TRINITY (Part 2) By: Wayne Grudem Pasal-pasal yang menyebutkan tiga Pribadi dalam Trinitas: Mat. 28:19; 1 Kor. 12:4-6; 2 Kor. 13:13; Ef. 4:4-6; 1 Ptr. 1:2; Yudas 20-21. Roh Kudus sepenuhnya adalah Allah dengan alasan bahwa Roh Kudus sering disejajarkan dengan Pribadi Bapa dan Anak. Roh Kudus adalah Allah: Kis. 5:3-4, 1Kor. 3:16 (Roh Kudus “equating” dengan Allah); Maz. 139:7-8 (Mahahadir); kehadiran Roh Allah sama dengan kehadiran Allah itu sendiri. Juga Paulus menyatakan karakteristik “ilahi” dari Roh Kudus, 1 Korintus 2:10-11 (mahatahu). Aktivitas ilahi dari Roh Kudus adalah “melahirbarukan” atau “memberikan hidup baru” bagi seseorang. Seperti perkataan Yesus dalam Yohanes 3:5-7. Pekerjaan ini, sama dengan pekerjaan Allah yakni dalam 1 Yohanes 3:9, “lahir dari Allah”, dapat berarti bahwa “Allah yang bertindak memberikan hidup baru (lahir baru).” Dengan demikian, dari indikasi tersebut, nyatalah bahwa Roh Kudus adalah sepenuhnya Allah. Poin 3 Hanya ada satu Allah. Ayat yang paling familiar berkenaan dengan pernyataan hanya ada satu Allah adalah: Ulangan 6:4-5 (NIV): “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” When Moses sings, “Who is like You, O LORD, among the gods? Who is like You, majestic in holiness, Terrible in glorious deeds, doing wonders? (Ex. 15:11) The answer obviously is “No one.” God is unique, and there is no one like him and there can be no one like him. In fact, Solomom prays “that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God; there is no other (1 Kings 8:60). The New Testament also affirms that there is one God. Paus writes, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). Paul affirms that “God is one” (Rom. 3:30), and that “there is one God, the Father from whom are all things and for whom we exist” (1 Cor. 8:6). Here Paul says that God the Father is identified as this “one God.” Elsewhere, as we have seen, he can speak of God the Son and God the Holy Spirit as also “God.” Moreover, in this same verse, ho goes on to speak of “one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” He is here using the word Lord in its full Old Testament sense of “Yahweh” as a name for God, and saying that this is the person through all things were created, thus affirming the full deity of Christ as well, but with a different name. Thus this verse affirms both the unity of God and the diversity of person in God. When the universe was created God the Father spoke the powerful creative words that brought it into being, God the Son was the divine agent who carried out these words (John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2), and God the Holy Spirit was active “moving over the face of the waters” (Gen. 1:2). So it as we would expect: if all three members of the Trinity are equally and fully divine, then they have all three existed for all eternity, and God has eternally existed as a Trinity (cf. also John 17:5, 24). Moreover, God cannot be other than he is, for he is unchanging (see chapter 11 above). Therefore it seems right to conclude that God necessarily exists as a Trinity – he cannot be other than he is. The word “filioque” is a Latin term that means “and from the Son.” It was not included in the Nicene Creed in either the first version of A.D. 325 or the second version of A.D. 381. Those versions simply said that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father.” But in A.D. 589, at a regional church council in Toledo (in what is now Spain), the phrase “and the Son” was added, so that the creed then said that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque).” In the light of John 15:26 and 16:7, where Jesus said that he would send the Holy Spirit into the world, it seems there could be no objection to such a statement if it reffered to the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son at a point in time (particularly at Pentecost). But this was a statement about the nature of the Trinity, and the phrase was understood to speak of the eternal relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Son, something Scripture never explicitly discusses. The form of the Nicene Creed that had this additional phrase gradually gained in general use and received an official endorsement in A.D. 1017. The entire controversy was complicated by ecclesiastical politics and struggles for power, and this apparently very insignificant doctrinal point was the main doctrinal issue in the split between eastern and western Christianity in A.D. 1054. (The underlying political issue, however, was the relationof the Eastern church to the authority of the Pope). The doctrinal controversy and the split between the two branches of Christianity have not been resolved to this day. Is there a correct position on this question? The weight of evidence (slim though it is) seems clearly to favor the western church. In spite of the fact that John 15:26 says that the Spirit of truth “proceeds from the Father”, this does not deny that he proceeds also from the Son (just as John 14:26 says that the Father will send the Holy Spirit, but John 16:7 says that the Son will send the Holy Spirit). In fact, in the same sentence in John 15:26 Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit as one “whom I shall send to you from the Father.” And if the Son together with the Father sends the Spirit into the world, by analogy it would seem appropriate to say that this reflects eternal ordering of their relationships. This is not something that we can clearly insist on based on any specific verse, but much of our understanding of the eternal relationship among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit comes by analogy from what Scripture tells us about the way they relate to the creation in time. Moreover, the eastern formulation runs the danger of suggesting an unnatural distance between the Son and the Holy Spirit, leading to the possibility that even in personal worshipan emphasis on more mystical, Spirit-inspired experience might be persued to the neglect of an accompanying rationally understandable adoration of Christ as Lord. Nevertheless, the controversy was ultimately over such an obscure point of doctrine (essentially, the relationship between the Son and Spirit before creation) that it certainly did not warrant division in the church. The Importance of the Doctrine of the Trinity Why was the church so concerned about the doctrine of the Trinity? Is it really essential to hold to the full deity of the Son and the Holy Spirit? Yes it is, for this teaching has implications for the very heart of the Christian faith. First, the atonement is at stake. If Jesus is merely a created being, and not fullty God, then it is hard to see how he, a creature, could bear the full wrath of God againts all of our sins. Could any creature, no matter how great, really save us? Second, justification by faith alone is threatened if we deny the full deity of the Son. (This is seen today in the teaching of the Jehovah’s Witness, who do not believe in justification by faith alone). If Jesus is not fully God, we would rightly doubt whether we can really trust him to save us completely. Could we really depend on any creature fully for our salvation? Third, if Jesus is not infinite God, should we pray to him or worship him? Who but an infinite, omniscient God could hear and respond to all the prayers of all God’s people? And who but God himself is worthy or worship? Indeed, if Jesus is merely a creature, no matter how great, it would be idolatry to worship him – yet the New Testament commands us to do so (Phil. 2:9-11; Rev. 5:12-14). Fourth, if someone teaches that Christ was a created being but nonetheless one who saved us, then this teaching wrongly begins to attribute credit for salvation to a creature and not to God himself. But this wrongfully exalts the creature rather than the Creator, something Scripture never allows us to do. Fifth, the independence and personal nature of God are at stake: If there is no Trinity, then there were no interpersonal relationship within the being of God before creation, and, without personal relationship, it is difficult to see how God could be genuinely personal or be without the need for a creation to relate to. Sixth, the unity of the universe is at stake: If there is not perfect plurality and perfect unity in God himself, then we have no basis for thinking there can be any ultimate unity among the diverse elements of the universe either. Clearly, in the doctrine of the Trinity, the heart of the Christian faith is at stake. Herman Bavink says that “Athanasius understood better than any of his comtemporaries that Christianity stands or falls with the confession of deity of Christ and of the Trinity. (Bavink, The Doctrine of God, p. 281). He adds, “In the confession of the Trinity throbs the heart of the Christian religion: every error results from, or upon deeper reflection may be traced to, a wrong view of this doctrine. (ibid., p. 285). Charles Hodge says: The Nicene doctrine includes, (1) the principle of the subordination of the Son to the Father, and of the Spirit to the Father and the Son. But this subordination does not imply inferiority.... The subordination intended is only that which concerns the mode of subsistensi and operation.... The creeds are nothing more than a well-ordered arrangement of the facts of Scripture which concern the doctrine of the Trinity. They assert the distinct personality of the Father, Son, and the Spirit ... and their consequent perfect equality; and the subordination of the Son to the Father, and of the Spirit to the Father and the Son, as to the mode of subsistence and operation. These are scriptural facts, to which the creeds in question add nothing; and it is in this sense they have been accepted by the Church universal. (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3-vols., [Grand Rapids” Eerdmans, 1970], reprint; first published 1871 – 73, 1:460-62 [italics mine]). A. H. Strong says: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while equal in essence and dignity, stand to each other in an order of personality, office, and operation.... The subordination of the person of the Son to the person of the Father, or in other words an order of personality, office, and operation which permits the Father to be officially first, the Son second, and the Spirit third, is perfectly consistent with equality. Priority is not necessarily superiority.... We frankly recognize an eternal subordination of Christ to the Father, but we maintain at the same time that this subordination is a subordination of order, office, and operation, not a subordination of essence. (A.H. Strong, Systematic Theology, (Valley Forge, Pa.: Judson, 1907), p. 342 (third italics mine). Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, (Norton Street, Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 2007), pp. 238-239, 241, 246-247, 251.
Posted on: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 18:17:26 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015