Current Renaissance of The Theology of The Trinity

This article was downloaded by: [viviana puebla]
On: 15 November 2014, At: 05:14

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK
Bijdragen: International
Journal for Philosophy and
Theology
Publication details, including instructions for authors
and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpt19
THE CURRENT RENAISSANCE

OF THE THEOLOGY OF THE
TRINITY
HERWI RIKHOF
Faculteit Katholieke Theologie , Tilburg University

Published online: 26 Apr 2013.
To cite this article: HERWI RIKHOF (2009) THE CURRENT RENAISSANCE OF THE
THEOLOGY OF THE TRINITY, Bijdragen: International Journal for Philosophy and
Theology, 70:4, 423-457
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2143/BIJ.70.4.2044777
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.
Downloaded by [viviana puebla] at 05:14 15 November 2014
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Bijdragen, International Journal in Philosophy and Theology 70(4), 423-457.

doi: 10.2143/BIJ.70.4.2044777 2009 by Bijdragen, International Journal in Philosophy and Theology.
All rights reserved.
THE CURRENT RENAISSANCE OF THE

THEOLOGY OF THE TRINITY
A RECONSTRUCTION
HERWI RIKHOF
1. Introduction
The remarkable recent interest in the theology of the Trinity has been called
'a renaissance' and correctly so. For this current interest has the double characteristics of every 'renaissance': a return to an earlier period in order to
(re )vitalize the present and a rejection and a criticism on the previous period
considered to be a form of 'dark middle ages'. This double movement can be
seen in Karl Rahner's contribution about the theology of the Trinity to Mysterium Salutis. 1 To use a somewhat different terminology that certainly captures
his analysis and argumentation: he notices a profound illness with regard to the
theology of the Trinity, he diagnoses the causes and proposes a therapy to revitalize that theology, so that the doctrine of the Trinity can be restored to its
rightful place at the centre of the Christian faith as it is lived and reflected
upon.
I will use Rahner's contribution to present a reconstruction of the recent renaissance of the theology of the Trinity. Rahner was not the only one, nor even the
first, to point to the importance and central place of the doctrine of the Trinity: Karl Barth did that before him. 2 But since Rahner's contribution is pro1
K. Rahner Der Dreifaltige Gott als transzendenter Urgrund der Heilsgeschichte, in J. Feiner,
M. Uihrer (eds), Mysterium Salutis. Grundrij3 heilsgeschichtlicher Dogmatik, Einsiedeln, Benzinger
Verlag, 1965-1981, Bd 2 (1967), 318-401, esp. 318-329; cf. also his earlier Bemerkungen zum dogmatischen Traktat 'de Trinitate', in Schriften zur Theologie, Einsiedeln, Benzinger Verlag, 1962-1984,
Bd 4, (1960) 103-133; this was originally published in the same year.
2 See e.g. M. Murrmann-Kahl, "Mysterium Trinitatis"? Fallstudien zur Trinitiitslehre in der
evangelischen Dogmatik des 20. Jahrhunderts, Berlin/New York, De Gruyter, 1997 and J. Thompson.
Modern Trinitarian Perspectives, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1994. T. Peters points to
Cl. Welch who in In this Name: The doctrine of the Trinity in Contemporary Theology, New York,
424
The Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity
grammatic and since it has in fact been influential for the consequent developments, it can be used for a reconstruction, that is to say as a framework to
present major trends and to indicate what is at stake. 3
Such a survey is always a personal affair, if only because it is impossible, certainly within the limits of an article, to refer to the available literature, let alone
discuss the numerous books and articles more or less extensively. Choices have
to be made. But a survey in the form of a reconstruction also makes it personal.
Though I use Rahner's contribution as a framework to reconstruct the renaissance of the last decades, it was not written with the explicit purpose of starting such a development. Moreover, both the choice of authors I will present
as examples of certain trends or positions, and the analysis of the way the diagnosis is made and the therapy is performed, reflect my judgement. On an even
more profound level it is a personal affair, since the topic is not just a topic
I am interested in. Belief in the Triune God is the heart of Christian faith. That
not only means that it is (or should be) the centre of theological reflection, but
also that it is the centre of the living faith. This aspect is not always the focus
of attention, but one notices a pastoral concern underlying many publications
and I fully share this concern.
Nevertheless, the reconstruction I want to present is based on books and articles published during the last decades and is not a product of my imagination.
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1952 complains that the theology of the Trinity has fallen to 'secondary or
tertiary importance': T. Peters, GOD as Trinity: Relationality and Temporality in Divine Life, Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 1993, 29.
3 For somewhat different surveys see e.g. C. LaCugna, 'Philosophers and Theologians on the
Trinity', in Modern Theology 2 (1986) 3, 169-181, and, 'Current Trends in Trinitarian Theology', in
Religious Studies Review 2 (1987) 141-7; T. Peters, GOD as Trinity, 81-145; D. Cunningham, 'Trinitarian Theology since 1990', in Review in Religion and Theology 4 (1995) 8-16, and 'What's (Not)
New', in Review in Religion and Theology 1 (1997), 14-20 and see also the appendix in his These
Three are One, The Practice of Trinitarian Theology, Oxford etc., Blackwell 1998; Chr. Schwobel,
'Introduction: The Renaissance of Trinitarian Theology: Reasons, Problems, Tasks', in Chr. Schwobel (ed.), Trinitarian Theology Today: Essays in Divine Being and Act, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1995,
11-... ; G. v.d. Brink, 'De huidige renaissance van de triniteitsleer; Een orienterend overzicht', in
Theologia Reformata 46 (2003) 210-240; G. Emery, 'Chronique de theologie trinitaire', in Revue
Thomiste 97 (1997) 718-741; 98 (1998), 469-496; 99 (1999) 549-594; 100 (2000) 603-654; 101
(2001) 582-632; 103 (2003) 607-642; R. Olson and Chr. Hall, The Trinity, Grand Rapids/Cambridge,
Eerdmans, 2002, p. 140-150 for an annotated bibliography of 20th century publications in English;
S. Grenz, Rediscovering the Triune God. The Trinity in Contemporary Theology, Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 2004; Veli-Matti Kiirlddiinen, The Trinity. Global Perspectives, Louisville/London, Westminster John Knox Press, 2007; G. van den Brink, S. van Erp, 'Ignoring God Triune? The Doctrine
of the Trinity in Dutch Theology', in International Journal of Systematic Theology 11 (2009) 72-90;
G. O'Collins comments briefly on 12 issues in the current discussion in 'The Trinity: the State of the
Questions', S. Davis, D. Kendall and G. O'Collins (eds), The Trinity. An Interdisciplinary Symposium
on the Trinity, Oxford/New York, Oxford University Press, 1999, 2002 2, 1-25.
Herwi Rikhof
425
In order to show this basis I have to refer rather extensively to literature, but
because a listing of literature, even with only a short characterization and qualification in the main text, makes the argumentation complicated and the reading tiresome, I have put further references in footnotes, which are sometimes
extensive, and that means that the lay-out is somewhat overburdened.
2. Rahner's contribution
2.1 Rahner's diagnosis and therapy

Rahner starts his long contribution with critical remarks about both spirituality and theology with regard to the faith in the Triune God. Most Christians
are in fact 'monotheists' and the theology of the Trinity is a 'dead weight'
within the whole of theology. 4 He puts the blame for this irrelevance and for
this 'theistic' understanding on the way the Trinity is discussed in the manuals, on the course theology has taken in the West since the Middle Ages, especially since Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae became influential.
Basic to this lamentable situation is the distinction between, or more precisely,
the separation of, two treatises discussing God: de Deo Uno and de Deo Trino.
The two are divided because the one discusses God's dealing with world and
history and the other considers God's inner life. De Deo Uno is about God's
external relationship and De Deo Trino about God's internal relationship. The
separation of the two treatises and the consequent irrelevancy of de Deo Trino
is partly due to the type of language used in that treatise, partly due to the socalled rule ad extra, and partly due to the connecting of de Deo Uno to natural theology or philosophy, and de Deo Trino to theology proper. The language used in de Deo Trino in considering God in se is highly abstract, for it
not only uses confusing terms like persona and natura, but also strange and
incomprehensible terms like filiatio, spiratio, notio, and circumincensio. The
rule ad extra stipulates that, in dealing with world and history, God acts as one,
suggesting that God's three-ness is not relevant to that world and history.
Behind the connection of de Deo Uno with natural theology or philosophy and
de Deo Trino with theology proper lies the distinction between reason and revelation. These influences have made the theology of the Trinity irrelevant since,
certainly taken together, they make the theology of the Trinity into a superfluous addition to a more or less general discourse about God.
Rahner, 'Der Dreifaltige Gott', 319.
426
In order to change the course theology has taken in the West and to cure the
fatal illness of irrelevancy, Rahner proposes an axiom as therapy: 'the "economic" Trinity is the "immanent" Trinity and vice versa'. The purpose of this
axiom is to integrate the discourse about God in se into the discourse about God
with us. The suggestion, contained in the division or separation of the two treatises, of a Triune God behind the God of history, is corrected. The double use
of the term 'Trinity' in the axiom criticizes the rule ad extra, by locating the
basis for talking about God's Trinity in God's self-revelation in the history of
salvation. The formulation 'integrated in' indicates a reversal of priorities in
thinking about the Trinity implied in this double use: we know of God's Trinity because of his self-revelation in our history and therefore the discourse of
God's Trinity should start with this history of salvation.
2.2 The 'reception' of Rahner's contribution: a general impression

When one surveys the theological literature of these last decades on the Trinity, one can observe a general acceptance of the diagnosis and the proposed
therapy. Or perhaps better, in the light of Rahner's contribution one can discern a broad consensus with regard to these two elements, since Rahner is not
always mentioned. With regard to the diagnosis an element is often added: not
only the internal theological consequences of the separation between the two
treatises are mentioned, but also the rise of atheism in western society is seen
as a consequence. The 'theistic' understanding of God, as presented in de Deo
Uno, provokes an a-theistic reaction, and precisely this atheistic reaction is the
reason to criticize profoundly the division and separation, as can be seen, for
example, in the works of J. Moltmann, E. Jtingel or W. Kasper. 5 This analysis in terms oftheism- atheism can also be found in M. Buckley's studies on
the rise of atheism in Western society. 6 An important aspect of this theistic or
5 J. Moltmann, Der Gekreuzigte Gott, Das Kreuz Christi als Grund und Kritik christlicher Theologie, Miinchen, Kaiser, 1972, esp. 222-239; cf. also his Trinitiit und Reich Gottes. Zur Gotteslehre,
Miinchen, Kaiser, 1980, 31-35; E. Jiingel, Gott als Geheimnis der Welt. Zur Begriindung der Theologie des Gekreuzigten im Streit zwischen Theismus and Atheismus, Tiibingen, Mohr, 1977; W. Kasper, Der Gott Jesu Christi, Mainz, GrUnewald, 1982. Cf. also J. O'Donnell, The Mystery of the Triune God, London, Sheed and Ward, 1988, who starts his book with a discussion of theism-atheism;
see also his earlier Trinity and Temporality. The Christian doctrine of God in the light of Process Theology and the Theology of Hope, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1983, 1-25. Cf. also Chr. Duquoc,
Dieu different, Paris, Cerf, 1977 ch. 1, who talks about the Absolute and the theological contestation
against that way of talking about God.
6 M. Buckley, At the Origins of Modern Atheism, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1985 and
Denying and Disclosing God. The Ambiguous Progress of Modern Atheism, New Haven/London,
Herwi Rikhof
427
generic understanding of God is the political consequence of it. The point here
is not only a parallel between monotheism and (absolute) monarchism, but that
the former supports the latter and the latter the former. 7
The importance of this reference to theism becomes clear, when one realizes
that the discourse about the Triune God has never been a discourse in a void,
but has been, from the very start, a discourse about God in contrast or opposition to existing discourses about God or gods. It is not just that the 'Christian distinction' is about the fundamental difference between Creator and creation that is common to Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but this distinction is
also about the radical re-figuration of immanence and transcendence due to
the incarnation and the inhabitation. 8 Or to put it differently, due to the incarnation and the inhabitation, a profound reformulation of God's mystery has to
take place. This reformulation lies at the heart of Christianity and constitutes
its pertinacious and unyielding centre. In the discussions the blame for the
irrelevancy of the Trinitarian faith is mostly put on the shoulders of theologians,
but Rahner's remark that most Christians are 'monotheist' (one could also say
'Arians' or 'Sabellians') points to something else as well. 9 What is involved
Yale University Press, 2004. N. Lash, in one of the best non-technical books on the Trinity- Holiness, Speech and Silence. Reflections on the Question of God, Aldershot/Burlington, Ashgate, 2004
-summarizes Buckley's analyses in two sentences: 'During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries,
the word 'god' came to be used, for the first time, to name the ultimate explanation of the system of
the world. And, when it was in due time realized that the system of the world was such as not to
require any such single, overarching, independent, explanatory principle, the word 'god' was dispensed with, and modem 'atheism' was born.", 9. Crucial to his analysis of the question of God today
is the shift from understanding to explanation, or to put it differently, from contemplation to the type
of inquiry typical of the modem sciences.
7 Cf. Greshake, Der dreieine Gott. Eine trinitarische Theologie, Freiburg etc., Herder, 1997,465491 for discussion and literature; cf. also J. Moltmann, Trinitiit und Reich Gottes, 205-217 and D.
Cunningham, These Three are One, 50-53,145. As is clear from the literature, the point is not just a
historical one, and with the disappearance of absolute monarchy this aspect of theism has disappeared as well: the connection is still at work. This connection is also a point in discussions about plurality in culture and society. Cf. R. Williams,'Trinity and Pluralism', in G. D'Costa (ed.}, Christian
Uniqueness Reconsidered. The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religion, New York, Maryknoll,
1990, 3-15 (reprinted in R. Wiliams, On Christian Theology, Oxford etc., Blackwell, 2000, 167-180);
cf. also J. Assmann, Monotheismus und die Sprache der Gewalt, Wien, Picus Verlag, 2006.
8 I borrow the term 'Christian distinction' from R. Sokolowski, The God of Faith and Reason.
Foundations of Christian Theology, Notre Dame/London, University of Notre Dame Press, 1982, esp.
ch. 2-4 dealing with the 'Christian distinction'. For the reflguration of transcendence and immanence
see e.g. H. Goris, H. Rikhof, H. Schoot (eds), Divine Transcendence and Immanence in the works of
Thomas Aquinas, Publications of the Thomas Instituut te Utrecht, New Series vol. Xlll, Leuven/Walpole, Peeters, 2009, introduction.
9 Rahner, 'Der Dreifaltige Gott', 319. In this context the term 'monotheism' appears to be correct; see for some critical remarks about the use of monotheism as a theological category referring
428
is not only the intellectual problems and inadequacies involved in rethinking

transcendence and immanence, but also neglect in teaching the radical reformulation of the mystery of God and the unwillingness to accept the extraordinary ordinariness of God. 10
With regard to the therapy, one can observe a certain common pattern to the
recovery as well. The history of salvation is taken as the starting point, and this
starting point is almost exclusively interpreted as starting with the life and
death of Jesus Christ. The work of The Spirit is given less attention, and if it
is given attention, it is mainly within the framework of christology.
Rahner, too, remarks as part of his diagnosis that the theology of the Trinity
has become isolated from the rest of theology. One can see that this point of
criticism is taken seriously. The consequences of the doctrine and the theology of the Trinity for Trinitarian understanding of the other major topics in theology are investigated. 11 And, finally, another point of Rahner's criticism is
taken up when the consequences of the doctrine of the Trinity for spirituality
in a more or less broad sense are explored. 12
to Judaism, Christianity and Islam: R. Braque, Du Dieu des Chretiens. Et d'un ou deux autres, Paris,
Flammarion, 2008, esp. 16-26. Similarly Lash, who remarks that 'atheism', 'theism', 'monotheism'
and 'polytheism' 'were first invented in the seventeenth century'. Holiness, 12.
10 Cf. R. Jenson's remark that 'at the heart of the theology Western Christians have inherited there
is a retreat from the most primitive consequences of the gospel, a palpable mitigation of the confession that Jesus is Lord', 'Jesus in the Trinity', in Pro Ecc/esia 8 (1999) 308-18,314. Lash blames 'a
systemic failure of the Christian churches to understand themselves as schools of Christian wisdom'
as one of the deeper reasons for the comprehensive marginalization of the study of theology from
public discourse in most Western countries. Holiness, 5; cf. H. Rikhof, 'Approaching the Trinity.
Changing Perspectives', in W. Derkse, J.v.d. Lans, S. Waanders (eds),/n Quest of Humanity in a Globalising World. Dutch Contributions to the Jubilee of Universities in Rome 2000, 261-273, for an explanation of the characterization 'extraordinary ordinariness'.
11 See e.g. G. Greshake, Der dreieine Gott; A. Hunt, Trinity. Nexus of the Mysteries of Christian
Faith, Maryknoll/New York, Orbis, 2005; cf. with regard to the church, ecclesiology: B. Forte,
L'Eglise leone de Ia Trinite, Paris, Mediaspaul, 1985 and his La Chiesa della Trinita. Saggio sui mistero della Chiesa comunione e missione, Cinisello Balsamo, Ed. San Paolo, 1995; see also M. Volf,
After Our Likeness. The Church as the Image of the Trinity, Grand Rapids/Cambridge, Eerdmans, 1998
and M. Haudel, Die Selbsterschliej3ung des dreieinigen Gottes. Grundlage eines okumenischen Offenbarungs-, Gottes- und Kirchenverstiindnisses, Gtittingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006. Cf. for
another connection Marc Cardinal Ouellet, Divine Likeness. Towards a Trinitarian Anthropology of
the Family, Grand Rapids/Cambridge, Eerdmans, 2006.
12
J.-N. Bezan~;on, Dieu n'est pas solitaire. La Trinite dans Ia vie des chretiens, Paris, Desclee de
Brouwer, 1999; M. Downey, Altogether Gift. A Trinitarian Spirituality, New York, Maryknoll, 2000;
H. Rikhof, Die in ons wone. Spiritualiteit, liturgie en theologie van God de Drie-Ene, Tielt, Lannoo,
2003. Often, though, the attention to spirituality seems more like an afterthought, the last issue discussed, as e.g. the article by Shuster on preaching the Trinity inS. Davis, D. Kendall and G. Collins
(eds), The Trinity, 357-381.
Herwi Rikhof
429
In what follows I will use what I have termed diagnosis and therapy as a frame
to present some important developments and discussions. I will start with two
more or less critical discussions with regard both diagnosis and therapy (3).
First, Rahner is highly negative about the Latin tradition and favours clearly
the approach of the Greek Fathers. The preference for the Greek tradition is
broadly shared, certainly in the sense that attention is given to that 'other' tradition and not only to the 'own' .B His negative evaluation of the Western tradition, though, has met with a more mixed reaction. On the one hand, one
encounters regularly a similar negative verdict about the Western tradition, but
on the other hand, one can notice a growing dissatisfaction with the clear cut
distinction between East and West and the easy labels of the traditions. I will
pay some attention to this dissatisfaction, for it determines not only where one
puts historically the blame for the lamented irrelevancy of the Trinity, but indicates also how to proceed in the theology of the Trinity (3.1). Second, Rahner's axiom, 'the "economic" Trinity is the "immanent" Trinity and vice
versa', can be seen as the basis for the therapy, but the formulation of that
axiom has provoked a number of questions, especially with regard to the precise meaning of 'is'. This discussion reveals a rather profound disagreement
about what form the theology of the Trinity should take. Since that discussion
colours the whole renaissance, I will give it ample attention and will try to
clarify some points (3.2). After these two discussions, I will turn to what I
have already indicated as a common pattern in the therapy: the almost exclusive concentration on the life and death of Jesus Christ. I will analyse some of
Moltmann' s work on the Trinity as an example of that pattern and will broaden
this pattern in two steps. (4)
13
With regard to the Greek Fathers one can notice not only an historical interest in the trinitarian
theology of the Cappadocians, but also a systematic theological interest. Cf. e.g. B. Sesboue, Saint
Basile et Ia Trinite. Un acte theologique au W' siecle. Le role de Basile de Cesaree dans l'eboration
de Ia doctrine et du language trinitaires, Paris, Desclee, 1998; C. Beeley, Gregory of Nazianus on
the Trinity and the Knowledge of God. In Your Light We Shall See Light, Oxford, Oxford University
Press, 2008; T. Torrance, The Trinitarian Faith. The Evangelical Theology of the Ancient Catholic
Church, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1995; C. Marschiess, 'Gibt es eine einheitliche "Kapadozische
Trinitiitstheologie"? Vorliiufige Erwiigungen zu Einheit und Differenzen Neuniziinischer Theologie',
in Marburger Jahrbuch Theologie 10 (1998) 51-94; S. Coakley, "Persons' in the 'Social' Doctrine
of the Trinity: A Critique of Current Analytical Discussion', inS. Davis, D. Kendall and G. O'Collins (eds), The Trinity, 123-144; A. Meesters, God in drie woorden. Een systematisch-theologisch
onderzoek naar de Cappadocische bijdrage aan het denken over God Drie-enig, Zoetermeer,
Boekencentrum, 2006.
430
3. Two critical discussions
3.1 The negative evaluation of the Western tradition

Rahner points to Thomas Aquinas, more precisely to the moment that his
Summa Theologiae became the textbook for the study of theology, as the fatal
turn in the course of the history of Western theology. In his Summa, Thomas
breaks with the previous tradition as embodied in Peter Lombard's Sentences,
that functioned in the medieval universities as the textbook for theology and
that starts with the theology of the Trinity. Thomas starts with de Deo Uno. 14
That starting point became the norm, from the moment the Summa became the
textbook in the universities. 15
Although Rahner, in a footnote, expresses some caution, and acknowledges
that he takes as his point of departure the 'Wirkungsgeschichte des thomanischen Ansatzes' and remarks that more historical research has to be done, his
negative verdict on Aquinas has been repeated without this caution and has
become one of the cliches in the current renaissance and has become part of a
negative attitude towards Western theology. 16 As mentioned already, Rahner
expresses a preference for the Greek patristic tradition over and against the
Latin tradition which he also labels as Augustinian. The Greek tradition starts
with the three persons, especially with the Father, while the West starts with
'the one-essential God'. 17 Rahner echoes here a tradition going back to the
work of Th. de Regnon, who summarizes the differences between West and
East in the form of an opposition: 'three Persons in one God' and 'one God
in three Persons'. 18 The Greeks start with person and then discuss nature, the
Latins start with nature and add the concept of person. 19 The Greeks think of
14
The negative verdict on Thomas can also be found in H.U. v. Balthasar, Karl Barth. Darstellung und Deutung seiner Theologie, Koln, J. Hegner, 1951, 275-6 and see also 272; these remarks
are part of a discussion of 'Das Problem einer katholischen Denkform' and von Balthasar presents
there a rather neo-thomistic interpretation of Thomas.
15
Franciscus da Vitoria OP ( 1483-1546) replaced, as one of the first, Lombard's Sentences with
Thomas' Summa in the University of Salamanca.
16
Rahner, Der Dreifaltige Gott, 324, note 12. This note is lacking in Bemerkungen.
17
Rahner, Der Dreifaltige Gott, 323-325
18
'Le latin dit: trois personnes en Dieu; le Grec dit: un Dieu en trois personnes', Th. de Regnon,
Etudes de theologie positive sur Ia sainte Trinite, Paris, Victor, Retaux, 1892 vol 1 and 2, and in
1898 posthumously vol. 3 en 4, vol. 1, etude VI ch. 5, 433; cf. also 430: ' ... se rapprocher de mystere
par deux voies inverses et l'aborder par deux cotes opposes'.
19
'Le Latin fonde sa theorie sur l'unite de Ia substance divine. II y ajoute Ia Trinite des personnes par manieres de termes d'actes divines ... Le Grec fonds sa theorie sur le dogme des trois hypostases divines', De Regnon, Etudes, vol. 1, 429.
Herwi Rikhof
431
the divine nature as the content of the person, while the Latins think about the
persons as expressing the nature. 20 This schema has been very influential. It can
for instance be discerned in the work of V. Lossky, who argues strongly that
as a consequence of this tendency in Western theology the Spirit is forgotten.21 It can also be sensed in the negative evaluation of Augustine. C. Gunton's formulation of the 'charge against Augustine and many of his Western
successors' resembles De Regnon's scheme: because Augustine 'failed to
appropriate the ontological achievement of his Eastern colleagues, he allowed
the insidious return of a Hellenism in which being is not communion, but something underlying it. ' 22 Gunton is not the only systematic theologian to read
Augustine in this way. Barnes maintains that 'nothing is more common in contemporary systematics than the inability to read Augustine outside de Regnon' s
paradigm'. 23
This 'historical scapegoating' 24 might be part of a renaissance, but as in the case
of the other Renaissance, the Dark Middle Ages appeared to be less dark upon
closer inspection. Over the last few years historical research has been done
correcting the picture of a Western theology forgetting the Trinity or limiting
the Trinity to some abstract speculation without any relationship to either theology of spirituality. For example B. Raw draws attention to a flourishing
Trinitarian theology and spirituality in Anglo-Saxon England as is evident from
a wealth of images of the Trinity. 25 But especially relevant are recent studies
with regard to Augustine and Aquinas, since they figure more or less prominently in Rahner' s diagnosis.
20 'Le Latin considere la personnalite cornrne un mode de la nature, le Grec considere la personnalite cornrne le contenu de la personne ... ' De Regnon, Etudes, vol. 1, 433.
21 V. Lossky, Essai sur Ia Theologie Mystique de l'Eglise d'Orient, Paris, Aubier, 1944 (transl.
The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, Cambridge etc., Clark, 1955); cf. J. Freitag, GeistVergessen- Geist-Erinnern. Vladimir Lossky's Pneumatologie als Herausforderung westlicher Theologie, Wiirzburg, Echter, 1995, 71 and cf. also F. Kerr, After Aquinas. Versions ofThomism Oxford
etc., Blackwell, 2002, 237-238.
22 C. Gunton, The Promise ofTrinitarian Theology, 10. cf. also ch. 3: Augustine, The Trinity and
the Theological crisis ofthe West, 31-57, esp. 32 and 38-42; cf. also his The One, the Three and the
Many: God, Creation and the Culture of Modernity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1993.
23 M.R. Barnes, 'The use of Augustine in Contemporary Trinitarian Theology', in Theological Studies 56 (1995) 237-251, 239; see also his 'De Regnon Reconsidered' in Augustinian Studies 26 (1995)
51-79; and his 'Rereading Augustine on the Trinity', inS. Davis, D. Kendall and G. Collins (eds),
The Trinity, 145-176, esp. 174-176; cf. also G. Lafont, Peut-on connaltre Dieu en Jesus-Christ, 72105; E. Hill, 'Karl Rahner's Remarks on the Dogmatic Treatise de Trinitae and St. Augustine', in
Augustinian Studies 2 (1971) 67-80.
24 Cunningham, These Three are One, 31-35.
25 B. Raw, Trinity and Incarnation in Anglo-Saxon Art and Thought, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1997.
432
Augustine
With regard to Augustine I have already mentioned Barnes' critical remark
about the reception of Augustine in contemporary systematics. He is not the
only one. R. Kany has analysed the reception of Augustine's de Trinitate
from the mid 19th century onwards. With regard to recent theologians, Kany
not only argues that the rather different points of criticism expressed by K.
Barth, K. Rahner, H.U. von Balthasar, W. Pannenberg and J. Moltmann are
mutually exclusive, but also show that they do not seem to know de Trinitate.26 And L. Gioa starts his monograph about de Trinitate with a chapter
on the critics of Augustine and mentions especially R. Wiliams and L. Ayers
as scholars who have argued strongly for an interpretation that is different
from the one customarily encountered in the dismissal of Augustine's trinitarian theology. 27
Moreover, scholars like F. Bourassa, E. Bailleux and J. Verhees have shown
that de Trinitate is profoundly soteriological in character and biblical in basis. 28
A major part of E. Hill's The mystery of the Trinity is a commentary on de
Trinitate and he stresses that, in this work, Augustine is combining the economic and the transcendental approaches. 29 Studer has, building upon earlier
studies, published as his final work an introduction to de Trinitate, which
emphasizes, in the context of methodological considerations, the biblical orientation and, in the context of the Christian message of de Trinitate, the importance of the missions in general and of the mysterium pascale in particular. 30
Similar accents can be noticed in Gioia's already mentioned study. 31
26
R. Kany, Opus laboriosum. Bilanz, Kritik und Weiterfiihrung der Forschung des neunzehnten
und zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts zu Augustins de Trinitate, Bochum 2002. For a summary and a short
discussion see Studer, Augustinus, 26-47 and 49-51. In 2007 Kany published the commercial edition
of his Habilitationsschrift: Augustins Trinitiitsdenken: Bilanz, Kritik und Weiterfiihrung der modernen Forschung zu "De trinitate", (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum; 22), Tiibingen,
Mohr Siebeck, 2007.
27
L. Gioia, The Theological Epistemology of Augustine's De Trinitate, Oxford etc., Oxford University Press, 2008, 6-23.
28
F. Bourassa, Questions de theologie trinitaire, Roma 1970; 'Theologie trinitaire chez saint
Augustin', in Gregorianum 58 (1977) 675-718; 59 (1978) 375-412; E. Bailleux, 'La soteriologie de
saint Augustin dans le "de Trinitate"', in Melanges de science religieuse 23 (1966), 149-173; J. Verhees, God in beweging. Een onderzoek naar de pneumatologie van Augustinus, Wageningen, Veenman, 1968, and 'Heiliger Geist und Inkarnation in der Theologie des Augustinus von Hippo. Unloschlicher Zusammenhang zwischen Theologie und Okonornie', in Revue des Etudes Augustiniennes
22(1976), 234-264.
29
E. Hill, The Mystery of the Trinity, 43-72.
30
B. Studer, Augustinus, 85-109; 155-180 and 209-233. cf. 51-52. For the earlier studies see B.
Studer, Gott und unsere Erlosung im Glauben der A/ten Kirche, Dusseldorf, Patmos, 1985 (transl.
Herwi Rikhof
433
Thomas Aquinas
With regard to Thomas Aquinas, one has to say, first, that it has become quite
acceptable to distinguish between Thomas on the one hand and the various
forms of Thomism and neo-thomism on the other, and that it is, consequently,
quite common to give a more or less critical assessment of the reception of
Thomas' thought in the course of history. 32 Although it would be hermeneutically naive to present a reading of Thomas' texts that is rather different from
the reading given, for example, in neo-thomism as the authentic interpretation
of Thomas, it is possible to criticize certain interpretations as deficient and to
argue for the correctness of others. 33
Second, the importance of these observations become clear when one turns to
Thomas' theology of the Trinity. To read the quaestiones 3- 43 of the Prima
Pars of the Summa Theologiae as comprising two separate treatises de Deo
Uno and de Deo Trino, the one concerned with Gods external relationship and
the other with Gods internal relationship is begging the question. Thomas' text
does not support that reading. The terms 'treatise', 'de Deo Uno', 'de Deo
Trino' do not occur and neither does the type of thinking these terms refer to.
The insertion of those kinds of titles in the editions of the Summa can be traced
to later editors. 34
Third, in recent studies on Thomas' theology of the Trinity the current renaissance, with its negative verdict on Thomas' theology, is not always explicitly
present, but most of the time is part of the presentation. Even if not explicitly
present, one can notice a hermeneutical sensitivity in the way both the oikonomia and the importance of Scripture for Thomas' theology in general, and for
his theology of the Trinity in particular, are stressed. 35
Trinity and Incarnation. The Faith of the Early Church (ed. by A. Louth), Edinburgh, T&T Clark,
1993 and Mysterium Caritatis. Studien zur Exegese und Trinitiitslehre in der A/ten Kirche, Roma,
Centro Studi S. Anselmo/ Herder, 1999.
31 Gioia, The Theological Epistemology, esp. ch. 4-8.
32 See e.g. O.H. Pesch, Thomas van Aquin. Grenze und Groj3e mittelalterlicher Theologie, Mainz,
Grunewald 1988, 19-41; Th. O'Meara, Thomas Aquinas Theologian, Notre Dame/London, Notre
Dame Press, 1997, 153-200; F. Kerr (ed), Contemplating Aquinas. On the Varieties of Interpretation,
London SCM Press 2003; F. Kerr, After Aquinas. Visions ofThomism, Oxford etc., Blackwell, 2002.
33 H. Rikhof, 'Een kwestie van lezen? Een antwoord aan J. Aertsen', in Bijdragen 56 (1995) 429450.
34 For a more detailed argumentation: H. Rikhof, "Aquinas' Authority in Contemporary Theology of the Trinity', in P. van Geest, H. Goris, C. Leget (eds), Aquinas as Authority, Thomas Instituut Utrecht, New Series Vol. VII, 2002, 213-234.
35 M. Levering, Scripture and Metaphysics. Aquinas and the Renewal of Trinitarian Theology,
Oxford etc., Blackwell, 2002; T. Smith, Thomas Aquinas' Trinitarian Theology. A Study in Theolo-
434
It might be good to conclude this section with a more general remark. The
critical reaction to Rahner's historical verdict is mainly concerned with analyses of the work of theologians. But Raw's study about the Anglo-Saxon period
also includes references to spirituality and to religious art. Referring to Rahner's complaint about the lack of influence of the belief in the Trinity in spirituality, Kerr makes the provoking remark that 'it is not credible that Catholics
who simply went to Mass ... never reading de Deo Uno course books, were
unaffected by the Trinitarianism of the Catholic faith ... At most, one might
say, it would have been future clergy who acquired this defectively Trinitarian faith through the theology lectures they attended' .36 Further research in the
field of popular prayer books, spiritual literature and religious art seems to be
required. 37
3.2 The discussion about the axiom

The formulation of the axiom is not a felicitous one. The term 'immanent' is
not used in the sense in which it is usually employed, namely as the opposite
of transcendent and referring to God present in world and history. 'Immanent'
in Rahner's use is precisely opposite to that presence: it refers to God in se,
while 'economic' refers to Gods presence in world and history. But the formulation is also problematic because of the double occurrence of 'Trinity'. It
suggests two realities that are said to be identical and, therefore, not two realities. Although in view of Rahner' s diagnosis this terminology is not so strange,
it seems to lose its usefulness when its diagnostic purpose is realized. But since
its purpose is not only diagnostic but also therapeutic, this element in the formulation is confusing. The main criticism, however, is directed against the
lack of clarity in the formulation of the axiom and concerns the 'vice versa'
and, in particular, the 'is'. How should one interpret this 'is'? Does it indicate
a (continuous dialectic or spiral) movement from one to the other or should it
be understood in terms of strict identity? When interpreted in the first way, the
gical Method, Washington, The Catholic University of America Press, 2003; G. Emery, La theologie trinitaire de saint Thomas d'Aquin, Paris, Cerf, 2004; A. Min, Paths to the Triune God. An
Encounter between Aquinas and Recent Theologies, Notre Dame, University of Notre Dame Press,
2005.
36
Kerr, After Aquinas, 238.
37
A good example is the work of Fr. Boesfplug, Dieu dans /'Art, Paris, Cerf, 1984; La Trinite
dans l'Art d'Occident (1400-1600). Sept chefs-d'oeuvre de Ia peinture, Strasbourg, Presses Universitaire de Strasbourg, 20062 ; cf. also his Dieu et ses images: Une histoire de l'Eternel dans /'Art,
Montrouge, Bayard, 2008.
Herwi Rikhof
435
function of the axiom is to remove the isolation of the de Deo Trino, to facilitate attention to the economic Trinity and to give it priority. Interpreted in the
second way the function of the axiom is more radical: the economic Trinity is
identical with the immanent Trinity and, because of this identity, it is sufficient
to talk about the economic Trinity. However, a problematic aspect of this identity is that one may, on the same basis, conclude the opposite, namely that it
is sufficient to talk about the immanent Trinity. 38
3 .1.1 A discussion about interpretation

The first interpretation
Hilberath, for example, has defended the first type of interpretation. He has
argued that many discussions about the interpretation of the axiom turn out to
be superfluous, when the 'is' is understood in the context of the history of theology and the 'vice versa' against the background of Rahner's transcendental
theology. Rahner wants to stress that the economic Trinity is already the immanent Trinity, and that 'in the history of salvation God has not revealed something about himself that leaves him completely untouched and his essence in
no way known, but has revealed himself'. So, 'already' in the salvation-historical treatises such as christology, pneumatology and the theology of grace,
and 'not just' in de Deo Trino, the Triune God is the subject. And with regard
to the 'vice versa' he explains that Rahner only wants to stress that God in himself is such that he can and will communicate himself to creatures. He adds
three remarks on what Rahner did not intend to say: that God is completely
merged into history, that there is in that sense a strict identity between the economic and immanent Trinity, and that in salvation history we have a complete
understanding of God. 39
Those three remarks are somewhat different in kind. With regard to the first
and the third remark, it certainly would be strange to suppose that Rahner
intended to propose a form of pantheism or panentheism, or to suppose that he
intended to say that we can comprehend God completely. But the question is
not so much about intention as about formulation. That is why several theologians question the formulation. For example, Y. Congar provides 'two glosses
38 Cf. F. Sanders, 'Entangled in the Trinity: Economic and hrunanent Trinity in Recent Theology',
in Dialog: a Journal of Theology 40 (2001) 3, 175-182.
39 B. Hilberath, Der dreieinige Gott und die Gemeinschaft der Menschen, Mainz, Griinewald,
1990, 63-68.
436
that limit strongly the absolute character' of the formulation. One gloss is concerned with the difference between the 'free' mystery of the history of salvation and the 'necessary' mystery of the Trinity. For this difference he refers to
the discussion in the early Church that shaped the Creed so decisively. It was
maintained against Arius that creation is a free act and that God would have
been Father Son and Spirit even without the creation. The other gloss concerns
the eschatological aspect of God's self-communication, the visio beatifica, and
the central question here is whether one can say that the whole of the divine
mystery is revealed in God's self communication in history. 40 B. Forte, referring to Cougar's comments, concludes that 'the necessary antithesis' to the
thesis that the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity, is that the immanent
Trinity is not the economic Trinity. 41 The concerns Cougar formulates in these
glosses are points that return repeatedly in the present discussions, as will
become clear in what follows. 42
But with regard to Hilberath's second remark on what Rahner did not intend
to claim, -the identity of the two Trinities -, this intention is not so clear. For
it seems rather strange that Rahner, by using both 'is' and 'vice versa', especially in combination with the double use of 'Trinity', did not intend to deny
two Trinities and did not intend to point to their identity. That is what Hilberath
in fact presented a little earlier as the correct interpretation of the axiom. 43
The second interpretation

As mentioned, another more radical interpretation of the axiom is also given.
P. Schoonenberg was probably the first one to propose such an interpretation.
In 1973 he published theses that he presented as provisional indications of his
Trinitarian reflections and as a further development of Rahner's insights. 44 He
4 Cf. Y. Congar, Je crois en /'Esprit Saint, t. III, Paris, Cerf, 1980, 34-44; Congar refers for the
second glossa to G. Lafont, Peut-on connaitre Dieu en Jesus Christ?, Paris 1969, and to B. Rey,
'Theologie trinitaire et Revelation biblique', in Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Theologiques
1970, 636-653. Cf. also W. Kasper, Der Gott Jesu Christi, 335-336.
41
B. Forte, Trinitii come storia. Saggio sui Dio cristiano, (Simbolica Ecclesiale 4), Cinisello
Balsamo, Ed. San Paolo, 19935, 23.
42
For the first glossa Congar refers to, see also R. Sokolowski, The God ofFaith and Reason, on
the Christian distinction.
43
'In der heilsgeschichtlichen Trinitiit [ ... ] begegnet uns Gott selbst, wie er in sich (immanent)
ist, und Gott ist in sich so daB er dem Menschen in der Geschichte als er selber begegnen kann.'
Hilberath, Der dreieinige Gott .. . , 64.
44
P. Schoonenberg, 'Trinitiit - Der vollendete Bund. Thesen zur Lehre vom dreipersi:inlichen
Gott', in Orientierung 37 (1973), 115-117 (translated as 'Trinity- the Consummated Covenant.
Theses on the Doctrine of the Trinitarian God' in Studies in Religion 5 [1975] 111-116).
Herwi Rikhof
437
groups his 36 theses in four categories: about the direction of theological reflection, with regard to Trinitarian concepts, about the 'three persons', about christology and pneumatology. The ftrst category contains theses interpreting Rahner' s axiom. This interpretation has provoked opposite reactions, but precisely
because of these reactions it is also 'the most instructive' .45
Schoonenberg starts with formulating a rule that is decisive for what follows:
our thinking moves from the world to God and never the other way around. This
rule is not contradicted by revelation, since revelation is God's self-communication in human history. The rule's consequence for the Trinity is that the Trinity 'can never be the point of departure. In no way can we conclude from the
Trinity to Christ and the Spirit given to us, but always only the other way
around. ' 46 After this general remark about the Trinity, he concentrates on the
distinction between economic and immanent Trinity. He makes several rather
different remarks about the distinction. First, he determines the distinction as
'only a distinction between aspects of the same reality' and he quotes Rahner's
axiom as support for this. 47 That is to say, Schoonenberg interprets Rahner's
axiom as about 'aspects of the same reality'. Second, he develops his interpretation further by explaining why the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity:
'in the history of salvation God in himself is present as triune'. With regard to
the vice versa, the rule he formulated at the outset becomes relevant: the immanent Trinity is 'only accessible as economic Trinity'. This has as consequence
that the fact 'that God is Trinity as well apart from his self-communication in
the history of salvation can neither be presupposed nor denied'. How important
and far-reaching this consequence is, becomes clear in the three following theses, in which Schoonenberg concentrates on this claim about the immanent
Trinity. First, he qualifies the question of whether God is Trinity apart from his
historical auto-communication as meaningless, since we do not know how the
relationship is between God's unchangeability and his free self-determination.
Second, the description of the immanent Trinity can only be fruitful if it stays
within the borders of the history of salvation. Third, this limitation applies both
to the names (Father Son, Spirit) and the concepts (person, relation).
Schoonenberg interprets the 'is' and the 'vice versa' in Rahner's axiom in such
a way that the identity between the economic and immanent Trinity is neither
45
F. Sanders uses this qualification although not because of the reactions: F. Sanders, Entangled,
177.
46
Schoonenberg, Trinitiit, thesis 3; in thesis 4 he formulates similar consequences of the christology, focused on the pre-existent Logos.
47
Schoonenberg, Trinitiit, thesis 5.
438
epistemologically nor ontologically symmetrical. C. LaCugna quotes this asymmetrical interpretation with approval, but she also aggravates the issue by questioning the need to speak about the economic and immanent Trinity. 'There is
neither an economic nor an immanent Trinity; there is only the oikonomia that
is the concrete realization of the mystery of theologia in time, space, history
and personality.' 48 Moreover, she argues that the terms she prefers instead,
oikonomia and theologia, should be clarified. Oikonomia is not the Trinity ad
extra, nor is theologia the Trinity in se. Oikonomia is 'the comprehensive plan
of God reaching from creation to consummation, in which God and all creatures are destined to exist together in the mystery of love and communion'; theologia is 'the mystery of God' .49 She opposes strongly the understanding of theologia as about God's interior life, for it presupposes that 'God were something
into which something else could be placed, whether it be attributes or relations
or a trinity of persons. ' 50
LaCugna's discussion of Rahner's axiom and Schoonenberg's interpretation
of it forms the starting point of the second part of her book in which she 'reconceives' the doctrine of the Trinity. She does so against the background of
an analysis in which she traces the history of the marginalization of the theology of the Trinity. Like Rahner she mentions the separation of the treatises de
Deo Uno and de Deo Trino, but unlike Rahner she locates the cause of the marginalization earlier than the 13th century: in the Arian controversy of the
4th century. The Council of Nicea safeguarded the concept of divine salvation
by introducing the homoousios, but, in doing so, also shifted attention from the
history of salvation to the intradivine realm. Moreover, by allowing equality
between Father and Son on the level of theologia and inequality on the level
of oikonomia, - 'the apparent subordinationism of the Son to the Father within
the economy of salvation does not entail subordinationism at the level of theologia'51 -the council created a gap between the two levels. The ultimate
effect of this reaction to Arius was a 'drastic separation of the mystery of God
and the mystery of salvation' .52
So, LaCugna maintains that she does not want to abandon the theologia or theories about the immanent Trinity, but like Schoonenberg she stresses the
oikonomia as proving the basis of, and setting the limits to, that kind of reflec48
LaCugna,
1991, 223.
49
LaCugna,
50
LaCugna,
51
LaCugna,
52
LaCugna,
God for Us. The Trinity and Christian Life, San Francisco, Harper San Francisco,
God for
God for
God for
God for
Us,
Us,
Us,
Us,
223.
225.
37.
37.
Herwi Rikhof
439
tion. She endorses strongly Schoonenberg's remark about the senselessness of

speculation about God's Trinity apart from the oikonomia, ('unverifiable and
ultimately untheological') and maintains that an 'inquiry into the immanent
ground of the missions of Son and Spirit remains a legitimate theological enterprise provided this inquiry is understood properly and modestly, that is, as
reflection on God's self-disclosure in the person of Christ and the activity of
the Holy Spirit. ' 53 The point of the theology of the Trinity is therefore not to
speak about God but 'about God's life with us and our life with each other'. 54
Some critical reactions

LaCugna's plea for the 'essential unity between oikonomia and theologia' as
'the fundamental framework for trinitarian theology' 55 has met with positive
and negative reactions. 56 The negative reactions are neither concerned with her
critique on the separation between oikonomia and theologia nor with her arguments for an immanent Trinity closely connected to the history of salvation,
but with her view that this connection or correlation is an 'essential unity' and
her explication of that essential unity. For example, when Weinandy reacts to
LaCugna's view he neither questions that God is God-for-us nor holds that
there is an ontological distinction between the economic and the immanent
Trinity, but he argues that 'there is an ontological distinction between God and
all else that exists'. 57 There must be a God, a Trinity, for there to be a Godfor-us, a Trinity-for-us. If the oikonomia is the realm in which the Trinity acts
and reveals itself, there must be a realm where the Trinity is. But LaCugna does
not accept that: in her view the Trinity is ontologically the economy. 58 'The
term 'Trinity' merely expresses the Trinitarian pattern or mode of God's rev-
53
LaCugna, God for Us, 231-232; for modesty see also 227.
LaCugna, God for Us, 228.
55
LaCugna, God for Us, 211; cf. 13. In this context she formulates more generally: 'Theology
is inseparable from soteriology, and vice versa'.
56
Peters, e.g. qualifies LaCugna's book as a 'real jewel', GOD, 122, and J. Vickers, Invocation
and Assent. The Making and Remaking of Trinitarian Theology, Grand Rapids/Cambridge, Eerdmans,
2008 considers it 'the most important and influential account of the demise of the Trinity in Christian theology in the West' and sees his own book about 'a similar loss in English Protestant theology'
as 'a complement' to LaCugna's overall thesis. xi.
57 Th. Weinandy, The Father's Spirit of Sonship: Reconceiving the Trinity, Edinburgh, T &T Clalk,
1995, Excursus Two, The Immanent and the Economic Trinity: a Response to LaCugna, 123-136, 130.
58 Cf. 'The immanent Trinity is not transhistorical, transempirical or transeconomic.' LaCugna,
God for Us, 229.
54
440
elation .. .' .59 One can notice a similar pattern in Molnar's discussion of
LaCugna's views. 60 On the one hand, he acknowledges that the intention not
to ignore or to bypass the economy is correct and he agrees with the thesis that
we can only say anything about the immanent Trinity on the basis of the economy; on the other hand, he argues that precisely because of that basis we must
'recognize that all our theological knowledge is grounded in the fact that God
is towards us what he is eternally in himself.' Or to put it differently: LaCugna
refuses to give the doctrine of the immanent Trinity 'a genuine function in her
thinking about God for us' for 'she refuses to acknowledge the importance of
the immanent Trinity as the presupposition, meaning and goal of any Trinitarian theology. ' 61
Another approach
I have presented this discussion about the interpretation of Rahner's axiom not
only in order to show that the question of what kind of theology the theology
of the Trinity should be is at stake, but also how complicated that discussion
is, how different elements are involved and how different considerations play,
or rather should play, a role, because the different elements require different
considerations and evaluations. But before I give an analysis of this complicated discussion, I want to bring in the view of another theologian, since it contains elements that can help this analysis.
While most authors use the economic/immanent distinction chronologically,
that is, to describe the development in the history of theology, D. Coffey has
a different approach. In his commentary on Rahner's axiom he points first to
a general distinction: the epistemological and the ontological order, 'the order
of knowledge, of discovery and the order of being, of givenness' and remarks
in applying this distinction to the Trinity that these 'do not necessarily coincide: it is possible that the one be the reverse of the other and indeed such is
the case in the matter of the Trinity' .62 Commenting on Schoonenberg's
59
Weinandy, The Father's Spirit of Sonship, 132; cf. LaCugna's remark that the immanent trinitarian theology is 'a way of thinking and speaking about the structure or pattern of God's self-expression in salvation history.' God for Us, 225.
60 P.O. Molnar, Divine Freedom and the Doctrine of the Immanent Trinity. In Dialogue with Karl
Barth and Contemporary Theology, London/New York, T&T Clark, 2002, 3-6; Molnar does not refer
to Weinandy's book.
61
Molnar, Divine Freedom, 4.
62 D. Coffey, Deus Trinitas. The Doctrine of the Triune God, New York/Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999, 15.
441
Herwi Rikhof
methodological starting point (our thinking about God moves from our reality
to God and never in the opposite direction) he remarks that this is 'only half
correct'. It is correct, since it indicates the move from biblical data to the immanent Trinity and disqualifies the generation of some new and fundamental data;
it is incorrect since 'it takes no account of the necessity of a return from the
immanent Trinity to the biblical data to acquire the doctrine of the economic
Trinity' .63 This has consequences for the theology of the Trinity: it is neither
just a biblical doctrine nor is it just the doctrine of the immanent Trinity. 'The
proper study of the Trinity is the study of the economic Trinity, which of course
presupposes both the biblical and the immanent Trinity. ' 64
Coffey clarifies this further by appealing to Lonergan, who discerns three levels in the process of knowing: experience, understanding and judgment. The
biblical data correspond to experience, the immanent Trinity to 'our understanding of these data in the world of our own intellectual culture', the economic Trinity 'is our affirmation that this is the case': 'It is the judgment by
which we return from our reflective understanding to the real spiritual world
brought to its perfection in the Christ event, and this not just as revealed and
experienced but as understood and affirmed. ' 65
So, Coffey does not equate the biblical data about the Trinity with the economic
Trinity, but uses them as data to be developed in a (continuous) process of
knowledge and understanding. In that process the immanent Trinity is not 'an
end in itself', but plays an important and indispensable role. It safeguards the
divine transcendence and 'drives' the economic Trinity: 'without the immanent
Trinity the economic Trinity would not exist. ' 66
3 .1.2 An analysis of the discussion
In order to unravel this complicated discussion, it might be good to start with
some remarks about terminology. As I mentioned already, the use of 'the
immanent Trinity' and 'the economic Trinity' is confusing. It suggests two
Trinities. In order to avoid that unwanted suggestion, it might be helpful to use
the originally patristic terminology of oikonomia and theologia. This terminology makes clear that what is at stake is not (the acceptance or the denial
63
Coffey, Deus Trinitas,

Coffey, Deus Trinitas,
and doctrine.
65 Coffey, Deus Trinitas,
66 Coffey, Deus Trinitas,
64
16.
16; Coffey uses the term 'biblical Trinity' to refer to the biblical data
17.
19, cf. 24.
442
of) two Trinities, but two ways of approaching the Trinity or of talking about
the Trinity. These two ways are neither unique to the discourse about the Trinity nor typical of theology. These two approaches can easily be discovered in
any ordinary discourse about people: on the one hand a discourse about what
a person does or did and on the other hand a discourse about who, or what kind
of person, that person is or was. Indicative for these two kinds of discourse is
the type of language employed: on the one hand, the concrete language of
anecdotes and stories; on the other hand, the analytical language of concepts
and general characterizations or qualifications (like trustworthy, intelligent,
beautiful or dubious, stupid and ugly). Remarks like 'I did not expect that from
her' or 'that is typically him' also show the complex relationship between these
two kinds of discourse. The second depends (continually) on the first and is a
form of comment or interpretation; in that sense it is secondary. But as comment or interpretation, the second discourse influences and determines the first
decisively. For example, somebody's actions are judged differently if that person is considered to be reliable or shady. The complicated relationship between
the two levels becomes even clearer when one considers what kind of action
would be required to change those qualifications.67
Precisely because these two different types of discourse are not typical of theology, but occur in ordinary language and are an integral part of ordinary language, the occurrence of both types in religious and theological language is not
surprising or strange. The burden of the argument seems therefore to be on
those who are critical or suspicious of the discourse typical of theologia. Why
should that kind of discourse be barred from religious or theological language?
An argument in favour of such a banishment might be that this kind of discourse neglects the mystery, the basic incomprehensibility of God. But that
argument does not seem to take sufficiently into account that even in ordinary
language there is always some mystery left and that that kind of discourse is
not intended to give mere descriptions. Moreover, although that kind of language can be misconstrued or abused, that does not invalidate that approach
in principle. The fact that God is a mystery does not call for silence, but for a
kind of negative theology that is negative because God is different and surprising.68
67
It seems too easy to equate these two discourses with the distinction between the order of knowing (epistemology) and the order of being (ontology), since both kinds of discourse take place in
both orders.
68
I use the rather different characterizations 'different' and 'surprising' to capture the fundamental difference between Creator and creation and the way God acts in history respectively. J. Wissink has made the useful distinction between a (mostly) philosophical negative theology based upon
Herwi Rikhof
443
This point can also be put somewhat differently. The distinction between religious discourse and theological discourse is a common one. To the former
belong Scripture and liturgy, to the latter the systematic reflection on the faith.
To the distinction a variety of other distinctions or degrees can be connected,
such as direct-indirect, talking with God and talking about God, involveddetached, narrative-argument. 69 The way the distinction is made also indicates
a relationship: the former is primary, the later secondary. Religious discourse
is and remains presupposed to, or in, theological discourse. Theological discourse serves religious discourse through clarification and interpretation, since
it answers questions arising out of religious discourse. For religious discourse
provokes thought and questions not only from without, but also from within.
Upon closer inspection this clear distinction has to be modified, since elements
of reflection, clarification, interpretation and teaching are part, or have become
part, of religious discourse, such as sermons, catechesis, creeds, prayers, the
canon of the Scriptures, and also the canon within Scripture, and the liturgical
selections of readings. And again, this is also something that can be observed
in our ordinary language. Expressions like 'I did not mean that', 'you cannot
say that', 'that is impolite', 'say nicely "thank you" to ... ', 'apparently I did
not express myself clearly enough' are a normal part of our daily communications. To use just two examples from religious language closely related to
the Trinity: in the gospels, the 'Our Father' is part of Jesus' teaching his disciples how to pray, and that aspect is contained in the liturgical introduction
when the 'Our Father' is prayed during the Mass. The preface of Trinity Sunday, which used to be the preface for every ordinary Sunday in the Roman
a form of agnosticism and a (theological) negative theology based on the awareness of Deus semper
major: 'Enkele theologische reflecties over de negatieve theologie toegelicht aan de hand van Thomas van Aquino', in I. Bulhof, L ten Kate (eds), Ons ontbreken heilige namen. Negatieve theologie
in de hedendaagse cultuurfilosofie, Kampen, Kok Agora, 1992, 46-65. For a more extensive analysis of Aquinas' negative theology in the Summa Theologiae also H. Rikhof, 'Negative Theology', in
J. Wissink (ed.), (Dis)continuity and (De)construction. Reflections on the meaning of the past in crisis situation, Kampen, Kok Pharos, 1995, 154-171. With regard to silence cf. R. Jenson's therapeutic use of Luther's insistence on God's hidden-ness, namely to ward off a 'bowdlerized apophaticism,
which had recently been popular', 'The Hidden and the Triune God', in International Journal of Systematic Theology 2 (2000) I, 5-12, 6.
69 Cf. e.g. R. Jenson, 'What is the point of Trinitarian Theology?', inCh. Schwi:ibel (ed.), Trinitarian Theology Today, 31-43. Vickers, Invocation and Assent uses the terms that form the title of
his book to point to the process of demise, i.e. going from 'invocation or prayer to intellectual
assent ... from doxological to epistemological activity' (I). In a footnote he explains the distinction or
contrast as a heuristic device. From his remarks it becomes clear that assent as such is not a problem,
since 'the assent that accompanied invocation of the Trinity in the early church was primarily, if not
exclusively, an assent to propositions about the economic Trinity' (2, nt2).
444
missal before the liturgical reformation of Vatican II, contains, in the context
of a prayer, reminders of how to talk about God the Father Son and Spirit. 70
Precisely this interaction between the two kinds of discourse show that the distinction should not necessarily be seen in terms of contrast, conflict or betrayal,
and that it is even rather misguided to introduce that kind of terminology as
something obvious and self-evident. This observation is important, since in the
literature one encounters quite often the suggestion that the later tradition, by
being later, and especially the development of dogma, by being a development, are alien and even hostile to the original. 71 It might be necessary to argue
that some or even most theologians have not been able to reflect adequately
upon the Trinity, and not have been able to realize fully what is involved in
the reformulation of the mystery of God required because of the incarnation
and the inhabitation, but for such an argumentation to be meaningful it is not
enough to point to differences in terminology, or even in concepts, since continuity or discontinuity of faith is established on the level of doctrinal content
and is a question of judgement. In making a judgement, terms and concepts are
used, but the same judgement can be made by means of different concepts
while the same terms can express a rather different judgement. And the history of the concepts used does not fully and decisively determine the judge70
As such the preface resembles the Creed prayed in the liturgy both in formulation and function. Although the creeds used in the liturgy contain a rule of faith if only because of the basic tripartite structure, the creed that explicitly formulates the Quicumque vult, the so-called Athanasian
Creed, that contains so many verbal similarities to Augustine's De Trinitate that 'it may have arisen
somewhere in the Augustinian tradition' as J. Pelikan remarks: Credo. Historical and Theological
Guide to Creed and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, Newhaven /London, Yale University Press, 2003, 437-438. Pelikan does not give references to de Trinitate, but Augustine's summary of the faith which Haec et mea fides est, quando haec est catholica fides, and which forms a
starting point for the book, might be a good example: book I, n. 7. B. Studer points to the deficient
character of the reception of Augustine's thought in this creed in his Augustinus de Trinitate. Eine
Einfiihrung, Paderborn etc., Schi:iningh, 2005, 18, while E. Hill in a book on the Trinity which is
more or less a commentary of Augustine's de Trinitate is more positive: E. Hill, The Mystery of the
Trinity, London, Chapman, 1985,5-6. Lash's insistence that 'the great religious traditions of the world
are best understood as schools' fits in well with this aspect of rule. Holiness, 11.
71 This is not the place to discuss the various theories about the development of dogma, or the
different views on the relationship between exegesis and (systematic) theology. The appearance of
Jesus von Na-zareth by J. Ratzinger/Benedikt XVI, Freiburg etc., Herder, 2007 gave a fresh input to
the discussion about that relationship. Cf. also S. Fowl (ed.), The Theological Interpretation of Scripture, Classic and contemporary readings, Oxford etc., Blackwell, 1997 and K Vanhoozer (ed.), Theological Interpretation of the New Testament. A Book-by-Book survey, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic, 2008, esp. the introduction. See for some of interesting suggestions with regard to the connection
between Scripture and the theology of the Trinity: Fr. Young, 'The Trinity and the New Testament',
in C. Rowland, C. Tuckett (eds.), The Nature of New Testament Theology, Essays in honour of Robert
Morgan, Oxford etc., Blackwell 2006, 286-305.
Herwi Rikhof
445
ment pronounced with these concepts.72 Two examples from Paul can make
this line of thought more concrete. In 'God, who has shone in our hearts to
bring the enlightenment which is the knowledge of God's glory in the face of
Christ' (2 Cor. 4,6) Paul expresses, certainly if the context is taken into account,
the same judgement as is expressed in the tripartite creed.73 And when Paul,
probably quoting a liturgical text, talks about Christ who was in the form of
God and did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped and that he
received the name who is above every name (Phil. 2, 6-11), he expresses the
same judgement as contained in the Nicean homoousion. 74
In the light of these considerations, attention to other sources of Trinitarian
theology as well as to 'the practices of the Church' entailed in religious language, is not only understandable but also necessary. 75
A somewhat related complication in the discussion about the axiom is the double purpose of Rahner's axiom: diagnostic and therapeutic. Although both purposes are appropriate, they easily become mixed up. That means that the distinction between, on the one hand, historical analyses and, on the other hand,
systematic considerations, tends to disappear. A pattern of argumentation one
encounters too often is the following: because a certain development ends in
an undesirable result - the isolation of the Trinity in theology and spirituality
because of the appeal to the immanent Trinity, - that development is disqualified. This pattern is questionable on at least on two accounts: it is insufficiently
historical and insufficiently systematic. It is insufficiently historical since it
assumes that the beginning logically and necessarily leads to the factual outcome, as if 'on the way' no historical events, contingent decisions or misunderstandings and mistakes have influenced and determined the whole process.76
It is insufficiently systematic since it overlooks the internal dynamism contained
in the interplay between the two levels of languages mentioned above. Religious language provokes questions and faith seeks understanding, especially
since they are part of the ongoing process of living. That means that certain
72 D. Yeago The New Testament and the Nicene Dogma: A Contribution to the Recovery of
Theological Exegesis', inS. Fowl (ed.), The Theological Interpretation of Scripture, Oxford/Cambridge Mass., 1997, 87-100.
73 See F. Young, D. Ford, Meaning and Truth in 2 Corinthians, (Biblical Foundations in Theology), London/Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1987.
74 D. Yeago, The New Testament, 95.
75 See e.g. Cunningham, The Three are One; cf. also J. Buckley, D. Yago (eds), Knowing the Triune God. The Work of the Spirit in the Practices of the Church, Grand Rapids/Cambridge, Eerdmans,
2001 and my remark at the end of 3.2.
76 Cf. the earlier remarks about the development of dogma.
446
questions are pertinent and in that sense the discussions in the early Church
about, for example, Arius, are more than just historical.17 A different question
is whether the historical analyses are in fact correct. To this question I will turn
after mentioning a fmal element in this complicated discussion.
In my short presentation of Raimer's long contribution on the theology of the
Trinity I have not mentioned his argument that the term 'person' should no
longer be used in talking about the Triune God, since the meaning of this term
has changed considerably over the centuries and so much that continuing using
this term results in a profound misunderstanding and some form of tritheism.7 8
One can respond to this argumentation by questioning the historical - philosophical analysis which is the basis of this verdict and point to other traditions
in philosophy that lead to a different conclusion.79 But one can also respond
in a more fundamental way by, on the one hand not denying the influence of
the (cultural) context, but on the other hand not accepting that influence as
necessarily decisive and as a matter of one way only; that is, by accepting and
maintaining faith as a permanent source of content and critical insights. The
retrieval of the Trinitarian origins and the revolutionary development of the
concept 'person' as, for example, advocated by J. Zizoulas, is an example of
this approach. 80
4. The therapy
As mentioned in the 'general impression' (2.1), Raimer's agenda for the proposed therapy for the recovery of the theology of the Trinity is broadly fol-
77
This argument plays a role in the discussion about the proposal to change the baptismal formula or, more in general, to avoid terms like 'Father' and 'Son'. A related question is whether certain developments in philosophy in particular, or in the culture in general, should determine religious
and theological language.
78
Rahner, Der dreifaltige Gott, 385-392. Instead of 'person' Rahner proposes 'Subsistenzweise'.
K. Barth, too, has questioned the use of 'person' and prefers 'Seinsweise': Kirchliche Dogmatik, I,l
Die Lehre vom Wort Gottes, Zurich, EVZ-Verlag, 8 1964, 367-404.
79 As e.g. W. Kasper does: Der Gott Jesu Christi, 351-354. For a critical discussion of Kasper's
views: R. Radlbeck, Der Personsbegriff in der Trinitiitstheologie der Gegenwart - untersucht am
Beispiel der Entwuife Jurgen Moltmanns und Walter Kaspers, Regensburg, Pustet 1988, 109-203. C.
Gunton, too, points to an alternative philosophical tradition in The Promise of Trinitarian Theology,
Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1991, 86-103.
80
J. Zizioulas, Being as Communion. Studies in Personhood and the Church, London, Darton,
Longmann and Todd, 1985; cf. also LaCugna, God for Us, who develops Zizioulas' analyses in a central part of her 're-conceiving the doctrine of the Trinity: ch. 8 'Persons in Communion'. In D. Knight
(ed.), The Theology of John Zizioulas. Personhood and Church, Aldershot, Ashgate, 2007, A. Brown
analyses extensively some criticism of Zizioulas book: 35-78.
Herwi Rikhof
447
lowed: the history of salvation is the basis and the principal content of theological reflection. For most theologians that means that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ has become the focus of attention. It is interesting and
instructive to see how relatively early in the current renaissance Moltmann
does that.
Moltmann
As the title of Moltmann's frrst book that is relevant for this reconstruction indicates, the focus is on the cross: The Crucified God. A central, if not the central question of this book is whether there is a logical connection between the
two characteristic features that distinguish Christianity from other religions: the
cross and the Trinity. Must the theology of the cross be a doctrine of the Trinity and must the doctrine of the Trinity be a theology of the cross? 81 Is Christ's
cross 'the material principle' of the doctrine of the Trinity, is the doctrine of
the Trinity 'the formal principle' of the knowledge of the cross ?82 In the answer
to what happened on the cross between 'Christ and the God he called his
Father' the analysis of 'to give up' (paradidonai) is crucial. On the basis of a
series of Pauline texts Moltmann concludes that since both Father and Son are
the subject of this 'giving up', 'the event on the cross expresses a deep agreement of will between Father and Son'. Using Johannine texts, Moltmann concludes that 'what proceeds from this event between Father and Son is the
Spirit', the Spirit of love. 83 The event on the cross determines our talking about
God and not some 'metaphysical or ethical' concept of God. 84
Although Moltmann does mention the Spirit, one cannot but notice that his
main attention is on the relationship between Father and Son, as in this formulation, typical of his argumentation: 'who wants to speak in a Christian
way about God, must tell the history of Jesus as a history between the Son and
the Father. ' 85 When the Spirit appears, it is like an afterthought: the life-giving Spirit 'originates' from the event on the cross between Father and Son. 86
In his other book on the Trinity - he presents it as the first in a series of sys81
Moltmann, Der gekreuzigte Gott, 223.

Moltmann, Der gekreuzigte Gott, 228.
Moltmann, Der gekreuzigte Gott, 231; cf 232.
84 Moltmann, Der gekreuzigte Gott, 233.
85 Moltmann, Der gekreuzigte Gott, 233-234.
86 Moltmann, Der gekreuzigte Gott, 234; in this section, Trinitarische Kreuzestheologie, Moltmann
mentions 'Spirit' 11 times and only in two short passages on p. 231 is the Spirit the centre of attention.
82
83
448
tematic contributions to theology 87 - the passion story is still at the centre and
the analysis of 'to give up' again a central element, but that story now includes
more than the event on the cross and more importantly, it forms the centrepiece
of the history of Jesus, that starts with Jesus' baptism and calling and ends
with the eschatological completion. In the various stages of that history 'the
three divine subjects cooperate' and that means that the unity is not a 'monadic
unity', but a unity of 'communion'. And while this kind of unity is also the
model for the disciples, Moltmann concludes that 'the unity of the Trinity is
not just a theological, but in the core at the same time, a soteriological concept'.ss
The history of the Son is the central part of this book. Why this is so, Moltmann indicates when he remarks that he takes the history of Jesus, the Son, as
his starting point, since he is the 'revealer of the Trinity' for in 'his historical
and eschatological history the differences, the relationships and the unity of
Father, Son and Spirit become known'. 89 At each stage of the history of the
Son, Moltmann indicates how Father, Son and Spirit work together and how
their relationships are expressed. 90 He concludes that in the mission, the passion and the resurrection the order is: Father-Spirit-Son; in the reign of Christ
and the mission of the Spirit the order is: Father-Son-Spirit and within an
eschatological perspective the order is: Spirit-Son-Father. 91
From this development in Moltmann' s theology one can conclude, first, that
for the purpose (Absicht) and consequence of the doctrine of the Trinity, 'the
Christianizing' of the concept of God, Christ is essential: one can neither
understand God without Christ nor Christ without God. 92 One can also conclude that for a doctrine of the Trinity it is not sufficient to concentrate exclusively on the mysterium pascale, but one has to take into account as well Jesus'
life, his actions and his preaching, before the fmal episode of the passion. One
can, fmally, conclude, that although in his later work Moltmann pays more
attention to the Spirit, there is still some uneasiness about the role, function and
place of the Spirit, albeit that in the various patterns of relationships, which he
indicates at the various stages of the history of the Son, the Spirit receives
attention. The uneasiness can be seen in the first analysis of what happens in
87
88
89
90
9!
92
Moltmann,
Moltmann,
Moltmann,
Moltmann,
Moltmann,
Moltmann,
Trinitiit,
Trinitiit,
Trinitiit,
Trinitiit,
Trinitiit,
Trinitiit,
11.
111; cf also 106.
81.
91, 99, 104, 105-106 and 109.
110.
147; cf also Der gekreuzigte Gott, 233-236.
Herwi Rikhof
449
Gethsemane and on Golgotha: that is a story 'between Father and Son', in

which the Father leaves the Son and by doing so 'the Son not only loses his
sonship, but the Father also loses his Fathership', and in which the Spirit does
not figure. 93 And when he mentions the Spirit in a second analysis, it is
sparsely. 94 The uneasiness can also been seen in the way Moltmann presents
and discusses the different patterns of cooperation. The point is not so much
that he begins with the Father and finishes with the Spirit, and not even that if
he mentions the Spirit, it is almost always with the preposition 'by', but that
when he discerns, in one of the patterns, a primary active role of the Spirit, he
gives hardly any reason for that active role in his explanation, and, even more
importantly, he locates that active role of the Spirit in the eschaton. 95 Moltmann
does not neglect the role of the Spirit in the present, but his few remarks about
baptism and about the historical and systematic connection between baptism
on the one hand, and the confession of faith in Father, Son and Spirit and the
theology of the Trinity on the other hand, remain isolated remarks. 96
I started my discussion of the therapy with the remark that the history of salvation is the basis and the principal content of the theological reflection and
that for most theologians that means that the life, death and resurrection of
Jesus Christ has become the focus of attention. And I have presented an outline of Moltmann' s view to exemplify that remark. Despite the obvious accents
which various other theologians put in their reflections, the central elements
in Moltmann' s view can be found in their work too. For example, A. Hunt
93
94
Moltmann, Trinitiit, 92 and 96.

Moltmann does not mention the Spirit once in the first subsection of the third section Die Hingabe des Sohnes, entitled Die Passion Christi; in the second subsection, with the same title as the
section, he mentions the Spirit three times. On the basis of Hebr. 9,14 he remarks that the delivery
by the Father and the sacrifice of the Son take place by the Spirit and concludes 'The Holy Spirit is
therefore the one who connects in the separation, who connects the connection and the separation of
Father and Son'. (Trinitiit, 98; cf. 99).
95 Examples of the three repetitions of the term, 'by' are found in the pattern on pp. 91 and 104;
in the pattern on p. 99 the phrase, 'by the Spirit' occurs only once. The only sentence containing a
reference to the Spirit is at the same time revealing of the uneasiness: 'In this completion of salvation and in this glorification of God, the Son is the real acting One, but the Father the truly receiving
One. In the eschatology all activity comes from the Son and the Spirit; the Father is the receiver of
the Kingdom, the Power and the Glory for ever'. Moltmann, Trinitiit, 109. Earlier, 105, he remarks
that the Spirit 'in the whole New Testament is understood eschatologically'.
96 Moltmann does conclude: 'The theology of the Trinity is therefore theology of baptism' ( 106),
but when, in the following part, (Die Welt der Trinitiit) he dedicates a paragraph to 'Die Verkliirung
des Geistes' (137-143) he does not mention baptism, and the inhabitation of the Spirit he mentions
only in the final sentence of a subsection (140).
450
presents her analysis of recent Catholic theology under the telling title The
Trinity and the Paschal Mystery. 97 She concludes that theologians as different
as Fr. Durwell, G. Lafont, H.U. von Balthasar and S. Moore 'recognize that
the paschal mystery is not just redemptive but revelatory of the trinitarian mystery' .98 And although she discerns a clear appreciation for the diversity of the
role of Father, and concludes that the Spirit 'emerges in these theologies with
singular vitality', this diversity and vitality remain within the paschal mystery.99
Of course, it would be strange not to pay attention to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in any Christian discourse about salvation and it would
be also rather strange for the reformulation of the mystery of God not to give
central attention to the incarnation, understood broadly as referring to the mission of the Son. But it ~s equally strange not to give full attention to the other
mission, the mission of the Spirit. After all, the history of salvation is structured by two missions, or to use the famous expression by Irenaeus, 'there are
two hands of God'. In my analyses of Moltmann's view I have pointed to the
uneasy way in which the Spirit is mentioned and the somewhat limited way
the work of the Spirit is presented. I want to develop this observation in two
further steps. First, I want to mention a development in Christology that at
least meets part of this point of criticism and that seems to be a promising feature in the application of Rahner's therapy. Second, I want make a few remarks
about the Holy Spirit and pneumatology in order to overcome the limitations.
Spirit-christology
Over the last few years a form of Christology already present in the early
Church, but which, since the great councils of the fourth and fifth century, has
hardly been developed further, has been revitalized: Spirit-christology. As the
title indicates, it is a form of Christology and it can be either presented as a
substitute for the classical Logos-christology or as a complement to that tra-
97
A. Hunt, The Trinity and the Paschal Mystery. A Development in Recent Catholic Theology,
Collegeville, The Liturgical Press, 1997. In the introduction she presents her analyses in the light of
the traditional Trinitarian theology ('the Augustinian-Thomistic' paradigm, 111) and wants to 'assess
the gains this new approach yields.' 9.
98
Hunt, The Trinity, 113.
99 Hunt, The Trinity, 117-118; cf. also the methodological shifts 'from the incarnation to paschal
mystery, from Christmas to Easter', 135-136. In her conclusion, she points to parallels in contemporary
Protestant Trinitarian theology and discusses explicitly Moltrnann, 164-171. Cf. also W. Pannenberg,
Systematische Theologie, Bd 1, Gtittingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988, Kap. 5.
Herwi Rikhof
451
dition. As R. Del Colle formulates it: 'Spirit-christology focuses theological

reflection on the role of the Holy Spirit in Christology properly. It seeks to
understand both "who Christ is" and "what Christ has done" from the perspective of the third article of the creed. ' 100 What is new and distinctive is that
'on the level of theological construction and doctrinal interpretation, it proposes that the relationship between Jesus and God and the role of Christ in
redemption cannot be fully understood unless there is an explicitly pneumatological dimension. In other words, the relationship between Jesus and the Spirit
is as important to conveying the truth of the christological mystery with its
soteriological consequences as that of Jesus and the Word'. 101 It is precisely
this attention to the role of the Spirit that makes a Christology in Trinitarian
perspective possible. 102
As already mentioned, within this focus a broad variety can be noticed: some
theologians present Spirit-christology as a substitute to the traditional Logoschristology, while others see it as a complement. 103 Del Colle notices that, with
a few exceptions, Catholic theologians do not choose the strong revisionary
path of substitution, but opt for the weak revision of complementation. The central question in such an approach of complementation is 'how in the relationship between Son and Spirit is the distinction of persons maintained and the
prospect of the model not compromised.' 104 A central role in Del Colle's analysis and evaluation of Spirit Christology is played by D. Coffey's views. Since
Del Colle published his study, Coffey has published his already mentioned
Deus Trinitas and I will use this more recent publication to present some of
Del Colle's points. 105 But before I do that, I want to mention P. Schoonenberg
again, since his work on Spirit-christology centres around an event that also
seems essential to any attempt to reinstall the doctrine of the Trinity at the
centre of the living faith.
100 R. Del Colle, Christ and the Spirit. Spirit-Christology in Trinitarian Perspective, New
York/Oxford Oxford University Press, 1994, 3.
101 R. Del Colle, Christ and the Spirit, 4.
102 Cf. also E. Rogers, After the Spirit. A constructive Pneumatology from resources outside the
Modern West, Grand Rapids/Cambridge, Eerdmans, 2005, esp. the second part: The Spirit rests upon
the Body of The Son, 75-207.
103 For representatives of the substitution Del Colle refers to, inter alia, G. Lampe, God as Spirit, Oxford Clarendon Press, 1977 and J. Mackey, Jesus the Man and the Myth, London, SCM Press,
1979 and The Christian Experience of God as Trinity, London, SCM Press, 1983. For his discussion
of Lampe, see 161-169.
104 Del Colle, Christ and Spirit, 6.
105 In his book Coffey refers to Del Colle's book and presents his book as 'a suitable sort of climax' of his earlier work: Deus Trinitas, 3.
452
Jesus' baptism
Schoonenberg's fmal monograph is about Spirit-christology, about 'a Christology in which what Jesus constitutes as Son of God is ascribed to the Holy
Spirit'. 106 I can not discuss adequately Schoonenberg' s interesting and controversial development of this Spirit-christology into a doctrine of the Trinity,
but will only mention that he, in order to complement the traditional Logoschristology, 'unsharpens' the classical concept of person and proposes 'personalizing principles' to refer to the Logos and Pneuma before the incarnation.107 But one other element, Schoonenberg's point of departure, should
receive somewhat more attention, since it is a central element to the development of Spirit-christology: Jesus' baptism. 108
One can say that the story of Jesus' baptism is the Trinitarian story in the
gospels. The importance of this story is its Trinitarian character, showing right
from the beginning of Jesus' appearance the relations between Father, Son and
Spirit to be constitutive for who Jesus is and what he does. This becomes especially clear if one reads in Luke's gospel the stories about Jesus' baptism,
temptation and first public appearance as a whole, in which in a negative and
positive way the event of the baptism is clarified and which is not only an
introduction to the rest, but is the whole gospel in a nutshell. 109 Moreover,
although in the New Testament there is no clear indication of a relationship
between Jesus' baptism and the baptism of his followers, in the sense that they
are baptized because he was baptized, but there are connections between this
characteristic feature of Christian life and this crucial event in Jesus' life. In
Matthew, for example, Jesus' first and last words are concerned with his, and
respectively his followers', baptism, and the similarity in the titles Christ-Christian is not accidental. 110 In the course of the history of theology Jesus' baptism
106
P. Schoonenberg, De Geest, Het Woord en de Zoon. Theologische overdenkingen over Geestchristologie, Logos-christologie en drieeenheidsleer, Averbode/Kampen, Altiora/Kok, 1991, 40.
7
ID Schoonenberg, De Geest, Het Woord en de Zoon, 58, resp. 164.
108
The cover illustration, part of the front of a 16th century cope of the Averbode Abbey, was
also a deliberate choice. Originally Schoonenberg thought about a reproduction of Roeblev' s famous
icon, which hung prominently in his study.
109
The first reference to the Spirit in Luke, 4,1 creates a link with the baptismal story, the second
reference, also in 4,1, forms, with 4, 14, the frame of the temptation story, while the quotation in 4, 18
of Isaiah, that is central to what happens in the synagogue, refers back to the baptism in 3,21-22. The
mixed reaction including the expulsion and attempt to murder are mirrored in the rest of the gospel.
110
From this perspective, Moltmann's central question in Der gekreuzigte Gott about the relationship between cross and Trinity and his statement that the cross is 'the sign of distinction with
regard to other religions and ways of believing' (222) appear to be too exclusive.
Herwi Rikhof
453
has, therefore, been a source for reflection on the baptism of the believers. 111
And, although Paul's explanation of baptism in Rom 6 has become a dominant
one, references to Jesus' baptism occur both in liturgy and theology with regard
to the Christian baptism. 112 I will return to this theme when I make some
remarks about the Holy Spirit. But before that I want to present some important elements in the recent Spirit-christology that might also strengthen this
line of thought.
Two models
On the basis of biblical data, Coffey argues that the New Testament offers not
just one, but two models of the Trinity: the procession model and the return
model; in his earlier works he used to call the latter the bestowal model. 113
With regard to the first model, Coffey starts with the observation that in the
New Testament Christ is presented 'for us and for our salvation'. The term
'send' is an integral part of this 'pro nobis' presentation. It is used for Christ:
he is sent by the Father. It is also used for the Spirit, sent by Christ from the
Father, to continue his work. In the early Church this working of the Trinity
is used to formulate an ontological doctrine of the Trinity in terms of processions. This mission-procession scheme, Father-Son-Spirit, is common both to
the theology of the East and the West, be it that the question of the filioque is
a crucial point of discussion and disagreement. But Coffey argues, the 'pro
nobis' presentation of Christ has also another concern: 'the return of Christ and
of us with him, to the Father, in the power of the Holy Spirit' .114 And this second concern can even be called the primary, since the purpose of the mission
of Son and Spirit to the believers is to make them children of God. In this
return the Spirit unites the believers to Christ and then to the Father, so the
scheme appears to be: Spirit-Son-Father. But this 'simple inversion of the tra-
111 See e.g. E. Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church. History, Theology and Liturgy in the First
Five Centuries, Grand Rapids/Cambridge, Eerdmans, 2009.
112 An important liturgical example is the prayer in the Easter Vigil over the water; an interesting
theological example is Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae, ill, q. 66, a. 2co: hanc autem virtutem
accepit baptismus, quando Christus est baptizatus. Cf. K. McDonell, The Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan. The Trinitarian and Cosmic Order of Salvation, Collegeville, The Liturgical Press, 1996, esp.
188-235.
113 See for the following, Coffey, Deus Trinitas, ch. 2: From the Biblical to the Immanent Trinity,
33-45. Coffey uses the term 'model', because he wants to stress that either is 'a way' rather than 'the
way' (43).
114 Coffey, Deus Trinitas, 35.
454
ditional taxis' is, according to Coffey, not correct. 115 In support of this claim
he points, inter alia, to the synoptic gospels in which 'the unique divine Sonship of Jesus is brought about by the bestowal of the Holy Spirit on him by
the Father' and in which the Spirit 'emerges as the bond of love between the
Father and Jesus' .116 So, the taxis is rather Father-Spirit-Son or to make it more
precise Father-Spirit-Son-Spirit-Father. 117
Another theologian who shows in one of his books an interest that fits in well
with this development in Christology is Th. Weinandy. In his The Father's
Spirit of Sonship, he remarks a few times that Coffey's views are similar to his,
but that he wants to go somewhat further in his conclusions. 118 The thesis
Weinandy wants to defend and develop in this book is the following: 'within
the Trinity the Father begets the Son in, or by, the Holy Spirit, who proceeds
then from the Father as the one in whom the Son is begotten.' 119 In his 'reconception of the Trinity' he wants to give a more active role to the Spirit. Both
in the Eastern and Western theological traditions 'the conception of the role or
function of the Holy Spirit within the Trinitarian life' has been 'inadequate,
even flawed'. In the West, the Spirit 'assumes a rather passive function'; in
the East 'the meaning of the Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son
is indeterminate'. He blames these weaknesses in both traditions on the influence of philosophical notions 'foreign to, and not in accord with, scriptural
revelation', for they import a form of sequentialism that prevents a true understanding of the Trinity. The sequentialism Weinandy has in mind is the 'logical or conceptual priority of the Father over the Son and the Son over the Holy
Spirit'. 120 'A proper understanding of the Trinity can only be obtained if all
115
Coffey, Deus Trinitas, 36. For the 'simple inversion' he refers toM. Scheeben, Mysterien des
Christentums, Gesammelte Schriften, Bd II, ed. J. Hofer, Freiburg, Herder, 1941, par. 25.
116
Coffey, Deus Trinitas, 37 with reference to baptism (Me) and conception (Mt and Lc); further development beyond the synoptics, see 38-41.
117
Coffey, Deus Trinitas, 44; he refers here to Augustine's view on the Spirit as the mutual love
between Father and Son.
118
Weinandy, The Father's Spirit of Sonship, 36,43,70 and 89. Coffey, Deus Trinitas, 163-164
remarks that 'at one time I seriously considered the thesis that Weinandy proposes, but in the end rejected this' and gives reasons for this rejection.
119
Weinandy, The Father's Spirit of Sonship, ix; cf. 17: ' .. that the Father begets the Son in or
by the Holy Spirit. The Son is begotten by the Father in the Spirit and thus the Spirit simultaneously
proceeds from the Father as the one in whom the Son is begotten. The Son, being begotten in the Spirit, simultaneously loves the Father in the same Spirit by which he himself is begotten( is Loved).'
120
Weinandy, The Father's Spirit of Sonship, 7-9. For the East he points to the lingering influence of middle and neo-platonic emanationism as is apparent in the view that the divinity 'resides in
the Father alone and he shares his divinity with the Son and the Holy Spirit as they emanate out from
him in a sequential pattern- first the Son and then the Holy Spirit' (10). In the West this logical
Herwi Rikhof
455
three persons, logically and ontologically, spring forth in one simultaneous,

non sequential, eternal act in which each person of the Trinity subsistently
defme, and equally is subsistently defmed, by the other persons'. 121 It is not
the place here to examine Weinandy's argument closely, but it provokes some
questions about the theology of the Holy Spirit.
Theology of the H. Spirit

The customary complaint that the Spirit is forgotten, and the repeatedly
expressed wish that within Western theology the doctrine of the Spirit should
receive the necessary attention, seem to belong to the past. Both historical theological and systematic theological studies about the Spirit have appeared for
a variety of reasons: because of developments in the ecumenical movement,
because of the development of Pentecostalism and Pentecostalist movements
within the different churches, and because of what one could call internal theological considerations. 122
The theology of the Holy Spirit could be, and often is, connected with different treatises within systematic theology: with the theology of creation, the theology of the church, the theology of the sacraments, the theology of grace and,
of course, the theology of the Trinity .123 It seems, though, that a fruitful dis-
sequentialism is reinforced by a crucial element from Aristotelian epistemology: that knowledge precedes love. 'Thus the Son is first begotten and known by the Father and then only loved by him in
the Spirit who in turn loves the Father by the Spirit'. (14 with a reference to Thomas Aquinas, ST I,
q. 27 a. 3 and a.4.)
121
Weinandy, The Father's Spirit of Sonship, 14-15. For an elaboration of this see ch. 4: a new
Trinitarian ontology.
122 Y. Congar mentions a 'renouveau charismatique' in the general introduction to his classic
work on the Spirit, but indicates also that the real reason for writing is a desire to understand the faith
professed and lived and the observation of a certain lack of conceptual clarity. Je crois en /'Esprit
Saint, 3 tomes, Paris, Cerf, 1979-1980 (English trans. I believe in the Holy Spirit, New York,
Crossroad, 1997), t.l, 7. F.-X. Durrwell mentions that his work on the resurrection urged him to write
on the Spirit, /'Esprit Saint de Dieu, Paris, Cerf 19852 , 9. Gunton sees as 'churchly' influences for
the interest in Trinitarian theology ('Suddenly we are all Trinitarians') 'the increasing bearing of the
thought of Eastern Orthodox theology on Western theology, as well as the continuing growth of Pentecostalism and the consequent attention given to the doctrine of the Spirit'. Preface to the second edition of The Promise of Trinitarian Theology, 1996, xv. Similar remarks are made by J. Hilberath,
'Pneumatologie', in Th. Sneider (ed.), Handbuch der Dogmatik, 2 Bd, Dusseldorf, Patrnos, 19952, Bd
1, 445-552, 445-450; 526. Cf. also M. Welker, Gottes Geist. Theologie des Heiligen Geistes, Neukirchener Verlag, Neukirchen/Vluyn, 1992, 15, 20-27. See for a historical survey S. Burgess, The
Holy Spirit, 3 vols, Peabody, Hendrickson, 1984-1997. Cf. also J. Mcintyre, The shape of Pneumatology. Studies in the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1997.
123 Cf. Hilberath, 'Pneumatologie', 526-8.
456
cussion of the working of the Spirit in creation, church sacraments and grace
requires an understanding of the Spirit shaped by the doctrine of the Trinity.
That does not only mean a discussion of the filioque, but also a discussion of
the so-called proprium of the Holy Spirit. For that discussion an examination
of the negative verdict Rahner gives of the rule ad extra is required, especially
since another rule is connected to it: the rule of appropriation. Both rules are
blamed for the irrelevancy of the Trinity, since they stipulate that God acts as
one in creation and history (ad extra) and that some aspects of that acting are
only appropriated to Father, Son or Spirit, suggesting an 'as if'. Moreover, for
an understanding of the Spirit shaped by the doctrine of the Trinity a further
inquiry into the biblical themes of adoption and inhabitation is also required,
and into the related concept of deification. Rahner's insistence that in the theology of grace the primary attention should be on uncreated grace, is very relevant. In fact, the earlier remarks about baptism point to the theology of baptism as a fertile basis for these reflections on the workings of the Spirit. One
could even argue that in order to take seriously what is at stake in the current
renaissance of the theology of the Trinity, baptism should be the starting point,
for the doctrine of the Trinity is not only an explanation of the life, death and
resurrection of Jesus Christ, but also an explanation of what it means to be
baptized.
Conclusion
Of course, much more can be said and should be said about the recent renaissance of Trinitarian theology. I have taken the fact of that renaissance more or
less for granted and have not inquired further into the reasons why the appeal
to the history of salvation has become so important and why soteriology has
become a, if not the, decisive criterion for what theology is. I have mentioned
almost in passing critical remarks about the use of terms such as 'monotheism'
and have not discussed explicitly the relevance of this renaissance for the present interreligious dialogue. I have touched, also in passing, on the question of
gender and although I have paid attention to the question of language, more
can be said about the crucial difference between an analogous meaning of a
term like 'good' in 'God is good' and the metaphorical use of a word like
'rock' in 'God is my rock' and of the application of this insight, for example
in the discussion about 'Father'. I have briefly mentioned the critical discussion about 'person', and have hardly said anything about the soaring career of
the concept 'communio', and have not said anything about perichoresis. The
question of the filioque is constantly in the background of Spirit-christology and
Herwi Rikhof
457
I have not shown the importance of the renewed historical and systematic discussion of this question for spirituality; for the discernment of the Spirit.
But in presenting a reconstruction of the current renaissance of Trinitarian theology along the lines of diagnosis and therapy, by analysing exemplary discussions within that framework, and by commenting upon characteristic elements I have shown what is at stake in this remarkable recent development at
the core of Christian faith.
Herwi Rikhof (1948), professor systematic theology at the Faculteit Katholieke Theologie,
Tilburg University.
Address: Nijmeegsebaan 57, NL-6564 CD H. Landstichting.

Current Renaissance of The Theology of The Trinity

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Current Renaissance of The Theology of The Trinity

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

This article was downloaded by: [viviana puebla]

On: 15 November 2014, At: 05:14

THE CURRENT RENAISSANCE

Faculteit Katholieke Theologie , Tilburg University

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Downloaded by [viviana puebla] at 05:14 15 November 2014

Bijdragen, International Journal in Philosophy and Theology 70(4), 423-457.

THE CURRENT RENAISSANCE OF THE

Downloaded by [viviana puebla] at 05:14 15 November 2014

Downloaded by [viviana puebla] at 05:14 15 November 2014

The Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity

Downloaded by [viviana puebla] at 05:14 15 November 2014

2.1 Rahner's diagnosis and therapy

Rahner, 'Der Dreifaltige Gott', 319.

Downloaded by [viviana puebla] at 05:14 15 November 2014

The Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity

2.2 The 'reception' of Rahner's contribution: a general impression

Downloaded by [viviana puebla] at 05:14 15 November 2014

Downloaded by [viviana puebla] at 05:14 15 November 2014

The Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity

is not only the intellectual problems and inadequacies involved in rethinking

Downloaded by [viviana puebla] at 05:14 15 November 2014

The Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity

3. Two critical discussions

Downloaded by [viviana puebla] at 05:14 15 November 2014

3.1 The negative evaluation of the Western tradition

Downloaded by [viviana puebla] at 05:14 15 November 2014

The Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity

Downloaded by [viviana puebla] at 05:14 15 November 2014

Downloaded by [viviana puebla] at 05:14 15 November 2014

Downloaded by [viviana puebla] at 05:14 15 November 2014

The Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity

3.2 The discussion about the axiom

Downloaded by [viviana puebla] at 05:14 15 November 2014

3 .1.1 A discussion about interpretation

Downloaded by [viviana puebla] at 05:14 15 November 2014

The Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity

The second interpretation

Downloaded by [viviana puebla] at 05:14 15 November 2014

Downloaded by [viviana puebla] at 05:14 15 November 2014

The Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity

Downloaded by [viviana puebla] at 05:14 15 November 2014

tion. She endorses strongly Schoonenberg's remark about the senselessness of

Some critical reactions

Downloaded by [viviana puebla] at 05:14 15 November 2014

The Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity

Downloaded by [viviana puebla] at 05:14 15 November 2014

Coffey, Deus Trinitas,

Downloaded by [viviana puebla] at 05:14 15 November 2014

The Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity

Downloaded by [viviana puebla] at 05:14 15 November 2014

Downloaded by [viviana puebla] at 05:14 15 November 2014

The Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity

Downloaded by [viviana puebla] at 05:14 15 November 2014

Downloaded by [viviana puebla] at 05:14 15 November 2014

The Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity

Downloaded by [viviana puebla] at 05:14 15 November 2014

Moltmann, Der gekreuzigte Gott, 223.

Downloaded by [viviana puebla] at 05:14 15 November 2014

The Current Renaissance of the Theology of the Trinity

Downloaded by [viviana puebla] at 05:14 15 November 2014

Gethsemane and on Golgotha: that is a story 'between Father and Son', in

Moltmann, Trinitiit, 92 and 96.