Does the anthropomorphic language of the Trinity as "Father" and "Son" aid or distort Christian understanding of the Trinity?
2 posters
Page 1 of 1
Does the anthropomorphic language of the Trinity as "Father" and "Son" aid or distort Christian understanding of the Trinity?
Olivier Clement "The Father is the God beyond all..." In other words, in non-anthropomorphic terms, "Father" is the Transcendent dimension of God-- the transcendent Dimension of God in which all creation dwells; the very Glory of God beyond creation. Do you find this non-anthropomorphic view of the "Father" is clarifying? I do.
Clement also offers a non-anthropomorphic definition of the Logos as That which "gives form to the world...." The Logos is creative divine Knowing, "through which all things are made" (John 1:16). This non-anthropomorphic view of Logos (rather than "Son") invites us to intuit, and delight in, the Presence of God omnipresent in nature. How fantastic is that!
Clement also offers a non-anthropomorphic definition of the Logos as That which "gives form to the world...." The Logos is creative divine Knowing, "through which all things are made" (John 1:16). This non-anthropomorphic view of Logos (rather than "Son") invites us to intuit, and delight in, the Presence of God omnipresent in nature. How fantastic is that!
Last edited by Admin on Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:46 am; edited 1 time in total
Re: Does the anthropomorphic language of the Trinity as "Father" and "Son" aid or distort Christian understanding of the Trinity?
The word "Father" can be used as a helpful metaphor to refer to "the God beyond all," however, it becomes unhelpful when one takes the metaphor too literally or seriously. Viewing God as literally a Father in an anthropomorphic sense could further limit one's already inevitably limited conception of God to a role that exists on a human level, but not on a divine level.
I think it is worth striving to align one's view of God with the truth as much as possible within the limitations of a human perspective and that it is good to remain humble about our inability to come close to fully understanding God.
I think it is worth striving to align one's view of God with the truth as much as possible within the limitations of a human perspective and that it is good to remain humble about our inability to come close to fully understanding God.
Similar topics
» What is your understanding of this classic definition of Christ, from the Council of Chalcedon (451)?: Christ is "consubstantial with the Father in Godhead, and the same consubstantial with us in manhood, like us in all things except sin"?
» What's Wrong with Conventional Depictions of the Trinity? PLEASE NOTE, THIS SAME ARTICLE APPEARS UNDER THE TITLE "TRINITY" ON THIS SITE
» Elizabeth of the Trinity on Christ
» Standard depictions of the Trinity many of us grew up with....
» "The Spiritual Doctrine of Elizabeth of the Trinity" by M. M. Philipon
» What's Wrong with Conventional Depictions of the Trinity? PLEASE NOTE, THIS SAME ARTICLE APPEARS UNDER THE TITLE "TRINITY" ON THIS SITE
» Elizabeth of the Trinity on Christ
» Standard depictions of the Trinity many of us grew up with....
» "The Spiritual Doctrine of Elizabeth of the Trinity" by M. M. Philipon
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum