God's revelation and mystery.

Thus begins the section on God's essence and attributes. It's asking the question, 'what is God like?' How can we ask that question, nonetheless answer it? In some sense we can't. One of the problems with history, religion, and the world is that people have been trying to ask and answer that question on their own. In this sense then, Nietzsche is very helpful when he says that "All gods are dead." (as in Weber, 398) We have dreamed up God, and he ends up looking an awful lot like us (or our parents!), and we are slowly realizing that this is grim, and cannot be. So how can we even talk about God? Only because God makes himself known.

We do not have any predicates for God at our disposal...We can do nothing other than to accept the fact that God has predicated himself. ... We do not predicate God, but God predicates himself in eternity.

Weber, 399.

All that we can do then, with all humility, fear, and trembling, is "merely interpret how God reveals himself to us." (Weber, 400) God reveals himself through his revelation, but he is not transformed into something else by his revelation. This means that, (1) God turns completely to us, and that (2) God remains completely he himself in his turning to us.

Important Trinitarian Ideas, Concepts, and whatnot.

These are some of the most important ideas to keep track of when it comes to the theology and problems with the doctrine of the trinity.

Subordinationism refers to the idea that Jesus (or the Spirit) was in some sense 'subordinate' to God. Usually, this takes shape when it is thought that Jesus was 'given' the power/deity of God so that Jesus wasn't in fact God but merely somehow divine...God-like, God-empowered, and God-created. Arius was the big name here, basically claiming that there was such a time when Jesus did not exist. The biggest problem here is that the full deity of Christ and the Spirit is not respected, and it does not respect God's unity.

Modalism refers to the idea that Jesus Christ and the Spirit were merely modes or ways that the one God behind the mode appeared. Modalism can take the form of something like God being a shape-shifter, or take the form of God being something like an actor in a play who puts on different masks and costumes to fit the role. This is associated with Sabellianism. The problem here is that since God only reveals himself to us in different modes, we do not get to see God as God and so we have no real knowledge of God. In modalism, there is always a real God behind the mode of God - denying the true revelation of God. Not good.

[The interesting thing about subordinationism and modalism is that all doctrines of God are in danger and violation of slipping ever so gently into one camp or the other. As we read (not just Weber, but all talk of God), we have to keep this possibility in mind.]

Vestiges of the Trinity refers to a concept, which gained steam with Augustine, that claims that there are vestiges (marks, traces, etc.) of the trinity in nature, the human person, etc. Augustine saw vestiges of the trinity in the human intellectual makeup (memory, intellect, and will) and in the makeup/powers of the soul (spirit, self-knowledge, and self-love). In this scheme, there is a sort of analogy between humans and God whereby we can understand God as trinity. This is often referred to as "analogia entis" (analogy of being). When it hits the fan, this is a nice idea but ultimately a very bad one. It is trying to discover and fit God in something that he ought not. I'll leave it at that.

Another important trinitarian word is "homoousios". It is the idea that God is made up of a divine substance ("ousia") and that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all made of this same ousia (thus, "homoousios" literally means 'of one substance'). This all gets a little hairy when God is thought of to be made of a substance, essence, nature, etc. For instance, it is important to state that while the Father, Son, and Spirit are of one substance, this substance cannot not be given/attributed to anything that is not God. Also, it's important not to think of God's being one substance in the sense that humans are all made out of one substance. If this were the case, then as all humans are individual people, so would God be three individuals, resulting in tritheism. Complicated. It's important to be able to navigate though, as these terms filled a lot of church fathers' time. I think that they struggled through these issues for good reasons.

Another important trinitarian idea is around the words hypostasis, persona, and ratio, as referring to something like 'person'. The idea of person is helpful (Jesus is the 2nd person of the trinity, etc.) but it is also dangerous. Our modern idea of "personhood" is very individualistic and separate (leading to tritheistic ideas), where as in the old days hypostases, ousia, persona, prosopon (face), and substantia all got mixed up and misunderstood over time.

This is all very confusing, complicated, and somewhat frustrating. Weber draws out the gem of the section though when he says that

[O]ur review of the terminology of the Doctrine of the Trinity should have made one thing clear: all of the formulae are only approximate attempts to express a mystery which will never be completely comprehended by our thought processes.

Weber, 379.

In this sense we will do our work...

Here's a little snippet I came across while reading Barth's book on the Heidelberg Catechism. He's talking about "the responsibility...of those who find themselves in the community of the church which is founded on the good news of Jesus Christ and to which is entrusted its interpretation and transmission." He says,

The gospel must ever again be explored and sought and inquired into. It demands work, reflection, exertion. It demands faithfulness and independent investigation. The church may not avoid this effort, for its existence as church depends on it. Doctrine is thus not its own goal. One can work at theology for theology's sake just as little as he can work at art for art's sake. Christian doctrine is rather a part of the service of the community, service to God and to neighbor. It is thus a part of the church's liturgy. In this sense we will do our work, and in this sense only can it be done. When we teach or study theology, we stand in the service of the church.

Karl Barth, Learning Jesus Christ Through the Heidelberg Catechism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 19.

So keep this in view as we read. We don't study theology for theology's sake, or for learning's sake, or for whatever's sake. We study theology so that we may become more faithful servants, stewards, teachers, witnesses, ambassadors, interpreters, and transmitters of the good news of Jesus Christ.