Theme 2B: The Trinity Flashcards
Genesis 1:1
Hebrew word ‘Elohim’ used for God (plural noun)
Genesis 1:26-27
‘Let us make mankind in our image’
John 1:1
‘In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God’
Matthew 28:18-20 (the Great Commission)
Disciples to baptise all nations ‘in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’
Deuteronomy 6:4-5
‘God is one’
Mark 12:29
‘the Lord our God, the Lord is one’
Augustine’s psychological analogy for the Trinity
Unity of essence is likened to the rational part of the human soul (mind) which utilises ‘memory, understanding, and will’ as distinct entities - these are inseparable and united as 3 parts of 1 mind
Enlightenment theologians view on trinity
- Found it problematic
- E.g. Friedrich Schleiermacher, dismissed Trinity in 14 page appendix to his work ‘The Christian Faith’
Who was Karl Barth and where did he put forward his argument on the Trinity?
- Swiss reformed theologian
- 1886-1968
- Section on Trinity at start of his 14-volume ‘Church Dogmatics’ (response to Schleiermacher)
Karl Barth on the Trinity
“The doctrine of the Trinity is what basically distinguishes the Christian doctrine of God as Christian”
Barth believed that the basis of the Trinity is that God revealed Himself to human beings in two movements. What were these?
- in the Son (objective unveiling of what God is)
- in the Spirit (subjective reception; God working for us)
Example of witnessing the crucifixion
Two men are watching Jesus’ crucifixion.
The first says, “There is a common criminal being executed.” The man has not recognised the unveiling of God in Jesus.
The second man says, “There is the Son of God dying for me.” To this man, the Holy Spirit has imparted the recognition of God in Jesus.
Why does Barth endorse the use of the term ‘filioque’ (‘and the Son’)?
- His examples demonstrates human beings are incapable of responding to objective revelation of God in Jesus, unless recognition of revelation is imparted to them by Holy Spirit
- This imparting of the Spirit proceeds from both hidden Father and revealed son
What does the term ‘Seinsweise’ mean and why does Barth use it?
- ‘modes of being’
- uses this to avoid confusing the word ‘Person’ with ‘personality’
- 3 personalities = Tritheism
- 3 modes, 1 personality
Three councils on the nature of the Trinity
- Nicea (325AD)
- Constantinople (381AD)
- Toledo (589AD, not ecumenical)
Name the four problems with Barth’s developments
- Merging of immanent and economic trinity and endorsement of use of filioque make it heretical (according to Eastern Orthodox Church)
- Moltmann (+ others) have criticised use of ‘Seinsweise’ instead of ‘Person’ - liken it to heresy Modalism (God is a single person who has revealed himself in 3 modes, pre-incarnation, incarnation, and post-ascension)
- Does not distinguish between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
- Sees F, S, HS as one God in eternal repetition - must mean they exist one after the other, not at same time, destroying the eternal unity
Response to EOC heresy problem
Western Church has accepted merging of two types of Trinity, and use of filioque, for centuries
Response to Moltmann and ‘Seinsweise’ heresy problem
- Barth uses ‘Seinsweise’ to avoid confusion of ‘Person’ with ‘personalitiy’
- 3 personalities = Tritheism
- 3 modes, 1 personality, 1 God
- e.g. incarnation is the work of the whole Trinity, but only the mode of the Son became flesh
Response to 3 distinct Persons
- distinguishes F from S by using term ‘Logo asarkos’ (the Word without flesh)
- Son of God is eternal Word (pre-incarnation) and Son of Man is Jesus incarnated
- 2nd mode, the Son, has a distinct place as Jesus of Nazareth
- Holy Spirit bears witness to the work of the Son
Response to destruction of eternal unity
- sees three as ‘one God in threefold repetition’ but that ‘He is the one God in each repetition’
- aim is to highlight the unchanging nature of the eternal trinity
