In recent years there has been a great deal written about religious language, but very often the reader is left guessing as to what answer the writer he has been considering would have given to the question, Is there a God? Does God exist? Is there some reality for which the word ‘God’ is the accepted name? This may seem to many an unsatisfactory state of affairs, for at least the plain man is impatient of what he deems to be undue sophistication, especially on ultimate questions of this kind; and he would much prefer, as he might put it, to get down to brass tacks. Consequently, the plain man would probably be very unhappy about the question which I have posed regarding the possible logical placing of the name ‘God’, and he would greatly prefer to see it put in straightforward fashion as the question, Does God exist or not?

The doctrine of the ‘double Procession’ of the Holy Spirit, in spite of all the controversy it has caused in the past, is today probably regarded as one of the more trivial elements in our Western theological heritage—slightly more important perhaps than the conclusions reached in the medieval arguments over the number of angels who could stand on the point of a pin, but still of no great intrinsic significance. Yet this doctrine was a major factor in the schism between East and West, and it has since then remained an obstacle to all attempts to reconcile the Eastern and Western Churches. Western theologians have clearly felt that something of importance was being affirmed in the ‘Filioque’ clause in the Nicene Creed, while their Eastern counterparts have been equally convinced that what the ‘Filioque’ affirms is wrong, even blasphemous. The questions of what it is that the ‘Filioque’ is intended to affirm, and of whether what is affirmed should be affirmed, are therefore of some importance, particularly in an age of ecumenical dialogue. On these grounds alone, the doctrine demands to be seriously examined: we are not entitled simply to ignore it, or—what is worse—to cast around for superficial reasons for getting rid of it in the hope of thereby reaching an agreement with Eastern theologians.

Friedrich Schleiermacher stood consciously in the tradition of John Calvin, both institutionally and theologically. He preached as a Reformed minister, and he did his theology with the intention of describing the religious consciousness of a branch of the Reformed Church. His conscious relationship to Calvin is especially evident throughout the essay ‘Concerning the Doctrine of Election’, and is explicit in The Christian Faith as well.

In this paper I would like to discuss what the Old Testament has to say about the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. I take it as agreed that this task is both important and necessary for a real understanding of the New Testament, which by itself, is neither complete, meaningful nor self-authenticating. I do not make any claims to completeness on this crucial topic, but wish only to suggest what I feel are some important points for consideration. I want to discuss the three persons of the Trinity separately, beginning with the Father, then proceeding to the Holy Spirit and then to the Son. My remarks about the Father will be brief. I only wish to make the point that the Old Testament as well as the new Testament is fully aware of God's Fatherhood and alive to the reality that God loves mankind. It is clear that Israel has a special place as indicated by such passages as Exod. 4.22 where God addresses Israel saying: ‘Israel is my first born son.’ Yet at the same time it is basic to an understanding of Old Testament thought that God is the Father of the other nations of the world, though they are not the ‘first born’. This is a cardinal position of Old Testament theology and is based on the belief, given expression in Genesis, that all belongs to and was created by God.

Is there a sense in which ‘myth’ is an appropriate category of understanding of material within the Old Testament? In attempting to clear the way towards answering this question it may be useful to present some representative expressions of views about the propriety, or impropriety, of the use of the term ‘myth’ with regard to the Old Testament. There are some interpreters who hold that myth, properly so called, does not, even cannot, appear within the Old Testament; others, however, consider that there are significant features preserved and sufficient functions operative for the term ‘myth’ to be applied.