Comments on: The Renewal of Trinitarian Theology

By: Gary

Gary — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 06:24:39 +0000

Convinced that I understand nothing about God except by the Holy Spirit. How did Peter understand Christ as the Messiah? The Holy Spirit by direction of the Father.

By: CosmicBoy

CosmicBoy — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:49:48 +0000

@ Dr Johnson,

Im a Malaysia. Living in a Muslim country is a challenge. For me, Trinity is very simple and easy to understand. The theologions (western) make it so difficult to understand. Even worst, the analogy they used is so carnal, no diffrent that polytheism and other pagan religion.

Look at the front page. Whats that? Trileaf and 3 human being represanting three person (gods??). You see, this confuse people. They shy away from Christianity.

This is a setback.

JBU.

By: Derek Resler

Derek Resler — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 01:08:17 +0000

Thanks Kent, this helps a lot. I am glad to also hear that you and yours are settling in back in the states.

By: Kent

Kent — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 15:00:43 +0000

Dr. Johnson, I am glad you found the Forum and it is nice to have you contribute. I wonder if you might clarify what you mean by ‘profane terms’ and elaborate a bit on why you think it would lead to polytheism? What are the preferable language options in your opinion?

Derek, social trinitarianism is the application of primarily relational/social terms to the Godhead rather than the language of processions or missions (The Son proceeds eternally from the Father, etc.,). The rationale for some is to move away from depictions of the Trinity that tend toward subordinationism (one divine person holds ontological priority over another). Even if you don’t ultimately agree with W. Pannenberg’s solution, if you want to follow up on this further his presentation of the history of interpretation on this issue might be helpful (Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 259-336). Hope that helps Derek.

By: Dr. Johnson C. Philip

Dr. Johnson C. Philip — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 11:25:19 +0000

I am an apologist from India and this is my first opportunity to visit your website, which I enjoyed very much. Those in the field of apologetics need to do much to bring the doubting Thomases to faith and also to strengthen those who wish to get answers.

I strongly feel that this kind of usage — where the sacred is explained in profane terms — will in the long term create a picture of Trinity that is no different from the polytheism of non christians

Dr. Johnson C. Philip
India

By: Derek Resler

Derek Resler — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 05:12:12 +0000

Could you explain “social trinitarianism” a bit more Kent – that would be helpful.

By: Kent Eilers

Kent Eilers — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 02:54:43 +0000

I would be interested to see if the traffic runs two ways for Leupp; meaning, its one thing to draw inferences about human ‘being’ and community from what we deduce about the divine life, while its entirely another to draw inferences about the divine life from what we ‘know’ about human ‘being’ and community. I am not allergic to the social trinitarian arguments about human relationality and community (one way traffic), but I am extremely wary when the traffic runs the other way. There is a level of hubris there regarding our knowledge even of ourselves that when applied to our understanding of the Trinity is bound only to lead down roads we don’t want to traffic.

The really careful social trinitarians like Pannenberg are careful to keep the traffic going one-way only, and even then he is careful to emphasize our degree of ‘distance’ from the divine life and knowledge of it. Volf is the same. Even though he draws heavily from Moltman, I don’t see him making the traffic run both ways (although I am not entirely happy with all the social implications he draws from what he believes we can know about God’s trinitarian being. Making the Trinity our ‘social program’ as he has said more than once feels like one step too far).

Thoughts?

By: Derek Resler

Derek Resler — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:17:56 +0000

It seems to me, according to your description Kyle, that Leupp sees a paucity in the ability to elucidate the Trinity therefore one has the theological warrant connect any three images together (as long as they are morally equal) to explain it. It sounds a bit haphazard. I fear the the real tangible meat of the doctrine will get lost in the creative expressions – much like your concern

I do appreciate pedagogically what he is driving at. Each one of us needs to be able to understand the trinity in ways that make since to us. So a classroom is full of different types of learners and people. For some, the philosophical hypostatic union is the best – for others who are more tangible, another metaphor might be better – again for others who are really creative, an emotive metaphor like above might work. The key is to make sure that each metaphor expresses clearly exactly the doctrine.

Great question though Kyle. How are we to teach doctrine in fresh relevant ways while maintaining the integrity of doctrine?