Read on Twitter
1/5. It is legit. to want to preserve the connection bet God's saving activity in hist. & the essence of God in himself. This theol. instinct is sound. To the extent that one thinks this way, however, one is tempted by the mod. reduction of the essence of God to his acts in hist.
2/5. This is why so many are led astray. Of course we do not want to worship a "God" other than the God of the Bible. This is why so many are suspicious of "the god of the philosophers." But we must not conflate good intentions with good strategies. If wishes were kisses . . .
3/5. How do we ensure that statements about God in himself are not going against Scripture? The alternatives are mystery or reductionism. Orthodoxy opts for the former; modernism for the latter. The god of the 20th C. Trin. "revival" is a rationally comprehensible God like us.
4/5. This is to rationalize god by viewing him in our image (eg. the social Trinity). The other way is to confess God as the eternal, simple, self-existent, fully actual, First Cause who has revealed himself by acting in hist & giving up the attempt to explain HOW this could be.
5/5. The mystery is not about what God is or what God does, but how God does it. This is diff. from rationalizing away the mystery by redefining God's being, as most 20th C theology did. We preserve the biblical nature of God by affirming the mystery of Divine action in history.
