From: markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: John 1:1, Luke 1:30,34,35, the divinity of Jesus, etc.
Date: 30 Jul 92 07:36:14 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <Jul.28.02.50.26.1992.24691@dartagnan.rutgers.edu> ricko@ee.uts.edu.au (Rick Jelliffe) writes:

>(Hans Urs van Balthazar gives something like this:) God the Father is God as 
>perfect (total) lover. God the Son is the perfectly (totally) beloved,
>(made neccesary by the Father being the pefect lover). The perfect love they 
>have is the the Holy Spirit. All in all, God is Love. His perfection and 
>infinity demand a trinity, with him as subject, object and verb: otherwise he 
>could not be perfect, and would need something else to love, or to be love by, 
>or to demonstrate his love. But he needs nothing, he is perfect. 
>
>
>There is but one God. If he needed anything else, that thing would be in a sense
>equal to him, which would mean two Gods. The trinity explains how
>there can be only one God, but yet a God who is Love. Christians 
>believe that the God the Son took on human flesh as Jesus.
>
>
>-ricko

Let me just intervene here and say that although the above "sounds" nice,
it is actually contrary to the belief in the trinity.  A belief in the
trinity includes recognizing God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy
Spirit as three distinct persons of one Godhead.  Saying that the Holy 
Spirit is the love shared between the Father and Son is denying the
personhood of the Holy Spirit and equating the Holy Spirit to some type
of feeling, or emotion, or whatever.  I'm afraid that I've heard this
same analogy before and find fault with it.  Hans Urs van Balthazar
is unfamiliar to me but I believe is wrong in this analogy.

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my
ways, saith the Lord.  For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."
(Isaiah 55:8,9).

The trinity, although taught in scripture, can not be totally
understood by the human mind.  How can three be one?  What is
the actual relationship?  How could Jesus the Son of God yet man
have a different will than God the Father?  There are other
Biblical doctrines that are paradoxes.  For example, how could
God choose those who are to be saved and yet also allow us to
freely come to Him (we choose Him)?  {Please don't try to answer
this on the net...there are several so-called "answers" that I
am aware of, all incorrect.}  

Problems usually come when man, in his finite state, tries to
"reason" everything out.  This usually leads to false conclusions.
Not everything has to be understood as to "why".  What we should
be concerned with is "what".  What does God's word say about
something?  We shouldn't always be concerned with why.  I'm sure
there will be differing opinions than this.  That's okay.  You
be the judge and remember to measure everything (even what I say)
by the word of God. (Does the Bible teach that the Holy Spirit
is the love between the Father and Son?  No.  Then don't speculate.)

-Mark (Isaiah 12:2)

[As you may know, Eastern and Western approaches to these issues are
somewhat different.  This sounds like an Eastern critique of Western
views.  The view quoted from Balthazar is an updated version of
Augustine's relational model.  Augustine often consider the
prototypical Western view.  Eastern models generally emphasize the
distinction of the persons a bit more, and particularly are concerned
with the personhood of the Holy Spirit.  While I agree with the
overall approach quoted from Balthazar -- as anyone who has looked at
my FAQ's probably knows -- I do see that at least as summarized above
it does give the Holy Spirit sort of short shrift.  If you make the
Spirit simply the love between Father and Son, you seem to leave
little room for the real personal existence of the Spirit.  For those
who still want to take this basic approach, you might want to
associate the Spirit with the presence of the Father with the Son -- a
presence that is itself personal.

I have no problem with people who want to limit themselves to Biblical
language.  However unfortunately we run into people who see radically
different things in that language.  Eventually some of us feel a need
to make a more systematic attempt to understand its implications, in
order to deal with claims of groups like the Arians.  (In the 20th
Cent., of course the groups involved would be different.)  Indeed the
complaint above about how the Holy Spirit is being treated is itself
based on some theoretical understandings of Biblical implications for
the Trinity.

--clh]