Talk:Perichoresis

From Theopedia

Holiness section

This is my revised edition of what was previously part of the article. However, I still hold this in question. Because this is such a large claim (i.e. God is holy because he is trinitarian), but there is no scripture cited nor any other source. Before it jumps back to the article, I would appreciate some more development to this section.

Holiness means not simply separation from sin, but joining to God. In the Old Testament, holy places were those places specially reserved for God's presence, and holy items were also specially reserved for God. Thus, holiness is that quality of being reserved for God; this quality is seen most clearly in the Triune Godhead, who are reserved for each other in a unique fashion. God is holy because God is Trinitarian; the holiness of the Son comes from his indwelling by the Father through the Spirit, and vice versa.

Jordan Barrett (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm not active around here nowadays, but I do keep an eye out; perhaps I can explain. The source I was using was Peter Leithart's article, linked at the bottom of the article, and also here. [1] His basic argument (as I would express it) is that Johannine theology holds the logos of God to be none other than God the Son himself, who also is the aletheia of God. So when Jesus prays "sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth", he's praying that his indwelling of the disciples, by the Spirit, would be the cause of their holiness unto God. As Leithart goes on to say,

Further, this perichoretic union of Jesus and the disciples is an image of and is rooted in the perichoretic unity of the Father and Son: "you are in me and I am in you" (v. 21), and the unit of the disciples is like the unity of Jesus with the Father ("that they be one as we are one," v. 23). If the presence of the Word in the disciples "sanctifies" the disciples, then perhaps we might say that the presence of the Father in the Son sanctifies the Son, and the presence of the Son in the Father sanctifies the Father. This makes sense particularly if we follow Thomas Weinandy in suggesting that the Spirit is the agent of the perichoretic union. Through the Holy Spirit, the Son indwells the Father to consecrate Him, and vice versa.

Phil Walker ^(Wooster) 08:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that makes more sense (and I should have seen that link - duh!). I think I got confused because it was talking about the perichoretic nature of Jesus and the disciples without having explained how that is different (or similar) to Jesus' indwelling of the Father and Spirit. Thus, if you don't mind, could we reword the above statement that I removed? I like Leithart's quote, so maybe that could even get worked in. Good to know you're still around. ;) Jordan Barrett (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead. I guess I read Leithart's "perhaps" as scholarly humility rather than caution; I find the argument that God is necessarily trinitarian to be very compelling, not least on apologetic grounds. I have half a suspicion that Letham may have something to say on this, but don't quote me on that; I'm only going by what I've heard of him! Anyway, you can tone it down to a suggestive hint rather than a bald statement if you like; I think the point about glory is sufficiently clearly established from John 17 as to give us a reason to believe that this account is plausible without needing to go much further than that.  : ) Phil Walker ^(Wooster) 18:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternative name

I wonder if we should change the name of this article to something more helpful to the common reader, like mutual indwelling or co-indwelling? - Aaron Shafovaloff 09:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I still don't think that would be very helpful since something like "mutual indwelling" would lack any sort of context. What about redirecting it to "Perichoresis (Trinity)" so that we can still easily make Perichoresis and internal link but it would fill people in on what the term is used for? Jordan Barrett ^(talk) 18:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

How about "Mutual indwelling of the Trinity"? Just trying not to be needlessly esoteric. - Aaron Shafovaloff 22:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There's still a balance between being needlessly esoteric and being needlessly elementary. Trust me, if people are reading about perichoresis then they will more than likely be able to handle the content and verbage(?) of the article. If they aren't sure about what it means then they can click on the link and read the definition. It's sort of like changing the article homoousios to "of the same being". The term has a history and importance that should be retained in the article's title. I tend to believe the same for perichoresis. But that could just be me. Jordan Barrett ^(talk) 00:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)