Union with Christ and the Trinity

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
I have just noticed that salvation is spoken of as "union with Christ" rather than union with the whole Godhead in the Westminster.

Letham, on answering the question, "Could any of the Three Persons of the Trinity have become incarnate?" answers that it was appropriate for the Son to become incarnate.

Then Letham says, "Therefore, since salvation consists of union with Christ, the incarnation of the Son, rather than the Father or the Holy Spirit, is appropriate."

What are your thoughts and do you have any other links or quotes that develop this thought further?
 
It was, of course, particularly appropriate that the Son should have become incarnate. Who better to speak the truth in human voice than the uncreated Word

Union with Christ should not be thought of as exclusive to union with the Godhead: "he that hath seen me, hath seen the Father." But it is quite clearly Christ, the Second Person, who is the mediator. He was united to our nature, that we might be united to him and in him be made complete. Furthermore, Christ as the last Adam is the head of a new humanity; we are legally and spiritually one, such that what he receives from God, we also receive. If one is looking for a reason for the incarnation of the 2nd person, I think the need for a 2nd Adam ought to be considered.
 
"To set the ground of imputation in a clearer light, we must observe […] that the elect, before the righteousness of Christ is imputed to them for justification of life, are so closely united to him by faith, as to be one body, and which is still more indivisible, or indissoluble, one spirit with him, nor are they only united, but he and they are one, and that by such an unity or oneness, in which there is some faint resemblance of that most simple oneness, whereby the divine persons are one among themselves. But in virtue of this union or oneness, which the elect have with Christ by faith, they are accounted to have done and suffered whatever Christ did and suffered for them.” (Herman Witsius, Economy of the Covenants 1, p. 403, para 31)
 
One person pointed out the following:

There is no eternal submission of the Son to the Father. A link between mode of subsistence and incarnation is different from Mediatorial submission reflecting a divine submission.


Can anyone unpack that for me?
 
One person pointed out the following:

There is no eternal submission of the Son to the Father. A link between mode of subsistence and incarnation is different from Mediatorial submission reflecting a divine submission.



Can anyone unpack that for me?


Although I am not quite certain why they pick Mediatorial submission (I'm sure it is to give a more precise statement because Christ is the Mediator which is a divine requisite), I would say that there seems to be an idea from men like Grudem or others that states Christ (in some way) is eternally in submission to the Father. Now, however you take that phrase, we should note that in no way is He eternally in submission in the Godhead. This would give rank in the intr-trinitarian sense. WLC 9 states the following:
Q. 9. How many persons are there in the Godhead?
A. There be three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one true, eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory; although distinguished by their personal properties.

Yet, there is a sense where there is some sort of logical ladder or workings within the trinity, to which we would make the distinction in their personal properties:
Q. 10. What are the personal properties of the three persons in the Godhead?
A. It is proper to the Father to beget the Son, and to the Son to be begotten of the Father, and to the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Son from all eternity.

In reference to Heb. 1, Matthew Henry mentions the passage, "It was said of Christ, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee (Ps. ii. 7).... may refer to his eternal generation". Berkhof, in his Systematic, notes the following:
The eternal generation of the Son. The personal property of the Son is that He is eternally begotten of the Father (briefly called "filiation"), and shares with the father in the spiration of the Spirit. The doctrine of the generation of the Son is suggested by the Biblical representation of the first and second persons of the Trinity as standing in the relation of Father and Son to each other. Not only do the names "Father" and "Son" suggest the generation of the latter by the former, but the Son is also repeatedly called "the only-begotten," John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; Heb. 11:17; 1 John 4:9. Several particulars deserve emphasis in connection with the generation of the Son: (1) It is a necessary act of God. Origen, one of the very first to speak of the generation of the Son, regarded it as an act dependent on the Father's will and therefore free. Others at various times expressed the same opinion. But it was clearly seen by Athanasius and others that a generation dependent on the optional will of the Father would make the existence of the Son contingent and thus rob Him of His deity. Then the Son would not be equal to and homoousios [of the same essence] with the Father, for the Father exists necessarily, and cannot be conceived of as non-existent. The generation of the Son must be regarded as a necessary and perfectly natural act of God. This does not mean that it is not related to the Father's will in any sense of the word. It is an act of the Father's necessary will, which merely means that His concomitant will takes perfect delight in it. (further reading here:http://www.bible-researcher.com/eternal-generation.html)

and

The following definition may be given of the generation of the Son: It is that eternal and necessary act of the first person in the Trinity, whereby He, within the divine Being, is the ground of a second personal subsistence like HIs own, and puts this second person in possession of the whole divine essence, without any division, alienation, or change. (Berkhof)
 
Just for clarification: That post wasn't to necessarily give an answer, but to help think through the issue. There are men more capable then myself to answer this adequately. This was just the ramblings of a man to help think about the issue. :)
 
Reading Torrance's The Trinitarian Faith right now. Recommend you get this book Perg.

What's fascinating to me is how notions of the distance between the Creator and the creature are not novel concepts but were very much part of the exegetical and theological discussions of the patristics who laid the foundations for our trinitarian theology. They understood the necessity that the Mediator should be man (a creature) in order that we would have point of contact with the Godhead. They even saw God's free (not necessary) act of Creation as being tied to the same free decision that the Son would become man. I think Ruben has done a nice job of quoting the basic thought of the "fitting-ness" that the Son should be the Mediator.

One of the other fascinating things I'm learning is how reticent these theologians were to speculate and that they understood the basic limitations of human conceptions and language. They believed they were heirs of a Trinitarian faith and that many of these things were to be worshipped and adored rather than merely discussed (and especially speculated about).

They were fearful to take up the use of language but they felt compelled to do what they otherwise might not do precisely because the impious were introducing error. They had to take up what they knew was inadequate in order to protect against error rather than being able to positively say everything as if the concepts could be exhausted. In the process, they did not merely adopt the metaphysical tools of the day but brought their Christian faith to the metaphysical tools and actually transformed metaphysical concepts in the process. In other words, the Christian faith changed philosophical concepts as it adopted them (and one might say improved them so that we all benefitted in other sciences).

That's all to say that I may not have answered your question but am simply more appreciative of the exegetical and theological depth of the men who laid the foundations for our Trinitarian theology.
 
Reading Torrance's The Trinitarian Faith right now. Recommend you get this book Perg.

What's fascinating to me is how notions of the distance between the Creator and the creature are not novel concepts but were very much part of the exegetical and theological discussions of the patristics who laid the foundations for our trinitarian theology. They understood the necessity that the Mediator should be man (a creature) in order that we would have point of contact with the Godhead. They even saw God's free (not necessary) act of Creation as being tied to the same free decision that the Son would become man. I think Ruben has done a nice job of quoting the basic thought of the "fitting-ness" that the Son should be the Mediator.

One of the other fascinating things I'm learning is how reticent these theologians were to speculate and that they understood the basic limitations of human conceptions and language. They believed they were heirs of a Trinitarian faith and that many of these things were to be worshipped and adored rather than merely discussed (and especially speculated about).

They were fearful to take up the use of language but they felt compelled to do what they otherwise might not do precisely because the impious were introducing error. They had to take up what they knew was inadequate in order to protect against error rather than being able to positively say everything as if the concepts could be exhausted. In the process, they did not merely adopt the metaphysical tools of the day but brought their Christian faith to the metaphysical tools and actually transformed metaphysical concepts in the process. In other words, the Christian faith changed philosophical concepts as it adopted them (and one might say improved them so that we all benefitted in other sciences).

That's all to say that I may not have answered your question but am simply more appreciative of the exegetical and theological depth of the men who laid the foundations for our Trinitarian theology.

Just bought the book right now! Thanks for the recommendation.

Do you think Torrance and Letham agree? And how do they compare to Augustine's De Trinitate? I am reading both Letham and Augustine right now.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Patrick. I'm not arguing that we need to read Torrance without a critical eye but he does have a unique way of approaching the topic of the Trinity with a blend of historical theology and dogmatics with specific reference to how the believing community formed the doctrine. He's one of many that I'm planning on reading
 
Incidentally, reading the Torrance work, it helps me to see where the EO begin to see salvation as ontological. I'm still wrestling with the thoughts but it seems both sides (East and West) recognize the Creator/creature divide. We maintain an archetypal/ectypal distinction but our point of contact is Covenant with Christ as Mediator.
 
Do you think Torrance and Letham agree? And how do they compare to Augustine's De Trinitate? I am reading both Letham and Augustine right now.
See:
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/59033-Torrance-vs-The-Reformed

Been trying to obtain Muller's The Barth Legacy: New Athanasius or Origen Redivivus? A Response to TF Torrance, The Thomist 54 (4):673-704 (1990), through my account for the journal, but the web site is all hosed up at present.

Thanks...that was interesting. I just can't wrap my head around Eastern Orthodoxy.
 
Do you think Torrance and Letham agree? And how do they compare to Augustine's De Trinitate? I am reading both Letham and Augustine right now.
See:
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/59033-Torrance-vs-The-Reformed

Been trying to obtain Muller's The Barth Legacy: New Athanasius or Origen Redivivus? A Response to TF Torrance, The Thomist 54 (4):673-704 (1990), through my account for the journal, but the web site is all hosed up at present.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/65t0pesmup0zvfi/Barth Legacy and Torrance - Muller.pdf?dl=0
 
Do you think Torrance and Letham agree? And how do they compare to Augustine's De Trinitate? I am reading both Letham and Augustine right now.
See:
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/59033-Torrance-vs-The-Reformed

Been trying to obtain Muller's The Barth Legacy: New Athanasius or Origen Redivivus? A Response to TF Torrance, The Thomist 54 (4):673-704 (1990), through my account for the journal, but the web site is all hosed up at present.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/65t0pesmup0zvfi/Barth Legacy and Torrance - Muller.pdf?dl=0

Woohoo!!! Thanks.
 
I would skip Torrance and go straight to Turretin's Topic, The One and Triune God, in vol. 1 of the Institutes. Then I would suggest reading Muller's PRRD, vol. 4, on the subject.

On this particular issue Turretin wrote, “This distinction of the persons may be principally observed in two things: (1) within (intus), in the persons themselves; (2) without (foris) in their operations. First, as to the persons, with respect to order, because the Father is proposed in Scripture as the first person, who is from no one; the Son as the second, who is from the Father; and the Holy Spirit as the third who is from the Father and the Son. With respect to that order a certain preeminence (hyperoche) is attributed by theologians to the Father, not indeed as to essence and deity (because the persons being consubstantial [homoousioi] the highest equality exists among them), but as to mode (both in subsisting and in working): in subsisting, because both as to order and as to origin, he precedes the Son and the Holy Spirit(as having no principle either of order or of origin, but existing from himself – not positively, but negatively). In this sense, he is called by the fathers "the fountain of deity" (pegaia theototos), not absolutely as to existence, but respectively as to the communication of it. In working (operando), because the order of operating follows the mode of subsisting. Hence the Father operates from himself, but the Son from the Father.”

In brief, the order of operation follows the order of subsistence. That seems to be what Letham is referring to when he speaks of it being appropriate for the Son to become incarnate.
 
Last edited:
I would skip Torrance and go straight to Turretin's Topic, The One and Triune God, in vol. 1 of the Institutes. Then I would suggest reading Muller's PRRD, vol. 4, on the subject.

On this particular issue Turretin wrote, “This distinction of the persons may be principally observed in two things: (1) within (intus), in the persons themselves; (2) without (foris) in their operations. First, as to the persons, with respect to order, because the Father is proposed in Scripture as the first person, who is from no one; the Son as the second, who is from the Father; and the Holy Spirit as the third who is from the Father and the Son. With respect to that order a certain preeminence (hyperoche) is attributed by theologians to the Father, not indeed as to essence and deity (because the persons being consubstantial [homoousioi] the highest equality exists among them), but as to mode (both in subsisting and in working): in subsisting, because both as to order and as to origin, he precedes the Son and the Holy Spirit(as having no principle either of order or of origin, but existing from himself – not positively, but negatively). In this sense, he is called by the fathers "the fountain of deity" (pegaia theototos), not absolutely as to existence, but respectively as to the communication of it. In working (operando), because the order of operating follows the mode of subsisting. Hence the Father operates from himself, but the Son from the Father.”

In brief, the order of operation follows the order of subsistence. That seems to be what Letham is referring to when he speaks of it being appropriate for the Son to become incarnate.

Okay thanks. Looking these up now.


Ugh, Muller is so expensive...
 
Thanks Patrick. I'm not arguing that we need to read Torrance without a critical eye but he does have a unique way of approaching the topic of the Trinity with a blend of historical theology and dogmatics with specific reference to how the believing community formed the doctrine. He's one of many that I'm planning on reading
I agree. I have profited much from Torrance as well.
 
Hello. My very first post...hopes this helps:
Currently reading Zaspel’s BB Warfield (page 197): “To speak of subordination or derivation, we must note the distinction between the economic Trinity and the ontological or immanent Trinity….. we must not assume that the order by which the triune God works toward the salvation of his people reflects the “necessary” relation of the three persons to one another. The order of “Father, Son, and Spirit” always has in view the operations of God in redemption.

It may be natural to assume that a subordination in modes of operation rests on a subordination in modes of subsistence; that the reason why it is the Father that sends the Son and the Son that sends the Spirit is that the Son is subordinate to the Father, and the Spirit to the Son. But we are bound to bear in mind that these relations of subordination in modes of operation may just as well be due to a convention, an agreement, between the Persons of the Trinity—a “Covenant” as it is technically called—by virtue of which a distinct function in the work of redemption is voluntarily assumed by each.
 
What are your thoughts and do you have any other links or quotes that develop this thought further?

See also this little gem from Witsius:

Sacred Dissertations on the Apostle’s Creed (II:5-6):
As to the question, Why the Son, and not the Father or the Spirit, assumed the human nature, it cannot be answered in a more satisfactory manner than by resolving it into the good pleasure of the Divine counsel, which is always distinguished by the most consummate wisdom. Yet, in consequence of the manifestation of that counsel to us in the Gospel, faith observes without difficulty, that it is most suitable to the Divine perfections, and most worthy of them. It is proper, in particular, 1st, That man should be regenerated and created anew, by the same person by whom he was created at first. 2dly, That he who is the personal Word of God, should publish to us those words of God in which he promised to address us in the last days, and which none but the Lord could speak. 3dly, That he who is the Son of God by nature, should make us the sons of God by grace. 4thly, That the glorious image of God should be restored within us by him who is “the image” of the Father, and “the express image of his person.” In fine, the unbounded love of the Father could not be more brightly demonstrated, than by giving his only-begotten Son to us, and for us.

One of the things that seems to have been lost as a functional part of our theology and indeed devotion is what Witsius first remarks: there is no more satisfactory answer than the good pleasure of the divine counsel.
 
What are your thoughts and do you have any other links or quotes that develop this thought further?

See also this little gem from Witsius:

Sacred Dissertations on the Apostle’s Creed (II:5-6):
As to the question, Why the Son, and not the Father or the Spirit, assumed the human nature, it cannot be answered in a more satisfactory manner than by resolving it into the good pleasure of the Divine counsel, which is always distinguished by the most consummate wisdom. Yet, in consequence of the manifestation of that counsel to us in the Gospel, faith observes without difficulty, that it is most suitable to the Divine perfections, and most worthy of them. It is proper, in particular, 1st, That man should be regenerated and created anew, by the same person by whom he was created at first. 2dly, That he who is the personal Word of God, should publish to us those words of God in which he promised to address us in the last days, and which none but the Lord could speak. 3dly, That he who is the Son of God by nature, should make us the sons of God by grace. 4thly, That the glorious image of God should be restored within us by him who is “the image” of the Father, and “the express image of his person.” In fine, the unbounded love of the Father could not be more brightly demonstrated, than by giving his only-begotten Son to us, and for us.

One of the things that seems to have been lost as a functional part of our theology and indeed devotion is what Witsius first remarks: there is no more satisfactory answer than the good pleasure of the divine counsel.

Wow... thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top