Discussing the Trinity with Halden

By -
I thought that I would take this opportunity to point you toward a conversation that Halden D. and I have been having in the comments section of at his blog, Inhabitatio Dei. He posted about the Westminster confession, I responded, and things went from there. At this point it seems that Halden and I have come to something -like- a consensus, but others may succeed in stirring the waters again. In any case, be sure to check it out.

Here is a statement of the doctrine of the Trinity in a nutshell that I developed in that comments section:
There is one divine life (ousia / essence) that is structured or characterized by three-fold communion (persones / hypostases). There is one will / locus of consciousness / personhood, with three forms or modes of being / activity. These forms are radically perichoretic, which means that the divinity of each is equal to that of the whole. The three forms are distinguished only by the unique combinations of their mutual relationships. One God existing eternally in the communion of his three-fold life.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I don't have a problem with your articulation. You and Halden seem to be "arguing" over semantics: i.e. modes and persons, and nothing to substantive relative to your actual perspectives on the tri-unity of God. Good statement.
August 02, 2007 2:39 PM
W. Travis McMaken said…
Thanks for stopping by, Bobby. Yeah, Halden and I got pretty specific about a few things, but that's what theologians are for - especially theological students!
August 02, 2007 2:46 PM
Anonymous said…
Although I must say, I like the language of "persons" better than "modes"; just because of the connotations surrounding the language of "modes" as it conjures thoughts of modalism . . . although I realize Barth used modes in an orthodox way.
August 02, 2007 2:48 PM
Anonymous said…
Yeah I was a formal theological student, once, now I've graduated onto greener pastures; actually I hope to once again become a formal theological student . . . do you have any extra money laying around ;~)?
August 02, 2007 2:50 PM
Aric Clark said…
I have to say, I'm attached to "persons" because I prefer using relational language. I bend toward social trinitarianism, knowing that it can lead to tri-theism, but preferring all the same the beauty and simplicity of the divine dance, to more psychological models.
August 03, 2007 5:19 PM
W. Travis McMaken said…
Aric,

I'm not sure what you mean with reference to 'psychological models'. Would you be so kind to enlighten me? All I can come up with is that it is a reference to Augustine, in which case I still fail to understand.

The social Trinitarian tack is very popular these days. You will see in Halden's thread some of the problems I have with it, specifically with reference to Gunton whom I take to be its best proponent.
August 03, 2007 7:49 PM
Aric Clark said…
I am not well enough read to pull out a single theologian as a flagship example of what I mean by a "psychological model" of the trinity, however, my observation has been that some people prefer to talk about the trinity as three different aspects of God's personality, rather than describing them as separate actors in the drama. When Jesus and the Holy Spirit are basically roles that God assumes it is a stronger representation of the unity of the trinity in some regards, but it sacrifices the individuality of the persons and makes statements like "God raised Jesus Christ from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit" basically unintelligible.
August 04, 2007 12:10 AM
W. Travis McMaken said…
Ah. I see what you mean. However, I think there is a problem on both sides that you mention. What you are calling 'psychological' sounds an aweful lot like modalism, and when you talk about three actors in the drama of salvation you sound aweful tritheistic. The truth is somewhere between these thing. That is why I talk about three-fold structure of the divine life and three forms of being or activity within that one divine life.

In doing this I am not saying that there is one God who assumes different ways of acting, but that the life of the one God is differentiated within itself in terms of these forms. There is no one-ness without these three and no three-ness without this one.
August 04, 2007 6:59 AM
Post a Comment

Popular Posts

So, You Want To Read Karl Barth?

By -
Image
Every now and then I am asked for advice about studying Karl Barth. So, I thought that I would share some of my standard advice here. But, before I do that, let me just say that I am by no means a Barth expert as compared to the people whose books I will mention below. I would be thrilled to find myself in their league one day, but as of yet that remains a distant dream. Still, I have been reading Barth for long enough, and under the supervision of a number of the scholars that I will mention below, that I think I can provide a decent orientation. I have never read Karl Barth before. Which of his books should I read first? Barth’s most famous work is the monumental 13-volume Church Dogmatics . Reading the CD with understanding is not an easy thing, so you definitely do NOT want to start here. Luckily, there are two smaller works by Barth that serve as helpful introductions to his work. Evangelical Theology: An Introduction - Based on the lectures that Barth delivered duri
Keep reading

So You Want to Read….Dietrich Bonhoeffer?

By -
Image
"I fear that Christians who stand with only one leg upon earth also stand with only one leg in heaven." "The exclusion of the weak and insignificant, the seemingly useless people, from everyday Christian life in community…may actually mean the exclusion of Christ; for in the poor sister or brother, Christ is knocking at the door." "Since ethical thinking in terms of realms is overcome by faith in the revelation of the ultimate reality in Jesus Christ . . . there is no real Christian existence outside the reality of the world." "People who reject their bodies reject their existence before God the Creator." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer Prelude Andreas Steinhoff [Attribution], via Wikimedia Commons I envisioned having a lot of time for blogging this summer, but that simply has not been the case - the last month has been a crazy one, to say the least. For two weeks, I was working at a theology summer camp of sorts, the Duke Youth Academy, and s
Keep reading

2010 KBBC: Week 1, Day 5

By -
“You Wonder Where the Spirit Went”: Jenson and Barth on the Hiddenness of God By Peter Kline I am entering into a conversation that Jenson has already begun with Barth. In a constructive essay on the hiddenness of God (Jenson 2000), Jenson considers Barth’s position on the matter only to find it lacking. I want to explore why Jenson has problems with Barth on this issue, as well think critically about his constructive alternative. I will suggest that Jenson is only partly right in his diagnosis of Barth; he in fact overlooks the heart of Barth’s teaching on divine hiddenness. The reason is that he looks in the wrong place for Barth’s pneumatology. Jenson can’t find the Spirit in Barth not because the Spirit isn’t there, but because the Spirit is hidden . These considerations will open out into a comparison of Barth and Jenson on the logic of revelation. By “logic” I mean: what is discourse about God’s revealedness and hiddenness supposed to accomplish? Part I Jenson focuses his a
Keep reading

2010 KBBC: Week 3, Day 1

By -
On the Monstrosity of Christ : Karl Barth in Conversation with Slavoj Žižek & John Milbank By Paul Dafydd Jones For a while, I hoped to frame this conversation in terms of a dramatic interchange – something along the lines of “A Slovenian philosopher, a British theologian, and a Swiss dogmatician walk into a bar…” Alongside an eye-wateringly hip assemblage of cinematic references, literary allusions, and comedic scenes – my early favorites being when Barth imagines a young adult novel, entitled Are you there God? It’s me, Žižek , and when Milbank waxes poetic about the Twilight movies – I wanted to engage some topics that would likely receive attention, were the authors to meet for drinks. Primarily, I envisioned an intense discussion of the logos asarkos and the logos ensarkos , with Milbank talking up the former category, Barth emphasizing the latter, and Žižek asking whether recent debates are but symptoms of secret puzzle, embedded in the Church Dogmatics – a puzzle that
Keep reading

Karl Barth on Hell, the Devil, Demons, and Universalism – A Florilegium

By -
Image
You know, all the most interesting topics. Although Barth often confessed that he didn’t find these questions particularly interesting. At best they might draw sideways glances, as it were, as one travels the theological road. But I found a number of places in the records of Barth’s later conversations that I thought folks might find interesting, so I’ve collected them here. And if you aren’t familiar with the term “florilegium,” here you go ! All these texts are from the first volume of Barth in Conversation , with pages numbers given in parentheses along the way. As usual, italics are in the text and bold is mine. Hell “Now we come to hell. You shouldn’t laugh! There is nothing to laugh at! What does hell mean? I think hell means to be in the place where you are once fore all damned and lost without ceasing to exist, without losing the image of God, being what you are but being damned and lost, separated from God, whose creature you are, separated also from your neighbor, from
Keep reading