-
8/16/2019 Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity
1/37
This article was downloaded by: [viviana puebla]On: 15 November 2014, At: 05:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
Bijdragen: International
Journal for Philosophy and
TheologyPublication details, including instructions for authors
and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpt19
THE CURRENT RENAISSANCE
OF THE THEOLOGY OF THE
TRINITYHERWI RIKHOF
a
a Faculteit Katholieke Theologie , Tilburg University
Published online: 26 Apr 2013.
To cite this article: HERWI RIKHOF (2009) THE CURRENT RENAISSANCE OF THE
THEOLOGY OF THE TRINITY, Bijdragen: International Journal for Philosophy and
Theology, 70:4, 423-457
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2143/BIJ.70.4.2044777
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpt19http://dx.doi.org/10.2143/BIJ.70.4.2044777http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpt19
-
8/16/2019 Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity
2/37
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
D o w
n l o a d e d b y [ v i v i a n a p u e b l a
] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0
1 4
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
-
8/16/2019 Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity
3/37
Bijdragen, International Journal n Philosophy and Theology 70(4), 423-457.
doi: 10.2143/BIJ.70.4.2044777
©
2009 by Bijdragen, International Journal
in
Philosophy and Theology.
All rights reserved.
THE
URRENT REN ISS NCE OF
THE
THEOLOGY OF THE
TRINITY
A RECONSTRUCTION
HERWI RIKHOF
1 Introduction
The remarkable recent interest in the theology
of
the Trinity has been called
a renaissance and correctly so. For this current interest has the double char
acteristics of every renaissance : a return to an earlier period in order to
(re )vitalize the present and a rejection and a criticism
on
the previous period
considered to be a form
of dark
middle ages . This double movement can be
seen in Karl Rahner s contribution about the theology
of
the Trinity to Mys-
terium Salutis.
To use a somewhat different terminology that certainly captures
his analysis and argumentation: he notices a profound illness with regard to the
theology of the Trinity, he diagnoses the causes and proposes a therapy to revi
talize that theology, so that the doctrine of the Trinity can be restored to its
rightful place at the centre
of
the Christian faith as it is lived and reflected
upon.
I will use Rahner s contribution to present a reconstruction of the recent renais
sance
of
the theology
of
the Trinity. Rahner was not the only one, nor even the
first, to point to the importance and central place of the doctrine of the Trin
ity: Karl Barth did that before him.
But since Rahner s contribution is pro-
1
K Rahner Der Dreifaltige Gott als transzendenter Urgrund der Heilsgeschichte, in J. Feiner,
M Uihrer (eds), Mysterium Salutis. Grundrij3 heilsgeschichtlicher Dogmatik, Einsiedeln, Benzinger
Verlag, 1965-1981, Bd 2 (1967), 318-401, esp. 318-329; cf. also his earlier Bemerkungen zum dog
matischen Traktat
de
Trinitate , in Schriften zur Theologie, Einsiedeln, Benzinger Verlag, 1962-1984,
Bd 4, (1960) 103-133; this was originally published in the same year.
2
See e.g. M. Murrmann-Kahl,
Mysterium Trinitatis ? Fallstudien zur Trinitiitslehre in der
evangelischen Dogmatik des 20. Jahrhunderts, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter, 1997 and J. Thompson.
Modern Trinitarian Perspectives, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1994. T. Peters points to
Cl. Welch who in In this Name: The doctrine o the Trinity in Contemporary Theology, New York,
D o w
n l o a d e d b y [ v i v i a n a p u e b l a
] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0
1 4
-
8/16/2019 Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity
4/37
424
The Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity
grammatic and since it has in fact been influential for the consequent devel
opments, it can be used for a reconstruction, that is to say as a framework to
present major trends and to indicate what is at stake.
3
Such a survey is always a personal affair,
if
only because it is impossible, cer
tainly within the limits
of
an article, to refer to the available literature, let alone
discuss the numerous books and articles more or less extensively. Choices have
to be made. But a survey in the form
of
a reconstruction also makes it personal.
Though I use Rahner's contribution as a framework to reconstruct the renais
sance of the last decades, it was not written with the explicit purpose
of
start
ing such a development. Moreover, both the choice of authors I will present
as examples
of
certain trends or positions, and the analysis
of
the way the diag
nosis is made and the therapy is performed, reflect my judgement. On an even
more profound level it is a personal affair, since the topic is not just a topic
I am interested in. Belief in the Triune God is the heart
of
Christian faith. That
not only means that it is (or should be) the centre
of
theological reflection, but
also that it is the centre
of
the living faith. This aspect is not always the focus
of attention, but one notices a pastoral concern underlying many publications
and I fully share this concern.
Nevertheless, the reconstruction I want to present is based on books and arti
cles published during the last decades and is not a product
of
my imagination.
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1952 complains that the theology of the Trinity has fallen to 'secondary or
tertiary importance': T. Peters,
GOD as Trinity: Relationality and Temporality n Divine Life
Louis
ville, Westminster John Knox Press, 1993, 29.
3
For somewhat different surveys see e.g.
C
LaCugna, 'Philosophers and Theologians on the
Trinity', in
Modern Theology
2 (1986) 3, 169-181, and, 'Current Trends in Trinitarian Theology', in
Religious Studies Review
2 (1987) 141-7; T. Peters,
GOD as Trinity
81-145; D. Cunningham, 'Trini
tarian Theology since 1990', in
Review n Religion and Theology
4 (1995) 8-16, and
What s
(Not)
New', in
Review
n
Religion and Theology
1 (1997), 14-20 and see also the appendix in his
These
Three are One The Practice of Trinitarian Theology
Oxford etc., Blackwell 1998; Chr. Schwobel,
'Introduction: The Renaissance of Trinitarian Theology: Reasons, Problems, Tasks', in Chr. Schwo
bel (ed.),
Trinitarian Theology Today: Essays in Divine Being and Act
Edinburgh, T T Clark, 1995,
11-... ; G. v.d. Brink,
De
huidige renaissance van de triniteitsleer; Een orienterend overzicht', in
Theologia Reformata
46 (2003) 210-240; G. Emery, 'Chronique de theologie trinitaire', in
Revue
Thomiste
97 (1997) 718-741; 98 (1998), 469-496; 99 (1999) 549-594; 100 (2000) 603-654;
101
(2001) 582-632; 103 (2003) 607-642; R Olson and Chr. Hall,
The Trinity
Grand Rapids/Cambridge,
Eerdmans, 2002, p. 140-150 for an annotated bibliography
of 20th
century publications in English;
S
Grenz,
Rediscovering the Triune God. The Trinity n Contemporary Theology
Minneapolis, Fort
ress Press, 2004; Veli-Matti Kiirlddiinen,
The Trinity. Global Perspectives
Louisville/London, West
minster John Knox Press, 2007; G. van den Brink,
S
van Erp, 'Ignoring God Triune? The Doctrine
of
the Trinity in Dutch Theology', in
International Journal ofSystematic Theology 11
(2009) 72-90;
G
O'Collins comments briefly on 12 issues in the current discussion in 'The Trinity: the State
of
the
Questions', S. Davis, D. Kendall and G. O'Collins (eds),
The Trinity.
n
Interdisciplinary Symposium
on the Trinity Oxford/New York, Oxford University Press, 1999, 2002
2
, 1-25.
D o w
n l o a d e d b y [ v i v i a n a p u e b l a
] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0
1 4
-
8/16/2019 Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity
5/37
Herwi Rikhof
425
n order to show this basis I have to refer rather extensively to literature, but
because a listing o literature, even with only a short characterization and qual
ification in the main text, makes the argumentation complicated and the read
ing tiresome, I have put further references in footnotes, which are sometimes
extensive, and that means that the lay-out is somewhat overburdened.
2. Rahner s contribution
2.1 Rahner s diagnosis and therapy
Rahner starts his long contribution with critical remarks about both spiritual
ity and theology with regard to the faith in the Triune God. Most Christians
are in fact monotheists and the theology
o the Trinity is a dead weight
within the whole o theology.
4
He puts the blame for this irrelevance and for
this theistic understanding on the way the Trinity is discussed in the manu
als, on the course theology has taken in the West since the Middle Ages, espe
cially since Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologiae became influential.
Basic to this lamentable situation is the distinction between, or more precisely,
the separation of, two treatises discussing God:
de
Deo Uno
and
de
Deo Trino.
The two are divided because the one discusses God s dealing with world and
history and the other considers God s inner life.
De Deo Uno
is about God s
external relationship and De Deo Trino about God s internal relationship. The
separation o the two treatises and the consequent irrelevancy o de
Deo Trino
is partly due to the type o language used in that treatise, partly due to the so
called rule d extra, and partly due to the connecting o de Deo Uno to nat
ural theology or philosophy, and
de Deo Trino
to theology proper. The lan
guage used in de Deo Trino in considering God in se is highly abstract, for it
not only uses confusing terms like
persona
and
natura,
but also strange and
incomprehensible terms like
filiatio, spiratio, notio,
and
circumincensio.
The
rule d extra stipulates that, in dealing with world and history, God acts s one,
suggesting that God s three-ness is not relevant to that world and history.
Behind the connection o de Deo no with natural theology or philosophy and
de Deo Trino
with theology proper lies the distinction between reason and rev
elation. These influences have made the theology o the Trinity irrelevant since,
certainly taken together, they make the theology o the Trinity into a super
fluous addition to a more or less general discourse about God.
4
Rahner, Der Dreifaltige Gott , 319.
D o w
n l o a d e d b y [ v i v i a n a p u e b l a
] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0
1 4
-
8/16/2019 Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity
6/37
426
The Current Renaissance of the Theology
of
the Trinity
n
order to change the course theology has taken
in
the West and to cure the
fatal illness of irrelevancy, Rahner proposes an axiom as therapy: 'the eco
nomic Trinity is the
immanent
Trinity and vice versa' . The purpose
of
this
axiom is to integrate the discourse about God in se into the discourse about God
with us. The suggestion, contained
in
the division or separation
of
the two trea
tises, of a Triune God behind the God of history, is corrected. The double use
of the term 'Trinity' in the axiom criticizes the rule
ad
extra, by locating the
basis for talking about
God's
Trinity
in
God's self-revelation in the history of
salvation. The formulation 'integrated
in'
indicates a reversal of priorities in
thinking about the Trinity implied in this double use: we know
of
God's Trin
ity because
of
his self-revelation
in
our history and therefore the discourse
of
God's Trinity should start with this history of salvation.
2.2 The reception ofRahner s contribution: a general impression
When one surveys the theological literature
of
these last decades
on
the Trin
ity, one can observe a general acceptance
of
the diagnosis and the proposed
therapy. r perhaps better, in the light
of
Rahner's
contribution one can dis
cern a broad consensus with regard to these two elements, since Rahner is not
always mentioned. With regard to the diagnosis an element is often added: not
only the internal theological consequences
of
the separation between the two
treatises are mentioned, but also the rise of atheism
in
western society is seen
as a consequence. The 'theistic' understanding
of
God, as presented in de Deo
Uno, provokes an a-theistic reaction, and precisely this atheistic reaction is the
reason to criticize profoundly the division and separation, as can be seen, for
example, in the works
of J. Moltmann, E. Jtingel
or
W. Kasper.
5
This analy
sis in terms
oftheism-
atheism can also be found
in
M. Buckley's studies on
the rise of atheism in Western society.
6
An important aspect of this theistic or
5
J. Moltmann, Der Gekreuzigte Gott, Das Kreuz Christi als Grund und Kritik christlicher Theo-
logie,
Miinchen, Kaiser, 1972, esp. 222-239; cf. also his
Trinitiit und Reich Gottes. Zur Gotteslehre,
Miinchen, Kaiser, 1980, 31-35; E. Jiingel, Gott als Geheimnis der Welt. Zur Begriindung der Theo-
logie des Gekreuzigten im Streit zwischen Theismus and Atheismus,
Tiibingen, Mohr, 1977; W. Kas
per, Der Gott Jesu Christi, Mainz, GrUnewald, 1982. Cf. also J. O'Donnell, The Mystery
of
the Tri-
une God, London, Sheed and Ward, 1988, who starts his book with a discussion of theism-atheism;
see also his earlier Trinity and Temporality. The Christian doctrine ofGod in the light
of
Process Theo-
logy and the Theology
of
Hope,
Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1983, 1-25. Cf. also Chr. Duquoc,
Dieu different, Paris, Cerf, 1977 ch. 1 who talks about the Absolute and the theological contestation
against that way of talking about God.
6
M.
Buckley, t the Origins
of
Modern Atheism, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1985 and
Denying and Disclosing God. The Ambiguous Progress of Modern Atheism,
New Haven/London,
D o w
n l o a d e d b y [ v i v i a n a p u e b l a
] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0
1 4
-
8/16/2019 Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity
7/37
Herwi Rikhof 427
generic understanding
of
God is the political consequence
of
it. The point here
is not only a parallel between monotheism and (absolute) monarchism, but that
the former supports the latter and the latter the former.
7
The importance of this reference to theism becomes clear, when one realizes
that the discourse about the Triune God has never been a discourse in a void,
but has been, from the very start, a discourse about God in contrast or oppo
sition to existing discourses about God or gods. It is not just that the 'Christ
ian distinction' is about the fundamental difference between Creator and cre
ation that is common to Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but this distinction
is
also about the radical re-figuration of immanence and transcendence due to
the incarnation and the inhabitation.
8
Or to put it differently, due to the incar
nation and the inhabitation, a profound reformulation of God's mystery has to
take place. This reformulation lies at the heart of Christianity and constitutes
its pertinacious and unyielding centre. In the discussions the blame for the
irrelevancy of the Trinitarian faith is mostly put on the shoulders of theologians,
but Rahner's remark that most Christians are 'monotheist' (one could also say
'Arians' or 'Sabellians') points to something else
as
well.
9
What is involved
Yale University Press, 2004. N. Lash, in one of the best non-technical books on the Trinity-
o l -
ness Speech and Silence. Reflections on the Question of God Aldershot/Burlington, Ashgate, 2004
-summarizes Buckley's analyses in two sentences: 'During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries,
the word god came to be used, for the first time, to name the ultimate explanation of the system of
the world. And, when it was in due time realized that the system
of
the world was such
as
not to
require any such single, overarching, independent, explanatory principle, the word
god
was dis
pensed with, and modem 'atheism' was born. , 9 Crucial to his analysis of the question of God today
is the shift from understanding to explanation, or to put it differently, from contemplation to the type
of inquiry typical of the modem sciences.
Cf. Greshake, er dreieine Gott. Eine trinitarische Theologie Freiburg etc., Herder, 1997,465-
491 for discussion and literature; cf. also J. Moltmann,
Trinitiit und Reich Gottes
205-217 and D.
Cunningham, These Three are One 50-53,145. As is clear from the literature, the point is not just a
historical one, and with the disappearance
of absolute monarchy this aspect of theism has disappe
ared as well: the connection
is
still at work. This connection
is
also a point in discussions about plu
rality in culture and society. Cf. R Williams,'Trinity and Pluralism', in G. D'Costa (ed.}, Christian
Uniqueness Reconsidered. The Myth
of
a Pluralistic Theology
of
Religion New York, Maryknoll,
1990, 3-15 (reprinted in
R
Wiliams, On Christian Theology Oxford etc., Blackwell, 2000, 167-180);
cf. also J Assmann, Monotheismus und die Sprache der Gewalt Wien, Picus Verlag, 2006.
8
I borrow the term 'Christian distinction' from R Sokolowski, The God of Faith and Reason.
Foundations ofChristian Theology Notre Dame/London, University ofNotre Dame Press, 1982, esp.
ch. 2-4 dealing with the 'Christian distinction'. For the reflguration
of
transcendence and immanence
see e.g.
H
Goris,
H
Rikhof, H Schoot (eds), Divine Transcendence and Immanence in the works of
Thomas Aquinas Publications of the Thomas Instituut te Utrecht, New Series vol. Xlll, Leuven/Wal
pole, Peeters, 2009, introduction.
9
Rahner,
Der
Dreifaltige Gott', 319. In this context the term 'monotheism' appears to be cor
rect; see for some critical remarks about the use of monotheism as a theological category referring
D o w
n l o a d e d b y [ v i v i a n a p u e b l a
] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0
1 4
-
8/16/2019 Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity
8/37
-
8/16/2019 Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity
9/37
Herwi Rikhof
429
n
what follows I will use what I have termed diagnosis and therapy as a frame
to present some important developments and discussions. I will start with two
more
or
less critical discussions with regard both diagnosis and therapy (3).
First, Rahner is highly negative about the Latin tradition and favours clearly
the approach of the Greek Fathers. The preference for the Greek tradition is
broadly shared, certainly in the sense that attention is given to that 'other'
tra
dition and not only to the
'own'
B His negative evaluation
of
the Western tra
dition, though, has met with a more mixed reaction.
On the one hand, one
encounters regularly a similar negative verdict about the Western tradition, but
on the other hand, one can notice a growing dissatisfaction with the clear cut
distinction between East and West and the easy labels of the traditions. I will
pay some attention to this dissatisfaction, for it determines not only where one
puts historically the blame for the lamented irrelevancy
of
the Trinity, but indi
cates also how to proceed in the theology of the Trinity (3.1). Second, Rah
ner's axiom, 'the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity and vice
versa', can be seen as the basis for the therapy, but the formulation
of
that
axiom has provoked a number
of
questions, especially with regard to the pre
cise meaning of 'is'. This discussion reveals a rather profound disagreement
about what form the theology
of
the Trinity should take. Since that discussion
colours the whole renaissance, I will give it ample attention and will try to
clarify some points (3.2). After these two discussions, I will turn to what I
have already indicated as a common pattern in the therapy: the almost exclu
sive concentration on the life and death of Jesus Christ. I will analyse some of
Moltmann' s work on the Trinity as an example of that pattern and will broaden
this pattern in two steps. (4)
13
With regard to the Greek Fathers one can notice not only an historical interest in the trinitarian
theology of the Cappadocians, but also a systematic theological interest. Cf. e.g. B Sesboue, Saint
Basile et a Trinite. Un acte theologique au W siecle. Le role de Basile de Cesaree dans l eboration
de a doctrine et du language trinitaires,
Paris, Desclee, 1998; C Beeley,
Gregory ofNazianus on
the Trinity and the Knowledge ofGod. In Your Light We Shall See Light, Oxford, Oxford University
Press, 2008; T Torrance,
The Trinitarian Faith. The Evangelical Theology of the Ancient Catholic
Church,
Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1995; C Marschiess, 'Gibt es eine einheitliche Kapadozische
Trinitiitstheologie ? Vorliiufige Erwiigungen zu Einheit und Differenzen Neuniziinischer Theologie',
in
Marburger Jahrbuch Theologie
10 (1998) 51-94; S Coakley, Persons' in the 'Social' Doctrine
of the Trinity: A Critique of Current Analytical Discussion', inS. Davis, D Kendall and G O'Col
lins (eds), The Trinity, 123-144; A Meesters, God in drie woorden. Een systematisch-theologisch
onderzoek naar de Cappadocische bijdrage aan het denken over God Drie-enig,
Zoetermeer,
Boekencentrum, 2006.
D o w
n l o a d e d b y [ v i v i a n a p u e b l a
] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0
1 4
-
8/16/2019 Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity
10/37
430 The Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity
3 Two critical discussions
3 1
The negative evaluation of the Western tradition
Rahner points to Thomas Aquinas, more precisely to the moment that his
Summa Theologiae became the textbook for the study of theology, as the fatal
turn in the course of the history of Western theology.
n
his Summa Thomas
breaks with the previous tradition as embodied in Peter Lombard s
Sentences
that functioned in the medieval universities as the textbook for theology and
that starts with the theology of the Trinity. Thomas starts with de Deo Uno.
14
That starting point became the norm, from the moment the Summa became the
textbook in the universities.
15
Although Rahner, in a footnote, expresses some caution, and acknowledges
that he takes as his point of departure the Wirkungsgeschichte des thomanis
chen Ansatzes and remarks that more historical research has to be done, his
negative verdict on Aquinas has been repeated without this caution and has
become one
of the cliches in the current renaissance and has become part of a
negative attitude towards Western theology.
16
As mentioned already, Rahner
expresses a preference for the Greek patristic tradition over and against the
Latin tradition which he also labels as Augustinian. The Greek tradition starts
with the three persons, especially with the Father, while the West starts with
the one-essential God .
17
Rahner echoes here a tradition going back to the
work of Th. de Regnon, who summarizes the differences between West and
East in the form of an opposition: three Persons in one
God
and
one
God
in three Persons .
18
The Greeks start with person and then discuss nature, the
Latins start with nature and add the concept of person.
19
The Greeks think of
14
The negative verdict on Thomas can also be found in H.U.
v.
Balthasar, Karl Barth. Darstel-
lung und Deutung seiner Theologie
Koln, J. Hegner, 1951, 275-6 and see also 272; these remarks
are part
of
a discussion
of
Das Problem einer katholischen Denkform and von Balthasar presents
there a rather neo-thomistic interpretation of Thomas.
15
Franciscus da Vitoria OP ( 1483-1546) replaced, as one of the first, Lombard s Sentences with
Thomas Summa in the University of Salamanca.
16
Rahner, Der Dreifaltige Gott 324, note 12. This note is lacking in Bemerkungen.
17
Rahner,
er
Dreifaltige Gott 323-325
18
Le
latin dit: trois personnes en Dieu; le Grec dit: un Dieu en trois personnes , Th. de Regnon,
Etudes de theologie positive sur Ia sainte Trinite Paris, Victor, Retaux, 1892 vol 1 and 2, and in
1898 posthumously vol. 3 en 4, vol. 1 etude VI ch. 5, 433; cf. also 430: ...se rapprocher de mystere
par deux voies inverses et l aborder par deux cotes opposes .
19
Le Latin fonde sa theorie sur l unite de
Ia
substance divine. II y ajoute Ia Trinite des person
nes par manieres de termes d actes divines ... Le Grec fonds sa theorie sur le dogme des trois hypos
tases divines , De Regnon,
Etudes
vol. 1 429.
D o w
n l o a d e d b y [ v i v i a n a p u e b l a
] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0
1 4
-
8/16/2019 Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity
11/37
Herwi Rikhof 431
the divine nature as the content of the person, while the Latins think about the
persons as expressing the nature.
2
This schema has been very influential. It can
for instance
be
discerned in the work
of
V. Lossky, who argues strongly that
as a consequence
of
this tendency in Western theology the Spirit is forgot
ten.21 It can also be sensed in the negative evaluation of Augustine. C. Gun
ton s
formulation
of
the charge against Augustine and many
of
his Western
successors resembles De Regnon s scheme: because Augustine failed to
appropriate the ontological achievement of his Eastern colleagues, he allowed
the insidious return of a Hellenism in which being is not communion, but some
thing underlying it.
22
Gunton is not the only systematic theologian to read
Augustine in this way. Barnes maintains that nothing is more common in con
temporary systematics than the inability to read Augustine outside de Regnon s
paradigm .
23
This historical scapegoating
24
might be part of a renaissance, but as in the case
of the other Renaissance, the Dark Middle Ages appeared to be less dark upon
closer inspection. Over the last few years historical research has been done
correcting the picture of a Western theology forgetting the Trinity or limiting
the Trinity to some abstract speculation without any relationship to either the
ology
of
spirituality.
For
example B. Raw draws attention to a flourishing
Trinitarian theology and spirituality in Anglo-Saxon England as is evident from
a wealth
of
images
of
the Trinity.
25
But especially relevant are recent studies
with regard to Augustine and Aquinas, since they figure more or less promi
nently in Rahner s diagnosis.
20
Le Latin considere
la
personnalite cornrne un mode de la nature, le Grec considere la person
nalite cornrne le contenu de la personne .. e Regnon, Etudes, vol. 1 433.
21
V.
Lossky,
Essai sur a Theologie Mystique de l Eglise d Orient,
Paris, Aubier, 1944 (transl.
The Mystical Theology
of
the Eastern Church,
Cambridge etc., Clark, 1955); cf.
J.
Freitag,
Geist
Vergessen
Geist-Erinnern. Vladimir Lossky s Pneumatologie als Herausforderung westlicher Theo
logie, Wiirzburg, Echter, 1995, 71 and cf. also F. Kerr, After Aquinas. Versions ofThomism Oxford
etc., Blackwell, 2002, 237-238.
22
C
Gunton,
The Promise ofTrinitarian Theology,
10. cf. also ch. 3: Augustine, The Trinity and
the Theological crisis
ofthe
West, 31-57, esp. 32 and 38-42; cf. also his
The One, the Three and the
Many: God, Creation and the Culture
of
Modernity,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1993.
23
M.R. Barnes, The use
of
Augustine in Contemporary Trinitarian Theology , in
Theological Stu
dies
56 (1995) 237-251, 239; see also his
De
Regnon Reconsidered in
Augustinian Studies
26 (1995)
51-79; and his Rereading Augustine on the Trinity ,
inS.
Davis, D. Kendall and G. Collins (eds),
The Trinity,
145-176, esp. 174-176; cf. also G. Lafont,
Peut-on connaltre Dieu en Jesus-Christ,
72-
105; E. Hill, Karl Rahner s Remarks on the Dogmatic Treatise de Trinitae and St. Augustine , in
Augustinian Studies
2 (1971) 67-80.
24
Cunningham, These Three are One, 31-35.
25
B. Raw,
Trinity and Incarnation
in
Anglo-Saxon
Art
and Thought,
Cambridge, Cambridge Uni
versity Press, 1997.
D o w
n l o a d e d b y [ v i v i a n a p u e b l a
] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0
1 4
-
8/16/2019 Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity
12/37
432 The Current Renaissance
of
the Theology
of
the Trinity
Augustine
With regard to Augustine I have already mentioned Barnes' critical remark
about the reception of Augustine in contemporary systematics. He is not the
only one. R. Kany has analysed the reception of Augustine's de Trinitate
from the mid
9th
century onwards. With regard to recent theologians, Kany
not only argues that the rather different points of criticism expressed by
K
Barth, K. Rahner, H.U. von Balthasar, W. Pannenberg and J. Moltmann are
mutually exclusive, but also show that they do not seem to know de Trini-
tate 26 And
L
Gioa starts his monograph about de Trinitate with a chapter
on the critics
of
Augustine and mentions especially R Wiliams and
L
Ayers
as scholars who have argued strongly for an interpretation that is different
from the one customarily encountered in the dismissal of Augustine's trini
tarian theology.
27
Moreover, scholars like F. Bourassa,
E
Bailleux and
J.
Verhees have shown
that de Trinitate
is
profoundly soteriological in character and biblical in basis.
28
A major part of E. Hill's
The mystery
of
the Trinity
is a commentary on de
Trinitate and he stresses that, in this work, Augustine is combining the eco
nomic and the transcendental approaches.
9
Studer has, building upon earlier
studies, published as his final work an introduction to
de Trinitate,
which
emphasizes, in the context
of
methodological considerations, the biblical ori
entation and, in the context
of
the Christian message
of
de Trinitate, the impor
tance of the missions in general and of the mysterium pascale in particular.
30
Similar accents can be noticed in Gioia's already mentioned study.
31
26
R Kany, Opus laboriosum. Bilanz, Kritik und Weiterfiihrung der Forschung des neunzehnten
und zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts zu Augustins de Trinitate, Bochum 2002. For a summary and a short
discussion see Studer, Augustinus, 26-47 and 49-51.
In
2007 Kany published the commercial edition
of his Habilitationsschrift: Augustins Trinitiitsdenken: Bilanz, Kritik und Weiterfiihrung der moder-
nen Forschung zu De trinitate ,
(Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum; 22), Tiibingen,
Mohr Siebeck, 2007.
27
L
Gioia,
The Theological Epistemology
of
Augustine's
e
Trinitate,
Oxford etc., Oxford Uni
versity Press, 2008, 6-23.
28
F. Bourassa, Questions de theologie trinitaire, Roma 1970; 'Theologie trinitaire chez saint
Augustin', in Gregorianum 58 (1977) 675-718; 59 (1978) 375-412; E Bailleux, 'La soteriologie de
saint Augustin dans le de Trinitate ', in Melanges de science religieuse 23 (1966), 149-173; J Ver
hees, God in beweging. Een onderzoek naar de pneumatologie van Augustinus, Wageningen, Veen
man, 1968, and 'Heiliger Geist und Inkarnation in der Theologie des Augustinus von Hippo. Un
loschlicher Zusammenhang zwischen Theologie und Okonornie', in Revue des Etudes Augustiniennes
22(1976), 234-264.
29
E Hill, The Mystery
of
the Trinity,
43-72.
30
B. Studer, Augustinus, 85-109; 155-180 and 209-233. cf. 51-52. For the earlier studies see B
Studer,
Gott und unsere Erlosung im Glauben der A/ten Kirche,
Dusseldorf, Patmos, 1985 (transl.
D o w
n l o a d e d b y [ v i v i a n a p u e b l a
] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0
1 4
-
8/16/2019 Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity
13/37
Herwi Rikhof
433
Thomas Aquinas
With regard to Thomas Aquinas, one has to say, first, that it has become quite
acceptable to distinguish between Thomas on the one hand and the various
forms o Thomism and neo-thomism on the other, and that it is, consequently,
quite common to give a more or less critical assessment
o
the reception
o
Thomas' thought in the course o history.
32
Although it would be hermeneuti
cally naive to present a reading
o
Thomas' texts that is rather different from
the reading given, for example, in neo-thomism as the authentic interpretation
o
Thomas, it is possible to criticize certain interpretations as deficient and to
argue for the correctness
o
others.
33
Second, the importance
o
these observations become clear when one turns to
Thomas' theology
o
the Trinity. To read the quaestiones 3- 43
o
the Prima
Pars
o
the Summa Theologiae as comprising two separate treatises de Deo
Uno and
de
Deo Trino, the one concerned with Gods external relationship and
the other with Gods internal relationship is begging the question. Thomas' text
does not support that reading. The terms 'treatise', de Deo Uno , de Deo
Trino do not occur and neither does the type
o
thinking these terms refer to.
The insertion
o
those kinds
o
titles in the editions
o
the Summa can be traced
to later editors.
34
Third, in recent studies on Thomas' theology
o
the Trinity the current renais
sance, with its negative verdict on Thomas' theology, is not always explicitly
present, but most o the time is part o the presentation. Even
i
not explicitly
present, one can notice a hermeneutical sensitivity in the way both the oikono
mia and the importance
o
Scripture for Thomas' theology in general, and for
his theology
o
the Trinity in particular, are stressed.
35
Trinity and Incarnation. The Faith o the Early Church (ed. by A Louth), Edinburgh, T&T Clark,
1993 and
Mysterium Caritatis. Studien zur Exegese und Trinitiitslehre in der A/ten Kirche,
Roma,
Centro Studi S Anselmo/ Herder, 1999.
31 Gioia, The Theological Epistemology, esp. ch. 4-8.
32 See e.g. O.H. Pesch, Thomas van Aquin. Grenze und
Groj e
mittelalterlicher Theologie, Mainz,
Grunewald 1988, 19-41; Th. O'Meara,
Thomas Aquinas Theologian,
Notre Dame/London, Notre
Dame Press, 1997, 153-200; F. Kerr (ed), Contemplating Aquinas. On the Varieties
o
Interpretation,
London SCM Press 2003; F. Kerr, After Aquinas. Visions ofThomism, Oxford etc., Blackwell, 2002.
33 H Rikhof, 'Een kwestie van lezen? Een antwoord aan J Aertsen', in Bijdragen 56 (1995) 429-
450.
4
For a more detailed argumentation: H Rikhof, Aquinas' Authority in Contemporary Theo
logy o the Trinity', in P van Geest, H. Goris, C. Leget (eds), Aquinas as Authority, Thomas Insti
tuut Utrecht, New Series Vol. VII, 2002, 213-234.
35
M Levering, Scripture and Metaphysics. Aquinas and the Renewal o Trinitarian Theology,
Oxford etc., Blackwell, 2002; T. Smith,
Thomas Aquinas Trinitarian Theology. A Study in Theolo-
D o w
n l o a d e d b y [ v i v i a n a p u e b l a
] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0
1 4
-
8/16/2019 Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity
14/37
434
The Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity
It might be good to conclude this section with a more general remark. The
critical reaction to Rahner s historical verdict is mainly concerned with analy
ses
of
the work
of
theologians. But Raw s study about the Anglo-Saxon period
also includes references to spirituality and to religious art. Referring to Rah
ner s complaint about the lack
of
influence
of
the belief in the Trinity in spir
ituality, Kerr makes the provoking remark that it is not credible that Catholics
who simply went to Mass ... never reading de
Deo
Uno course books, were
unaffected by the Trinitarianism
of
the Catholic faith ... At most, one might
say, it would have been future clergy who acquired this defectively Trinitar
ian faith through the theology lectures they attended .
36
Further research in the
field of popular prayer books, spiritual literature and religious art seems to be
required.
37
3.2 The discussion about the axiom
The formulation
of
the axiom is not a felicitous one. The term immanent is
not used in the sense in which it is usually employed, namely as the opposite
of
transcendent and referring to God present in world and history. Immanent
in Rahner s use is precisely opposite to that presence: it refers to God in se,
while economic refers to Gods presence in world and history. But the for
mulation is also problematic because
of
the double occurrence
of
Trinity . t
suggests two realities that are said to be identical and, therefore, not two real
ities. Although in view
of
Rahner s diagnosis this terminology is not so strange,
it seems to lose its usefulness when its diagnostic purpose is realized. But since
its purpose is not only diagnostic but also therapeutic, this element in the for
mulation is confusing. The main criticism, however, is directed against the
lack of clarity in the formulation of the axiom and concerns the vice versa
and, in particular, the is . How should one interpret this is ? Does it indicate
a (continuous dialectic or spiral) movement from one to the other or should it
be understood in terms of strict identity? When interpreted in the first way, the
gical Method,
Washington, The Catholic University
of
America Press, 2003; G. Emery,
a theolo
gie trinitaire de saint Thomas d Aquin, Paris, Cerf, 2004; A Min, Paths to the Triune God.
n
Encounter between Aquinas and Recent Theologies, Notre Dame, University
of
Notre Dame Press,
2005.
36
Kerr, After Aquinas, 238.
37
A good example is the work of Fr. Boesfplug, Dieu dans / Art, Paris, Cerf, 1984; La Trinite
dans l Art d Occident ( 1400-1600). Sept chefs-d oeuvre de a peinture, Strasbourg, Presses Univer
sitaire
de
Strasbourg, 2006
2
; cf. also his Dieu et ses images: Une histoire de l Eternel dans / Art,
Montrouge, Bayard, 2008.
D o w
n l o a d e d b y [ v i v i a n a p u e b l a
] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0
1 4
-
8/16/2019 Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity
15/37
Herwi Rikhof
435
function of the axiom is to remove the isolation of the de Deo Trino to facil
itate attention to the economic Trinity and to give it priority. Interpreted in the
second way the function of the axiom is more radical: the economic Trinity is
identical with the immanent Trinity and, because of this identity, it is sufficient
to talk about the economic Trinity. However, a problematic aspect of this iden
tity is that one may, on the same basis, conclude the opposite, namely that it
is sufficient to talk about the immanent Trinity.
38
3 .1.1 A discussion about interpretation
The first interpretation
Hilberath, for example, has defended the first type of interpretation.
He
has
argued that many discussions about the interpretation of the axiom turn out to
be superfluous, when the is is understood in the context of the history of the
ology and the vice versa against the background of Rahner s transcendental
theology. Rahner wants to stress that the economic Trinity is already the imma
nent Trinity, and that in the history of salvation God has not revealed some
thing about himself that leaves him completely untouched and his essence in
no way known, but has revealed himself . So, already in the salvation-his
torical treatises such as christology, pneumatology and the theology of grace,
and not just in de Deo Trino the Triune God is the subject. And with regard
to the vice versa he explains that Rahner only wants to stress that God in im-
self is such that he can and will communicate himself to creatures. He adds
three remarks on what Rahner did not intend to say: that God is completely
merged into history, that there is in that sense a strict identity between the eco
nomic and immanent Trinity, and that in salvation history we have a complete
understanding of God.
39
Those three remarks are somewhat different in kind. With regard to the first
and the third remark, it certainly would be strange to suppose that Rahner
intended to propose a form of pantheism or panentheism, or to suppose that he
intended to say that we can comprehend God completely. But the question is
not so much about intention as about formulation. That is why several theolo
gians question the formulation. For example, Y. Congar provides two glosses
38
Cf. F. Sanders, Entangled in the Trinity: Economic and hrunanent Trinity in Recent Theology ,
in
Dialog: a Journal
o
Theology 40
(2001) 3, 175-182.
39
B. Hilberath, Der dreieinige Gott und die Gemeinschaft der Menschen Mainz, Griinewald,
1990, 63-68.
D o w
n l o a d e d b y [ v i v i a n a p u e b l a
] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0
1 4
-
8/16/2019 Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity
16/37
436
The Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity
that limit strongly the absolute character of the formulation. One gloss is con
cerned with the difference between the free mystery of the history of salva
tion and the necessary mystery of the Trinity. For this difference he refers to
the discussion in the early Church that shaped the Creed so decisively.
t was
maintained against Arius that creation is a free act and that God would have
been Father Son and Spirit even without the creation. The other gloss concerns
the eschatological aspect of God s self-communication, the visio beatifica, and
the central question here is whether one can say that the whole of the divine
mystery is revealed in God s self communication in history.
40
B. Forte, refer
ring to Cougar s comments, concludes that the necessary antithesis to the
thesis that the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity, is that the immanent
Trinity is not the economic Trinity.
41
The concerns Cougar formulates in these
glosses are points that return repeatedly in the present discussions, as will
become clear in what follows.
42
But with regard to Hilberath s second remark on what Rahner did not intend
to claim, -the identity
of
the two Trinities
- ,
this intention is not so clear. For
it seems rather strange that Rahner, by using both
is
and vice versa , espe
cially in combination with the double use of Trinity , did not intend to deny
two Trinities and did not intend to point to their identity. That is what Hilberath
in fact presented a little earlier as the correct interpretation of the axiom.
43
The second interpretation
As mentioned, another more radical interpretation of the axiom is also given.
P. Schoonenberg was probably the first one to propose such an interpretation.
n 1973 he published theses that he presented as provisional indications of his
Trinitarian reflections and as a further development of Rahner s insights.
44
He
4
°Cf. Y Congar, Je crois en / Esprit Saint, t III, Paris, Cerf, 1980, 34-44; Congar refers for the
second glossa to G Lafont,
Peut-on connaitre Dieu en Jesus Christ?,
Paris 1969, and to B Rey,
Theologie trinitaire et Revelation biblique , in Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Theologiques
1970, 636-653. Cf. also W. Kasper, Der Gott Jesu Christi, 335-336.
4
B. Forte, Trinitii come storia. Saggio sui Dio cristiano, (Simbolica Ecclesiale 4), Cinisello
Balsamo, Ed. San Paolo, 1993
5
,
23.
42
For the first glossa Congar refers to, see also R. Sokolowski,
The God
of
aith and Reason,
on
the Christian distinction.
43
In der heilsgeschichtlichen Trinitiit [ .. ] begegnet uns Gott selbst, wie er in sich (immanent)
ist, und Gott ist in sich so
daB
er
dem Menschen in der Geschichte als er selber begegnen kann.
Hilberath, Der dreieinige Gott . . 64.
44
P. Schoonenberg, Trinitiit - Der vollendete Bund. Thesen zur Lehre vom dreipersi:inlichen
Gott , in Orientierung 37 (1973), 115-117 (translated as
Trinity-
the Consummated Covenant.
Theses on the Doctrine of the Trinitarian God in Studies in Religion 5 [1975] 111-116).
D o w
n l o a d e d b y [ v i v i a n a p u e b l a
] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0
1 4
-
8/16/2019 Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity
17/37
Herwi Rikhof
437
groups his 36 theses in four categories: about the direction of theological reflec
tion, with regard to Trinitarian concepts, about the three persons , about chris
tology and pneumatology. The ftrst category contains theses interpreting Rah
ner s axiom. This interpretation has provoked opposite reactions, but precisely
because of these reactions it is also the most instructive .
45
Schoonenberg starts with formulating a rule that is decisive for what follows:
our thinking moves from the world to God and never the other way around. This
rule is not contradicted by revelation, since revelation is
God s
self-communi
cation in human history. The rule s consequence for the Trinity is that the Trin
ity
can
never be the point
of
departure. In no way can we conclude from the
Trinity to Christ and the Spirit given to us, but always only the other way
around.
46
After this general remark about the Trinity, he concentrates on the
distinction between economic and immanent Trinity. He makes several rather
different remarks about the distinction. First, he determines the distinction as
only a distinction between aspects of the same reality and he quotes Rahner s
axiom as support for this.
47
That is to say, Schoonenberg interprets Rahner s
axiom as about aspects
of
the same reality . Second, he develops his interpre
tation further by explaining why the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity:
in
the history
of
salvation God in himself is present as triune . With regard to
the vice versa the rule he formulated at the outset becomes relevant: the imma
nent Trinity is only accessible as economic Trinity . This has as consequence
that the fact that God is Trinity as well apart from his self-communication in
the history
of
salvation can neither be presupposed nor denied . How important
and far-reaching this consequence is, becomes clear in the three following the
ses, in which Schoonenberg concentrates on this claim about the immanent
Trinity. First, he qualifies the question of whether God is Trinity apart from his
historical auto-communication as meaningless, since we do not know how the
relationship is between
God s
unchangeability and his free self-determination.
Second, the description of the immanent Trinity can only be fruitful i it stays
within the borders of the history of salvation. Third, this limitation applies both
to the names (Father Son, Spirit) and the concepts (person, relation).
Schoonenberg interprets the
is
and the vice versa in Rahner s axiom in such
a way that the identity between the economic and immanent Trinity is neither
45
F. Sanders uses this qualification although not because
of
the reactions:
F
Sanders,
Entangled
177.
6
Schoonenberg,
Trinitiit
thesis 3;
in
thesis 4 he formulates similar consequences
of
the chris
tology, focused on the pre-existent Logos.
47
Schoonenberg,
Trinitiit
thesis 5.
D o w
n l o a d e d b y [ v i v i a n a p u e b l a
] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0
1 4
-
8/16/2019 Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity
18/37
438 The Current Renaissance
of
the Theology
of
the Trinity
epistemologically nor ontologically symmetrical. C. LaCugna quotes this asym
metrical interpretation with approval, but she also aggravates the issue by ques
tioning the need to speak about the economic and immanent Trinity. There is
neither an economic
nor
an immanent Trinity; there is only the oikonomia that
is the concrete realization
of
the mystery
of
theologia in time, space, history
and personality.
48
Moreover, she argues that the terms she prefers instead,
oikonomia and theologia, should be clarified. Oikonomia is not the Trinity
d
extra, nor is theologia the Trinity in se. Oikonomia is the comprehensive plan
of God reaching from creation to consummation, in which God and all crea
tures are destined to exist together in the mystery
of
love and communion ; the-
ologia is the mystery
of
God .
49
She opposes strongly the understanding
of
the-
ologia as about God s interior life, for it presupposes that God were something
into which
something else could be placed, whether it be attributes or relations
or a trinity of persons.
50
LaCugna s discussion
of
Rahner s axiom and Schoonenberg s interpretation
of it forms the starting point of the second part of her book in which she re
conceives the doctrine
of
the Trinity. She does so against the background
of
an analysis in which she traces the history of the marginalization of the theol
ogy
of
the Trinity. Like Rahner she mentions the separation
of
the treatises de
Deo Uno and de Deo Trino, but unlike Rahner she locates the cause
of
the mar
ginalization earlier than the
3th
century: in the Arian controversy
of
the
4th century. The Council of Nicea safeguarded the concept of divine salvation
by introducing the homoousios,
but, in doing so, also shifted attention from the
history of salvation to the intradivine realm. Moreover, by allowing equality
between Father and Son on the level
of
theologia and inequality
on
the level
of
oikonomia,
- the apparent subordinationism of the Son to the Father within
the economy
of
salvation does not entail subordinationism at the level
of
the-
ologia 51 the council created a gap between the two levels.
The
ultimate
effect of this reaction to Arius was a drastic separation of the mystery of God
and the mystery
of
salvation .
52
So, LaCugna maintains that she does not want to abandon the theologia
or
the
ories about the immanent Trinity, but like Schoonenberg she stresses the
oikonomia as proving the basis of, and setting the limits to, that kind
of
reflec-
48
LaCugna,
God for
Us.
The Trinity and Christian Life,
San Francisco, Harper San Francisco,
1991, 223.
49
LaCugna,
God for Us
223.
5
LaCugna,
God for Us
225.
5
LaCugna,
God for
Us
37.
52
LaCugna,
God for
Us
37.
D o w
n l o a d e d b y [ v i v i a n a p u e b l a
] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0
1 4
-
8/16/2019 Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity
19/37
Herwi Rikhof
439
tion. She endorses strongly Schoonenberg's remark about the senselessness
of
speculation about God s Trinity apart from the oikonomia, ('unverifiable and
ultimately untheological') and maintains that an 'inquiry into the immanent
ground of the missions of Son and Spirit remains a legitimate theological enter
prise provided this inquiry is understood properly and modestly, that is, as
reflection on God s self-disclosure in the person of Christ and the activity of
the Holy Spirit.
53
The
point
of
the theology
of
the Trinity is therefore not to
speak about God but about God s life with us and our life with each other'.
54
Some critical reactions
LaCugna's plea for the 'essential unity between oikonomia and theologia as
'the fundamental framework for trinitarian theology'
55
has met with positive
and negative reactions.
56
The negative reactions are neither concerned with her
critique on the separation between oikonomia and theologia
nor
with her argu
ments for an immanent Trinity closely connected to the history
of
salvation,
but with her view that this connection or correlation is an 'essential unity' and
her explication
of
that essential unity. For example, when Weinandy reacts to
LaCugna's view
he
neither questions that God is God-for-us nor holds that
there is an ontological distinction between the economic and the immanent
Trinity, but he argues that 'there is an ontological distinction between God and
all else that exists'.
57
There must be a God, a Trinity, for there to be a God
for-us, a Trinity-for-us. f he oikonomia is the realm in which the Trinity acts
and reveals itself, there must be a realm where the Trinity is. But LaCugna does
not accept that: in her view the Trinity is ontologically the economy.
58
The
term 'Trinity' merely expresses the Trinitarian pattern
or
mode
of God s
rev-
53
LaCugna, God for Us, 231-232; for modesty see also 227.
54
LaCugna, God for Us, 228.
55
LaCugna, God for Us, 211; cf. 13 n this context she formulates more generally: 'Theology
is inseparable from soteriology, and vice versa'.
56
Peters, e.g. qualifies LaCugna's book as a 'real jewel', GOD, 122, and J. Vickers, Invocation
and Assent. The Making and Remaking o Trinitarian Theology, Grand Rapids/Cambridge, Eerdmans,
2008 considers it 'the most important and influential account
of
the demise
of
the Trinity in Chris
tian theology in the West' and sees his own book about a similar loss in English Protestant theology'
as
a
complement' to LaCugna's overall thesis. xi.
57
Th. Weinandy, The Father s Spirit o Sonship: Reconceiving the Trinity, Edinburgh, T T Clalk,
1995, Excursus Two, The Immanent and the Economic Trinity: a Response to LaCugna, 123-136,
130
58
Cf. 'The immanent Trinity is not transhistorical, transempirical or transeconomic.' LaCugna,
God for Us, 229.
D o w
n l o a d e d b y [ v i v i a n a p u e b l a
] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0
1 4
-
8/16/2019 Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity
20/37
440
The Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity
elation ..
.
59
One can notice a similar pattern in Molnar's discussion
of
LaCugna's views.
60
On the one hand, he acknowledges that the intention not
to ignore or to bypass the economy is correct and he agrees with the thesis that
we can only say anything about the immanent Trinity on the basis of the econ
omy; on the other hand, he argues that precisely because
of
that basis we must
'recognize that all our theological knowledge is grounded in the fact that God
is towards us what he is eternally in himself.' r to put it differently: LaCugna
refuses to give the doctrine
of the immanent Trinity a genuine function in her
thinking about God for
us
for 'she refuses to acknowledge the importance of
the immanent Trinity as the presupposition, meaning and goal
of
any Trini
tarian theology.
61
Another approach
I have presented this discussion about the interpretation
of
Rahner's axiom not
only in order to show that the question of what kind of theology the theology
of
the Trinity should be is at stake, but also how complicated that discussion
is, how different elements are involved and how different considerations play,
or rather should play, a role, because the different elements require different
considerations and evaluations. But before I give an analysis
of
this compli
cated discussion, I want to bring in the view
of
another theologian, since it con
tains elements that can help this analysis.
While most authors use the economic/immanent distinction chronologically,
that is, to describe the development in the history of theology, D. Coffey has
a different approach. n his commentary on Rahner's axiom he points first to
a general distinction: the epistemological and the ontological order, 'the order
of
knowledge,
of
discovery and the order
of
being,
of
givenness' and remarks
in applying this distinction to the Trinity that these
do
not necessarily coin
cide: it is possible that the one be the reverse of the other and indeed such is
the case in the matter
of
the Trinity' .
62
Commenting on Schoonenberg's
59
Weinandy, The Father s Spirit o Sonship, 132; cf. LaCugna's remark that the immanent trini
tarian theology is a way of thinking and speaking about the structure or pattern of God's self-expres
sion in salvation history.'
God for Us,
225.
6
P.O. Molnar,
Divine Freedom and the Doctrine o he Immanent Trinity. In Dialogue with Karl
Barth and Contemporary Theology,
London/New York, T T Clark, 2002, 3-6; Molnar does not refer
to Weinandy's book.
61
Molnar, Divine Freedom, 4.
62
D
Coffey,
Deus Trinitas. The Doctrine o the Triune God,
New York/Oxford, Oxford Univer
sity Press, 1999, 15.
D o w
n l o a d e d b y [ v i v i a n a p u e b l a
] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0
1 4
-
8/16/2019 Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity
21/37
Herwi Rikhof
441
methodological starting point (our thinking about God moves from our reality
to God and never in the opposite direction) he remarks that this is only half
correct . It is correct, since it indicates the move from biblical data to the imma-
nent Trinity and disqualifies the generation
of
some new and fundamental data;
it is incorrect since it takes no account
of
the necessity
of
a return from the
immanent Trinity to the biblical data to acquire the doctrine
of
the economic
Trinity .
63
This has consequences for the theology of the Trinity: it is neither
just a biblical doctrine nor is it just the doctrine
of
the immanent Trinity. The
proper study
of
the Trinity is the study
of
the economic Trinity, which
of
course
presupposes both the biblical and the immanent Trinity.
64
Coffey clarifies this further by appealing to Lonergan, who discerns three lev-
els in the process of knowing: experience, understanding and judgment. The
biblical data correspond to experience, the immanent Trinity to our under-
standing
of
these data in the world
of
our own intellectual culture , the eco-
nomic Trinity is our affirmation that
this
is the case : It is the judgment by
which we return from our reflective understanding to the real spiritual world
brought to its perfection in the Christ event, and this not just as revealed and
experienced but as understood and affirmed.
65
So, Coffey does not equate the biblical data about the Trinity with the economic
Trinity, but uses them as data to be developed in a (continuous) process
of
knowledge and understanding. n that process the immanent Trinity is not an
end in itself , but plays an important and indispensable role. It safeguards the
divine transcendence and drives the economic Trinity: without the immanent
Trinity the economic Trinity would not exist.
66
3 .1.2 An analysis o the discussion
n order to unravel this complicated discussion, it might be good to start with
some remarks about terminology. As I mentioned already, the use
of
the
immanent Trinity and the economic Trinity is confusing. It suggests two
Trinities.
n
order to avoid that unwanted suggestion, it might be helpful to use
the originally patristic terminology
of oikonomia and theologia. This termi-
nology makes clear that what
is
at stake
is
not (the acceptance or the denial
63
Coffey, Deus Trinitas
16.
6
Coffey, Deus Trinitas 16; Coffey uses the term biblical Trinity to refer to the biblical data
and doctrine.
65
Coffey, Deus Trinitas 17.
66
Coffey, Deus Trinitas
19
cf. 24.
D o w
n l o a d e d b y [ v i v i a n a p u e b l a
] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0
1 4
-
8/16/2019 Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity
22/37
442
The Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity
of) two Trinities, but two ways of approaching the Trinity or of talking about
the Trinity. These two ways are neither unique to the discourse about the Trin-
ity nor typical
of
theology. These two approaches can easily be discovered in
any ordinary discourse about people: on the one hand a discourse about what
a person does or did and on the other hand a discourse about who, or what kind
of person, that person is or was. Indicative for these two kinds of discourse is
the type of language employed:
on
the one hand, the concrete language of
anecdotes and stories; on the other hand, the analytical language of concepts
and general characterizations or qualifications (like trustworthy, intelligent,
beautiful or dubious, stupid and ugly). Remarks like I did not expect that from
her or that is typically
him
also show the complex relationship between these
two kinds of discourse. The second depends (continually) on the first and is a
form of comment or interpretation; in that sense it is secondary. But as com-
ment or interpretation, the second discourse influences and determines the first
decisively. For example, somebody s actions are judged differently if that per-
son is considered to be reliable or shady. The complicated relationship between
the two levels becomes even clearer when one considers what kind of action
would be required to change those qualifications.
7
Precisely because these two different types
of
discourse are not typical
of
the-
ology, but occur in ordinary language and are an integral part
of
ordinary lan-
guage, the occurrence of both types in religious and theological language is not
surprising or strange. The burden of the argument seems therefore to be on
those who are critical or suspicious of the discourse typical of theologia Why
should that kind of discourse be barred from religious or theological language?
An argument in favour
of
such a banishment might be that this kind
of
dis-
course neglects the mystery, the basic incomprehensibility of God. But that
argument does not seem to take sufficiently into account that even in ordinary
language there is always some mystery left and that that kind
of
discourse is
not intended to give mere descriptions. Moreover, although that kind of lan-
guage can be misconstrued or abused, that does not invalidate that approach
in principle. The fact that God is a mystery does not call for silence, but for a
kind of negative theology that is negative because God is different and sur-
prising.68
67
It seems too easy to equate these two discourses with the distinction between the order of kno-
wing (epistemology) and the order
of
being (ontology), since both kinds
of
discourse take place in
both orders.
68
I use the rather different characterizations different and surprising to capture the funda-
mental difference between Creator and creation and the way God acts in history respectively. J Wis-
sink has made the useful distinction between a (mostly) philosophical negative theology based upon
D o w
n l o a d e d b y [ v i v i a n a p u e b l a
] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0
1 4
-
8/16/2019 Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity
23/37
Herwi Rikhof
443
This point can also be put somewhat differently. The distinction between reli
gious discourse and theological discourse is a common one. To the former
belong Scripture and liturgy, to the latter the systematic reflection on the faith.
To the distinction a variety of other distinctions or degrees can be connected,
such as direct-indirect, talking with God and talking about God, involved
detached, narrative-argument.
69
The way the distinction is made also indicates
a relationship: the former is primary, the later secondary. Religious discourse
is and remains presupposed to, or in, theological discourse. Theological dis
course serves religious discourse through clarification and interpretation, since
it answers questions arising out
of
religious discourse. For religious discourse
provokes thought and questions not only from without, but also from within.
Upon closer inspection this clear distinction has to be modified, since elements
of
reflection, clarification, interpretation and teaching are part, or have become
part, of religious discourse, such as sermons, catechesis, creeds, prayers, the
canon
of
the Scriptures, and also the canon within Scripture, and the liturgical
selections
of
readings. And again, this is also something that can be observed
in our ordinary language. Expressions like I did not mean that', 'you cannot
say that', 'that is impolite', say nicely thank you to ... , 'apparently I did
not express myself clearly enough' are a normal part
of
our daily communi
cations. To use just two examples from religious language closely related to
the Trinity: in the gospels, the 'Our Father' is part
of
Jesus' teaching his dis
ciples how to pray, and that aspect is contained in the liturgical introduction
when the Our Father' is prayed during the Mass. The preface
of
Trinity Sun
day, which used to be the preface for every ordinary Sunday in the Roman
a form
of
agnosticism and a (theological) negative theology based on the awareness
of
Deus semper
major: 'Enkele theologische reflecties over de negatieve theologie toegelicht aan de hand van Tho
mas van Aquino', in I Bulhof, L ten Kate (eds),
Ons ontbreken heilige namen. Negatieve theologie
n de hedendaagse cultuurfilosofie, Kampen, Kok Agora, 1992, 46-65. For a more extensive analy
sis of Aquinas' negative theology in the Summa Theologiae also H Rikhof, 'Negative Theology', in
J Wissink (ed.),
Dis)continuity and De)construction. Reflections on the meaning o the past
n
cri-
sis situation,
Kampen, Kok Pharos, 1995, 154-171. With regard to silence cf.
R
Jenson's therapeu
tic use of Luther's insistence on God's hidden-ness, namely to ward off a 'bowdlerized apophaticism,
which had recently been popular', 'The Hidden and the Triune God' , in
International Journal o Sys-
tematic Theology 2 (2000) I, 5-12, 6.
69
Cf. e.g. R Jenson, 'What is the point
of
Trinitarian Theology?' , inCh. Schwi:ibel (ed.), Trini-
tarian Theology Today, 31-43. Vickers, Invocation and Assent uses the terms that form the title of
his book to point to the process
of
demise, i.e. going from 'invocation
or
prayer to intellectual
assent...from doxological to epistemological activity' (I). In a footnote he explains the distinction or
contrast
as
a heuristic device. From his remarks it becomes clear that assent as such is not a problem,
since 'the assent that accompanied invocation of the Trinity in the early church was primarily, if not
exclusively, an assent to propositions about the economic Trinity' (2, nt2).
D o w
n l o a d e d b y [ v i v i a n a p u e b l a
] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0
1 4
-
8/16/2019 Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity
24/37
444 The Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity
missal before the liturgical reformation
of
Vatican II, contains, in the context
of a prayer, reminders of how to talk about God the Father Son and Spirit.
70
Precisely this interaction between the two kinds of discourse show that the dis
tinction should not necessarily be seen in terms of contrast, conflict or betrayal,
and that it is even rather misguided to introduce that kind of terminology as
something obvious and self-evident. This observation is important, since in the
literature one encounters quite often the suggestion that the later tradition, by
being later, and especially the development of dogma, by being a develop
ment, are alien and even hostile to the original.
7
It might be necessary to argue
that some
or
even most theologians have not been able to reflect adequately
upon the Trinity, and not have been able to realize fully what is involved in
the reformulation of the mystery of God required because of the incarnation
and the inhabitation, but for such an argumentation to be meaningful it is not
enough to point to differences in terminology, or even in concepts, since con
tinuity or discontinuity of faith is established on the level of doctrinal content
and is a question of judgement. n making a judgement, terms and concepts are
used, but the same judgement can be made by means of different concepts
while the same terms can express a rather different judgement. And the his
tory
of
the concepts used does not fully and decisively determine the judge-
70
As
such the preface resembles the Creed prayed in the liturgy both in formulation and func
tion. Although the creeds used in the liturgy contain a rule of faith if only because of the basic tri-
partite structure, the creed that explicitly formulates the Quicumque vult the so-called Athanasian
Creed, that contains so many verbal similarities to Augustine s De Trinitate that it may have arisen
somewhere in the Augustinian tradition
as
J. Pelikan remarks:
Credo. Historical and Theological
Guide t Creed and Confessions
o
Faith in the Christian Tradition Newhaven /London, Yale Uni
versity Press, 2003, 437-438. Pelikan does not give references to de Trinitate but Augustine s sum
mary of the faith which Haec et mea fides est quando haec est catholica fides and which forms a
starting point for the book, might be a good example: book I,
n 7
B. Studer points to the deficient
character of the reception of Augustine s thought in this creed
in
his Augustinus de Trinitate. Eine
Einfiihrung Paderborn etc., Schi:iningh, 2005, 18, while E. Hill in a book on the Trinity which
is
more or less a commentary of Augustine s de Trinitate is more positive:
E
Hill, The Mystery o the
Trinity London, Chapman, 1985,5-6. Lash s insistence that the great religious traditions of the world
are best understood
as
schools fits in well with this aspect of rule. Holiness
11
71
This
is
not the place to discuss the various theories about the development of dogma, or the
different views on the relationship between exegesis and (systematic) theology. The appearance of
Jesus von Na-zareth by J. Ratzinger/Benedikt XVI, Freiburg etc., Herder, 2007 gave a fresh input to
the discussion about that relationship. Cf. also S Fowl (ed.),
The Theological Interpretation
o
Scrip
ture Classic and contemporary readings Oxford etc., Blackwell, 1997 and K Vanhoozer (ed.), Theo
logical Interpretation
o
the New Testament. A Book-by-Book survey
Grand Rapids, Baker Acade
mic, 2008, esp. the introduction. See for some
of
interesting suggestions with regard to the connection
between Scripture and the theology of the Trinity: Fr. Young, The Trinity and the New Testament ,
in C Rowland,
C
Tuckett (eds.), The Nature o New Testament Theology Essays in honour o Robert
Morgan Oxford etc., Blackwell 2006, 286-305.
D o w
n l o a d e d b y [ v i v i a n a p u e b l a
] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0
1 4
-
8/16/2019 Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity
25/37
Herwi Rikhof
5
ment pronounced with these concepts.7
Two examples from Paul can make
this line of thought more concrete.
n
God, who has shone in our hearts to
bring the enlightenment which is the knowledge of God s glory in the face of
Christ 2 Cor. 4,6) Paul expresses, certainly i the context is taken into account,
the same judgement as is expressed in the tripartite creed.
73
And when Paul,
probably quoting a liturgical text, talks about Christ who was in the form of
God and did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped and that he
received the name who is above every name (Phil. 2, 6-11), he expresses the
same judgement as contained in the Nicean homoousion.
74
In the light of these considerations, attention to other sources of Trinitarian
theology as well as to the practices
of
the Church entailed in religious lan
guage, is not only understandable but also necessary.
75
A somewhat related complication in the discussion about the axiom is the dou
ble purpose of Rahner s axiom: diagnostic and therapeutic. Although both pur
poses are appropriate, they easily become mixed up. That means that the dis
tinction between, on the one hand, historical analyses and, on the other hand,
systematic considerations, tends to disappear. A pattern of argumentation one
encounters too often is the following: because a certain development ends in
an undesirable result - the isolation
of
the Trinity in theology and spirituality
because
of
the appeal to the immanent Trinity, - that development is disquali
fied. This pattern is questionable on at least on two accounts: it is insufficiently
historical and insufficiently systematic. It is insufficiently historical since it
assumes that the beginning logically and necessarily leads to the factual out
come, as i on the way no historical events, contingent decisions or misun
derstandings and mistakes have influenced and determined the whole process.
76
It is insufficiently systematic since it overlooks the internal dynamism contained
in the interplay between the two levels
of
languages mentioned above. Reli
gious language provokes questions and faith seeks understanding, especially
since they are part of the ongoing process of living. That means that certain
72
D. Yeago The New Testament and the Nicene Dogma: A Contribution to the Recovery of
Theological Exegesis ,
inS
Fowl (ed.), The Theological Interpretation o Scripture Oxford/Cam
bridge Mass., 1997, 87-100.
73
See F. Young,
D.
Ford, Meaning and Truth in 2 Corinthians (Biblical Foundations in Theo
logy), London/Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1987.
74
D. Yeago, The New Testament 95.
75
See e.g. Cunningham, The Three are One; cf. also
J.
Buckley, D. Yago (eds), Knowing the Tri-
une God. The Work o he Spirit n the Practices o he Church Grand Rapids/Cambridge, Eerdmans,
2001
and my remark at the end of 3.2.
76
Cf. the earlier remarks about the development of dogma.
D o w
n l o a d e d b y [ v i v i a n a p u e b l a
] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0
1 4
-
8/16/2019 Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity
26/37
446
The Current Renaissance of the Theology
of
the Trinity
questions are pertinent and
in
that sense the discussions in the early Church
about, for example, Arius, are more than just historical.1
7
A different question
is whether the historical analyses are in fact correct. To this question I will turn
after mentioning a fmal element in this complicated discussion.
In my short presentation of Raimer s long contribution on the theology of the
Trinity I have
not
mentioned his argument that the term person should
no
longer be used in talking