tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787690264483599610.post4137096800585799107..comments2017-09-08T09:32:41.442+01:00Comments on Mark Hart (Rector of Nantwich): Living Out the Trinity in the Church of EnglandUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787690264483599610.post-73006224789188817112016-08-11T12:29:06.955+01:002016-08-11T12:29:06.955+01:00A perceptive and helpful analysis of the Living Ou...A perceptive and helpful analysis of the Living Out argument, Mark: thank you. To my mind, the concept of the Trinity is simply a model for our understanding: it's the best explanation the church has been able to come up with for a God revealed and experienced as Father, Son and Holy Spirit; but I'm in no doubt that it falls far short of the transcendent reality. <br /><br />It's a holding place that works for our limited minds and any attempts to draw from it must be provisional at best: to use it as Living Out have tried to is folly.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05709049598918097427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787690264483599610.post-59300201720880787852016-02-15T06:01:15.905+00:002016-02-15T06:01:15.905+00:00Just No.Just No.JCFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14516376500318551838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787690264483599610.post-14374937267085352392016-02-13T22:04:37.619+00:002016-02-13T22:04:37.619+00:00Thanks Mark - I think that some of the aspects you...Thanks Mark - I think that some of the aspects you've touched on show how theology can lead us into worship and awe. I really must read some serious theology this Lent, with serious worship resulting! <br /><br />No I accept that there's no direct link in the text between the statements of mankind being made in God's image (which from my rusty biblical studies I remember is a chiasm, so our being made in God's image is very much emphasised) - and the subsequent statement of God making humans male and female and the subsequent blessing and instruction to be fruitful and increase in number. There is a sense of tension (perhaps 'space' is the better word) that means we should be cautious about rather wooden one-to-one correlations. Nevertheless, of all the comments that the author could have chosen to follow on, it is interesting and surely significant that they choose that particular one. Of course the writer wasn't thinking of same-sex marriage or the issues that we wrestle with today, but there is a sense that these few verses form a lot of our theological landscape, and give a strong connection between the physical and heavenly worlds. <br /><br />I suppose I'm a rather suspicious of arguments that connect God's infinite nature (not to say His grace and love) with what seem to me like a dilution of our physical masculinity and femininity and call to use those for (pro)creative purposes. Yes there are infinite perspectives but let's not draw too far away from the one the Lord has actually given us here. Eaglet2https://www.blogger.com/profile/08990517034926157824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787690264483599610.post-86335049623636693082016-02-13T19:51:09.429+00:002016-02-13T19:51:09.429+00:00Thanks for the response, Peter.
Interestingly, Aqu...Thanks for the response, Peter.<br />Interestingly, Aquinas considered the question of whether any one of the persons of the Trinity could have been made incarnate and concluded that they could but that it was "fitting" for the Son to be incarnate. <br />It is easy to slip into thinking of the Trinity as there being three parts to God, or three individual persons. God is "without parts" (Article 1) and while the Son became incarnate, he was fully God, and it was the whole of God active and present in his life.<br />Augustine said that we use the word "person" not because we know what we are saying but in order not to be reduced to silence. <br />I think the more we grasp that God is not a thing, not an instance of deity, not three instances of deity, not a member of any category, not conceivable as a community of persons, then the more "using" the infinite Trinity as a direct model for human society feels like idolatry.<br /><br />I think it's pushing it to say Gen 1.27 strongly implies that the male-female diversity is integral to being made in the image of God. The text doesn't directly make the link at all. It may be part of it but not the whole image.<br /><br />Your 2D representation is interesting because if you consider most 3D bodies, they can be projected into 2D in many different ways. Add lots - infinite - dimensions - and the variety is endless. Not to say that anything goes, but an illustration of the flawed method.Mark Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966869451684457745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5787690264483599610.post-19359449267497781562016-02-13T13:26:02.509+00:002016-02-13T13:26:02.509+00:00Thank you for this article, Mark - thought provoki...Thank you for this article, Mark - thought provoking. <br /><br />It seem to me that the 'hinge' of your argument (following McCabe) is the idea that Father and Son, both being God, are effectively interchangeable as Persons. To my (admittedly non scholarly) mind that sounds quite a stretch. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God, but different Persons. It wasn't the Father who came to Earth; the Holy Spirit, not Jesus, came at Pentecost; and so on.<br /><br />Given that humanity is made in the image of God, and Gen 1:27 strongly implies that the male-female diversity is integral to that, isn't it reasonable to say that a male-female relationship best captures the dynamic we're looking for? A man and a woman - both human in the way that Father, Son and Spirit are all God; but also different - if you like, a '2D' representation of different Personhood we see within the Godhead. <br /><br />What are your thoughts?Peter Knoreply@blogger.com