Comments on: Trinitarianism without reserve

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:57:30 +0000

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.

By: P. Andrew Sandlin

P. Andrew Sandlin — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 04:38:50 +0000

Peter, I’m Trinitarin through and through, but we need to start our theology where the primitive church did â€” 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 â€” Christ, not “Trinitarian*ism*,” is the center (Col. 1:15-20).

By: D Hart

D Hart — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:06:35 +0000

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.