would be quite surprised. Been accused of a lot but not yet of that one. It's definitely not what I intend to do. But I do reject that the goal is "puzzling over how it all fits together", and the reason is because I do not believe God meant the Scriptures to be some kind of jigsaw puzzle for us to figure out. As if this were some kind of game He's playing with us. And the one who finishes the puzzle wins. That very idea, in my view, is mistaken and hence leads to mistaken views in systematic theologies. Because when we try to create "orderly, rational, and coherent account[s]" of what isn't an "orderly, rational, and coherent account", we cannot but distort by definition.

So I think our task is far more modest. We are indeed to be the one "who meditates on his law day and night", but not in order to solve a riddle, to crack a code. But in order to get to know the One who through feeble and fallible people, expressed His message of salvation, and ultimately, through the Son. For me, John 20:31 is a crucial verse when it comes to the Scriptures: "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

The issue as I see it is the goal, Rich. To love God with you mind is to get to know Him. It's not to solve Biblical riddles, though we should certainly study the Scriptures, learn about the cultures and times in which they were written and generally try to understand what the authors (and the Author) meant.

I once heard Brian McLaren explain that you can analyse a frog, dissect it till the smallest parts. And you learn a great deal. But you've also killed it. I think we can learn more from the Scriptures, and its Author, if we don't attempt to cast it into a mould. And love God with our minds better.

I don't disagree with anything you've said here, Hans... except perhaps your description of what is going on in systematic theology. Perhaps instead of "puzzling over" I should have said "mulling over" or "reflecting on." (And you might note that I never said this "puzzling over" was the goal in any way.)

I'm not talking about using the Scriptures as a puzzle or riddle. When I mentioned puzzling over how it all fits together, the "it all" was everything we know and think we know -- about God, the world, etc. I mentioned Pannenberg earlier simply because that's one of the few "systematic theologies" I own and can remember reading... and his goal was to show how God encompasses all truth. He wasn't cutting up Scripture into propositions and putting them together like a puzzle into some kind of system. He included what we know about the world from science, for example... which necessarily means that his "system" is limited and temporary and would eventually need to be replaced. The goal was to show how it all coheres / holds together / makes sense in God, and only in God.... as opposed to some kind of godless worldview that thought God didn't fit with the other things we know to be true about the world.

Guys, I'm not some systematic theology buff. I'm not one who feels the need to neatly pigeonhole everything. I only stepped into this conversation because of the implications I was hearing in some of the statements being made.

Billy, I agree with you that we shouldn't ever "whitewash" difficulties or allow the system to "take on a life of its own." This is one reason I said that maybe we've read different systematic theologies. Or perhaps it has to do with the contexts in which we've been exposed to them. My main memories of systematic theology are from Olivet, studying under Craig Keen. And, of course, I studied lots and lots of theology at NTS... but in neither of those cases do I remember theology being used as trying to neatly pigeonhole and categorize everything. It was an exploration. It was prayer. It was worship.

[Billy Cox]

Guys, I'm not some systematic theology buff. I'm not one who feels the need to neatly pigeonhole everything. I only stepped into this conversation because of the implications I was hearing in some of the statements being made.

I understand that openly questioning the value of systematic theology sounds alot like anti-intellectualism or a polemic against the academy. My primary learning in systematic theology was with Rob Staples at NTS and none of what I am saying is a rejection of his teaching or his approach. He certainly did not teach systematic theology as though it was magical cure-all that would make all paths straight and all young women attractive and fertile. ;)

If I am reacting to anything, it is to broader evangelical trends that don't jive so well with a more generous, dynamic approaches common to Wesleyans. The fact that the Nazarene world is heavily 'intermarried' with evangelicalism and its accompanying Reformed sensitivities, means that we could be seduced by the notion that bulletproof doctrine can save the world.


Billy, I agree with you that we shouldn't ever "whitewash" difficulties or allow the system to "take on a life of its own." This is one reason I said that maybe we've read different systematic theologies. Or perhaps it has to do with the contexts in which we've been exposed to them. My main memories of systematic theology are from Olivet, studying under Craig Keen. And, of course, I studied lots and lots of theology at NTS... but in neither of those cases do I remember theology being used as trying to neatly pigeonhole and categorize everything. It was an exploration. It was prayer. It was worship.

I perceive (and so I could be wrong) that there has been a sea-change in the denomination, with Olivet at the epicenter...perhaps part of the reason why Craig Keen is at Azusa Pacific now. (?) Perhaps also why the denomination keeps sending former Olathe College Church pastors to the BGS.

[Billie Goodson]

I thought this article was interesting when I read it a few weeks ago.

http://www.thomasweinandy.com/systematic.pdf

It is kind of what I was referencing with my glib comment about dogmatic philosophy.

I thought this quote of his was significant in the statements I see Hans making -- perhaps making me more sympathetic (or accepting) of his statements.


Moreover, again because a proper act of faith is absent, some Christian systematic theologians have filtered the content of faith through a philosophical or cultural prism that distorts the Gospel as it has been traditionally proclaimed and doctrinally understood. Thus, what the Christian systematic theologian is doing is not intellectus fidei, that is, the elucidating and deepening of the auditus fidei, but the establishing of a new and often entirely different “faith.” The “faith” content of such systematic theology differs in kind, then, from the “faith” content of the traditional Christian Gospel. Actually, it could hardly be termed “a faith” since what the systematic theologian now proposes as the Christian faith is grasped not through in act of faith in divine revelation, but through a comprehensive act of human knowing. The Gospel is reduced to some form of merely human philosophical insight or knowledge. Christianity becomes
Gnosticism.

I think in reading this you have to keep in mind that he is talking about some, not all systematic theologians. But, I wonder if he does accurately describe the "some" to which he speaks.

Personally, I am a lover of systematic theology. It sets the basis, or the starting point. From there, when I wonder afar, I am able to hopefully return and ensure my course was not too wrong. I guess I look at is as that "last known position" in orienteering that I can return to if I become disoriented.

[Roland Hearn]

If I am reacting to anything, it is to broader evangelical trends that don't jive so well with a more generous, dynamic approaches common to Wesleyans. The fact that the Nazarene world is heavily 'intermarried' with evangelicalism and its accompanying Reformed sensitivities, means that we could be seduced by the notion that bulletproof doctrine can save the world.




Ok, now we are getting somewhere. With this I agree. There is plenty of effort among systematic theologians to close down debate but that is not a Wesleyan tendency, or at least it shouldn't be. I am with Rich on this - my experience with systematic theology was not a sense of reducing God but of grappling with God. I have always had a sense of the limitations of systematic theology but was quite comfortable with the way they were originally presented to me which was, "this is a limited perspective and should open a door on exploration not be the final word." There are people of incredible intelligence that spend years of their lives thinking through the issues and writing their thoughts down, I don't think we should just dismiss that with pejorative uncorroborated statements. I think we should take what is given and keep thinking. But a systemised way of thinking about the issues has a tendency to push you to think about things you would not have if you did so with just a wandering mind. Anyone that reads a systematic theology and says "Now I know it all," probably isn't a person that would fit in well with most theologians I have read, certainly the ones from the theological stream I value which has a strong lean toward theology being a dynamic process not a set way of thinking.

[Hans Deventer]

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. With this I agree. There is plenty of effort among systematic theologians to close down debate but that is not a Wesleyan tendency, or at least it shouldn't be. I am with Rich on this - my experience with systematic theology was not a sense of reducing God but of grappling with God. I have always had a sense of the limitations of systematic theology but was quite comfortable with the way they were originally presented to me which was, "this is a limited perspective and should open a door on exploration not be the final word." There are people of incredible intelligence that spend years of their lives thinking through the issues and writing their thoughts down, I don't think we should just dismiss that with pejorative uncorroborated statements. I think we should take what is given and keep thinking. But a systemised way of thinking about the issues has a tendency to push you to think about things you would not have if you did so with just a wandering mind. Anyone that reads a systematic theology and says "Now I know it all," probably isn't a person that would fit in well with most theologians I have read, certainly the ones from the theological stream I value which has a strong lean toward theology being a dynamic process not a set way of thinking.

Agreeing with that you are writing, I can't help but wonder, what would than be the difference with other forms of theology? Surely there is no form of theology that wants to be non-logical or incoherent. How would you define systematic theology and its goal, over against for instance biblical theology? I'm getting this feeling that the entire discussion is merely about the meaning of the concept "systematic theology" and since we have different ideas about that concept, we don't agree. It seems to me that if we were talking about the same thing, there would actually be no or hardly any difference of opinion.

[Eric Vail]

Sure! Which is exactly why I believe my faith in Jesus is more important than my nice little theologies. I've been changing them through the years too often anyway. As they are now, some I deem useful, some are certainly not. I guess the proof ot the pudding is in the eating: Do they lead to more trust in Christ, or not?

Please excuse me for not reading all the way to the end of the thread before commenting. When I read this I was reminded of a sermon that Oliver Philips gave in response to the announcement that our mission was to make christlike disciples in the nations. He questioned repetitively "Which Christ do we mean?" or "Whose Christ?"

I assume when we say that faith in Christ is more important, we already have in mind some particular things about that one in whom we are believing. We would probably get ruffled if someone else says they believe in Christ too, but their Christ was of a drastically different nature. Who we say that one is ("theology") cannot be separated from our faith in that one. I would also argue that there are three key facets that need to be kept in balance for a healthy faith: rightly ordered/aimed passions, properly developed understanding, and properly ordered/aimed practices.

[Eric Vail]

I think the dilemma here is the same dilemma of the first 6 centuries which is how do we define or explain a person who seems to be known only by what he does? In other words, the biblical witness reveals to us a Person in the Holy Spirit who makes Himself known by the works He does in the lives of people. For example, we have a Spirit who hovers over the creation, sustaining it and a Spirit who is breathed into the nostril of humanity, giving it life. There is no way to capture the Spirit in a box to dissect the Spirit. In physics we say that at any given time we can experience an object as it is or we can measure the impact the object has in the world but not both at the same time. The classic example is a thrown object, like a ball. We can either focus on the ball itself and the rest of the picture is blurry or out of focus or we can focus on the impact around the ball while the ball remains blurry or out of focus. Therefore it is impossible to define or capture wild and untamed because by definition those terms conclude that something is beyond grasp. Systematics must then define the Spirit by the visible works of the Spirit in life of believers and the Church. Dr Noble's recent article in Holiness Today (http://www.ncnnews.com/nphweb/html/ht/article.jsp?id=10009630) reveals how we as humans respond to a such a transcendent God. It is my opinion then, that the best systematics are those who best capture the wild and untamed moments of the Church as they exercise purity and power in the world around them as we journey toward the coming kingdom. So going with Panneberg and Moltmann and their various works is probably a best approach to finding a more dynamic approach to the Holy Spirit. At the same time, Daniel Migliore's Faith Seeking Understanding (2nd edition) is a contemporary systematic text that pushes the envelope further in the work of the Holy Spirit as a challenge to the Church in a contemporary setting of violence, injustice and prejudice.

I like Migliore's work and have used it in the classroom. However, I don't think he, Pannenberg, or Moltmann have gone far enough when it comes to the Spirit. They are all (like much of the Western tradition) still too binitarian; all the action happens between the Father and the Son, and the Spirit's role is to apply (or draw us into) what has already been accomplished.

If you want to read some theology that gets us past the tradition's binitarianism and gives us more imagination of what to do with the Spirit (beyond being an awkward apendage to the Trinity), I would look at theologians like Michael Welker and Lyle Dabney. These two did their studies under Moltmann. Dabney critiqued Moltmann for being another in the line of Luther who claimed to view the persons of the Trinity in light of the cross, yet failed. Moltmann actually thanked Dabney for his critique and thought Dabney was right in the direction Dabney pushed his pneumatology.

Dabney, D. Lyle. “‘Justified by the Spirit’: Soteriological Reflections on the Resurrection.” In Starting with the Spirit. Edited by Gordon Preece and Stephen Pickard. Hindmarsh. Sydney, Australia: Australian Theological Forum, 2001.

———. “Naming the Spirit: Towards a Pneumatology of the Cross.” In Starting with the Spirit. Edited by Gordon Preece and Stephen Pickard. Hindmarsh. Sydney, Australia: Australian Theological Forum, 2001.

———. “The Nature of the Spirit: Creation as a Premonition of God.” In Starting with the Spirit. Edited by Gordon Preece and Stephen Pickard. Hindmarsh; Sydney, Australia: Australian Theological Forum, 2001.

———. “Pneumatologia Crucis: Reclaiming Theologia Crucis for a Theology of the Spirit Today.” Scottish Journal of Theology 53, no. 4 (2000): 511-524.

———. “Starting with the Spirit: Why the Last Should Now Be First.” In Starting with the Spirit. Edited by Gordon Preece and Stephen Pickard. Hindmarsh. Sydney, Australia: Australian Theological Forum, 2001.


In my own work I utilize some of Dabney's work and push him on a few points; see chapter 5 at http://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/5/.

[Steven Martinez]

Thanks Eric, I was just trying to grasp something that is a start. I think we can agree that the reality is that the Church is not yet there in having a full theological discourse on the Holy Spirit but it is my opinion that the peopled mentioned were trying to move it forward. Thank you for providing another voice who seems to be following those lines and able to progress beyond their limitations.

[Eric Vail]

Pneumatology is one area within systematics that has been hot for the past 20-30 years, as has interest in the Trinity. Folks are looking both forward and backwards on the issues. For example, I am looking forward to when Michel Barnes publishes his historical investigation of early pneumatology. He is looking at the various pneumatologies of Second Temple Judaism and how they were adopted/adapted within the early church (including within our NT).

I think you mentioned that the hot question in the first centuries of the church was Christ, the relationship of the Father and the Son. In the midst of the slew of councils and credal statements made in the fourth century, the accompanying theological treatises focus intently on making sense of the Son. In reading the works on the Trinity during that time, so often the examples are all about the Father and Son. Then the author will say, and this is true of the Spirit as well. However, the theological imagination is not uterly Trinitarian. It is no wonder that Augustine makes of the Spirit the gift/love shared between the Father and Son. Later in Thomas the Spirit is considered to be uterly passive. The West never fully recovered from its early focus on the Father and Son.

There are some fantastic works on the Spirit in the midst of the 4th century debates that dominated. Didymus the Blind wrote one. Also, there is a work by Niceta Remensiana (sp?). He probably has one of the most full-bodied pneumatologies of that era. I'm of the opinion that he took good notes on Didymus' arguments.

In the 4th-5th centuries, one of the most telling signs of how stongly someone felt that the distinct persons were fully divine was to assert that X is Creator. So often you will hear theologians say explicitly that the Son is Creator, therefore the Son is truly/fully divine. I believe you have to get to Didymus/Niceta before you will hear anyone so explicitly say that the Spirit is Creator. It took Augustine all the way to his final few years before he explicitly will say the Spirit is Creator (affirming boldly the Spirit's full divinity). If I remember right Contra Max is one of the two places he finally says it.

Yes, theologians would say "and the Spirit" throughout the debates about the Son. However, their pneumatologies were underdeveloped, if not timid. We need to reflect more, in the present, how far reaching the implications of our stunted pneumatology reach in our thinking/tradition.

[Hans Deventer]

Please excuse me for not reading all the way to the end of the thread before commenting. When I read this I was reminded of a sermon that Oliver Philips gave in response to the announcement that our mission was to make christlike disciples in the nations. He questioned repetitively "Which Christ do we mean?" or "Whose Christ?"

I assume when we say that faith in Christ is more important, we already have in mind some particular things about that one in whom we are believing. We would probably get ruffled if someone else says they believe in Christ too, but their Christ was of a drastically different nature. Who we say that one is ("theology") cannot be separated from our faith in that one. I would also argue that there are three key facets that need to be kept in balance for a healthy faith: rightly ordered/aimed passions, properly developed understanding, and properly ordered/aimed practices.

True, but at the same time we should recognize that we don't possess the absolute truth on Jesus. Of course I cannot help but believe in Jesus as I understand Him to be revealed in the Scriptures. But I also recognize that those beliefs are to a large extent shaped by my theologies.

Peter Rollins has a nice parable. A man dies and goes to heaven. However, there he finds that the one on the throne is actually Lucifer, who quickly explains that his revolt succeeded and that he may still enter heaven and be with him, or go to hell and be with Jesus. And the question of course is, would we still want to be with Jesus? What I am seeking is a faith that says "yes" to that question, no matter what.