RSSTrinitarianism without reserve
Darryl’s questions about relational v. forensic point to one dimension of the FV discussion that we haven’t talked about, the effort to think through our theology on thoroughly Trinitarian premises.
The basic question is: If the ultimately reality over the universe is a communion of Divine Persons, what does that say about the character of the universe itself, about human beings, and about God’s relation to creation and human beings?
In raising this question, I’m not implying that anyone on the other side denies the Trinity, or that the Reformed tradition is non-Trinitarian. But the doctrine of the Trinity has not had a central role in theology since the 17th century. (Philip Dixon’s Nice and Hot Disputes describes the decline of Trinitarian thinking in 17th-century English theology, and William Platcher has also studied this.) In the last century, there has been a Trinitarian revival, of course, and the FV has been partly an effort to apply some of the insights of recent Trinitarian theology within the Reformed tradition.
I’m not drawing any specific conclusions here. To say we’re interested in discussing a “Trinitarian soteriology” doesn’t by itself answer questions about relational v. forensic, and certainly does not cancel forensic categories. I’m only describing one of our motivations.
For those who are unfamiliar with this discussion, Ralph Smith’s books are an excellent place to start.
D Hart
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:06 am
Or is it Trinitarianism without distinction? The Shorter Catechism is remarkably Trinitarian, though it doesn’t have a question and answer asking whether we must conduct theology trinitarianally. But following the lights of the economic Trinity, it gives a decent account of the Trinity’s work in redemption.
Plus, Peter’s post is reminiscent of the late 19th c. revisers of the Westminster Confession who said the Standards didn’t talk about the Holy Spirit (they didn’t seem to mind that the WCF had no chapter on God, the Father). The Holy Spirit is practically everywhere in the WCF, especially in the chapter on Scripture as well as the application of redemption as well as the sacraments and preaching.
But if Peter means that we don’t have enough theology done from the perspective of the ontological Trinity he might have a point. But here there is a tension for the biblicism of FV. That biblicism is the legacy of the Reformed tradition’s reliance upon exegetical theology and its avoidance of speculative theology. I see Peter’s proposal as an invitation to speculation.
P. Andrew Sandlin
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Peter, I’m Trinitarin through and through, but we need to start our theology where the primitive church did — with the historic Christ (Cullmann was right; Barth was wrong). The orthodox Trinity was a (proper) second-order construct from NT Christology. The early Gentile believers knew God by knowing Christ first.
It was a lesson that the Jews needed to learn if they were to be saved.
We will be good Trinitarian theologians only if we begin with Jesus Christ.
Doug’s right — Christ, not “Trinitarian*ism*,” is the center (Col. 1:15-20).
Peter
October 4th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Point taken, Andrew. And this helps to address some of Darryl’s concerns about speculation and how a Trinitarian theology is compatible with “biblicism.” Trinitarian theology is deeply concerned with redemptive history because that’s where the Triune God has unveiled His Triunity.
Also, I wasn’t being critical of the Confession so much as theology since the 17th century. Early 17th century English theology was profoundly and sometimes creatively Trinitarian, but that wasn’t true later. Again, I’m relying on Dixon here.