CharlieJ
Puritan Board Junior
I really like Horton's The Christian Faith, but I came across a paragraph that doesn't make any sense to me. Horton is explaining divine impassibility:
There are a number of items in there that concern me.
First, if we assign impassibility only to the essence, not to the persons, then the attribution of impassibility becomes meaningless. If Horton is right that even human nature is impassible, then we aren't really saying anything by saying that God's essence is impassible.
Second, don't the trinitarian and christological controversies assumethe impassibility, not only of the essence, but of the persons. Isn't that what caused the controversies in the first place? My understanding of Chalcedon is that the eternal Word is impassible, but the humanity assumed by it is passible. Thus, Jesus, who is God, suffered and died, but only according to his humanity. Horton's articulation seems to contradict the metaphysical assumptions behind Chalcedon.
Third, I'm uncomfortable ascribing statements such as "God is love" to the divine essence rather than the persons. Such a view seems dangerously close to a "quaternity" in which the divine essence is a substratum underlying the persons. That tilts more toward "the Trinity which shares God" than Augustine's "the Trinity which is God" (Trinitas quae Deus est).
Do other Reformed theologians articulate the Trinity the way Horton does here?
---------- Post added at 04:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:39 PM ----------
Googling a bit, I see I'm not the only person to have similar thoughts:
The Christian Faith 2:6-7 » Think Theologically - Applying God's word to God's world
Second, it is crucial to bear in mind that impassibility refers to God's essence rather than to the particular persons who share it. It is the persons of the Trinity who are affected by creatures, not the divine essence itself. This is true even of human beings. Even in life-altering experiences of delight or despair, one's humanity is not altered; rather, the person is changed. Essences (or natures) cannot feel, will, or act. Only persons can love, be disappointed or delighted, angry or pleased, disturbed or satisfied. God's essence is not a person. It is only the persons who share this essence who can be affected. The Father, not the divine essence, so loved the world that he gave his Son and turned away from the sin-bearing Savior of sinners in wrath and judgment. Love is an attribute of the divine essence ("God is love" [1Jn 4:8, 16]), but only the divine persons love (verb).
There are a number of items in there that concern me.
First, if we assign impassibility only to the essence, not to the persons, then the attribution of impassibility becomes meaningless. If Horton is right that even human nature is impassible, then we aren't really saying anything by saying that God's essence is impassible.
Second, don't the trinitarian and christological controversies assumethe impassibility, not only of the essence, but of the persons. Isn't that what caused the controversies in the first place? My understanding of Chalcedon is that the eternal Word is impassible, but the humanity assumed by it is passible. Thus, Jesus, who is God, suffered and died, but only according to his humanity. Horton's articulation seems to contradict the metaphysical assumptions behind Chalcedon.
Third, I'm uncomfortable ascribing statements such as "God is love" to the divine essence rather than the persons. Such a view seems dangerously close to a "quaternity" in which the divine essence is a substratum underlying the persons. That tilts more toward "the Trinity which shares God" than Augustine's "the Trinity which is God" (Trinitas quae Deus est).
Do other Reformed theologians articulate the Trinity the way Horton does here?
---------- Post added at 04:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:39 PM ----------
Googling a bit, I see I'm not the only person to have similar thoughts:
The Christian Faith 2:6-7 » Think Theologically - Applying God's word to God's world