76 D Smit Journal ofampform~d Theology 3 (2009)57-76

The KeyPlace of the Doctrine in the Reformed Tradition-Coincidental

So is the key place of the doctrine of the Trinity in the work of so many Reformed theologians of the last decades coincidental or not Broadly speakshying they are all part of the much larger renaissance-in which the Reformed Karl Barth however played a pivotal role Was it coincidental that Barth develshyoped those insights so early in his career at a time in which he delved deeply into Calvin and the Reformed confessional heritage

When one looks more closely however it does seem that the enthusiasm with which many of these Reformed theologians appeal to the trinitarian faith and particularly the most characteristic ways in which they do this do seem to correlate with basic intuitions in the early Reformers including Calvin parshyticularly that trinitarian language offers a way to tell the story of the scriptures to know God as the living God acting as Father Son and Holy Spirit grashyciously loving saving and comforting us and calling claiming and renewing us in rich and complex ways-always in the plural (Noordmans)

_5 I shy J O U R N A L JBFoaNBDv F

1 - THBOLOGY

BRill Journal ofRiform~d Theology 3 (2009) 77-89 wwwbrillnl jn

Three Versus One Some Problems ofSocial Trinitarianism

Stephen R Holmes Lecturer in Systematic Theology St Marys College Sr Andrews e-mail sh80st-andrewsacuk

Abstract

This paper examines the question whether we should prefer the so-called social doctrine of the Trinity which figures so prominently in contemporary trinitarian reflection to its Latin alternative After a sketch of some evident attractions of social trinitarianism it is argued that these attractions conceal as many problems-problems which may be rather devastating in the end First of all the practical and ethical usefulness of the social doctrine turns out to be highly questionable Second contemporary social trinitarianism deviates in crucial aspects from the Cappadocian and other Fathers And third the claim that social trinitarianism is in fact the best way to appropriate the biblical witness is found wanting The paper concludes with the suggestion that social trin itarians today use the doctrine of the Trinity to answer questions which the Fathers answered by means of Christology

Keywords trinitarian renaissance social trinitarianisrn Latin trinitarianisrn ecclesiology patristic theology Chr istologyTrinity

Introduction

The trinitarian revival of the second half of the twentieth century suddenly moved the doctrine of the Trinity from being perceived as either a dead dogma or (at best) useless orthodoxy and found instead that it was a doctrine that was generative for almost every other area of Christian theology and particularly for Christian ethics At the heart of this revivalwas a sense variously expressed that the reality of divine tri-uniry had been somehow lost For Karl Rahner it was the separation between the treatises On the One God and On the Trishyune God in Catholic dogmatics that had caused the problem leading to most

e Konlnklljke Brill NY Leiden 2009 001 1011631156973I09X403732

S R Holmes IJournalofReformedTheology 3 (2009) 77-89 79S R Holmes IJournal ofReformed1heology 3 (2009) 77-89 78

Christians being almost mere monotheists for John Zizioulas and many others following him it was a loss particularly in the Latin West of the core Cappadocian insights concerning the Trinity and their subjection to an effecshy

tive monotheism by Augustine and his heirs The rise of narrative theology and a renewed emphasis on the nature and

importance of biblical narrative also had their effect The fourfold gospel hisshytory seemingly told stories of interpersonal interactions between the divine persons and so the influence of the divine economy on trinitarian theology became decisive The Trinity was suddenly not something hidden in the etershynallife of God but something played out in the pages of sacred history and

so in the villages and towns of the Holy Land The term that perhaps best captures this shift in trinitarian thought is the

social Trinity I have not been able to determine the origin of the term but by the 1980s it was already in common use among both theologians and analytic philosophers of religion who found in it a new and potentially promising way of solving the logical problems that traditional trinitarian dogma seemed to pose Karen Kilby has argued persuasively in my view that there are three broad themes which unite social trinitarians a celebration of the true personshyhood of the three divine hypostasest a particular account of the history of doctrine and a belief in the ethical usefulness of trinitarian dogma

I Karl Rahner The Trinity tr J Donceel (New York Crossroad 1997) 17-20 1 John D Zizioulas Being as Communion Studies in Personhood and the Church (London

DLT1985) 3 For an early and especially rich account along these lines which is not however fully

identifiable with developed social Trinitarianism (cf below footnote 7) see RW Jenson The Triune Identity Godaccording to the Gospel (Philapdelphia Fortress 1982)

bull Cornelius Plantinga is speaking as a philosopher about a social analogy of the Trinity in 1986 Cornelius Plant inga Gregory of Nyssa and the social analogy of the Trinity The Thomist 50 (1986) 325-352 By 1989 he has begun to speak directly of a Social Trinity see his Social Trinity and rrltheisrn in Ronald J Feenstra and Cornelius Plantinga (eds) Trinity Incarnation and Atonement Philosophical and Theological Essays (Notre Dame University of Notre Dame Press 1989)21-47 Today the term is repeatedly used cont rasted with Augustinian or Latin trinitarianism to denote the twO main accounts of analytic philosophical approaches to the doctrine of the Trinity See eg Dale TuggyThe Unfinished Business of Trinitarian Theorising

Religious Studies 39 (2003) 165-84 l As the word person is controversial in th is discussion I will adopt the practice of merely

transliterating the ecumenically-accepted term hypostasis when referring singly or collectively

to Father Son and Holy Spirit 6 Karen Kilby Perichoresis and Projection Problems with Social Doctrines of the Trinity

New Blackfriars 81 (2000) 432-45

The centrality of the first of these may be traced to Barths famous suspicion of the term person in a contemporary doctrine of the Trinity Barth argued that the term had changed its meaning decisively in the nineteenth century and so now was no longer useful or helpful as technical theological language for the divine hypostases social trinitarians by contrast find the current meaning of the term an invitation to recover core Christian insights too long forgotten in the theological tradition This leads directly then to Kilbys secshyond characteristic This forgetfulness is a result of the obscuring of the key breakthroughs achieved by the Cappadocian Fathers in the fourth century debates These insights were lost particularly by the failure of Augustine and Boethius to comprehend the crucial issues and so a failure to translate them into the Latin tradition I will have more to say about this in a discussion of Zizioulass contribution in a moment Finally if a more adequate more Cappadocian doctrine of the Trinity can be recovered it will have ecclesial political and social implications which will be of great service to the church simply because human sociality depends on constructing an adequate account of good personal relationships and the social Trinity is held to offer precisely such an account which can be applied relatively straightforwardly

John D Zizioulas the Orthodox theologian and Metropolitan Bishop of Pergamum is repeatedly appealed to by social Trinitarians and also illustrates each of these points It may be that he did not begin the movement (Jiirgen Moltmanns The Trinity and the Kingdom of God 8 pre-dates Zizioulass key book by five years and can also be regarded as a classic of social Trinitarianshyism) but his book Being as Communion seems to be regarded as foundational by most who came afterwards Zizioulass book begins with a careful and comshyplex account of the achievement of the Cappadocian ~athers here presented as a breakthrough in ontology The word bupostasis once essentially synonyshymous with ousia is distinguished and made synonymous with prosopon The implications of this shift in technical vocabulary is momentous for the first time in the history of Greek metaphysical reflection personal and relational terminology is used to describe fundamental ontological realities replacing substantialistic terminology In a slogan the Cappadocians found a way of articulating the Christian insight that the basic reality of the world is not

7 Jenson tellsa similar historical story in 1heTriune Identity despite sharing Barths reservations over the language of persons hence my comment about his ambiguous status above (By the time he writes his Systematic 1heology Jenson seems to be less cautious about the language of person however Systematic 1heology Volume J The Triune God(Oxford OUP 1997) 75-89

bull Jiirgen Moltmann The Trinity and the Kingdom of God (rr Margaret Kohl) (New York Harper amp Row 1981) The original German edition was published in 1980

80 81 S R Holmes Journal ofRiformtd Theology 3 (2009) 77-89

stuff but love As the title of the book indicates being-metaphysics ontolshyogy-should be understood in terms of personal relationships

The celebration of the genuinely personal nature of the three hypostases is clear here Zizioulas goes on to claim that Augustine simply missed this revolution and so condemned the Western church to continue to struggle with the sort of substance-metaphysics that the Cappadocians had overcome Finally in the (much less cited) second half of the book he suggests that the church should image the perfect society of the Godhead and works out what this will look like in ecclesiological terms His vision of the church is focused on the Eucharistic celebration and on the bishop as the celebrant The bishop gives being to the church

Zizioulass ecclesiology is presented as the natural outworking of his trinishytarian theology and so is clearly a species of social trinitarianism the hierarshychical and authoritarian nature of his social vision however is distinctly at odds with the mainstream of the movement Moltmanns Trinity and the Kingdom ofGod which uses a vision of the Trinity as a free community of equals and so as a resource to critique human authority and hierarchy is much more normal This point is going to become important in my discusshysion in a moment

Attractions ofSocial Trinitarianism

Social trinitarianism seems to have several strengths which have no doubt contributed to its growth and appeal As I have noted it appears to be founded very closely on the biblical narrative taking seriously the relations between the persons that are portrayed in the New Testament 10 Social trinitarians find that the interpretative grid that their doctrine imposes is one to which the New Testament narrative is very amenable requiring little straining at the text to make it fit This is in contrast with their perception of inherited traditional trinitarian doctrines which find difficulty in understanding how the gospel narrative relates to the eternal life of God (This is the import of Rahners

bull However Randall Otto has offered a powerful cririque of Molrrnanns proposal here on genealogical grounds He argues that Moltrnann assumes the analysisadvanced by Erik Peterson in 1935 which analysis is now utterly discredited on sheerly historical grounds See Otto Moltrnann and the Anti-Monotheist Movement InurnationalJournalofSysttmatic 7htology 3 (2001) 293-308

ItI Colin Gunton suggested in conversation to the present author that he was intending to entitle the trinitarian section of his proposed dogmatics A Doctrine of the Trinity as if Jesus Mattered highlighting this point sharply

S R Holmes Journal ofampformtd 1htology 3 (2009) 77-89

rule a much-cited principle within social trinitarianism which states that the economic Trinity is the immanent Trini ry and uice-uersa) Clearly if this claim is true it is a major advantage for social trinitarianism Christian doctrines simply should cohere with scripture

Within the NT narrative it is claimed we find repeatedly dialogue between the Father and the Son on a social trinitarian account this is natural and normal on an older iugustinian account it is held to be difficult to make sense of if Father and Son are united in will intellect and essence how can the prayer in Gethsemane for example be interpreted In the economy of salvation the Father speaks to the Son and the Son speaks back to the Father This a social trinitarian would claim is pr imary data which must drive our doctrine of the Trinity

A second attraction is the claimed coherence with tradition As I have noted Zizioulas finds a very particular doctrine of the Trinity to be central to the ecumenical settling of the Arian controversy at Constantinople and to the overcoming of the intellectual heritage ofGreek philosophy Social trinitarianshyism if this telling of the history of ideas is correct is at the heart of what it is to be authentically Christian A trinitarian account which is less focused on persons and interpersonal relations is on Zizioulass terms still captive to ancient pagan philosophy and so deficiently Christian

The third attraction I want to notice is the usefulness of trinitarian doctrine understood in a social way Miroslav Volf published a paper under the title The Trinity is our Social Program I I Social trinitarianism has been found to be extraordinarily generative for ecclesial social and political practice David S Cunningham subtitled his book on the Trinity The Practice ofTrinitarian Theology and Paul Fiddes described his own work asfltA Pastoal Doctrine of the Trinity For these two thinkers prayer and gender politics and church life and aesthetics are all illuminated by a social doctrine of the Trinity Where Rahner once lamented the lack of trinitarian thought in Christian piety now it seems that almost every area of ethics and piety is determined directly by a commitment to the social Trinity13

II Volf The Trinity is our Social Program The Doctr ine of the Trinity and the Shape of Social Engagement in Alan Torrance and Michael Banner (eds) Iblaquo Doctrine of God and Theoiogica Ethics (London TampT Clark 2006) 105-24

11 David S Cunningham Thalaquo Threlaquo art One Thlaquo Practice ofTrinitarian 1htology (Oxford Blackwell 1998) Paul S Fiddes Participatingin GodA Pastoral Doctrine oftht Trinity (London DLT2000)

13 For an impressiveexample see Peter R Holmes Trinity in Human Community Exploring Congrtgational Lift in tblaquolmagt oftht Social Trinity (Milton Keynes Paternoster 2006) a book

82 S R Holmes JournalofReformed 1heology 3 (2009) 77-89 S R Holmes JournalofReformed Theology 3 (2009) 77-89 83

This then is a doctrine that is biblically founded authentic to the Christian tradition and practically useful what can possibly be said against it Unfortushynately it seems to me that each of these claimed advantages is at least more difficult than enthusiastic supporters of the program have made out and that the objections to them may be devastating

The Apparent Usefulness ofSocial Trinitarianism

John Zizioulas derived a doctrine of the church from his trinitarian thought as I have noted The bishop is the source and arcbeof the church just as the Father is of the Trinity the Eucharist is the heart of the life of the church The ecclesiology is strongly hierarchical reinforcing sacerdotalism structure and authority For Zizioulas as a Greek Orthodox bishop the priesthood remains solely male and so his ecclesiology leads to gender inequalities that would be found troubling by most Western societies

Miroslav Volf in his magisterial After our Likeness TheChurch as the Image 0the 1Tinity4 claims to be following Zizioulass trinitarian theology closely When he develops his own ecclesiology from trinitarian dogma however he pictures a classically congregationalist church polity (he quotes John Smyth the founder of the English Baptist movement repeatedly) where the gathering and covenanting together of believersestablishes the church and ministry arises from within the gathered congregation dependent on it for calling and recogshynition This is sufficiently far from Zlzioulass ecclesiology to cause us to pause the claim that a social doctrine of the Trinity is generative for ecclesiology and ethics is in danger of being cast into doubt if such wildly divergent implicashytions can be drawn from the same doctrine

Logically this difference can be explained in one of three ways

1 Zizioulas and Volf are in fact employing different doctrines of the Trinity 2 There is an error in argument from Trinity to church in at least one of

these two texts 3 Despite appearances ecclesiological programs cannot in fact be derived

from trinitarian dogma there is a methodological Raw shared by both Zizioulas and Volf

describing an intentional actempr to live out social trinirarianism in a church-plant in a small English rown

14 Miroslav VoIf After our Likeness The Church as the Image ofthe Trinity (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1998)

One of the great strengths ofVolfs book is his recognition that it is simply not trivial to move from a trinitarian account of divine persons in relation to an ecclesial or political account of human persons in relation As he says

Today the thesis that ecc1esial communion should correspond to trinitarian communshyion enjoys the status of an almost self-evident proposition Yet it is surprising that no one has carefully examined just where such correspondences are to be found nor expended much effort determining where ecc1esial communion reaches the limits of its capacity for such analogy The result is that reconstructions of these correspondshyences often say nothing more than the platitude that unity cannot exist without mul shytiplicity nor multiplicity without unity IS

Volf offers serious theology that does intend to move beyond the platitudes He attempts to examine carefully the analogies that can be drawn between divine and human personhood and their limitations However his passion for a particular ecclesiology (which I confess I share) forces him in an unacceptashyble direction It is clear from the texts that the first of my three options above is the relevant one Volf makes a significant alteration to the received ecushymenical doctrine of the Trinity which alteration allows him to embrace the free church ecclesiology that he commends The alteration can be described rather simply Volf attempts to differentiate between the relations of origin and the eternal relations of love in the Godhead That is the begettirig of the Son by the Father and the procession of the Spirit from the Father (and the Son) are to be distinguished from the ongoing decisive relationships in the triune God On this basis there is no priority of the Father but simply a mutuality between the three hypostases and so ~Volf cap support the bottom-up free church ecclesiology that he is-and incidentally I amshycommitted to

This might already suggest a problem for the claim that social trinitarianism is helpfully ethically generative the minutiae of scholastic trinitarian discusshysion the sort of arid debates that most social trinitarians declare themselves impatient of seem to determine the ethical implications of the position not just at the level of minor nuances but at the level of major and basic commitments Volf proclaims his loyalty to Zizioulass trinitarian program yet by a seemingly minor technical variation he effectively inverts the ecclesioshylogical implications of it It might be that this is the reality that the difference

IS Volf AfterourLikeness Ihe Church astheImage ofthe Trinity 191 16 Volf is open about this move on pp 216-17 of In our Likeness although he does nor

highlight just how radicalhis proposal is

84 s R Holmes JournalofReformed 7heology 3 (2009) 77-89 S R Holmes JournalofReformed 7heology 3 (2009) 77-89 85

(transposing the argument into the political realm) between democracy and fascism (say) is determined by the most abstruse of theological differences but this feels to me uncomfortable I would rather believe that the error of fascism is demonstrable on the basis of fundamental positions in anthropology not subtle distinctions in theology proper

Perhaps however Volfs distinction is not general The evidence suggests otherwise Volf suggests fairly that this separation is shared by Moltrnann which would seem to suggest that it is common among devotees of the social Trinity (who generally have learned from either Volf or Moltmann) This demshyonstrates I hope that the supposed ethical and political usefulness of social trinitarianism is at least more complicated than has sometimes been pretended When Volf himself claimed in a ringing slogan that The Trinity is our Social Program he presumably assumed that a doctrine of the Trinity was someshything generally accessible to Christian believers not something which was obscure and abstruse and yet took us in fundamentally different social and political-and ecclesiological-directions depending on which side of the scholarly knife edge we fell

However I think the point can be pressed further than this Volfs doctrine of the Trinity in After our Likeness is explicitly a deviation from the received ecumenical doctrine Simply Volf is choosing to adjust the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity because he does not like the ecclesiological (and social and politshyical) implications of the received doctrine Moltmann is less clear about the implications of making the same move perhaps because his grasp of the patrisshytic debates is less sure In both cases however the approved and acceptable ethical outcomes cannot Row from a patristic doctrine of the Trinity the dogma needs massaging and in some respects simple reversal before it can generate acceptable political content for today

All of which is to say that the claimedsupposed usefulness of social docshytrines of the Trinity seems to me to be generally overstated and at best quesshytionable The ecumenically received doctrine of the Trinity to which Zizioulas witnesses (see the next section for some defence of this claim) is politically unhelpful in modern Western terms political utility is only achieved if the received form of the doctrine of the Trinity is radically adjusted

17 Volf footnotes 108-112 on pp 216-17 referencing Molrrnann The Trinity and theKingdom ofGod 165-166 and 175-166 and various sections of Moltrnanns 17Je SpiritofLifeA Universal Affirmation (London SCM Press 1992)

The Defence ofSocial Trinitarianism from Tradition

None of this of course is decisive It may be that contemporary Western theologians have erred in trying to make the ethical and social implications of the doctrine of the Trinity acceptable this is not yet evidence however that social trinitarianism is wrong merely that it has been misapplied to support a liberal political agenda to which in fact it lends no credence Perhaps the polishytics is wrong contemporary Western liberalism is unChristian and demonshystrably so from a doctrine of the Trinity If so of course it is necessary to accept the trinitarian imperative If Zizioulas is right and a proper undershystanding of trinitarian ecclesiology does in fact exclude women from Eucharisshytic presidency (eg) then this ought to be recognized and acknowledged in the church not ignored

This leads me to my second criticism Social trinitarianism cannot I think be defended on the basis that it is more socially useful than other positions but it might still be right social utility as judged by contemporary prejudices was never an interesting criterion for Christian doctrine Volfs position does not depend on any political basis it rather depends on an assumption that the distinction between relationships of origin and relationships of love can be sustained This is a merely theological point and regardless of its political implications it might nonetheless be true Equally it might be unimportant for the present discussion perhaps other social trinitarians do not hold to Volfs positions

I have already indicated however that very similar positions are common to Moltmann at least There is no space here to make the more general comshyparison but Volf and Moltmann are sufficiently influential within contemposhyrary social trinitarianism that their shared position may be taken as general If this position is indeed common within devotees of social trinitarianisrn we must ask whether in fact it is acceptable within ecumenical dogma Is social trinitarianism a re-presentation ofclassical trinitarianism that should be accepted even if its political outcomes are unhappy The answer seems to me to be clearly negative again there is no room here to review all the evidence but the position that the only distinctions between the divine hypostases are the relations of origin is widely and I think correctly accepted as a summary of patristic trinitarianism as it was codified at Constantinople Although there is not room in the present paper to demonstrate this for some indications in this direction drawn from the Cappadocian Fathers who are generally cited by social trinitarians in support of their position consider the following St Gregory Nazianzen the Theologian affirmed repeatedly in his orations

86 S R Holmes Journal 0Riformfd Theology 3 (2009) 77-89 S R Holmes Journal 0ampform~d Ihealogy 3 (2009) 77-89 87

that the only particular properties of the three hypostases were unbegottenshyness begottenness and procession 18 Basil makes the same point in writing to Gregory of Nyssa19 Gregory of Nyssa in turn asserts the same while we conshyfess the invariable character of the nature we do not deny the difference in respect of cause and that which is caused by which alonewe apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another20

These references briefas they are are perhaps sufficient to suggest that social trinitarian ism is some distance from the Cappadocian discussion it is also I believe demonstrably some way from the Latin tradition of trinirarianisrn given the social trinitarians own protestations that they are opposed to Augusshytine Boethius and St Thomas I assume that I do not need to demonstrate this at any length Social trinitarian ism may be right but if it is then the fathers were wrong individually in every case of which I am aware and in their conciliar decisions at Nicea Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon

Social Trinitarianism and the Biblical Narrative

Ofcourse from a Reformed perspective it is possible that this is true and that social trinitarianism is right While the Reformed have tended to respect the early ecumenical decisions of the church the sense that every decision was corrigible and subject to examination under the one decisive norm ofscripture is rightly pervasive For Reformed theology it remains possible that one or several of the seven ecumenical councils waswere wrong and that many or most of the fathers of the church were wrong and that a social trinitarianism is in fact the best way to appropriate the biblical witness

However it seems to me that this also is flawed The fathers had ways ofcoping exegetically with the texts that describe the Lo~ds prayer in Gethseshyrnene it is true the point is however more basic than this Social trinitarian rhetoric concerning the biblical witness tends to stress the threeness of the divine actor in the New Testament witness which point is correct so far as it goes but without qualification is in some danger of being simply Marcionite one cannot claim a position is biblical without considering the whole of scripture not just the New Testament The totality of the biblical witness concerning God it seems to me consists of a sustained and pointed witness to

I See eg Or 207 Or 2516 Or 3912 or Or 4217 (the Farewell Address) I See Ep 38 1tJ On Not Three Gods To Ababius (cr Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series II Volume 5

Edinburgh 1892336 my emphasis)

the oneness of God in the face of repeated temptations to polytheisrns supshyplemented by a brief coda or appendix suggesting that this One God is in fact triune

I realize of course that describing the New Testament as a brief coda or appendix to the scriptures is rather polemical but perhaps it makes the point The claim that social trinitarianism is biblical is by no means obvious rather it depends on a very particular hermeneutic that privileges the New Testashyment and particularly the Gospels in ways that at least demand explanation and defence The central and repeated thrust of the biblical narrative taken as a whole can easily be characterized as a drive towards monotheism and AugusshytinianLatin trinitarianism is at least as successful a representation of monoshytheism as social trinitarianism

Ofcourse it might be argued that the New Testament should be privileged but the nature of that privilege demands explication The NT may not be read in a way that denies Old Testament monotheism Jesus himself is suffishycient witness to that Rather the challenge for any adequately theological hermeneutic is to find a way of describing the narration of Gods actions and words within the text that is responsible both to the Old Testament presentashytion of the oneness ofGod and the New Testament presentation of the shared life ofFather Son and Holy Spirit Thus stated it is by no ~eans obvious that social trinitarianism is the more biblical option crudely it privileges one set of data and needs to explain away another Latin trinitarianism privileges the other and needs to explain away the first

As I say this characterization is crude but it is not trivial It may seriously be doubted that Augustines rejection of any particular presence of the hyposshytasis of the Divine Son in history prior to the IncarnationIs adequate-x-I would tend to doubt this myself-but equally to suppose that there is some hidden social trinitarianisrn within the Old Testament texts without considershyable exegetical demonstration of the point seems merely unconvincingP Monotheism is at the heart of the biblical witness social trinitarian ism is not incompatible with biblical monotheism but it is perhaps more difficult to defend than a more traditional position with regard to the Old Testament what however about the New Of course a question like this cannot be

l Mk 1229

II Robert Jensons attempt to see Christ prefigured or pre-present in the nation of Israelshypresented as Gods Son in the Old Testament-represents a far more sophisticated response to this problem than is found among mainstream social trinitari ans For various reasons however I am not convinced it works

88 S R Holmes Journalofampformed Theology 3 (2009) 77-89 S R Holmes Journalofampformed 1heology 3 (2009) 77-89 89

answered in a brief essay but let me end by giving one reason why we should not assume that social trinitarianism is the superior approach

Trinity and Christology

Let me return once more to Gethsemane There we overhear the incarnate Son praying in great anguish and greater faith Father let not my will be done but yours instead23 Locating these two wills seems to me to take us to the crux of the exegetical debate For the contemporary social trinitarian the text is clear we are enabled to overhear a conversation between persons of the Trinity The incarnate Son acknowledges the presence and reality of his own desire and volition but chooses to accede instead to the volition of the Father

This text was however endlessly discussed by the church fathers and their settled view was rather different The debate comes to a head in the monotheshylite controversy decisively settled at the Third Council of Constantinople in 681 but it can be traced through the three centuries before that date at least The fathers almost unanimously rejected the view described above some the monothelires asserted that there was only one will in the incarnate Son the single divine will of the Eternal Godhead others defended the apparently less logical position eventually declared orthodox that there were two wills the single divine will of the eternal Godhead and a genuine human will I do not intend to review this controversy now24 as noted above Reformed theology cannot be determined simply by appeal to tradition but it seems to me that it highlights a helpful point for understanding social trinitarianism social trinishytarianismuses the doctrine ofthe Trinity to ansuer questions the fathers ansuiered

byChristology Questions ofontology creation mediation soteriology-and ethics includshy

ing political and social theory-seem to me to be seen fundamentally as Chrisshytological questions in classical Christian theology It is only very recently that we have tried to view them as trinitarian questions I believe that the same thing is true of the question raised above about New Testament exegesis The New Testament offers us a striking picture of an executed criminal who is identified with God himself and asks us to make sense of that narrative Social trinitarianism has tried to do this by encompassing the narrative within rheolshy

13 Lk 2242 my translation 14 I have written on it at some length in my essay Chrisrology Scripture Divine Action and

Hermeneutics in Andrew T Lincoln and Angus Paddison (eds) Christology and Scripture InterdisciplinaryPmpectives London TampT Clark 2008 156-70

ogy proper identifYing God as both actors in the story and as the story the actors play out This might be right but the patristic answer shared in every detail incidentally by the fathers of the Reformation particularly in their debates with Serverus and the Socinians and in the Calvinist defence of the extra Calvinisticum rather chose to locate the tension within the person of the Crucified One who is at one and the same time both Lord and servant both Creator and creature I cannot attempt to demonstrate that this is the preferable view but I hope that it is at least not obviously less preferable there is an exegetical debate to be had And if as I have argued the social trinitarians need to defend a position that is novel in the Christian tradition and generashytive of deeply unhappy ethical and social positions then we might presume that there is a burden of proof on that side of the debate a burden that has not in the published literature at least even begun to be shouldered

91

IJ O U R N A L 1H

u REFORMeD laquo THEOLOGY

BRILL JournalofReformedTheology 3 (2009) 90-107 wwwbrillnljrr

The Relationship between the Ontological Trinity and the Economic Trinity

Seung Goo Lee Professor of Systematic Theology

Hapdong Theological Seminary South-Korea e-mail wminbgihorrnailcom

Abstract This article focuses on one of the main issuesin the contemporary trinitarian renaissance viz the relationship between the immanent (or ontological) and the economic Trinity It takes its start ing-point in what is labeled the classicmodel as shared by both the Eastern and the Western church The basic idea here is that the economic Trinity is the epistemological ground of the immanent Trinity whereas the immanent Trinity is the ontological ground of the economic Trinity It is shown that this model is endorsed by two influential Reformed theologians viz John Calvin and Herman Bavinck Next the model of the new theology of the cross is introduced as represented by Eberhard Jungel and [Iirgen Moltmann Especially Molrrnanns innovative proposals are critically discussed Characteristic of this second model is that the distinction between the ontological and economic Trinity is blurred Third it is argued that Dutch Reformed theologian Hendrikus Berkhof offered an even more radical model which leaves us with only the economic Trinity Although both of these contemporary models have their attractions it is concluded that we have every reason to stick to the classic model

Keywords the ontological Trinity the economic Trinity John Calvin Herman Bavinck Jurgen Moltmann Eberhard Jungel Hendrikus Berkhof

In this contribution I want to examine the relationship between the ontoshylogical and the economic Trinity The economic Trinity is the Trinity revealed in the economy (oikonomia) of God Hence the term the economic Trinity or the Trinity of revelation has been used As Eberhard Jiingel said the

For an explanation of this term see Otto Weber Foundation ofDogmatics vol I trans Darrell L Guder (Grand Rapids Eerdrnans 1981) 388 Helmut Thlelicke The Evangelical Faith vol 2 The Doctrine of Godand ofChrist trans and ed Geoffrey W Bromiley (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1991) 179 Paul Jewett God Creation and Revelation (Grand Rapids

copy KoninklijkeBrillNYLelden2009 001 1O11631156973109X403741

S G Lee Journalofampformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

doctrine of economic Trinity understands the being of God in relation with man and his world In contrast to this economic Trinity the ontological Trinity refers to the Trinity-in-God-himself That is the ontological Trinity is to understand God hirnselfwirhour regard to Gods relationship with man3 and to understand the Trinity as describing the immanent ontic structure of the being of God4 Hence the terms the ontological Trinity the eternal Trinity the essent ial Trinity or the immanent Trinity

According to Wolfhart Pannenberg the distinction between the economic and ontological Trinity can be traced to eighteenth century theologian Johann Augustus Urlsperger (1728-1806)5 As far as the terminology is concerned Pannenberg may be right The concept itself however is already found in the writings of the earlier theologians While in earlier days theologians treated the ontological and the economic Trinity without a clear conscious distinction concrete usage of these terms appeared with the rise of the tendency to disreshygard the ontological aspect of the Trinity Hence Jiirgen Moltmann is more correct when he said that it is common to distinguish the ontological and the economic Trinity after Tertullians rejection of modalism and that especially the Cappadocian Fathers clearly distinguished these two G C Berkouwer also made it clear that the church used the distinction between the ontological and the economic Trinity in her efforts to fight against rnodalisrn

In this contribution I would like to contrast three models oflooking at the relation between the ontological and the economic Trinity and to consider which model might be more biblical and realistic

Eerdmans 1991)305 Weberand Jewett use also the terms like revelationalTrinity and functional Trinity

2 Eberhard Jungel Godas the Mystery ofthe World trans Darrell L Guder (Grand Rapids Eerdrnans 1983) 346

S jiingel GodastheMystery oftheWorld 346 bull Thielicke The Evangelical Faith vol 2 76 S Wolfhan PannenbergSyseemanschlaquo Theologie Band I (GortlngenVandenhoeckand Ruprecht

1988) 317 n 122=ET Systematic Theology trans Geoffrey W Bromiley (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1991)291 n Il l See also Weber FoundationofDogmatics vol 1 388 n 124

6 Jurgen Mohrnann Trinitiit und Reich Gottes (Munchen Christian Kaiser Verlag 1980)= ET The Trinity and the Kingdom The Doctrine ofGod trans Margaret Kohl (London SCM Press 1981) 151 idem Der gekreuzigte Gott (Miinchen Christian Kaiser Verlag 1972)= ET The Crucified God trans R A Wilson and John Bowden (London SCM Press 1974) 235

7 G C BerkouwerA HafCmtury ofTheology trans and ed LewisBSmedes (Grand Rapids Eerdrnans 1977)259

I

92 93 s G Lee Journal of Reformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

The Classic Model

By the classic model I mean the historic understanding of the Trinity In the discussion of the classic model I will not give much attention to different understandings of the Trinity between the Eastern Church and the Western Church but concentrate on their common element I will first state the basic proposition in which the Trinity is understood

Basic Statement

Proposition 1 The economic Trinity is the ground of cognition for the ontoshylogical Trinity and the ontological Trinity is the ground of being for the ecoshynomic Trinity

According to the classic understanding of the Trinity the relation between the ontological and the economic Trinity is as follows We get to know that God is the triune God through Gods relationship with this world God however does not become a triune God in His relation with this world God himself was and is atriune God even before He had any relationship with this world Hence we can say that God reveals Himself as a triune God in the course of the economy since He himselfwas and is a triune God In its ideal form the classhysic model for understanding the Trinity has the following process of thinking

First of all there is recognition of the economic Trinity That is we can recognize that God is the triune God in the process of examining Gods creashytion and redemption through Christ especially while examining the coming of Christ his self-disclosure the coming of the Holy Spirit to the New Testashyment church on Pentecost the works of the Holy Spirit in the church and the response of the church to the Holy Spirit (esp Acts 51-16) Jesus Christ and the One whom he calls his Father and the Holy Spirit who was sent by the Father and the Son (John 1426 1526 167) are one triune God In the procshyess of this recognition we can also see some aspects of their relationship That is God the Father and God the Son have a relationship of a father and a son and the Holy Spirit is the one who could be sent bythe Father and the Son All of these amount to a recognition of the economic Trinity

Second in the process of recognizing the economic Trinity we come across several statements that show the relationship between these three persons For example the term only begotten son (john 114) and the expression the only Son who is in the bosom of the Father (John 118) lead us to the conclusion that the Son is the one who has been begotten by the Father And the state-

S G Lee Journal ofReformed 7heology 3 (2009) 90-107

ments that the Holy Spirit will be sent by Jesus from the Father (john 1426 1526 167) and that the Holy Spirit proceeds- from the Father Oohn 1526) show that the Holy Spirit is the one who will be sent to us in the process of Gods economic relation with us

Finally with the help of this second stage ofour understanding of the Trinshyity we begin to understand that the Father is eternally begetting the Son and the Son is being eternally begotten by the Father whereas the Holy Spirit is proceedingfrom the Father (and the Son) by applying the economic relationship into eternity In order to substantiate this summary of the classic model let us look at the way in which two Reformed theologians understood the Trinity

John Calvin on the Trinity

John Calvin develops his arguments without clearly distinguishing between the economic and the ontological Trinity It seems to me that for him there is no need to distinguish between these two because the ontological Trinity is revealed in the economic Trinity This is a common phenomenon in the writshyings of most theologians who hold the classic model If we placed them in a modern debate concerning the relationship between the ontological and the economic Trinity however they would make it quite clear that the triune God reveals Himself as He is in the process ofcreation and redemption There are some hints of this in Calvins discussion of the Trinity Let us look at the way in which he speaks of the Trinity

Calvin begins his discussion of the Trinity by explaining that several words which do not appear in scripture-eg Trinity persons bomoousios etc-are useful for the interpretation of scripture so that they are especially useful for refuting the wrong thinking and distorted teachings about the Trinity One sentence which Calvin quotes from Augustine clearly shows what Calvins attishytude is on these terms On account of the poverty of human speech in so great a matter the word hypostasis has been forced upon us by necessity not

8 In his good study on Calvins trinitarian theology f W Burin also showed this point centering his emphasis on the economic Trinity Philip Walker Burin Revelation Redemption and Response Calvins Trinitarian Understanding of the Divine-Human Relationship (New York and Oxford Oxford University Press 1995) It seems to me however that it is pity that Burin did not clearly discuss the relationship between the ontological and the economic trinity in the thought of Calvin Butin showed a tendency to emphasize the economic trinity See also his Reformed Ecclesiology Trinitarian Grace According to Calvin Studies in Reformed 1heology and History III (winter 1994) 5-8 esp 6 Calvins articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity is predominantly economic

95 94 s G LeeJournal ofReformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

to express what it is but only not to be silent on how Father Son and Spirit are three The reason why we use the word hypostasis is not because this is the word that can be used to show exactly what God is like but that we cannot help not speaking of God as the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit That is these terms are used in our difficult effort to express the fact of revelation in our human language What Calvin wants to say in this part can best be sumshymarized with the following statements Say that in one essence of God there isa trinity of persons you will say in one word what Scriptures states and cut short empty talkativeness

Thus after defining the term person as a subsistence in Gods essence which while related to the others is distinguished by an incommunicable quality I I

Calvin proceeds to the discussion ofhomoousios of the Father and the Son and to the discussion of the differentiation of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit

In his discussion of the divinity of the Son Calvin first ofall talks about the divinity of the Logos asarkos and then goes on to the discussion of the Word endued with flesh The order of this discussion is very instructive for our purpose because this shows how Calvin thinks about the relation of God the Father and the Logos asarkos That is here we can see a hint of Calvins undershystanding of the ontological Trinity Referring to I Pet 110-11 Calvin says that because Christ had not yet been manifested it is necessary to understand the Word as begotten of the Father before time12 He then refers to the creashytion by the Word of God in Genesis 1 He understands this creation by the Word of God in the light of Heb 12-3 and says that here we see the Word understood as the order or mandate of the Son who is himself the eternal and essential Word of the Father3 For Calvin however the most important passhy

sages in relation with the divinity of the Son are John 11-3 for John at once attributes to the Word a solid and abiding essence and ascribes something uniquely His own

On the basis of these discussions Calvin concludes that unchangeable the Word abides everlastingly one and the same with God and is God hirnself

) John Calvin Institutesofthe ChristianReligion trans Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia The Westminster Press 1960) I xiiiS

III Calvin Institutes I xiiiS II Calvin Institutes I xiii 6 Il Calvin Institutes I xiii 7 13 Calvin Institutes I xiii 7 14 Calvin Institutes I xiii 7 15 Calvin Institutes I xiii 7

S G LeeJournal ofReformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

Then in relation with those who would readily accept the divinity of the Son but deny the eternality of the Son Calvin says that the Word conceived beyond the beginning of time by God has perpetually resided with him and he concludes that by this his eternity his true essence and his divinity are proved 16

Only after showing the eternal divinity of the Son this way does Calvin discuss the divinity of Christ in the OT17 and the Angel of]ehovah18 the

divinity of Christ in the NT on the basis of the witnesses of the Apostles of the works of Christ2o and of the miracles of Christ

In relation to the divinity of the Holy Spirit Calvins discussion is centered on the works of the Holy Spirit and the biblical expressions which identify the Holy Spirit with God22

We conclude therefore that Calvins discussion of the Trinity makes it clear that God has a triune relationship with the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit from eternity and that this triune relationship has been clearly revealed in the economic process For Calvin it is not even possible to think of the economic Trinity constituting the ontological Trinity This is clearly shown in his response to those who have doubts about the eternal Sonship of the Christ

Herman Bavinck on the Trinity

We see almost the same view of the Trinity in Herman Bavincks understandshying of the Trinity as we saw in Calvin23 Bavinck is however more helpful because he explicitly speaks of the relation of the ontological and the economic Trinity From this explicit explanation we can gather that ~ discusses the Trinity with what we called the classic model in mind Let us quote one passhysage from him

16 Calvin Institutes I xiii 8 17 Calvin Institutes I xiii 9 18 Calvin Institutes I xiii 10 19 Calvin Institutes I xiii 11 20 Calvin Institutes I xiii 12 21 Calvin Institutes I xiii 13 22 Calvin Institutes I xiii 14-15

23 John Bolt also made this point in his doctoral dissertation on Bavinck See John Bolt The Imitation ofChrist Theme in the Cultural-Ethical Idea ofHerman Bavinck (Ph D Dissertation University of St Michaels College Toronto School of Theology 1982) 74 n 274 In his explication of the trinitarian order Bavinck clearly reflects Calvins discussion of the Trinity in Institutes I xv See also p 127 in both the ontological and economic Trinity Bavinck fol1ows Calvin and Kuyper

96 97 S G LeeJournalofReorm(d Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

As in the ontological trinity the Father is first in order of subsistence the Son second and the Holy Spirit third so also in the history of revelation the Father preceded the Son and the Son preceded the Holy Spirit The Father comes without having been sent the Son is sent by the Father Man 1040 Mark 937 Luke 948 John 316 5233037 68ff and the Holy Spirit is sent by both Father and Son John 1426 167

But this procession in time is a reflection of the immanent relation existing between the three persons in the ontological trinity and is based upon generation and spirarlon The generation of the Son is the eternal arche-type of the incarnation of the Logos and the procession from the father and the Soh is the proto-type of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit Hence the church-fathers derived the knowledge concerning the eternal and immanent relations existing between the persons of the trinity from what was revealed concerning those relations in time In this they were correct

Here Bavinck says that the trinitarian structure expressed in the history of revelation that is the structure of the economic Trinity can be seen as a reflecshytion of the structure of the ontological Trinity He recognizes that the church fathers drew the ontological Trinity from the understanding of the economic Trinity and he himself also accepts this

In the classic model therefore as we have seen God has his trinitarian relationship from eternity and it is clear that the economic process within time does not affect God In this sense the following statement by Thielicke succinctly shows the intention of the classic understanding of the Trinity the orthodox doctrine of the essential Trinity maintains that the Trinity is immanent and original in God apart from his work and that the deity is eternally Father Son and Spirit in itself before ever creating anything entering into union with the individual or dwelling in the fellowship of believers

Let us turn to the second model in order to see a different understanding of the relationship between the ontological and the economic Trinity

TheModel of the NewTheologyof the Cross

By the new theology of the cross I mean the theologies which Jurgen Moltshymann and Eberhard jiingel developed within the last thirty years or so They wanted to renew theology by centering upon the cross of Jesus and they

l4 Herman Bavinck The Doctrine of God trans William Hendriksen (Grand Rapids Eerdrnans 1951) 320

2j Thielicke The ElJang(Iicai Faith 176

S G Lu Journalofampform(d Th(ology 3 (2009) 90-107

thought that their approach would renew and reshape Luthers theologia crucis for the 20th century It seems to me however that it is difficult to identify their approach with Luthers theology of the cross Hence the term the new theology of the cross Howdid Moltmann and Jungel understand the relation of the economic and the ontological Trinity In this section I will concentrate only on Moltmanns view

Basic Statement

Proposition 2 The economic Trinity is the ontological Trinity and vice versa

This proposition which was first used by Karl Rahner and then by Barth Moltmann and ]Ungel in their own ways can be interpreted in various ways In other words the meaning of this proposition is somewhat ambiguous These theologians sometimes present this proposition in the way in which we understand the classic model When we read Moltmann stating the following material we almost come to the conclusion that he is simply repeating the classic viewpoint

If the immanent Trinity is the counterpart of praise then knowledge of the economic Trinity (as the embodiment of the history and experience ofsalvation) preeedes knowlshyedge of the immanent Trinity In the order of being it succeeds it26

There is only one single divine Trinity and one single divine history ofsalvation The triune God can only appear in history as he is in himself and in no other way He is in himselfas he appears in salvation history for it is he himself who is manifested and he is just what he is manifested as beingY

Statements about the immanent Trinity must not contradict statements about the economic Trinity Statements about the economic Trinity must correspond to doxoshylogical statements about the immanent Trinity28

In spite of the impression which these quotations leave after closer examinashytion we conclude that Moltmann does not have a classic understanding of the Trinity Indeed at one point Moltmann clearly says that in order to grasp the death of the Son in its significance for God himself I found myself bound to

26 Molrrnann Ihlaquo Trinity and th( Kingdom 152 27 Molrrnann Thlaquo Trinityand th( Kingdom 153 28 Molrrnann Ihlaquo Trinityand th( Kingdom 154

99 98 S G Lee IJournal ofRiformrd 7h~ology 3 (2009) 90-107

surrender the traditional distinction between the immanent and the ontological Trinity29 Moreover in a 1973 article he states

If the doctrine of the Trinity could be developed from the event of the cross then not only the distinction between God in himself (Gott an sich) and the God for us (Gott flir tins) but also the distinction between the immanent and the economical Trinity are abolish~d Jlt1

When we closely examine Molrmanns book therefore we conclude that Molshytrnann by using the proposition that the economic Trinity is the ontological Trinity and viceversa expresses the idea that the economic Trinity is itself the ontological Trinity and that the economic Trinity is the center ofGods revelashytion in the process of history and that the ontological Trinity is merely the metaphysical summary of the economic Trinitys doxological meaning To state it bluntly according to this new theology of the cross it is not the case that there is an inner relationship between three divine persons from eternity which is revealed in the process of time Rather from our understanding of the ecoshynomic self-revelation ofGod we logically draw out Gods trinitarian structure There may be an ontological Trinity at the end of the day we can proleptically refer to this Trinity in our doxology Let me substantiate these points by examshyining Moltrnanns writings

Moltmanns Understanding In his book The Crucified God from 1972 Moltmann tries to understand the Trinity in relation to the cross He says The material principle of the doc shytrine of the Trinity is the cross ofChrist The formal principle ofknowledge of the cross is the doctrine of the Trinity32 He even says that a trinitarian theolshyogy of the cross develops from this history [of the cross] what is to be understood by God33So he demands a revolution in the concept ofGod34 In the same spirit Moltmann says

Moltmann The Trinityand thlaquoKingdom 160 emphasis is given 30 Molrmann Gesichrspunkre der Kreuzesrheologle heme Evang~lisch~ 7h~gid3 (1973)

362f cited in Horst G Poehlrnann Abriss derDogmatik (1975) translated into Korean by Shin shyGun LeeDogmatics (Seoul Korean Institute ofTheology 1990) 157 emphasis is given

3 Molrrnann The Crucified God trans R A Wilson and John Bowden (London SCM Press 1974)

i 31 Molrmann IheCrucifi~d God 241 i 33 Molrmann the Trinity and thlaquoKingdom 247 34 Moltmann The Trinity and theKingdom 152

S G Lee IJournalofampform~d 7h~ology3 (2009) 90-107

In the cross Father and Son are most deeply separated in forsakenness and at the same time are most inwardly one in their surrender What proceeds from this event between Father and Son is the Spirit which justifies the godless fills the forsaken with love and even brings the dead allveisince the fact that they are dead cannot exclude them from this event of the cross the death in God also includes them35

For Moltmann the event of the cross is not only an event of the economic Trinity but also an event within the Trinity Or rather ifwe put it in the words of Richard Bauckhams interpretation of Molrmann the event of the cross is the Trinity36 Accordingly Moltrnann says that the history of Christ is the inner life of God himself and that the Trinity is an event of love in the sufshyfering and death ofJesuS 37 He even says that we should not think as though the Trinity were already present in itself in the divine nature38 That is to say we should not think that first there was the ontological Trinity and then the economic Trinity was revealed Rather Moltrnann thinks that the ontological Trinityis constituted in the eventofthe cross Richard Bauckham also interprets Moltrnann in this way So Bauckham says that at this stage (from The Theology ofHope to The Crucified God) Moltrnann thinks of God becoming Trinity in the history of Jesus 39 And he adds that Moltrnann very much wished to understand the trinitarian relationship of Father and Son as a relationship which happens in the history of Jesus and especially in -the cross and will not allow this happening to be a mere reflection of supra-temporal truth40 Indeed Mohmann himself thinks that his understanding of the Trinity overshycomes the dichotomy between immanent and economic Trinity and between the nature of God and his inner tri-uniry Let us quote one more passage form The Crucified God

The Trinity therefore also means the hisrory ofGod which in human terms is the hisshytory of love and liberation The Trinity understood as an event for history therefore presses towards eschatological consummation so that the Trinity may beall in allor put more simply so that Jove may be all in all so that life may triumph over death

35 Moltmann Iblaquo Trinity and th~ Kingdom 244 36 Richard Bauekham )Urgen Moltrnann in OnlaquoGodin Trinity An Analysis oth~ Primary

Dogma oChristianity eds PeterToon and James D Spiceland (Westchester Cornerstone Books 1980) 120

37 Moltmann the Trinity and theKingdom 249 38 Moltmann 7h~ Trinity and theKingdom 245 3 Bauckharn Jiirgen Moltrnann 116 Bauckharns own emphasis 40 Bauckharn Jiirgen Moltrnann 116pound his own emphasis Moltrnann Ihlaquo Trinity and thlaquoKingdom 245

80 81 S R Holmes Journal ofRiformtd Theology 3 (2009) 77-89

stuff but love As the title of the book indicates being-metaphysics ontolshyogy-should be understood in terms of personal relationships

The celebration of the genuinely personal nature of the three hypostases is clear here Zizioulas goes on to claim that Augustine simply missed this revolution and so condemned the Western church to continue to struggle with the sort of substance-metaphysics that the Cappadocians had overcome Finally in the (much less cited) second half of the book he suggests that the church should image the perfect society of the Godhead and works out what this will look like in ecclesiological terms His vision of the church is focused on the Eucharistic celebration and on the bishop as the celebrant The bishop gives being to the church

Zizioulass ecclesiology is presented as the natural outworking of his trinishytarian theology and so is clearly a species of social trinitarianism the hierarshychical and authoritarian nature of his social vision however is distinctly at odds with the mainstream of the movement Moltmanns Trinity and the Kingdom ofGod which uses a vision of the Trinity as a free community of equals and so as a resource to critique human authority and hierarchy is much more normal This point is going to become important in my discusshysion in a moment

Attractions ofSocial Trinitarianism

Social trinitarianism seems to have several strengths which have no doubt contributed to its growth and appeal As I have noted it appears to be founded very closely on the biblical narrative taking seriously the relations between the persons that are portrayed in the New Testament 10 Social trinitarians find that the interpretative grid that their doctrine imposes is one to which the New Testament narrative is very amenable requiring little straining at the text to make it fit This is in contrast with their perception of inherited traditional trinitarian doctrines which find difficulty in understanding how the gospel narrative relates to the eternal life of God (This is the import of Rahners

bull However Randall Otto has offered a powerful cririque of Molrrnanns proposal here on genealogical grounds He argues that Moltrnann assumes the analysisadvanced by Erik Peterson in 1935 which analysis is now utterly discredited on sheerly historical grounds See Otto Moltrnann and the Anti-Monotheist Movement InurnationalJournalofSysttmatic 7htology 3 (2001) 293-308

ItI Colin Gunton suggested in conversation to the present author that he was intending to entitle the trinitarian section of his proposed dogmatics A Doctrine of the Trinity as if Jesus Mattered highlighting this point sharply

S R Holmes Journal ofampformtd 1htology 3 (2009) 77-89

rule a much-cited principle within social trinitarianism which states that the economic Trinity is the immanent Trini ry and uice-uersa) Clearly if this claim is true it is a major advantage for social trinitarianism Christian doctrines simply should cohere with scripture

Within the NT narrative it is claimed we find repeatedly dialogue between the Father and the Son on a social trinitarian account this is natural and normal on an older iugustinian account it is held to be difficult to make sense of if Father and Son are united in will intellect and essence how can the prayer in Gethsemane for example be interpreted In the economy of salvation the Father speaks to the Son and the Son speaks back to the Father This a social trinitarian would claim is pr imary data which must drive our doctrine of the Trinity

A second attraction is the claimed coherence with tradition As I have noted Zizioulas finds a very particular doctrine of the Trinity to be central to the ecumenical settling of the Arian controversy at Constantinople and to the overcoming of the intellectual heritage ofGreek philosophy Social trinitarianshyism if this telling of the history of ideas is correct is at the heart of what it is to be authentically Christian A trinitarian account which is less focused on persons and interpersonal relations is on Zizioulass terms still captive to ancient pagan philosophy and so deficiently Christian

The third attraction I want to notice is the usefulness of trinitarian doctrine understood in a social way Miroslav Volf published a paper under the title The Trinity is our Social Program I I Social trinitarianism has been found to be extraordinarily generative for ecclesial social and political practice David S Cunningham subtitled his book on the Trinity The Practice ofTrinitarian Theology and Paul Fiddes described his own work asfltA Pastoal Doctrine of the Trinity For these two thinkers prayer and gender politics and church life and aesthetics are all illuminated by a social doctrine of the Trinity Where Rahner once lamented the lack of trinitarian thought in Christian piety now it seems that almost every area of ethics and piety is determined directly by a commitment to the social Trinity13

II Volf The Trinity is our Social Program The Doctr ine of the Trinity and the Shape of Social Engagement in Alan Torrance and Michael Banner (eds) Iblaquo Doctrine of God and Theoiogica Ethics (London TampT Clark 2006) 105-24

11 David S Cunningham Thalaquo Threlaquo art One Thlaquo Practice ofTrinitarian 1htology (Oxford Blackwell 1998) Paul S Fiddes Participatingin GodA Pastoral Doctrine oftht Trinity (London DLT2000)

13 For an impressiveexample see Peter R Holmes Trinity in Human Community Exploring Congrtgational Lift in tblaquolmagt oftht Social Trinity (Milton Keynes Paternoster 2006) a book

82 S R Holmes JournalofReformed 1heology 3 (2009) 77-89 S R Holmes JournalofReformed Theology 3 (2009) 77-89 83

This then is a doctrine that is biblically founded authentic to the Christian tradition and practically useful what can possibly be said against it Unfortushynately it seems to me that each of these claimed advantages is at least more difficult than enthusiastic supporters of the program have made out and that the objections to them may be devastating

The Apparent Usefulness ofSocial Trinitarianism

John Zizioulas derived a doctrine of the church from his trinitarian thought as I have noted The bishop is the source and arcbeof the church just as the Father is of the Trinity the Eucharist is the heart of the life of the church The ecclesiology is strongly hierarchical reinforcing sacerdotalism structure and authority For Zizioulas as a Greek Orthodox bishop the priesthood remains solely male and so his ecclesiology leads to gender inequalities that would be found troubling by most Western societies

Miroslav Volf in his magisterial After our Likeness TheChurch as the Image 0the 1Tinity4 claims to be following Zizioulass trinitarian theology closely When he develops his own ecclesiology from trinitarian dogma however he pictures a classically congregationalist church polity (he quotes John Smyth the founder of the English Baptist movement repeatedly) where the gathering and covenanting together of believersestablishes the church and ministry arises from within the gathered congregation dependent on it for calling and recogshynition This is sufficiently far from Zlzioulass ecclesiology to cause us to pause the claim that a social doctrine of the Trinity is generative for ecclesiology and ethics is in danger of being cast into doubt if such wildly divergent implicashytions can be drawn from the same doctrine

Logically this difference can be explained in one of three ways

1 Zizioulas and Volf are in fact employing different doctrines of the Trinity 2 There is an error in argument from Trinity to church in at least one of

these two texts 3 Despite appearances ecclesiological programs cannot in fact be derived

from trinitarian dogma there is a methodological Raw shared by both Zizioulas and Volf

describing an intentional actempr to live out social trinirarianism in a church-plant in a small English rown

14 Miroslav VoIf After our Likeness The Church as the Image ofthe Trinity (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1998)

One of the great strengths ofVolfs book is his recognition that it is simply not trivial to move from a trinitarian account of divine persons in relation to an ecclesial or political account of human persons in relation As he says

Today the thesis that ecc1esial communion should correspond to trinitarian communshyion enjoys the status of an almost self-evident proposition Yet it is surprising that no one has carefully examined just where such correspondences are to be found nor expended much effort determining where ecc1esial communion reaches the limits of its capacity for such analogy The result is that reconstructions of these correspondshyences often say nothing more than the platitude that unity cannot exist without mul shytiplicity nor multiplicity without unity IS

Volf offers serious theology that does intend to move beyond the platitudes He attempts to examine carefully the analogies that can be drawn between divine and human personhood and their limitations However his passion for a particular ecclesiology (which I confess I share) forces him in an unacceptashyble direction It is clear from the texts that the first of my three options above is the relevant one Volf makes a significant alteration to the received ecushymenical doctrine of the Trinity which alteration allows him to embrace the free church ecclesiology that he commends The alteration can be described rather simply Volf attempts to differentiate between the relations of origin and the eternal relations of love in the Godhead That is the begettirig of the Son by the Father and the procession of the Spirit from the Father (and the Son) are to be distinguished from the ongoing decisive relationships in the triune God On this basis there is no priority of the Father but simply a mutuality between the three hypostases and so ~Volf cap support the bottom-up free church ecclesiology that he is-and incidentally I amshycommitted to

This might already suggest a problem for the claim that social trinitarianism is helpfully ethically generative the minutiae of scholastic trinitarian discusshysion the sort of arid debates that most social trinitarians declare themselves impatient of seem to determine the ethical implications of the position not just at the level of minor nuances but at the level of major and basic commitments Volf proclaims his loyalty to Zizioulass trinitarian program yet by a seemingly minor technical variation he effectively inverts the ecclesioshylogical implications of it It might be that this is the reality that the difference

IS Volf AfterourLikeness Ihe Church astheImage ofthe Trinity 191 16 Volf is open about this move on pp 216-17 of In our Likeness although he does nor

highlight just how radicalhis proposal is

84 s R Holmes JournalofReformed 7heology 3 (2009) 77-89 S R Holmes JournalofReformed 7heology 3 (2009) 77-89 85

(transposing the argument into the political realm) between democracy and fascism (say) is determined by the most abstruse of theological differences but this feels to me uncomfortable I would rather believe that the error of fascism is demonstrable on the basis of fundamental positions in anthropology not subtle distinctions in theology proper

Perhaps however Volfs distinction is not general The evidence suggests otherwise Volf suggests fairly that this separation is shared by Moltrnann which would seem to suggest that it is common among devotees of the social Trinity (who generally have learned from either Volf or Moltmann) This demshyonstrates I hope that the supposed ethical and political usefulness of social trinitarianism is at least more complicated than has sometimes been pretended When Volf himself claimed in a ringing slogan that The Trinity is our Social Program he presumably assumed that a doctrine of the Trinity was someshything generally accessible to Christian believers not something which was obscure and abstruse and yet took us in fundamentally different social and political-and ecclesiological-directions depending on which side of the scholarly knife edge we fell

However I think the point can be pressed further than this Volfs doctrine of the Trinity in After our Likeness is explicitly a deviation from the received ecumenical doctrine Simply Volf is choosing to adjust the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity because he does not like the ecclesiological (and social and politshyical) implications of the received doctrine Moltmann is less clear about the implications of making the same move perhaps because his grasp of the patrisshytic debates is less sure In both cases however the approved and acceptable ethical outcomes cannot Row from a patristic doctrine of the Trinity the dogma needs massaging and in some respects simple reversal before it can generate acceptable political content for today

All of which is to say that the claimedsupposed usefulness of social docshytrines of the Trinity seems to me to be generally overstated and at best quesshytionable The ecumenically received doctrine of the Trinity to which Zizioulas witnesses (see the next section for some defence of this claim) is politically unhelpful in modern Western terms political utility is only achieved if the received form of the doctrine of the Trinity is radically adjusted

17 Volf footnotes 108-112 on pp 216-17 referencing Molrrnann The Trinity and theKingdom ofGod 165-166 and 175-166 and various sections of Moltrnanns 17Je SpiritofLifeA Universal Affirmation (London SCM Press 1992)

The Defence ofSocial Trinitarianism from Tradition

None of this of course is decisive It may be that contemporary Western theologians have erred in trying to make the ethical and social implications of the doctrine of the Trinity acceptable this is not yet evidence however that social trinitarianism is wrong merely that it has been misapplied to support a liberal political agenda to which in fact it lends no credence Perhaps the polishytics is wrong contemporary Western liberalism is unChristian and demonshystrably so from a doctrine of the Trinity If so of course it is necessary to accept the trinitarian imperative If Zizioulas is right and a proper undershystanding of trinitarian ecclesiology does in fact exclude women from Eucharisshytic presidency (eg) then this ought to be recognized and acknowledged in the church not ignored

This leads me to my second criticism Social trinitarianism cannot I think be defended on the basis that it is more socially useful than other positions but it might still be right social utility as judged by contemporary prejudices was never an interesting criterion for Christian doctrine Volfs position does not depend on any political basis it rather depends on an assumption that the distinction between relationships of origin and relationships of love can be sustained This is a merely theological point and regardless of its political implications it might nonetheless be true Equally it might be unimportant for the present discussion perhaps other social trinitarians do not hold to Volfs positions

I have already indicated however that very similar positions are common to Moltmann at least There is no space here to make the more general comshyparison but Volf and Moltmann are sufficiently influential within contemposhyrary social trinitarianism that their shared position may be taken as general If this position is indeed common within devotees of social trinitarianisrn we must ask whether in fact it is acceptable within ecumenical dogma Is social trinitarianism a re-presentation ofclassical trinitarianism that should be accepted even if its political outcomes are unhappy The answer seems to me to be clearly negative again there is no room here to review all the evidence but the position that the only distinctions between the divine hypostases are the relations of origin is widely and I think correctly accepted as a summary of patristic trinitarianism as it was codified at Constantinople Although there is not room in the present paper to demonstrate this for some indications in this direction drawn from the Cappadocian Fathers who are generally cited by social trinitarians in support of their position consider the following St Gregory Nazianzen the Theologian affirmed repeatedly in his orations

86 S R Holmes Journal 0Riformfd Theology 3 (2009) 77-89 S R Holmes Journal 0ampform~d Ihealogy 3 (2009) 77-89 87

that the only particular properties of the three hypostases were unbegottenshyness begottenness and procession 18 Basil makes the same point in writing to Gregory of Nyssa19 Gregory of Nyssa in turn asserts the same while we conshyfess the invariable character of the nature we do not deny the difference in respect of cause and that which is caused by which alonewe apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another20

These references briefas they are are perhaps sufficient to suggest that social trinitarian ism is some distance from the Cappadocian discussion it is also I believe demonstrably some way from the Latin tradition of trinirarianisrn given the social trinitarians own protestations that they are opposed to Augusshytine Boethius and St Thomas I assume that I do not need to demonstrate this at any length Social trinitarian ism may be right but if it is then the fathers were wrong individually in every case of which I am aware and in their conciliar decisions at Nicea Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon

Social Trinitarianism and the Biblical Narrative

Ofcourse from a Reformed perspective it is possible that this is true and that social trinitarianism is right While the Reformed have tended to respect the early ecumenical decisions of the church the sense that every decision was corrigible and subject to examination under the one decisive norm ofscripture is rightly pervasive For Reformed theology it remains possible that one or several of the seven ecumenical councils waswere wrong and that many or most of the fathers of the church were wrong and that a social trinitarianism is in fact the best way to appropriate the biblical witness

However it seems to me that this also is flawed The fathers had ways ofcoping exegetically with the texts that describe the Lo~ds prayer in Gethseshyrnene it is true the point is however more basic than this Social trinitarian rhetoric concerning the biblical witness tends to stress the threeness of the divine actor in the New Testament witness which point is correct so far as it goes but without qualification is in some danger of being simply Marcionite one cannot claim a position is biblical without considering the whole of scripture not just the New Testament The totality of the biblical witness concerning God it seems to me consists of a sustained and pointed witness to

I See eg Or 207 Or 2516 Or 3912 or Or 4217 (the Farewell Address) I See Ep 38 1tJ On Not Three Gods To Ababius (cr Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series II Volume 5

Edinburgh 1892336 my emphasis)

the oneness of God in the face of repeated temptations to polytheisrns supshyplemented by a brief coda or appendix suggesting that this One God is in fact triune

I realize of course that describing the New Testament as a brief coda or appendix to the scriptures is rather polemical but perhaps it makes the point The claim that social trinitarianism is biblical is by no means obvious rather it depends on a very particular hermeneutic that privileges the New Testashyment and particularly the Gospels in ways that at least demand explanation and defence The central and repeated thrust of the biblical narrative taken as a whole can easily be characterized as a drive towards monotheism and AugusshytinianLatin trinitarianism is at least as successful a representation of monoshytheism as social trinitarianism

Ofcourse it might be argued that the New Testament should be privileged but the nature of that privilege demands explication The NT may not be read in a way that denies Old Testament monotheism Jesus himself is suffishycient witness to that Rather the challenge for any adequately theological hermeneutic is to find a way of describing the narration of Gods actions and words within the text that is responsible both to the Old Testament presentashytion of the oneness ofGod and the New Testament presentation of the shared life ofFather Son and Holy Spirit Thus stated it is by no ~eans obvious that social trinitarianism is the more biblical option crudely it privileges one set of data and needs to explain away another Latin trinitarianism privileges the other and needs to explain away the first

As I say this characterization is crude but it is not trivial It may seriously be doubted that Augustines rejection of any particular presence of the hyposshytasis of the Divine Son in history prior to the IncarnationIs adequate-x-I would tend to doubt this myself-but equally to suppose that there is some hidden social trinitarianisrn within the Old Testament texts without considershyable exegetical demonstration of the point seems merely unconvincingP Monotheism is at the heart of the biblical witness social trinitarian ism is not incompatible with biblical monotheism but it is perhaps more difficult to defend than a more traditional position with regard to the Old Testament what however about the New Of course a question like this cannot be

l Mk 1229

II Robert Jensons attempt to see Christ prefigured or pre-present in the nation of Israelshypresented as Gods Son in the Old Testament-represents a far more sophisticated response to this problem than is found among mainstream social trinitari ans For various reasons however I am not convinced it works

88 S R Holmes Journalofampformed Theology 3 (2009) 77-89 S R Holmes Journalofampformed 1heology 3 (2009) 77-89 89

answered in a brief essay but let me end by giving one reason why we should not assume that social trinitarianism is the superior approach

Trinity and Christology

Let me return once more to Gethsemane There we overhear the incarnate Son praying in great anguish and greater faith Father let not my will be done but yours instead23 Locating these two wills seems to me to take us to the crux of the exegetical debate For the contemporary social trinitarian the text is clear we are enabled to overhear a conversation between persons of the Trinity The incarnate Son acknowledges the presence and reality of his own desire and volition but chooses to accede instead to the volition of the Father

This text was however endlessly discussed by the church fathers and their settled view was rather different The debate comes to a head in the monotheshylite controversy decisively settled at the Third Council of Constantinople in 681 but it can be traced through the three centuries before that date at least The fathers almost unanimously rejected the view described above some the monothelires asserted that there was only one will in the incarnate Son the single divine will of the Eternal Godhead others defended the apparently less logical position eventually declared orthodox that there were two wills the single divine will of the eternal Godhead and a genuine human will I do not intend to review this controversy now24 as noted above Reformed theology cannot be determined simply by appeal to tradition but it seems to me that it highlights a helpful point for understanding social trinitarianism social trinishytarianismuses the doctrine ofthe Trinity to ansuer questions the fathers ansuiered

byChristology Questions ofontology creation mediation soteriology-and ethics includshy

ing political and social theory-seem to me to be seen fundamentally as Chrisshytological questions in classical Christian theology It is only very recently that we have tried to view them as trinitarian questions I believe that the same thing is true of the question raised above about New Testament exegesis The New Testament offers us a striking picture of an executed criminal who is identified with God himself and asks us to make sense of that narrative Social trinitarianism has tried to do this by encompassing the narrative within rheolshy

13 Lk 2242 my translation 14 I have written on it at some length in my essay Chrisrology Scripture Divine Action and

Hermeneutics in Andrew T Lincoln and Angus Paddison (eds) Christology and Scripture InterdisciplinaryPmpectives London TampT Clark 2008 156-70

ogy proper identifYing God as both actors in the story and as the story the actors play out This might be right but the patristic answer shared in every detail incidentally by the fathers of the Reformation particularly in their debates with Serverus and the Socinians and in the Calvinist defence of the extra Calvinisticum rather chose to locate the tension within the person of the Crucified One who is at one and the same time both Lord and servant both Creator and creature I cannot attempt to demonstrate that this is the preferable view but I hope that it is at least not obviously less preferable there is an exegetical debate to be had And if as I have argued the social trinitarians need to defend a position that is novel in the Christian tradition and generashytive of deeply unhappy ethical and social positions then we might presume that there is a burden of proof on that side of the debate a burden that has not in the published literature at least even begun to be shouldered

91

IJ O U R N A L 1H

u REFORMeD laquo THEOLOGY

BRILL JournalofReformedTheology 3 (2009) 90-107 wwwbrillnljrr

The Relationship between the Ontological Trinity and the Economic Trinity

Seung Goo Lee Professor of Systematic Theology

Hapdong Theological Seminary South-Korea e-mail wminbgihorrnailcom

Abstract This article focuses on one of the main issuesin the contemporary trinitarian renaissance viz the relationship between the immanent (or ontological) and the economic Trinity It takes its start ing-point in what is labeled the classicmodel as shared by both the Eastern and the Western church The basic idea here is that the economic Trinity is the epistemological ground of the immanent Trinity whereas the immanent Trinity is the ontological ground of the economic Trinity It is shown that this model is endorsed by two influential Reformed theologians viz John Calvin and Herman Bavinck Next the model of the new theology of the cross is introduced as represented by Eberhard Jungel and [Iirgen Moltmann Especially Molrrnanns innovative proposals are critically discussed Characteristic of this second model is that the distinction between the ontological and economic Trinity is blurred Third it is argued that Dutch Reformed theologian Hendrikus Berkhof offered an even more radical model which leaves us with only the economic Trinity Although both of these contemporary models have their attractions it is concluded that we have every reason to stick to the classic model

Keywords the ontological Trinity the economic Trinity John Calvin Herman Bavinck Jurgen Moltmann Eberhard Jungel Hendrikus Berkhof

In this contribution I want to examine the relationship between the ontoshylogical and the economic Trinity The economic Trinity is the Trinity revealed in the economy (oikonomia) of God Hence the term the economic Trinity or the Trinity of revelation has been used As Eberhard Jiingel said the

For an explanation of this term see Otto Weber Foundation ofDogmatics vol I trans Darrell L Guder (Grand Rapids Eerdrnans 1981) 388 Helmut Thlelicke The Evangelical Faith vol 2 The Doctrine of Godand ofChrist trans and ed Geoffrey W Bromiley (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1991) 179 Paul Jewett God Creation and Revelation (Grand Rapids

copy KoninklijkeBrillNYLelden2009 001 1O11631156973109X403741

S G Lee Journalofampformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

doctrine of economic Trinity understands the being of God in relation with man and his world In contrast to this economic Trinity the ontological Trinity refers to the Trinity-in-God-himself That is the ontological Trinity is to understand God hirnselfwirhour regard to Gods relationship with man3 and to understand the Trinity as describing the immanent ontic structure of the being of God4 Hence the terms the ontological Trinity the eternal Trinity the essent ial Trinity or the immanent Trinity

According to Wolfhart Pannenberg the distinction between the economic and ontological Trinity can be traced to eighteenth century theologian Johann Augustus Urlsperger (1728-1806)5 As far as the terminology is concerned Pannenberg may be right The concept itself however is already found in the writings of the earlier theologians While in earlier days theologians treated the ontological and the economic Trinity without a clear conscious distinction concrete usage of these terms appeared with the rise of the tendency to disreshygard the ontological aspect of the Trinity Hence Jiirgen Moltmann is more correct when he said that it is common to distinguish the ontological and the economic Trinity after Tertullians rejection of modalism and that especially the Cappadocian Fathers clearly distinguished these two G C Berkouwer also made it clear that the church used the distinction between the ontological and the economic Trinity in her efforts to fight against rnodalisrn

In this contribution I would like to contrast three models oflooking at the relation between the ontological and the economic Trinity and to consider which model might be more biblical and realistic

Eerdmans 1991)305 Weberand Jewett use also the terms like revelationalTrinity and functional Trinity

2 Eberhard Jungel Godas the Mystery ofthe World trans Darrell L Guder (Grand Rapids Eerdrnans 1983) 346

S jiingel GodastheMystery oftheWorld 346 bull Thielicke The Evangelical Faith vol 2 76 S Wolfhan PannenbergSyseemanschlaquo Theologie Band I (GortlngenVandenhoeckand Ruprecht

1988) 317 n 122=ET Systematic Theology trans Geoffrey W Bromiley (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1991)291 n Il l See also Weber FoundationofDogmatics vol 1 388 n 124

6 Jurgen Mohrnann Trinitiit und Reich Gottes (Munchen Christian Kaiser Verlag 1980)= ET The Trinity and the Kingdom The Doctrine ofGod trans Margaret Kohl (London SCM Press 1981) 151 idem Der gekreuzigte Gott (Miinchen Christian Kaiser Verlag 1972)= ET The Crucified God trans R A Wilson and John Bowden (London SCM Press 1974) 235

7 G C BerkouwerA HafCmtury ofTheology trans and ed LewisBSmedes (Grand Rapids Eerdrnans 1977)259

I

92 93 s G Lee Journal of Reformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

The Classic Model

By the classic model I mean the historic understanding of the Trinity In the discussion of the classic model I will not give much attention to different understandings of the Trinity between the Eastern Church and the Western Church but concentrate on their common element I will first state the basic proposition in which the Trinity is understood

Basic Statement

Proposition 1 The economic Trinity is the ground of cognition for the ontoshylogical Trinity and the ontological Trinity is the ground of being for the ecoshynomic Trinity

According to the classic understanding of the Trinity the relation between the ontological and the economic Trinity is as follows We get to know that God is the triune God through Gods relationship with this world God however does not become a triune God in His relation with this world God himself was and is atriune God even before He had any relationship with this world Hence we can say that God reveals Himself as a triune God in the course of the economy since He himselfwas and is a triune God In its ideal form the classhysic model for understanding the Trinity has the following process of thinking

First of all there is recognition of the economic Trinity That is we can recognize that God is the triune God in the process of examining Gods creashytion and redemption through Christ especially while examining the coming of Christ his self-disclosure the coming of the Holy Spirit to the New Testashyment church on Pentecost the works of the Holy Spirit in the church and the response of the church to the Holy Spirit (esp Acts 51-16) Jesus Christ and the One whom he calls his Father and the Holy Spirit who was sent by the Father and the Son (John 1426 1526 167) are one triune God In the procshyess of this recognition we can also see some aspects of their relationship That is God the Father and God the Son have a relationship of a father and a son and the Holy Spirit is the one who could be sent bythe Father and the Son All of these amount to a recognition of the economic Trinity

Second in the process of recognizing the economic Trinity we come across several statements that show the relationship between these three persons For example the term only begotten son (john 114) and the expression the only Son who is in the bosom of the Father (John 118) lead us to the conclusion that the Son is the one who has been begotten by the Father And the state-

S G Lee Journal ofReformed 7heology 3 (2009) 90-107

ments that the Holy Spirit will be sent by Jesus from the Father (john 1426 1526 167) and that the Holy Spirit proceeds- from the Father Oohn 1526) show that the Holy Spirit is the one who will be sent to us in the process of Gods economic relation with us

Finally with the help of this second stage ofour understanding of the Trinshyity we begin to understand that the Father is eternally begetting the Son and the Son is being eternally begotten by the Father whereas the Holy Spirit is proceedingfrom the Father (and the Son) by applying the economic relationship into eternity In order to substantiate this summary of the classic model let us look at the way in which two Reformed theologians understood the Trinity

John Calvin on the Trinity

John Calvin develops his arguments without clearly distinguishing between the economic and the ontological Trinity It seems to me that for him there is no need to distinguish between these two because the ontological Trinity is revealed in the economic Trinity This is a common phenomenon in the writshyings of most theologians who hold the classic model If we placed them in a modern debate concerning the relationship between the ontological and the economic Trinity however they would make it quite clear that the triune God reveals Himself as He is in the process ofcreation and redemption There are some hints of this in Calvins discussion of the Trinity Let us look at the way in which he speaks of the Trinity

Calvin begins his discussion of the Trinity by explaining that several words which do not appear in scripture-eg Trinity persons bomoousios etc-are useful for the interpretation of scripture so that they are especially useful for refuting the wrong thinking and distorted teachings about the Trinity One sentence which Calvin quotes from Augustine clearly shows what Calvins attishytude is on these terms On account of the poverty of human speech in so great a matter the word hypostasis has been forced upon us by necessity not

8 In his good study on Calvins trinitarian theology f W Burin also showed this point centering his emphasis on the economic Trinity Philip Walker Burin Revelation Redemption and Response Calvins Trinitarian Understanding of the Divine-Human Relationship (New York and Oxford Oxford University Press 1995) It seems to me however that it is pity that Burin did not clearly discuss the relationship between the ontological and the economic trinity in the thought of Calvin Butin showed a tendency to emphasize the economic trinity See also his Reformed Ecclesiology Trinitarian Grace According to Calvin Studies in Reformed 1heology and History III (winter 1994) 5-8 esp 6 Calvins articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity is predominantly economic

95 94 s G LeeJournal ofReformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

to express what it is but only not to be silent on how Father Son and Spirit are three The reason why we use the word hypostasis is not because this is the word that can be used to show exactly what God is like but that we cannot help not speaking of God as the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit That is these terms are used in our difficult effort to express the fact of revelation in our human language What Calvin wants to say in this part can best be sumshymarized with the following statements Say that in one essence of God there isa trinity of persons you will say in one word what Scriptures states and cut short empty talkativeness

Thus after defining the term person as a subsistence in Gods essence which while related to the others is distinguished by an incommunicable quality I I

Calvin proceeds to the discussion ofhomoousios of the Father and the Son and to the discussion of the differentiation of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit

In his discussion of the divinity of the Son Calvin first ofall talks about the divinity of the Logos asarkos and then goes on to the discussion of the Word endued with flesh The order of this discussion is very instructive for our purpose because this shows how Calvin thinks about the relation of God the Father and the Logos asarkos That is here we can see a hint of Calvins undershystanding of the ontological Trinity Referring to I Pet 110-11 Calvin says that because Christ had not yet been manifested it is necessary to understand the Word as begotten of the Father before time12 He then refers to the creashytion by the Word of God in Genesis 1 He understands this creation by the Word of God in the light of Heb 12-3 and says that here we see the Word understood as the order or mandate of the Son who is himself the eternal and essential Word of the Father3 For Calvin however the most important passhy

sages in relation with the divinity of the Son are John 11-3 for John at once attributes to the Word a solid and abiding essence and ascribes something uniquely His own

On the basis of these discussions Calvin concludes that unchangeable the Word abides everlastingly one and the same with God and is God hirnself

) John Calvin Institutesofthe ChristianReligion trans Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia The Westminster Press 1960) I xiiiS

III Calvin Institutes I xiiiS II Calvin Institutes I xiii 6 Il Calvin Institutes I xiii 7 13 Calvin Institutes I xiii 7 14 Calvin Institutes I xiii 7 15 Calvin Institutes I xiii 7

S G LeeJournal ofReformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

Then in relation with those who would readily accept the divinity of the Son but deny the eternality of the Son Calvin says that the Word conceived beyond the beginning of time by God has perpetually resided with him and he concludes that by this his eternity his true essence and his divinity are proved 16

Only after showing the eternal divinity of the Son this way does Calvin discuss the divinity of Christ in the OT17 and the Angel of]ehovah18 the

divinity of Christ in the NT on the basis of the witnesses of the Apostles of the works of Christ2o and of the miracles of Christ

In relation to the divinity of the Holy Spirit Calvins discussion is centered on the works of the Holy Spirit and the biblical expressions which identify the Holy Spirit with God22

We conclude therefore that Calvins discussion of the Trinity makes it clear that God has a triune relationship with the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit from eternity and that this triune relationship has been clearly revealed in the economic process For Calvin it is not even possible to think of the economic Trinity constituting the ontological Trinity This is clearly shown in his response to those who have doubts about the eternal Sonship of the Christ

Herman Bavinck on the Trinity

We see almost the same view of the Trinity in Herman Bavincks understandshying of the Trinity as we saw in Calvin23 Bavinck is however more helpful because he explicitly speaks of the relation of the ontological and the economic Trinity From this explicit explanation we can gather that ~ discusses the Trinity with what we called the classic model in mind Let us quote one passhysage from him

16 Calvin Institutes I xiii 8 17 Calvin Institutes I xiii 9 18 Calvin Institutes I xiii 10 19 Calvin Institutes I xiii 11 20 Calvin Institutes I xiii 12 21 Calvin Institutes I xiii 13 22 Calvin Institutes I xiii 14-15

23 John Bolt also made this point in his doctoral dissertation on Bavinck See John Bolt The Imitation ofChrist Theme in the Cultural-Ethical Idea ofHerman Bavinck (Ph D Dissertation University of St Michaels College Toronto School of Theology 1982) 74 n 274 In his explication of the trinitarian order Bavinck clearly reflects Calvins discussion of the Trinity in Institutes I xv See also p 127 in both the ontological and economic Trinity Bavinck fol1ows Calvin and Kuyper

96 97 S G LeeJournalofReorm(d Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

As in the ontological trinity the Father is first in order of subsistence the Son second and the Holy Spirit third so also in the history of revelation the Father preceded the Son and the Son preceded the Holy Spirit The Father comes without having been sent the Son is sent by the Father Man 1040 Mark 937 Luke 948 John 316 5233037 68ff and the Holy Spirit is sent by both Father and Son John 1426 167

But this procession in time is a reflection of the immanent relation existing between the three persons in the ontological trinity and is based upon generation and spirarlon The generation of the Son is the eternal arche-type of the incarnation of the Logos and the procession from the father and the Soh is the proto-type of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit Hence the church-fathers derived the knowledge concerning the eternal and immanent relations existing between the persons of the trinity from what was revealed concerning those relations in time In this they were correct

Here Bavinck says that the trinitarian structure expressed in the history of revelation that is the structure of the economic Trinity can be seen as a reflecshytion of the structure of the ontological Trinity He recognizes that the church fathers drew the ontological Trinity from the understanding of the economic Trinity and he himself also accepts this

In the classic model therefore as we have seen God has his trinitarian relationship from eternity and it is clear that the economic process within time does not affect God In this sense the following statement by Thielicke succinctly shows the intention of the classic understanding of the Trinity the orthodox doctrine of the essential Trinity maintains that the Trinity is immanent and original in God apart from his work and that the deity is eternally Father Son and Spirit in itself before ever creating anything entering into union with the individual or dwelling in the fellowship of believers

Let us turn to the second model in order to see a different understanding of the relationship between the ontological and the economic Trinity

TheModel of the NewTheologyof the Cross

By the new theology of the cross I mean the theologies which Jurgen Moltshymann and Eberhard jiingel developed within the last thirty years or so They wanted to renew theology by centering upon the cross of Jesus and they

l4 Herman Bavinck The Doctrine of God trans William Hendriksen (Grand Rapids Eerdrnans 1951) 320

2j Thielicke The ElJang(Iicai Faith 176

S G Lu Journalofampform(d Th(ology 3 (2009) 90-107

thought that their approach would renew and reshape Luthers theologia crucis for the 20th century It seems to me however that it is difficult to identify their approach with Luthers theology of the cross Hence the term the new theology of the cross Howdid Moltmann and Jungel understand the relation of the economic and the ontological Trinity In this section I will concentrate only on Moltmanns view

Basic Statement

Proposition 2 The economic Trinity is the ontological Trinity and vice versa

This proposition which was first used by Karl Rahner and then by Barth Moltmann and ]Ungel in their own ways can be interpreted in various ways In other words the meaning of this proposition is somewhat ambiguous These theologians sometimes present this proposition in the way in which we understand the classic model When we read Moltmann stating the following material we almost come to the conclusion that he is simply repeating the classic viewpoint

If the immanent Trinity is the counterpart of praise then knowledge of the economic Trinity (as the embodiment of the history and experience ofsalvation) preeedes knowlshyedge of the immanent Trinity In the order of being it succeeds it26

There is only one single divine Trinity and one single divine history ofsalvation The triune God can only appear in history as he is in himself and in no other way He is in himselfas he appears in salvation history for it is he himself who is manifested and he is just what he is manifested as beingY

Statements about the immanent Trinity must not contradict statements about the economic Trinity Statements about the economic Trinity must correspond to doxoshylogical statements about the immanent Trinity28

In spite of the impression which these quotations leave after closer examinashytion we conclude that Moltmann does not have a classic understanding of the Trinity Indeed at one point Moltmann clearly says that in order to grasp the death of the Son in its significance for God himself I found myself bound to

26 Molrrnann Ihlaquo Trinity and th( Kingdom 152 27 Molrrnann Thlaquo Trinityand th( Kingdom 153 28 Molrrnann Ihlaquo Trinityand th( Kingdom 154

99 98 S G Lee IJournal ofRiformrd 7h~ology 3 (2009) 90-107

surrender the traditional distinction between the immanent and the ontological Trinity29 Moreover in a 1973 article he states

If the doctrine of the Trinity could be developed from the event of the cross then not only the distinction between God in himself (Gott an sich) and the God for us (Gott flir tins) but also the distinction between the immanent and the economical Trinity are abolish~d Jlt1

When we closely examine Molrmanns book therefore we conclude that Molshytrnann by using the proposition that the economic Trinity is the ontological Trinity and viceversa expresses the idea that the economic Trinity is itself the ontological Trinity and that the economic Trinity is the center ofGods revelashytion in the process of history and that the ontological Trinity is merely the metaphysical summary of the economic Trinitys doxological meaning To state it bluntly according to this new theology of the cross it is not the case that there is an inner relationship between three divine persons from eternity which is revealed in the process of time Rather from our understanding of the ecoshynomic self-revelation ofGod we logically draw out Gods trinitarian structure There may be an ontological Trinity at the end of the day we can proleptically refer to this Trinity in our doxology Let me substantiate these points by examshyining Moltrnanns writings

Moltmanns Understanding In his book The Crucified God from 1972 Moltmann tries to understand the Trinity in relation to the cross He says The material principle of the doc shytrine of the Trinity is the cross ofChrist The formal principle ofknowledge of the cross is the doctrine of the Trinity32 He even says that a trinitarian theolshyogy of the cross develops from this history [of the cross] what is to be understood by God33So he demands a revolution in the concept ofGod34 In the same spirit Moltmann says

Moltmann The Trinityand thlaquoKingdom 160 emphasis is given 30 Molrmann Gesichrspunkre der Kreuzesrheologle heme Evang~lisch~ 7h~gid3 (1973)

362f cited in Horst G Poehlrnann Abriss derDogmatik (1975) translated into Korean by Shin shyGun LeeDogmatics (Seoul Korean Institute ofTheology 1990) 157 emphasis is given

3 Molrrnann The Crucified God trans R A Wilson and John Bowden (London SCM Press 1974)

i 31 Molrmann IheCrucifi~d God 241 i 33 Molrmann the Trinity and thlaquoKingdom 247 34 Moltmann The Trinity and theKingdom 152

S G Lee IJournalofampform~d 7h~ology3 (2009) 90-107

In the cross Father and Son are most deeply separated in forsakenness and at the same time are most inwardly one in their surrender What proceeds from this event between Father and Son is the Spirit which justifies the godless fills the forsaken with love and even brings the dead allveisince the fact that they are dead cannot exclude them from this event of the cross the death in God also includes them35

For Moltmann the event of the cross is not only an event of the economic Trinity but also an event within the Trinity Or rather ifwe put it in the words of Richard Bauckhams interpretation of Molrmann the event of the cross is the Trinity36 Accordingly Moltrnann says that the history of Christ is the inner life of God himself and that the Trinity is an event of love in the sufshyfering and death ofJesuS 37 He even says that we should not think as though the Trinity were already present in itself in the divine nature38 That is to say we should not think that first there was the ontological Trinity and then the economic Trinity was revealed Rather Moltrnann thinks that the ontological Trinityis constituted in the eventofthe cross Richard Bauckham also interprets Moltrnann in this way So Bauckham says that at this stage (from The Theology ofHope to The Crucified God) Moltrnann thinks of God becoming Trinity in the history of Jesus 39 And he adds that Moltrnann very much wished to understand the trinitarian relationship of Father and Son as a relationship which happens in the history of Jesus and especially in -the cross and will not allow this happening to be a mere reflection of supra-temporal truth40 Indeed Mohmann himself thinks that his understanding of the Trinity overshycomes the dichotomy between immanent and economic Trinity and between the nature of God and his inner tri-uniry Let us quote one more passage form The Crucified God

The Trinity therefore also means the hisrory ofGod which in human terms is the hisshytory of love and liberation The Trinity understood as an event for history therefore presses towards eschatological consummation so that the Trinity may beall in allor put more simply so that Jove may be all in all so that life may triumph over death

35 Moltmann Iblaquo Trinity and th~ Kingdom 244 36 Richard Bauekham )Urgen Moltrnann in OnlaquoGodin Trinity An Analysis oth~ Primary

Dogma oChristianity eds PeterToon and James D Spiceland (Westchester Cornerstone Books 1980) 120

37 Moltmann the Trinity and theKingdom 249 38 Moltmann 7h~ Trinity and theKingdom 245 3 Bauckharn Jiirgen Moltrnann 116 Bauckharns own emphasis 40 Bauckharn Jiirgen Moltrnann 116pound his own emphasis Moltrnann Ihlaquo Trinity and thlaquoKingdom 245

82 S R Holmes JournalofReformed 1heology 3 (2009) 77-89 S R Holmes JournalofReformed Theology 3 (2009) 77-89 83

This then is a doctrine that is biblically founded authentic to the Christian tradition and practically useful what can possibly be said against it Unfortushynately it seems to me that each of these claimed advantages is at least more difficult than enthusiastic supporters of the program have made out and that the objections to them may be devastating

The Apparent Usefulness ofSocial Trinitarianism

John Zizioulas derived a doctrine of the church from his trinitarian thought as I have noted The bishop is the source and arcbeof the church just as the Father is of the Trinity the Eucharist is the heart of the life of the church The ecclesiology is strongly hierarchical reinforcing sacerdotalism structure and authority For Zizioulas as a Greek Orthodox bishop the priesthood remains solely male and so his ecclesiology leads to gender inequalities that would be found troubling by most Western societies

Miroslav Volf in his magisterial After our Likeness TheChurch as the Image 0the 1Tinity4 claims to be following Zizioulass trinitarian theology closely When he develops his own ecclesiology from trinitarian dogma however he pictures a classically congregationalist church polity (he quotes John Smyth the founder of the English Baptist movement repeatedly) where the gathering and covenanting together of believersestablishes the church and ministry arises from within the gathered congregation dependent on it for calling and recogshynition This is sufficiently far from Zlzioulass ecclesiology to cause us to pause the claim that a social doctrine of the Trinity is generative for ecclesiology and ethics is in danger of being cast into doubt if such wildly divergent implicashytions can be drawn from the same doctrine

Logically this difference can be explained in one of three ways

1 Zizioulas and Volf are in fact employing different doctrines of the Trinity 2 There is an error in argument from Trinity to church in at least one of

these two texts 3 Despite appearances ecclesiological programs cannot in fact be derived

from trinitarian dogma there is a methodological Raw shared by both Zizioulas and Volf

describing an intentional actempr to live out social trinirarianism in a church-plant in a small English rown

14 Miroslav VoIf After our Likeness The Church as the Image ofthe Trinity (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1998)

One of the great strengths ofVolfs book is his recognition that it is simply not trivial to move from a trinitarian account of divine persons in relation to an ecclesial or political account of human persons in relation As he says

Today the thesis that ecc1esial communion should correspond to trinitarian communshyion enjoys the status of an almost self-evident proposition Yet it is surprising that no one has carefully examined just where such correspondences are to be found nor expended much effort determining where ecc1esial communion reaches the limits of its capacity for such analogy The result is that reconstructions of these correspondshyences often say nothing more than the platitude that unity cannot exist without mul shytiplicity nor multiplicity without unity IS

Volf offers serious theology that does intend to move beyond the platitudes He attempts to examine carefully the analogies that can be drawn between divine and human personhood and their limitations However his passion for a particular ecclesiology (which I confess I share) forces him in an unacceptashyble direction It is clear from the texts that the first of my three options above is the relevant one Volf makes a significant alteration to the received ecushymenical doctrine of the Trinity which alteration allows him to embrace the free church ecclesiology that he commends The alteration can be described rather simply Volf attempts to differentiate between the relations of origin and the eternal relations of love in the Godhead That is the begettirig of the Son by the Father and the procession of the Spirit from the Father (and the Son) are to be distinguished from the ongoing decisive relationships in the triune God On this basis there is no priority of the Father but simply a mutuality between the three hypostases and so ~Volf cap support the bottom-up free church ecclesiology that he is-and incidentally I amshycommitted to

This might already suggest a problem for the claim that social trinitarianism is helpfully ethically generative the minutiae of scholastic trinitarian discusshysion the sort of arid debates that most social trinitarians declare themselves impatient of seem to determine the ethical implications of the position not just at the level of minor nuances but at the level of major and basic commitments Volf proclaims his loyalty to Zizioulass trinitarian program yet by a seemingly minor technical variation he effectively inverts the ecclesioshylogical implications of it It might be that this is the reality that the difference

IS Volf AfterourLikeness Ihe Church astheImage ofthe Trinity 191 16 Volf is open about this move on pp 216-17 of In our Likeness although he does nor

highlight just how radicalhis proposal is

84 s R Holmes JournalofReformed 7heology 3 (2009) 77-89 S R Holmes JournalofReformed 7heology 3 (2009) 77-89 85

(transposing the argument into the political realm) between democracy and fascism (say) is determined by the most abstruse of theological differences but this feels to me uncomfortable I would rather believe that the error of fascism is demonstrable on the basis of fundamental positions in anthropology not subtle distinctions in theology proper

Perhaps however Volfs distinction is not general The evidence suggests otherwise Volf suggests fairly that this separation is shared by Moltrnann which would seem to suggest that it is common among devotees of the social Trinity (who generally have learned from either Volf or Moltmann) This demshyonstrates I hope that the supposed ethical and political usefulness of social trinitarianism is at least more complicated than has sometimes been pretended When Volf himself claimed in a ringing slogan that The Trinity is our Social Program he presumably assumed that a doctrine of the Trinity was someshything generally accessible to Christian believers not something which was obscure and abstruse and yet took us in fundamentally different social and political-and ecclesiological-directions depending on which side of the scholarly knife edge we fell

However I think the point can be pressed further than this Volfs doctrine of the Trinity in After our Likeness is explicitly a deviation from the received ecumenical doctrine Simply Volf is choosing to adjust the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity because he does not like the ecclesiological (and social and politshyical) implications of the received doctrine Moltmann is less clear about the implications of making the same move perhaps because his grasp of the patrisshytic debates is less sure In both cases however the approved and acceptable ethical outcomes cannot Row from a patristic doctrine of the Trinity the dogma needs massaging and in some respects simple reversal before it can generate acceptable political content for today

All of which is to say that the claimedsupposed usefulness of social docshytrines of the Trinity seems to me to be generally overstated and at best quesshytionable The ecumenically received doctrine of the Trinity to which Zizioulas witnesses (see the next section for some defence of this claim) is politically unhelpful in modern Western terms political utility is only achieved if the received form of the doctrine of the Trinity is radically adjusted

17 Volf footnotes 108-112 on pp 216-17 referencing Molrrnann The Trinity and theKingdom ofGod 165-166 and 175-166 and various sections of Moltrnanns 17Je SpiritofLifeA Universal Affirmation (London SCM Press 1992)

The Defence ofSocial Trinitarianism from Tradition

None of this of course is decisive It may be that contemporary Western theologians have erred in trying to make the ethical and social implications of the doctrine of the Trinity acceptable this is not yet evidence however that social trinitarianism is wrong merely that it has been misapplied to support a liberal political agenda to which in fact it lends no credence Perhaps the polishytics is wrong contemporary Western liberalism is unChristian and demonshystrably so from a doctrine of the Trinity If so of course it is necessary to accept the trinitarian imperative If Zizioulas is right and a proper undershystanding of trinitarian ecclesiology does in fact exclude women from Eucharisshytic presidency (eg) then this ought to be recognized and acknowledged in the church not ignored

This leads me to my second criticism Social trinitarianism cannot I think be defended on the basis that it is more socially useful than other positions but it might still be right social utility as judged by contemporary prejudices was never an interesting criterion for Christian doctrine Volfs position does not depend on any political basis it rather depends on an assumption that the distinction between relationships of origin and relationships of love can be sustained This is a merely theological point and regardless of its political implications it might nonetheless be true Equally it might be unimportant for the present discussion perhaps other social trinitarians do not hold to Volfs positions

I have already indicated however that very similar positions are common to Moltmann at least There is no space here to make the more general comshyparison but Volf and Moltmann are sufficiently influential within contemposhyrary social trinitarianism that their shared position may be taken as general If this position is indeed common within devotees of social trinitarianisrn we must ask whether in fact it is acceptable within ecumenical dogma Is social trinitarianism a re-presentation ofclassical trinitarianism that should be accepted even if its political outcomes are unhappy The answer seems to me to be clearly negative again there is no room here to review all the evidence but the position that the only distinctions between the divine hypostases are the relations of origin is widely and I think correctly accepted as a summary of patristic trinitarianism as it was codified at Constantinople Although there is not room in the present paper to demonstrate this for some indications in this direction drawn from the Cappadocian Fathers who are generally cited by social trinitarians in support of their position consider the following St Gregory Nazianzen the Theologian affirmed repeatedly in his orations

86 S R Holmes Journal 0Riformfd Theology 3 (2009) 77-89 S R Holmes Journal 0ampform~d Ihealogy 3 (2009) 77-89 87

that the only particular properties of the three hypostases were unbegottenshyness begottenness and procession 18 Basil makes the same point in writing to Gregory of Nyssa19 Gregory of Nyssa in turn asserts the same while we conshyfess the invariable character of the nature we do not deny the difference in respect of cause and that which is caused by which alonewe apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another20

These references briefas they are are perhaps sufficient to suggest that social trinitarian ism is some distance from the Cappadocian discussion it is also I believe demonstrably some way from the Latin tradition of trinirarianisrn given the social trinitarians own protestations that they are opposed to Augusshytine Boethius and St Thomas I assume that I do not need to demonstrate this at any length Social trinitarian ism may be right but if it is then the fathers were wrong individually in every case of which I am aware and in their conciliar decisions at Nicea Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon

Social Trinitarianism and the Biblical Narrative

Ofcourse from a Reformed perspective it is possible that this is true and that social trinitarianism is right While the Reformed have tended to respect the early ecumenical decisions of the church the sense that every decision was corrigible and subject to examination under the one decisive norm ofscripture is rightly pervasive For Reformed theology it remains possible that one or several of the seven ecumenical councils waswere wrong and that many or most of the fathers of the church were wrong and that a social trinitarianism is in fact the best way to appropriate the biblical witness

However it seems to me that this also is flawed The fathers had ways ofcoping exegetically with the texts that describe the Lo~ds prayer in Gethseshyrnene it is true the point is however more basic than this Social trinitarian rhetoric concerning the biblical witness tends to stress the threeness of the divine actor in the New Testament witness which point is correct so far as it goes but without qualification is in some danger of being simply Marcionite one cannot claim a position is biblical without considering the whole of scripture not just the New Testament The totality of the biblical witness concerning God it seems to me consists of a sustained and pointed witness to

I See eg Or 207 Or 2516 Or 3912 or Or 4217 (the Farewell Address) I See Ep 38 1tJ On Not Three Gods To Ababius (cr Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series II Volume 5

Edinburgh 1892336 my emphasis)

the oneness of God in the face of repeated temptations to polytheisrns supshyplemented by a brief coda or appendix suggesting that this One God is in fact triune

I realize of course that describing the New Testament as a brief coda or appendix to the scriptures is rather polemical but perhaps it makes the point The claim that social trinitarianism is biblical is by no means obvious rather it depends on a very particular hermeneutic that privileges the New Testashyment and particularly the Gospels in ways that at least demand explanation and defence The central and repeated thrust of the biblical narrative taken as a whole can easily be characterized as a drive towards monotheism and AugusshytinianLatin trinitarianism is at least as successful a representation of monoshytheism as social trinitarianism

Ofcourse it might be argued that the New Testament should be privileged but the nature of that privilege demands explication The NT may not be read in a way that denies Old Testament monotheism Jesus himself is suffishycient witness to that Rather the challenge for any adequately theological hermeneutic is to find a way of describing the narration of Gods actions and words within the text that is responsible both to the Old Testament presentashytion of the oneness ofGod and the New Testament presentation of the shared life ofFather Son and Holy Spirit Thus stated it is by no ~eans obvious that social trinitarianism is the more biblical option crudely it privileges one set of data and needs to explain away another Latin trinitarianism privileges the other and needs to explain away the first

As I say this characterization is crude but it is not trivial It may seriously be doubted that Augustines rejection of any particular presence of the hyposshytasis of the Divine Son in history prior to the IncarnationIs adequate-x-I would tend to doubt this myself-but equally to suppose that there is some hidden social trinitarianisrn within the Old Testament texts without considershyable exegetical demonstration of the point seems merely unconvincingP Monotheism is at the heart of the biblical witness social trinitarian ism is not incompatible with biblical monotheism but it is perhaps more difficult to defend than a more traditional position with regard to the Old Testament what however about the New Of course a question like this cannot be

l Mk 1229

II Robert Jensons attempt to see Christ prefigured or pre-present in the nation of Israelshypresented as Gods Son in the Old Testament-represents a far more sophisticated response to this problem than is found among mainstream social trinitari ans For various reasons however I am not convinced it works

88 S R Holmes Journalofampformed Theology 3 (2009) 77-89 S R Holmes Journalofampformed 1heology 3 (2009) 77-89 89

answered in a brief essay but let me end by giving one reason why we should not assume that social trinitarianism is the superior approach

Trinity and Christology

Let me return once more to Gethsemane There we overhear the incarnate Son praying in great anguish and greater faith Father let not my will be done but yours instead23 Locating these two wills seems to me to take us to the crux of the exegetical debate For the contemporary social trinitarian the text is clear we are enabled to overhear a conversation between persons of the Trinity The incarnate Son acknowledges the presence and reality of his own desire and volition but chooses to accede instead to the volition of the Father

This text was however endlessly discussed by the church fathers and their settled view was rather different The debate comes to a head in the monotheshylite controversy decisively settled at the Third Council of Constantinople in 681 but it can be traced through the three centuries before that date at least The fathers almost unanimously rejected the view described above some the monothelires asserted that there was only one will in the incarnate Son the single divine will of the Eternal Godhead others defended the apparently less logical position eventually declared orthodox that there were two wills the single divine will of the eternal Godhead and a genuine human will I do not intend to review this controversy now24 as noted above Reformed theology cannot be determined simply by appeal to tradition but it seems to me that it highlights a helpful point for understanding social trinitarianism social trinishytarianismuses the doctrine ofthe Trinity to ansuer questions the fathers ansuiered

byChristology Questions ofontology creation mediation soteriology-and ethics includshy

ing political and social theory-seem to me to be seen fundamentally as Chrisshytological questions in classical Christian theology It is only very recently that we have tried to view them as trinitarian questions I believe that the same thing is true of the question raised above about New Testament exegesis The New Testament offers us a striking picture of an executed criminal who is identified with God himself and asks us to make sense of that narrative Social trinitarianism has tried to do this by encompassing the narrative within rheolshy

13 Lk 2242 my translation 14 I have written on it at some length in my essay Chrisrology Scripture Divine Action and

Hermeneutics in Andrew T Lincoln and Angus Paddison (eds) Christology and Scripture InterdisciplinaryPmpectives London TampT Clark 2008 156-70

ogy proper identifYing God as both actors in the story and as the story the actors play out This might be right but the patristic answer shared in every detail incidentally by the fathers of the Reformation particularly in their debates with Serverus and the Socinians and in the Calvinist defence of the extra Calvinisticum rather chose to locate the tension within the person of the Crucified One who is at one and the same time both Lord and servant both Creator and creature I cannot attempt to demonstrate that this is the preferable view but I hope that it is at least not obviously less preferable there is an exegetical debate to be had And if as I have argued the social trinitarians need to defend a position that is novel in the Christian tradition and generashytive of deeply unhappy ethical and social positions then we might presume that there is a burden of proof on that side of the debate a burden that has not in the published literature at least even begun to be shouldered

91

IJ O U R N A L 1H

u REFORMeD laquo THEOLOGY

BRILL JournalofReformedTheology 3 (2009) 90-107 wwwbrillnljrr

The Relationship between the Ontological Trinity and the Economic Trinity

Seung Goo Lee Professor of Systematic Theology

Hapdong Theological Seminary South-Korea e-mail wminbgihorrnailcom

Abstract This article focuses on one of the main issuesin the contemporary trinitarian renaissance viz the relationship between the immanent (or ontological) and the economic Trinity It takes its start ing-point in what is labeled the classicmodel as shared by both the Eastern and the Western church The basic idea here is that the economic Trinity is the epistemological ground of the immanent Trinity whereas the immanent Trinity is the ontological ground of the economic Trinity It is shown that this model is endorsed by two influential Reformed theologians viz John Calvin and Herman Bavinck Next the model of the new theology of the cross is introduced as represented by Eberhard Jungel and [Iirgen Moltmann Especially Molrrnanns innovative proposals are critically discussed Characteristic of this second model is that the distinction between the ontological and economic Trinity is blurred Third it is argued that Dutch Reformed theologian Hendrikus Berkhof offered an even more radical model which leaves us with only the economic Trinity Although both of these contemporary models have their attractions it is concluded that we have every reason to stick to the classic model

Keywords the ontological Trinity the economic Trinity John Calvin Herman Bavinck Jurgen Moltmann Eberhard Jungel Hendrikus Berkhof

In this contribution I want to examine the relationship between the ontoshylogical and the economic Trinity The economic Trinity is the Trinity revealed in the economy (oikonomia) of God Hence the term the economic Trinity or the Trinity of revelation has been used As Eberhard Jiingel said the

For an explanation of this term see Otto Weber Foundation ofDogmatics vol I trans Darrell L Guder (Grand Rapids Eerdrnans 1981) 388 Helmut Thlelicke The Evangelical Faith vol 2 The Doctrine of Godand ofChrist trans and ed Geoffrey W Bromiley (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1991) 179 Paul Jewett God Creation and Revelation (Grand Rapids

copy KoninklijkeBrillNYLelden2009 001 1O11631156973109X403741

S G Lee Journalofampformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

doctrine of economic Trinity understands the being of God in relation with man and his world In contrast to this economic Trinity the ontological Trinity refers to the Trinity-in-God-himself That is the ontological Trinity is to understand God hirnselfwirhour regard to Gods relationship with man3 and to understand the Trinity as describing the immanent ontic structure of the being of God4 Hence the terms the ontological Trinity the eternal Trinity the essent ial Trinity or the immanent Trinity

According to Wolfhart Pannenberg the distinction between the economic and ontological Trinity can be traced to eighteenth century theologian Johann Augustus Urlsperger (1728-1806)5 As far as the terminology is concerned Pannenberg may be right The concept itself however is already found in the writings of the earlier theologians While in earlier days theologians treated the ontological and the economic Trinity without a clear conscious distinction concrete usage of these terms appeared with the rise of the tendency to disreshygard the ontological aspect of the Trinity Hence Jiirgen Moltmann is more correct when he said that it is common to distinguish the ontological and the economic Trinity after Tertullians rejection of modalism and that especially the Cappadocian Fathers clearly distinguished these two G C Berkouwer also made it clear that the church used the distinction between the ontological and the economic Trinity in her efforts to fight against rnodalisrn

In this contribution I would like to contrast three models oflooking at the relation between the ontological and the economic Trinity and to consider which model might be more biblical and realistic

Eerdmans 1991)305 Weberand Jewett use also the terms like revelationalTrinity and functional Trinity

2 Eberhard Jungel Godas the Mystery ofthe World trans Darrell L Guder (Grand Rapids Eerdrnans 1983) 346

S jiingel GodastheMystery oftheWorld 346 bull Thielicke The Evangelical Faith vol 2 76 S Wolfhan PannenbergSyseemanschlaquo Theologie Band I (GortlngenVandenhoeckand Ruprecht

1988) 317 n 122=ET Systematic Theology trans Geoffrey W Bromiley (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1991)291 n Il l See also Weber FoundationofDogmatics vol 1 388 n 124

6 Jurgen Mohrnann Trinitiit und Reich Gottes (Munchen Christian Kaiser Verlag 1980)= ET The Trinity and the Kingdom The Doctrine ofGod trans Margaret Kohl (London SCM Press 1981) 151 idem Der gekreuzigte Gott (Miinchen Christian Kaiser Verlag 1972)= ET The Crucified God trans R A Wilson and John Bowden (London SCM Press 1974) 235

7 G C BerkouwerA HafCmtury ofTheology trans and ed LewisBSmedes (Grand Rapids Eerdrnans 1977)259

I

92 93 s G Lee Journal of Reformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

The Classic Model

By the classic model I mean the historic understanding of the Trinity In the discussion of the classic model I will not give much attention to different understandings of the Trinity between the Eastern Church and the Western Church but concentrate on their common element I will first state the basic proposition in which the Trinity is understood

Basic Statement

Proposition 1 The economic Trinity is the ground of cognition for the ontoshylogical Trinity and the ontological Trinity is the ground of being for the ecoshynomic Trinity

According to the classic understanding of the Trinity the relation between the ontological and the economic Trinity is as follows We get to know that God is the triune God through Gods relationship with this world God however does not become a triune God in His relation with this world God himself was and is atriune God even before He had any relationship with this world Hence we can say that God reveals Himself as a triune God in the course of the economy since He himselfwas and is a triune God In its ideal form the classhysic model for understanding the Trinity has the following process of thinking

First of all there is recognition of the economic Trinity That is we can recognize that God is the triune God in the process of examining Gods creashytion and redemption through Christ especially while examining the coming of Christ his self-disclosure the coming of the Holy Spirit to the New Testashyment church on Pentecost the works of the Holy Spirit in the church and the response of the church to the Holy Spirit (esp Acts 51-16) Jesus Christ and the One whom he calls his Father and the Holy Spirit who was sent by the Father and the Son (John 1426 1526 167) are one triune God In the procshyess of this recognition we can also see some aspects of their relationship That is God the Father and God the Son have a relationship of a father and a son and the Holy Spirit is the one who could be sent bythe Father and the Son All of these amount to a recognition of the economic Trinity

Second in the process of recognizing the economic Trinity we come across several statements that show the relationship between these three persons For example the term only begotten son (john 114) and the expression the only Son who is in the bosom of the Father (John 118) lead us to the conclusion that the Son is the one who has been begotten by the Father And the state-

S G Lee Journal ofReformed 7heology 3 (2009) 90-107

ments that the Holy Spirit will be sent by Jesus from the Father (john 1426 1526 167) and that the Holy Spirit proceeds- from the Father Oohn 1526) show that the Holy Spirit is the one who will be sent to us in the process of Gods economic relation with us

Finally with the help of this second stage ofour understanding of the Trinshyity we begin to understand that the Father is eternally begetting the Son and the Son is being eternally begotten by the Father whereas the Holy Spirit is proceedingfrom the Father (and the Son) by applying the economic relationship into eternity In order to substantiate this summary of the classic model let us look at the way in which two Reformed theologians understood the Trinity

John Calvin on the Trinity

John Calvin develops his arguments without clearly distinguishing between the economic and the ontological Trinity It seems to me that for him there is no need to distinguish between these two because the ontological Trinity is revealed in the economic Trinity This is a common phenomenon in the writshyings of most theologians who hold the classic model If we placed them in a modern debate concerning the relationship between the ontological and the economic Trinity however they would make it quite clear that the triune God reveals Himself as He is in the process ofcreation and redemption There are some hints of this in Calvins discussion of the Trinity Let us look at the way in which he speaks of the Trinity

Calvin begins his discussion of the Trinity by explaining that several words which do not appear in scripture-eg Trinity persons bomoousios etc-are useful for the interpretation of scripture so that they are especially useful for refuting the wrong thinking and distorted teachings about the Trinity One sentence which Calvin quotes from Augustine clearly shows what Calvins attishytude is on these terms On account of the poverty of human speech in so great a matter the word hypostasis has been forced upon us by necessity not

8 In his good study on Calvins trinitarian theology f W Burin also showed this point centering his emphasis on the economic Trinity Philip Walker Burin Revelation Redemption and Response Calvins Trinitarian Understanding of the Divine-Human Relationship (New York and Oxford Oxford University Press 1995) It seems to me however that it is pity that Burin did not clearly discuss the relationship between the ontological and the economic trinity in the thought of Calvin Butin showed a tendency to emphasize the economic trinity See also his Reformed Ecclesiology Trinitarian Grace According to Calvin Studies in Reformed 1heology and History III (winter 1994) 5-8 esp 6 Calvins articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity is predominantly economic

95 94 s G LeeJournal ofReformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

to express what it is but only not to be silent on how Father Son and Spirit are three The reason why we use the word hypostasis is not because this is the word that can be used to show exactly what God is like but that we cannot help not speaking of God as the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit That is these terms are used in our difficult effort to express the fact of revelation in our human language What Calvin wants to say in this part can best be sumshymarized with the following statements Say that in one essence of God there isa trinity of persons you will say in one word what Scriptures states and cut short empty talkativeness

Thus after defining the term person as a subsistence in Gods essence which while related to the others is distinguished by an incommunicable quality I I

Calvin proceeds to the discussion ofhomoousios of the Father and the Son and to the discussion of the differentiation of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit

In his discussion of the divinity of the Son Calvin first ofall talks about the divinity of the Logos asarkos and then goes on to the discussion of the Word endued with flesh The order of this discussion is very instructive for our purpose because this shows how Calvin thinks about the relation of God the Father and the Logos asarkos That is here we can see a hint of Calvins undershystanding of the ontological Trinity Referring to I Pet 110-11 Calvin says that because Christ had not yet been manifested it is necessary to understand the Word as begotten of the Father before time12 He then refers to the creashytion by the Word of God in Genesis 1 He understands this creation by the Word of God in the light of Heb 12-3 and says that here we see the Word understood as the order or mandate of the Son who is himself the eternal and essential Word of the Father3 For Calvin however the most important passhy

sages in relation with the divinity of the Son are John 11-3 for John at once attributes to the Word a solid and abiding essence and ascribes something uniquely His own

On the basis of these discussions Calvin concludes that unchangeable the Word abides everlastingly one and the same with God and is God hirnself

) John Calvin Institutesofthe ChristianReligion trans Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia The Westminster Press 1960) I xiiiS

III Calvin Institutes I xiiiS II Calvin Institutes I xiii 6 Il Calvin Institutes I xiii 7 13 Calvin Institutes I xiii 7 14 Calvin Institutes I xiii 7 15 Calvin Institutes I xiii 7

S G LeeJournal ofReformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

Then in relation with those who would readily accept the divinity of the Son but deny the eternality of the Son Calvin says that the Word conceived beyond the beginning of time by God has perpetually resided with him and he concludes that by this his eternity his true essence and his divinity are proved 16

Only after showing the eternal divinity of the Son this way does Calvin discuss the divinity of Christ in the OT17 and the Angel of]ehovah18 the

divinity of Christ in the NT on the basis of the witnesses of the Apostles of the works of Christ2o and of the miracles of Christ

In relation to the divinity of the Holy Spirit Calvins discussion is centered on the works of the Holy Spirit and the biblical expressions which identify the Holy Spirit with God22

We conclude therefore that Calvins discussion of the Trinity makes it clear that God has a triune relationship with the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit from eternity and that this triune relationship has been clearly revealed in the economic process For Calvin it is not even possible to think of the economic Trinity constituting the ontological Trinity This is clearly shown in his response to those who have doubts about the eternal Sonship of the Christ

Herman Bavinck on the Trinity

We see almost the same view of the Trinity in Herman Bavincks understandshying of the Trinity as we saw in Calvin23 Bavinck is however more helpful because he explicitly speaks of the relation of the ontological and the economic Trinity From this explicit explanation we can gather that ~ discusses the Trinity with what we called the classic model in mind Let us quote one passhysage from him

16 Calvin Institutes I xiii 8 17 Calvin Institutes I xiii 9 18 Calvin Institutes I xiii 10 19 Calvin Institutes I xiii 11 20 Calvin Institutes I xiii 12 21 Calvin Institutes I xiii 13 22 Calvin Institutes I xiii 14-15

23 John Bolt also made this point in his doctoral dissertation on Bavinck See John Bolt The Imitation ofChrist Theme in the Cultural-Ethical Idea ofHerman Bavinck (Ph D Dissertation University of St Michaels College Toronto School of Theology 1982) 74 n 274 In his explication of the trinitarian order Bavinck clearly reflects Calvins discussion of the Trinity in Institutes I xv See also p 127 in both the ontological and economic Trinity Bavinck fol1ows Calvin and Kuyper

96 97 S G LeeJournalofReorm(d Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

As in the ontological trinity the Father is first in order of subsistence the Son second and the Holy Spirit third so also in the history of revelation the Father preceded the Son and the Son preceded the Holy Spirit The Father comes without having been sent the Son is sent by the Father Man 1040 Mark 937 Luke 948 John 316 5233037 68ff and the Holy Spirit is sent by both Father and Son John 1426 167

But this procession in time is a reflection of the immanent relation existing between the three persons in the ontological trinity and is based upon generation and spirarlon The generation of the Son is the eternal arche-type of the incarnation of the Logos and the procession from the father and the Soh is the proto-type of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit Hence the church-fathers derived the knowledge concerning the eternal and immanent relations existing between the persons of the trinity from what was revealed concerning those relations in time In this they were correct

Here Bavinck says that the trinitarian structure expressed in the history of revelation that is the structure of the economic Trinity can be seen as a reflecshytion of the structure of the ontological Trinity He recognizes that the church fathers drew the ontological Trinity from the understanding of the economic Trinity and he himself also accepts this

In the classic model therefore as we have seen God has his trinitarian relationship from eternity and it is clear that the economic process within time does not affect God In this sense the following statement by Thielicke succinctly shows the intention of the classic understanding of the Trinity the orthodox doctrine of the essential Trinity maintains that the Trinity is immanent and original in God apart from his work and that the deity is eternally Father Son and Spirit in itself before ever creating anything entering into union with the individual or dwelling in the fellowship of believers

Let us turn to the second model in order to see a different understanding of the relationship between the ontological and the economic Trinity

TheModel of the NewTheologyof the Cross

By the new theology of the cross I mean the theologies which Jurgen Moltshymann and Eberhard jiingel developed within the last thirty years or so They wanted to renew theology by centering upon the cross of Jesus and they

l4 Herman Bavinck The Doctrine of God trans William Hendriksen (Grand Rapids Eerdrnans 1951) 320

2j Thielicke The ElJang(Iicai Faith 176

S G Lu Journalofampform(d Th(ology 3 (2009) 90-107

thought that their approach would renew and reshape Luthers theologia crucis for the 20th century It seems to me however that it is difficult to identify their approach with Luthers theology of the cross Hence the term the new theology of the cross Howdid Moltmann and Jungel understand the relation of the economic and the ontological Trinity In this section I will concentrate only on Moltmanns view

Basic Statement

Proposition 2 The economic Trinity is the ontological Trinity and vice versa

This proposition which was first used by Karl Rahner and then by Barth Moltmann and ]Ungel in their own ways can be interpreted in various ways In other words the meaning of this proposition is somewhat ambiguous These theologians sometimes present this proposition in the way in which we understand the classic model When we read Moltmann stating the following material we almost come to the conclusion that he is simply repeating the classic viewpoint

If the immanent Trinity is the counterpart of praise then knowledge of the economic Trinity (as the embodiment of the history and experience ofsalvation) preeedes knowlshyedge of the immanent Trinity In the order of being it succeeds it26

There is only one single divine Trinity and one single divine history ofsalvation The triune God can only appear in history as he is in himself and in no other way He is in himselfas he appears in salvation history for it is he himself who is manifested and he is just what he is manifested as beingY

Statements about the immanent Trinity must not contradict statements about the economic Trinity Statements about the economic Trinity must correspond to doxoshylogical statements about the immanent Trinity28

In spite of the impression which these quotations leave after closer examinashytion we conclude that Moltmann does not have a classic understanding of the Trinity Indeed at one point Moltmann clearly says that in order to grasp the death of the Son in its significance for God himself I found myself bound to

26 Molrrnann Ihlaquo Trinity and th( Kingdom 152 27 Molrrnann Thlaquo Trinityand th( Kingdom 153 28 Molrrnann Ihlaquo Trinityand th( Kingdom 154

99 98 S G Lee IJournal ofRiformrd 7h~ology 3 (2009) 90-107

surrender the traditional distinction between the immanent and the ontological Trinity29 Moreover in a 1973 article he states

If the doctrine of the Trinity could be developed from the event of the cross then not only the distinction between God in himself (Gott an sich) and the God for us (Gott flir tins) but also the distinction between the immanent and the economical Trinity are abolish~d Jlt1

When we closely examine Molrmanns book therefore we conclude that Molshytrnann by using the proposition that the economic Trinity is the ontological Trinity and viceversa expresses the idea that the economic Trinity is itself the ontological Trinity and that the economic Trinity is the center ofGods revelashytion in the process of history and that the ontological Trinity is merely the metaphysical summary of the economic Trinitys doxological meaning To state it bluntly according to this new theology of the cross it is not the case that there is an inner relationship between three divine persons from eternity which is revealed in the process of time Rather from our understanding of the ecoshynomic self-revelation ofGod we logically draw out Gods trinitarian structure There may be an ontological Trinity at the end of the day we can proleptically refer to this Trinity in our doxology Let me substantiate these points by examshyining Moltrnanns writings

Moltmanns Understanding In his book The Crucified God from 1972 Moltmann tries to understand the Trinity in relation to the cross He says The material principle of the doc shytrine of the Trinity is the cross ofChrist The formal principle ofknowledge of the cross is the doctrine of the Trinity32 He even says that a trinitarian theolshyogy of the cross develops from this history [of the cross] what is to be understood by God33So he demands a revolution in the concept ofGod34 In the same spirit Moltmann says

Moltmann The Trinityand thlaquoKingdom 160 emphasis is given 30 Molrmann Gesichrspunkre der Kreuzesrheologle heme Evang~lisch~ 7h~gid3 (1973)

362f cited in Horst G Poehlrnann Abriss derDogmatik (1975) translated into Korean by Shin shyGun LeeDogmatics (Seoul Korean Institute ofTheology 1990) 157 emphasis is given

3 Molrrnann The Crucified God trans R A Wilson and John Bowden (London SCM Press 1974)

i 31 Molrmann IheCrucifi~d God 241 i 33 Molrmann the Trinity and thlaquoKingdom 247 34 Moltmann The Trinity and theKingdom 152

S G Lee IJournalofampform~d 7h~ology3 (2009) 90-107

In the cross Father and Son are most deeply separated in forsakenness and at the same time are most inwardly one in their surrender What proceeds from this event between Father and Son is the Spirit which justifies the godless fills the forsaken with love and even brings the dead allveisince the fact that they are dead cannot exclude them from this event of the cross the death in God also includes them35

For Moltmann the event of the cross is not only an event of the economic Trinity but also an event within the Trinity Or rather ifwe put it in the words of Richard Bauckhams interpretation of Molrmann the event of the cross is the Trinity36 Accordingly Moltrnann says that the history of Christ is the inner life of God himself and that the Trinity is an event of love in the sufshyfering and death ofJesuS 37 He even says that we should not think as though the Trinity were already present in itself in the divine nature38 That is to say we should not think that first there was the ontological Trinity and then the economic Trinity was revealed Rather Moltrnann thinks that the ontological Trinityis constituted in the eventofthe cross Richard Bauckham also interprets Moltrnann in this way So Bauckham says that at this stage (from The Theology ofHope to The Crucified God) Moltrnann thinks of God becoming Trinity in the history of Jesus 39 And he adds that Moltrnann very much wished to understand the trinitarian relationship of Father and Son as a relationship which happens in the history of Jesus and especially in -the cross and will not allow this happening to be a mere reflection of supra-temporal truth40 Indeed Mohmann himself thinks that his understanding of the Trinity overshycomes the dichotomy between immanent and economic Trinity and between the nature of God and his inner tri-uniry Let us quote one more passage form The Crucified God

The Trinity therefore also means the hisrory ofGod which in human terms is the hisshytory of love and liberation The Trinity understood as an event for history therefore presses towards eschatological consummation so that the Trinity may beall in allor put more simply so that Jove may be all in all so that life may triumph over death

35 Moltmann Iblaquo Trinity and th~ Kingdom 244 36 Richard Bauekham )Urgen Moltrnann in OnlaquoGodin Trinity An Analysis oth~ Primary

Dogma oChristianity eds PeterToon and James D Spiceland (Westchester Cornerstone Books 1980) 120

37 Moltmann the Trinity and theKingdom 249 38 Moltmann 7h~ Trinity and theKingdom 245 3 Bauckharn Jiirgen Moltrnann 116 Bauckharns own emphasis 40 Bauckharn Jiirgen Moltrnann 116pound his own emphasis Moltrnann Ihlaquo Trinity and thlaquoKingdom 245

84 s R Holmes JournalofReformed 7heology 3 (2009) 77-89 S R Holmes JournalofReformed 7heology 3 (2009) 77-89 85

(transposing the argument into the political realm) between democracy and fascism (say) is determined by the most abstruse of theological differences but this feels to me uncomfortable I would rather believe that the error of fascism is demonstrable on the basis of fundamental positions in anthropology not subtle distinctions in theology proper

Perhaps however Volfs distinction is not general The evidence suggests otherwise Volf suggests fairly that this separation is shared by Moltrnann which would seem to suggest that it is common among devotees of the social Trinity (who generally have learned from either Volf or Moltmann) This demshyonstrates I hope that the supposed ethical and political usefulness of social trinitarianism is at least more complicated than has sometimes been pretended When Volf himself claimed in a ringing slogan that The Trinity is our Social Program he presumably assumed that a doctrine of the Trinity was someshything generally accessible to Christian believers not something which was obscure and abstruse and yet took us in fundamentally different social and political-and ecclesiological-directions depending on which side of the scholarly knife edge we fell

However I think the point can be pressed further than this Volfs doctrine of the Trinity in After our Likeness is explicitly a deviation from the received ecumenical doctrine Simply Volf is choosing to adjust the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity because he does not like the ecclesiological (and social and politshyical) implications of the received doctrine Moltmann is less clear about the implications of making the same move perhaps because his grasp of the patrisshytic debates is less sure In both cases however the approved and acceptable ethical outcomes cannot Row from a patristic doctrine of the Trinity the dogma needs massaging and in some respects simple reversal before it can generate acceptable political content for today

All of which is to say that the claimedsupposed usefulness of social docshytrines of the Trinity seems to me to be generally overstated and at best quesshytionable The ecumenically received doctrine of the Trinity to which Zizioulas witnesses (see the next section for some defence of this claim) is politically unhelpful in modern Western terms political utility is only achieved if the received form of the doctrine of the Trinity is radically adjusted

17 Volf footnotes 108-112 on pp 216-17 referencing Molrrnann The Trinity and theKingdom ofGod 165-166 and 175-166 and various sections of Moltrnanns 17Je SpiritofLifeA Universal Affirmation (London SCM Press 1992)

The Defence ofSocial Trinitarianism from Tradition

None of this of course is decisive It may be that contemporary Western theologians have erred in trying to make the ethical and social implications of the doctrine of the Trinity acceptable this is not yet evidence however that social trinitarianism is wrong merely that it has been misapplied to support a liberal political agenda to which in fact it lends no credence Perhaps the polishytics is wrong contemporary Western liberalism is unChristian and demonshystrably so from a doctrine of the Trinity If so of course it is necessary to accept the trinitarian imperative If Zizioulas is right and a proper undershystanding of trinitarian ecclesiology does in fact exclude women from Eucharisshytic presidency (eg) then this ought to be recognized and acknowledged in the church not ignored

This leads me to my second criticism Social trinitarianism cannot I think be defended on the basis that it is more socially useful than other positions but it might still be right social utility as judged by contemporary prejudices was never an interesting criterion for Christian doctrine Volfs position does not depend on any political basis it rather depends on an assumption that the distinction between relationships of origin and relationships of love can be sustained This is a merely theological point and regardless of its political implications it might nonetheless be true Equally it might be unimportant for the present discussion perhaps other social trinitarians do not hold to Volfs positions

I have already indicated however that very similar positions are common to Moltmann at least There is no space here to make the more general comshyparison but Volf and Moltmann are sufficiently influential within contemposhyrary social trinitarianism that their shared position may be taken as general If this position is indeed common within devotees of social trinitarianisrn we must ask whether in fact it is acceptable within ecumenical dogma Is social trinitarianism a re-presentation ofclassical trinitarianism that should be accepted even if its political outcomes are unhappy The answer seems to me to be clearly negative again there is no room here to review all the evidence but the position that the only distinctions between the divine hypostases are the relations of origin is widely and I think correctly accepted as a summary of patristic trinitarianism as it was codified at Constantinople Although there is not room in the present paper to demonstrate this for some indications in this direction drawn from the Cappadocian Fathers who are generally cited by social trinitarians in support of their position consider the following St Gregory Nazianzen the Theologian affirmed repeatedly in his orations

86 S R Holmes Journal 0Riformfd Theology 3 (2009) 77-89 S R Holmes Journal 0ampform~d Ihealogy 3 (2009) 77-89 87

that the only particular properties of the three hypostases were unbegottenshyness begottenness and procession 18 Basil makes the same point in writing to Gregory of Nyssa19 Gregory of Nyssa in turn asserts the same while we conshyfess the invariable character of the nature we do not deny the difference in respect of cause and that which is caused by which alonewe apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another20

These references briefas they are are perhaps sufficient to suggest that social trinitarian ism is some distance from the Cappadocian discussion it is also I believe demonstrably some way from the Latin tradition of trinirarianisrn given the social trinitarians own protestations that they are opposed to Augusshytine Boethius and St Thomas I assume that I do not need to demonstrate this at any length Social trinitarian ism may be right but if it is then the fathers were wrong individually in every case of which I am aware and in their conciliar decisions at Nicea Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon

Social Trinitarianism and the Biblical Narrative

Ofcourse from a Reformed perspective it is possible that this is true and that social trinitarianism is right While the Reformed have tended to respect the early ecumenical decisions of the church the sense that every decision was corrigible and subject to examination under the one decisive norm ofscripture is rightly pervasive For Reformed theology it remains possible that one or several of the seven ecumenical councils waswere wrong and that many or most of the fathers of the church were wrong and that a social trinitarianism is in fact the best way to appropriate the biblical witness

However it seems to me that this also is flawed The fathers had ways ofcoping exegetically with the texts that describe the Lo~ds prayer in Gethseshyrnene it is true the point is however more basic than this Social trinitarian rhetoric concerning the biblical witness tends to stress the threeness of the divine actor in the New Testament witness which point is correct so far as it goes but without qualification is in some danger of being simply Marcionite one cannot claim a position is biblical without considering the whole of scripture not just the New Testament The totality of the biblical witness concerning God it seems to me consists of a sustained and pointed witness to

I See eg Or 207 Or 2516 Or 3912 or Or 4217 (the Farewell Address) I See Ep 38 1tJ On Not Three Gods To Ababius (cr Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series II Volume 5

Edinburgh 1892336 my emphasis)

the oneness of God in the face of repeated temptations to polytheisrns supshyplemented by a brief coda or appendix suggesting that this One God is in fact triune

I realize of course that describing the New Testament as a brief coda or appendix to the scriptures is rather polemical but perhaps it makes the point The claim that social trinitarianism is biblical is by no means obvious rather it depends on a very particular hermeneutic that privileges the New Testashyment and particularly the Gospels in ways that at least demand explanation and defence The central and repeated thrust of the biblical narrative taken as a whole can easily be characterized as a drive towards monotheism and AugusshytinianLatin trinitarianism is at least as successful a representation of monoshytheism as social trinitarianism

Ofcourse it might be argued that the New Testament should be privileged but the nature of that privilege demands explication The NT may not be read in a way that denies Old Testament monotheism Jesus himself is suffishycient witness to that Rather the challenge for any adequately theological hermeneutic is to find a way of describing the narration of Gods actions and words within the text that is responsible both to the Old Testament presentashytion of the oneness ofGod and the New Testament presentation of the shared life ofFather Son and Holy Spirit Thus stated it is by no ~eans obvious that social trinitarianism is the more biblical option crudely it privileges one set of data and needs to explain away another Latin trinitarianism privileges the other and needs to explain away the first

As I say this characterization is crude but it is not trivial It may seriously be doubted that Augustines rejection of any particular presence of the hyposshytasis of the Divine Son in history prior to the IncarnationIs adequate-x-I would tend to doubt this myself-but equally to suppose that there is some hidden social trinitarianisrn within the Old Testament texts without considershyable exegetical demonstration of the point seems merely unconvincingP Monotheism is at the heart of the biblical witness social trinitarian ism is not incompatible with biblical monotheism but it is perhaps more difficult to defend than a more traditional position with regard to the Old Testament what however about the New Of course a question like this cannot be

l Mk 1229

II Robert Jensons attempt to see Christ prefigured or pre-present in the nation of Israelshypresented as Gods Son in the Old Testament-represents a far more sophisticated response to this problem than is found among mainstream social trinitari ans For various reasons however I am not convinced it works

88 S R Holmes Journalofampformed Theology 3 (2009) 77-89 S R Holmes Journalofampformed 1heology 3 (2009) 77-89 89

answered in a brief essay but let me end by giving one reason why we should not assume that social trinitarianism is the superior approach

Trinity and Christology

Let me return once more to Gethsemane There we overhear the incarnate Son praying in great anguish and greater faith Father let not my will be done but yours instead23 Locating these two wills seems to me to take us to the crux of the exegetical debate For the contemporary social trinitarian the text is clear we are enabled to overhear a conversation between persons of the Trinity The incarnate Son acknowledges the presence and reality of his own desire and volition but chooses to accede instead to the volition of the Father

This text was however endlessly discussed by the church fathers and their settled view was rather different The debate comes to a head in the monotheshylite controversy decisively settled at the Third Council of Constantinople in 681 but it can be traced through the three centuries before that date at least The fathers almost unanimously rejected the view described above some the monothelires asserted that there was only one will in the incarnate Son the single divine will of the Eternal Godhead others defended the apparently less logical position eventually declared orthodox that there were two wills the single divine will of the eternal Godhead and a genuine human will I do not intend to review this controversy now24 as noted above Reformed theology cannot be determined simply by appeal to tradition but it seems to me that it highlights a helpful point for understanding social trinitarianism social trinishytarianismuses the doctrine ofthe Trinity to ansuer questions the fathers ansuiered

byChristology Questions ofontology creation mediation soteriology-and ethics includshy

ing political and social theory-seem to me to be seen fundamentally as Chrisshytological questions in classical Christian theology It is only very recently that we have tried to view them as trinitarian questions I believe that the same thing is true of the question raised above about New Testament exegesis The New Testament offers us a striking picture of an executed criminal who is identified with God himself and asks us to make sense of that narrative Social trinitarianism has tried to do this by encompassing the narrative within rheolshy

13 Lk 2242 my translation 14 I have written on it at some length in my essay Chrisrology Scripture Divine Action and

Hermeneutics in Andrew T Lincoln and Angus Paddison (eds) Christology and Scripture InterdisciplinaryPmpectives London TampT Clark 2008 156-70

ogy proper identifYing God as both actors in the story and as the story the actors play out This might be right but the patristic answer shared in every detail incidentally by the fathers of the Reformation particularly in their debates with Serverus and the Socinians and in the Calvinist defence of the extra Calvinisticum rather chose to locate the tension within the person of the Crucified One who is at one and the same time both Lord and servant both Creator and creature I cannot attempt to demonstrate that this is the preferable view but I hope that it is at least not obviously less preferable there is an exegetical debate to be had And if as I have argued the social trinitarians need to defend a position that is novel in the Christian tradition and generashytive of deeply unhappy ethical and social positions then we might presume that there is a burden of proof on that side of the debate a burden that has not in the published literature at least even begun to be shouldered

91

IJ O U R N A L 1H

u REFORMeD laquo THEOLOGY

BRILL JournalofReformedTheology 3 (2009) 90-107 wwwbrillnljrr

The Relationship between the Ontological Trinity and the Economic Trinity

Seung Goo Lee Professor of Systematic Theology

Hapdong Theological Seminary South-Korea e-mail wminbgihorrnailcom

Abstract This article focuses on one of the main issuesin the contemporary trinitarian renaissance viz the relationship between the immanent (or ontological) and the economic Trinity It takes its start ing-point in what is labeled the classicmodel as shared by both the Eastern and the Western church The basic idea here is that the economic Trinity is the epistemological ground of the immanent Trinity whereas the immanent Trinity is the ontological ground of the economic Trinity It is shown that this model is endorsed by two influential Reformed theologians viz John Calvin and Herman Bavinck Next the model of the new theology of the cross is introduced as represented by Eberhard Jungel and [Iirgen Moltmann Especially Molrrnanns innovative proposals are critically discussed Characteristic of this second model is that the distinction between the ontological and economic Trinity is blurred Third it is argued that Dutch Reformed theologian Hendrikus Berkhof offered an even more radical model which leaves us with only the economic Trinity Although both of these contemporary models have their attractions it is concluded that we have every reason to stick to the classic model

Keywords the ontological Trinity the economic Trinity John Calvin Herman Bavinck Jurgen Moltmann Eberhard Jungel Hendrikus Berkhof

In this contribution I want to examine the relationship between the ontoshylogical and the economic Trinity The economic Trinity is the Trinity revealed in the economy (oikonomia) of God Hence the term the economic Trinity or the Trinity of revelation has been used As Eberhard Jiingel said the

For an explanation of this term see Otto Weber Foundation ofDogmatics vol I trans Darrell L Guder (Grand Rapids Eerdrnans 1981) 388 Helmut Thlelicke The Evangelical Faith vol 2 The Doctrine of Godand ofChrist trans and ed Geoffrey W Bromiley (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1991) 179 Paul Jewett God Creation and Revelation (Grand Rapids

copy KoninklijkeBrillNYLelden2009 001 1O11631156973109X403741

S G Lee Journalofampformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

doctrine of economic Trinity understands the being of God in relation with man and his world In contrast to this economic Trinity the ontological Trinity refers to the Trinity-in-God-himself That is the ontological Trinity is to understand God hirnselfwirhour regard to Gods relationship with man3 and to understand the Trinity as describing the immanent ontic structure of the being of God4 Hence the terms the ontological Trinity the eternal Trinity the essent ial Trinity or the immanent Trinity

According to Wolfhart Pannenberg the distinction between the economic and ontological Trinity can be traced to eighteenth century theologian Johann Augustus Urlsperger (1728-1806)5 As far as the terminology is concerned Pannenberg may be right The concept itself however is already found in the writings of the earlier theologians While in earlier days theologians treated the ontological and the economic Trinity without a clear conscious distinction concrete usage of these terms appeared with the rise of the tendency to disreshygard the ontological aspect of the Trinity Hence Jiirgen Moltmann is more correct when he said that it is common to distinguish the ontological and the economic Trinity after Tertullians rejection of modalism and that especially the Cappadocian Fathers clearly distinguished these two G C Berkouwer also made it clear that the church used the distinction between the ontological and the economic Trinity in her efforts to fight against rnodalisrn

In this contribution I would like to contrast three models oflooking at the relation between the ontological and the economic Trinity and to consider which model might be more biblical and realistic

Eerdmans 1991)305 Weberand Jewett use also the terms like revelationalTrinity and functional Trinity

2 Eberhard Jungel Godas the Mystery ofthe World trans Darrell L Guder (Grand Rapids Eerdrnans 1983) 346

S jiingel GodastheMystery oftheWorld 346 bull Thielicke The Evangelical Faith vol 2 76 S Wolfhan PannenbergSyseemanschlaquo Theologie Band I (GortlngenVandenhoeckand Ruprecht

1988) 317 n 122=ET Systematic Theology trans Geoffrey W Bromiley (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1991)291 n Il l See also Weber FoundationofDogmatics vol 1 388 n 124

6 Jurgen Mohrnann Trinitiit und Reich Gottes (Munchen Christian Kaiser Verlag 1980)= ET The Trinity and the Kingdom The Doctrine ofGod trans Margaret Kohl (London SCM Press 1981) 151 idem Der gekreuzigte Gott (Miinchen Christian Kaiser Verlag 1972)= ET The Crucified God trans R A Wilson and John Bowden (London SCM Press 1974) 235

7 G C BerkouwerA HafCmtury ofTheology trans and ed LewisBSmedes (Grand Rapids Eerdrnans 1977)259

I

92 93 s G Lee Journal of Reformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

The Classic Model

By the classic model I mean the historic understanding of the Trinity In the discussion of the classic model I will not give much attention to different understandings of the Trinity between the Eastern Church and the Western Church but concentrate on their common element I will first state the basic proposition in which the Trinity is understood

Basic Statement

Proposition 1 The economic Trinity is the ground of cognition for the ontoshylogical Trinity and the ontological Trinity is the ground of being for the ecoshynomic Trinity

According to the classic understanding of the Trinity the relation between the ontological and the economic Trinity is as follows We get to know that God is the triune God through Gods relationship with this world God however does not become a triune God in His relation with this world God himself was and is atriune God even before He had any relationship with this world Hence we can say that God reveals Himself as a triune God in the course of the economy since He himselfwas and is a triune God In its ideal form the classhysic model for understanding the Trinity has the following process of thinking

First of all there is recognition of the economic Trinity That is we can recognize that God is the triune God in the process of examining Gods creashytion and redemption through Christ especially while examining the coming of Christ his self-disclosure the coming of the Holy Spirit to the New Testashyment church on Pentecost the works of the Holy Spirit in the church and the response of the church to the Holy Spirit (esp Acts 51-16) Jesus Christ and the One whom he calls his Father and the Holy Spirit who was sent by the Father and the Son (John 1426 1526 167) are one triune God In the procshyess of this recognition we can also see some aspects of their relationship That is God the Father and God the Son have a relationship of a father and a son and the Holy Spirit is the one who could be sent bythe Father and the Son All of these amount to a recognition of the economic Trinity

Second in the process of recognizing the economic Trinity we come across several statements that show the relationship between these three persons For example the term only begotten son (john 114) and the expression the only Son who is in the bosom of the Father (John 118) lead us to the conclusion that the Son is the one who has been begotten by the Father And the state-

S G Lee Journal ofReformed 7heology 3 (2009) 90-107

ments that the Holy Spirit will be sent by Jesus from the Father (john 1426 1526 167) and that the Holy Spirit proceeds- from the Father Oohn 1526) show that the Holy Spirit is the one who will be sent to us in the process of Gods economic relation with us

Finally with the help of this second stage ofour understanding of the Trinshyity we begin to understand that the Father is eternally begetting the Son and the Son is being eternally begotten by the Father whereas the Holy Spirit is proceedingfrom the Father (and the Son) by applying the economic relationship into eternity In order to substantiate this summary of the classic model let us look at the way in which two Reformed theologians understood the Trinity

John Calvin on the Trinity

John Calvin develops his arguments without clearly distinguishing between the economic and the ontological Trinity It seems to me that for him there is no need to distinguish between these two because the ontological Trinity is revealed in the economic Trinity This is a common phenomenon in the writshyings of most theologians who hold the classic model If we placed them in a modern debate concerning the relationship between the ontological and the economic Trinity however they would make it quite clear that the triune God reveals Himself as He is in the process ofcreation and redemption There are some hints of this in Calvins discussion of the Trinity Let us look at the way in which he speaks of the Trinity

Calvin begins his discussion of the Trinity by explaining that several words which do not appear in scripture-eg Trinity persons bomoousios etc-are useful for the interpretation of scripture so that they are especially useful for refuting the wrong thinking and distorted teachings about the Trinity One sentence which Calvin quotes from Augustine clearly shows what Calvins attishytude is on these terms On account of the poverty of human speech in so great a matter the word hypostasis has been forced upon us by necessity not

8 In his good study on Calvins trinitarian theology f W Burin also showed this point centering his emphasis on the economic Trinity Philip Walker Burin Revelation Redemption and Response Calvins Trinitarian Understanding of the Divine-Human Relationship (New York and Oxford Oxford University Press 1995) It seems to me however that it is pity that Burin did not clearly discuss the relationship between the ontological and the economic trinity in the thought of Calvin Butin showed a tendency to emphasize the economic trinity See also his Reformed Ecclesiology Trinitarian Grace According to Calvin Studies in Reformed 1heology and History III (winter 1994) 5-8 esp 6 Calvins articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity is predominantly economic

95 94 s G LeeJournal ofReformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

to express what it is but only not to be silent on how Father Son and Spirit are three The reason why we use the word hypostasis is not because this is the word that can be used to show exactly what God is like but that we cannot help not speaking of God as the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit That is these terms are used in our difficult effort to express the fact of revelation in our human language What Calvin wants to say in this part can best be sumshymarized with the following statements Say that in one essence of God there isa trinity of persons you will say in one word what Scriptures states and cut short empty talkativeness

Thus after defining the term person as a subsistence in Gods essence which while related to the others is distinguished by an incommunicable quality I I

Calvin proceeds to the discussion ofhomoousios of the Father and the Son and to the discussion of the differentiation of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit

In his discussion of the divinity of the Son Calvin first ofall talks about the divinity of the Logos asarkos and then goes on to the discussion of the Word endued with flesh The order of this discussion is very instructive for our purpose because this shows how Calvin thinks about the relation of God the Father and the Logos asarkos That is here we can see a hint of Calvins undershystanding of the ontological Trinity Referring to I Pet 110-11 Calvin says that because Christ had not yet been manifested it is necessary to understand the Word as begotten of the Father before time12 He then refers to the creashytion by the Word of God in Genesis 1 He understands this creation by the Word of God in the light of Heb 12-3 and says that here we see the Word understood as the order or mandate of the Son who is himself the eternal and essential Word of the Father3 For Calvin however the most important passhy

sages in relation with the divinity of the Son are John 11-3 for John at once attributes to the Word a solid and abiding essence and ascribes something uniquely His own

On the basis of these discussions Calvin concludes that unchangeable the Word abides everlastingly one and the same with God and is God hirnself

) John Calvin Institutesofthe ChristianReligion trans Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia The Westminster Press 1960) I xiiiS

III Calvin Institutes I xiiiS II Calvin Institutes I xiii 6 Il Calvin Institutes I xiii 7 13 Calvin Institutes I xiii 7 14 Calvin Institutes I xiii 7 15 Calvin Institutes I xiii 7

S G LeeJournal ofReformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

Then in relation with those who would readily accept the divinity of the Son but deny the eternality of the Son Calvin says that the Word conceived beyond the beginning of time by God has perpetually resided with him and he concludes that by this his eternity his true essence and his divinity are proved 16

Only after showing the eternal divinity of the Son this way does Calvin discuss the divinity of Christ in the OT17 and the Angel of]ehovah18 the

divinity of Christ in the NT on the basis of the witnesses of the Apostles of the works of Christ2o and of the miracles of Christ

In relation to the divinity of the Holy Spirit Calvins discussion is centered on the works of the Holy Spirit and the biblical expressions which identify the Holy Spirit with God22

We conclude therefore that Calvins discussion of the Trinity makes it clear that God has a triune relationship with the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit from eternity and that this triune relationship has been clearly revealed in the economic process For Calvin it is not even possible to think of the economic Trinity constituting the ontological Trinity This is clearly shown in his response to those who have doubts about the eternal Sonship of the Christ

Herman Bavinck on the Trinity

We see almost the same view of the Trinity in Herman Bavincks understandshying of the Trinity as we saw in Calvin23 Bavinck is however more helpful because he explicitly speaks of the relation of the ontological and the economic Trinity From this explicit explanation we can gather that ~ discusses the Trinity with what we called the classic model in mind Let us quote one passhysage from him

16 Calvin Institutes I xiii 8 17 Calvin Institutes I xiii 9 18 Calvin Institutes I xiii 10 19 Calvin Institutes I xiii 11 20 Calvin Institutes I xiii 12 21 Calvin Institutes I xiii 13 22 Calvin Institutes I xiii 14-15

23 John Bolt also made this point in his doctoral dissertation on Bavinck See John Bolt The Imitation ofChrist Theme in the Cultural-Ethical Idea ofHerman Bavinck (Ph D Dissertation University of St Michaels College Toronto School of Theology 1982) 74 n 274 In his explication of the trinitarian order Bavinck clearly reflects Calvins discussion of the Trinity in Institutes I xv See also p 127 in both the ontological and economic Trinity Bavinck fol1ows Calvin and Kuyper

96 97 S G LeeJournalofReorm(d Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

As in the ontological trinity the Father is first in order of subsistence the Son second and the Holy Spirit third so also in the history of revelation the Father preceded the Son and the Son preceded the Holy Spirit The Father comes without having been sent the Son is sent by the Father Man 1040 Mark 937 Luke 948 John 316 5233037 68ff and the Holy Spirit is sent by both Father and Son John 1426 167

But this procession in time is a reflection of the immanent relation existing between the three persons in the ontological trinity and is based upon generation and spirarlon The generation of the Son is the eternal arche-type of the incarnation of the Logos and the procession from the father and the Soh is the proto-type of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit Hence the church-fathers derived the knowledge concerning the eternal and immanent relations existing between the persons of the trinity from what was revealed concerning those relations in time In this they were correct

Here Bavinck says that the trinitarian structure expressed in the history of revelation that is the structure of the economic Trinity can be seen as a reflecshytion of the structure of the ontological Trinity He recognizes that the church fathers drew the ontological Trinity from the understanding of the economic Trinity and he himself also accepts this

In the classic model therefore as we have seen God has his trinitarian relationship from eternity and it is clear that the economic process within time does not affect God In this sense the following statement by Thielicke succinctly shows the intention of the classic understanding of the Trinity the orthodox doctrine of the essential Trinity maintains that the Trinity is immanent and original in God apart from his work and that the deity is eternally Father Son and Spirit in itself before ever creating anything entering into union with the individual or dwelling in the fellowship of believers

Let us turn to the second model in order to see a different understanding of the relationship between the ontological and the economic Trinity

TheModel of the NewTheologyof the Cross

By the new theology of the cross I mean the theologies which Jurgen Moltshymann and Eberhard jiingel developed within the last thirty years or so They wanted to renew theology by centering upon the cross of Jesus and they

l4 Herman Bavinck The Doctrine of God trans William Hendriksen (Grand Rapids Eerdrnans 1951) 320

2j Thielicke The ElJang(Iicai Faith 176

S G Lu Journalofampform(d Th(ology 3 (2009) 90-107

thought that their approach would renew and reshape Luthers theologia crucis for the 20th century It seems to me however that it is difficult to identify their approach with Luthers theology of the cross Hence the term the new theology of the cross Howdid Moltmann and Jungel understand the relation of the economic and the ontological Trinity In this section I will concentrate only on Moltmanns view

Basic Statement

Proposition 2 The economic Trinity is the ontological Trinity and vice versa

This proposition which was first used by Karl Rahner and then by Barth Moltmann and ]Ungel in their own ways can be interpreted in various ways In other words the meaning of this proposition is somewhat ambiguous These theologians sometimes present this proposition in the way in which we understand the classic model When we read Moltmann stating the following material we almost come to the conclusion that he is simply repeating the classic viewpoint

If the immanent Trinity is the counterpart of praise then knowledge of the economic Trinity (as the embodiment of the history and experience ofsalvation) preeedes knowlshyedge of the immanent Trinity In the order of being it succeeds it26

There is only one single divine Trinity and one single divine history ofsalvation The triune God can only appear in history as he is in himself and in no other way He is in himselfas he appears in salvation history for it is he himself who is manifested and he is just what he is manifested as beingY

Statements about the immanent Trinity must not contradict statements about the economic Trinity Statements about the economic Trinity must correspond to doxoshylogical statements about the immanent Trinity28

In spite of the impression which these quotations leave after closer examinashytion we conclude that Moltmann does not have a classic understanding of the Trinity Indeed at one point Moltmann clearly says that in order to grasp the death of the Son in its significance for God himself I found myself bound to

26 Molrrnann Ihlaquo Trinity and th( Kingdom 152 27 Molrrnann Thlaquo Trinityand th( Kingdom 153 28 Molrrnann Ihlaquo Trinityand th( Kingdom 154

99 98 S G Lee IJournal ofRiformrd 7h~ology 3 (2009) 90-107

surrender the traditional distinction between the immanent and the ontological Trinity29 Moreover in a 1973 article he states

If the doctrine of the Trinity could be developed from the event of the cross then not only the distinction between God in himself (Gott an sich) and the God for us (Gott flir tins) but also the distinction between the immanent and the economical Trinity are abolish~d Jlt1

When we closely examine Molrmanns book therefore we conclude that Molshytrnann by using the proposition that the economic Trinity is the ontological Trinity and viceversa expresses the idea that the economic Trinity is itself the ontological Trinity and that the economic Trinity is the center ofGods revelashytion in the process of history and that the ontological Trinity is merely the metaphysical summary of the economic Trinitys doxological meaning To state it bluntly according to this new theology of the cross it is not the case that there is an inner relationship between three divine persons from eternity which is revealed in the process of time Rather from our understanding of the ecoshynomic self-revelation ofGod we logically draw out Gods trinitarian structure There may be an ontological Trinity at the end of the day we can proleptically refer to this Trinity in our doxology Let me substantiate these points by examshyining Moltrnanns writings

Moltmanns Understanding In his book The Crucified God from 1972 Moltmann tries to understand the Trinity in relation to the cross He says The material principle of the doc shytrine of the Trinity is the cross ofChrist The formal principle ofknowledge of the cross is the doctrine of the Trinity32 He even says that a trinitarian theolshyogy of the cross develops from this history [of the cross] what is to be understood by God33So he demands a revolution in the concept ofGod34 In the same spirit Moltmann says

Moltmann The Trinityand thlaquoKingdom 160 emphasis is given 30 Molrmann Gesichrspunkre der Kreuzesrheologle heme Evang~lisch~ 7h~gid3 (1973)

362f cited in Horst G Poehlrnann Abriss derDogmatik (1975) translated into Korean by Shin shyGun LeeDogmatics (Seoul Korean Institute ofTheology 1990) 157 emphasis is given

3 Molrrnann The Crucified God trans R A Wilson and John Bowden (London SCM Press 1974)

i 31 Molrmann IheCrucifi~d God 241 i 33 Molrmann the Trinity and thlaquoKingdom 247 34 Moltmann The Trinity and theKingdom 152

S G Lee IJournalofampform~d 7h~ology3 (2009) 90-107

In the cross Father and Son are most deeply separated in forsakenness and at the same time are most inwardly one in their surrender What proceeds from this event between Father and Son is the Spirit which justifies the godless fills the forsaken with love and even brings the dead allveisince the fact that they are dead cannot exclude them from this event of the cross the death in God also includes them35

For Moltmann the event of the cross is not only an event of the economic Trinity but also an event within the Trinity Or rather ifwe put it in the words of Richard Bauckhams interpretation of Molrmann the event of the cross is the Trinity36 Accordingly Moltrnann says that the history of Christ is the inner life of God himself and that the Trinity is an event of love in the sufshyfering and death ofJesuS 37 He even says that we should not think as though the Trinity were already present in itself in the divine nature38 That is to say we should not think that first there was the ontological Trinity and then the economic Trinity was revealed Rather Moltrnann thinks that the ontological Trinityis constituted in the eventofthe cross Richard Bauckham also interprets Moltrnann in this way So Bauckham says that at this stage (from The Theology ofHope to The Crucified God) Moltrnann thinks of God becoming Trinity in the history of Jesus 39 And he adds that Moltrnann very much wished to understand the trinitarian relationship of Father and Son as a relationship which happens in the history of Jesus and especially in -the cross and will not allow this happening to be a mere reflection of supra-temporal truth40 Indeed Mohmann himself thinks that his understanding of the Trinity overshycomes the dichotomy between immanent and economic Trinity and between the nature of God and his inner tri-uniry Let us quote one more passage form The Crucified God

The Trinity therefore also means the hisrory ofGod which in human terms is the hisshytory of love and liberation The Trinity understood as an event for history therefore presses towards eschatological consummation so that the Trinity may beall in allor put more simply so that Jove may be all in all so that life may triumph over death

35 Moltmann Iblaquo Trinity and th~ Kingdom 244 36 Richard Bauekham )Urgen Moltrnann in OnlaquoGodin Trinity An Analysis oth~ Primary

Dogma oChristianity eds PeterToon and James D Spiceland (Westchester Cornerstone Books 1980) 120

37 Moltmann the Trinity and theKingdom 249 38 Moltmann 7h~ Trinity and theKingdom 245 3 Bauckharn Jiirgen Moltrnann 116 Bauckharns own emphasis 40 Bauckharn Jiirgen Moltrnann 116pound his own emphasis Moltrnann Ihlaquo Trinity and thlaquoKingdom 245

86 S R Holmes Journal 0Riformfd Theology 3 (2009) 77-89 S R Holmes Journal 0ampform~d Ihealogy 3 (2009) 77-89 87

that the only particular properties of the three hypostases were unbegottenshyness begottenness and procession 18 Basil makes the same point in writing to Gregory of Nyssa19 Gregory of Nyssa in turn asserts the same while we conshyfess the invariable character of the nature we do not deny the difference in respect of cause and that which is caused by which alonewe apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another20

These references briefas they are are perhaps sufficient to suggest that social trinitarian ism is some distance from the Cappadocian discussion it is also I believe demonstrably some way from the Latin tradition of trinirarianisrn given the social trinitarians own protestations that they are opposed to Augusshytine Boethius and St Thomas I assume that I do not need to demonstrate this at any length Social trinitarian ism may be right but if it is then the fathers were wrong individually in every case of which I am aware and in their conciliar decisions at Nicea Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon

Social Trinitarianism and the Biblical Narrative

Ofcourse from a Reformed perspective it is possible that this is true and that social trinitarianism is right While the Reformed have tended to respect the early ecumenical decisions of the church the sense that every decision was corrigible and subject to examination under the one decisive norm ofscripture is rightly pervasive For Reformed theology it remains possible that one or several of the seven ecumenical councils waswere wrong and that many or most of the fathers of the church were wrong and that a social trinitarianism is in fact the best way to appropriate the biblical witness

However it seems to me that this also is flawed The fathers had ways ofcoping exegetically with the texts that describe the Lo~ds prayer in Gethseshyrnene it is true the point is however more basic than this Social trinitarian rhetoric concerning the biblical witness tends to stress the threeness of the divine actor in the New Testament witness which point is correct so far as it goes but without qualification is in some danger of being simply Marcionite one cannot claim a position is biblical without considering the whole of scripture not just the New Testament The totality of the biblical witness concerning God it seems to me consists of a sustained and pointed witness to

I See eg Or 207 Or 2516 Or 3912 or Or 4217 (the Farewell Address) I See Ep 38 1tJ On Not Three Gods To Ababius (cr Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series II Volume 5

Edinburgh 1892336 my emphasis)

the oneness of God in the face of repeated temptations to polytheisrns supshyplemented by a brief coda or appendix suggesting that this One God is in fact triune

I realize of course that describing the New Testament as a brief coda or appendix to the scriptures is rather polemical but perhaps it makes the point The claim that social trinitarianism is biblical is by no means obvious rather it depends on a very particular hermeneutic that privileges the New Testashyment and particularly the Gospels in ways that at least demand explanation and defence The central and repeated thrust of the biblical narrative taken as a whole can easily be characterized as a drive towards monotheism and AugusshytinianLatin trinitarianism is at least as successful a representation of monoshytheism as social trinitarianism

Ofcourse it might be argued that the New Testament should be privileged but the nature of that privilege demands explication The NT may not be read in a way that denies Old Testament monotheism Jesus himself is suffishycient witness to that Rather the challenge for any adequately theological hermeneutic is to find a way of describing the narration of Gods actions and words within the text that is responsible both to the Old Testament presentashytion of the oneness ofGod and the New Testament presentation of the shared life ofFather Son and Holy Spirit Thus stated it is by no ~eans obvious that social trinitarianism is the more biblical option crudely it privileges one set of data and needs to explain away another Latin trinitarianism privileges the other and needs to explain away the first

As I say this characterization is crude but it is not trivial It may seriously be doubted that Augustines rejection of any particular presence of the hyposshytasis of the Divine Son in history prior to the IncarnationIs adequate-x-I would tend to doubt this myself-but equally to suppose that there is some hidden social trinitarianisrn within the Old Testament texts without considershyable exegetical demonstration of the point seems merely unconvincingP Monotheism is at the heart of the biblical witness social trinitarian ism is not incompatible with biblical monotheism but it is perhaps more difficult to defend than a more traditional position with regard to the Old Testament what however about the New Of course a question like this cannot be

l Mk 1229

II Robert Jensons attempt to see Christ prefigured or pre-present in the nation of Israelshypresented as Gods Son in the Old Testament-represents a far more sophisticated response to this problem than is found among mainstream social trinitari ans For various reasons however I am not convinced it works

88 S R Holmes Journalofampformed Theology 3 (2009) 77-89 S R Holmes Journalofampformed 1heology 3 (2009) 77-89 89

answered in a brief essay but let me end by giving one reason why we should not assume that social trinitarianism is the superior approach

Trinity and Christology

Let me return once more to Gethsemane There we overhear the incarnate Son praying in great anguish and greater faith Father let not my will be done but yours instead23 Locating these two wills seems to me to take us to the crux of the exegetical debate For the contemporary social trinitarian the text is clear we are enabled to overhear a conversation between persons of the Trinity The incarnate Son acknowledges the presence and reality of his own desire and volition but chooses to accede instead to the volition of the Father

This text was however endlessly discussed by the church fathers and their settled view was rather different The debate comes to a head in the monotheshylite controversy decisively settled at the Third Council of Constantinople in 681 but it can be traced through the three centuries before that date at least The fathers almost unanimously rejected the view described above some the monothelires asserted that there was only one will in the incarnate Son the single divine will of the Eternal Godhead others defended the apparently less logical position eventually declared orthodox that there were two wills the single divine will of the eternal Godhead and a genuine human will I do not intend to review this controversy now24 as noted above Reformed theology cannot be determined simply by appeal to tradition but it seems to me that it highlights a helpful point for understanding social trinitarianism social trinishytarianismuses the doctrine ofthe Trinity to ansuer questions the fathers ansuiered

byChristology Questions ofontology creation mediation soteriology-and ethics includshy

ing political and social theory-seem to me to be seen fundamentally as Chrisshytological questions in classical Christian theology It is only very recently that we have tried to view them as trinitarian questions I believe that the same thing is true of the question raised above about New Testament exegesis The New Testament offers us a striking picture of an executed criminal who is identified with God himself and asks us to make sense of that narrative Social trinitarianism has tried to do this by encompassing the narrative within rheolshy

13 Lk 2242 my translation 14 I have written on it at some length in my essay Chrisrology Scripture Divine Action and

Hermeneutics in Andrew T Lincoln and Angus Paddison (eds) Christology and Scripture InterdisciplinaryPmpectives London TampT Clark 2008 156-70

ogy proper identifYing God as both actors in the story and as the story the actors play out This might be right but the patristic answer shared in every detail incidentally by the fathers of the Reformation particularly in their debates with Serverus and the Socinians and in the Calvinist defence of the extra Calvinisticum rather chose to locate the tension within the person of the Crucified One who is at one and the same time both Lord and servant both Creator and creature I cannot attempt to demonstrate that this is the preferable view but I hope that it is at least not obviously less preferable there is an exegetical debate to be had And if as I have argued the social trinitarians need to defend a position that is novel in the Christian tradition and generashytive of deeply unhappy ethical and social positions then we might presume that there is a burden of proof on that side of the debate a burden that has not in the published literature at least even begun to be shouldered

91

IJ O U R N A L 1H

u REFORMeD laquo THEOLOGY

BRILL JournalofReformedTheology 3 (2009) 90-107 wwwbrillnljrr

The Relationship between the Ontological Trinity and the Economic Trinity

Seung Goo Lee Professor of Systematic Theology

Hapdong Theological Seminary South-Korea e-mail wminbgihorrnailcom

Abstract This article focuses on one of the main issuesin the contemporary trinitarian renaissance viz the relationship between the immanent (or ontological) and the economic Trinity It takes its start ing-point in what is labeled the classicmodel as shared by both the Eastern and the Western church The basic idea here is that the economic Trinity is the epistemological ground of the immanent Trinity whereas the immanent Trinity is the ontological ground of the economic Trinity It is shown that this model is endorsed by two influential Reformed theologians viz John Calvin and Herman Bavinck Next the model of the new theology of the cross is introduced as represented by Eberhard Jungel and [Iirgen Moltmann Especially Molrrnanns innovative proposals are critically discussed Characteristic of this second model is that the distinction between the ontological and economic Trinity is blurred Third it is argued that Dutch Reformed theologian Hendrikus Berkhof offered an even more radical model which leaves us with only the economic Trinity Although both of these contemporary models have their attractions it is concluded that we have every reason to stick to the classic model

Keywords the ontological Trinity the economic Trinity John Calvin Herman Bavinck Jurgen Moltmann Eberhard Jungel Hendrikus Berkhof

In this contribution I want to examine the relationship between the ontoshylogical and the economic Trinity The economic Trinity is the Trinity revealed in the economy (oikonomia) of God Hence the term the economic Trinity or the Trinity of revelation has been used As Eberhard Jiingel said the

For an explanation of this term see Otto Weber Foundation ofDogmatics vol I trans Darrell L Guder (Grand Rapids Eerdrnans 1981) 388 Helmut Thlelicke The Evangelical Faith vol 2 The Doctrine of Godand ofChrist trans and ed Geoffrey W Bromiley (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1991) 179 Paul Jewett God Creation and Revelation (Grand Rapids

copy KoninklijkeBrillNYLelden2009 001 1O11631156973109X403741

S G Lee Journalofampformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

doctrine of economic Trinity understands the being of God in relation with man and his world In contrast to this economic Trinity the ontological Trinity refers to the Trinity-in-God-himself That is the ontological Trinity is to understand God hirnselfwirhour regard to Gods relationship with man3 and to understand the Trinity as describing the immanent ontic structure of the being of God4 Hence the terms the ontological Trinity the eternal Trinity the essent ial Trinity or the immanent Trinity

According to Wolfhart Pannenberg the distinction between the economic and ontological Trinity can be traced to eighteenth century theologian Johann Augustus Urlsperger (1728-1806)5 As far as the terminology is concerned Pannenberg may be right The concept itself however is already found in the writings of the earlier theologians While in earlier days theologians treated the ontological and the economic Trinity without a clear conscious distinction concrete usage of these terms appeared with the rise of the tendency to disreshygard the ontological aspect of the Trinity Hence Jiirgen Moltmann is more correct when he said that it is common to distinguish the ontological and the economic Trinity after Tertullians rejection of modalism and that especially the Cappadocian Fathers clearly distinguished these two G C Berkouwer also made it clear that the church used the distinction between the ontological and the economic Trinity in her efforts to fight against rnodalisrn

In this contribution I would like to contrast three models oflooking at the relation between the ontological and the economic Trinity and to consider which model might be more biblical and realistic

Eerdmans 1991)305 Weberand Jewett use also the terms like revelationalTrinity and functional Trinity

2 Eberhard Jungel Godas the Mystery ofthe World trans Darrell L Guder (Grand Rapids Eerdrnans 1983) 346

S jiingel GodastheMystery oftheWorld 346 bull Thielicke The Evangelical Faith vol 2 76 S Wolfhan PannenbergSyseemanschlaquo Theologie Band I (GortlngenVandenhoeckand Ruprecht

1988) 317 n 122=ET Systematic Theology trans Geoffrey W Bromiley (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1991)291 n Il l See also Weber FoundationofDogmatics vol 1 388 n 124

6 Jurgen Mohrnann Trinitiit und Reich Gottes (Munchen Christian Kaiser Verlag 1980)= ET The Trinity and the Kingdom The Doctrine ofGod trans Margaret Kohl (London SCM Press 1981) 151 idem Der gekreuzigte Gott (Miinchen Christian Kaiser Verlag 1972)= ET The Crucified God trans R A Wilson and John Bowden (London SCM Press 1974) 235

7 G C BerkouwerA HafCmtury ofTheology trans and ed LewisBSmedes (Grand Rapids Eerdrnans 1977)259

I

92 93 s G Lee Journal of Reformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

The Classic Model

By the classic model I mean the historic understanding of the Trinity In the discussion of the classic model I will not give much attention to different understandings of the Trinity between the Eastern Church and the Western Church but concentrate on their common element I will first state the basic proposition in which the Trinity is understood

Basic Statement

Proposition 1 The economic Trinity is the ground of cognition for the ontoshylogical Trinity and the ontological Trinity is the ground of being for the ecoshynomic Trinity

According to the classic understanding of the Trinity the relation between the ontological and the economic Trinity is as follows We get to know that God is the triune God through Gods relationship with this world God however does not become a triune God in His relation with this world God himself was and is atriune God even before He had any relationship with this world Hence we can say that God reveals Himself as a triune God in the course of the economy since He himselfwas and is a triune God In its ideal form the classhysic model for understanding the Trinity has the following process of thinking

First of all there is recognition of the economic Trinity That is we can recognize that God is the triune God in the process of examining Gods creashytion and redemption through Christ especially while examining the coming of Christ his self-disclosure the coming of the Holy Spirit to the New Testashyment church on Pentecost the works of the Holy Spirit in the church and the response of the church to the Holy Spirit (esp Acts 51-16) Jesus Christ and the One whom he calls his Father and the Holy Spirit who was sent by the Father and the Son (John 1426 1526 167) are one triune God In the procshyess of this recognition we can also see some aspects of their relationship That is God the Father and God the Son have a relationship of a father and a son and the Holy Spirit is the one who could be sent bythe Father and the Son All of these amount to a recognition of the economic Trinity

Second in the process of recognizing the economic Trinity we come across several statements that show the relationship between these three persons For example the term only begotten son (john 114) and the expression the only Son who is in the bosom of the Father (John 118) lead us to the conclusion that the Son is the one who has been begotten by the Father And the state-

S G Lee Journal ofReformed 7heology 3 (2009) 90-107

ments that the Holy Spirit will be sent by Jesus from the Father (john 1426 1526 167) and that the Holy Spirit proceeds- from the Father Oohn 1526) show that the Holy Spirit is the one who will be sent to us in the process of Gods economic relation with us

Finally with the help of this second stage ofour understanding of the Trinshyity we begin to understand that the Father is eternally begetting the Son and the Son is being eternally begotten by the Father whereas the Holy Spirit is proceedingfrom the Father (and the Son) by applying the economic relationship into eternity In order to substantiate this summary of the classic model let us look at the way in which two Reformed theologians understood the Trinity

John Calvin on the Trinity

John Calvin develops his arguments without clearly distinguishing between the economic and the ontological Trinity It seems to me that for him there is no need to distinguish between these two because the ontological Trinity is revealed in the economic Trinity This is a common phenomenon in the writshyings of most theologians who hold the classic model If we placed them in a modern debate concerning the relationship between the ontological and the economic Trinity however they would make it quite clear that the triune God reveals Himself as He is in the process ofcreation and redemption There are some hints of this in Calvins discussion of the Trinity Let us look at the way in which he speaks of the Trinity

Calvin begins his discussion of the Trinity by explaining that several words which do not appear in scripture-eg Trinity persons bomoousios etc-are useful for the interpretation of scripture so that they are especially useful for refuting the wrong thinking and distorted teachings about the Trinity One sentence which Calvin quotes from Augustine clearly shows what Calvins attishytude is on these terms On account of the poverty of human speech in so great a matter the word hypostasis has been forced upon us by necessity not

8 In his good study on Calvins trinitarian theology f W Burin also showed this point centering his emphasis on the economic Trinity Philip Walker Burin Revelation Redemption and Response Calvins Trinitarian Understanding of the Divine-Human Relationship (New York and Oxford Oxford University Press 1995) It seems to me however that it is pity that Burin did not clearly discuss the relationship between the ontological and the economic trinity in the thought of Calvin Butin showed a tendency to emphasize the economic trinity See also his Reformed Ecclesiology Trinitarian Grace According to Calvin Studies in Reformed 1heology and History III (winter 1994) 5-8 esp 6 Calvins articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity is predominantly economic

95 94 s G LeeJournal ofReformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

to express what it is but only not to be silent on how Father Son and Spirit are three The reason why we use the word hypostasis is not because this is the word that can be used to show exactly what God is like but that we cannot help not speaking of God as the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit That is these terms are used in our difficult effort to express the fact of revelation in our human language What Calvin wants to say in this part can best be sumshymarized with the following statements Say that in one essence of God there isa trinity of persons you will say in one word what Scriptures states and cut short empty talkativeness

Thus after defining the term person as a subsistence in Gods essence which while related to the others is distinguished by an incommunicable quality I I

Calvin proceeds to the discussion ofhomoousios of the Father and the Son and to the discussion of the differentiation of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit

In his discussion of the divinity of the Son Calvin first ofall talks about the divinity of the Logos asarkos and then goes on to the discussion of the Word endued with flesh The order of this discussion is very instructive for our purpose because this shows how Calvin thinks about the relation of God the Father and the Logos asarkos That is here we can see a hint of Calvins undershystanding of the ontological Trinity Referring to I Pet 110-11 Calvin says that because Christ had not yet been manifested it is necessary to understand the Word as begotten of the Father before time12 He then refers to the creashytion by the Word of God in Genesis 1 He understands this creation by the Word of God in the light of Heb 12-3 and says that here we see the Word understood as the order or mandate of the Son who is himself the eternal and essential Word of the Father3 For Calvin however the most important passhy

sages in relation with the divinity of the Son are John 11-3 for John at once attributes to the Word a solid and abiding essence and ascribes something uniquely His own

On the basis of these discussions Calvin concludes that unchangeable the Word abides everlastingly one and the same with God and is God hirnself

) John Calvin Institutesofthe ChristianReligion trans Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia The Westminster Press 1960) I xiiiS

III Calvin Institutes I xiiiS II Calvin Institutes I xiii 6 Il Calvin Institutes I xiii 7 13 Calvin Institutes I xiii 7 14 Calvin Institutes I xiii 7 15 Calvin Institutes I xiii 7

S G LeeJournal ofReformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

Then in relation with those who would readily accept the divinity of the Son but deny the eternality of the Son Calvin says that the Word conceived beyond the beginning of time by God has perpetually resided with him and he concludes that by this his eternity his true essence and his divinity are proved 16

Only after showing the eternal divinity of the Son this way does Calvin discuss the divinity of Christ in the OT17 and the Angel of]ehovah18 the

divinity of Christ in the NT on the basis of the witnesses of the Apostles of the works of Christ2o and of the miracles of Christ

In relation to the divinity of the Holy Spirit Calvins discussion is centered on the works of the Holy Spirit and the biblical expressions which identify the Holy Spirit with God22

We conclude therefore that Calvins discussion of the Trinity makes it clear that God has a triune relationship with the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit from eternity and that this triune relationship has been clearly revealed in the economic process For Calvin it is not even possible to think of the economic Trinity constituting the ontological Trinity This is clearly shown in his response to those who have doubts about the eternal Sonship of the Christ

Herman Bavinck on the Trinity

We see almost the same view of the Trinity in Herman Bavincks understandshying of the Trinity as we saw in Calvin23 Bavinck is however more helpful because he explicitly speaks of the relation of the ontological and the economic Trinity From this explicit explanation we can gather that ~ discusses the Trinity with what we called the classic model in mind Let us quote one passhysage from him

16 Calvin Institutes I xiii 8 17 Calvin Institutes I xiii 9 18 Calvin Institutes I xiii 10 19 Calvin Institutes I xiii 11 20 Calvin Institutes I xiii 12 21 Calvin Institutes I xiii 13 22 Calvin Institutes I xiii 14-15

23 John Bolt also made this point in his doctoral dissertation on Bavinck See John Bolt The Imitation ofChrist Theme in the Cultural-Ethical Idea ofHerman Bavinck (Ph D Dissertation University of St Michaels College Toronto School of Theology 1982) 74 n 274 In his explication of the trinitarian order Bavinck clearly reflects Calvins discussion of the Trinity in Institutes I xv See also p 127 in both the ontological and economic Trinity Bavinck fol1ows Calvin and Kuyper

96 97 S G LeeJournalofReorm(d Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

As in the ontological trinity the Father is first in order of subsistence the Son second and the Holy Spirit third so also in the history of revelation the Father preceded the Son and the Son preceded the Holy Spirit The Father comes without having been sent the Son is sent by the Father Man 1040 Mark 937 Luke 948 John 316 5233037 68ff and the Holy Spirit is sent by both Father and Son John 1426 167

But this procession in time is a reflection of the immanent relation existing between the three persons in the ontological trinity and is based upon generation and spirarlon The generation of the Son is the eternal arche-type of the incarnation of the Logos and the procession from the father and the Soh is the proto-type of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit Hence the church-fathers derived the knowledge concerning the eternal and immanent relations existing between the persons of the trinity from what was revealed concerning those relations in time In this they were correct

Here Bavinck says that the trinitarian structure expressed in the history of revelation that is the structure of the economic Trinity can be seen as a reflecshytion of the structure of the ontological Trinity He recognizes that the church fathers drew the ontological Trinity from the understanding of the economic Trinity and he himself also accepts this

In the classic model therefore as we have seen God has his trinitarian relationship from eternity and it is clear that the economic process within time does not affect God In this sense the following statement by Thielicke succinctly shows the intention of the classic understanding of the Trinity the orthodox doctrine of the essential Trinity maintains that the Trinity is immanent and original in God apart from his work and that the deity is eternally Father Son and Spirit in itself before ever creating anything entering into union with the individual or dwelling in the fellowship of believers

Let us turn to the second model in order to see a different understanding of the relationship between the ontological and the economic Trinity

TheModel of the NewTheologyof the Cross

By the new theology of the cross I mean the theologies which Jurgen Moltshymann and Eberhard jiingel developed within the last thirty years or so They wanted to renew theology by centering upon the cross of Jesus and they

l4 Herman Bavinck The Doctrine of God trans William Hendriksen (Grand Rapids Eerdrnans 1951) 320

2j Thielicke The ElJang(Iicai Faith 176

S G Lu Journalofampform(d Th(ology 3 (2009) 90-107

thought that their approach would renew and reshape Luthers theologia crucis for the 20th century It seems to me however that it is difficult to identify their approach with Luthers theology of the cross Hence the term the new theology of the cross Howdid Moltmann and Jungel understand the relation of the economic and the ontological Trinity In this section I will concentrate only on Moltmanns view

Basic Statement

Proposition 2 The economic Trinity is the ontological Trinity and vice versa

This proposition which was first used by Karl Rahner and then by Barth Moltmann and ]Ungel in their own ways can be interpreted in various ways In other words the meaning of this proposition is somewhat ambiguous These theologians sometimes present this proposition in the way in which we understand the classic model When we read Moltmann stating the following material we almost come to the conclusion that he is simply repeating the classic viewpoint

If the immanent Trinity is the counterpart of praise then knowledge of the economic Trinity (as the embodiment of the history and experience ofsalvation) preeedes knowlshyedge of the immanent Trinity In the order of being it succeeds it26

There is only one single divine Trinity and one single divine history ofsalvation The triune God can only appear in history as he is in himself and in no other way He is in himselfas he appears in salvation history for it is he himself who is manifested and he is just what he is manifested as beingY

Statements about the immanent Trinity must not contradict statements about the economic Trinity Statements about the economic Trinity must correspond to doxoshylogical statements about the immanent Trinity28

In spite of the impression which these quotations leave after closer examinashytion we conclude that Moltmann does not have a classic understanding of the Trinity Indeed at one point Moltmann clearly says that in order to grasp the death of the Son in its significance for God himself I found myself bound to

26 Molrrnann Ihlaquo Trinity and th( Kingdom 152 27 Molrrnann Thlaquo Trinityand th( Kingdom 153 28 Molrrnann Ihlaquo Trinityand th( Kingdom 154

99 98 S G Lee IJournal ofRiformrd 7h~ology 3 (2009) 90-107

surrender the traditional distinction between the immanent and the ontological Trinity29 Moreover in a 1973 article he states

If the doctrine of the Trinity could be developed from the event of the cross then not only the distinction between God in himself (Gott an sich) and the God for us (Gott flir tins) but also the distinction between the immanent and the economical Trinity are abolish~d Jlt1

When we closely examine Molrmanns book therefore we conclude that Molshytrnann by using the proposition that the economic Trinity is the ontological Trinity and viceversa expresses the idea that the economic Trinity is itself the ontological Trinity and that the economic Trinity is the center ofGods revelashytion in the process of history and that the ontological Trinity is merely the metaphysical summary of the economic Trinitys doxological meaning To state it bluntly according to this new theology of the cross it is not the case that there is an inner relationship between three divine persons from eternity which is revealed in the process of time Rather from our understanding of the ecoshynomic self-revelation ofGod we logically draw out Gods trinitarian structure There may be an ontological Trinity at the end of the day we can proleptically refer to this Trinity in our doxology Let me substantiate these points by examshyining Moltrnanns writings

Moltmanns Understanding In his book The Crucified God from 1972 Moltmann tries to understand the Trinity in relation to the cross He says The material principle of the doc shytrine of the Trinity is the cross ofChrist The formal principle ofknowledge of the cross is the doctrine of the Trinity32 He even says that a trinitarian theolshyogy of the cross develops from this history [of the cross] what is to be understood by God33So he demands a revolution in the concept ofGod34 In the same spirit Moltmann says

Moltmann The Trinityand thlaquoKingdom 160 emphasis is given 30 Molrmann Gesichrspunkre der Kreuzesrheologle heme Evang~lisch~ 7h~gid3 (1973)

362f cited in Horst G Poehlrnann Abriss derDogmatik (1975) translated into Korean by Shin shyGun LeeDogmatics (Seoul Korean Institute ofTheology 1990) 157 emphasis is given

3 Molrrnann The Crucified God trans R A Wilson and John Bowden (London SCM Press 1974)

i 31 Molrmann IheCrucifi~d God 241 i 33 Molrmann the Trinity and thlaquoKingdom 247 34 Moltmann The Trinity and theKingdom 152

S G Lee IJournalofampform~d 7h~ology3 (2009) 90-107

In the cross Father and Son are most deeply separated in forsakenness and at the same time are most inwardly one in their surrender What proceeds from this event between Father and Son is the Spirit which justifies the godless fills the forsaken with love and even brings the dead allveisince the fact that they are dead cannot exclude them from this event of the cross the death in God also includes them35

For Moltmann the event of the cross is not only an event of the economic Trinity but also an event within the Trinity Or rather ifwe put it in the words of Richard Bauckhams interpretation of Molrmann the event of the cross is the Trinity36 Accordingly Moltrnann says that the history of Christ is the inner life of God himself and that the Trinity is an event of love in the sufshyfering and death ofJesuS 37 He even says that we should not think as though the Trinity were already present in itself in the divine nature38 That is to say we should not think that first there was the ontological Trinity and then the economic Trinity was revealed Rather Moltrnann thinks that the ontological Trinityis constituted in the eventofthe cross Richard Bauckham also interprets Moltrnann in this way So Bauckham says that at this stage (from The Theology ofHope to The Crucified God) Moltrnann thinks of God becoming Trinity in the history of Jesus 39 And he adds that Moltrnann very much wished to understand the trinitarian relationship of Father and Son as a relationship which happens in the history of Jesus and especially in -the cross and will not allow this happening to be a mere reflection of supra-temporal truth40 Indeed Mohmann himself thinks that his understanding of the Trinity overshycomes the dichotomy between immanent and economic Trinity and between the nature of God and his inner tri-uniry Let us quote one more passage form The Crucified God

The Trinity therefore also means the hisrory ofGod which in human terms is the hisshytory of love and liberation The Trinity understood as an event for history therefore presses towards eschatological consummation so that the Trinity may beall in allor put more simply so that Jove may be all in all so that life may triumph over death

35 Moltmann Iblaquo Trinity and th~ Kingdom 244 36 Richard Bauekham )Urgen Moltrnann in OnlaquoGodin Trinity An Analysis oth~ Primary

Dogma oChristianity eds PeterToon and James D Spiceland (Westchester Cornerstone Books 1980) 120

37 Moltmann the Trinity and theKingdom 249 38 Moltmann 7h~ Trinity and theKingdom 245 3 Bauckharn Jiirgen Moltrnann 116 Bauckharns own emphasis 40 Bauckharn Jiirgen Moltrnann 116pound his own emphasis Moltrnann Ihlaquo Trinity and thlaquoKingdom 245

88 S R Holmes Journalofampformed Theology 3 (2009) 77-89 S R Holmes Journalofampformed 1heology 3 (2009) 77-89 89

answered in a brief essay but let me end by giving one reason why we should not assume that social trinitarianism is the superior approach

Trinity and Christology

Let me return once more to Gethsemane There we overhear the incarnate Son praying in great anguish and greater faith Father let not my will be done but yours instead23 Locating these two wills seems to me to take us to the crux of the exegetical debate For the contemporary social trinitarian the text is clear we are enabled to overhear a conversation between persons of the Trinity The incarnate Son acknowledges the presence and reality of his own desire and volition but chooses to accede instead to the volition of the Father

This text was however endlessly discussed by the church fathers and their settled view was rather different The debate comes to a head in the monotheshylite controversy decisively settled at the Third Council of Constantinople in 681 but it can be traced through the three centuries before that date at least The fathers almost unanimously rejected the view described above some the monothelires asserted that there was only one will in the incarnate Son the single divine will of the Eternal Godhead others defended the apparently less logical position eventually declared orthodox that there were two wills the single divine will of the eternal Godhead and a genuine human will I do not intend to review this controversy now24 as noted above Reformed theology cannot be determined simply by appeal to tradition but it seems to me that it highlights a helpful point for understanding social trinitarianism social trinishytarianismuses the doctrine ofthe Trinity to ansuer questions the fathers ansuiered

byChristology Questions ofontology creation mediation soteriology-and ethics includshy

ing political and social theory-seem to me to be seen fundamentally as Chrisshytological questions in classical Christian theology It is only very recently that we have tried to view them as trinitarian questions I believe that the same thing is true of the question raised above about New Testament exegesis The New Testament offers us a striking picture of an executed criminal who is identified with God himself and asks us to make sense of that narrative Social trinitarianism has tried to do this by encompassing the narrative within rheolshy

13 Lk 2242 my translation 14 I have written on it at some length in my essay Chrisrology Scripture Divine Action and

Hermeneutics in Andrew T Lincoln and Angus Paddison (eds) Christology and Scripture InterdisciplinaryPmpectives London TampT Clark 2008 156-70

ogy proper identifYing God as both actors in the story and as the story the actors play out This might be right but the patristic answer shared in every detail incidentally by the fathers of the Reformation particularly in their debates with Serverus and the Socinians and in the Calvinist defence of the extra Calvinisticum rather chose to locate the tension within the person of the Crucified One who is at one and the same time both Lord and servant both Creator and creature I cannot attempt to demonstrate that this is the preferable view but I hope that it is at least not obviously less preferable there is an exegetical debate to be had And if as I have argued the social trinitarians need to defend a position that is novel in the Christian tradition and generashytive of deeply unhappy ethical and social positions then we might presume that there is a burden of proof on that side of the debate a burden that has not in the published literature at least even begun to be shouldered

91

IJ O U R N A L 1H

u REFORMeD laquo THEOLOGY

BRILL JournalofReformedTheology 3 (2009) 90-107 wwwbrillnljrr

The Relationship between the Ontological Trinity and the Economic Trinity

Seung Goo Lee Professor of Systematic Theology

Hapdong Theological Seminary South-Korea e-mail wminbgihorrnailcom

Abstract This article focuses on one of the main issuesin the contemporary trinitarian renaissance viz the relationship between the immanent (or ontological) and the economic Trinity It takes its start ing-point in what is labeled the classicmodel as shared by both the Eastern and the Western church The basic idea here is that the economic Trinity is the epistemological ground of the immanent Trinity whereas the immanent Trinity is the ontological ground of the economic Trinity It is shown that this model is endorsed by two influential Reformed theologians viz John Calvin and Herman Bavinck Next the model of the new theology of the cross is introduced as represented by Eberhard Jungel and [Iirgen Moltmann Especially Molrrnanns innovative proposals are critically discussed Characteristic of this second model is that the distinction between the ontological and economic Trinity is blurred Third it is argued that Dutch Reformed theologian Hendrikus Berkhof offered an even more radical model which leaves us with only the economic Trinity Although both of these contemporary models have their attractions it is concluded that we have every reason to stick to the classic model

Keywords the ontological Trinity the economic Trinity John Calvin Herman Bavinck Jurgen Moltmann Eberhard Jungel Hendrikus Berkhof

In this contribution I want to examine the relationship between the ontoshylogical and the economic Trinity The economic Trinity is the Trinity revealed in the economy (oikonomia) of God Hence the term the economic Trinity or the Trinity of revelation has been used As Eberhard Jiingel said the

For an explanation of this term see Otto Weber Foundation ofDogmatics vol I trans Darrell L Guder (Grand Rapids Eerdrnans 1981) 388 Helmut Thlelicke The Evangelical Faith vol 2 The Doctrine of Godand ofChrist trans and ed Geoffrey W Bromiley (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1991) 179 Paul Jewett God Creation and Revelation (Grand Rapids

copy KoninklijkeBrillNYLelden2009 001 1O11631156973109X403741

S G Lee Journalofampformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

doctrine of economic Trinity understands the being of God in relation with man and his world In contrast to this economic Trinity the ontological Trinity refers to the Trinity-in-God-himself That is the ontological Trinity is to understand God hirnselfwirhour regard to Gods relationship with man3 and to understand the Trinity as describing the immanent ontic structure of the being of God4 Hence the terms the ontological Trinity the eternal Trinity the essent ial Trinity or the immanent Trinity

According to Wolfhart Pannenberg the distinction between the economic and ontological Trinity can be traced to eighteenth century theologian Johann Augustus Urlsperger (1728-1806)5 As far as the terminology is concerned Pannenberg may be right The concept itself however is already found in the writings of the earlier theologians While in earlier days theologians treated the ontological and the economic Trinity without a clear conscious distinction concrete usage of these terms appeared with the rise of the tendency to disreshygard the ontological aspect of the Trinity Hence Jiirgen Moltmann is more correct when he said that it is common to distinguish the ontological and the economic Trinity after Tertullians rejection of modalism and that especially the Cappadocian Fathers clearly distinguished these two G C Berkouwer also made it clear that the church used the distinction between the ontological and the economic Trinity in her efforts to fight against rnodalisrn

In this contribution I would like to contrast three models oflooking at the relation between the ontological and the economic Trinity and to consider which model might be more biblical and realistic

Eerdmans 1991)305 Weberand Jewett use also the terms like revelationalTrinity and functional Trinity

2 Eberhard Jungel Godas the Mystery ofthe World trans Darrell L Guder (Grand Rapids Eerdrnans 1983) 346

S jiingel GodastheMystery oftheWorld 346 bull Thielicke The Evangelical Faith vol 2 76 S Wolfhan PannenbergSyseemanschlaquo Theologie Band I (GortlngenVandenhoeckand Ruprecht

1988) 317 n 122=ET Systematic Theology trans Geoffrey W Bromiley (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1991)291 n Il l See also Weber FoundationofDogmatics vol 1 388 n 124

6 Jurgen Mohrnann Trinitiit und Reich Gottes (Munchen Christian Kaiser Verlag 1980)= ET The Trinity and the Kingdom The Doctrine ofGod trans Margaret Kohl (London SCM Press 1981) 151 idem Der gekreuzigte Gott (Miinchen Christian Kaiser Verlag 1972)= ET The Crucified God trans R A Wilson and John Bowden (London SCM Press 1974) 235

7 G C BerkouwerA HafCmtury ofTheology trans and ed LewisBSmedes (Grand Rapids Eerdrnans 1977)259

I

92 93 s G Lee Journal of Reformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

The Classic Model

By the classic model I mean the historic understanding of the Trinity In the discussion of the classic model I will not give much attention to different understandings of the Trinity between the Eastern Church and the Western Church but concentrate on their common element I will first state the basic proposition in which the Trinity is understood

Basic Statement

Proposition 1 The economic Trinity is the ground of cognition for the ontoshylogical Trinity and the ontological Trinity is the ground of being for the ecoshynomic Trinity

According to the classic understanding of the Trinity the relation between the ontological and the economic Trinity is as follows We get to know that God is the triune God through Gods relationship with this world God however does not become a triune God in His relation with this world God himself was and is atriune God even before He had any relationship with this world Hence we can say that God reveals Himself as a triune God in the course of the economy since He himselfwas and is a triune God In its ideal form the classhysic model for understanding the Trinity has the following process of thinking

First of all there is recognition of the economic Trinity That is we can recognize that God is the triune God in the process of examining Gods creashytion and redemption through Christ especially while examining the coming of Christ his self-disclosure the coming of the Holy Spirit to the New Testashyment church on Pentecost the works of the Holy Spirit in the church and the response of the church to the Holy Spirit (esp Acts 51-16) Jesus Christ and the One whom he calls his Father and the Holy Spirit who was sent by the Father and the Son (John 1426 1526 167) are one triune God In the procshyess of this recognition we can also see some aspects of their relationship That is God the Father and God the Son have a relationship of a father and a son and the Holy Spirit is the one who could be sent bythe Father and the Son All of these amount to a recognition of the economic Trinity

Second in the process of recognizing the economic Trinity we come across several statements that show the relationship between these three persons For example the term only begotten son (john 114) and the expression the only Son who is in the bosom of the Father (John 118) lead us to the conclusion that the Son is the one who has been begotten by the Father And the state-

S G Lee Journal ofReformed 7heology 3 (2009) 90-107

ments that the Holy Spirit will be sent by Jesus from the Father (john 1426 1526 167) and that the Holy Spirit proceeds- from the Father Oohn 1526) show that the Holy Spirit is the one who will be sent to us in the process of Gods economic relation with us

Finally with the help of this second stage ofour understanding of the Trinshyity we begin to understand that the Father is eternally begetting the Son and the Son is being eternally begotten by the Father whereas the Holy Spirit is proceedingfrom the Father (and the Son) by applying the economic relationship into eternity In order to substantiate this summary of the classic model let us look at the way in which two Reformed theologians understood the Trinity

John Calvin on the Trinity

John Calvin develops his arguments without clearly distinguishing between the economic and the ontological Trinity It seems to me that for him there is no need to distinguish between these two because the ontological Trinity is revealed in the economic Trinity This is a common phenomenon in the writshyings of most theologians who hold the classic model If we placed them in a modern debate concerning the relationship between the ontological and the economic Trinity however they would make it quite clear that the triune God reveals Himself as He is in the process ofcreation and redemption There are some hints of this in Calvins discussion of the Trinity Let us look at the way in which he speaks of the Trinity

Calvin begins his discussion of the Trinity by explaining that several words which do not appear in scripture-eg Trinity persons bomoousios etc-are useful for the interpretation of scripture so that they are especially useful for refuting the wrong thinking and distorted teachings about the Trinity One sentence which Calvin quotes from Augustine clearly shows what Calvins attishytude is on these terms On account of the poverty of human speech in so great a matter the word hypostasis has been forced upon us by necessity not

8 In his good study on Calvins trinitarian theology f W Burin also showed this point centering his emphasis on the economic Trinity Philip Walker Burin Revelation Redemption and Response Calvins Trinitarian Understanding of the Divine-Human Relationship (New York and Oxford Oxford University Press 1995) It seems to me however that it is pity that Burin did not clearly discuss the relationship between the ontological and the economic trinity in the thought of Calvin Butin showed a tendency to emphasize the economic trinity See also his Reformed Ecclesiology Trinitarian Grace According to Calvin Studies in Reformed 1heology and History III (winter 1994) 5-8 esp 6 Calvins articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity is predominantly economic

95 94 s G LeeJournal ofReformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

to express what it is but only not to be silent on how Father Son and Spirit are three The reason why we use the word hypostasis is not because this is the word that can be used to show exactly what God is like but that we cannot help not speaking of God as the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit That is these terms are used in our difficult effort to express the fact of revelation in our human language What Calvin wants to say in this part can best be sumshymarized with the following statements Say that in one essence of God there isa trinity of persons you will say in one word what Scriptures states and cut short empty talkativeness

Thus after defining the term person as a subsistence in Gods essence which while related to the others is distinguished by an incommunicable quality I I

Calvin proceeds to the discussion ofhomoousios of the Father and the Son and to the discussion of the differentiation of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit

In his discussion of the divinity of the Son Calvin first ofall talks about the divinity of the Logos asarkos and then goes on to the discussion of the Word endued with flesh The order of this discussion is very instructive for our purpose because this shows how Calvin thinks about the relation of God the Father and the Logos asarkos That is here we can see a hint of Calvins undershystanding of the ontological Trinity Referring to I Pet 110-11 Calvin says that because Christ had not yet been manifested it is necessary to understand the Word as begotten of the Father before time12 He then refers to the creashytion by the Word of God in Genesis 1 He understands this creation by the Word of God in the light of Heb 12-3 and says that here we see the Word understood as the order or mandate of the Son who is himself the eternal and essential Word of the Father3 For Calvin however the most important passhy

sages in relation with the divinity of the Son are John 11-3 for John at once attributes to the Word a solid and abiding essence and ascribes something uniquely His own

On the basis of these discussions Calvin concludes that unchangeable the Word abides everlastingly one and the same with God and is God hirnself

) John Calvin Institutesofthe ChristianReligion trans Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia The Westminster Press 1960) I xiiiS

III Calvin Institutes I xiiiS II Calvin Institutes I xiii 6 Il Calvin Institutes I xiii 7 13 Calvin Institutes I xiii 7 14 Calvin Institutes I xiii 7 15 Calvin Institutes I xiii 7

S G LeeJournal ofReformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

Then in relation with those who would readily accept the divinity of the Son but deny the eternality of the Son Calvin says that the Word conceived beyond the beginning of time by God has perpetually resided with him and he concludes that by this his eternity his true essence and his divinity are proved 16

Only after showing the eternal divinity of the Son this way does Calvin discuss the divinity of Christ in the OT17 and the Angel of]ehovah18 the

divinity of Christ in the NT on the basis of the witnesses of the Apostles of the works of Christ2o and of the miracles of Christ

In relation to the divinity of the Holy Spirit Calvins discussion is centered on the works of the Holy Spirit and the biblical expressions which identify the Holy Spirit with God22

We conclude therefore that Calvins discussion of the Trinity makes it clear that God has a triune relationship with the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit from eternity and that this triune relationship has been clearly revealed in the economic process For Calvin it is not even possible to think of the economic Trinity constituting the ontological Trinity This is clearly shown in his response to those who have doubts about the eternal Sonship of the Christ

Herman Bavinck on the Trinity

We see almost the same view of the Trinity in Herman Bavincks understandshying of the Trinity as we saw in Calvin23 Bavinck is however more helpful because he explicitly speaks of the relation of the ontological and the economic Trinity From this explicit explanation we can gather that ~ discusses the Trinity with what we called the classic model in mind Let us quote one passhysage from him

16 Calvin Institutes I xiii 8 17 Calvin Institutes I xiii 9 18 Calvin Institutes I xiii 10 19 Calvin Institutes I xiii 11 20 Calvin Institutes I xiii 12 21 Calvin Institutes I xiii 13 22 Calvin Institutes I xiii 14-15

23 John Bolt also made this point in his doctoral dissertation on Bavinck See John Bolt The Imitation ofChrist Theme in the Cultural-Ethical Idea ofHerman Bavinck (Ph D Dissertation University of St Michaels College Toronto School of Theology 1982) 74 n 274 In his explication of the trinitarian order Bavinck clearly reflects Calvins discussion of the Trinity in Institutes I xv See also p 127 in both the ontological and economic Trinity Bavinck fol1ows Calvin and Kuyper

96 97 S G LeeJournalofReorm(d Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

As in the ontological trinity the Father is first in order of subsistence the Son second and the Holy Spirit third so also in the history of revelation the Father preceded the Son and the Son preceded the Holy Spirit The Father comes without having been sent the Son is sent by the Father Man 1040 Mark 937 Luke 948 John 316 5233037 68ff and the Holy Spirit is sent by both Father and Son John 1426 167

But this procession in time is a reflection of the immanent relation existing between the three persons in the ontological trinity and is based upon generation and spirarlon The generation of the Son is the eternal arche-type of the incarnation of the Logos and the procession from the father and the Soh is the proto-type of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit Hence the church-fathers derived the knowledge concerning the eternal and immanent relations existing between the persons of the trinity from what was revealed concerning those relations in time In this they were correct

Here Bavinck says that the trinitarian structure expressed in the history of revelation that is the structure of the economic Trinity can be seen as a reflecshytion of the structure of the ontological Trinity He recognizes that the church fathers drew the ontological Trinity from the understanding of the economic Trinity and he himself also accepts this

In the classic model therefore as we have seen God has his trinitarian relationship from eternity and it is clear that the economic process within time does not affect God In this sense the following statement by Thielicke succinctly shows the intention of the classic understanding of the Trinity the orthodox doctrine of the essential Trinity maintains that the Trinity is immanent and original in God apart from his work and that the deity is eternally Father Son and Spirit in itself before ever creating anything entering into union with the individual or dwelling in the fellowship of believers

Let us turn to the second model in order to see a different understanding of the relationship between the ontological and the economic Trinity

TheModel of the NewTheologyof the Cross

By the new theology of the cross I mean the theologies which Jurgen Moltshymann and Eberhard jiingel developed within the last thirty years or so They wanted to renew theology by centering upon the cross of Jesus and they

l4 Herman Bavinck The Doctrine of God trans William Hendriksen (Grand Rapids Eerdrnans 1951) 320

2j Thielicke The ElJang(Iicai Faith 176

S G Lu Journalofampform(d Th(ology 3 (2009) 90-107

thought that their approach would renew and reshape Luthers theologia crucis for the 20th century It seems to me however that it is difficult to identify their approach with Luthers theology of the cross Hence the term the new theology of the cross Howdid Moltmann and Jungel understand the relation of the economic and the ontological Trinity In this section I will concentrate only on Moltmanns view

Basic Statement

Proposition 2 The economic Trinity is the ontological Trinity and vice versa

This proposition which was first used by Karl Rahner and then by Barth Moltmann and ]Ungel in their own ways can be interpreted in various ways In other words the meaning of this proposition is somewhat ambiguous These theologians sometimes present this proposition in the way in which we understand the classic model When we read Moltmann stating the following material we almost come to the conclusion that he is simply repeating the classic viewpoint

If the immanent Trinity is the counterpart of praise then knowledge of the economic Trinity (as the embodiment of the history and experience ofsalvation) preeedes knowlshyedge of the immanent Trinity In the order of being it succeeds it26

There is only one single divine Trinity and one single divine history ofsalvation The triune God can only appear in history as he is in himself and in no other way He is in himselfas he appears in salvation history for it is he himself who is manifested and he is just what he is manifested as beingY

Statements about the immanent Trinity must not contradict statements about the economic Trinity Statements about the economic Trinity must correspond to doxoshylogical statements about the immanent Trinity28

In spite of the impression which these quotations leave after closer examinashytion we conclude that Moltmann does not have a classic understanding of the Trinity Indeed at one point Moltmann clearly says that in order to grasp the death of the Son in its significance for God himself I found myself bound to

26 Molrrnann Ihlaquo Trinity and th( Kingdom 152 27 Molrrnann Thlaquo Trinityand th( Kingdom 153 28 Molrrnann Ihlaquo Trinityand th( Kingdom 154

99 98 S G Lee IJournal ofRiformrd 7h~ology 3 (2009) 90-107

surrender the traditional distinction between the immanent and the ontological Trinity29 Moreover in a 1973 article he states

If the doctrine of the Trinity could be developed from the event of the cross then not only the distinction between God in himself (Gott an sich) and the God for us (Gott flir tins) but also the distinction between the immanent and the economical Trinity are abolish~d Jlt1

When we closely examine Molrmanns book therefore we conclude that Molshytrnann by using the proposition that the economic Trinity is the ontological Trinity and viceversa expresses the idea that the economic Trinity is itself the ontological Trinity and that the economic Trinity is the center ofGods revelashytion in the process of history and that the ontological Trinity is merely the metaphysical summary of the economic Trinitys doxological meaning To state it bluntly according to this new theology of the cross it is not the case that there is an inner relationship between three divine persons from eternity which is revealed in the process of time Rather from our understanding of the ecoshynomic self-revelation ofGod we logically draw out Gods trinitarian structure There may be an ontological Trinity at the end of the day we can proleptically refer to this Trinity in our doxology Let me substantiate these points by examshyining Moltrnanns writings

Moltmanns Understanding In his book The Crucified God from 1972 Moltmann tries to understand the Trinity in relation to the cross He says The material principle of the doc shytrine of the Trinity is the cross ofChrist The formal principle ofknowledge of the cross is the doctrine of the Trinity32 He even says that a trinitarian theolshyogy of the cross develops from this history [of the cross] what is to be understood by God33So he demands a revolution in the concept ofGod34 In the same spirit Moltmann says

Moltmann The Trinityand thlaquoKingdom 160 emphasis is given 30 Molrmann Gesichrspunkre der Kreuzesrheologle heme Evang~lisch~ 7h~gid3 (1973)

362f cited in Horst G Poehlrnann Abriss derDogmatik (1975) translated into Korean by Shin shyGun LeeDogmatics (Seoul Korean Institute ofTheology 1990) 157 emphasis is given

3 Molrrnann The Crucified God trans R A Wilson and John Bowden (London SCM Press 1974)

i 31 Molrmann IheCrucifi~d God 241 i 33 Molrmann the Trinity and thlaquoKingdom 247 34 Moltmann The Trinity and theKingdom 152

S G Lee IJournalofampform~d 7h~ology3 (2009) 90-107

In the cross Father and Son are most deeply separated in forsakenness and at the same time are most inwardly one in their surrender What proceeds from this event between Father and Son is the Spirit which justifies the godless fills the forsaken with love and even brings the dead allveisince the fact that they are dead cannot exclude them from this event of the cross the death in God also includes them35

For Moltmann the event of the cross is not only an event of the economic Trinity but also an event within the Trinity Or rather ifwe put it in the words of Richard Bauckhams interpretation of Molrmann the event of the cross is the Trinity36 Accordingly Moltrnann says that the history of Christ is the inner life of God himself and that the Trinity is an event of love in the sufshyfering and death ofJesuS 37 He even says that we should not think as though the Trinity were already present in itself in the divine nature38 That is to say we should not think that first there was the ontological Trinity and then the economic Trinity was revealed Rather Moltrnann thinks that the ontological Trinityis constituted in the eventofthe cross Richard Bauckham also interprets Moltrnann in this way So Bauckham says that at this stage (from The Theology ofHope to The Crucified God) Moltrnann thinks of God becoming Trinity in the history of Jesus 39 And he adds that Moltrnann very much wished to understand the trinitarian relationship of Father and Son as a relationship which happens in the history of Jesus and especially in -the cross and will not allow this happening to be a mere reflection of supra-temporal truth40 Indeed Mohmann himself thinks that his understanding of the Trinity overshycomes the dichotomy between immanent and economic Trinity and between the nature of God and his inner tri-uniry Let us quote one more passage form The Crucified God

The Trinity therefore also means the hisrory ofGod which in human terms is the hisshytory of love and liberation The Trinity understood as an event for history therefore presses towards eschatological consummation so that the Trinity may beall in allor put more simply so that Jove may be all in all so that life may triumph over death

35 Moltmann Iblaquo Trinity and th~ Kingdom 244 36 Richard Bauekham )Urgen Moltrnann in OnlaquoGodin Trinity An Analysis oth~ Primary

Dogma oChristianity eds PeterToon and James D Spiceland (Westchester Cornerstone Books 1980) 120

37 Moltmann the Trinity and theKingdom 249 38 Moltmann 7h~ Trinity and theKingdom 245 3 Bauckharn Jiirgen Moltrnann 116 Bauckharns own emphasis 40 Bauckharn Jiirgen Moltrnann 116pound his own emphasis Moltrnann Ihlaquo Trinity and thlaquoKingdom 245

91

IJ O U R N A L 1H

u REFORMeD laquo THEOLOGY

BRILL JournalofReformedTheology 3 (2009) 90-107 wwwbrillnljrr

The Relationship between the Ontological Trinity and the Economic Trinity

Seung Goo Lee Professor of Systematic Theology

Hapdong Theological Seminary South-Korea e-mail wminbgihorrnailcom

Abstract This article focuses on one of the main issuesin the contemporary trinitarian renaissance viz the relationship between the immanent (or ontological) and the economic Trinity It takes its start ing-point in what is labeled the classicmodel as shared by both the Eastern and the Western church The basic idea here is that the economic Trinity is the epistemological ground of the immanent Trinity whereas the immanent Trinity is the ontological ground of the economic Trinity It is shown that this model is endorsed by two influential Reformed theologians viz John Calvin and Herman Bavinck Next the model of the new theology of the cross is introduced as represented by Eberhard Jungel and [Iirgen Moltmann Especially Molrrnanns innovative proposals are critically discussed Characteristic of this second model is that the distinction between the ontological and economic Trinity is blurred Third it is argued that Dutch Reformed theologian Hendrikus Berkhof offered an even more radical model which leaves us with only the economic Trinity Although both of these contemporary models have their attractions it is concluded that we have every reason to stick to the classic model

Keywords the ontological Trinity the economic Trinity John Calvin Herman Bavinck Jurgen Moltmann Eberhard Jungel Hendrikus Berkhof

In this contribution I want to examine the relationship between the ontoshylogical and the economic Trinity The economic Trinity is the Trinity revealed in the economy (oikonomia) of God Hence the term the economic Trinity or the Trinity of revelation has been used As Eberhard Jiingel said the

For an explanation of this term see Otto Weber Foundation ofDogmatics vol I trans Darrell L Guder (Grand Rapids Eerdrnans 1981) 388 Helmut Thlelicke The Evangelical Faith vol 2 The Doctrine of Godand ofChrist trans and ed Geoffrey W Bromiley (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1991) 179 Paul Jewett God Creation and Revelation (Grand Rapids

copy KoninklijkeBrillNYLelden2009 001 1O11631156973109X403741

S G Lee Journalofampformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

doctrine of economic Trinity understands the being of God in relation with man and his world In contrast to this economic Trinity the ontological Trinity refers to the Trinity-in-God-himself That is the ontological Trinity is to understand God hirnselfwirhour regard to Gods relationship with man3 and to understand the Trinity as describing the immanent ontic structure of the being of God4 Hence the terms the ontological Trinity the eternal Trinity the essent ial Trinity or the immanent Trinity

According to Wolfhart Pannenberg the distinction between the economic and ontological Trinity can be traced to eighteenth century theologian Johann Augustus Urlsperger (1728-1806)5 As far as the terminology is concerned Pannenberg may be right The concept itself however is already found in the writings of the earlier theologians While in earlier days theologians treated the ontological and the economic Trinity without a clear conscious distinction concrete usage of these terms appeared with the rise of the tendency to disreshygard the ontological aspect of the Trinity Hence Jiirgen Moltmann is more correct when he said that it is common to distinguish the ontological and the economic Trinity after Tertullians rejection of modalism and that especially the Cappadocian Fathers clearly distinguished these two G C Berkouwer also made it clear that the church used the distinction between the ontological and the economic Trinity in her efforts to fight against rnodalisrn

In this contribution I would like to contrast three models oflooking at the relation between the ontological and the economic Trinity and to consider which model might be more biblical and realistic

Eerdmans 1991)305 Weberand Jewett use also the terms like revelationalTrinity and functional Trinity

2 Eberhard Jungel Godas the Mystery ofthe World trans Darrell L Guder (Grand Rapids Eerdrnans 1983) 346

S jiingel GodastheMystery oftheWorld 346 bull Thielicke The Evangelical Faith vol 2 76 S Wolfhan PannenbergSyseemanschlaquo Theologie Band I (GortlngenVandenhoeckand Ruprecht

1988) 317 n 122=ET Systematic Theology trans Geoffrey W Bromiley (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1991)291 n Il l See also Weber FoundationofDogmatics vol 1 388 n 124

6 Jurgen Mohrnann Trinitiit und Reich Gottes (Munchen Christian Kaiser Verlag 1980)= ET The Trinity and the Kingdom The Doctrine ofGod trans Margaret Kohl (London SCM Press 1981) 151 idem Der gekreuzigte Gott (Miinchen Christian Kaiser Verlag 1972)= ET The Crucified God trans R A Wilson and John Bowden (London SCM Press 1974) 235

7 G C BerkouwerA HafCmtury ofTheology trans and ed LewisBSmedes (Grand Rapids Eerdrnans 1977)259

I

92 93 s G Lee Journal of Reformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

The Classic Model

By the classic model I mean the historic understanding of the Trinity In the discussion of the classic model I will not give much attention to different understandings of the Trinity between the Eastern Church and the Western Church but concentrate on their common element I will first state the basic proposition in which the Trinity is understood

Basic Statement

Proposition 1 The economic Trinity is the ground of cognition for the ontoshylogical Trinity and the ontological Trinity is the ground of being for the ecoshynomic Trinity

According to the classic understanding of the Trinity the relation between the ontological and the economic Trinity is as follows We get to know that God is the triune God through Gods relationship with this world God however does not become a triune God in His relation with this world God himself was and is atriune God even before He had any relationship with this world Hence we can say that God reveals Himself as a triune God in the course of the economy since He himselfwas and is a triune God In its ideal form the classhysic model for understanding the Trinity has the following process of thinking

First of all there is recognition of the economic Trinity That is we can recognize that God is the triune God in the process of examining Gods creashytion and redemption through Christ especially while examining the coming of Christ his self-disclosure the coming of the Holy Spirit to the New Testashyment church on Pentecost the works of the Holy Spirit in the church and the response of the church to the Holy Spirit (esp Acts 51-16) Jesus Christ and the One whom he calls his Father and the Holy Spirit who was sent by the Father and the Son (John 1426 1526 167) are one triune God In the procshyess of this recognition we can also see some aspects of their relationship That is God the Father and God the Son have a relationship of a father and a son and the Holy Spirit is the one who could be sent bythe Father and the Son All of these amount to a recognition of the economic Trinity

Second in the process of recognizing the economic Trinity we come across several statements that show the relationship between these three persons For example the term only begotten son (john 114) and the expression the only Son who is in the bosom of the Father (John 118) lead us to the conclusion that the Son is the one who has been begotten by the Father And the state-

S G Lee Journal ofReformed 7heology 3 (2009) 90-107

ments that the Holy Spirit will be sent by Jesus from the Father (john 1426 1526 167) and that the Holy Spirit proceeds- from the Father Oohn 1526) show that the Holy Spirit is the one who will be sent to us in the process of Gods economic relation with us

Finally with the help of this second stage ofour understanding of the Trinshyity we begin to understand that the Father is eternally begetting the Son and the Son is being eternally begotten by the Father whereas the Holy Spirit is proceedingfrom the Father (and the Son) by applying the economic relationship into eternity In order to substantiate this summary of the classic model let us look at the way in which two Reformed theologians understood the Trinity

John Calvin on the Trinity

John Calvin develops his arguments without clearly distinguishing between the economic and the ontological Trinity It seems to me that for him there is no need to distinguish between these two because the ontological Trinity is revealed in the economic Trinity This is a common phenomenon in the writshyings of most theologians who hold the classic model If we placed them in a modern debate concerning the relationship between the ontological and the economic Trinity however they would make it quite clear that the triune God reveals Himself as He is in the process ofcreation and redemption There are some hints of this in Calvins discussion of the Trinity Let us look at the way in which he speaks of the Trinity

Calvin begins his discussion of the Trinity by explaining that several words which do not appear in scripture-eg Trinity persons bomoousios etc-are useful for the interpretation of scripture so that they are especially useful for refuting the wrong thinking and distorted teachings about the Trinity One sentence which Calvin quotes from Augustine clearly shows what Calvins attishytude is on these terms On account of the poverty of human speech in so great a matter the word hypostasis has been forced upon us by necessity not

8 In his good study on Calvins trinitarian theology f W Burin also showed this point centering his emphasis on the economic Trinity Philip Walker Burin Revelation Redemption and Response Calvins Trinitarian Understanding of the Divine-Human Relationship (New York and Oxford Oxford University Press 1995) It seems to me however that it is pity that Burin did not clearly discuss the relationship between the ontological and the economic trinity in the thought of Calvin Butin showed a tendency to emphasize the economic trinity See also his Reformed Ecclesiology Trinitarian Grace According to Calvin Studies in Reformed 1heology and History III (winter 1994) 5-8 esp 6 Calvins articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity is predominantly economic

95 94 s G LeeJournal ofReformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

to express what it is but only not to be silent on how Father Son and Spirit are three The reason why we use the word hypostasis is not because this is the word that can be used to show exactly what God is like but that we cannot help not speaking of God as the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit That is these terms are used in our difficult effort to express the fact of revelation in our human language What Calvin wants to say in this part can best be sumshymarized with the following statements Say that in one essence of God there isa trinity of persons you will say in one word what Scriptures states and cut short empty talkativeness

Thus after defining the term person as a subsistence in Gods essence which while related to the others is distinguished by an incommunicable quality I I

Calvin proceeds to the discussion ofhomoousios of the Father and the Son and to the discussion of the differentiation of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit

In his discussion of the divinity of the Son Calvin first ofall talks about the divinity of the Logos asarkos and then goes on to the discussion of the Word endued with flesh The order of this discussion is very instructive for our purpose because this shows how Calvin thinks about the relation of God the Father and the Logos asarkos That is here we can see a hint of Calvins undershystanding of the ontological Trinity Referring to I Pet 110-11 Calvin says that because Christ had not yet been manifested it is necessary to understand the Word as begotten of the Father before time12 He then refers to the creashytion by the Word of God in Genesis 1 He understands this creation by the Word of God in the light of Heb 12-3 and says that here we see the Word understood as the order or mandate of the Son who is himself the eternal and essential Word of the Father3 For Calvin however the most important passhy

sages in relation with the divinity of the Son are John 11-3 for John at once attributes to the Word a solid and abiding essence and ascribes something uniquely His own

On the basis of these discussions Calvin concludes that unchangeable the Word abides everlastingly one and the same with God and is God hirnself

) John Calvin Institutesofthe ChristianReligion trans Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia The Westminster Press 1960) I xiiiS

III Calvin Institutes I xiiiS II Calvin Institutes I xiii 6 Il Calvin Institutes I xiii 7 13 Calvin Institutes I xiii 7 14 Calvin Institutes I xiii 7 15 Calvin Institutes I xiii 7

S G LeeJournal ofReformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

Then in relation with those who would readily accept the divinity of the Son but deny the eternality of the Son Calvin says that the Word conceived beyond the beginning of time by God has perpetually resided with him and he concludes that by this his eternity his true essence and his divinity are proved 16

Only after showing the eternal divinity of the Son this way does Calvin discuss the divinity of Christ in the OT17 and the Angel of]ehovah18 the

divinity of Christ in the NT on the basis of the witnesses of the Apostles of the works of Christ2o and of the miracles of Christ

In relation to the divinity of the Holy Spirit Calvins discussion is centered on the works of the Holy Spirit and the biblical expressions which identify the Holy Spirit with God22

We conclude therefore that Calvins discussion of the Trinity makes it clear that God has a triune relationship with the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit from eternity and that this triune relationship has been clearly revealed in the economic process For Calvin it is not even possible to think of the economic Trinity constituting the ontological Trinity This is clearly shown in his response to those who have doubts about the eternal Sonship of the Christ

Herman Bavinck on the Trinity

We see almost the same view of the Trinity in Herman Bavincks understandshying of the Trinity as we saw in Calvin23 Bavinck is however more helpful because he explicitly speaks of the relation of the ontological and the economic Trinity From this explicit explanation we can gather that ~ discusses the Trinity with what we called the classic model in mind Let us quote one passhysage from him

16 Calvin Institutes I xiii 8 17 Calvin Institutes I xiii 9 18 Calvin Institutes I xiii 10 19 Calvin Institutes I xiii 11 20 Calvin Institutes I xiii 12 21 Calvin Institutes I xiii 13 22 Calvin Institutes I xiii 14-15

23 John Bolt also made this point in his doctoral dissertation on Bavinck See John Bolt The Imitation ofChrist Theme in the Cultural-Ethical Idea ofHerman Bavinck (Ph D Dissertation University of St Michaels College Toronto School of Theology 1982) 74 n 274 In his explication of the trinitarian order Bavinck clearly reflects Calvins discussion of the Trinity in Institutes I xv See also p 127 in both the ontological and economic Trinity Bavinck fol1ows Calvin and Kuyper

96 97 S G LeeJournalofReorm(d Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

As in the ontological trinity the Father is first in order of subsistence the Son second and the Holy Spirit third so also in the history of revelation the Father preceded the Son and the Son preceded the Holy Spirit The Father comes without having been sent the Son is sent by the Father Man 1040 Mark 937 Luke 948 John 316 5233037 68ff and the Holy Spirit is sent by both Father and Son John 1426 167

But this procession in time is a reflection of the immanent relation existing between the three persons in the ontological trinity and is based upon generation and spirarlon The generation of the Son is the eternal arche-type of the incarnation of the Logos and the procession from the father and the Soh is the proto-type of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit Hence the church-fathers derived the knowledge concerning the eternal and immanent relations existing between the persons of the trinity from what was revealed concerning those relations in time In this they were correct

Here Bavinck says that the trinitarian structure expressed in the history of revelation that is the structure of the economic Trinity can be seen as a reflecshytion of the structure of the ontological Trinity He recognizes that the church fathers drew the ontological Trinity from the understanding of the economic Trinity and he himself also accepts this

In the classic model therefore as we have seen God has his trinitarian relationship from eternity and it is clear that the economic process within time does not affect God In this sense the following statement by Thielicke succinctly shows the intention of the classic understanding of the Trinity the orthodox doctrine of the essential Trinity maintains that the Trinity is immanent and original in God apart from his work and that the deity is eternally Father Son and Spirit in itself before ever creating anything entering into union with the individual or dwelling in the fellowship of believers

Let us turn to the second model in order to see a different understanding of the relationship between the ontological and the economic Trinity

TheModel of the NewTheologyof the Cross

By the new theology of the cross I mean the theologies which Jurgen Moltshymann and Eberhard jiingel developed within the last thirty years or so They wanted to renew theology by centering upon the cross of Jesus and they

l4 Herman Bavinck The Doctrine of God trans William Hendriksen (Grand Rapids Eerdrnans 1951) 320

2j Thielicke The ElJang(Iicai Faith 176

S G Lu Journalofampform(d Th(ology 3 (2009) 90-107

thought that their approach would renew and reshape Luthers theologia crucis for the 20th century It seems to me however that it is difficult to identify their approach with Luthers theology of the cross Hence the term the new theology of the cross Howdid Moltmann and Jungel understand the relation of the economic and the ontological Trinity In this section I will concentrate only on Moltmanns view

Basic Statement

Proposition 2 The economic Trinity is the ontological Trinity and vice versa

This proposition which was first used by Karl Rahner and then by Barth Moltmann and ]Ungel in their own ways can be interpreted in various ways In other words the meaning of this proposition is somewhat ambiguous These theologians sometimes present this proposition in the way in which we understand the classic model When we read Moltmann stating the following material we almost come to the conclusion that he is simply repeating the classic viewpoint

If the immanent Trinity is the counterpart of praise then knowledge of the economic Trinity (as the embodiment of the history and experience ofsalvation) preeedes knowlshyedge of the immanent Trinity In the order of being it succeeds it26

There is only one single divine Trinity and one single divine history ofsalvation The triune God can only appear in history as he is in himself and in no other way He is in himselfas he appears in salvation history for it is he himself who is manifested and he is just what he is manifested as beingY

Statements about the immanent Trinity must not contradict statements about the economic Trinity Statements about the economic Trinity must correspond to doxoshylogical statements about the immanent Trinity28

In spite of the impression which these quotations leave after closer examinashytion we conclude that Moltmann does not have a classic understanding of the Trinity Indeed at one point Moltmann clearly says that in order to grasp the death of the Son in its significance for God himself I found myself bound to

26 Molrrnann Ihlaquo Trinity and th( Kingdom 152 27 Molrrnann Thlaquo Trinityand th( Kingdom 153 28 Molrrnann Ihlaquo Trinityand th( Kingdom 154

99 98 S G Lee IJournal ofRiformrd 7h~ology 3 (2009) 90-107

surrender the traditional distinction between the immanent and the ontological Trinity29 Moreover in a 1973 article he states

If the doctrine of the Trinity could be developed from the event of the cross then not only the distinction between God in himself (Gott an sich) and the God for us (Gott flir tins) but also the distinction between the immanent and the economical Trinity are abolish~d Jlt1

When we closely examine Molrmanns book therefore we conclude that Molshytrnann by using the proposition that the economic Trinity is the ontological Trinity and viceversa expresses the idea that the economic Trinity is itself the ontological Trinity and that the economic Trinity is the center ofGods revelashytion in the process of history and that the ontological Trinity is merely the metaphysical summary of the economic Trinitys doxological meaning To state it bluntly according to this new theology of the cross it is not the case that there is an inner relationship between three divine persons from eternity which is revealed in the process of time Rather from our understanding of the ecoshynomic self-revelation ofGod we logically draw out Gods trinitarian structure There may be an ontological Trinity at the end of the day we can proleptically refer to this Trinity in our doxology Let me substantiate these points by examshyining Moltrnanns writings

Moltmanns Understanding In his book The Crucified God from 1972 Moltmann tries to understand the Trinity in relation to the cross He says The material principle of the doc shytrine of the Trinity is the cross ofChrist The formal principle ofknowledge of the cross is the doctrine of the Trinity32 He even says that a trinitarian theolshyogy of the cross develops from this history [of the cross] what is to be understood by God33So he demands a revolution in the concept ofGod34 In the same spirit Moltmann says

Moltmann The Trinityand thlaquoKingdom 160 emphasis is given 30 Molrmann Gesichrspunkre der Kreuzesrheologle heme Evang~lisch~ 7h~gid3 (1973)

362f cited in Horst G Poehlrnann Abriss derDogmatik (1975) translated into Korean by Shin shyGun LeeDogmatics (Seoul Korean Institute ofTheology 1990) 157 emphasis is given

3 Molrrnann The Crucified God trans R A Wilson and John Bowden (London SCM Press 1974)

i 31 Molrmann IheCrucifi~d God 241 i 33 Molrmann the Trinity and thlaquoKingdom 247 34 Moltmann The Trinity and theKingdom 152

S G Lee IJournalofampform~d 7h~ology3 (2009) 90-107

In the cross Father and Son are most deeply separated in forsakenness and at the same time are most inwardly one in their surrender What proceeds from this event between Father and Son is the Spirit which justifies the godless fills the forsaken with love and even brings the dead allveisince the fact that they are dead cannot exclude them from this event of the cross the death in God also includes them35

For Moltmann the event of the cross is not only an event of the economic Trinity but also an event within the Trinity Or rather ifwe put it in the words of Richard Bauckhams interpretation of Molrmann the event of the cross is the Trinity36 Accordingly Moltrnann says that the history of Christ is the inner life of God himself and that the Trinity is an event of love in the sufshyfering and death ofJesuS 37 He even says that we should not think as though the Trinity were already present in itself in the divine nature38 That is to say we should not think that first there was the ontological Trinity and then the economic Trinity was revealed Rather Moltrnann thinks that the ontological Trinityis constituted in the eventofthe cross Richard Bauckham also interprets Moltrnann in this way So Bauckham says that at this stage (from The Theology ofHope to The Crucified God) Moltrnann thinks of God becoming Trinity in the history of Jesus 39 And he adds that Moltrnann very much wished to understand the trinitarian relationship of Father and Son as a relationship which happens in the history of Jesus and especially in -the cross and will not allow this happening to be a mere reflection of supra-temporal truth40 Indeed Mohmann himself thinks that his understanding of the Trinity overshycomes the dichotomy between immanent and economic Trinity and between the nature of God and his inner tri-uniry Let us quote one more passage form The Crucified God

The Trinity therefore also means the hisrory ofGod which in human terms is the hisshytory of love and liberation The Trinity understood as an event for history therefore presses towards eschatological consummation so that the Trinity may beall in allor put more simply so that Jove may be all in all so that life may triumph over death

35 Moltmann Iblaquo Trinity and th~ Kingdom 244 36 Richard Bauekham )Urgen Moltrnann in OnlaquoGodin Trinity An Analysis oth~ Primary

Dogma oChristianity eds PeterToon and James D Spiceland (Westchester Cornerstone Books 1980) 120

37 Moltmann the Trinity and theKingdom 249 38 Moltmann 7h~ Trinity and theKingdom 245 3 Bauckharn Jiirgen Moltrnann 116 Bauckharns own emphasis 40 Bauckharn Jiirgen Moltrnann 116pound his own emphasis Moltrnann Ihlaquo Trinity and thlaquoKingdom 245

92 93 s G Lee Journal of Reformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

The Classic Model

By the classic model I mean the historic understanding of the Trinity In the discussion of the classic model I will not give much attention to different understandings of the Trinity between the Eastern Church and the Western Church but concentrate on their common element I will first state the basic proposition in which the Trinity is understood

Basic Statement

Proposition 1 The economic Trinity is the ground of cognition for the ontoshylogical Trinity and the ontological Trinity is the ground of being for the ecoshynomic Trinity

According to the classic understanding of the Trinity the relation between the ontological and the economic Trinity is as follows We get to know that God is the triune God through Gods relationship with this world God however does not become a triune God in His relation with this world God himself was and is atriune God even before He had any relationship with this world Hence we can say that God reveals Himself as a triune God in the course of the economy since He himselfwas and is a triune God In its ideal form the classhysic model for understanding the Trinity has the following process of thinking

First of all there is recognition of the economic Trinity That is we can recognize that God is the triune God in the process of examining Gods creashytion and redemption through Christ especially while examining the coming of Christ his self-disclosure the coming of the Holy Spirit to the New Testashyment church on Pentecost the works of the Holy Spirit in the church and the response of the church to the Holy Spirit (esp Acts 51-16) Jesus Christ and the One whom he calls his Father and the Holy Spirit who was sent by the Father and the Son (John 1426 1526 167) are one triune God In the procshyess of this recognition we can also see some aspects of their relationship That is God the Father and God the Son have a relationship of a father and a son and the Holy Spirit is the one who could be sent bythe Father and the Son All of these amount to a recognition of the economic Trinity

Second in the process of recognizing the economic Trinity we come across several statements that show the relationship between these three persons For example the term only begotten son (john 114) and the expression the only Son who is in the bosom of the Father (John 118) lead us to the conclusion that the Son is the one who has been begotten by the Father And the state-

S G Lee Journal ofReformed 7heology 3 (2009) 90-107

ments that the Holy Spirit will be sent by Jesus from the Father (john 1426 1526 167) and that the Holy Spirit proceeds- from the Father Oohn 1526) show that the Holy Spirit is the one who will be sent to us in the process of Gods economic relation with us

Finally with the help of this second stage ofour understanding of the Trinshyity we begin to understand that the Father is eternally begetting the Son and the Son is being eternally begotten by the Father whereas the Holy Spirit is proceedingfrom the Father (and the Son) by applying the economic relationship into eternity In order to substantiate this summary of the classic model let us look at the way in which two Reformed theologians understood the Trinity

John Calvin on the Trinity

John Calvin develops his arguments without clearly distinguishing between the economic and the ontological Trinity It seems to me that for him there is no need to distinguish between these two because the ontological Trinity is revealed in the economic Trinity This is a common phenomenon in the writshyings of most theologians who hold the classic model If we placed them in a modern debate concerning the relationship between the ontological and the economic Trinity however they would make it quite clear that the triune God reveals Himself as He is in the process ofcreation and redemption There are some hints of this in Calvins discussion of the Trinity Let us look at the way in which he speaks of the Trinity

Calvin begins his discussion of the Trinity by explaining that several words which do not appear in scripture-eg Trinity persons bomoousios etc-are useful for the interpretation of scripture so that they are especially useful for refuting the wrong thinking and distorted teachings about the Trinity One sentence which Calvin quotes from Augustine clearly shows what Calvins attishytude is on these terms On account of the poverty of human speech in so great a matter the word hypostasis has been forced upon us by necessity not

8 In his good study on Calvins trinitarian theology f W Burin also showed this point centering his emphasis on the economic Trinity Philip Walker Burin Revelation Redemption and Response Calvins Trinitarian Understanding of the Divine-Human Relationship (New York and Oxford Oxford University Press 1995) It seems to me however that it is pity that Burin did not clearly discuss the relationship between the ontological and the economic trinity in the thought of Calvin Butin showed a tendency to emphasize the economic trinity See also his Reformed Ecclesiology Trinitarian Grace According to Calvin Studies in Reformed 1heology and History III (winter 1994) 5-8 esp 6 Calvins articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity is predominantly economic

95 94 s G LeeJournal ofReformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

to express what it is but only not to be silent on how Father Son and Spirit are three The reason why we use the word hypostasis is not because this is the word that can be used to show exactly what God is like but that we cannot help not speaking of God as the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit That is these terms are used in our difficult effort to express the fact of revelation in our human language What Calvin wants to say in this part can best be sumshymarized with the following statements Say that in one essence of God there isa trinity of persons you will say in one word what Scriptures states and cut short empty talkativeness

Thus after defining the term person as a subsistence in Gods essence which while related to the others is distinguished by an incommunicable quality I I

Calvin proceeds to the discussion ofhomoousios of the Father and the Son and to the discussion of the differentiation of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit

In his discussion of the divinity of the Son Calvin first ofall talks about the divinity of the Logos asarkos and then goes on to the discussion of the Word endued with flesh The order of this discussion is very instructive for our purpose because this shows how Calvin thinks about the relation of God the Father and the Logos asarkos That is here we can see a hint of Calvins undershystanding of the ontological Trinity Referring to I Pet 110-11 Calvin says that because Christ had not yet been manifested it is necessary to understand the Word as begotten of the Father before time12 He then refers to the creashytion by the Word of God in Genesis 1 He understands this creation by the Word of God in the light of Heb 12-3 and says that here we see the Word understood as the order or mandate of the Son who is himself the eternal and essential Word of the Father3 For Calvin however the most important passhy

sages in relation with the divinity of the Son are John 11-3 for John at once attributes to the Word a solid and abiding essence and ascribes something uniquely His own

On the basis of these discussions Calvin concludes that unchangeable the Word abides everlastingly one and the same with God and is God hirnself

) John Calvin Institutesofthe ChristianReligion trans Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia The Westminster Press 1960) I xiiiS

III Calvin Institutes I xiiiS II Calvin Institutes I xiii 6 Il Calvin Institutes I xiii 7 13 Calvin Institutes I xiii 7 14 Calvin Institutes I xiii 7 15 Calvin Institutes I xiii 7

S G LeeJournal ofReformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

Then in relation with those who would readily accept the divinity of the Son but deny the eternality of the Son Calvin says that the Word conceived beyond the beginning of time by God has perpetually resided with him and he concludes that by this his eternity his true essence and his divinity are proved 16

Only after showing the eternal divinity of the Son this way does Calvin discuss the divinity of Christ in the OT17 and the Angel of]ehovah18 the

divinity of Christ in the NT on the basis of the witnesses of the Apostles of the works of Christ2o and of the miracles of Christ

In relation to the divinity of the Holy Spirit Calvins discussion is centered on the works of the Holy Spirit and the biblical expressions which identify the Holy Spirit with God22

We conclude therefore that Calvins discussion of the Trinity makes it clear that God has a triune relationship with the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit from eternity and that this triune relationship has been clearly revealed in the economic process For Calvin it is not even possible to think of the economic Trinity constituting the ontological Trinity This is clearly shown in his response to those who have doubts about the eternal Sonship of the Christ

Herman Bavinck on the Trinity

We see almost the same view of the Trinity in Herman Bavincks understandshying of the Trinity as we saw in Calvin23 Bavinck is however more helpful because he explicitly speaks of the relation of the ontological and the economic Trinity From this explicit explanation we can gather that ~ discusses the Trinity with what we called the classic model in mind Let us quote one passhysage from him

16 Calvin Institutes I xiii 8 17 Calvin Institutes I xiii 9 18 Calvin Institutes I xiii 10 19 Calvin Institutes I xiii 11 20 Calvin Institutes I xiii 12 21 Calvin Institutes I xiii 13 22 Calvin Institutes I xiii 14-15

23 John Bolt also made this point in his doctoral dissertation on Bavinck See John Bolt The Imitation ofChrist Theme in the Cultural-Ethical Idea ofHerman Bavinck (Ph D Dissertation University of St Michaels College Toronto School of Theology 1982) 74 n 274 In his explication of the trinitarian order Bavinck clearly reflects Calvins discussion of the Trinity in Institutes I xv See also p 127 in both the ontological and economic Trinity Bavinck fol1ows Calvin and Kuyper

96 97 S G LeeJournalofReorm(d Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

As in the ontological trinity the Father is first in order of subsistence the Son second and the Holy Spirit third so also in the history of revelation the Father preceded the Son and the Son preceded the Holy Spirit The Father comes without having been sent the Son is sent by the Father Man 1040 Mark 937 Luke 948 John 316 5233037 68ff and the Holy Spirit is sent by both Father and Son John 1426 167

But this procession in time is a reflection of the immanent relation existing between the three persons in the ontological trinity and is based upon generation and spirarlon The generation of the Son is the eternal arche-type of the incarnation of the Logos and the procession from the father and the Soh is the proto-type of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit Hence the church-fathers derived the knowledge concerning the eternal and immanent relations existing between the persons of the trinity from what was revealed concerning those relations in time In this they were correct

Here Bavinck says that the trinitarian structure expressed in the history of revelation that is the structure of the economic Trinity can be seen as a reflecshytion of the structure of the ontological Trinity He recognizes that the church fathers drew the ontological Trinity from the understanding of the economic Trinity and he himself also accepts this

In the classic model therefore as we have seen God has his trinitarian relationship from eternity and it is clear that the economic process within time does not affect God In this sense the following statement by Thielicke succinctly shows the intention of the classic understanding of the Trinity the orthodox doctrine of the essential Trinity maintains that the Trinity is immanent and original in God apart from his work and that the deity is eternally Father Son and Spirit in itself before ever creating anything entering into union with the individual or dwelling in the fellowship of believers

Let us turn to the second model in order to see a different understanding of the relationship between the ontological and the economic Trinity

TheModel of the NewTheologyof the Cross

By the new theology of the cross I mean the theologies which Jurgen Moltshymann and Eberhard jiingel developed within the last thirty years or so They wanted to renew theology by centering upon the cross of Jesus and they

l4 Herman Bavinck The Doctrine of God trans William Hendriksen (Grand Rapids Eerdrnans 1951) 320

2j Thielicke The ElJang(Iicai Faith 176

S G Lu Journalofampform(d Th(ology 3 (2009) 90-107

thought that their approach would renew and reshape Luthers theologia crucis for the 20th century It seems to me however that it is difficult to identify their approach with Luthers theology of the cross Hence the term the new theology of the cross Howdid Moltmann and Jungel understand the relation of the economic and the ontological Trinity In this section I will concentrate only on Moltmanns view

Basic Statement

Proposition 2 The economic Trinity is the ontological Trinity and vice versa

This proposition which was first used by Karl Rahner and then by Barth Moltmann and ]Ungel in their own ways can be interpreted in various ways In other words the meaning of this proposition is somewhat ambiguous These theologians sometimes present this proposition in the way in which we understand the classic model When we read Moltmann stating the following material we almost come to the conclusion that he is simply repeating the classic viewpoint

If the immanent Trinity is the counterpart of praise then knowledge of the economic Trinity (as the embodiment of the history and experience ofsalvation) preeedes knowlshyedge of the immanent Trinity In the order of being it succeeds it26

There is only one single divine Trinity and one single divine history ofsalvation The triune God can only appear in history as he is in himself and in no other way He is in himselfas he appears in salvation history for it is he himself who is manifested and he is just what he is manifested as beingY

Statements about the immanent Trinity must not contradict statements about the economic Trinity Statements about the economic Trinity must correspond to doxoshylogical statements about the immanent Trinity28

In spite of the impression which these quotations leave after closer examinashytion we conclude that Moltmann does not have a classic understanding of the Trinity Indeed at one point Moltmann clearly says that in order to grasp the death of the Son in its significance for God himself I found myself bound to

26 Molrrnann Ihlaquo Trinity and th( Kingdom 152 27 Molrrnann Thlaquo Trinityand th( Kingdom 153 28 Molrrnann Ihlaquo Trinityand th( Kingdom 154

99 98 S G Lee IJournal ofRiformrd 7h~ology 3 (2009) 90-107

surrender the traditional distinction between the immanent and the ontological Trinity29 Moreover in a 1973 article he states

If the doctrine of the Trinity could be developed from the event of the cross then not only the distinction between God in himself (Gott an sich) and the God for us (Gott flir tins) but also the distinction between the immanent and the economical Trinity are abolish~d Jlt1

When we closely examine Molrmanns book therefore we conclude that Molshytrnann by using the proposition that the economic Trinity is the ontological Trinity and viceversa expresses the idea that the economic Trinity is itself the ontological Trinity and that the economic Trinity is the center ofGods revelashytion in the process of history and that the ontological Trinity is merely the metaphysical summary of the economic Trinitys doxological meaning To state it bluntly according to this new theology of the cross it is not the case that there is an inner relationship between three divine persons from eternity which is revealed in the process of time Rather from our understanding of the ecoshynomic self-revelation ofGod we logically draw out Gods trinitarian structure There may be an ontological Trinity at the end of the day we can proleptically refer to this Trinity in our doxology Let me substantiate these points by examshyining Moltrnanns writings

Moltmanns Understanding In his book The Crucified God from 1972 Moltmann tries to understand the Trinity in relation to the cross He says The material principle of the doc shytrine of the Trinity is the cross ofChrist The formal principle ofknowledge of the cross is the doctrine of the Trinity32 He even says that a trinitarian theolshyogy of the cross develops from this history [of the cross] what is to be understood by God33So he demands a revolution in the concept ofGod34 In the same spirit Moltmann says

Moltmann The Trinityand thlaquoKingdom 160 emphasis is given 30 Molrmann Gesichrspunkre der Kreuzesrheologle heme Evang~lisch~ 7h~gid3 (1973)

362f cited in Horst G Poehlrnann Abriss derDogmatik (1975) translated into Korean by Shin shyGun LeeDogmatics (Seoul Korean Institute ofTheology 1990) 157 emphasis is given

3 Molrrnann The Crucified God trans R A Wilson and John Bowden (London SCM Press 1974)

i 31 Molrmann IheCrucifi~d God 241 i 33 Molrmann the Trinity and thlaquoKingdom 247 34 Moltmann The Trinity and theKingdom 152

S G Lee IJournalofampform~d 7h~ology3 (2009) 90-107

In the cross Father and Son are most deeply separated in forsakenness and at the same time are most inwardly one in their surrender What proceeds from this event between Father and Son is the Spirit which justifies the godless fills the forsaken with love and even brings the dead allveisince the fact that they are dead cannot exclude them from this event of the cross the death in God also includes them35

For Moltmann the event of the cross is not only an event of the economic Trinity but also an event within the Trinity Or rather ifwe put it in the words of Richard Bauckhams interpretation of Molrmann the event of the cross is the Trinity36 Accordingly Moltrnann says that the history of Christ is the inner life of God himself and that the Trinity is an event of love in the sufshyfering and death ofJesuS 37 He even says that we should not think as though the Trinity were already present in itself in the divine nature38 That is to say we should not think that first there was the ontological Trinity and then the economic Trinity was revealed Rather Moltrnann thinks that the ontological Trinityis constituted in the eventofthe cross Richard Bauckham also interprets Moltrnann in this way So Bauckham says that at this stage (from The Theology ofHope to The Crucified God) Moltrnann thinks of God becoming Trinity in the history of Jesus 39 And he adds that Moltrnann very much wished to understand the trinitarian relationship of Father and Son as a relationship which happens in the history of Jesus and especially in -the cross and will not allow this happening to be a mere reflection of supra-temporal truth40 Indeed Mohmann himself thinks that his understanding of the Trinity overshycomes the dichotomy between immanent and economic Trinity and between the nature of God and his inner tri-uniry Let us quote one more passage form The Crucified God

The Trinity therefore also means the hisrory ofGod which in human terms is the hisshytory of love and liberation The Trinity understood as an event for history therefore presses towards eschatological consummation so that the Trinity may beall in allor put more simply so that Jove may be all in all so that life may triumph over death

35 Moltmann Iblaquo Trinity and th~ Kingdom 244 36 Richard Bauekham )Urgen Moltrnann in OnlaquoGodin Trinity An Analysis oth~ Primary

Dogma oChristianity eds PeterToon and James D Spiceland (Westchester Cornerstone Books 1980) 120

37 Moltmann the Trinity and theKingdom 249 38 Moltmann 7h~ Trinity and theKingdom 245 3 Bauckharn Jiirgen Moltrnann 116 Bauckharns own emphasis 40 Bauckharn Jiirgen Moltrnann 116pound his own emphasis Moltrnann Ihlaquo Trinity and thlaquoKingdom 245

95 94 s G LeeJournal ofReformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

to express what it is but only not to be silent on how Father Son and Spirit are three The reason why we use the word hypostasis is not because this is the word that can be used to show exactly what God is like but that we cannot help not speaking of God as the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit That is these terms are used in our difficult effort to express the fact of revelation in our human language What Calvin wants to say in this part can best be sumshymarized with the following statements Say that in one essence of God there isa trinity of persons you will say in one word what Scriptures states and cut short empty talkativeness

Thus after defining the term person as a subsistence in Gods essence which while related to the others is distinguished by an incommunicable quality I I

Calvin proceeds to the discussion ofhomoousios of the Father and the Son and to the discussion of the differentiation of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit

In his discussion of the divinity of the Son Calvin first ofall talks about the divinity of the Logos asarkos and then goes on to the discussion of the Word endued with flesh The order of this discussion is very instructive for our purpose because this shows how Calvin thinks about the relation of God the Father and the Logos asarkos That is here we can see a hint of Calvins undershystanding of the ontological Trinity Referring to I Pet 110-11 Calvin says that because Christ had not yet been manifested it is necessary to understand the Word as begotten of the Father before time12 He then refers to the creashytion by the Word of God in Genesis 1 He understands this creation by the Word of God in the light of Heb 12-3 and says that here we see the Word understood as the order or mandate of the Son who is himself the eternal and essential Word of the Father3 For Calvin however the most important passhy

sages in relation with the divinity of the Son are John 11-3 for John at once attributes to the Word a solid and abiding essence and ascribes something uniquely His own

On the basis of these discussions Calvin concludes that unchangeable the Word abides everlastingly one and the same with God and is God hirnself

) John Calvin Institutesofthe ChristianReligion trans Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia The Westminster Press 1960) I xiiiS

III Calvin Institutes I xiiiS II Calvin Institutes I xiii 6 Il Calvin Institutes I xiii 7 13 Calvin Institutes I xiii 7 14 Calvin Institutes I xiii 7 15 Calvin Institutes I xiii 7

S G LeeJournal ofReformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

Then in relation with those who would readily accept the divinity of the Son but deny the eternality of the Son Calvin says that the Word conceived beyond the beginning of time by God has perpetually resided with him and he concludes that by this his eternity his true essence and his divinity are proved 16

Only after showing the eternal divinity of the Son this way does Calvin discuss the divinity of Christ in the OT17 and the Angel of]ehovah18 the

divinity of Christ in the NT on the basis of the witnesses of the Apostles of the works of Christ2o and of the miracles of Christ

In relation to the divinity of the Holy Spirit Calvins discussion is centered on the works of the Holy Spirit and the biblical expressions which identify the Holy Spirit with God22

We conclude therefore that Calvins discussion of the Trinity makes it clear that God has a triune relationship with the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit from eternity and that this triune relationship has been clearly revealed in the economic process For Calvin it is not even possible to think of the economic Trinity constituting the ontological Trinity This is clearly shown in his response to those who have doubts about the eternal Sonship of the Christ

Herman Bavinck on the Trinity

We see almost the same view of the Trinity in Herman Bavincks understandshying of the Trinity as we saw in Calvin23 Bavinck is however more helpful because he explicitly speaks of the relation of the ontological and the economic Trinity From this explicit explanation we can gather that ~ discusses the Trinity with what we called the classic model in mind Let us quote one passhysage from him

16 Calvin Institutes I xiii 8 17 Calvin Institutes I xiii 9 18 Calvin Institutes I xiii 10 19 Calvin Institutes I xiii 11 20 Calvin Institutes I xiii 12 21 Calvin Institutes I xiii 13 22 Calvin Institutes I xiii 14-15

23 John Bolt also made this point in his doctoral dissertation on Bavinck See John Bolt The Imitation ofChrist Theme in the Cultural-Ethical Idea ofHerman Bavinck (Ph D Dissertation University of St Michaels College Toronto School of Theology 1982) 74 n 274 In his explication of the trinitarian order Bavinck clearly reflects Calvins discussion of the Trinity in Institutes I xv See also p 127 in both the ontological and economic Trinity Bavinck fol1ows Calvin and Kuyper

96 97 S G LeeJournalofReorm(d Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

As in the ontological trinity the Father is first in order of subsistence the Son second and the Holy Spirit third so also in the history of revelation the Father preceded the Son and the Son preceded the Holy Spirit The Father comes without having been sent the Son is sent by the Father Man 1040 Mark 937 Luke 948 John 316 5233037 68ff and the Holy Spirit is sent by both Father and Son John 1426 167

But this procession in time is a reflection of the immanent relation existing between the three persons in the ontological trinity and is based upon generation and spirarlon The generation of the Son is the eternal arche-type of the incarnation of the Logos and the procession from the father and the Soh is the proto-type of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit Hence the church-fathers derived the knowledge concerning the eternal and immanent relations existing between the persons of the trinity from what was revealed concerning those relations in time In this they were correct

Here Bavinck says that the trinitarian structure expressed in the history of revelation that is the structure of the economic Trinity can be seen as a reflecshytion of the structure of the ontological Trinity He recognizes that the church fathers drew the ontological Trinity from the understanding of the economic Trinity and he himself also accepts this

In the classic model therefore as we have seen God has his trinitarian relationship from eternity and it is clear that the economic process within time does not affect God In this sense the following statement by Thielicke succinctly shows the intention of the classic understanding of the Trinity the orthodox doctrine of the essential Trinity maintains that the Trinity is immanent and original in God apart from his work and that the deity is eternally Father Son and Spirit in itself before ever creating anything entering into union with the individual or dwelling in the fellowship of believers

Let us turn to the second model in order to see a different understanding of the relationship between the ontological and the economic Trinity

TheModel of the NewTheologyof the Cross

By the new theology of the cross I mean the theologies which Jurgen Moltshymann and Eberhard jiingel developed within the last thirty years or so They wanted to renew theology by centering upon the cross of Jesus and they

l4 Herman Bavinck The Doctrine of God trans William Hendriksen (Grand Rapids Eerdrnans 1951) 320

2j Thielicke The ElJang(Iicai Faith 176

S G Lu Journalofampform(d Th(ology 3 (2009) 90-107

thought that their approach would renew and reshape Luthers theologia crucis for the 20th century It seems to me however that it is difficult to identify their approach with Luthers theology of the cross Hence the term the new theology of the cross Howdid Moltmann and Jungel understand the relation of the economic and the ontological Trinity In this section I will concentrate only on Moltmanns view

Basic Statement

Proposition 2 The economic Trinity is the ontological Trinity and vice versa

This proposition which was first used by Karl Rahner and then by Barth Moltmann and ]Ungel in their own ways can be interpreted in various ways In other words the meaning of this proposition is somewhat ambiguous These theologians sometimes present this proposition in the way in which we understand the classic model When we read Moltmann stating the following material we almost come to the conclusion that he is simply repeating the classic viewpoint

If the immanent Trinity is the counterpart of praise then knowledge of the economic Trinity (as the embodiment of the history and experience ofsalvation) preeedes knowlshyedge of the immanent Trinity In the order of being it succeeds it26

There is only one single divine Trinity and one single divine history ofsalvation The triune God can only appear in history as he is in himself and in no other way He is in himselfas he appears in salvation history for it is he himself who is manifested and he is just what he is manifested as beingY

Statements about the immanent Trinity must not contradict statements about the economic Trinity Statements about the economic Trinity must correspond to doxoshylogical statements about the immanent Trinity28

In spite of the impression which these quotations leave after closer examinashytion we conclude that Moltmann does not have a classic understanding of the Trinity Indeed at one point Moltmann clearly says that in order to grasp the death of the Son in its significance for God himself I found myself bound to

26 Molrrnann Ihlaquo Trinity and th( Kingdom 152 27 Molrrnann Thlaquo Trinityand th( Kingdom 153 28 Molrrnann Ihlaquo Trinityand th( Kingdom 154

99 98 S G Lee IJournal ofRiformrd 7h~ology 3 (2009) 90-107

surrender the traditional distinction between the immanent and the ontological Trinity29 Moreover in a 1973 article he states

If the doctrine of the Trinity could be developed from the event of the cross then not only the distinction between God in himself (Gott an sich) and the God for us (Gott flir tins) but also the distinction between the immanent and the economical Trinity are abolish~d Jlt1

When we closely examine Molrmanns book therefore we conclude that Molshytrnann by using the proposition that the economic Trinity is the ontological Trinity and viceversa expresses the idea that the economic Trinity is itself the ontological Trinity and that the economic Trinity is the center ofGods revelashytion in the process of history and that the ontological Trinity is merely the metaphysical summary of the economic Trinitys doxological meaning To state it bluntly according to this new theology of the cross it is not the case that there is an inner relationship between three divine persons from eternity which is revealed in the process of time Rather from our understanding of the ecoshynomic self-revelation ofGod we logically draw out Gods trinitarian structure There may be an ontological Trinity at the end of the day we can proleptically refer to this Trinity in our doxology Let me substantiate these points by examshyining Moltrnanns writings

Moltmanns Understanding In his book The Crucified God from 1972 Moltmann tries to understand the Trinity in relation to the cross He says The material principle of the doc shytrine of the Trinity is the cross ofChrist The formal principle ofknowledge of the cross is the doctrine of the Trinity32 He even says that a trinitarian theolshyogy of the cross develops from this history [of the cross] what is to be understood by God33So he demands a revolution in the concept ofGod34 In the same spirit Moltmann says

Moltmann The Trinityand thlaquoKingdom 160 emphasis is given 30 Molrmann Gesichrspunkre der Kreuzesrheologle heme Evang~lisch~ 7h~gid3 (1973)

362f cited in Horst G Poehlrnann Abriss derDogmatik (1975) translated into Korean by Shin shyGun LeeDogmatics (Seoul Korean Institute ofTheology 1990) 157 emphasis is given

3 Molrrnann The Crucified God trans R A Wilson and John Bowden (London SCM Press 1974)

i 31 Molrmann IheCrucifi~d God 241 i 33 Molrmann the Trinity and thlaquoKingdom 247 34 Moltmann The Trinity and theKingdom 152

S G Lee IJournalofampform~d 7h~ology3 (2009) 90-107

In the cross Father and Son are most deeply separated in forsakenness and at the same time are most inwardly one in their surrender What proceeds from this event between Father and Son is the Spirit which justifies the godless fills the forsaken with love and even brings the dead allveisince the fact that they are dead cannot exclude them from this event of the cross the death in God also includes them35

For Moltmann the event of the cross is not only an event of the economic Trinity but also an event within the Trinity Or rather ifwe put it in the words of Richard Bauckhams interpretation of Molrmann the event of the cross is the Trinity36 Accordingly Moltrnann says that the history of Christ is the inner life of God himself and that the Trinity is an event of love in the sufshyfering and death ofJesuS 37 He even says that we should not think as though the Trinity were already present in itself in the divine nature38 That is to say we should not think that first there was the ontological Trinity and then the economic Trinity was revealed Rather Moltrnann thinks that the ontological Trinityis constituted in the eventofthe cross Richard Bauckham also interprets Moltrnann in this way So Bauckham says that at this stage (from The Theology ofHope to The Crucified God) Moltrnann thinks of God becoming Trinity in the history of Jesus 39 And he adds that Moltrnann very much wished to understand the trinitarian relationship of Father and Son as a relationship which happens in the history of Jesus and especially in -the cross and will not allow this happening to be a mere reflection of supra-temporal truth40 Indeed Mohmann himself thinks that his understanding of the Trinity overshycomes the dichotomy between immanent and economic Trinity and between the nature of God and his inner tri-uniry Let us quote one more passage form The Crucified God

The Trinity therefore also means the hisrory ofGod which in human terms is the hisshytory of love and liberation The Trinity understood as an event for history therefore presses towards eschatological consummation so that the Trinity may beall in allor put more simply so that Jove may be all in all so that life may triumph over death

35 Moltmann Iblaquo Trinity and th~ Kingdom 244 36 Richard Bauekham )Urgen Moltrnann in OnlaquoGodin Trinity An Analysis oth~ Primary

Dogma oChristianity eds PeterToon and James D Spiceland (Westchester Cornerstone Books 1980) 120

37 Moltmann the Trinity and theKingdom 249 38 Moltmann 7h~ Trinity and theKingdom 245 3 Bauckharn Jiirgen Moltrnann 116 Bauckharns own emphasis 40 Bauckharn Jiirgen Moltrnann 116pound his own emphasis Moltrnann Ihlaquo Trinity and thlaquoKingdom 245

96 97 S G LeeJournalofReorm(d Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

As in the ontological trinity the Father is first in order of subsistence the Son second and the Holy Spirit third so also in the history of revelation the Father preceded the Son and the Son preceded the Holy Spirit The Father comes without having been sent the Son is sent by the Father Man 1040 Mark 937 Luke 948 John 316 5233037 68ff and the Holy Spirit is sent by both Father and Son John 1426 167

But this procession in time is a reflection of the immanent relation existing between the three persons in the ontological trinity and is based upon generation and spirarlon The generation of the Son is the eternal arche-type of the incarnation of the Logos and the procession from the father and the Soh is the proto-type of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit Hence the church-fathers derived the knowledge concerning the eternal and immanent relations existing between the persons of the trinity from what was revealed concerning those relations in time In this they were correct

Here Bavinck says that the trinitarian structure expressed in the history of revelation that is the structure of the economic Trinity can be seen as a reflecshytion of the structure of the ontological Trinity He recognizes that the church fathers drew the ontological Trinity from the understanding of the economic Trinity and he himself also accepts this

In the classic model therefore as we have seen God has his trinitarian relationship from eternity and it is clear that the economic process within time does not affect God In this sense the following statement by Thielicke succinctly shows the intention of the classic understanding of the Trinity the orthodox doctrine of the essential Trinity maintains that the Trinity is immanent and original in God apart from his work and that the deity is eternally Father Son and Spirit in itself before ever creating anything entering into union with the individual or dwelling in the fellowship of believers

Let us turn to the second model in order to see a different understanding of the relationship between the ontological and the economic Trinity

TheModel of the NewTheologyof the Cross

By the new theology of the cross I mean the theologies which Jurgen Moltshymann and Eberhard jiingel developed within the last thirty years or so They wanted to renew theology by centering upon the cross of Jesus and they

l4 Herman Bavinck The Doctrine of God trans William Hendriksen (Grand Rapids Eerdrnans 1951) 320

2j Thielicke The ElJang(Iicai Faith 176

S G Lu Journalofampform(d Th(ology 3 (2009) 90-107

thought that their approach would renew and reshape Luthers theologia crucis for the 20th century It seems to me however that it is difficult to identify their approach with Luthers theology of the cross Hence the term the new theology of the cross Howdid Moltmann and Jungel understand the relation of the economic and the ontological Trinity In this section I will concentrate only on Moltmanns view

Basic Statement

Proposition 2 The economic Trinity is the ontological Trinity and vice versa

This proposition which was first used by Karl Rahner and then by Barth Moltmann and ]Ungel in their own ways can be interpreted in various ways In other words the meaning of this proposition is somewhat ambiguous These theologians sometimes present this proposition in the way in which we understand the classic model When we read Moltmann stating the following material we almost come to the conclusion that he is simply repeating the classic viewpoint

If the immanent Trinity is the counterpart of praise then knowledge of the economic Trinity (as the embodiment of the history and experience ofsalvation) preeedes knowlshyedge of the immanent Trinity In the order of being it succeeds it26

There is only one single divine Trinity and one single divine history ofsalvation The triune God can only appear in history as he is in himself and in no other way He is in himselfas he appears in salvation history for it is he himself who is manifested and he is just what he is manifested as beingY

Statements about the immanent Trinity must not contradict statements about the economic Trinity Statements about the economic Trinity must correspond to doxoshylogical statements about the immanent Trinity28

In spite of the impression which these quotations leave after closer examinashytion we conclude that Moltmann does not have a classic understanding of the Trinity Indeed at one point Moltmann clearly says that in order to grasp the death of the Son in its significance for God himself I found myself bound to

26 Molrrnann Ihlaquo Trinity and th( Kingdom 152 27 Molrrnann Thlaquo Trinityand th( Kingdom 153 28 Molrrnann Ihlaquo Trinityand th( Kingdom 154

99 98 S G Lee IJournal ofRiformrd 7h~ology 3 (2009) 90-107

surrender the traditional distinction between the immanent and the ontological Trinity29 Moreover in a 1973 article he states

If the doctrine of the Trinity could be developed from the event of the cross then not only the distinction between God in himself (Gott an sich) and the God for us (Gott flir tins) but also the distinction between the immanent and the economical Trinity are abolish~d Jlt1

When we closely examine Molrmanns book therefore we conclude that Molshytrnann by using the proposition that the economic Trinity is the ontological Trinity and viceversa expresses the idea that the economic Trinity is itself the ontological Trinity and that the economic Trinity is the center ofGods revelashytion in the process of history and that the ontological Trinity is merely the metaphysical summary of the economic Trinitys doxological meaning To state it bluntly according to this new theology of the cross it is not the case that there is an inner relationship between three divine persons from eternity which is revealed in the process of time Rather from our understanding of the ecoshynomic self-revelation ofGod we logically draw out Gods trinitarian structure There may be an ontological Trinity at the end of the day we can proleptically refer to this Trinity in our doxology Let me substantiate these points by examshyining Moltrnanns writings

Moltmanns Understanding In his book The Crucified God from 1972 Moltmann tries to understand the Trinity in relation to the cross He says The material principle of the doc shytrine of the Trinity is the cross ofChrist The formal principle ofknowledge of the cross is the doctrine of the Trinity32 He even says that a trinitarian theolshyogy of the cross develops from this history [of the cross] what is to be understood by God33So he demands a revolution in the concept ofGod34 In the same spirit Moltmann says

Moltmann The Trinityand thlaquoKingdom 160 emphasis is given 30 Molrmann Gesichrspunkre der Kreuzesrheologle heme Evang~lisch~ 7h~gid3 (1973)

362f cited in Horst G Poehlrnann Abriss derDogmatik (1975) translated into Korean by Shin shyGun LeeDogmatics (Seoul Korean Institute ofTheology 1990) 157 emphasis is given

3 Molrrnann The Crucified God trans R A Wilson and John Bowden (London SCM Press 1974)

i 31 Molrmann IheCrucifi~d God 241 i 33 Molrmann the Trinity and thlaquoKingdom 247 34 Moltmann The Trinity and theKingdom 152

S G Lee IJournalofampform~d 7h~ology3 (2009) 90-107

In the cross Father and Son are most deeply separated in forsakenness and at the same time are most inwardly one in their surrender What proceeds from this event between Father and Son is the Spirit which justifies the godless fills the forsaken with love and even brings the dead allveisince the fact that they are dead cannot exclude them from this event of the cross the death in God also includes them35

For Moltmann the event of the cross is not only an event of the economic Trinity but also an event within the Trinity Or rather ifwe put it in the words of Richard Bauckhams interpretation of Molrmann the event of the cross is the Trinity36 Accordingly Moltrnann says that the history of Christ is the inner life of God himself and that the Trinity is an event of love in the sufshyfering and death ofJesuS 37 He even says that we should not think as though the Trinity were already present in itself in the divine nature38 That is to say we should not think that first there was the ontological Trinity and then the economic Trinity was revealed Rather Moltrnann thinks that the ontological Trinityis constituted in the eventofthe cross Richard Bauckham also interprets Moltrnann in this way So Bauckham says that at this stage (from The Theology ofHope to The Crucified God) Moltrnann thinks of God becoming Trinity in the history of Jesus 39 And he adds that Moltrnann very much wished to understand the trinitarian relationship of Father and Son as a relationship which happens in the history of Jesus and especially in -the cross and will not allow this happening to be a mere reflection of supra-temporal truth40 Indeed Mohmann himself thinks that his understanding of the Trinity overshycomes the dichotomy between immanent and economic Trinity and between the nature of God and his inner tri-uniry Let us quote one more passage form The Crucified God

The Trinity therefore also means the hisrory ofGod which in human terms is the hisshytory of love and liberation The Trinity understood as an event for history therefore presses towards eschatological consummation so that the Trinity may beall in allor put more simply so that Jove may be all in all so that life may triumph over death

35 Moltmann Iblaquo Trinity and th~ Kingdom 244 36 Richard Bauekham )Urgen Moltrnann in OnlaquoGodin Trinity An Analysis oth~ Primary

Dogma oChristianity eds PeterToon and James D Spiceland (Westchester Cornerstone Books 1980) 120

37 Moltmann the Trinity and theKingdom 249 38 Moltmann 7h~ Trinity and theKingdom 245 3 Bauckharn Jiirgen Moltrnann 116 Bauckharns own emphasis 40 Bauckharn Jiirgen Moltrnann 116pound his own emphasis Moltrnann Ihlaquo Trinity and thlaquoKingdom 245

99 98 S G Lee IJournal ofRiformrd 7h~ology 3 (2009) 90-107

surrender the traditional distinction between the immanent and the ontological Trinity29 Moreover in a 1973 article he states

If the doctrine of the Trinity could be developed from the event of the cross then not only the distinction between God in himself (Gott an sich) and the God for us (Gott flir tins) but also the distinction between the immanent and the economical Trinity are abolish~d Jlt1

When we closely examine Molrmanns book therefore we conclude that Molshytrnann by using the proposition that the economic Trinity is the ontological Trinity and viceversa expresses the idea that the economic Trinity is itself the ontological Trinity and that the economic Trinity is the center ofGods revelashytion in the process of history and that the ontological Trinity is merely the metaphysical summary of the economic Trinitys doxological meaning To state it bluntly according to this new theology of the cross it is not the case that there is an inner relationship between three divine persons from eternity which is revealed in the process of time Rather from our understanding of the ecoshynomic self-revelation ofGod we logically draw out Gods trinitarian structure There may be an ontological Trinity at the end of the day we can proleptically refer to this Trinity in our doxology Let me substantiate these points by examshyining Moltrnanns writings

Moltmanns Understanding In his book The Crucified God from 1972 Moltmann tries to understand the Trinity in relation to the cross He says The material principle of the doc shytrine of the Trinity is the cross ofChrist The formal principle ofknowledge of the cross is the doctrine of the Trinity32 He even says that a trinitarian theolshyogy of the cross develops from this history [of the cross] what is to be understood by God33So he demands a revolution in the concept ofGod34 In the same spirit Moltmann says

Moltmann The Trinityand thlaquoKingdom 160 emphasis is given 30 Molrmann Gesichrspunkre der Kreuzesrheologle heme Evang~lisch~ 7h~gid3 (1973)

362f cited in Horst G Poehlrnann Abriss derDogmatik (1975) translated into Korean by Shin shyGun LeeDogmatics (Seoul Korean Institute ofTheology 1990) 157 emphasis is given

3 Molrrnann The Crucified God trans R A Wilson and John Bowden (London SCM Press 1974)

i 31 Molrmann IheCrucifi~d God 241 i 33 Molrmann the Trinity and thlaquoKingdom 247 34 Moltmann The Trinity and theKingdom 152

S G Lee IJournalofampform~d 7h~ology3 (2009) 90-107

In the cross Father and Son are most deeply separated in forsakenness and at the same time are most inwardly one in their surrender What proceeds from this event between Father and Son is the Spirit which justifies the godless fills the forsaken with love and even brings the dead allveisince the fact that they are dead cannot exclude them from this event of the cross the death in God also includes them35

For Moltmann the event of the cross is not only an event of the economic Trinity but also an event within the Trinity Or rather ifwe put it in the words of Richard Bauckhams interpretation of Molrmann the event of the cross is the Trinity36 Accordingly Moltrnann says that the history of Christ is the inner life of God himself and that the Trinity is an event of love in the sufshyfering and death ofJesuS 37 He even says that we should not think as though the Trinity were already present in itself in the divine nature38 That is to say we should not think that first there was the ontological Trinity and then the economic Trinity was revealed Rather Moltrnann thinks that the ontological Trinityis constituted in the eventofthe cross Richard Bauckham also interprets Moltrnann in this way So Bauckham says that at this stage (from The Theology ofHope to The Crucified God) Moltrnann thinks of God becoming Trinity in the history of Jesus 39 And he adds that Moltrnann very much wished to understand the trinitarian relationship of Father and Son as a relationship which happens in the history of Jesus and especially in -the cross and will not allow this happening to be a mere reflection of supra-temporal truth40 Indeed Mohmann himself thinks that his understanding of the Trinity overshycomes the dichotomy between immanent and economic Trinity and between the nature of God and his inner tri-uniry Let us quote one more passage form The Crucified God

The Trinity therefore also means the hisrory ofGod which in human terms is the hisshytory of love and liberation The Trinity understood as an event for history therefore presses towards eschatological consummation so that the Trinity may beall in allor put more simply so that Jove may be all in all so that life may triumph over death

35 Moltmann Iblaquo Trinity and th~ Kingdom 244 36 Richard Bauekham )Urgen Moltrnann in OnlaquoGodin Trinity An Analysis oth~ Primary

Dogma oChristianity eds PeterToon and James D Spiceland (Westchester Cornerstone Books 1980) 120

37 Moltmann the Trinity and theKingdom 249 38 Moltmann 7h~ Trinity and theKingdom 245 3 Bauckharn Jiirgen Moltrnann 116 Bauckharns own emphasis 40 Bauckharn Jiirgen Moltrnann 116pound his own emphasis Moltrnann Ihlaquo Trinity and thlaquoKingdom 245

101 100 s G Lee Journal oReformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

If Christian belief thinks in trinitarian terms it says that forsaken men are already taken up by Christs forsakenness into the divine history and that we live in God because we participate in the eschatological life ofGod by virtue of the death ofChrist God is God is in us and God suffers in us where love suffers We participate in the trinitarian process of Gods history

For Moltrnann therefore our history is the history of God and in this history God accomplishes his trinitarian process

In The Trinity and the Kingdom from 1980 Moltmann also develops a simshyilar argument but this time in a more nuanced way First after explaining the meaning of the terms of the immanent and the economic Trinity he asks whether this distinction is necessary and rightly answers that this distinction secures Gods liberty and grace and it is the logically necessary presupposishytion for the correct understanding of Gods saving revelatlonY He continues however that God is love and God is forced to love neither by external necesshysity nor by internal necessity so there is no need to think of this kind of distinction being necessary Moreover he says The notion of an immanent Trinity in which God is simply by himself without the love which communishycates salvation brings an arbitrary element into the concept of God which means a break-up of the Christian concept44 So Moltmann wants to see the economic and immanent Trinity rather form a continuity and merge into one another45 Only in the sphere of doxology is there room for the immanent Trinity In this sense Moltmann is saying that the economic Trinity is the object ofkerygma tic and practical theology the immanent Trinity the content of doxological theology46

Hence for Moltrnann the economic Trinity has priority In this sense he says that knowledge of the economic Trinity (as the embodiment of the history and experience of salvation) precedes knowledge of the immanent Trinity47 In this way for Moltmann the economic Trinity was prior in his thinking and that the event of the cross affects the Trinity (immanent Trinity) and even constitutes the immanent Trinity Indeed Moltmann says in one place that the economic Trinity not only reveals the immanent Trinity it also has a retroactive effect on it48 Moltmann also emphasizes that the history of the

2 Moltrnann The Crucified God 255 43 Moltrnann The Trinity and theKingdom 151 44 Molrrnann The Trinity and theKingdom 151 (emphasis given) 45 Molrrnann The Trinity and theKingdom 152 (emphasis given) 46 Molrrnann The Trinityand theKingdom 152 47 Moltmann The Trinityand theKingdom 152pound 1M Moltmann The Trinityand theKingdom 160

s G Lee Journaloampformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

world corresponds to the passiones trinitatis ad intra49 that is the history of the world affects God himself

Therefore for Moltmaqn only when the history and experience of salvashytion are completed and perfected does the economic Trinity complete and perfect itself to immanent Trinity~ In this way we can clearly see that for Moltmann either the economic Trinity is the process which constitutes the immanent Trinity or at least the economic Trinity affects the immanent Trinshyity51 The reason why Moltmann has such a tendency to emphasize the ecoshynomic Trinity is for him this is the way in which we can be fair to the human factor of the history So he thinks at the very least that the ontological Trinity is enriched by the economic Trinity and that the ontological Trinity is merely a doxological anticipation of what will be there only at the end of the history This is the second model of understanding the Trinity Let us turn to the next model

Hendrikus Berkhofs Model ofOnly the Economic Trinity

Hendrikus Berkhof understands the Trinity only as an economic Trinity That is he tries to understand God not as the God who is in himself but as the God who has a relationship with us In fact Berkhof is not happy at all with the traditional distinction between God as He is in Himself and the God as He is in relation with usY

To see the Trinity only as an economic Trinity Berkhof places an emphasis on the covenant between God and man Hence the title of the section in which he deals with the Trinity is the Covenant as Tri-(unity This covenant is an event that makes the covenant fellowship possible between God and us by making us Gods sons and daughters Berkhof insists that we should regard the Trinity as a description of the structure of the one covenant partner God53 So he thinks that we cannot speak of the Trinity as one essence in

49 Moltrnann The Trinity and theKingdom 160 50 Moltmann The Trinityand theKingdom 161

51 For a similar discussion in relation with the event of the cross being affecting God see Bauckham 128 129 Especially 129 Thus God sexperience ofhistory results in an enrichment of the Trinitarian being of God himself

52 Hendrikus Berkhof Christtlijk Geloofi Revised Edition (Nijkerk G FCallenbach 1985) trans Sierd Woudstra Christian Faith An Introduction to theStudy0theFaith (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1986)337 Hereafter in this section citations from this book will be given in the text only as the page number

53 Berkhof Christian Faith 336

103 102 S G Lee Journal ofampform~d Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

three personsT That is God Jesus and the Spirit do not constitute one being in eternity but one history in tirne In another place he says that the Trinity is not the name for an intra-divine mystery but a description of what has happened and is happening between God and men in revelation and covenant56

This entire event of the Trinity in the history according to Berkhof is grounded in Gods eternal determination to be a God ofblessing a determinashytion which belongs to his very nature God by his sovereign love is involved with us in this process of history and this also does something to him and enriches him58 He says that the trinitarian event arises from the very nature (essence) ofGod and leads to it or the Trinity is natural (essential) for God59 He immediately adds however that the Trinity describes how God accord shying to his eternal purpose extends and carries on in time his own life so as share it with man60 So he makes it clear that the trinitarian event is an event which happens in time in relation with us and bythis event God himselfis extended and enriched For Berkhof therefore the Trinity is a continuing and open event directed to man61

Accordingly people are invited to participate in this trinitarian event we are made to share in the relationship between Father and Son62 It is true that Berkhof makes it clear that this participation does not happen in such a way that the uniqueness of the relationship between Father and Son disappears He emphasizes that he does use the term trinity not rnulti-uniryF because he presupposes the distance in essence between the trinitarian relationship and the relationship between God and men The distance however is only in relation to origin not contents Berkhofclearly makes this point in his discusshysion ofJesus

It is now clear from our discussion that Berkhofs Trinity is the economic Trinity He does not proceed from this economic Trinity to the ontological

S4 Berkhof Christian Faith 336 55 Berkhof Christian Faith 336 56 Hendrikus Berkhof IntroductiontotbeStudyofDogmatics trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Eerdrnans 1985) 106 emphasis is given 57 Berkhof Christian Faith 337 58 Berkhof Christian Faith 337 5 Berkhof ChristianFaith 337 ((J Berkhof ChristianFaith 337 61 BerkhofChristian Faith 336 61 Hendrikus Berkhof 7h~ Doctrine ofthlaquo Holy Spirit (john Knox 1964) idem Introduction

109 See also his Christian Faith 329-32 63 Berkhof Christian Faith 336

S G U~ Journalofampformd 1h~ology 3 (2009) 90-107

Trinity He thinks that such an attempt is a wrong understanding of the Trinshyity He tries to understand God as a trinitarian event that appears in the process of history Such a Trinity is not a description of an abstract God-inshyhimself but of the revealed God-whh-us r

In his other book entitled the Doctrine ofthe Holy Spirit he says that the Spirit is the name given to the presence of the exalted Lord whose activity after that of the earthly Jesus is now addressed to the entire inhabited world For Berkhof then the Spirit is the name for God in action toward the world66 and the Spirit is God-as person God-in-relation67 For Berkhof the Spirit is no longer one divine person in the Trinity as in the traditional understanding of the Trinity Rather the Spirit is the name for God who is in covenant relationship with man

The supreme act of God as Spirit is the creation of new man the true Son6l Berkhof speaks of the relationship between this man and the Spirit as follows

In that man the covenant is confirmed and in him the Spirit makes his abode on earth From now on the Spirit and Christ coincide As totally faithful covenant partner Jesus is the form of the Spirit calls the Spirit to the earth and creates room for the Spirit From now on the activity of the Spirit exists in the mode of the outpouring of the absolute covenantal oneness between God and Jesus and of the now life he has obtained for us in that oneness

So Berkhof speaks of Father-Son-Spirit or Father-Spirit-Son as the sumshymarizing description of the covenantal event When Berkhof speaks of the Spirit as the vinculum amoris between the Father and the Son it looks like that he is following the Augustinian tradition We have to remember however that for Augustine the Spirit is one divine person in the Trinity whereas for Berkhof the Spirit is merely the name for the God who is in relationship with

64 Berkhof Christian Faith 337

65 Berkhof The Doctrin~ oftblaquoHoly Spirit (john Knox 1964) Introduction 109 See also his Christian Faith 329-32

(6 Berkhof Christian Faith 335 67 Berkhof Christian Faith 336 M Berkhof Christian Faith 331 6 Berkhof Christian Faith 331 70 Berkhof Christian Faith 335

7 Cf Augustine D~ Trinitate trans Arthur West Haden revised by William G T Shedd St Augwtin~ On thlaquo Trinity in Nicene and Post-Nicm~ Fathen vol III (Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1887) Book VIII and Book IX

105 104 S G Lee Journal ofampformed 1heology 3 (2009) 90-107

us It is difficult therefore to identify Berkhofs understanding with the Augustinian tradition

What then is the relationship between the Father and the Son According to Berkhof the new beginning between God and man which the older prophshyets prophesized was accomplished in Jesus This Jesus is the true man and the faithful covenant partner and the Son par excellence in whose God-created relationship with God the covenant is renewed and forever established In other words Jesus is the true Son of God precisely because he is human the true-covenant-partner of God 74 That is Jesus is the new beginning from above and the one who finally fulfills the sonship For Berkhof however there is no pre-existent God the Son As Klaas Runia clearly said it is obvious that Berkhof has no place for the idea of pre-existent in an ontological sense76

There is therefore a close relationship between Jesus relationship with God and our relationship with God In one place Berkhof gives us this explanashytion As regards its origin and thus as regards its representative power Jesus sonship is unique But as regards its content it is that to which all ofbumanity is calledthroughthe covenantwayoIsrael77 That is Jesus accomplished what the Israelites as the representative of man should have accomplished but have not accomplished Jesus far ahead of us enters a new way of human existence in which the covenant and sonship intended by God will finally reach their full developmenr Jesus is the one who reveals the true humanity In this sense for Berkhof Jesus is not a purely vertical incident (in-cident intrusion) on the way of Israel and in the history of mankind Because as far as the content is concerned there is no difference between sonship ofJesus and our sonship Only in regard to its origin and its representative power is Jesus sonshyship unique

What does it mean that Jesus is unique as regards the origin of his sonship Berkhof thinks that he is a new start from God conceived by the Holy Spirir

71 Berkhof Christian Faith 286f 73 Berkhof Christian Faith 287 7 Berkhof Introduction to theStudyofDogmatics 106 75 Berkhof Christian Faith 287 7( Klaas Runia The Pment-day Christological Debate (Leicester and Downers Grove IVP

1984)74 n Berkhof Christian Faith 288 (emphasis is mine) 7 Berkhof Christian Faith 288 7 Berkhof Christian Faith 286 0 Berkhof Christian Faith 291

S G LeeJournalofampformed 1heology 3 (2009) 90-107

He is hence the Son ofGod81This does not mean however that Berkhofaccepts the virgin birth ofChrist Berkhof thinks that the biblical narrat ivesof the virgin birth are merely later enrichment of the tradition to give concrete expression to the confession that jesus the Son by pre-eminence could not be generated by man82 For Berkhof Jesus is merely a man but a man in whose human T the T of God is fully and exhaustively permeared This subjectivity is someshytimes called as Gods Spirit or God himself84 In virtue of this permeation he becomes the perfect instrument of the Father8~ And this fulfilled covenant relationship means the new union between God and man which is beyond our experience and imagination The fulfillment however does not abolish our humanity but brings the supreme fulfillment Berkhofalso thinks that speaking of the two natures ofChrist itself is a way ofobscuring the unity ofhis person

For Berkhof then the Father and the Son are not two divine persons in the traditional understanding of the Trinity What we can get from him is that he regards the Son as one who represents man So for Berkhof the Father the Son and the Spirit are not the three persons of the Trinity rather they are three aspects ofone covenantal relation between God and man

So far we have examined Berkhofs understanding of the Trinity which not only centers on the economic Trinity but also is only the economic Trinity and does not allow any room for the ontological Trinity The reason why Berkhof has such a tendency is that he is trying to be faithful to the historical relationship between God and man But in the process ofhis argument for the historical understanding of the relationship between God and man he loses his conception of the transcendence of God in sensu strictu

Conclusion

What should we think after examining these three models of understanding the relationship between the ontological and the economic Trinity It is quite interesting that there are so many different understanding of the relationship between the ontological and the economic Trinity in the history of theology All three models which we have examined appeal to the scriptures and assert

Berkhof Introduction to theStudyofDogmatics 106

Hl Berkhof Christian Faith 298 See also Runia The Present-day Christgical Debate 74 83 Berkhof Christian Faith 291 8 Berkhof Christian Faith 291 85 Berkhof Christian Faith 291 86 Berkhof Christian Faith 292

106 107 s G LeeJournal0Reformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

that they are faithful to the biblical revelation To modern taste the perspecshytive of the new theology of the cross and the perspective ofHendrikus Berkhof which in a sense both reflect the modern ethos may be more fitting than the classic model These theologians are trying to emphasize the human factor of history For them history is so important for us and evenfor Godso that even God should be enriched in the process of the history Otherwise history is not be taken seriously enough as it ought to be by us

According to the classic model however there is no change within the being of God from eternity to eternity If God were enriched by the economic Trinity or there were only the economic Trinity then God would be the one who needs history for himselfand God could not be a perfect God without the process of time and history Hence Moltrnann jiingel and Berkhof-who put an emphasis on the process ofhistory-are in fact changing God in the procshyess of history According to the classic model however it is important not to change God himself according to our needs At the end of the day what matshyters is God Himself and this is the God who was and is and will be the triune God To change God for our salvation and the process of the history of salvashytion therefore is in fact to lose God So in the classic model God does not need history and He does not get any help from the process of history There is nothing that the history of the world can do to enrich God Rather history itself is created and proceeds from the hands of God Hence one needs to acknowledge the ontological Trinity as the ground of being for the economic Trinity If it were not for the ontological Trinity there would not be the ecoshynomic Trinity The ontological Trinity that might be completed by the ecoshynomic Trinity is not the ontological Trinity in sensu strictu Only when there is the ontological Trinity is there the economic Trinity through which we can recognize and understand God

In a sense the perspective of the new theology of the cross which emphashysizes Gods new experience in the process of time and history is the one which has a nco-Hegelian approach to theology in the twentieth century In a similar way the perspective of Hendrikus Berkhof which sees only the economic Trinity has a neo-Scbleiermacherian approach to theology in the twentieth censhytury while bearing in mind all the criticisms against the theology of Schleiershymacher and taking the form that could avoid these criticisms In such a way the phantom of Hegel and the phantom of Schleiermacher are moving over the theological world of the twentieth century with new customs more effecshytive strategies and with strong logical weapons

We conclude by stating that the classic understanding of the Trinity lies in asserting the following proposition without any reservation and without any

S G LeeJournaloReformed7heology 3 (2009) 90-107

condition The ontological Trinityis theground ofbeingfor the economic Trinity andthe economic Trinityis thegroundofcognitionfor the ontological Trinity The perspective of only economic Trinity did in fact lose its ground of being and the perspective of the new theology of the cross tries to expand its ground of cognition to be more than the ground of cognition of the Trinity No matter whatever model we may choose at the very least we have to bear in mind that the model that we are choosing will mold our theology as a whole

103 102 S G Lee Journal ofampform~d Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

three personsT That is God Jesus and the Spirit do not constitute one being in eternity but one history in tirne In another place he says that the Trinity is not the name for an intra-divine mystery but a description of what has happened and is happening between God and men in revelation and covenant56

This entire event of the Trinity in the history according to Berkhof is grounded in Gods eternal determination to be a God ofblessing a determinashytion which belongs to his very nature God by his sovereign love is involved with us in this process of history and this also does something to him and enriches him58 He says that the trinitarian event arises from the very nature (essence) ofGod and leads to it or the Trinity is natural (essential) for God59 He immediately adds however that the Trinity describes how God accord shying to his eternal purpose extends and carries on in time his own life so as share it with man60 So he makes it clear that the trinitarian event is an event which happens in time in relation with us and bythis event God himselfis extended and enriched For Berkhof therefore the Trinity is a continuing and open event directed to man61

Accordingly people are invited to participate in this trinitarian event we are made to share in the relationship between Father and Son62 It is true that Berkhof makes it clear that this participation does not happen in such a way that the uniqueness of the relationship between Father and Son disappears He emphasizes that he does use the term trinity not rnulti-uniryF because he presupposes the distance in essence between the trinitarian relationship and the relationship between God and men The distance however is only in relation to origin not contents Berkhofclearly makes this point in his discusshysion ofJesus

It is now clear from our discussion that Berkhofs Trinity is the economic Trinity He does not proceed from this economic Trinity to the ontological

S4 Berkhof Christian Faith 336 55 Berkhof Christian Faith 336 56 Hendrikus Berkhof IntroductiontotbeStudyofDogmatics trans John Vriend (Grand Rapids

Eerdrnans 1985) 106 emphasis is given 57 Berkhof Christian Faith 337 58 Berkhof Christian Faith 337 5 Berkhof ChristianFaith 337 ((J Berkhof ChristianFaith 337 61 BerkhofChristian Faith 336 61 Hendrikus Berkhof 7h~ Doctrine ofthlaquo Holy Spirit (john Knox 1964) idem Introduction

109 See also his Christian Faith 329-32 63 Berkhof Christian Faith 336

S G U~ Journalofampformd 1h~ology 3 (2009) 90-107

Trinity He thinks that such an attempt is a wrong understanding of the Trinshyity He tries to understand God as a trinitarian event that appears in the process of history Such a Trinity is not a description of an abstract God-inshyhimself but of the revealed God-whh-us r

In his other book entitled the Doctrine ofthe Holy Spirit he says that the Spirit is the name given to the presence of the exalted Lord whose activity after that of the earthly Jesus is now addressed to the entire inhabited world For Berkhof then the Spirit is the name for God in action toward the world66 and the Spirit is God-as person God-in-relation67 For Berkhof the Spirit is no longer one divine person in the Trinity as in the traditional understanding of the Trinity Rather the Spirit is the name for God who is in covenant relationship with man

The supreme act of God as Spirit is the creation of new man the true Son6l Berkhof speaks of the relationship between this man and the Spirit as follows

In that man the covenant is confirmed and in him the Spirit makes his abode on earth From now on the Spirit and Christ coincide As totally faithful covenant partner Jesus is the form of the Spirit calls the Spirit to the earth and creates room for the Spirit From now on the activity of the Spirit exists in the mode of the outpouring of the absolute covenantal oneness between God and Jesus and of the now life he has obtained for us in that oneness

So Berkhof speaks of Father-Son-Spirit or Father-Spirit-Son as the sumshymarizing description of the covenantal event When Berkhof speaks of the Spirit as the vinculum amoris between the Father and the Son it looks like that he is following the Augustinian tradition We have to remember however that for Augustine the Spirit is one divine person in the Trinity whereas for Berkhof the Spirit is merely the name for the God who is in relationship with

64 Berkhof Christian Faith 337

65 Berkhof The Doctrin~ oftblaquoHoly Spirit (john Knox 1964) Introduction 109 See also his Christian Faith 329-32

(6 Berkhof Christian Faith 335 67 Berkhof Christian Faith 336 M Berkhof Christian Faith 331 6 Berkhof Christian Faith 331 70 Berkhof Christian Faith 335

7 Cf Augustine D~ Trinitate trans Arthur West Haden revised by William G T Shedd St Augwtin~ On thlaquo Trinity in Nicene and Post-Nicm~ Fathen vol III (Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1887) Book VIII and Book IX

105 104 S G Lee Journal ofampformed 1heology 3 (2009) 90-107

us It is difficult therefore to identify Berkhofs understanding with the Augustinian tradition

What then is the relationship between the Father and the Son According to Berkhof the new beginning between God and man which the older prophshyets prophesized was accomplished in Jesus This Jesus is the true man and the faithful covenant partner and the Son par excellence in whose God-created relationship with God the covenant is renewed and forever established In other words Jesus is the true Son of God precisely because he is human the true-covenant-partner of God 74 That is Jesus is the new beginning from above and the one who finally fulfills the sonship For Berkhof however there is no pre-existent God the Son As Klaas Runia clearly said it is obvious that Berkhof has no place for the idea of pre-existent in an ontological sense76

There is therefore a close relationship between Jesus relationship with God and our relationship with God In one place Berkhof gives us this explanashytion As regards its origin and thus as regards its representative power Jesus sonship is unique But as regards its content it is that to which all ofbumanity is calledthroughthe covenantwayoIsrael77 That is Jesus accomplished what the Israelites as the representative of man should have accomplished but have not accomplished Jesus far ahead of us enters a new way of human existence in which the covenant and sonship intended by God will finally reach their full developmenr Jesus is the one who reveals the true humanity In this sense for Berkhof Jesus is not a purely vertical incident (in-cident intrusion) on the way of Israel and in the history of mankind Because as far as the content is concerned there is no difference between sonship ofJesus and our sonship Only in regard to its origin and its representative power is Jesus sonshyship unique

What does it mean that Jesus is unique as regards the origin of his sonship Berkhof thinks that he is a new start from God conceived by the Holy Spirir

71 Berkhof Christian Faith 286f 73 Berkhof Christian Faith 287 7 Berkhof Introduction to theStudyofDogmatics 106 75 Berkhof Christian Faith 287 7( Klaas Runia The Pment-day Christological Debate (Leicester and Downers Grove IVP

1984)74 n Berkhof Christian Faith 288 (emphasis is mine) 7 Berkhof Christian Faith 288 7 Berkhof Christian Faith 286 0 Berkhof Christian Faith 291

S G LeeJournalofampformed 1heology 3 (2009) 90-107

He is hence the Son ofGod81This does not mean however that Berkhofaccepts the virgin birth ofChrist Berkhof thinks that the biblical narrat ivesof the virgin birth are merely later enrichment of the tradition to give concrete expression to the confession that jesus the Son by pre-eminence could not be generated by man82 For Berkhof Jesus is merely a man but a man in whose human T the T of God is fully and exhaustively permeared This subjectivity is someshytimes called as Gods Spirit or God himself84 In virtue of this permeation he becomes the perfect instrument of the Father8~ And this fulfilled covenant relationship means the new union between God and man which is beyond our experience and imagination The fulfillment however does not abolish our humanity but brings the supreme fulfillment Berkhofalso thinks that speaking of the two natures ofChrist itself is a way ofobscuring the unity ofhis person

For Berkhof then the Father and the Son are not two divine persons in the traditional understanding of the Trinity What we can get from him is that he regards the Son as one who represents man So for Berkhof the Father the Son and the Spirit are not the three persons of the Trinity rather they are three aspects ofone covenantal relation between God and man

So far we have examined Berkhofs understanding of the Trinity which not only centers on the economic Trinity but also is only the economic Trinity and does not allow any room for the ontological Trinity The reason why Berkhof has such a tendency is that he is trying to be faithful to the historical relationship between God and man But in the process ofhis argument for the historical understanding of the relationship between God and man he loses his conception of the transcendence of God in sensu strictu

Conclusion

What should we think after examining these three models of understanding the relationship between the ontological and the economic Trinity It is quite interesting that there are so many different understanding of the relationship between the ontological and the economic Trinity in the history of theology All three models which we have examined appeal to the scriptures and assert

Berkhof Introduction to theStudyofDogmatics 106

Hl Berkhof Christian Faith 298 See also Runia The Present-day Christgical Debate 74 83 Berkhof Christian Faith 291 8 Berkhof Christian Faith 291 85 Berkhof Christian Faith 291 86 Berkhof Christian Faith 292

106 107 s G LeeJournal0Reformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

that they are faithful to the biblical revelation To modern taste the perspecshytive of the new theology of the cross and the perspective ofHendrikus Berkhof which in a sense both reflect the modern ethos may be more fitting than the classic model These theologians are trying to emphasize the human factor of history For them history is so important for us and evenfor Godso that even God should be enriched in the process of the history Otherwise history is not be taken seriously enough as it ought to be by us

According to the classic model however there is no change within the being of God from eternity to eternity If God were enriched by the economic Trinity or there were only the economic Trinity then God would be the one who needs history for himselfand God could not be a perfect God without the process of time and history Hence Moltrnann jiingel and Berkhof-who put an emphasis on the process ofhistory-are in fact changing God in the procshyess of history According to the classic model however it is important not to change God himself according to our needs At the end of the day what matshyters is God Himself and this is the God who was and is and will be the triune God To change God for our salvation and the process of the history of salvashytion therefore is in fact to lose God So in the classic model God does not need history and He does not get any help from the process of history There is nothing that the history of the world can do to enrich God Rather history itself is created and proceeds from the hands of God Hence one needs to acknowledge the ontological Trinity as the ground of being for the economic Trinity If it were not for the ontological Trinity there would not be the ecoshynomic Trinity The ontological Trinity that might be completed by the ecoshynomic Trinity is not the ontological Trinity in sensu strictu Only when there is the ontological Trinity is there the economic Trinity through which we can recognize and understand God

In a sense the perspective of the new theology of the cross which emphashysizes Gods new experience in the process of time and history is the one which has a nco-Hegelian approach to theology in the twentieth century In a similar way the perspective of Hendrikus Berkhof which sees only the economic Trinity has a neo-Scbleiermacherian approach to theology in the twentieth censhytury while bearing in mind all the criticisms against the theology of Schleiershymacher and taking the form that could avoid these criticisms In such a way the phantom of Hegel and the phantom of Schleiermacher are moving over the theological world of the twentieth century with new customs more effecshytive strategies and with strong logical weapons

We conclude by stating that the classic understanding of the Trinity lies in asserting the following proposition without any reservation and without any

S G LeeJournaloReformed7heology 3 (2009) 90-107

condition The ontological Trinityis theground ofbeingfor the economic Trinity andthe economic Trinityis thegroundofcognitionfor the ontological Trinity The perspective of only economic Trinity did in fact lose its ground of being and the perspective of the new theology of the cross tries to expand its ground of cognition to be more than the ground of cognition of the Trinity No matter whatever model we may choose at the very least we have to bear in mind that the model that we are choosing will mold our theology as a whole

105 104 S G Lee Journal ofampformed 1heology 3 (2009) 90-107

us It is difficult therefore to identify Berkhofs understanding with the Augustinian tradition

What then is the relationship between the Father and the Son According to Berkhof the new beginning between God and man which the older prophshyets prophesized was accomplished in Jesus This Jesus is the true man and the faithful covenant partner and the Son par excellence in whose God-created relationship with God the covenant is renewed and forever established In other words Jesus is the true Son of God precisely because he is human the true-covenant-partner of God 74 That is Jesus is the new beginning from above and the one who finally fulfills the sonship For Berkhof however there is no pre-existent God the Son As Klaas Runia clearly said it is obvious that Berkhof has no place for the idea of pre-existent in an ontological sense76

There is therefore a close relationship between Jesus relationship with God and our relationship with God In one place Berkhof gives us this explanashytion As regards its origin and thus as regards its representative power Jesus sonship is unique But as regards its content it is that to which all ofbumanity is calledthroughthe covenantwayoIsrael77 That is Jesus accomplished what the Israelites as the representative of man should have accomplished but have not accomplished Jesus far ahead of us enters a new way of human existence in which the covenant and sonship intended by God will finally reach their full developmenr Jesus is the one who reveals the true humanity In this sense for Berkhof Jesus is not a purely vertical incident (in-cident intrusion) on the way of Israel and in the history of mankind Because as far as the content is concerned there is no difference between sonship ofJesus and our sonship Only in regard to its origin and its representative power is Jesus sonshyship unique

What does it mean that Jesus is unique as regards the origin of his sonship Berkhof thinks that he is a new start from God conceived by the Holy Spirir

71 Berkhof Christian Faith 286f 73 Berkhof Christian Faith 287 7 Berkhof Introduction to theStudyofDogmatics 106 75 Berkhof Christian Faith 287 7( Klaas Runia The Pment-day Christological Debate (Leicester and Downers Grove IVP

1984)74 n Berkhof Christian Faith 288 (emphasis is mine) 7 Berkhof Christian Faith 288 7 Berkhof Christian Faith 286 0 Berkhof Christian Faith 291

S G LeeJournalofampformed 1heology 3 (2009) 90-107

He is hence the Son ofGod81This does not mean however that Berkhofaccepts the virgin birth ofChrist Berkhof thinks that the biblical narrat ivesof the virgin birth are merely later enrichment of the tradition to give concrete expression to the confession that jesus the Son by pre-eminence could not be generated by man82 For Berkhof Jesus is merely a man but a man in whose human T the T of God is fully and exhaustively permeared This subjectivity is someshytimes called as Gods Spirit or God himself84 In virtue of this permeation he becomes the perfect instrument of the Father8~ And this fulfilled covenant relationship means the new union between God and man which is beyond our experience and imagination The fulfillment however does not abolish our humanity but brings the supreme fulfillment Berkhofalso thinks that speaking of the two natures ofChrist itself is a way ofobscuring the unity ofhis person

For Berkhof then the Father and the Son are not two divine persons in the traditional understanding of the Trinity What we can get from him is that he regards the Son as one who represents man So for Berkhof the Father the Son and the Spirit are not the three persons of the Trinity rather they are three aspects ofone covenantal relation between God and man

So far we have examined Berkhofs understanding of the Trinity which not only centers on the economic Trinity but also is only the economic Trinity and does not allow any room for the ontological Trinity The reason why Berkhof has such a tendency is that he is trying to be faithful to the historical relationship between God and man But in the process ofhis argument for the historical understanding of the relationship between God and man he loses his conception of the transcendence of God in sensu strictu

Conclusion

What should we think after examining these three models of understanding the relationship between the ontological and the economic Trinity It is quite interesting that there are so many different understanding of the relationship between the ontological and the economic Trinity in the history of theology All three models which we have examined appeal to the scriptures and assert

Berkhof Introduction to theStudyofDogmatics 106

Hl Berkhof Christian Faith 298 See also Runia The Present-day Christgical Debate 74 83 Berkhof Christian Faith 291 8 Berkhof Christian Faith 291 85 Berkhof Christian Faith 291 86 Berkhof Christian Faith 292

106 107 s G LeeJournal0Reformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

that they are faithful to the biblical revelation To modern taste the perspecshytive of the new theology of the cross and the perspective ofHendrikus Berkhof which in a sense both reflect the modern ethos may be more fitting than the classic model These theologians are trying to emphasize the human factor of history For them history is so important for us and evenfor Godso that even God should be enriched in the process of the history Otherwise history is not be taken seriously enough as it ought to be by us

According to the classic model however there is no change within the being of God from eternity to eternity If God were enriched by the economic Trinity or there were only the economic Trinity then God would be the one who needs history for himselfand God could not be a perfect God without the process of time and history Hence Moltrnann jiingel and Berkhof-who put an emphasis on the process ofhistory-are in fact changing God in the procshyess of history According to the classic model however it is important not to change God himself according to our needs At the end of the day what matshyters is God Himself and this is the God who was and is and will be the triune God To change God for our salvation and the process of the history of salvashytion therefore is in fact to lose God So in the classic model God does not need history and He does not get any help from the process of history There is nothing that the history of the world can do to enrich God Rather history itself is created and proceeds from the hands of God Hence one needs to acknowledge the ontological Trinity as the ground of being for the economic Trinity If it were not for the ontological Trinity there would not be the ecoshynomic Trinity The ontological Trinity that might be completed by the ecoshynomic Trinity is not the ontological Trinity in sensu strictu Only when there is the ontological Trinity is there the economic Trinity through which we can recognize and understand God

In a sense the perspective of the new theology of the cross which emphashysizes Gods new experience in the process of time and history is the one which has a nco-Hegelian approach to theology in the twentieth century In a similar way the perspective of Hendrikus Berkhof which sees only the economic Trinity has a neo-Scbleiermacherian approach to theology in the twentieth censhytury while bearing in mind all the criticisms against the theology of Schleiershymacher and taking the form that could avoid these criticisms In such a way the phantom of Hegel and the phantom of Schleiermacher are moving over the theological world of the twentieth century with new customs more effecshytive strategies and with strong logical weapons

We conclude by stating that the classic understanding of the Trinity lies in asserting the following proposition without any reservation and without any

S G LeeJournaloReformed7heology 3 (2009) 90-107

condition The ontological Trinityis theground ofbeingfor the economic Trinity andthe economic Trinityis thegroundofcognitionfor the ontological Trinity The perspective of only economic Trinity did in fact lose its ground of being and the perspective of the new theology of the cross tries to expand its ground of cognition to be more than the ground of cognition of the Trinity No matter whatever model we may choose at the very least we have to bear in mind that the model that we are choosing will mold our theology as a whole

106 107 s G LeeJournal0Reformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107

that they are faithful to the biblical revelation To modern taste the perspecshytive of the new theology of the cross and the perspective ofHendrikus Berkhof which in a sense both reflect the modern ethos may be more fitting than the classic model These theologians are trying to emphasize the human factor of history For them history is so important for us and evenfor Godso that even God should be enriched in the process of the history Otherwise history is not be taken seriously enough as it ought to be by us

According to the classic model however there is no change within the being of God from eternity to eternity If God were enriched by the economic Trinity or there were only the economic Trinity then God would be the one who needs history for himselfand God could not be a perfect God without the process of time and history Hence Moltrnann jiingel and Berkhof-who put an emphasis on the process ofhistory-are in fact changing God in the procshyess of history According to the classic model however it is important not to change God himself according to our needs At the end of the day what matshyters is God Himself and this is the God who was and is and will be the triune God To change God for our salvation and the process of the history of salvashytion therefore is in fact to lose God So in the classic model God does not need history and He does not get any help from the process of history There is nothing that the history of the world can do to enrich God Rather history itself is created and proceeds from the hands of God Hence one needs to acknowledge the ontological Trinity as the ground of being for the economic Trinity If it were not for the ontological Trinity there would not be the ecoshynomic Trinity The ontological Trinity that might be completed by the ecoshynomic Trinity is not the ontological Trinity in sensu strictu Only when there is the ontological Trinity is there the economic Trinity through which we can recognize and understand God

In a sense the perspective of the new theology of the cross which emphashysizes Gods new experience in the process of time and history is the one which has a nco-Hegelian approach to theology in the twentieth century In a similar way the perspective of Hendrikus Berkhof which sees only the economic Trinity has a neo-Scbleiermacherian approach to theology in the twentieth censhytury while bearing in mind all the criticisms against the theology of Schleiershymacher and taking the form that could avoid these criticisms In such a way the phantom of Hegel and the phantom of Schleiermacher are moving over the theological world of the twentieth century with new customs more effecshytive strategies and with strong logical weapons

We conclude by stating that the classic understanding of the Trinity lies in asserting the following proposition without any reservation and without any

S G LeeJournaloReformed7heology 3 (2009) 90-107

condition The ontological Trinityis theground ofbeingfor the economic Trinity andthe economic Trinityis thegroundofcognitionfor the ontological Trinity The perspective of only economic Trinity did in fact lose its ground of being and the perspective of the new theology of the cross tries to expand its ground of cognition to be more than the ground of cognition of the Trinity No matter whatever model we may choose at the very least we have to bear in mind that the model that we are choosing will mold our theology as a whole