Does Discussing the One God Before the Triune God Distort our View of God?

There's Thomas--he's probably  thinking about how to distort the doctrine of God right now.

There’s Thomas–he’s probably thinking about how to distort the doctrine of God right now.

In theology, everything is connected. One doctrine implies another and unless we’re careful, seemingly innocuous modifications in the order of arguments, or the way we proceed methodologically, can lead to surprising conclusions and unfortunate results. In the wake of Barth’s trinitarian revolution in mainstream theology, many 20th century theologians have argued that just such a process happened in classical theology when it comes to the doctrine of God.

Among others, Jurgen Moltmann and Colin Gunton gloomily point to Aquinas’ decision to order his discussion of the doctrine of God in such a way that he treats the divine attributes (simplicity, aseity, omnipotence, etc.) before he comes to the trinitarian persons. Because of this fateful decision, they say his discussion and the classical tradition following him comes up with a concept of God rooted less in the biblical revelation of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and more from generic categories of being drawn from Greek philosophy and human reason. From there, theologians are faced with the difficult task of trying to reconcile revelation and reason resulting in all sorts of theological puzzles plaguing the tradition ever since.

But is that necessarily the case? Does a decision to treat the divine nature or being prior to treating the doctrine of the Trinity necessarily result in a sub-trinitarian doctrine of God? Herman Bavinck actually faced that argument about 30 years before the Barthian revolution, answering the objection in the negative and defending the classical ordering in theology:

In the work of some theologians the locus of the Trinity precedes that of the attributes of God; and Frank even has serious objections to the reverse order. If treating the attributes of God before the doctrine of the Trinity implied a desire to gradually proceed from “natural” to “revealed” theology, from a natural to the Christian concept of God, then this procedure would undoubtedly be objectionable. But this is by no means the case. In the doctrine of the attributes of God the tradition includes the treatment of the divine nature as it is revealed us in Scripture, is confessed by the Christian faith, and exists–as will be evident in the locus of the Trinity–in a threefold manner. In order for us to understand in the locus of the Trinity that Father, Son, and Spirit share in the same divine nature, it is necessary for us to know what the divine nature comprises and in what ways it differs from every created nature.

And this is not merely a matter of logical ordering that classical theologians have come up because of their own prior methodological preferences. In this, they only follow Scripture:

In the matter of order, too, Scripture is our model. In Scripture, the nature of God is shown earlier and more clearly that his trinitarian existence. The Trinity is not clearly revealed until we get to the New Testament. The names of YHWH and Elohim precede those of Father, Son, and Spirit. The first thing Scripture teaches us concerning God is that he has a free, independent existence and life of his own that is distinct from all creatures. He has a being (“nature”, “substance”, “essence”) of his own, not in distinction from his attributes, but coming to the fore and disclosing itself in all his perfections and attributes.

Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2: God and Creation, pp. 149-150

Truly dominant-looking theological man. It's a win for Reformed beardliness everywhere.

Truly dominant-looking theological man. It’s a win for Reformed beardliness everywhere.

From there Bavinck goes on to substantiate and develop with extensive biblical argumentation the doctrine of the independence of God at the head of his discussion of the attributes.

Now, I won’t say that critics like Moltmann and Gunton haven’t had some real beefs worth looking at. I almost never want to play the Greek card, but I’ll admit there are times when I read a classical bit of theology and think there’s a bit of the gap between their doctrine of God and their doctrine of the Trinity. Nor will I necessarily fault any modern theologians who’ve chosen to reverse the order and treat the Trinity first. I’m a bit partial to the method myself.

My point here is that Bavinck has given us two solid reasons for thinking that ordering our discussions in the doctrine of God in the classical way is not simply an exercise in “natural” theology, or will necessarily result in a non-trinitarian conception of God’s being. In order to speak about the way that Father, Son, and Spirit all possess the one divine nature, it’s quite logical to want to know what the divine nature is. Beyond that, and more importantly, this order of study mirrors the order of God’s own revelation. Yes, it is true that there are hints of the Trinity in the Old Testament revelation, but the doctrine only comes into its own in the New Testament. It’s hard to fault a theologian for modeling himself explicitly on Scripture this way.

Bavinck himself stands as a counter-example to this whole charge. Read through his explorations of the divine attributes and you’ll see their clear and extensive grounding in Scripture and revelation, including God’s triunity, long before he engages in any sort of theological development or philosophical reasoning that could be accused of being “natural” theology. What’s more, his locus on the Trinity is stunning; I’d be hard-pressed to find any distortions there.

In other words, what I’m is that, it does no good to write off the classical tradition as sub-trinitarian and refuse to read anything before Barth or Rahner. Individual theologians might be, but then again that’s true of modern theologians. What’s more, if you’re looking to do some theology yourself, you may have an option open to you considered closed off before.

It wouldn’t surprise me that there’s probably more than one way to testify rightly to the glory of the Triune God.

Soli Deo Gloria

7 thoughts on “Does Discussing the One God Before the Triune God Distort our View of God?

  1. I generally find Theology tiresome, and at points, perhaps even when presented with technical facts I’d agree with, still have an uneasy shadow of a feeling it’s usually out of phase with the actual intent, focus, and point of many Scriptures. Like watching a 3D movie without the glasses. Take, for instance, dogmatically asserting “the Holy Spirit is a person” okay, sure, but the Bible seems to treat this as a footnote. It’s as though some think you must confess the Trinity as Godhead rather than Jesus as Lord. Now, I’m deffinately Trinitarian, but gee whiz, where in the Bible is that pounded as dogma?

    BTW: Jurgen Moltmann is the man when it comes to individual eschatology. I believe he gets Paul/Jesus right.

    • John, you’re a biblical studies guy, right? Are you telling me that you don’t think that what you’re doing is theology? Or maybe you just mean that you find systematic theology tiresome? I have to confess, one of the things I find tiresome is when biblical guys think they can avoid grappling with some of the systematic issues or that some of them don’t inform their exegesis. Eventually the two are mutually-informing and so systematic concerns eventually need to be discussed in relation to the text.

      Also, with respect to the Spirit–I would say that while the matter isn’t initially isn’t quite as clear as, say, the deity of the Son, but it’s absolutely crucial for understanding WHO GOD IS, and if the goal of our salvation is to know God through Christ, it’s blinkered to sideline, or ignore the personality of the sanctifying Spirit. I agree that in our preaching and teaching, we should try to hew close to the text and the biblical-theological concerns that the authors present us with, but ultimately I don’t think we’ve done full justice to the texts unless we read them in a fully-theological light.

      On all of this, I’d point you to Kevin Vanhoozer and J. Todd Billings,


      • I’m sympathetic with John. The problem is that systematics tends to dominate and makes the Scripture say what it had concluded through whatever logic is being employed (whether using syllogisms or not).

        I think that systematics needs to get itself placed in a hermeneutic text like John 5:39. If Jesus is the “key” and the Scripture is His-story, His Bio-graphy (and one His Spirit produced!), then that ought to allow more mystery and unsolved questions than the Scripture allows. This allows the text to be fully theological, and the whole of the Bible, being the diverse collection of books that it is, to speak with One voice. That’s a “system” but one that is joined-at-the-hip to reading the Bible on its own terms.

        Also, I’d argue it’s quite apparent, when reading the Biblical narrative, that the Holy Spirit coming and going sure as hell seems like He’s a Person and not some force. To say the latter is a precommitment to interpreting agency in a certain form.

        Anyway, I think you’re right with Bavinck. It doesn’t matter whether you start with One or Three, both cycle in and out of each other. The primary emphasis should be that it comes through Jesus, and not Greek philosophical commitment or natural theological insights.


  2. I usually retreat to Gregory of Nazianzus on this, “I cannot think on the one without quickly being encircled by the splendor of the three; nor can I discern the three without being straightaway carried back to the one.”

    This is particularly so in our modern context where most of us “no longer find it worthwhile to think of beings in terms of the substances that underlie their acts” (quoting a Kevin Hector article). Discussions, then, that start with divine nature, in the classical sense (i.e., “nature” ends up being synonymous with “substance”), do tend to fall flat and are generally too unconvincing, if not nonsensical, to our modern ears.

    I think Bauckham, et al., hit the nail exactly on the head—let’s not read these Greek metaphysics back into Scripture; let’s understand “divine nature” in terms of divine identity.

    Nevertheless, I agree—it’s not as if the classical way is sub-trinitarian, and, in fact, if you hold on to those key modern insights (based on better archaeology than previous generations) while reading, e.g., Aquinas, or Lombard, or Boethius, or Maximus, or the Cappadocians, etc., you’ll be so much the better for it, supplementing their extraordinary philosophical interpretations of Scripture with a more solid socio-grammatical interpretation. Those old churchmen answered the pressing questions of their day better than anyone else, meeting the challenges at the precise point they needed to, at the precise point those old heretics were undermining the faith.

    • Spot on as usual. I do think there’s something to be gained from modern approaches, and certain classic treatments leave something to be desired. Yet still, many of the classic treatments are firmly on the money and offer us a number of constructive insights to retrieve and redeploy in our contexts regardless of the order in which they’ve treated the loci.

  3. Pingback: Does Discussing The One God Before The Triune God Distort Our View of God? An Engagement. | The Evangelical Calvinist

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s