One understands the sending to be a message stemming from an inner - divine order, from one
divine person through another to creation.
Bracken indicates how the field - approach to Whiteheadian societies allows for a trinitarian understanding of God in which the three
divine persons of traditional Christian doctrine, by their dynamic interrelatedness from moment to moment, constitute a structured field of activity for the whole of creation.
Apart from Christ, who is an eternally existing
divine person who took human nature, a human being is a human person and what makes someone such a human being is the human soul.
Or, seen from the opposite perspective, creation (and with it all of human history) is a partial expression of the exchange of love between the three
divine persons from all eternity.
If the biblical God is a God of love - Christianity draws the ultimate conclusion about that in affirming a Trinity of self -
giving divine persons - the human response to God should occur in freedom.
that individuality in creation is always the dynamic unity of a plurality of parts or members (pp. 40 - 46), hence that God too must be a dynamic unity in plurality, or in other words a Trinity, of
coequal divine persons (p. 415).
Furthermore, as I likewise hope to show in this article, acceptance of the hypothesis that the three
divine persons constitute an interpersonal process or community opens up new possibilities for Whiteheadian process thinkers to rethink some of the basic presuppositions of their own approach to reality.
What has in fact been is that neither Jews nor Muslims could appreciate a Christianity that compromised God's unity, even if it claimed that its teaching of three
divine persons did not do so.
Such teaching made the distinctions and relations between the
eternal divine persons and the actual history of salvation mutually undetermined, and so of course made the eternal Trinity irrelevant in the life of faith.
In the new metaphysics that developed as the Church wrestled with the revelation of God's character in Scripture, the communion of
divine Persons came to be understood as a «primordial ontological concept and not a notion which is added to the divine substance or rather which follows it.»
Perhaps the best way of thinking about this is to distinguish between the loving unity that the three
divine Persons experience, on the one hand, and the loving unity that defines God's eternal essence, on the other.
By postulating the existence of two natures in this one person, the Doctrine of the Incarnation allowed one to say that the suffering of Jesus as reported in the Gospels was experienced by the one human - and -
divine person through his human nature, which avoided a run - in with the prevailing wisdom of the time.
In a line that John Paul never tired in quoting, we read that there is «certain similarity between the union of
the divine persons and union of God's children in truth and love.
When we talk about the actions of Jesus we need to be careful because He has two natures — He is fully divine and fully human — even though He is only one,
divine Person — God the Son, the second Person of the Trinity.
If Jesus is
a divine person, since no two substances can occupy the same space at the same time, then the human Jesus must be removed to let the divine Jesus in!
On the societal model, however, the primordial nature becomes the defining characteristic of
the divine person.
The human nature of Christ was predestined by God to that highest glory of the beatific sharing in the inner life of
the divine persons.
Trinitarian thought has traditionally been built upon three main pillars: Christian revelation of how God is in Himself, an attendant theology of
each divine person's unique interaction with creation, and the notion of personhood itself.
Traditional dogma affirms that Christ is one
divine person but that there is a clear distinction of natures in Christ, human and divine.
He is thus against natural law theory but for a DCT in which God, by creating rational creatures, is bound to make their highest end a relationship with
the divine persons, but free to pursue that end via any number of routes.
It is not as if
divine Persons are mere masks of God; they are who and what the divine True Self actually becomes, for us.
Moltmann, Mühlen and Jüngel insist that three
divine persons are intimately involved in Jesus» passion, death, and resurrection.
This seems to be what Moltmann, Mühlen and Jüngel are proposing when they insist that all three
divine persons are intimately involved in Jesus» passion, death, and resurrection.
But the process in question is not the concrescence of an actual entity, but rather an interpersonal process involving three
divine persons.
Applying Royce's understanding of community to the doctrine of the Trinity, one could say that the three
divine persons are one God by reason of their common participation in an ongoing process of interpretation which is their life in community.
For, if the three
divine persons have a life of their own as members of the divine community and yet choose to share it through creation, above all, through the creation of human beings who can respond to themselves as (divine) persons, then there is little or no danger that God will be seen as a function, albeit a key function, within a processive world order.
Above all in their common interpretation of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit as the bond of love between the Father and the Son, they appear reluctant simply to say that the nature of God is to be an interpersonal process and that
the divine persons exist by reason of their common participation in the process.
Another point about the common tradition that requires note if we are to make progress toward sorting out the relation between authority and office is that, within it, authority is a term that is applied in a proper sense only to persons, either
the divine Persons of the Trinity or human persons who act on God's behalf.