George H. Warnock — Trinitarian Theology
b4 — The Hyssop that Springeth Out of the Wall
Unity of Father and Son — rejection of strict personal duality
Warnock explicitly distances himself from the view that Father and Son are two separate Persons:
“it bothers me that so many Christians should think of God the Father as One Person… and God the Son another.”
— George H. Warnock, The Hyssop that Springeth Out of the Wall, hyssop2.html (section: Incarnation — the Humiliation of God)
Warnock simultaneously acknowledges that he cannot comprehend the mystery of the Three-in-one:
“The mystery of the three-in-one I do not profess to comprehend (any more than I can comprehend that I am three-in-one, and made in His image).”
— ibid.
Interpretatie: Warnock acknowledges a trinitarian mystery but seeks to avoid the classical two-person formulation (Father as one Person, Son as another). His language is functionally unitarianist in tone, though he affirms the three-in-one structure as such.
Incarnation as the indwelling of the Father in the Son
Warnock describes the incarnation as the literal presence of God the Father within the Son:
“God the Father was in that Man, walking in His sandals. And when Jesus mingled amongst men as the sinless and spotless One, showing mercy and compassion to the multitudes, it was God the Father living in His Son and walking in His Son and showing mercy through His Son.”
— ibid.
“for God the Father, living in His own Son in all His fulness, truly revealed Himself as He really is: meek, and lowly, and compassionate.”
— ibid.
Interpretation: For Warnock, this is not merely a kenotic christology but a formulation of economic identity — the Father makes His character visible through and in the Son, without Himself being incarnate in the classical sense.
The suffering on the Cross: the Father as co-sufferer
Warnock formulates a radical participation of the Father in the crucifixion of the Son:
“And when He hung on the Cross… it was not a case of God the Father being indifferent to the cries of His Son as He suffered this unspeakable anguish… but in the truest sense of the word, God the Father was Himself suffering the pain of every nail that went into His hand, and every thorn that pierced His brow.”
— ibid.
“And when a soldier took his sword and thrust it into the side of Jesus… Jesus felt it as a man, and God the Father who dwelt within Him felt it as the Creator of the soldier that pierced Him.”
— ibid.
“Yes, it was God the Father who willingly subjected Himself to the full measure of weakness, and poverty, and humiliation and suffering — in order to remove the ‘curse’ which He Himself had laid upon man because of his transgression!”
— ibid.
Interpretation: Warnock here describes a form of theopaschism — God the Father as suffering in and with the Son. This differs from classical modalism in that Warnock elsewhere acknowledges the distinction between Father and Son, but formulates their unity so radically that the Father endures the crucifixion from within. [TENSION: this borders on modalism, but Warnock acknowledges the Father/Son distinction elsewhere]
The eternal Spirit as bearer of Christ’s blood
In hyssop2b Warnock describes the role of the Spirit at the cross:
“it was through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God”
— George H. Warnock, The Hyssop that Springeth Out of the Wall, hyssop2b.html (section: The Ashes of a Heifer); cf. Heb. 9:14
“As the precious Blood of Christ was flowing down from His sacred body, the Spirit of God was there — absorbing every drop of it in His own Being. The time would come when Jesus was glorified that this Holy Spirit, impregnated with the Blood of Christ, would be shed forth upon God’s people, as a pure stream of purifying, cleansing water of life.”
— ibid.
Interpretation: The Spirit functions here as the mediator who transfers the redemptive power of the cross to believers. The Spirit’s role is soteriologically-economic, not formulated in terms of the immanent Trinity.
Summary of trinitarian position
Warnock does not use classical trinitarian terminology (persons, substance, perichoresis). His trinitarian thinking is:
- Functionally unitarianist in language: Father and Son are not presented as two separate Persons
- Economically trinitarian in structure: the Father reveals Himself through and in the Son; the Spirit transfers the fruits of the cross
- Theopaschite: the Father co-suffers in the crucifixion of the Son
- Mystery-affirming: the three-in-one structure is acknowledged but not systematically elaborated