current renaissance of the theology of the trinity

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


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


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


] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0

1 4


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


] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0

1 4


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


] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0

1 4


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


] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0

1 4


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


] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0

1 4


8/37


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


] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0

1 4


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


] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0

1 4


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


] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0

1 4


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


] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0

1 4


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


] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0

1 4


14/37

434


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


] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0

1 4


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


] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0

1 4


16/37

436


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


] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0

1 4


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


] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0

1 4


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


] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0

1 4


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


] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0

1 4


20/37

440


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


] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0

1 4


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


] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0

1 4


22/37

442


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


] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0

1 4


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


] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0

1 4


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


] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0

1 4


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


] a t 0 5 : 1 4 1 5 N o v e m b e r 2 0

1 4


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

current renaissance of the theology of the trinity

Documents