Trinitarian theology became a purely speculative endeavor, of interest to precious few, unintelligible to to the vast majority. Hence the misleading commonplace that “We cannot explain anything about the doctrine of the Trinity since it is a mystery.” (God is mystery, to be sure; the doctrine is complex but not the same as the Mystery.)
From the Introduction to Karl Rahner, The Trinity (New York: Crossroad, 1997), x.
Lacugna does well to distinguish the Trinity from the doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity is who God is and how God acts in salvation-history while the doctrine of the Trinity is a means of articulating what God has revealed about himself in Scripture as well as a way of making sense of our experience with God in salvation.
B”H
It is hard to be totally consistent in this. What is most complicated from my perspective is in talking about the various statments made in the Bible which lead us to a trinitarian doctrine. These verses are not the Trinity, they are not trinitarian doctrine, and they do not contain trinitarian doctrine. Do they ‘point to’ trinitarian doctrine? …’entail’ trinitarian doctrine? And what language should we use when we refer to just a single verse? Is this a trinitarian verse? …a verse that has trinitarian implications? …a verse that, interpreted together with various other verses, entails a trinitarian doctrine? It gets messy to have to say this over and over.
Finally, it is not even the doctrine of the Trinity itself which is essential. It is the judgments behind those doctrines. So it is possible to formulate a perfectly orthodox doctrine of the Trinity without ever using the words Trinity, person, or substance. In fact, this is what properly contextualized theology must do within each new culture. Augustine’s Trinity and Basil’s Trinity were each contextualized very differently in their respective cultures. Sorry, I mean their DOCTRINES of the Trinity.
What do you mean by “totally consistent”? And I don’t really see what is so complicated about what you’re saying. Why not just speak of all these statements as being contained within the doctrine of the Trinity and call it a day?
Nick,
I have responded to your question on my blog. So it looks like you’re reading Rahner now. I’m hoping to dig into him soon.
The Lacugna quote is a great example of why i think that Rahner’s Rule has promise for Trinitarian thought still. By following this rule one doesn’t have to put any metaphysical roadblocks in front of how God’s revelation relates to His nature. As i mentioned in my comment at my blog, i’m not 100% sure that i endorse his “rule,” but i think that it certainly merits consideration.
On another note, i agree that the “doctrine of the trinity” disctinction you make is helpful. I recently came across it in Ted Peters’ work “God as Trinity: Relationality and Temporality in Divine Life.” I have really enjoyed it so far and would recommend it if you haven’t read it yet.
Grace and Peace
Pingback: Doctrines Are Meant to be Understood « Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth