The Reciprocity between the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology
Post on 26-Oct-2014
105 Views
Preview:
Transcript
The Reciprocity between
the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology
By
Timothy Ching Lung LAM
A Term Paper Submitted to Dr. Hung Biu KWOK of
Alliance Bible Seminary
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Course of
TH511-E: Systematic Theology I
Spring 2003
Timothy Ching Lung LAM
Student ID Number: D023111
July 11, 2003
Table of Content
1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
2 PROPOSITIONS FOR THE IMPRACTICALITY OF THE TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY 2
2.1 IMMANUEL KANT ................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 KARL RAHNER ....................................................................................................................... 3
2.2.1 Rahner’s Concerns over the Practicality of the Doctrine of the Trinity ............ 3
2.2.2 Rahner’s Grundaxiom of the Economic Trinity and the Immanent Trinity ........ 4
2.2.3 Limitations of Rahner’s Grundaxiom ................................................................. 4
3 THE PRACTICALITY OF THE TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY IN TERMS OF
CHRISTIANS’ DOXOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 5
3.1 CATHERINE MOWRY LACUGNA ............................................................................................. 6
3.1.1 The Paradigm of Oikonomia and Theologia ..................................................... 6
3.1.1.1 The Inseparability of Oikonomia and Theologia ........................................... 6
3.1.1.2 Doxological Character of LaCugna’s Trinitarian Theology .......................... 8
3.1.2 Relational Ontology ......................................................................................... 10
3.1.2.1 God’s Relational to Creature: Persons in Communion ................................ 10
3.1.2.2 Doxological Character of the Divine -human Relationship ......................... 11
3.1.3 Concerns over LaCugna’s Trinitarian Theology ............................................. 11
3.1.3.1 Doxology – A “Father-only” View? ............................................................. 11
3.2 THOMAS F. TORRANCE ........................................................................................................ 17
3.2.1 Stratified Levels ................................................................................................ 17
3.2.1.1 The Evangelical and Doxological Level ...................................................... 17
3.2.1.2 The Theological Level ................................................................................. 18
3.2.1.3 The Higher Theological Level ..................................................................... 19
3.2.2 Onto-relational Concept of Trinitarian Persons .............................................. 20
3.2.2.1 Homoousion ................................................................................................. 20
3.2.2.2 Onto-relational Concept: Perichoresis ......................................................... 21
3.2.3 Concerns over Torrance’s Trinitarian Theology .............................................. 23
3.2.3.1 Universal Intent vs. Universal Truth ............................................................ 23
3.2.3.2 The Participatory Evangelical and Doxological Approach .......................... 24
3.3 STRATIFIED STRUCTURE OF THE RECIPROCITY BETWEEN THEOLOGIA AND DOXOLOGIA ... 26
4 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 28
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................. I
The Reciprocity between the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology
Systematic Theology I Page 1 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
1 Introduction
“Bring me a worm that can comprehend a man, and then I will show you a man that can
comprehend the triune God,” said John Wesley.1 This statement appears to be a
succinct expression of the human perception of the incomprehensible Trinity as viewed
by the church traditionally and even presently. Accordingly, Immanuel Kant accuses
that the doctrine thereof should then be impractical to Christian living as he says, “From
the doctrine of the Trinity, taken literally, nothing whatsoever can be gained for practical
purposes, even if one believes that one comprehended it – and less still if one is
conscious that it surpasses all our concepts.”2 Furthermore, Karl Rahner charges that
Christians fail to make the doctrine of the Trinity “a reality in the concrete life of the
faithful,” and then suggesting “the fact that, despite their orthodox confession of the
Trinity, Christians are, in their practical life, almost mere ‘monotheists.’”3
Notwithstanding that the doctrine of the Trinity has been perceived as impractical to
Christian living, more and more contemporary theologians such as Catherine M.
LaCugna and Thomas F. Torrance argue against such perspective by formulating an
inextricable relationship between Trinitarian theology and doxology. The reason why
doxology is used to reflect the Trinitarian faith in Christian living because it
characterizes every aspects of Christian life that:
“Doxology is not merely the language of direct prayer and praise,
but all forms of thought, feeling, action and hope directed and
offered by believers to the living God. Doxological affirmations
are therefore not primarily definitions or descriptions. They are
performative and ascriptive, lines of thoughts, speech and action
which, as they are offered, open up into the living reality of God
himself.”4
1 Keathley III J. Hampton, “The Trinity (Triunity) of God.” Bible Studies Press. 1997, 4. From
<http://www.bible.org/doc/theology/proper/trinity.htm> (May 7, 2003). 2 Immanuel Kant, Der Streit der Fakultäten (Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1975 [Philosophische Bibliothek,
Band 252]), 33 quoted in Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Person: A Contemporary Interpretation of the
Trinity, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House Company, 1995), 111. 3 Karl Rahner, The Trinity, trans. J. Donceel, (New York: Herder & Herder, 1970), 10.
4 C.M. LaCugna is of the opinion that this statement is apparently written by D. Ritschl. See D. Ritschl,
The Reciprocity between the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology
Systematic Theology I Page 2 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
By relating the doxological characters of Christian living to Trinitarian theology, the
doctrine of the Trinity is no longer impractical, but rather “a practical doctrine with
radical consequences for Christian life” as adamant by LaCugna.5 Furthermore,
Torrance sees a reciprocal relationship between Trinitarian theology and doxology to
which Christian’s doxological expression of the Trinity constitutes the movement of
theological thought from level to level towards the ontological Trinity while “…the
doctrine of the Trinity belongs to the very heart of saving faith where it constitutes the
inner shape of Christian worship and the dynamic grammar of Christian theology.”6
Accordingly, what is going to prove here is that the Trinitarian Theology is a practical
theology in reciprocal relation to Christian doxology which constitutes the dynamic
movement of theological thoughts beginning from Christian’s evangelical and
doxological participation in the Gospel and culminating in Christian’s doxology towards
God’s own ontological Trinitarian Life as God.
2 Propositions for the Impracticality of the Trinitarian Theology
2.1 Immanuel Kant
Immanuel Kant, a critical philosopher, claims that Trinitarian theology is
impractical because one cannot have knowledge of “supersensible objects.”7 As
he explains in his treatise of Critique of Pure Reason, content of knowledge is, by
no means but, provided by human sense experience.8 However, the Trinity, as a
supersensible object, is impossible to be apprehended in the form or structure of
knowledge. Accordingly, Kant concludes that the doctrine of the Trinity has
indeed no practical value for it, itself, cannot be comprehended even one claims
Memory and Hope (New York: Macmillan, 1967), 168-176 quoted in Catherine M. LaCugna, God for Us: The
Trinity and Christian Life, (New York: Haper Collins, 1991), 336. 5 Ibid, 1.
6 Thomas F. Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God, One Being Three Person, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1996), 10, 83. 7 Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Person: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Baker Book House Company, 1995), 111. 8 Ibid.
The Reciprocity between the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology
Systematic Theology I Page 3 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
to believe in it.9 As a result, as Kant further elaborates, there is no difference in
one’s belief as to his/her practical living, which, for instance, could be
demonstrated in Christian liturgical practice that there is no difference for
Christians worship three gods or ten.10
Therefore, should the doctrine of the
Trinity in much the same way as religion not be abandoned, Kant believes that
Trinitarian theology should be reformulated from the practical consideration of
ethics rather than pure theoretical reasons.11
2.2 Karl Rahner
2.2.1 Rahner’s Concerns over the Practicality of the Doctrine of the Trinity
Karl Rahner, who appears to assent to Kant’s challenge, contends the
practicality of Trinitarian theology. He says that major religious
literature would remain unchanged even if there were no doctrine of
Trinity.12
For instance, Rahner comments that today’s Christians only
emphasize on God being a man rather than the particular one divine
person being a man.13
Indeed, Rahner is dissatisfied with the traditional
doctrine of the Trinity that it apparently overlooks the distinctiveness
between each person in the Trinity. To make his point clear, he asks a
hypothetical question on whether or not each of the divine persons has
become man.14
Certainly his answer is negative although the answer, he
believes, would be positive for the traditional doctrine of the Trinity.15
Nevertheless, Rahner is not accusing that the traditional doctrine of the
Trinity undermines the incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity,
but rather, in practice, it does not. As a result, Rahner concludes
disappointedly, “…the Christian’s idea of the incarnation would not have
to change at all if there were no Trinity.”16
Therefore, Christians
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid, 117.
12 Karl Rahner, The Trinity, trans. J. Donceel, (New York: Herder & Herder, 1970), 10-11.
13 Ibid, 11.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid, 11.
The Reciprocity between the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology
Systematic Theology I Page 4 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
practical living are almost mere monotheistic rather than Trinitarian due
to their perspectives of incarnation, grace and redemption merited by God
only rather than the Incarnate Word of God.
2.2.2 Rahner’s Grundaxiom of the Economic Trinity and the Immanent
Trinity
In an attempt to solve this problem, Rahner relates God's own
intra-trinitarian life to the world in His saving economy by his influential
Grundaxiom that: “The ‘economic’ Trinity is the ‘immanent’ Trinity and
the ‘immanent’ Trinity is the ‘economic’ Trinity.”17
According to this
axiom, Rahner maintains the identity of ‘the Son of the economic Trinity’
with ‘the Son of the immanent Trinity’ that “here the Logos with God and
the Logos with us, the immanent and the economic Logos, are strictly the
same.”18
However, Rahner is not saying that the two are ontologically
identical, for doing so would result in pantheism. Rather, the economic
Trinity is the starting point of theology as he sees a “relative” (relational)
differentiation between the two sets of the Trinity, namely, the economic
Trinity is “grounded” in the immanent Trinity.19
In short, what Rahner
is trying to articulate is that the immanent Trinity can be manifested
through the economic Trinity for they are the united and thus the doctrine
of the Trinity does matter in Christian practical life.
2.2.3 Limitations of Rahner’s Grundaxiom
Notwithstanding that Rahner’s Grundaxiom has made its contribution to
the development of the Trinitarian theology over the past several decades,
its implications have not worked through fully as they should be.
Catherine M. LaCugna queries this axiom by saying that,
“Is there a way to preserve a distinction of reason between
17
Ibid, 22. 18
Ibid, 33.
The Reciprocity between the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology
Systematic Theology I Page 5 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
economic and immanent Trinity without allowing it to
devolve into an ontological distinction? This is crucial
because if the distinction is ontological, then theologia is
separated from oikonomia. If the distinction is
epistemological, then oikonomia is our means of access to
theologia, and, it is truly theologia that is given in
oikonomia”20
Accordingly, LaCugna contends that the terminology of the immanent
and economic Trinity is imprecise and misleading.21
Consequently,
Rahner’s identity of the two Trinities may lead to an impression of “two
discrete realities,” which may “hamper the doxological movement of the
human heart insofar as its very discourse may reify or objectify the
Trinity.”22
Ironically, the attempt to restore the doctrine of the Trinity in
Christian practical living, which Rahner was trying, results in impeding
Christian’s exercise of the doxological character of theology.
3 The Practicality of the Trinitarian Theology in terms of Christians’ Doxology
According to Prosper of Aquitaine (435 – 472 AD), the law of prayer determines the law
of belief (“lex orandi; lex credendi”)23
. This maxim is commonly interpreted that the
content of prayer is synonymous with the faith of the one praying, so that we can
understand one’s faith by examining his/her liturgical practice in use. Therefore,
Christian’s doxology denoting offering of worship to “the three persons of the Blessed
Trinity,”24
should establishes the belief of “the threefold manifestation of the one God as
19
Ibid, 101-103. 20
Catherine M. LaCugna, 217. 21
LaCugna, in God for Us Review Symposium, Horizons 20 (1993), 127-42 quoted in Elizabeth T. Groppe,
“Catherine Mowry LaCugna’s Contribution to Trinitarian Theology,” Theological Studies 63 (2002): 732. 22
Ibid, 735. 23
Prosper of Aquitaine, a monk who served as a secretary to Leo the Great, said, “the order of supplication
determines the rule of faith.” (“ut legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi.”). See Prosper of Aquitaine,
Capitula Coelestini 8 in Paul De Clerk, “‘Lex orandi; lex credendi’: The Original Sense and Historical Avatars
of an Equivocal Adage,” trans. Thomas M. Winger, Studia Liturgica 24 (1994), 181 quoted in Nicholas A.
Jenson, “Lex orandi, lex credendi: Towards a Liturgical Theology,” Nov. 2001, 7. From
<http://www.ecumenism.net/archive/jesson_lexorandi.pdf> (June 11, 2003). 24
Walter A. Elwell, ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology Grand Rapids, (Michigan: Baker Book House
Company, May 1990), 356.
The Reciprocity between the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology
Systematic Theology I Page 6 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”25
As mentioned previously, LaCugna, and Torrance both
formulate their Trinitarian theologies connecting the Trinitarian Theology with doxology,
which is indeed in accordance with Prosper’s axiom.
3.1 Catherine Mowry LaCugna
LaCugna, in her influential “God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life,” has
demonstrated that the doctrine of the Trinity is “an eminently practical teaching
with radical consequences for Christian life.”26
Throughout the entire book,
LaCugna’s Trinitarian theology is proved to be practical as it weds all theologies
related to all dimensions of Christian life which first comes to an expression in
Christian’s doxology.27
For LaCugna, doxology is the only means, through
which Christians are able to speak of “God in se”.28
Most profoundly she
believes, “Trinitarian theology culminates in doxology, in the praise and
adoration of God.”29
In this regard, LaCugna’s Trinitarian theology is not an
abstract concept of God's inner life, but rather focuses on God's life related to
humanity, as revealed in the economy (events of salvation) through the Son in the
Spirit. In order to understand how LaCugna builds a strong connection between
Trinitarian theology and doxology, her Trinitarian theology should be examined.
3.1.1 The Paradigm of Oikonomia and Theologia
3.1.1.1 The Inseparability of Oikonomia and Theologia
With the inspiration of Karl Rahner’s Grundaxiom (i.e. “the economic
Trinity is the immanent Trinity and the immanent Trinity is the
economic Trinity”), LaCugna develops her Trinitarian theology as an
alternative approach, namely, “the Inseparability of Oikonomia and
Theologia,” which not only maintains the spirit of Rahner’s axiom,
25
Ibid, 502. 26
Elizabeth T. Groppe, 730. 27
C.M. LaCugna, and K. McDonnell, “Returning from ‘The Far Country’: Theses for a Contemporary
Trinitarian Theology,” Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. 41 (1988): 196, 211. 28
Ibid, 191. 29
Elizabeth T. Groppe, 735.
The Reciprocity between the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology
Systematic Theology I Page 7 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
but also avoids the problems resulted from Rahner’s employment of
the terms, “economic and immanent.”30
In fact, LaCugna’s adoptions of Oikonomia and Theologia are not
merely literal substitutes for Rahner’s terms of “economic and
immanent,” for the meaning and relationship thereof are different.
Rather, she articulates a new framework of Trinitarian theology. For
Rahner, the economic Trinity refers to “the historical manifestation of
that eternal self-communication in the mission of Jesus Christ and the
Spirit” while the immanent Trinity means the “‘intra-divine’
self-communication: Father to Son and Spirit.”31
In contrast,
LaCugna’s oikonomia means the “comprehensive plan of God
reaching from creation to consummation, in which God and all
creatures are destined to exist together in the mystery of love and
communion” while theologia refers to “the mystery of God.”32
When considering Rahner’s axiomatic identity of the economic and
immanent Trinity as a starting point, LaCugna’s adoption of theologia
with oikonomia best describes the inseparable but distinctive
relationship between the mystery of God and the mystery of salvation
(rather than identical), which she claims “more accurately the return
to the biblical and pre-Nicene pattern of thought.”33
In history
during the process of writing the Nicene Creed, soteriology was
separated from the doctrine of God and that theologia came to refer to
the inner workings of the divine life apart from the work of saving
economy. LaCugna considers it as a mistake that the intra-divine
relations of the Three Persons have lost their connection to God’s
economy in the world, which leads to a result of two discrete realities.
In view of this problem, Rahner’s Grundaxiom was used to attempt to
30
Elizabeth Groppe listed out eight limitations of the paradigm of the economic and immanent Trinity.
See Ibid, 731-740. 31
In fact, Karl Rahner did not explicitly explain the meanings of “economic and immanent Trinity” in his
book, The Trinity. However, one would not be difficult to determine Rahner’s definitions of the two terms
throughout the entire book. In order to introduce her ‘inseparability of oikonomia and theologia’ as an
alternative terminologies for Rahner’s axiom, LaCugna defines the meanings for “economic and immanent
Trinity’ in view of Rahner’s theology. See Catherine M. LaCugna, 212. 32
Ibid, 223.
The Reciprocity between the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology
Systematic Theology I Page 8 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
affirm the essential unity of oikonomia and theologia. However,
LaCugna claims that such unity cannot be strictly identical, although
“theologia is fully revealed in oikonomia while oikonomia rightly
expresses the ineffable theologia.”34
Rather, as she explains,
theologia transcends what can be expressed in oikonomia, “just as our
own personhood exceeds anyone self-expression or even a lifetime of
self-expression.”35
In addition, should God’s act in Himself be
identical with His acts in the world, the world would therefore
become the reflection of God, denoting the world is divine in that
sense, which may result in the criticism of being pantheistic. In this
respect, LaCugna’s axiom is considered more appropriate that
theologia and oikonomia are not identical, but rather they are
distinctive and inseparable.
3.1.1.2 Doxological Character of LaCugna’s Trinitarian Theology
For LaCugna, doxology is the practice of Christian’s Trinitarian
theology, which was indeed first given in the expression within
liturgical practice such as rite of baptism, creeds, eucharistic prayer
and doxologies.36
As Jürgen Moltmann says, “Real theology, which
means knowledge of God, finds expression in thanks, praise,
adoration. And it is what finds expression in doxology that is the
real theology…Here we know in order to participate. Then to know
God means to participate in the fullness of the divine life.”37
Accordingly, there is an inextricable relationship between doxology
and theology, i.e. doxology establishes theology and theology
culminates in doxology. However, Rahner’s Grundaxiom may
hinder the exercise of theology in the mode of doxology for it “may
reify or objectify the Trinity” into two discrete realities, which causes
33
Ibid. 34
Ibid. 35
Ibid, 304. 36
C.M. LaCugna, and K. McDonnell, 196. 37
Jürgen Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, trans. Margaret Kohl, (San Francisco, CA:
Harper & Row, 1981), 152 quoted in Sean William Anthony, “The Holistic Pneumatology of Jürgen Moltmann:
A Pentecostal Examination,” From <http://members.tripod.com/~Xanthicus/moltmann.html> (May 23, 2003).
The Reciprocity between the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology
Systematic Theology I Page 9 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
Christians to think the relationship intellectually between the two
Trinities rather than to worship to the unobjectifiable God.38
Alternatively, LaCugna’s axiom not only avoids the risk of
objectification but also maintains the unity of God and God for us and
that “doxology is the ‘practice’ of the unity of oikonomia and
theologia; all knowledge, love, and worship of God must be routed
through Christ by the power of the Spirit.”39
In the act of doxology,
the praise is offered to God as a reflective language of Christian’s
faith because of God’s divinity (the mystery of God) and because of
what God has done, is doing and will do on our behalf (the mystery of
economy).40
In this regard, there is no distinction between ‘we
worship God’ and ‘we worship God for us’ in doxology and hence
doxology preserves the unity of theologia and oikonomia.
The term of doxology is indeed derived from the Greek word, “doxa”
meaning glory.41
LaCugna’s terminology of doxology is in agreement
with this definition and that glory is “the face of God that may not be
seen (the mystery of God), and the saving act that is witnessed (the
mystery of salvation).”42
With this definition, God’s glory is no
difference to His saving glory. In this respect, Christian’s doxology
is an expression of glory which articulates the proper connection
between oikonomia and theologia.
Along with the above thought, there is a reciprocal relationship
between theology and doxology where theologia is fully revealed in
oikonomia which doxology is rooted in and doxology rooted in
oikonomia eventually reaches to theologia..”43
As a result, one,
in the mode of doxology, would see a dynamic movement of
theologia towards God’s other in oikonomia, and that all things
38
Elizabeth T. Groppe, 735. 39
Catherine M. LaCugna, 15-16. 40
Ibid, 15-16. 41
Walter A. Elwell, ed., 356. 42
Catherine M. LaCugna, 367. 43
Elizabeth T. Groppe, 746.
The Reciprocity between the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology
Systematic Theology I Page 10 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
“exitus” from God through Christ in the Spirit will be brought
together in God and “reditus” to God in the Spirit through Christ.44
Such ecstatic movement can be best described in a parabolic
presentation as follows:45
3.1.2 Relational Ontology
3.1.2.1 God’s Relational to Creature: Persons in Communion
One of the LaCugna’s concerns on Rahner’s equality of the economic
Trinity and the immanent Trinity is God’s way of being in
relationship with human in view of God’s personhood. She
disagrees that the immanent Trinity is intra-divine
self-communication by arguing that “God is not self-contained,
egotistical and self-absorbed but overflowing love, outreaching desire
for union with all that God has made.”46
Accordingly, God’s own
Trinitarian life does not belong to God alone, but rather relates to us
in His eternal glory revealed through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit.
“Trinitarian life is therefore also our life.”47
It is notable that
LaCugna replaces the term, “substance”, by “Person” as “both God
44
Catherine M. LaCugna, 222-223. 45
Ibid, 223. 46
Ibid, 15. 47
Ibid, 228.
God (Father)
Jesus Christ Jesus Christ
Holy Spirit
World
God (Father)
Holy Spirit
Oikonomia and Theologia
The Reciprocity between the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology
Systematic Theology I Page 11 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
and the creature exist and meet as persons in communion.”48
As a
result, the doctrine of the Trinity is hence not a teaching about the
abstract nature of God apart from human, but rather a teaching about
God’s life interacted with human. Such relational ontology affirms
the inseparability of oikonomia and theologia: “God’s To-Be is
To-Be-in relationship, and God’s being-in-relationship-to-us is what
God is.”49
3.1.2.2 Doxological Character of the Divine -human Relationship
The term, ‘glory’ (meaning for doxology) is not only well-suited in
explaining the doxological character of LaCugna’s axiomatic
inseparability of oikonomia and theologia, but it also reflects the
divine-human relationship in view of God’s act towards human.
Firstly, Jesus is the reflection of God’s glory and that the Father is
glorified through Jesus’ life on earth such as His salvation, suffering,
death and resurrection. Then, Christians are commanded by Jesus to
give glory to God not only in prayer but also with their whole lives.
However, it is human impossible for Christians to give glory and
honor to God without being deified by the Holy Spirit. Accordingly,
Christian’s doxology is an act of God that are mediated through
Christ and made possible in the power of the Spirit to be directed
towards God. In this respect, doxology actuates the true relationship
between people and with God, which unifies Christians with God by
restoring in a right relationship.50
3.1.3 Concerns over LaCugna’s Trinitarian Theology
3.1.3.1 Doxology – A “Father-only” View?
LaCugna’s formulation of Christian’s doxology directed to God the
48
Ibid, 250. 49
Ibid. 50
Ibid, 338.
The Reciprocity between the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology
Systematic Theology I Page 12 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit appears to be a
“Father-only” maxim, which is indeed controversial.51
According to
LaCugna’s survey of Christian liturgical practice throughout the first
few centuries, “praise was addressed to God or to God the Father
through Christ in the Holy Spirit.”52
In fact, this Trinitarian pattern
was gradually changed after Nicene creeds in the 4th
Century due to
the controversy brought by Arianism. As a doctrine formulated
against the Arian heretical concept of Christ’s subordination to God
the Father, LaCugna contends that the “role of Christ as mediator and
High Priest in His humanity (cf. Heb. 4:14-16) gradually was
replaced by Christ the heavenly High Priest who in His divinity
intervenes for us, making an offering of glory efficacious before God
the Father.”53
Similarly, the church’s liturgical practice affected by
Arianism witnesses the transition where the Spirit of the efficacious
role becomes also the object of the praise together with the Father and
the Son.54
As a result, LaCugna accuses that Prosper’s axiom is
reversed from “lex orandi, lex credendi” (the law of worship
establishes the law of belief) to “lex credendi, lex orandi” (the law of
belief, namely the doctrine of the Trinity, comes to establish the law
of worship).55
It appears that one of the grounds LaCugna’s Trinitarian pattern based
on is the historical practice of Church’s liturgical tradition before
Nicene creeds. However, it is problematic:
First of all, although there appears to be no evidence of such practice
before Nicea to give praise and honor to the Father and the Son and
the Holy Spirit, it does not imply that such practice should be
prohibited as there is no such teaching explicitly stated in the
51
This is termed by Erickson to say that prayers are to be directed to the Father only. See Millard J.
Erickson, Making Sense of the Trinity: 3 Crucial Questions, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House
Company, 2000), 77. 52
Catherine M. LaCugna, 126. 53
Ibid. 54
Ibid, 127. 55
Ibid, 135.
The Reciprocity between the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology
Systematic Theology I Page 13 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
Scriptures against it.
Secondly, human apprehension of God is still in an ongoing process.
As LaCugna says, God “is alive and whose ongoing relationship with
creation and person cannot be frozen or fixed in time. God is a
‘walking God’ who accompanies a pilgrim people, according to a
providential plan administered (economized) throughout time.”56
Therefore, human’s knowledge of God is like a journey with God in
history.57
Along with this thinking, such ongoing interaction
between God and human implies that human’s apprehension of God is
still developing throughout the history. For instance, people in the
New Testaments would know more about God than the people in the
Old Testaments particularly in the saving act of God through Jesus
Christ in the Holy Spirit.
In this regard, what human apprehends God in history is important as
LaCugna agrees that “history, in the sense of ‘what really happened,’
is recognized as the criterion of the most real.”58
In line with this
view, Rahner says, “it is ultimately in history that we receive God’s
answer to the human question.”59
Although there is no evidence of
praise given to the unity of the three coequal divine persons before
the Nicea, it does not mean that such practice happened in history
afterward is incorrect. Therefore, both practices (i.e. prayers to the
Trinity and prayers to the Father through the Son in the Spirit) are
historical incidents, or commonly termed as “traditions” that should
be considered at the same time rather than taking the earliest tradition
as the only criteria to justify the appropriateness of Christian liturgical
practice. As Alister McGrath says, “Tradition is to be honored
where it can be shown to be justified and rejected where it cannot.”60
56
Ibid, 321. 57
C.M. LaCugna, and K. McDonnell, 199. 58
Ibid, 4. 59
Karl Rahner, Faith in a Wintry Season: Conversation and Interviews with Karl Rahner in the Last Years
of His Life, ed. Paul Imbof and Hubert Biallowons (New York: Crossroad, 1990), 28 quoted in Elizabeth T.
Groppe, 754. 60
Alister E. McGrath, “The Importance of Tradition for Modern Evangelicalism,” In Doing Theology for
The Reciprocity between the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology
Systematic Theology I Page 14 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
Accordingly, the tradition, as he further suggests, should be critically
appraised based on the “interpretation of Scripture,” which should be
justified in accordance with the same way precisely in which it has
been interpreted in the past.61
However, there are indeed many
traditional ways of interpreting the Scripture and that some
interpretations may not only be different, but also be contradicted.
An example would be the Protestant Reformation in the 16th
century
when Luther’s rediscovery of “justification by faith” caused his break
with the Roman Catholic Church, which had eventually become a
central doctrine of the Protestant Reformation. The question would
then be, “whether our traditions conflict with the only absolute
standard in these matters: Holy Scripture.”62
In order to determine whether or not the tradition of doxology
addressed to Christ is in accordance with the Holy Scripture, it would
be required to survey through the Bible. In fact, Geoffrey
Wainwright has examined that there are evidences in the New
Testaments proving earliest Christians practicing worship to Jesus.
In sum, Jesus was addressed as the Lord as seen in Christian
confession as criteria for justification (Rom 10:8-13); Christian
assembly (‘Come, O Lord’ in 1 Cor. 16:22 as an expression in the
early church crying for the second coming of Christ to be taken place
soon); Christian worship (Phil 2:5-7); Stephen’s last prayer before his
death (Acts 7:5-9); and Paul’s pleading for removal of his thorn (2
Cor. 12:8).63
In addition, even LaCugna admits that such lordship
makes it possible to refer Jesus Christ as God as evidenced in Rom.
9:5 and Heb. 13:21 in view of some doxologies directed to Jesus
although they are rare.64
Accordingly, in contrary to the accusation
that doxology addressed to Christ is simply developed under the
the People of God: Studies in Honour of J.I. Packer, 159-173, (Leicester: Apollos. 1996), 160.
61 Ibid, 160-161.
62 Ibid, 162.
63 Geoffrey Wainwright, Doxology: The Praise of God in Worship, Doctrine, and Life: A Systematic
Theology, (New York: Oxford University Press,1980), 47-48. 64
Catherine M. LaCugna, 124.
The Reciprocity between the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology
Systematic Theology I Page 15 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
pressure in the post-Nicene anti-Arian era, Christian doxology
directed to Jesus is “scripturally” appropriated.
While doxology directly addressed to Christ is justified in light of the
Holy Scripture, doxology directed to the Spirit should also be open to
challenge in the same manner. Generally, two approaches should be
considered, namely, (1) the biblical witness and (2) the practices of
the early church in order to justify on whether or not prayer or
worship can be addressed directly to the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless,
Geoffrey Wainwright says, “…we may conclude that there is no case
in which the Spirit figures as an object of worship in the New
Testament writings.”65
In addition, Leonard Hodgson said,
“Now it is time, so far as I know, there is extant no instance
of hymns or prayers addressed to the Holy Spirit that is
certainly earlier than the tenth century. It is also true that
the standard form of Christian worship is worship offered
by the Christian to the Father in union with the Son
through the Spirit.”66
With respect to the above two findings, one may conclude that prayer
or worship should not be addressed to the Spirit directly. This
conclusion, seemingly correct, is however questionable. Erickson
argued that “not all of God’s intention for our conduct or even all of
doctrine is explicitly stated in the Bible,” for such approach would
limit our ability to use our “methodology of evangelism” to amend
situations.67
Accordingly, Erickson suggested that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit
should be considered in addition to the above two approaches of
65
Geoffrey Wainwright, 92-93. 66
Leonard Hodgson, The Doctrine of the Trinity (New York: Scribners, 1944), 232 quoted in Millard J.
Erickson, Making Sense of the Trinity: 3 Crucial Question, 81. 67
Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Person: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, 313.
The Reciprocity between the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology
Systematic Theology I Page 16 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
biblical witness and early church’s practice.68
In fact, the Holy
Spirit is a person as also emphasized by LaCugna that the Spirit is
“not a ‘by-itself’ or an ‘in-itself’ but a person, a toward-another.”69
As a person, the Spirit can be directly and personally related to by the
human persons. As Erickson surveys through the Bible, the Holy
Spirit, as a person, “convicts person of sin, righteousness, and
judgement (John 16:8-11); regenerates (John 3:5-8); guides into truth
(John 16:13); sanctifies (Rom. 8:1-17); and empowers for service
(Acts 1:8),” and “…inspired the writers who produced the scriptures
(2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21),” etc.70
With such a personal character, a
personal relationship between Christians and the Spirit is possible.
In this regard, should one seek conviction, regeneration, guidance into
truth, sanctification and empowerment in services, which are
primarily works of the Spirit, payer directly addressed to the Spirit is
appropriate.
Notwithstanding the above, one may wonder the practice of prayers
or worships directly addressed to each individual person may be led
to a risk of tritheism that there are three gods. Nonetheless, with the
concept of “perichoresis” highlighting the “mutual indwelling, loving,
and inexisting between the Trinitarian Persons in Being and Activity,”
it is noted that the whole Trinity is involved in every divine works.71
Even though a particular divine work is the distinctive responsibility
of one divine person, the other two divine persons are also integrally
present and active in such work. Accordingly, Erickson suggested
that prayers and worships should be directed primarily to the Triune
God, of which in part could be addressed to each individual Persons
of the Godhead, but keeping in mind that it is that particular Person
doing the particular work on behalf of the other two or the Trinity
doing the work through one particular Person.72
68
Millard J. Erickson, Making Sense of the Trinity: 3 Crucial Questions, 83. 69
Catherine M. LaCugna, 14. 70
Millard J. Erickson, Making Sense of the Trinity: 3 Crucial Questions, 83. 71
Elmer M. Colyer, “T.F. Torrance on the Trinity: An Invitation for Dialogue,” 6. 72
Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Person: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, 328.
The Reciprocity between the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology
Systematic Theology I Page 17 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
3.2 Thomas F. Torrance
In view of the limitation of LaCugna’s Trinitarian pattern in Christian doxological
expression, Torrance’s onto-relational concept of his Trinitarian may refine such
shortcoming. Though some concepts are similar to LaCugna’s axiom, Torrance
develops a very thorough and comprehensive Trinitarian Theology by adopting a
scientific approach of “stratified levels” to articulate the doctrine of the Trinity.
Furthermore, through Torrance’s Trinitarian Theology, a reciprocal relationship is
observed between the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology: the proper
understanding of God (the Trinitarian Theology) both issues in doxology and
presupposes doxology.
3.2.1 Stratified Levels
Torrance’s Trinitarian theology is not a set of doctrinal propositions
deducting from the biblical witnesses or theological speculations of
Christian experiences, but rather from “coherent convictions, creedal
formulae” that “articulate in explicit manner the implicit mystery of
Trinity inherent in God’s oikonomia and in an evangelical and doxological
participation in it.”73
Along with this thinking, Christian’s formulation
of the doctrine of the Trinity can be best described by a scientific
approach through the three-interrelated-level stratified structure, which
begins with “the evangelical and doxological level” moving through “the
theological level” and eventually to “the higher theological level.”74
3.2.1.1 The Evangelical and Doxological Level
This ground level refers to “the day-to-day life and activity of the
Church” where Christians encounter God evangelically and respond
73
Thomas F. Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God, One Being Three Person, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1996), 75-76. 74
Ibid, 83-84.
The Reciprocity between the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology
Systematic Theology I Page 18 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
to God doxologically.75
For Torrance, the ‘evangelical trinity’ is
revealed in “the historical facts and events of divine redemption
through which there took place a revelation of the Father through the
Son and in the Holy Spirit.”76
In return, Christians, without
undergoing thorough analytical and logical thinking, are compelled to
respond in the mode of doxology in the Spirit through the Son to the
Father imprinting the evangelical Trinity.77
At this level, Christian’s
apprehension of God can only be described as inchoate, informal,
conceptual and experiential.
3.2.1.2 The Theological Level
With the knowledge arising from the evangelical and doxological
level, a more explicit understanding of the ‘economic Trinity’ is
developed. Actually, LaCugna shares the same view that theology
arising in the act of doxology is primary theology (“theologia prima”)
while verification and affirmation established from primary theology
are secondary theology (“theologia seconda”).78
In this second level,
Torrance thinks that the Trinitarian character of God in His
redemptive activity self-revealed in history through Jesus Christ and
in the Spirit comes to basic expression as terms like ‘Trinity’ and
‘homoousion.’79
These terms are indeed in accordance with the
biblical expressions of thoughts and speeches to give their theological
meanings in a sharper and more precise manner, which can also be
used to prevent such knowledge of God being wrongly interpreted by
heresies. Accordingly, historical events like the formulation of the
Nicene Creeds could be best perceived as an evidence of this level
and that explicit theological terms are used to face challenges and
misunderstandings arising from the Trinitarian controversies at that
time.
75
Ibid, 88-89. 76
Ibid, 89. 77
Elmer M. Colyer, 4. 78
C.M. LaCugna, and K. McDonnell, 196. 79
Thomas F. Torrance, 93-94.
The Reciprocity between the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology
Systematic Theology I Page 19 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
3.2.1.3 The Higher Theological Level
Torrance claims that the concept of ‘homoousion’ developed in the
theological level also serves a linkage which articulate the movement
of theological reflection from the theological level to the higher
theological level where Christian perception of God’s self-revelation
in the redemptive history through Christ in the Spirit to the God’s
own immanent or ontological Trinitarian life.80
At this level, what
God is towards us in His saving act through Christ in the Spirit
(God’s economy) is the same as God eternally in His own being (the
ontological or theological Trinity). In this respect, Torrance thinks
that the knowledge of the very Being of God must be rooted in the
knowledge of God through Christ and in the Spirit. Similar to
LaCugna’s inseparability of oikonomia and theologia, Torrance does
not simply equate the economic Trinity and the immanent Trinity as
Rahner does, but rather articulates the interrelationship between the
knowledge of the economic Trinity and the immanent Trinity. For
Torrance, he believes that the mystery of God is still ineffable that
“remains transcendent over all space and time, so that a significant
distinction and delimitation between the economic Trinity and the
ontological Trinity must be recognized as well as their essential
oneness.”81
In order to have a better understanding on God’s own ontological
Trinitarian life, Torrance, similar to LaCugna, prefers to use the
concept of ‘person’ describing God ontologically. With his adoption
of “perichoresis” to describe the mutual indwelling, loving, and
coinherence of the Trinitarian Persons in Being and Activity, Torrance
develops an onto-relational concept of expressing the relations
between the divine Trinitarian Persons.82
Accordingly, God is not
80
Elmer M. Colyer, 5. 81
Thomas F. Torrance, 97. 82
Elmer M. Colyer, 6.
The Reciprocity between the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology
Systematic Theology I Page 20 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
three discrete Persons but rather “a communion of Persons in which
Being and Communion are ultimately one.”83
3.2.2 Onto-relational Concept of Trinitarian Persons
Along with the stratified structure of Christian apprehension of God, two
theological concepts, “homoousion”, and “perichoresis”, play important
roles in Torrance’s Trinitarian Theology.
3.2.2.1 Homoousion
The term, “homoousion,” which is the “all-important hinge in the
center of the Nicene Creed,” demonstrates the oneness of God’s
Being (Ousia), that articulates the movement of thoughts between the
two upper stratified levels in way of the ontological interrelations
between the economic Trinity and God’s own Trinitarian Life
(ontological Trinity).84
In fact, “homoousion,” affirms the Divinity of Christ and the Spirit in
the same manner as God the Father. First of all, Jesus Christ is the
only begotten Son of God who is of the same being with the Father
and thus He is true God from true God. Such affirmation is indeed
important to prove the bonding between the Incarnate Son and the
eternal God; otherwise Christian’s evangelical and doxological
participatory knowledge of the Gospel would be totally meaningless
and that the foundation of Church would be consequently collapsed.
Secondly, “homoousion,” not only applicable to Christ, but also
demonstrates that the Holy Spirit is ‘homoousious’ with God as “the
Lord and Giver of Life whose renewing and sanctifying operation in
the faithful was identical with the direct act of God himself.”85
With
the concept of “homoousion,” the deity of both Jesus and the Spirit is
83
Ibid. 84
Thomas F. Torrance, 93. 85
Ibid, 97.
The Reciprocity between the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology
Systematic Theology I Page 21 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
affirmed and a close connection between God’s economy and God
Himself is therefore established. In Torrance’s words, “What Jesus
Christ does for us and to us, and what the Holy Spirit does in us, is
what God himself does for us, to us and in us.”86
This emphasizes the
Ousia of God being not different in the “communion-constituting
activity of God” (i.e. the love of God the Father through the grace of
Christ in the communion of the Spirit), which comes to an expression:
“Being in communion, Being for others.”87
On the other hand, “homoousion,” not only articulates and affirms the
divinity of Christ and the Spirit with the Father, but also their divine
distinctiveness in self-revelation as the Son and the Spirit for nothing
is homoousious with itself.88
As Torrance says that the homoousion
applies to the Spirit, in the same manner but in a different way as to
Christ, which is appropriate to His distinctive personal nature for the
Holy Spirit is towards us in His divine acts of renewal and
sanctification in Christ.89
Though we understand the oneness of
Being within the three differentiated and not interchangeable divine
persons, an ontological interrelation among them should be observed
in view of their unified but differentiated relationship. Such
knowledge comes to a better expression as what the Latin terms,
“perichoresis” which will be discussed in the next session.
3.2.2.2 Onto-relational Concept: Perichoresis
The “onto-relational” concept expresses the interrelationship of the
three Persons (hypostasis) within the one Being (Ousia) of the Trinity
in the third theological level, which comes to an expression of
“perichoresis”. In order to understand this relationship, Torrance
starts off from the one Being, which is understood in His interior
relations as the communion of the three divine Persons with one
86
Ibid, 95. 87
Ibid, 116. 88
Elmer M. Colyer, 5 & 8.
The Reciprocity between the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology
Systematic Theology I Page 22 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
another (“One Being, Three Persons”). Then, he focuses more on
the communion of the three divine Persons who in their perichorectic
interrelation are the one Being of God (“Three Persons, One
Being”).90
Most profoundly it states, “One Being, Three Persons”
and “Three Persons, One Being” are the obverse of each other.91
For Torrance, “perichoresis” intensifies the differentiated but
inseparable wholeness of God’s Trinity not only in God’s Being but
also all of God’s Activities for each Person acts in a way in
accordance with His own differentiated nature in communion with
other Persons within the one Being of God. For Torrance,
perichoresis “refers to the reciprocal relations between the Father, the
Son and the Holy Spirit in which they mutually indwell, coinhere,
inexist, and wholly contain one another without in any way
diminishing the Persons without commingling or compromising the
integrity of the Persons and their real distinctions.”92
Accordingly, it
articulates the substantive and constitutive character of the relations
between the three divine Persons who are “Trinity in Unity and Unity
in Trinity.”93
Not only God in three divine Persons should be thought in
perichorectic term, but also God’s activities should be thought in the
same way. With Torrance’s perichorectic coactivity of the Trinity,
all God’s activities indwell in God’s Being and vice versa, and that all
these activities are God’s act in which each Person, within the
oneness of Being, acts in a way in accordance with that Person’s
distinctive activities, but in union and communion with the other
divine Persons.
89
Thomas F. Torrance, 100. 90
Ibid, 136. 91
Ibid. 92
Elmer M. Colyer, How to Read T.F. Torrance: Understanding His Trinitarian and Scientific Theology,
(Downers Grove, III.: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 253-55 quoted in Elmer M. Colyer, 8. 93
Thomas F. Torrance, 173-175.
The Reciprocity between the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology
Systematic Theology I Page 23 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
3.2.3 Concerns over Torrance’s Trinitarian Theology
3.2.3.1 Universal Intent vs. Universal Truth
Torrance, same as LaCugna, appears to adopt the modern approach in
understanding the ontological Trinity strictly through the divine
saving act of God’s economy, has failed to consider the pluralistic
perspective as asserted by postmodernism. Both Torrance and
LaCugna emphasize the importance of soteriology, through which
human are able to understand the universal truth, namely, “God in
se.” In contrast, Stanley Grenz appeals to “universal intent”
claiming that propositions if expressing universal truths only
represent “truncated view of belief” as truth always surpasses our
interpretation of it.94
Along this line of thinking, Millard Erickson
employs the example of “five blind men and the elephant” which
describes different blind men having their own “truths” about what
they perceive the elephant is such as “rope”, “tree”, and “wall” etc.
depending on which part of the elephant they touch.95
However,
none of the five “truths” expresses the final truth although they are
regarded as truths within one’s best perception. In addition, the
final truth cannot be achieved even though consolidating all these
“truths” together. Nevertheless, they are getting closer to what the
final truth is when considering all the “truths” rather than taking only
one. By the same token, one may have his/her “truth” (i.e. divine
saving act) regarding what the theologia is while others may have
their owns such as “divine speech, whether through dreams, visions,
or concurrent inspiration.”96
Although they may not be able to
perfectly understand what the final truth about what the theologia is,
they are getting closer to grasp it after taking into account all these
94
Douglas Groothus, Truth Decay. Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism,
(Downers Grove: IVP, 2000), 117 95
Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd
ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House Company,
1998; 2nd
reprint, June 1999), 171-172. 96
Bernard Ramm, Special Revelation and the Word of God, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), 53-69
quoted in Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Person: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, 307.
The Reciprocity between the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology
Systematic Theology I Page 24 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
“truths”. In this respect, these “truths” intend to be universal in their
extents, but the universal truth may still transcend human
interpretations as argued by Grenz. Nonetheless, a metanarrative,
in contrary to postmodernist notion, should be employed to ensure
the validity of these truths. Otherwise, it may go into a divergent
case like Buddhism and Christianity that they are considered “truths”
within two different communities but are contradicted to each other
in nature. In short, when formulating Trinitarian theologies,
pluralism should also be carefully considered.
3.2.3.2 The Participatory Evangelical and Doxological Approach
With respect to LaCugna’s Trinitarian pattern of Christian doxology
directed to God the Father through Christ in the Spirit, Torrance’s
stratified structure of Christian apprehension of God may provide
another perspective of the recipient of doxology. When LaCugna
says that the shift to direct praise to the three divine Persons is
developed under the pressure from Aria’s heretical challenge on
Christ’s subordination to God, she may undervalue such tradition.
As mentioned previously, “homoousion,” affirms the Deity of Christ
and the Spirit, which is not merely a speculative theological concept,
but rather a faithful exegetical filtration of the biblical witness.
Under the guidance of these carefully developed theological insights,
each stratified level is hinged together, which serves deeper and
coherent understanding of the ground level of evangelical and
doxological participation to relate to God’s saving activities in Christ
and the Spirit. As a result, Christians are inspired to give praise,
adoration, and thanksgiving to the triune God.
Furthermore, though LaCugna charged that Prosper’s axiom of ‘lex
orandi, lex credendi’ was reversed as ‘lex credendi, lex orandi,’ as a
result after the Nicene Creed, Torrance is not guilty of such
accusation. As he said, “the reverse is also true, lex credendi, lex
The Reciprocity between the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology
Systematic Theology I Page 25 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
orandi, for true belief informs worship – belief and worship are
inextricably intertwined, as in the theological use of doxologia (the
Latin term of doxology), which refers both to worship and
doctrine.”97
An example could be taken from several verses of the
Wesleyan hymnodies, A Collection of Hymns for the use of the People
called Methodists, which reflects the Trinitarian doctrine of the
Athanasian Greed as follows:
“Adoring One in Persons Three,
And Three in nature One.
A Trinity in Unity
Three uncompounded Persons One,
One undivided God proclaim,
One Person of the Sire we praise,
Another of the Son adore,
Another of the Spirit confess,
Equal in majesty and power.
To each the glory appertains,
The Godhead of the Three in One;
The Father, Son, and Spirit of love,
One uncreated God we hail!
Supreme, essential One, adored
In co-eternal Three!
The Father is both God and Lord;
Both God and Lord his people own.
Both God and Lord, who him believe,
Each Person by himself we name:
Yet not three Gods or Lords receive,
Blessing, and honor, praise, and love,
Co-equal, co-eternal Three.”98
97
Epiphanius, Ancoratus, 24 quoted in Thomas F. Torrance, 134. 98
Seng-Kong Tan, “The Doctrine of the Trinity in John Wesley’s Prose and Poetic Works.” Journal for
Christian Theological Research. 7 (2002): 9.
The Reciprocity between the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology
Systematic Theology I Page 26 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
In this regard, for Torrance, Christian doxology establishes theology
(as seen in the ground level of the stratified structure) while theology
informs worship. Therefore, a reciprocal relationship between
doxology and theology is well established. Nevertheless, Torrance
is of the opinion that this principle does not generally concern us at
the moment for either worship of the Father and the Son and the Holy
Spirit or worship of the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit is
the worship of one God.99
As Torrance argues that there is no
separation or division between the one Being and the three Persons of
God and that “one Being, three Persons are the obverse of each
other,” worship of and prayer to each Person are indeed the same as
worship of and prayer to the indivisible wholeness of God’s
Triunity.100
While being conscious with the oneness of God, the
personal differentiation between the Father, the Son and the Spirit
should be maintained in Christian thought. Hence, the love of the
Father, the grace of the Son and the fellowship of the Spirit should be
distinguished, however, in perichorectic interrelations as one Being of
God.
3.3 Stratified Structure of the Reciprocity between Theologia and Doxologia
Considering the limitations of LaCugna’s Trinitarian theology, an integration of
the two axioms of LaCugna and Torrance may be considered, which should
maintain the doxological characters of LaCugna’s paradigm of oikonomia and
theologia as well as Torrance’s perichoresis in the stratified structure of human
apprehension of God. In doing so, a model should characterize the following:
1. Theologia (the mystery of God) is revealed in God’s economy through Christ
in the Spirit (“oikonomia”), which culminates in doxologia (the Latin term of
doxology used here as a parallel terminology to theologia) and doxologia is
rooted in oikonomia in the Spirit through Christ directed to theologia.
99
Thomas F. Torrance, 134.
The Reciprocity between the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology
Systematic Theology I Page 27 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
2. A persistent reciprocal interrelation between theologia and doxologia is
therefore established and that human apprehension of God commences at the
ground level of evangelical and doxological participation in the Gospel
moving through the theological level to the higher theological or ontological
level eventually.
3. In this model, oikonomia is inseparable from theologia and that theologia is
not an abstract concept of God’s immanent life, but rather a focus on God’s
own Trinitarian life related to human through the act of Christian doxology
which is indeed the act of theologia mediated through Christ and made
possible in the Spirit. Accordingly, God is a person-in-relation to human.
4. Although the Trinitarian pattern of ‘through Christ in the Spirit to God the
Father’ is correct, worship of and prayer to each Persons of the Triune God is
also appropriate through the concept of perichoresis and homoousion.
Accordingly, each Person, though along the parabolic line displaying the
Trinitarian ‘sequence,’ is a Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity in a
perichorectic activity, who is not only the ineffable divine wholeness
revealed in His economy, but also the recipient of Christian’s doxologies.
In an attempt to utilize the superb concepts of both LaCugna and Torrance’s
Trinitarian theologies while avoid the limitations that may arise as outlined above,
a model in a graphical presentation, though required to be refined further, is
suggested as follows:
100
Ibid, 112-113 & 134.
The Reciprocity between the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology
Systematic Theology I Page 28 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
4 Conclusion
In summary, the Trinitarian theology is proved not to be impractical to Christian living,
but rather constitutes the inner shape of Christian faith in the mode of doxology with
regard to the reciprocal relationship between the Trinitarian theology and doxology.
First of all, God’s own Trinitarian life, although ineffable, can be known through His
self-revelation in the economy through Christ in the Spirit, and thus it does matter on
whether Christian worships three Gods or ten as opposed to Kant.
Secondly, Christians should no longer be “monotheists”, particularly in terms of the
incarnation, grace and redemption merited by the Second Person of the Trinity as
demonstrated in Rahner’s axiomatic identity of the economic Trinity and the immanent
Trinity.
Thirdly, with LaCugna’s inseparability of oikonomia and theologia, there is no
objectified God that may arise from Rahner’s terminology of the economic and the
immanent Trinity, which, as a result, prevents the doctrine of the Trinity from being
impractical to Christian life in the mode of doxology. Rather, LaCugna’s axiom affirms
the dynamic Trinitarian movement from God who acts into creation, redemption,
consummation through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit and then in return Christian
doxology is offered back to God in the Holy Spirit through Jesus Christ. Accordingly,
for LaCugna, the Trinitarian Theology, rooted in doxology, culminates in doxology.
God (Father)
Jesus Christ Jesus Christ
Holy Spirit
World
God (Father)
Holy Spirit Holy Spirit
World World
Holy Spirit
Jesus Christ
God (Father) God (Father)
Jesus Christ
Evangelical & Doxological Level Theological Level Higher Theological Level
Stratified Structure of Theologia and Doxologia
The Reciprocity between the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology
Systematic Theology I Page 29 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
Fourthly, with Torrance’s stratified structure of human apprehension of the Trinity and
onto-relational concept, LaCugna’s doxological Trinitarian theology can be further
refined in view of the stratified structure of theologia and doxologia. Doxologia rooted
in oikonomia is directed to theologia and theologia, revealed in oikonomia, culminates in
doxologia. In such a reciprocal relationship between theologia and doxologia,
Christians, who begins from evangelical and doxological participation in the Gospel, are
directed to know God’s own ontological Trinitarian Life as God.
To conclude, there is nothing better than to end the discussion of theologia by doxologia
as theologia culminates in the act of doxologia: “O God, Almighty Father:”
“1. O God, Almighty Father, Creator of all things,
the heavens stand in wonder, while earth Your glory sings,
O most Holy Trinity, undivided Unity,
Holy God, mighty God, God immortal be adored.
2. O Jesus, Word incarnate, Redeemer most adored,
all glory, praise, and honor be Yours, O sovereign Lord.
O most Holy Trinity, undivided Unity,
Holy God, mighty God, God immortal be adored.
3. O God, the Holy Spirit, who lives within our soul,
send forth Your light and lead us to our eternal goal.
O most Holy Trinity, undivided Unity,
Holy God, mighty God, God immortal be adored.”101
101
“O God, Almighty Father,” trans. Irvin Udulutsch, in Century Praise, Bilingual Version, ed. Richard R.
Lin (Hong Kong: Chinese Baptist Press (International) Limited, 2001), 259.
i
Bibliography
Books:
Century Praise. Bilingual Version. Edited by Lin, Richard R. Hong Kong: Chinese Baptist
Press (International) Limited, 2001.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2nd
ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House
Company, 1998; 2nd
reprint, June 1999.
Erickson, Millard J. God in Three Person: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity.
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House Company, 1995.
Erickson, Millard J. Making Sense of the Trinity: 3 Crucial Questions. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Baker Book House Company, 2000.
Groothus, Douglas. Truth Decay. Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of
Postmodernism. Downers Grove: IVP, 2000.
LaCugna, Catherine M. God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life. New York: Haper Collins,
1991.
McGrath, Alister E. “The Importance of Tradition for Modern Evangelicalism.” In Doing
Theology for the People of God: Studies in Honour of J.I. Packer. 159-173. Leicester:
Apollos. 1996.
Rahner, Karl. The Trinity. Translated by Donceel, J. New York: Herder & Herder, 1970.
Torrance, Thomas F. The Christian Doctrine of God, One Being Three Persons. Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1996.
Wainwright, Geoffrey. Doxology: The Praise of God in Worship, Doctrine, and Life: A
Systematic Theology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1980.
Dictionary
Elwell, Walter A. ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker
Book House Company, May 1990.
Article
Colyer, Elmer M. “T.F. Torrance on the Trinity: An Invitation for Dialogue.”
ii
Journal Articles
Groppe, Elizabeth T. “Catherine Mowry LaCugna’s Contribution to Trinitarian Theology.”
Theological Studies 63 (2002): 730-763.
LaCugna, C.M. and McDonnell, K. “Returning from ‘The Far Country’: Theses for a
Contemporary Trinitarian Theology.” Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. 41 (1988):
191-215.
Tan, Seng-Kong. “The Doctrine of the Trinity in John Wesley’s Prose and Poetic Works.”
Journal for Christian Theological Research. 7 (2002): 3-14.
Websites:
Anthony, Sean William. “The Holistic Pneumatology of Jürgen Moltmann: A Pentecostal
Examination.” From <http://members.tripod.com/~Xanthicus/moltmann.html> (May 23,
2003).
Hampton, Keathley III J. “The Trinity (Triunity) of God.” Bible Studies Press. 1997. From
<http://www.bible.org/doc/theology/proper/trinity.htm> (May 7, 2003).
Jenson, Nicholas A. “Lex orandi, lex credendi: Towards a Liturgical Theology.” Nov. 2001.
From <http://www.ecumenism.net/archive/jesson_lexorandi.pdf> (June 11, 2003).
top related