Are We Guilty of Neglecting God the Father in our Churches?
- Thread starter Dachaser
- Start date
- Status
I remember noticing that same thing, David- it was part of reforming, for me. I do think certain of the churches miss a fully Trinitarian view.
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
It's interesting that one of the few times Jesus uses a person's name in direct address in the book of John is in context of a discussion somewhat similar to this: the disciples' idea that there is enough distinctness that one could see Jesus apart from the Father. I want to do a fuller study, but I think there are only four such occasions of Jesus using names in direct address in John, and each of them is luminous with a very personal 'knowing and being known'. Here the Father is part of that very intimate communion.
from John 14:
from John 14:
Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.
I have been convicted to do a survey through Jesus and Paul to see just how many times they both refer to the father, and so far, both of them saw Him as being the One to whom we should be praying and also preaching on.
Yes, as Jesus is God Incarnated here on the earth, so when they saw his deeds/words/miracles, was same as if the father were doing all of that.
Although, it still seems that we are neglecting the Father though in the teaching/preaching from and of the scriptures in some fashion.
Last edited by a moderator:
Guido's Brother
Puritan Board Junior
In the tradition I'm from, it's the opposite problem. I've had to try and convince people that they can pray to our Lord Jesus. Many have been told that they're only allowed to pray to God the Father (not God as Father, but the first person of the Trinity). After all, they reason, Christ taught us to pray "Our Father..." So there are different ways a robust Trinitarian spirituality can be evasive in Reformed churches.
Very interesting, as the churches that I have attended over the years always placed their main emphasis upon either Jesus or the Holy Spirit Themselves.
Along with the book of John and Paul's writings, let Christ's words in Psalm 22:22 guide: "I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will praise you." The Psalms are full of the relationship between the Son and the Father. Hebrews 2:12 quotes Psalm 22:22: "For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
11For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me."
11For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me."
Jack K
Puritan Board Doctor
In light of the John 14 passage, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father," my reaction is to dispute the whole idea that worshipping Jesus involves a tradeoff that might mean the Father is underappreciated. When we respect and appreciate the Son, we do the same to the Father.
Furthermore, to delight in Jesus is the best possible way to please the Father, because it is imitation of the Father. It is the most Father-like activity we can engage in. (This point comes via my favorite quote from Owen: "Nothing renders us so like unto God as our love unto Jesus Christ, for he is the principle object of his love; in him doth his soul rest, in him he is always well pleased." -- from Christologia, in Works v. 12.)
Furthermore, to delight in Jesus is the best possible way to please the Father, because it is imitation of the Father. It is the most Father-like activity we can engage in. (This point comes via my favorite quote from Owen: "Nothing renders us so like unto God as our love unto Jesus Christ, for he is the principle object of his love; in him doth his soul rest, in him he is always well pleased." -- from Christologia, in Works v. 12.)
JimmyH
Puritan Board Senior
While it may be considered a 'formula', I adopted Donald Grey Barnhouse's introduction to prayer as my own, "Heavenly Father, we come to Thee through the Lord Jesus Christ, and in Thy Holy Spirit." I always begin prayer with that and if it is a formula, it is nonetheless sincere on my part.
Scottish Presbyterian
Puritan Board Sophomore
We should be careful though not to distribute the nature and attributes of God between the Three Persons. The Son and the Holy Ghost are Persons of perfect justice just like the Father. The Father sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins, and the Holy Spirit applies to us the redemption purchased by Christ. Furthermore, we are sanctified by the will of the Father and by means of the atonement of Christ, and Christ prays to the Father to sanctify His people through His Word.
Not denying the usefulness of the distinction, just pointing out that we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that all Three Persons have the full essence of the Divine Nature, including all the attributes in infinite perfection. And all Three Persons are indispensable actors in the plan of salvation, whether considered narrowly as justification, or more broadly as encompassing sanctification and adoption.
OPC'n
Puritan Board Doctor
Oh ok. I’ll let my pastor know that he is separating the Trinity and he’s a great heretic lol. But in all seriousness he’ll say something like, “we sinned against God who sent his Son to redeem us by his Holy Spirit the Comforter and Worker of righteousness.”
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
Scottish Presbyterian
Puritan Board Sophomore
Of course you no doubt are aware I'm not suggesting that at all, and said the distinction your pastor makes is a useful one. On the point of the thread though, we should not forget the other attributes of the Father - He is not merely a God of justice, He is indispensable to the plan of salvation. I think the answer to the thread's question is yes by the way (EDIT: to clarify, not that this is a problem of "our churches" as might be construed, but that it is a danger Christians generally are liable to and must guard against), and we should reflect more on the love of the Father in electing His people and sending His Son.
Jesus and Paul both seemed to be directing us though to teach and speak on the Father more then many churches currently appear to be doing.
I guess when we speak about any One of them, we must be speaking about all of Them.
I think it’s our church background, David (we seem to have a somewhat similar one).
JimmyH
Puritan Board Senior
I don't understand the Trinity and that used to bother me, until I found I was in good company ;
"Great Doctrines Of The Bible; God The Father, God The Son" Reverend D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones
, page 37 ;
"The first thing we must do, in view of all that we have seen together, is agree to grasp the Bible as our full and final authority in all matters of revelation. Having seen that we cannot get anywhere without the Bible, then the obvious thing to do is to say, 'Very well, I accept the Bible. I don't know anything apart from it. I have no knowledge of God apart from what the Bible tells me. I may theorize, and other people may do the same thing, but I really do not know anything apart from what I find in this book.' So the first decision we must make is that we are going to be, as John Wesley put it, men and women 'of one book'. Here is my only source, my only authority.
But I want to underline this and even emphasise it still further. I must submit myself entirely to the Bible, and that will mean certain things. First, I start by telling myself that when I come to read the Bible and its doctrines, I am entering into a realm that is beyond the reach of my understanding. By definition, I shall be dealing with things that are beyond my power to grasp. The very idea of revelation , in and of itself, I suggest to you, must carry that implication. We are going to try and know God and study the doctrines concerning Him, and it must be the case that these truths are beyond our understanding. If I could understand God, I would be equal with Him. If my mind were able to apprehend and to span the truth about God then it would mean that my mind is equal to the mind of God, and that, of course, is altogether wrong.
For instance, in our next lecture we hope to be dealing with the doctrine of the Trinity. Now there by definition is a doctrine that no one can possibly understand, but let us agree to say that before we come to the doctrine. Let nobody think, however, that this means committing intellectual suicide when we take up the Bible. It simply means that we recognize that there is a limit to reason. We agree with the great French mathematician and philosopher, Pascal, that the supreme achievement of reason is to teach that there is an end and limit to reason. Our reason takes us so far and then we enter into the realm of revelation, where God is graciously pleased to manifest Himself to us.
But now I am anxious to emphasise the second point. It means that we must accept truths where we cannot understand them and fully explain them. Not only must we agree that we cannot, of necessity, understand everything, but also, when we come up against particular doctrines and truths, we must accept them if they are in he Bible, irrespective of the fact that we can or cannot understand them. Now I rather like to think of faith in that way. I am not sure but that the best definition of faith we can ever arrive at is this: faith means that men and women decide quite deliberately to be content only with what they have in the Bible, and that they stop asking questions."
"Great Doctrines Of The Bible; God The Father, God The Son" Reverend D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones
, page 37 ;
"The first thing we must do, in view of all that we have seen together, is agree to grasp the Bible as our full and final authority in all matters of revelation. Having seen that we cannot get anywhere without the Bible, then the obvious thing to do is to say, 'Very well, I accept the Bible. I don't know anything apart from it. I have no knowledge of God apart from what the Bible tells me. I may theorize, and other people may do the same thing, but I really do not know anything apart from what I find in this book.' So the first decision we must make is that we are going to be, as John Wesley put it, men and women 'of one book'. Here is my only source, my only authority.
But I want to underline this and even emphasise it still further. I must submit myself entirely to the Bible, and that will mean certain things. First, I start by telling myself that when I come to read the Bible and its doctrines, I am entering into a realm that is beyond the reach of my understanding. By definition, I shall be dealing with things that are beyond my power to grasp. The very idea of revelation , in and of itself, I suggest to you, must carry that implication. We are going to try and know God and study the doctrines concerning Him, and it must be the case that these truths are beyond our understanding. If I could understand God, I would be equal with Him. If my mind were able to apprehend and to span the truth about God then it would mean that my mind is equal to the mind of God, and that, of course, is altogether wrong.
For instance, in our next lecture we hope to be dealing with the doctrine of the Trinity. Now there by definition is a doctrine that no one can possibly understand, but let us agree to say that before we come to the doctrine. Let nobody think, however, that this means committing intellectual suicide when we take up the Bible. It simply means that we recognize that there is a limit to reason. We agree with the great French mathematician and philosopher, Pascal, that the supreme achievement of reason is to teach that there is an end and limit to reason. Our reason takes us so far and then we enter into the realm of revelation, where God is graciously pleased to manifest Himself to us.
But now I am anxious to emphasise the second point. It means that we must accept truths where we cannot understand them and fully explain them. Not only must we agree that we cannot, of necessity, understand everything, but also, when we come up against particular doctrines and truths, we must accept them if they are in he Bible, irrespective of the fact that we can or cannot understand them. Now I rather like to think of faith in that way. I am not sure but that the best definition of faith we can ever arrive at is this: faith means that men and women decide quite deliberately to be content only with what they have in the Bible, and that they stop asking questions."
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
Our recognition of the Father in Christ does often seem to be a problem, like it was for Phillip. But Phillip's problem with recognition was not addressed by changing focus so much as realising that all the truth and grace seen in Jesus had been all along the truth and grace of the Father -- that he had really (and intimately) known the Father all along in walking with Jesus.
My own background was Trinitarian but in a way that parceled up my vision. Whether or not it was intended, I mostly learned from revelation I saw in Jesus that the Father needed to be placated. I thought of the image of Son to Father (unconsciously) as complementary rather than exact. The Father as fundamentally wrathful toward me. When I saw that the self sacrifice of Jesus was the perfect expression of the Father's whole disposition toward me -- it really did change my life (gradually, but really). This was no slender shadow of grace thrown across a raging current of anger -- a shadow to which I seemed always to be somehow imperfectly aligned. The whole current in which I swim or flounder, wherever I am, is the Father's grace. Wherever I ever witnessed the goodness of Jesus, I had seen my Father.
The whole work of the Spirit is to show us Jesus and fashion us like Him -- and we know the Father in knowing Jesus. Jesus is the one who came to be our brother, and bring us back to God. The focus on Jesus may lack recognition of the other two persons, but it seems exactly as it ought to be? As it was meant to be to our particular ways of apprehending.
My own background was Trinitarian but in a way that parceled up my vision. Whether or not it was intended, I mostly learned from revelation I saw in Jesus that the Father needed to be placated. I thought of the image of Son to Father (unconsciously) as complementary rather than exact. The Father as fundamentally wrathful toward me. When I saw that the self sacrifice of Jesus was the perfect expression of the Father's whole disposition toward me -- it really did change my life (gradually, but really). This was no slender shadow of grace thrown across a raging current of anger -- a shadow to which I seemed always to be somehow imperfectly aligned. The whole current in which I swim or flounder, wherever I am, is the Father's grace. Wherever I ever witnessed the goodness of Jesus, I had seen my Father.
The whole work of the Spirit is to show us Jesus and fashion us like Him -- and we know the Father in knowing Jesus. Jesus is the one who came to be our brother, and bring us back to God. The focus on Jesus may lack recognition of the other two persons, but it seems exactly as it ought to be? As it was meant to be to our particular ways of apprehending.
I think that the main problem I have been experiencing is that Jesus is like one of us, as he is indeed God, but fully man, so can be related with. The Spirit indwells us, and was raised up in Pentecostal church. The Father Himself is always a distant Person to me.
Jack K
Puritan Board Doctor
Well, once upon a time I wrote a book, Show Them Jesus, and the very title suggests I think it's good to emphasize Christ. I made an argument similar to Heidi's above, that the way we best see God is by looking at Jesus.
Near the end of a chapter about the value of teaching kids to see Jesus by noticing details in the gospel accounts, I wrote this:
I'm open to critique, but I still think that argument holds. An emphasis on Christ does not neglect the Father. Rather, it helps us know him better.
Near the end of a chapter about the value of teaching kids to see Jesus by noticing details in the gospel accounts, I wrote this:
This person, this Jesus, is God. Many kids misunderstand God. They know he’s supposed to be loving and helpful. They also know he’s supreme and powerful, requiring worship and obedience. All that sounds troubling—like God is moody, or bossy, or claims to care but has a dark side. They aren’t eager to worship him. They aren’t even sure they like him.
But what if Jesus is right when he says “whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9)? Could it be true that if we look at what Jesus is like, we see what God is like?
Think about Jesus. He isn’t anything like the moody, distant God many kids imagine. In Jesus, God’s absolute authority and his utter love come together—and the result is “Wow!” In lesson after lesson kids need to see a thousand wonder-filled details that make up the character of Jesus—until they realize, with a gasp, that they have seen the face of God. And God is so, so good.
At that point, the idea that God has a dark side crumbles. Never again will they fall for any lesser view of God. They know better—because they know Jesus.
But what if Jesus is right when he says “whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9)? Could it be true that if we look at what Jesus is like, we see what God is like?
Think about Jesus. He isn’t anything like the moody, distant God many kids imagine. In Jesus, God’s absolute authority and his utter love come together—and the result is “Wow!” In lesson after lesson kids need to see a thousand wonder-filled details that make up the character of Jesus—until they realize, with a gasp, that they have seen the face of God. And God is so, so good.
At that point, the idea that God has a dark side crumbles. Never again will they fall for any lesser view of God. They know better—because they know Jesus.
I'm open to critique, but I still think that argument holds. An emphasis on Christ does not neglect the Father. Rather, it helps us know him better.
I appreciate what you stated here, but my concern comes back to the fact that both Jesus and Paul seemed to emphasized the Father more so then even Jesus Himself.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
9/10 prayers I hear are addressed to God the Father. I don't think we are neglecting him.
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
David, I grew up in fundamentalism -- and I think that there is a latent if not often explicit idea of the Father as primarily wrathful in the American fundamentalist heritage. The first lie we were told and believed is that God is not really good, and it's not surprising that it even eats into our understanding of the gospel in various ways.
I will pray that all the years you've spent focusing on Jesus will come home to you, too, in the revelation of the Father. That you will know how near He has always been in what you've seen of Jesus. It has been wonderful to me to be learning that.
Jack that is exactly what I was trying to say. But better.
Yes. I only began going to church as a teenager, and quickly progressed from Southern Baptist to non-denominational charismatic. I can attest to your same experience, that in those churches there was a real lack of clarity about the work of God the Father, and his disposition both toward his elect and even his relationship with his Son in His humanity. When I finally read through the book of John years later, it was a great joy to see and come to understand better. David's OP got some push-back and qualifying of what he was trying to say, but the fact is that in the charismatic world and others, "Jesus" is emphasized (or even in the worst practice, "the Holy Spirit"), and I use quotes because there was so often an unbiblical view of the Persons of Christ and the Holy Spirit, and an unbiblical view of God the Father (who wasn't often mentioned). So I don't know how to convey this in language that won't draw all the pushing back against something that's not being said, but will just say that I know what you mean, David! and believe it will be eye-opening and rewarding to study as you intend to do.
Regi Addictissimus
Completely sold out to the King
Despite my tremendous love for and high views of Christ, I feel like I have the opposite struggle most of the time. I am constantly in prayer throughout my day with God. I am trying to find a balance in my life with communing with the Father, Son, and Spirit. Although, I do petition God based on the promises of Christ and through the power of the Spirit but I truly want to grow deeper in my communion with Christ. As soon as I free up time from my Second Temple historical studies, I am going to reread Owens "Communion with God," Alexander Grosse's "A True and Speedy Use of Christ," Philip Henry's "Christ All in All," and John Brown of Wamphray's "Christ: the Way, the Truth, and the Life."
OPC'n
Puritan Board Doctor
Who is CMJ?Well, this is CMJ that we are talking about after all, so, yes...
- Status
Similar threads
