.._.,,'5/.,.

.v, .F­
I
J O UR N AL
. . J.BFoaNBD
'1" - THBOLOGY

D. Smit / Journal of&form~d Theology 3 (2009) 57-76 BRill Journal ofRiform~d Theology 3 (2009) 77-89 www.b rill.nl/ jn
76

The Key Place of the Doctrine in the Reformed Tradition-Coincidental?

So, is the key place of the doctrine of the Trinity in the work of so many
Reformed theologians of the last decades coincidental, or not? Broadly speak­ Three Versus One? Some Problems of Social

ing, they are all part of the much larger renaissance-in which the Reformed
Trinitarianism

Karl Barth however played a pivotal role. Was it coincidental that Barth devel­
oped those insights, so early in his career, at a time in which he delved deeply
into Calvin and the Reformed confessional heritage?
When one looks more closely, however, it does seem that' the enthusiasm
with which many of these Reformed theologians appeal to the trinitarian faith,
and particularly the most characteristic ways in which they do this, do seem to
correlate with basic intuitions in the early Reformers, including Calvin , par­
ticularly that trinitarian language offers a way to tell the story of the scriptures,
to know God as the living God, acting as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, gra­
ciously loving, saving, and comforting us and calling, claiming, and renewing
us, in rich and complex ways-always in the plural (Noordmans).
Stephen R. Holmes
Lecturer in Systematic Theology
St Mary's College, Sr Andrews
e-mail : sh80@st-andrews.ac.uk
Abstract
This paper examines the question whether we should prefer the so-called 'social' doctrine of
the Trinity, which figures so prominently in contemporary trinitarian reflection, to its 'Latin'
alternative. After a sketch of some evident attractions of social trinitarianism, it is argued that
these attractions conceal as many problems-problems which may be rather devastating in the
end. First of all, the practical and ethical usefulness of the social doctrine turns out to be highly
questionable. Second, contemporary social trinitarianism deviates in crucial aspects from the
Cappadocian {and other} Fathers. And third , the claim that social trinitarianism is in fact
the best way to appropriate the biblical witness is found wanting. The paper concludes with the
suggestion that social trin itarians today use the doctrine of the Trinity to answer questions which
the Fathers answered by means of Christology.

Keywords
trinitarian renaissance, social trinitarianisrn, Latin trinitarianisrn, ecclesiology, patristic theology,
Chr istology,Trinity ,

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

e Konlnklljke Brill NY, Leiden, 2009 001: 10.11631156973I09X403732

 S. R. Holmes I Journal ofReformed1heology 3 (2009) 77-89
78
Christians being almost "mere monotheists" ,' for John Zizioulas, and many
others following him, it was a loss, particularly in the Latin West, of the core
Cappadocian insights concerning the Trinity, and their subjection to an effec­
tive monotheism by Augustine and his heirs.'
The rise of narrative theology, and a renewed emphasis on the nature and
importance of biblical narrative also had their effect. The fourfold gospel his­
tory seemingly told stories of interpersonal interactions between the divine
persons, and so the influence of the divine economy on trinitarian theology
became decisive. The Trinity was suddenly not something hidden in the eter­
nallife of God, but something played out in the pages of sacred history, and
so in the villages and towns of the Holy Land.'
The term that perhaps best captures this shift in trinitarian thought is 'the
social Trinity.' I have not been able to determine the origin of the term, but by
the 1980s it was already in common use among both theologians and analytic
philosophers of religion, who found in it a new and potentially promising way
of solving the logical problems that traditional trinitarian dogma seemed to
pose.' Karen Kilby has argued, persuasively in my view, that there are three
broad themes which unite social trinitarians: a celebration of the true person­
hood of the three divine hypostasest? a particular account of the history of
doctrine; and a belief in the ethical usefulness of trinitarian dogma."
I Karl Rahner, The Trinity, tr, J. Donceel (New York: Crossroad, 1997). 17-20.
1 John D. Zizioulas, Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church (London:
DLT,1985).
3 For an early and especially rich account along these lines. which is not however fully
identifiable with developed 'social Trinitarianism' (cf. below, footnote 7), see R.W. Jenson, The
Triune Identity: Godaccording to the Gospel (Philapdelphia: Fortress, 1982).
• Cornelius Plantinga is speaking as a philosopher about a "social analogy of the Trinity" in
1986: Cornelius Plant inga "G regory of Nyssa and the social analogy of the Trinity," The Thomist,
50 (1986) , 325-352. By 1989 he has begun to speak directly of a "Social Trinity": see his "Social
Trin ity and rrltheisrn," in Ronald J. Feenstra and Cornelius Plantinga (eds.) Trinity, Incarnation
and Atonement: Philosophical and Theological Essays (Notre Dame : University of Notre Dame
Press, 1989),21-47. Today, the term is repeatedly used, cont rasted with 'Augustinian' or 'Latin '
trinitarianism, to denote the twO main accounts of analytic philosophical approaches to the
doctrine of the Trinity. See, e.g., Dale Tuggy, "The Unfinished Business of Trin itarian Theorising"
Religious Studies 39 (2003), 165-84 .
l As the word 'person' is controversial in th is discussion, I will adopt the practice of merely
transliterating the ecumenically-accepted term 'hypostasis' when referring singly or collectively
to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
6 Karen Kilby, "Perichoresis and Projection : Problems with Social Doctrines of the Trinity,"
New Blackfriars, 81 (2000) 432-45.
S. R Holmes IJournal ofReformed Theology 3 (2009) 77-89 79
The centrality of the first of these may be traced to Barth's famous suspicion
of the term 'person' in a contemporary doctrine of the Trinity. Barth argued
that the term had changed its meaning decisively in the nineteenth century,
and so now was no longer useful or helpful as technical theological language
for the divine hypostases; social trinitarians, by contrast, find the current
meaning of the term an invitation to recover core Christian insights, too long
forgotten in the theological tradition. This leads directly, then, to Kilby's sec­
ond characteristic. This forgetfulness is a result of the obscuring of the key
breakthroughs achieved by the Cappadocian Fathers in the fourth century
debates. These insights were lost particularly by the failure of Augustine and
Boethius to comprehend the crucial issues, and so a failure to translate them
into the Latin tradition? I will have more to say about this in a discussion
of Zizioulas's contribution in a moment. Finally, if a more adequate, more
'Cappadocian,' doctrine of the Trinity can be recovered, it will have ecclesial,
political , and social implications which will be of great service to the church,
simply because human sociality depends on constructing an adequate account
of good personal relationships, and the social Trinity is held to offer precisely
such an account, which can be applied relatively straightforwardly.
John D . Zizioulas, the Orthodox theologian and Metropolitan Bishop of
Pergamum, is repeatedly appealed to by social Trinitarians, and also illustrates
each of these points. It may be that he did not begin the movement (Jiirgen
Moltmann's The Trinity and the Kingdom of God 8 pre-dates Zizioulas's key
book by five years, and can also be regarded as a classic of social Trinitarian­
ism), but his book Being as Communion seems to be regarded as foundational
by most who came afterwards. Zizioulas's book begins with a careful and com­
plex account of the achievement of the Cappadocian ~athers, here presented
as a breakthrough in ontology. The word bupostasis, once essentially synony­
mous with ousia, is distinguished and made synonymous with prosopon. The
implications of this shift in technical vocabulary is momentous: for the first
time in the history of Greek metaphysical reflection, personal and relational
terminology is used to describe fundamental ontological realities. replacing
substantialistic terminology. In a slogan, the Cappadocians found a way of
articulating the Christian insight that the basic reality of the world is not
7 Jenson tellsa similar historical story in 1heTriune Identity, despite sharing Barth's reservations
over the language of 'persons,' hence my comment about his ambiguous status above. (By the
time he writes his Systematic 1heology, Jenson seems to be less cautious about the language of
'person,' however: Systematic 1heology: Volume J: The Triune God (Oxford: OUP, 1997), 75-89.
• Jiirgen Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom of God (rr, Margaret Kohl) (New York:
Harper & Row, 1981). The original German edition was published in 1980.
80 S. R. Holmes / Journal ofRiformtd Theology 3 (2009) 77-89
'stuff' but love. As the title of the book indicates being-metaphysics; ontol­
ogy-should be understood in terms of personal relationships.
The celebration of the genuinely 'personal' nature of the three hypostases
is clear here; Zizioulas goes on to claim that Augustine simply missed this
revolution, and so condemned the Western church to continue to struggle
with the sort of substance-metaphysics that the Cappadocians had overcome.
Finally, in the (much less cited) second half of the book he suggests that the
church should image the perfect society of the Godhead, and works out what
this will look like in ecclesiological terms. His vision of the church is focused
on the Eucharistic celebration, and on the bishop as the celebrant. The bishop
gives being to the church.
Zizioulas's ecclesiology is presented as the natural outworking of his trini­
tarian theology, and so is clearly a species of social trinitarianism; the hierar­
chical and authoritarian nature of his social vision , however, is distinctly at
odds with the mainstream of the movement. Moltmann's Trinity and the
Kingdom of God, which uses a vision of the Trinity as a free community of
equals, and so as a resource to critique human authority and hierarchy, is
much more normal." This point is going to become important in my discus­
sion in a moment.
Attractions of Social Trinitarianism
Social trinitarianism seems to have several strengths, which have no doubt
contributed to its growth and appeal. As I have noted, it appears to be founded
very closely on the biblical narrative, taking seriously the relations between the
persons that are portrayed in the New Testament. 10 Social trinitarians find that
the 'interpretative grid' that their doctrine imposes is one to which the New
Testament narrative is very amenable, requiring little straining at the text to
make it fit. This is in contrast with their perception of inherited traditional
trinitarian doctrines, which find difficulty in understanding how the gospel
narrative relates to the eternal life of God. (This is the import of 'Rahner's
• However, Randall Otto has offered a powerful cririque of Molrrnanns proposal here, on
genealogical grounds . He argues that Moltrnann assumes the analysis advanced by Erik Peterson
in 1935, which analysis is now utterly discredited on sheerly historical grounds. See Otto,
"Moltrnann and the Anti-Monotheist Movement ," InurnationalJournalofSysttmatic 7htology 3
(2001) ,293-308.
ItI Colin Gunton suggested in conversation to the present author that he was intending to
entitle the trinitarian section of his proposed dogmatics, "A Doctrine of the Trinity as if Jesus
Mattered ," highlighting this point sharply.
S. R. Holmes / Journal of&formtd 1htology 3 (2009) 77-89 81
rule,' a much-cited principle within social trinitarianism which states that 'the
economic Trinity is the immanent Trini ry' and uice-uersa.) Clearly, if this claim
is true, it is a major advantage for social trinitarianism; Christian doctrines
simply should cohere with scripture.
Within the NT narrative, it is claimed, we find repeatedly dialogue between
the Father and the Son; on a social trinitarian account, this is natural and
normal; on an older i\ugustinian' account, it is held to be difficult to make
sense of: if Father and Son are united in will, intellect, and essence, how can
the prayer in Gethsemane, for example, be interpreted? In the economy of
salvation, the Father speaks to the Son, and the Son speaks back to the Father.
This, a social trinitarian would claim , is pr imary data, which must drive our
doctrine of the Trinity.
A second attraction is the claimed coherence with tradition. As I have noted,
Zizioulas finds a very particular doctrine of the Trinity to be central to the
ecumenical settling of the Arian controversy at Constantinople, and to the
overcoming of the intellectual heritage of Greek philosophy. Social trinitarian­
ism, if this telling of the history of ideas is correct, is at the heart of what it
is to be authentically Christian. A trinitarian account which is less focused
on persons and interpersonal relations is, on Zizioulas's terms, still captive to
ancient pagan philosophy, and so deficiently Christian. .
The third attraction I want to notice is the usefulness of trinitarian doctrine,
understood in a social way. Miroslav Volf published a paper under the title
"The Trinity is our Social Program." I I Social trinitarianism has been found to
be extraordinarily generative for ecclesial, social, and political practice. David
S. Cunningham subtitled his book on the Trinity The Practice of Trinitarian
Theology, and Paul Fiddes described his own work asf<A Pasto;al Doctrine of
the Trinity.'"? For these two thinkers, prayer and gender politics, and church
life and aesthetics are all illuminated by a social doctrine of the Trinity. Where
Rahner once lamented the lack of trinitarian thought in Christian piety, now
it seems that almost every area of ethics and piety is determined directly by a
commitment to the social Trinity.13
II Volf, "The Trinity is our Social Program: The Doctr ine of the Trinity and the Shape of
Social Engagement," in Alan Torrance and Michael Banner (eds), 'Ib« Doctrine of God and
Theoiogica! Ethics (London: T&T Clark, 2006) , 105-24.
11 David S. Cunningham, Tha« Thre« art One: Th« Practice ofTrinitarian 1htology (Oxford:
Blackwell, 1998); Paul S. Fiddes, Participating in God:A Pastoral Doctrine oftht Trinity (London:
DLT,2000).
13 For an impressive example, see Peter R. Holmes, Trinity in Human Community: Exploring
Congrtgational Lift in tb«lmagt oftht Social Trinity (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006) , a book
82 S. R. Holmes / JournalofReformed 1heology 3 (2009) 77-89 S. R Holmes / Journal ofReformed Theology 3 (2009) 77-89
This then is a doctrine that is biblically founded. authentic to the Christian
tradition. and practically useful; what can possibly be said against it? Unfortu­
nately. it seems to me that each of these claimed advantages is at least more
difficult than enthusiastic supporters of the program have made out. and that
the objections to them may be devastating.
The Apparent Usefulness of Social Trinitarianism
John Zizioulas derived a doctrine of the church from his trinitarian thought.
as I have noted. The bishop is the source and arcbe of the church. just as the
Father is of the Trinity; the Eucharist is the heart of the life of the church. The
ecclesiology is strongly hierarchical, reinforcing sacerdotalism, structure. and
authority. For Zizioulas, as a Greek Orthodox bishop. the priesthood remains
solely male. and so his ecclesiology leads to gender inequalities that would be
found troubling by most Western societies.
Miroslav Volf in his magisterial, After our Likeness: The Church as the Image
0/the 1Tinity.'4 claims to be following Zizioulass trinitarian theology closely.
When he develops his own ecclesiology from trinitarian dogma. however. he
pictures a classically congregationalist church polity (he quotes John Smyth.
the founder of the English Baptist movement. repeatedly) where the gathering
and covenanting together of believers establishes the church. and ministry arises
from within the gathered congregation. dependent on it for calling and recog­
nition . This is sufficiently far from Zlzioulas's ecclesiology to cause us to pause:
the claim that a social doctrine of the Trinity is generative for ecclesiology and
ethics is in danger of being cast into doubt if such wildly divergent implica­
tions can be drawn from the same doctrine.
Logically. this difference can be explained in one of three ways:
1. Zizioulas and Volf are. in fact. employing different doctrines of the Trinity;
2. There is an error in argument from Trinity to church in at least one of
these two texts;
3. Despite appearances. ecclesiological programs cannot in fact be derived
from trinitarian dogma; there is a methodological Raw shared by both
Zizioulas and Volf
describing an intentional actempr to live out social trinirarianism in a church-plant in a small
English rown.
14 Miroslav VoIf, After our Likeness: The Church as the Image ofthe Trinity (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1998).
83
One of the great strengths ofVolf's book is his recognition that it is simply not
trivial to move from a trinitarian account of divine persons in relation to an
ecclesial or political account of human persons in relation . As he says:
Today. the thesis that ecc1esial communion should correspond to trinitarian commun­
ion enjoys the status of an almost self-evident proposition. Yet it is surprising that
no one has carefully examined just where such correspondences are to be found, nor
expended much effort determining where ecc1esial communion reaches the limits of
its capacity for such analogy. The result is that reconstructions of these correspond­
ences often say nothing more than the platitude that unity cannot exist without mul ­
tiplicity nor multiplicity without unity . . . IS
Volf offers serious theology that does intend to move beyond the platitudes.
He attempts to examine carefully the analogies that can be drawn between
divine and human personhood. and their limitations. However. his passion for
a particular ecclesiology (which I confess I share) forces him in an unaccepta­
ble direction. It is clear from the texts that the first of my three options above
is the relevant one . Volf makes a significant alteration to the received ecu­
menical doctrine of the Trinity. which alteration allows him to embrace the
free church ecclesiology that he commends. The alteration can be described
rather simply: Volf attempts to differentiate between the relations of origin
and the eternal relations of love in the Godhead. That is. the begettirig of the
Son by the Father. and the procession of the Spirit from the Father (and
the Son?) are to be distinguished from the ongoing. decisive relationships
in the triune God. On this basis. there is no priority of the Father. but simply
a mutuality between the three hypostases. and so ~Volf cap support the
bottom-up free church ecclesiology that he is-and. incidentally, I am­
committed to."
This might already suggest a problem for the claim that social trinitarianism
is helpfully ethically generative: the minutiae of scholastic trinitarian discus­
sion. the sort of arid debates that most social trinitarians declare themselves
impatient of, seem to determine the ethical implications of the position.
not just at the level of minor nuances. but at the level of major and basic
commitments. Volf proclaims his loyalty to Zizioulas's trinitarian program. yet
by a seemingly minor technical variation. he effectively inverts the ecclesio­
logical implications of it. It might be that this is the reality, that the difference
IS Volf, AfterourLikeness: 'Ihe Church astheImage ofthe Trinity, 191 .
16 Volf is open about this move on pp. 216-17 of In our Likeness, although he does nor
highlight just how radicalhis proposal is.
84 s. R. Holmes / JournalofReformed 7heology 3 (2009) 77-89
(transposing the argument into the political realm) between democracy and
fascism (say) is determined by the most abstruse of theological differences, but
this feels to me uncomfortable; I would rather believe that the error of fascism
is demonstrable on the basis of fundamental positions in anthropology, not
subtle distinctions in theology proper.
Perhaps, however, Volf's distinction is not general? The evidence suggests
otherwise: Volf suggests, fairly, that this separation is shared by Moltrnann,"
which would seem to suggest that it is common among devotees of the social
Trinity (who generally have learned from either Volf or Moltmann). This dem­
onstrates, I hope, that the supposed ethical and political usefulness of social
trinitarianism is at least more complicated than has sometimes been pretended.
When Volf himself claimed, in a ringing slogan, that "The Trinity is our Social
Program!" he presumably assumed that a doctrine of the Trinity was some­
thing generally accessible to Christian believers, not something which was
obscure and abstruse, and yet took us in fundamentally different social and
political-and ecclesiological-directions depending on which side of the
scholarly knife edge we fell.
However, I think the point can be pressed further than this. Volf's doctrine
of the Trinity in After our Likeness is explicitly a deviation from the received
ecumenical doctrine. Simply, Volf is choosing to adjust the orthodox doctrine
of the Trinity because he does not like the ecclesiological (and social and polit­
ical) implications of the received doctrine. Moltmann is less clear about the
implications of making the same move, perhaps because his grasp of the patris­
tic debates is less sure. In both cases, however, the approved and acceptable
ethical outcomes cannot Row from a patristic doctrine of the Trinity: the
dogma needs massaging, and in some respects simple reversal, before it can
generate 'acceptable' political content for today.
All of which is to say that the claimed/supposed 'usefulness' of social doc­
trines of the Trinity seems to me to be generally overstated and at best ques­
tionable. The ecumenically received doctrine of the Trinity, to which Zizioulas
witnesses (see the next section for some defence of this claim), is politically
unhelpful in modern Western terms; political utility is only achieved if the
received form of the doctrine of the Trinity is radically adjusted.
17 Volf, footnotes 108-112 on pp. 216-17, referencing Molrrnann, The Trinity and theKingdom
ofGod, 165-166 and 175-166, and various sections of Moltrnanns 17Je Spirit ofLife:A Universal
Affirmation (London: SCM Press, 1992).
S. R Holmes / Journalof Reformed 7heology 3 (2009) 77-89 85
The Defence ofSocial Trinitarianism from Tradition
None of this, of course, is decisive. It may be that contemporary Western
theologians have erred in trying; to make the ethical and social implications of
the doctrine of the Trinity acceptable; this is not yet evidence, however, that
social trinitarianism is wrong; merely that it has been misapplied to support a
liberal political agenda to which in fact it lends no credence. Perhaps the poli­
tics is wrong: contemporary Western liberalism is unChristian, and demon­
strably so from a doctrine of the Trinity. If so, of course, it is necessary to
accept the trinitarian imperative. If Zizioulas is right, and a proper under­
standing of trinitarian ecclesiology does in fact exclude women from Eucharis­
tic presidency (e.g.), then this ought to be recognized and acknowledged in
the church, not ignored.
This leads me to my second criticism. Social trinitarianism cannot, I think,
be defended on the basis that it is more socially useful than other positions,
but it might still be right: social utility, as judged by contemporary prejudices,
was never an interesting criterion for Christian doctrine. Volf's position does
not depend on any political basis; it rather depends on an assumption that the
distinction between relationships of origin and relationships of love can be
sustained. This is a merely theological point, and, regardless of its political
implications, it might nonetheless be true. Equally, it might be unimportant
for the present discussion: perhaps other social trinitarians do not hold to
Volf's positions.
I have already indicated, however, that very similar positions are common
to Moltmann at least. There is no space here to make the more general com­
parison, but Volf and Moltmann are sufficiently influential within contempo­
rary social trinitarianism that their shared position may be taken as general.
If this position is indeed common within devotees of social trinitarianisrn,
we must ask whether in fact it is acceptable within ecumenical dogma? Is
social trinitarianism a re-presentation of classical trinitarianism that should be
accepted even if its political outcomes are unhappy? The answer seems to me
to be clearly negative: again, there is no room here to review all the evidence,
but the position that the only distinctions between the divine hypostases are
the relations of origin is widely, and I think correctly, accepted as a summary
of patristic trinitarianism as it was codified at Constantinople. Although there
is not room in the present paper to demonstrate this, for some indications in
this direction, drawn from the Cappadocian Fathers, who are generally cited
by social trinitarians in support of their position, consider the following:
St Gregory Nazianzen, 'the Theologian,' affirmed repeatedly in his orations
86 S. R. Holmes / Journal 0/Riformfd Theology 3 (2009) 77-89
that the only particular properties of the three hypostases were unbegotten­
ness, begottenness, and procession; 18 Basil makes the same point in writing to
Gregory of Nyssa; 19 Gregory of Nyssa in turn asserts the same: "while we con­
fess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in
respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that
one Person is distinguished from another."20
These references, brief as they are, are perhaps sufficient to suggest that social
trinitarian ism is some distance from the Cappadocian discussion; it is also, I
believe, demonstrably some way from the Latin tradition of trinirarianisrn:
given the social trinitarians' own protestations that they are opposed to Augus­
tine, Boethius, and St Thomas, I assume that I do not need to demonstrate
this at any length. Social trinitarian ism may be right, but if it is, then the
fathers were wrong, individually in every case of which I am aware, and in
their conciliar decisions at Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon.
Social Trinitarianism and the Biblical Narrative
Of course, from a Reformed perspective, it is possible that this is true, and that
social trinitarianism is right. While the Reformed have tended to respect the
early ecumenical decisions of the church, the sense that every decision was
corrigible and subject to examination under the one decisive norm ofscripture
is, rightly, pervasive. For Reformed theology, it remains possible that one or
several of the seven ecumenical councils was/were wrong, and that many or
most of the fathers of the church were wrong, and that a social trinitarianism
is in fact the best way to appropriate the biblical witness .
However, it seems to me that this also is flawed. The fathers had ways
of coping exegetically with the texts that describe the Lo~d's prayer in Gethse­
rnene, it is true ; the point is, however, more basic than this. Social trinitarian
rhetoric concerning the biblical witness tends to stress the threeness of the
divine actor in the New Testament witness, which point is correct so far as it
goes, but, without qualification, is in some danger of being simply Marcionite:
one cannot claim a position is ' biblical' without considering the whole
of scripture, not just the New Testament. The totality of the biblical witness
concerning God, it seems to me, consists of a sustained and pointed witness to
I. See, e.g., Or. 20.7, Or. 25.16, Or. 39.12, or Or. 42.17 (the 'Farewell Address').
I . See Ep. 38.
1tJ On Not Three Gods. To Ab/abius (cr. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Volume 5,
Edinburgh 1892,336; my emphasis).
S. R. Holmes / Journal 0/&form~d 'Ihealogy 3 (2009) 77-89 87
the oneness of God in the face of repeated temptations to polytheisrns, sup­
plemented by a brief coda or appendix suggesting that this One God is in
fact triune.
I realize, of course, that describing the New Testament as 'a brief coda or
appendix' to the scriptures is rather polemical, but perhaps it makes the point.
The claim that social trinitarianism is biblical is by no means obvious; rather,
it depends on a very particular hermeneutic that privileges the New Testa­
ment, and particularly the Gospels, in ways that at least demand explanation
and defence. The central and repeated thrust of the biblical narrative taken as
a whole can easily be characterized as a drive towards monotheism, and Augus­
tinian/Latin trinitarianism is at least as successful a representation of mono­
theism as social trinitarianism.
Ofcourse, it might be argued that the New Testament should be privileged,
but the nature of that 'privilege' demands explication. The NT may not be
read in a way that denies Old Testament monotheism: Jesus himself is suffi­
cient witness to that." Rather, the challenge for any adequately theological
hermeneutic is to find a way of describing the narration of God's actions and
words within the text that is responsible both to the Old Testament presenta­
tion of the oneness ofGod, and the New Testament presentation of the shared
life of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit . Thus stated, it is by no ~eans obvious that
social trinitarianism is the more biblical option; crudely, it privileges one set of
data, and needs to explain away another; Latin trinitarianism privileges the
other, and needs to explain away the first.
As I say, this characterization is crude, but it is not trivial. It may seriously
be doubted that Augustine's rejection of any particular presence of the hypos­
tasis of the Divine Son in history prior to the IncarnationIs adequate-x-I
would tend to doubt this myself-but equally, to suppose that there is some
hidden social trinitarianisrn within the Old Testament texts without consider­
able exegetical demonstration of the point seems merely unconvincing.P
Monotheism is at the heart of the biblical witness; social trinitarian ism is not
incompatible with biblical monotheism, but it is perhaps more difficult to
defend than a more traditional position with regard to the Old Testament;
what, however, about the New? Of course, a question like this cannot be
l' Mk 12:29.
II Robert Jenson's attempt to see Christ prefigured, or pre-present, in the nation of Israel­
presented as God's Son in the Old Testament-represents a far more sophisticated response to
this problem than is found among mainstream social trinitari ans, For various reasons, however,
I am not convinced it works.
88 S. R. Holmes / Journal of&formed Theology 3 (2009) 77-89 S. R. Holmes /Journal of&formed 1heology 3 (2009) 77-89 89

answered in a brief essay, but let me end by giving one reason why we should ogy proper, identifYing God as both actors in the story, and as the story
not assume that social trinitarianism is the superior approach. the actors play out. This might be right; but the patristic answer, shared in
every detail, incidentally, by the fathers of the Reformation, particularly in
their debates with Serverus and the Socinians , and in the Calvinist defence of
Trinity and Christology the extra Calvinisticum, rather chose to locate the tension within the person
of the Crucified One, who is at one and the same time both Lord and servant ,
Let me return, once more, to Gethsemane. There, we overhear the incarnate
both Creator and creature. I cannot attempt to demonstrate that this is the
Son praying, in great anguish and greater faith, "Father .. . let not my will be
preferable view, but I hope that it is at least not obviously less preferable; there
done, but yours instead."23 Locating these two 'wills' seems to me to take us to
is an exegetical debate to be had . And if, as I have argued, the social trinitarians
the crux of the exegetical debate . For the contemporary social trinitarian, the
need to defend a position that is novel in the Christian tradition, and genera­
text is clear: we are enabled to overhear a conversation between persons of the
tive of deeply unhappy ethical and social positions, then we might presume
Trinity. The incarnate Son acknowledges the presence and reality of his own
that there is a burden of proof on that side of the debate, a burden that has
desire and volition , but chooses to accede instead to the volition of the Father.
not, in the published literature at least, even begun to be shouldered.
This text was, however, endlessly discussed by the church fathers, and their
settled view was rather different. The debate comes to a head in the monothe­
lite controversy, decisively settled at the Third Council of Constantinople in
681, but it can be traced through the three centuries before that date, at least.
The fathers almost unanimously rejected the view described above; some, the
monothelires, asserted that there was only one will in the incarnate Son, the
single divine will of the Eternal Godhead; others defended the apparently less
logical position, eventually declared orthodox, that there were two wills, the
single divine will of the eternal Godhead and a genuine human will. I do not
intend to review this controversy now;24 as noted above, Reformed theology
cannot be determined simply by appeal to tradition, but it seems to me that it
highlights a helpful point for understanding social trinitarianism: social trini­
tarianismuses the doctrine ofthe Trinity to ansu/er questions the fathers ansuiered
by Christology. .
Questions of ontology, creation, mediation, soteriology-and ethics, includ­
ing political and social theory-seem to me to be seen fundamentally as Chris­
tological questions in classical Christian theology. It is only very recently that
we have tried to view them as trinitarian questions. I believe that the same
thing is true of the question raised above, about New Testament exegesis. The
New Testament offers us a striking picture of an executed criminal who is
identified with God himself, and asks us to make sense of that narrative . Social
trinitarianism has tried to do this by encompassing the narrative within rheol­

13 Lk 22:42, my translation.
14 I have written on it at some length in my essay "Ch risrology, Scripture, Divine Action and
Hermeneutics" in Andrew T. Lincoln and Angus Paddison (eds.) Christology and Scripture:
InterdisciplinaryPmpectives {London: T&T Clark, 2008}, 156-70.
....... ,
; 1H :
I
J OURNAL
u R.EFORMeD
"« ,"., ...: THEOLOGY
BRILL Journal ofReformedTheology 3 (2009) 90-107 www.brill.nl/jrr
The Relationship between the Ontological Trinity
and the Economic Trinity
Seung Goo Lee
Professor of Systematic Theology
Hapdong Theological Seminary, South-Korea
e-mail : wminbgihorrnail.com
Abstract
This article focuses on one of the main issuesin the contemporary trinitarian renaissance, viz. the
relationship between the immanent (or ontological) and the economic Trinity. It takes its
start ing-point in what is labeled 'the classicmodel ' as shared by both the Eastern and the Western
church. The basic idea here is that the economic Trinity is the epistemological ground of the
immanent Trinity whereas the immanent Trinity is the ontological ground of the economic
Trinity. It is shown that this model is endorsed by two influential Reformed theologians, viz.
John Calvin and Herman Bavinck. Next, the 'model of the new theology of the cross' is
introduced, as represented by Eberhard Jungel and [Iirgen Moltmann. Especially Molrrnanns
innovative proposals are critically discussed. Characteristic of this second model is that the
distinction between the ontological and economic Trinity is blurred. Third, it is argued that
Dutch Reformed theologian Hendrikus Berkhof offered an even more radical model, which
leaves us with only the economic Trinity. Although both of these contemporary models have
their attractions, it is concluded that we have every reason to stick to the classic model.
Keywords
the ontological Trinity, the economic Trinity, John Calvin, Herman Bavinck, Jurgen Moltmann,
Eberhard Jungel , Hendrikus Berkhof
In this contribution, I want to examine the relationship between the onto­
logical and the economic Trinity. The economic Trinity is the Trinity revealed
in the economy (oikonomia) of God. Hence, the term the 'economic Trinity'
or 'the Trinity of revelation' has been used.' As Eberhard Jiingel said, "the
I For an explanation of this term , see Otto Weber, Foundation of Dogmatics, vol. I, trans.
Darrell L. Guder (Grand Rapids: Eerdrnans, 1981), 388; Helmut Thlelicke, The Evangelical
Faith, vol. 2: The Doctrine of Godand of Christ, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 179; Paul Jewett, God, Creation and Revelation (Grand Rapids:
© KoninklijkeBrillNY. Lelden,2009 001: 1O.11631156973109X403741
S. G. Lee/ Journalof&formed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107 91
doctrine of economic Trinity understands the being of God in relation with
man and his world.' ? In contrast to this economic Trinity, the ontological
Trinity refers to the Trinity-in-God-himself. That is, the ontological Trinity is
"to understand God hirnselfwirhour regard to God's relationship with man,"3
and to understand the Trinity as describing "the immanent ontic structure
of the being of God."4 Hence, the terms the 'ontological Trinity,' the 'eternal
Trinity,' the 'essent ial Trinity,' or the 'immanent Trinity:
According to Wolfhart Pannenberg, the distinction between the economic
and ontological Trinity can be traced to eighteenth century theologian Johann
Augustus Urlsperger (1728-1806).5 As far as the terminology is concerned,
Pannenberg may be right. The concept itself, however, is already found in the
writings of the earlier theologians. While in earlier days theologians treated the
ontological and the economic Trinity without a clear conscious distinction,
concrete usage of these terms appeared with the rise of the tendency to disre­
gard the ontological aspect of the Trinity. Hence, Jiirgen Moltmann is more
correct when he said that it is common to distinguish the ontological and the
economic Trinity after Tertullians rejection of modalism, and that especially
the Cappadocian Fathers clearly distinguished these two." G, C. Berkouwer
also made it clear that the church used the distinction between the ontological
and the economic Trinity in her efforts to fight against rnodalisrn.?
In this contribution, I would like to contrast three models oflooking at the
relation between the ontological and the economic Trinity, and to consider
which model might be more biblical and realistic.
Eerdmans, 1991),305. Weber and Jewett use also the terms like 'revelationalTrinity' and 'functional
Trinity.'
2 Eberhard Jungel, Godas the Mystery ofthe World, trans. Darrell L. Guder (Grand Rapids:
Eerdrnans, 1983), 346.
S jiingel, GodastheMystery ofthe World, 346.
• Thielicke, The Evangelical Faith, vol. 2, 76 .
S Wolfhan Pannenberg, Syseemansch« Theologie, Band I (Gortlngen: Vandenhoeckand Ruprecht,
1988), 317, n. 122=E.T., Systematic Theology, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1991),291, n. Il l. See also Weber, Foundation ofDogmatics, vol. 1, 388, n. 124.
6 Jurgen Mohrnann, Trinitiit und Reich Gottes (Munchen : Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1980)=
E.T., The Trinity and the Kingdom: The Doctrine ofGod, trans. Margaret Kohl (London: SCM
Press, 1981), 151; idem, Der gekreuzigte Gott (Miinchen: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1972)=
E.T., The Crucified God, trans. R. A. Wilson and John Bowden (London: SCM Press, 1974),
235.
7 G. C. Berkouwer,A Ha/fCmtury ofTheology, trans. and ed. LewisB. Smedes (Grand Rapids:
Eerdrnans, 1977),259.
92 s. G. Lee /Journal of Reformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107
The Classic Model
By the classic model I mean the historic understanding of the Trinity. In the
discussion of the classic model, I will not give much attention to different
understandings of the Trinity between the Eastern Church and the Western
Church, but concentrate on their common element. I will first state the basic
proposition in which the Trinity is understood.
Basic Statement
Proposition 1: The economic Trinity is the ground of cognition for the onto­
logical Trinity, and the ontological Trinity is the ground of being for the eco­
nomic Trinity.
According to the classic understanding of the Trinity, the relation between the
ontological and the economic Trinity is as follows. We get to know that God
is the triune God through God's relationship with this world. God, however,
does not become a triune God in His relation with this world. God himself was
and is atriune God, even before He had any relationship with this world. Hence,
we can say that God reveals Himself as a triune God in the course of the
economy, since He himself was and is a triune God. In its ideal form, the clas­
sic model for understanding the Trinity has the following process of thinking.
First of all, there is recognition of the economic Trinity. That is, we can
recognize that God is the triune God in the process of examining God's crea­
tion and redemption through Christ, especially, while examining the coming
of Christ, his self-disclosure, the coming of the Holy Spirit to the New Testa­
ment church on Pentecost, the works of the Holy Spirit in the church, and the
response of the church to the Holy Spirit (esp., Acts 5: 1-16). Jesus Christ and
the One whom he calls his Father and the Holy Spirit who was sent by the
Father and the Son (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7) are one triune God. In the proc­
ess of this recognition we can also see some aspects of their relationship. That
is, God the Father and God the Son have a relationship of a father and a son,
and the Holy Spirit is the one who could be sent by the Father and the Son. All
of these amount to a recognition of the economic Trinity.
Second, in the process of recognizing the economic Trinity we come across
several statements that show the relationship between these three persons. For
example, the term 'only begotten son' (john 1: 14) and the expression 'the only
Son who is in the bosom of the Father' (John 1:18) lead us to the conclusion
that the Son is the one who has been begotten by the Father. And the state-
S. G. Lee / Journal ofReformed 7heology 3 (2009) 90-107 93
ments that the Holy Spirit will be sent by Jesus from the Father (john 14:26;
15:26; 16:7) and that the Holy Spirit proceeds- from the Father Oohn 15:26)
show that the Holy Spirit is the one who will be sent to us in the process of
God's economic relation with us:
Finally, with the help of this second stage of our understanding of the Trin­
ity, we begin to understand that the Father is eternally begetting the Son and
the Son is being eternally begotten by the Father, whereas the Holy Spirit is
proceedingfrom the Father (and the Son) by applying the economic relationship
into eternity. In order to substantiate this summary of the classic model, let us
look at the way in which two Reformed theologians understood the Trinity.
John Calvin on the Trinity
John Calvin develops his arguments without clearly distinguishing between
the economic and the ontological Trinity. It seems to me that for him there is
no need to distinguish between these two, because the ontological Trinity is
revealed in the economic Trinity. This is a common phenomenon in the writ­
ings of most theologians who hold the classic model. If we placed them in a
modern debate concerning the relationship between the ontological and the
economic Trinity, however, they would make it quite clear that the triune God
reveals Himself as He is in the process of creation and redemption." There are
some hints of this in Calvin's discussion of the Trinity. Let us look at the way
in which he speaks of the Trinity.
Calvin begins his discussion of the Trinity by explaining that several words
which do not appear in scripture-e.g., Trinity, persons, bomoousios, etc.-are
useful for the interpretation of scripture, so that they are especially useful for
refuting the wrong thinking and distorted teachings about the Trinity. One
sentence which Calvin quotes from Augustine clearly shows what Calvin's atti­
tude is on these terms: "On account of the poverty of human speech in so
great a matter, the word 'hypostasis' has been forced upon us by necessity, not
8 In his good study on Calvin's trinitarian theology, f! W. Burin also showed this point
centering his emphasis on the economic Trinity. Philip Walker Burin, Revelation, Redemption,
and Response: Calvins Trinitarian Understanding of the Divine-Human Relationship (New York
and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995). It seems to me, however, that it is pity that Burin
did not clearly discuss the relationship between the ontological and the economic trinity in the
thought of Calvin. Butin showed a tendency to emphasize the economic trinity; See also his
"Reformed Ecclesiology: Trinitarian Grace According to Calvin," Studies in Reformed 1heology
and History, III (winter, 1994), 5-8, esp. 6: "Calvin's articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity
is... predominantly economic."
94 s. G. Lee/ Journal ofReformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107
to express what it is, but only not to be silent on how Father, Son, and Spirit
are three."? The reason why we use the word 'hypostasis' is not because this is
the word that can be used to show exactly what God is like, but that we cannot
help not speaking of God as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That is,
these terms are used in our difficult effort to express the fact of revelation in
our human language. What Calvin wants to say in this part can best be sum­
marized with the following statements: "Say that in one essence of God there
isa trinity of persons; you will say in one word what Scriptures states, and cut
short empty talkativeness."!"
Thus after defining the term 'person' as "a subsistence in God's essence, which,
while related to the others, is distinguished by an incommunicable quality," I I
Calvin proceeds to the discussion of homoousios of the Father and the Son and
to the discussion of the differentiation of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit.
In his discussion of the divinity of the Son, Calvin first of all talks about the
divinity of the Logos asarkos and then goes on to the discussion of the 'Word
endued with flesh.' The order of this discussion is very instructive for our
purpose because this shows how Calvin thinks about the relation of God the
Father and the Logos asarkos. That is, here we can see a hint of Calvin's under­
standing of the ontological Trinity. Referring to I Pet. 1:10-11, Calvin says
that "because Christ had not yet been manifested, it is necessary to understand
the Word as begotten of the Father before time."12 He then refers to the "crea­
tion by the Word of God" in Genesis 1. He understands this creation by the
Word of God in the light of Heb. 1:2-3, and says that "here we see the Word
understood as the order or mandate of the Son, who is himself the eternal and
essential Word of the Father."'3 For Calvin, however, the most important pas­
sages in relation with the divinity of the Son are John 1:1-3, for "John at once
attributes to the Word a solid and abiding essence, and ascribes something
uniquely His own."!"
S. G. Lee/ Journal ofReformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107 95
Then in relation with those who would readily accept the divinity of the Son,
but deny the eternality of the Son, Calvin says that "the Word, conceived
beyond the beginning of time by God, has perpetually resided with him," and
he concludes that "by this, his eternity, his true essence, and his divinity are
proved." 16
Only after showing the eternal divinity of the Son this way, does Calvin
discuss the "divinity of Christ in the OT"17 and "the Angel of]ehovah,"18 "the
divinity of Christ in the NT on the basis of the witnesses of the Apostles."?
"of the works of Christ,"2o and "of the miracles of Christ."?'
In relation to the divinity of the Holy Spirit, Calvin's discussion is centered
on the works of the Holy Spirit and the biblical expressions which identify the
Holy Spirit with God. 22
We conclude, therefore, that Calvin's discussion of the Trinity makes it clear
that God has a triune relationship with the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit from eternity, and that this triune relationship has been clearly revealed
in the economic process. For Calvin, it is not even possible to think of the
economic Trinity constituting the ontological Trinity. This is clearly shown
in his response to those who have doubts about the eternal Sonship of the
Christ.
Herman Bavinck on the Trinity
We see almost the same view of the Trinity in Herman Bavinck's understand­
ing of the Trinity as we saw in Calvin. 23 Bavinck is, however, more helpful
because he explicitly speaks of the relation of the ontological and the economic
Trinity. From this explicit explanation we can gather that ~ discusses the
Trinity with what we called the 'classic model' in mind. Let us quote one pas­
sage from him:
16 Calvin, Institutes, I, xiii, 8.

On the basis of these discussions, Calvin concludes that "unchangeable, the 17 Calvin, Institutes, I, xiii, 9.

Word abides everlastingly one and the same with God, and is God hirnself,'"? 18 Calvin, Institutes, I, xiii, 10.

19 Calvin, Institutes, I, xiii, 11.

20 Calvin, Institutes, I, xiii, 12.

') John Calvin, Institutesofthe ChristianReligion, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: The 21 Calvin, Institutes, I, xiii, 13.

Westminster Press, 1960), I, xiii,S. 22 Calvin, Institutes, I, xiii, 14-15.

III Calvin, Institutes, I. xiii,S. 23 John Bolt also made this point in his doctoral dissertation on Bavinck. See John Bolt, "The
II Calvin, Institutes, I. xiii, 6. Imitation ofChrist Theme in the Cultural-Ethical Idea ofHerman Bavinck" (Ph. D. Dissertation,
Il Calvin, Institutes, I, xiii, 7. University of St. Michael's College, Toronto School of Theology, 1982), 74, n. 274: "In his
13 Calvin, Institutes, I, xiii, 7. explication of the trinitarian order Bavinck clearly reflects Calvin's discussion of the Trinity
14 Calvin, Institutes, I, xiii, 7. in Institutes, I, xv." See also p. 127: "... in both the ontological and economic Trinity, Bavinck
15 Calvin, Institutes, I, xiii, 7. fol1ows Calvin and Kuyper...."
96 S. G. Lee/ JournalofRe/orm(d Theology 3 (2009) 90-107
As in the ontological trinity the Father is first in order of subsistence, the Son second,
and the Holy Spirit third; so also in the history of revelation the Father preceded the
Son , and the Son preceded the Holy Spirit. . .. The Father comes without having been
sent; the Son is sent by the Father, Man. 10:40; Mark 9:37; Luke 9:48; John 3:16,
5:23,30,37; 6:8ff. ; and the Holy Spirit is sent by both Father and Son , John 14:26;
16:7.
But this procession in time is a reflection of the immanent relation existing between
the three persons in the ontological trinity, and is based upon generation and
spirarlon, The generation of the Son is the eternal arche-type of the incarnation of
the Logos, and the procession from the father and the Soh is the proto-type of
the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Hence, the church-fathers derived the knowledge
concerning the eternal and immanent relations existing between the persons of
the trinity from what was revealed concerning those relations in time. In this they were
correct. "
Here Bavinck says that the trinitarian structure expressed in the history of
revelation, that is, the structure of the economic Trinity, can be seen as a reflec­
tion of the structure of the ontological Trinity. He recognizes that the church
fathers drew the ontological Trinity from the understanding of the economic
Trinity and he himself also accepts this.
In the classic model , therefore, as we have seen, God has his trinitarian
relationship from eternity, and it is clear that the economic process within
time does not affect God. In this sense, the following statement by Thielicke
succinctly shows the intention of the classic understanding of the Trinity:
". . . the orthodox doctrine of the essential Trinity maintains that the Trinity
is immanent and original in God apart from his work, and that the deity
is eternally Father, Son, and Spirit in itself before ever creating anything,
entering into union with the individual, or dwelling in the fellowship of
believers/'"
Let us turn to the second model in order to see a different understanding of
the relationship between the ontological and the economic Trinity.
TheModel of the New Theologyof the Cross
By the new theology of the cross I mean the theologies which Jurgen Molt­
mann and Eberhard jiingel developed within the last thirty years or so. They
wanted to renew theology by centering upon the cross of Jesus, and they
l4 Herman Bavinck, The Doctrine of God, trans , William Hendriksen (Grand Rapids:
Eerdrnans, 1951), 320.
2 j Thielicke, The ElJang(Iicai Faith, 176.
S. G. Lu / Journalof&form(d Th(ology 3 (2009) 90-107 97
thought that their approach would renew and reshape Luther's theologia crucis
for the 20th century. It seems to me, however, that it is difficult to identify
their approach with Luther's theology of the cross. Hence, the term 'the new
theology of the cross.' How'did Moltmann and Jungel understand the relation
of the economic and the ontological Trinity? In this section, I will concentrate
only on Moltmann's view.
Basic Statement
Proposition 2: The economic Trinity is the ontological Trinity, and vice versa.
This proposition, which was first used by Karl Rahner, and then by Barth,
Moltmann, and ]Ungel in their own ways, can be interpreted in various ways.
In other words, the meaning of this proposition is somewhat ambiguous.
These theologians sometimes present this proposition in the way in which we
understand the classic model. When we read Moltmann stating the following
material, we almost come to the conclusion that he is simply repeating the
classic viewpoint.
If the immanent Trinity is the counterpart of praise, then knowledge of the economic
Trinity (as the embodiment of the history and experience ofsalvation) preeedes knowl­
edge of the immanent Trinity. In the order of being it succeeds it. 26
There is only one, single, divine Trinity and one , single divine history ofsalvation. The
triune God can only appear in history as he is in himself, and in no other way. He is
in himself as he appears in salvation history, for it is he himself who is manifested, and
he is just what he is manifested as beingY ,
Statements about the immanent Trinity must not contradict statements about the
economic Trinity. Statements about the economic Trinity must correspond to doxo­
logical statements about the immanent Trinity.28
In spite of the impression which these quotations leave, after closer examina­
tion we conclude that Moltmann does not have a classic understanding of the
Trinity. Indeed, at one point Moltmann clearly says that "in order to grasp the
death of the Son in its significance for God himself, I found myself bound to
26 Molrrnann, 'Ih« Trinity and th( Kingdom , 152.
27 Molrrnann , Th« Trinityand th( Kingdom, 153.
28 Molrrnann, 'Ih« Trinity and th( Kingdom , 154.

98 S. G. Lee I Journal ofRiformrd 7h~ology 3 (2009) 90-107
surrender the traditional distinction between the immanent and the ontological
Trinity."29 Moreover, in a 1973 article he states:
If the doctrine of the Trinity could be developed from the event of the cross, then not
only the distinction between God in himself (Gott an sich) and the God for us (Gott
flir tins). but also the distinction between the immanent and the economical Trinity
are abolish~d. J<1
When we closely examine Molrmann's book, therefore, we conclude that Mol­
trnann, by using the proposition that 'the economic Trinity is the ontological
Trinity, and viceversa,' expresses the idea that the economic Trinity is itself the
ontological Trinity, and that the economic Trinity is the center ofGod's revela­
tion in the process of history, and that the ontological Trinity is merely the
metaphysical summary of the economic Trinity's doxological meaning. To state
it bluntly, according to this new theology of the cross, it is not the case that
there is an inner relationship between three divine persons from eternity which
is revealed in the process of time. Rather, from our understanding of the eco­
nomic self-revelation of God we logically draw out God's trinitarian structure.
There may be an ontological Trinity at the end of the day; we can proleptically
refer to this Trinity in our doxology. Let me substantiate these points by exam­
ining Moltrnann's writings.
Moltmanns Understanding
In his book 'The Crucified God from 1972 Moltmann tries to understand the
Trinity in relation to the cross." He says: "The material principle of the doc­
trine of the Trinity is the cross of Christ. The formal principle of knowledge of
the cross is the doctrine of the Trinity."32 He even says that "a trinitarian theol­
ogy of the cross.... develops from this history [of the cross] what is to be
understood by 'God'."33So he demands a "revolution in the concept ofGod."34
In the same spirit Moltmann says:
'" Moltmann, The Trinity and th«Kingdom. 160, emphasis is given.
30 Molrmann, "Gesichrspunkre der Kreuzesrheologle heme," Evang~lisch~ 7h~%gid3 (1973).
362f., cited in Horst G. Poehlrnann, Abriss derDogmatik (1975) , translated into Korean by Shin ­
Gun Lee. Dogmatics (Seoul: Korean Institute of Theology. 1990). 157. emphasis is given.
3' Molrrnann, The Crucified God, trans. R. A. Wilson and John Bowden (London: SCM Press.
1974) .
31 Molrmann, 'Ihe Crucifi~d God, 241.
33 Molrmann, th e Trinity and th«Kingdom, 247.
34 Moltmann, The Trinity and theKingdom, 152.
S. G. Lee I Journal of&form~d 7h~ology 3 (2009) 90-107 99
In the cross. Father and Son are most deeply separated in forsakenness and at the same
time are most inwardly one in their surrender. What proceeds from this event between
Father and Son is the Spirit which justifies the godless, fills the forsaken with love and
even brings the dead allve.isince the fact that they are dead cannot exclude them from
this event of the cross; the death in God also includes them.35
For Moltmann, the event of the cross is not only an event of the economic
Trinity, but also an event within the Trinity. Or rather, ifwe put it in the words
of Richard Bauckham's interpretation of Molrmann, "the event of the cross is
the Trinity."36 Accordingly, Moltrnann says that "the history of Christ is the
inner life of God himself," and that the Trinity is "an event of love in the suf­
fering and death ofJesuS." 37 He even says that we should not think "as though
the Trinity were already present in itself, in the divine nature."38 That is to say,
we should not think that first there was the ontological Trinity, and then the
economic Trinity was revealed. Rather, Moltrnann thinks that the ontological
Trinityis constituted in the eventofthe cross. Richard Bauckham also interprets
Moltrnann in this way. So Bauckham says that at this stage (from 'The 'Theology
ofHope to 'The Crucified God) "Moltrnann thinks of God becoming Trinity
in the history of Jesus." 39 And he adds that "Moltrnann very much wished
to understand the trinitarian relationship of Father and Son as a relationship
which happens in the history of Jesus, and especially in -the cross, and will
not allow this happening to be a mere reflection of supra-temporal truth."40
Indeed, Mohmann himself thinks that his understanding of the Trinity "over­
comes the dichotomy between immanent and economic Trinity and between
the nature of God and his inner tri-uniry.?" Let us quote one more passage
form 'The Crucified God: .
The Trinity therefore also means the hisrory of God, which in human terms is the his­
tory of love and liberation. The Trinity, understood as an event for history, therefore
presses towards eschatological consummation, so that the 'Trinity may be all in all', or
put more simply, so that 'Jove may be all in all,' so that life may triumph over death. . . .
35 Moltmann, 'Ib« Trinity and th~ Kingdom, 244.
36 Richard Bauekham , ")Urgen Moltrnann," in On«Godin Trinity: An Analysis o/th~ Primary
Dogma o/Christianity, eds. Peter Toon and James D. Spiceland (Westchester: Cornerstone Books,
1980), 120.
37 Moltmann, the Trinity and theKingdom, 249.
38 Moltmann, 7h~ Trinity and theKingdom, 245.
i
. ,i 3. Bauckharn, "Jiirgen Moltrnann," 116, Bauckharns own emphasis.
40 Bauckharn, "Jiirgen Moltrnann," 116£, his own emphasis.
.. Moltrnann, 'Ih« Trinity and th«Kingdom , 245.

100 s. G. Lee/ Journal o/Reformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107
If Christian belief thinks in trinitarian terms, it says that forsaken men are already
taken up by Christ's forsakenness into the divine history and that we 'live in God',
because we participate in the eschatological life ofGod by virtue of the death ofChrist.
God is, God is in us, and God suffers in us, where love suffers. We participate in the
trinitarian process of God's history."
For Moltrnann, therefore, our history is the history of God and in this history
God accomplishes his trinitarian process.
In The Trinity and the Kingdom from 1980 , Moltmann also develops a sim­
ilar argument, but this time in a more nuanced way. First, after explaining
the meaning of the terms of the immanent and the economic Trinity, he asks
whether this distinction is necessary and rightly answers that this distinction
"secures God's liberty and grace" and "it is the logically necessary presupposi­
tion for the correct understanding of God's saving revelatlon.Y' He continues,
however, that God is love and God is forced to love neither by external neces­
sity nor by internal necessity, so there is no need to think of this kind of
distinction being necessary. Moreover, he says: "The notion of an immanent
Trinity in which God is simply by himself, without the love which communi­
cates salvation, brings an arbitrary element into the concept of God which
means a break-up of the Christian concept."44 So Moltmann wants to see the
economic and immanent Trinity "rather form a continuity and merge into one
another."45 Only in the sphere of doxology is there room for the immanent
Trinity. In this sense, Moltmann is saying that "the economic Trinity is the
object of kerygma tic and practical theology; the immanent Trinity the content
of doxological theology."46
Hence for Moltrnann, the economic Trinity has priority. In this sense he
says that "knowledge of the economic Trinity (as the embodiment of the
history and experience of salvation) precedes knowledge of the immanent
Trinity."47 In this way, for Moltmann, the economic Trinity was prior in his
thinking and that the event of the cross affects the Trinity (immanent Trinity)
and even constitutes the immanent Trinity. Indeed, Moltmann says in one place
that "the economic Trinity not only reveals the immanent Trinity; it also has a
retroactive effect on it."48 Moltmann also emphasizes that the history of the
' 2 Moltrnann, The Crucified God, 255.
43 Moltrnann, The Trinity and theKingdom, 151.
44 Molrrnann , The Trinity and theKingdom, 151 (emphasis given).
45 Molrrnann , The Trinity and theKingdom, 152 (emphasis given).
46 Molrrnann, The Trinity and theKingdom , 152.
47 Moltmann, The Trinity and theKingdom 152£
1M Moltmann, The Trinity and theKingdom , 160.
s. G. Lee/Journalo/&formed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107 101
world corresponds to the passiones trinitatis ad intra;49 that is, the history of
the world affects God himself.
Therefore, for Moltmaqn, only when the history and experience of salva­
tion are completed and perfected, does the economic Trinity complete and
perfect itself to immanent Trinity.~ In this way, we can clearly see that for
Moltmann either the economic Trinity is the process which constitutes the
immanent Trinity, or at least the economic Trinity affects the immanent Trin­
ity.51 The reason why Moltmann has such a tendency to emphasize the eco­
nomic Trinity is for him this is the way in which we can be fair to the human
factor of the history. So he thinks at the very least that the ontological Trinity
is enriched by the economic Trinity, and that the ontological Trinity is merely
a doxological anticipation of what will be there only at the end of the history.
This is the second model of understanding the Trinity. Let us turn to the
next model.
Hendrikus Berkhof's Model of Only the Economic Trinity
Hendrikus Berkhof understands the Trinity only as an economic Trinity. That
is, he tries to understand God not as the God who is in himself, but as the God
who has a relationship with us. In fact, Berkhof is not happy at all with the
traditional distinction between God as He is in Himself and the God as He is
in relation with usY
To see the Trinity only as an economic Trinity, Berkhof places an emphasis
on the covenant between God and man. Hence the title of the section in
which he deals with the Trinity is 'the Covenant as Tri-(u}nity.' This covenant
is an event that makes the covenant fellowship possible between God and us
by making us God's sons and daughters. Berkhof insists that we should regard
the Trinity "as a description of the 'structure' of the one covenant partner,
God,"53 So he thinks that we cannot speak of the Trinity as "one essence in
49 Moltrnann, The Trinity and theKingdom, 160.
50 Moltmann, The Trinity and theKingdom, 161.
51 For a similar discussion in relation with the event of the cross being affecting God , see
Bauckham, 128, 129. Especially, 129: "Thus God 'sexperience ofhistory results in an enrichment
of the Trinitarian being of God himself,"
52 Hendrikus Berkhof, Christtlijk Geloofi Revised Edition (Nijkerk: G. F. Callenbach, 1985),
trans. Sierd Woudstra, Christian Faith: An Introduction to theStudy0/theFaith (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1986),337. Hereafter in this section, citations from this book will be given in the text
only as the page number.
53 Berkhof, Christian Faith, 336.
102 S. G. Lee / Journal of&form~d Theology 3 (2009) 90-107 S. G. U~ / Journal of&formd 1h~ology 3 (2009) 90-107 103
three persons.T" That is, God, Jesus, and the Spirit "do not constitute one Trinity. He thinks that such an attempt is a wrong understanding of the Trin­
being in eternity, but one history in tirne."" In another place, he says that ity. He tries to understand God as a trinitarian event that appears in the
the Trinity is "not the name for an intra-divine mystery but a description of process of history, Such a Trinity is "not a description of an abstract God-in­
what has happened and is happening between God and men in revelation and himself, but of the revealed God-whh-us. r"
covenant. "56 In his other book entitled the Doctrine ofthe Holy Spirit, he says that the
This entire event of the Trinity in the history, according to Berkhof "is Spirit is "the name given to the presence of the exalted Lord, whose activity,
grounded in God's eternal determination to be a God of blessing, a determina­ after that of the earthly Jesus, is now addressed to the entire inhabited world/'"
tion which belongs to his very nature.?" God by his sovereign love is involved For Berkhof then , the Spirit is "the name for God in action toward the
with us in this process of history, and this "also does something to him" and world,"66 and the Spirit is "God-as person, God-in-relation."67 For Berkhof
"enriches him."58 He says that "the trinitarian event arises from the very nature the Spirit is no longer one divine person in the Trinity as in the traditional
(essence) ofGod and leads to it" or "the Trinity is natural (essential) for God."59 understanding of the Trinity. Rather, the Spirit is the name for God who is in
He immediately adds, however, that the Trinity "describes how God, accord ­ covenant relationship with man.
ing to his eternal purpose, extends and carries on in time his own life so The supreme act of God as Spirit is "the creation of new man, the true
as share it with man."60 So he makes it clear that the trinitarian event is an Son."6l! Berkhof speaks of the relationship between this man and the Spirit as
event which happens in time in relation with us, and by this event God himselfis follows:
extended and enriched. For Berkhof, therefore, the Trinity is "a continuing and
open event, directed to man."61
In that man the covenant is confirmed and in him the Spirit makes his abode on earth.
Accordingly, people are invited to participate in this trinitarian event ; "we From now on the Spirit and Christ coincide. As totally faithful covenant partner, Jesus
are made to share in the relationship between Father and Son."62 It is true that is the form of the Spirit, calls the Spirit to the earth, and creates room for the Spirit.
Berkhof makes it clear that this participation does not happen in such a way From now on the activity of the Spirit exists in the mode of the outpouring of
that the uniqueness of the relationship between Father and Son disappears. He the absolute covenantal oneness between God and Jesus, and' of the now life he has
obtained for us in that oneness/"
emphasizes that he does use the term trinity, not "rnulti-uniry'F' because he
presupposes the distance in essence between the trinitarian relationship and
So Berkhof speaks of "Father-Son-Spirit" or "Father-Spirit-Son" as "the sum­
the relationship between God and men. The distance, however, is only in
marizing description of the covenantal event.' ?" When Berkhof speaks of the
relation to origin, not contents. Berkhofclearly makes this point in his discus­
Spirit as the vinculum amoris between the Father and the Son, it looks like that
sion ofJesus.
he is following the Augustinian tradition."! We have to remember, however,
It is now clear from our discussion that Berkhof's Trinity is the economic
that for Augustine the Spirit is one divine person in the Trinity, whereas for
Trinity. He does not proceed from this economic Trinity to the ontological
Berkhof the Spirit is merely the name for the God who is in relationship with

S4 Berkhof Christian Faith. 336.

55 Berkhof Christian Faith. 336. 64 Berkhof, Christian Faith, 337.
56 Hendrikus Berkhof IntroductiontotbeStudyofDogmatics. trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: 65 Berkhof, The Doctrin~ oftb«Holy Spirit (john Knox. 1964); Introduction, 109. See also his

Eerdrnans, 1985), 106, emphasis is given. Christian Faith, 329-32.

57 Berkhof Christian Faith. 337. (,6 Berkhof, Christian Faith, 335.

58 Berkhof Christian Faith. 337. 67 Berkhof, Christian Faith. 336.

5. Berkhof ChristianFaith. 337.

M Berkhof Christian Faith, 331.

(,(J Berkhof ChristianFaith. 337.

6. Berkhof, Christian Faith. 331.

61 Berkhof Christian Faith. 336.

70 Berkhof Christian Faith. 335.

61 Hendrikus Berkhof 7h~ Doctrine ofth« Holy Spirit (john Knox. 1964); idem, Introduction,
7. Cf. Augustine, D~ Trinitate, trans. Arthur West Haden, revised by William G. T. Shedd,
109. See also his Christian Faith, 329-32. St. Augwtin~: On th« Trinity. in Nicene and Post-Nicm~ Fathen, vol. III (Edinburgh: T. & T.
63 Berkhof Christian Faith. 336. Clark, 1887), Book VIII and Book IX.
104 S. G. Lee/ Journal of&formed 1heology 3 (2009) 90-107
us. It is difficult, therefore, to identify Berkhof's understanding with the
Augustinian tradition.
What then is the relationship between the Father and the Son? According
to Berkhof, the new beginning between God and man which the older proph­
ets prophesized was accomplished in Jesus. This Jesus is "the true man and the
faithful covenant partner."! and the Son par excellence, "in whose God-created
relationship with God the covenant is renewed and forever established."! In
other words, "Jesus is the true Son of God precisely because he is human, the
true-covenant-partner of God. . . ."74 That is, Jesus is the "new beginning from
above ," and the one who "finally fulfills the sonship ."" For Berkhof, however,
there is no pre-existent God the Son. As Klaas Runia clearly said, "it is obvious
that Berkhof has no place ... for the idea of pre-existent in an ontological
sense."76
There is, therefore, a close relationship between Jesus' relationship with God
and our relationship with God. In one place, Berkhof gives us this explana­
tion: "As regards its origin, and thus as regards its representative power, Jesus'
sonship is unique. But as regards its content it is that to which all ofbumanity is
calledthroughthe covenantway o/Israel."77 That is, Jesus accomplished what the
Israelites as the representative of man should have accomplished, but have not
accomplished. Jesus "far ahead of us, enters a new way of human existence, in
which the covenant and sonship intended by God will finally reach their full
developmenr/"! Jesus is the one who reveals the true humanity. In this sense,
for Berkhof, Jesus is "not a purely vertical incident (in-cident, 'intrusion')
on the way of Israel and in the history of mankind."? Because, as far as the
content is concerned, there is no difference between sonship of Jesus and our
sonship. Only in regard to its origin and its representative power is Jesus' son­
ship unique.
What does it mean that Jesus is unique as regards the origin of his sonship?
Berkhof thinks that he is "a new start from God, 'conceived by the Holy Spirir."?"
71 Berkhof Christian Faith, 286f.
73 Be:rkhof, Christian Faith, 287.
7. Berkhof Introduction to the StudyofDogmatics, 106.
75 Berkhof Christian Faith, 287.
7(, Klaas Runia, The Pment-day Christological Debate (Leicester and Downe:rs Grove:: IVP,
1984),74.
n Berkhof Christian Faith. 288 (e:mphasis is mine:).
7" Berkhof Christian Faith. 288.
7. Berkhof Christian Faith, 286.
"0 Berkhof Christian Faith, 291.
S. G. Lee/ Journal of&formed 1heology 3 (2009) 90-107 105
He is hence the Son ofGod. 81This does not mean, however, that Berkhofaccepts
the virgin birth of Christ. Berkhof thinks that the biblical narrat ives of the virgin
birth are merely "later enrichment of the tradition, to give concrete expression
to the confession that jesus, the Son by pre-eminence, could not be generated
by man."82 For Berkhof, Jesus is merely a man, but a man in whose human T
the T of God is "fully and exhaustively permeared.?" This subjectivity is some­
times called as God's "Spirit" or God "himself."84 "In virtue of this permeation
he becomes the perfect instrument of the Father."8~ And this fulfilled covenant
relationship means the new union between God and man, which is beyond
our experience and imagination. The fulfillment , however, does not abolish our
humanity, but brings the supreme fulfillment. Berkhofalso thinks that speaking
of the two natures of Christ itself is a way ofobscuring the unity of his person."
For Berkhof, then, the Father and the Son are not two divine persons in the
traditional understanding of the Trinity. What we can get from him is that
he regards the Son as one who represents man. So for Berkhof, the Father,
the Son, and the Spirit are not the three persons of the Trinity; rather, they are
three aspects of one covenantal relation between God and man.
So far we have examined Berkhof's understanding of the Trinity which not
only centers on the economic Trinity, but also is only the economic Trinity,
and does not allow any room for the ontological Trinity. The reason why
Berkhof has such a tendency is that he is trying to be faithful to the historical
relationship between God and man. But in the process of his argument for the
historical understanding of the relationship between God and man, he loses
his conception of the transcendence of God in sensu strictu.
Conclusion
What should we think after examining these three models of understanding
the relationship between the ontological and the economic Trinity? It is quite
interesting that there are so many different understanding of the relationship
between the ontological and the economic Trinity in the history of theology.
All three models , which we have examined, appeal to the scriptures and assert
"' Berkhof, Introduction to the StudyofDogmatics, 106.
Hl Berkhof, Christian Faith, 298. See: also Runia, The Present-day Christ%gical Debate, 74.
83 Berkhof, Christian Faith, 291.
8. Be:rkhof, Christian Faith, 291.
85 Be:rkhof, Christian Faith, 291.
86 Berkhof, Christian Faith, 292.

106 s. G. Lee/Journal 0/Reformed Theology 3 (2009) 90-107 S. G. Lee/ Journalo/Reformed7heology 3 (2009) 90-107 107
that they are faithful to the biblical revelation. To modern taste, the perspec­ condition: The ontological Trinity is theground ofbeingfor the economic Trinity;
tive of the new theology of the cross and the perspective of Hendrikus Berkhof and the economic Trinity is thegroundofcognitionfor the ontological Trinity. The
which in a sense both reflect the modern ethos, may be more fitting than the perspective of only economic Trinity did in fact lose its ground of being; and
classic model, These theologians are trying to emphasize the human factor of the perspective of the new theology of the cross tries to expand its ground of
history. For them, history is so important for us and evenfor God, so that even cognition to be more than the ground of cognition of the Trinity. No matter
God should be enriched in the process of the history. Otherwise history is not whatever model we may choose, at the very least we have to bear in mind that
be taken seriously enough as it ought to be by us. the model that we are choosing will mold our theology as a whole.
According to the classic model, however, there is no, change within the
being of God from eternity to eternity. If God were enriched by the economic
Trinity or there were only the economic Trinity, then God would be the one
who needs history for himself and God could not be a perfect God without the
process of time and history. Hence Moltrnann, jiingel, and Berkhof-who put
an emphasis on the process of history-are, in fact, changing God in the proc­
ess of history. According to the classic model, however, it is important not to
change God himself according to our needs. At the end of the day, what mat­
ters is God Himself: and this is the God who was and is and will be the triune
God. To change God for our salvation and the process of the history of salva­
tion, therefore, is in fact to lose God. So in the classic model, God does not
need history, and He does not get any help from the process of history. There
is nothing that the history of the world can do to enrich God. Rather, history
itself is created and proceeds from the hands of God. Hence one needs to
acknowledge the ontological Trinity as the ground of being for the economic
Trinity. If it were not for the ontological Trinity, there would not be the eco­
nomic Trinity. The ontological Trinity that might be completed by the eco­
nomic Trinity is not the ontological Trinity in sensu strictu. Only when there is
the ontological Trinity is there the economic Trinity through which we can
recognize and understand God.
In a sense the perspective of the new theology of the cross, which empha­
sizes God's new experience in the process of time and history, is the one which
has a nco-Hegelian approach to theology in the twentieth century. In a similar
way, the perspective of Hendrikus Berkhof, which sees only the economic
Trinity, has a neo-Scbleiermacherian approach to theology in the twentieth cen­
tury while bearing in mind all the criticisms against the theology of Schleier­
macher and taking the form that could avoid these criticisms. In such a way,
the phantom of Hegel and the phantom of Schleiermacher are moving over
the theological world of the twentieth century, with new customs, more effec­
tive strategies, and with strong logical weapons.
We conclude by stating that the classic understanding of the Trinity lies in
asserting the following proposition without any reservation and without any