My worry is that the term God can easily become depersonalized, such that God now is used to refer solely to what the triune members share – essence. If this is done, even subconsciously, what we get is a god behind the triune three – the real God so to speak. I tried to use Ames’ Marrow of Divinity as an example of this.

So, I am less concerned with the term God (calling the Son God, the Father God, etc.) and more concerned with how it is used in reference to the biblical texts. Also, I would want to focus on the fact that persons and essence are not two separate categories but have to be talked about in a single fashion. There is no singular “GOD” behind the Trinity. Therefore I would reject Ames’ development as unhelpful.

In terms of your point about the fact that this could lead to one person being talked about in terms of God while the other two not, that is exactly what happened in the post-Reformed heretical movements as I noted in one of my comments. The Father’s turned to the divine names to solve this – God has eternally been Father. Any sort of Arianism takes this away, and the belief in an eternal Father is at the heart of orthodoxy.

If Jesus 1) never says he is God? If 2) he even systematically avoids it? If furthermore, 3) arguably, he never really says he is “Christ” either? (The one time out of a hundred refusals, that he appeared to affirm his status as Christ, note, is narrated differently in parallel texts in other gospels)

If so? Then how much authority should we give Jesus therefore? Should we say Jesus was God? Or was equal to God at all?

If not, then Christianity itself would seem ill-founded. And to have misunderstood and overestimated, its own eponymous founder.

“The distinction between persons does not impair the oneness of nature, nor does the shared unity of essence lead to a confusion between the distinctive characteristics of the persons. Do not be surprised that we should speak of the Godhead as being at the same time unified and differentiated…diversity-in- unity and unity-in-diversity.” St. Gregory of Nyssa (ca. 330-95)

Later, in New Testament times though, Jesus showed up; and was said to be related to – even identical to – God. But they had different names. So? How to put them together, and say they were the same? At first, rather than assert complete identity, the NT settled on the formula, more often than not, of a “son of” God.

What did Jesus himself in person say? Some theologians suggest we pay particular attention not just to all the Bible, but particularly words attributed to Jesus himself; the “red letters.” But Jesus – surely a major authority – was often quite coy on this however; mostly only asking others, “who do you say I am.”

Eventually others around him at times assure Jesus he is at least say, the “son of” God. Regarding those few other parts, which are more assured in the complete identification of the two – suggesting that Jesus IS God – and “God” is in effect a generic term for all three? Those parts tend to be later in the text, and non-synoptic: as in The Gospel of John, c. 90 AD.

Interestingly, those parts of the text that seem to allow a rather complete indentification/unification of Jesus, and God, the proposed unifying element, is not so much the term “God” per se. And it isdefinitely not “Trinity,” which is never mentioned by name even once in the entire text. Instead, if anything, the unifying element, the generic or unifying or “umbrella” term, for Father/Son/Spirit, seems to be that they three were unifed as being “one” with each other. Though the “one” is a rather Greek, Parmenidean concept, rather than strictly Jewish.

Is there a better umbrella term than the “one”? Something with more punch than “Trinity”? Could we say today especially that “God” was not a proper name, but was a descriptive, generic category? So that if Jesus says “we are gods,” even lower-case, that would be his (and our?) entry into the godhead? Identity with “God”? The translators seemed to have militated against this; turning God into a proper name, by capitalizing it. No doubt, translators did this … knowing there are biblical objections too, to turning God into a generic term.

Could we simply lose this distinction, in translation? The problem is that there were whole schools, there still are whole web sites, that argue that Jesus never said he was God; and that therefore the “Trinity” was always a bad concept.

Though nearly every church today insists the Trinity is viable … what scripture firmly said Jesus was God? Either in a proper or generic sense? Those passages are extremely rare; it is possible to argue that there are no such passages at all.

For example? John 1.1 says “In the beginning was the Word, and the word was God.” But what was the “word”? Originally it might have referred to scripture.

John 5.18? Where Jews say Jesus said he was God? Is merely what the Jews said that Jesus said. Not reliable therefore.

Jon 19.7? Same.

Rev. 1.8? God is Alpha and Omega, and is to “come”; but which coming? Of specifically who? God himself, the father, is to come at the Judgement. So there is no clear univocal reference to Jesus.

Personally, I admittedly see practical reasons, for those who assert – on the basis of little Biblical evidence – that Jesus was as good as God himself. And see the motivation of those who choose to use the term “Trinity” as the larger term.

Still? The question is far, far more open than most think.

Yes, I can see the forest for the trees. But finding a solid Biblical justification for the sacred threesome? That is far harder than anyone would guess, from hearing a thousand sermons vociferously supporting “The Trinity.” Indeed, aside from non-trinitarian biblical arguments, there is something lacking here, not just intellectually but emotionally: it is hard to pray, “Save me, oh Trinity.”

Want to suggst that the “Holy Spirit” is the parent term? That’s an interesting possibility. Or suggest “God” as the parent term – as it is in ordinary usage? That runs into some significant and surprising biblical objections.

Just to be clear I was kidding about “winning the argument” and such, just trying to have a little fun. I’m not kidding with my little responses to your questions. And the QED thing was also part of the “funnin” part. Just want to be clear.

Just to be clear, because I’m really not sure where you’re coming from ecclesially, I wanted to clarify on a few of your points. I’m really not looking to argue you with you (because I’d win, so why even attempt ;-), but:

1) The translators capitalized “God” in the Bible (and I don’t know where that takes you anyway).

2) See my point on the “capitals” above. And the Bible calls Jesus God all over the place Jn 1.1, 5.18, 19.7; Rev 1.8; Col. 1 etc etc. etc.

3) Not applicable.

4) See Jn 5.18, 19.7 do a study on “Son of” in a 1st cent. context and see the value that is associated with that (which those passages in Jn underscore).

5) Calvin was hyper Trinitarian, even known as the Theologian of the Holy Spirit. He may have questioned some of the grammar, but any good theologian will try to engage the Councils constructively.

6) Refer to my point on “Car” above ;-).

QED

Does your car say “car” on it anywhere ;-) ?

The category mistake is an important note. With Torrance (as with someone like Athanasius where he would take it from), the idea of Father/Son by the Holy Spirit would be the ontological reality; which while true to revelation (and of course something akin anachronistically to Barth’s analogia fidei), is also, then, an important “ontological” reality. Which as you note with Calvin, maybe he fails to fully recognize. I know with Athanasius and TFT the idea is that God is Father/Son[Holy Spirit] prior to becoming Creator, which like the Incarnation is something new for God which flows out of His free love for the other (thus ad extra is univocal with in se — at least soteriologically).

My chapter for our book is kind of Intro-like, but it hits on this very issue. Of God’s “being” defined by the Father/Son Holy Spirit relation (thus TFT’s “onto-relations”).

Great thought on Calvin, thanks for sharing it!