Some who work to evangelize Muslims suggest dropping the language of "Father" and "Son" to refer the _________ and the _________ of the godhead. The need for blanks to write the second clause of that sentence might suffice as a tidy illustration of the problems that arise in doing that: (1) It makes it clear that we really have no other clear way of talking about their distinct existence and eternal relationship. (2) It hints that loosing these two expressions means losing the Trinity. (3) It means we lose "our Father" who is the giver of every good gift. (4) It means we lose our elder brother, to whom we are joined as co-heirs of all God offers.
It makes it clear that we really have no other clear way of talking about their distinct existence and eternal relationship. The people proposing that we avoid this language suggest that we must use another expression, so we avoid the stumbling stone of Muslims getting the offensive notion that God the Father sired the Son by sexual relations with a goddess or woman. This is indeed an offensive and deeply pagan notion. But it's not Christian doctrine. And what other language does God's self-revelation allow us but Father and Son for this?
Would we move to the sub-Christian position of Adoptionism? Would we suggest that Yahweh God adopted either a human or a secondary "god" as his "son" and then conferred upon him some measure of divinity? Dropping the Father-Son language seems like the fast track to Christological heresy of one form or another.
Would we forsake familial language entirely?If so, we would at that point begin speaking of something other than what the Scriptures speaks of. That's not even acceptable as exposition--let alone translation. What other relational terms do we have that would convey this eternal relation in the godhead? At best, any substitute suggested might convey a limited aspect of what the relation is. Drop "Father" for "The Almighty"--and then distinguish that title what? Jesus Christ the Lord is The Everlasting Almighty God. Drop "Son" for some expression of messianic royalty? But any legitimate member of the Davidic dynasty carried a messianic title, and that title came by being called "my son" by Yahweh (Ps 2:7; 2Sam 7:14; Ps 89:26-27). Throughout the Old Testament, that title came by divine adoption at their coronation; in Christ, that title came by ontology, he is eternally "the Son."
It hints that loosing these two expressions means losing the Trinity. Really, I fear that losing these two expressions means abandoning orthodox trinitarian theology. Nowhere in the Scriptures does any writer explicitly spell out the trinitarian distinctions and mutual divinity of the three members of the Godhead. We arrive at "the Trinity" from clear and necessary implications deriving from how the members of the Godhead refer to each other. Jesus says, "my Father" (Matt 10:32-33; Matt 11:27); the Father says, "This is my Son" (Matt 3:17). Abandoning familial language means losing the Trinity--and the Church rightly calls that heresy.
It means we lose "our Father" who is the giver of every good gift. When Jesus taught his disciples to pray, he taught the "Our Father" (Matt 6:9). When Jesus taught on prayer, he told his disciples to trust God to give good gifts--like a father does (Matt 11:9-13). In spite of all the titles that a Muslim learns for God, one beloved relational title is missing, "our Father." and oh what a loss that is! Oh what a comfort an assurance that provides believers. Oh what robbery to deny, forgo, or hold off telling the lost that their Father awaits them with open arms.
It means we lose our elder brother, to whom we are joined as co-heirs of all God offers. We gain nothing from God, except in Christ; we're heirs of heaven and earth in Christ. Jesus, the eternal Son, is the inheriting Son (Heb 1:2). Indeed, we become fellow heirs with Jesus the Christ (Rom 8:17). "For every one of Godʼs promises are 'Yes' in him; therefore also through him the 'Amen' is spoken, to the glory we give to God" (2 Cor 1:20).
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Would we move to the sub-Christian position of Adoptionism? Would we suggest that Yahweh God adopted either a human or a secondary "god" as his "son" and then conferred upon him some measure of divinity? Dropping the Father-Son language seems like the fast track to Christological heresy of one form or another.
Would we forsake familial language entirely?If so, we would at that point begin speaking of something other than what the Scriptures speaks of. That's not even acceptable as exposition--let alone translation. What other relational terms do we have that would convey this eternal relation in the godhead? At best, any substitute suggested might convey a limited aspect of what the relation is. Drop "Father" for "The Almighty"--and then distinguish that title what? Jesus Christ the Lord is The Everlasting Almighty God. Drop "Son" for some expression of messianic royalty? But any legitimate member of the Davidic dynasty carried a messianic title, and that title came by being called "my son" by Yahweh (Ps 2:7; 2Sam 7:14; Ps 89:26-27). Throughout the Old Testament, that title came by divine adoption at their coronation; in Christ, that title came by ontology, he is eternally "the Son."
It hints that loosing these two expressions means losing the Trinity. Really, I fear that losing these two expressions means abandoning orthodox trinitarian theology. Nowhere in the Scriptures does any writer explicitly spell out the trinitarian distinctions and mutual divinity of the three members of the Godhead. We arrive at "the Trinity" from clear and necessary implications deriving from how the members of the Godhead refer to each other. Jesus says, "my Father" (Matt 10:32-33; Matt 11:27); the Father says, "This is my Son" (Matt 3:17). Abandoning familial language means losing the Trinity--and the Church rightly calls that heresy.
It means we lose "our Father" who is the giver of every good gift. When Jesus taught his disciples to pray, he taught the "Our Father" (Matt 6:9). When Jesus taught on prayer, he told his disciples to trust God to give good gifts--like a father does (Matt 11:9-13). In spite of all the titles that a Muslim learns for God, one beloved relational title is missing, "our Father." and oh what a loss that is! Oh what a comfort an assurance that provides believers. Oh what robbery to deny, forgo, or hold off telling the lost that their Father awaits them with open arms.
It means we lose our elder brother, to whom we are joined as co-heirs of all God offers. We gain nothing from God, except in Christ; we're heirs of heaven and earth in Christ. Jesus, the eternal Son, is the inheriting Son (Heb 1:2). Indeed, we become fellow heirs with Jesus the Christ (Rom 8:17). "For every one of Godʼs promises are 'Yes' in him; therefore also through him the 'Amen' is spoken, to the glory we give to God" (2 Cor 1:20).
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Location:Mid-flight over the Atlantic
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment