The Reciprocity Between The Trinitarian Theology and Doxology

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 2 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 PROPOSITIONS FOR THE IMPRACTICALITY OF THE TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY 2 2.1 2.2 IMMANUEL KANT................................................................................................................... 2 KARL RAHNER ....................................................................................................................... 3
2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3

3
Rahners Concerns over the Practicality of the Doctrine of the Trinity ............ 3 Rahners Grundaxiom of the Economic Trinity and the Immanent Trinity ........ 4 Limitations of Rahners Grundaxiom ................................................................. 4
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 LaCugnas Trinitarian Theology .......................... 8 3.1.2 Relational Ontology ......................................................................................... 10 3.1.2.1 Gods Relational to Creature: Persons in Communion ................................ 10 3.1.2.2 Doxological Character of the Divine -human Relationship ......................... 11 3.1.3 Concerns over LaCugnas 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 Torrances 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 4 STRATIFIED STRUCTURE OF THE RECIPROCITY BETWEEN THEOLOGIA AND DOXOLOGIA ... 26
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 28
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................. I
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
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 Fakultten (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, Systematic Theology I Page 1 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
1
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 Christians 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 Christians evangelical and doxological participation in the Gospel and culminating in Christians doxology towards Gods own ontological Trinitarian Life as God.
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 no means but, provided by human sense experience.8 As
he explains in his treatise of Critique of Pure Reason, content of knowledge is, by 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. Systematic Theology I Page 2 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
to believe in it.9
As a result, as Kant further elaborates, there is no difference in
ones 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 Rahners Concerns over the Practicality of the Doctrine of the Trinity
2.2.1
Karl Rahner, who appears to assent to Kants challenge, contends the practicality of Trinitarian theology. Trinity.12 He says that major religious
literature would remain unchanged even if there were no doctrine of For instance, Rahner comments that todays 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 Christians idea of the incarnation would not have to change at all if there were no Trinity. 16
9
Therefore, Christians
Ibid. 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.
10
Systematic Theology I
Page 3
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 Rahners 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. Limitations of Rahners Grundaxiom
2.2.3
Notwithstanding that Rahners 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 18
Ibid, 22. Ibid, 33. Page 4 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 oikonomia20
Accordingly, LaCugna contends that the terminology of the immanent and economic Trinity is imprecise and misleading. 21 Consequently, Rahners 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 Christians exercise of the doxological character of theology. 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 ones faith by examining his/her liturgical practice in use. Therefore, Christians 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
Ibid, 101-103. Catherine M. LaCugna, 217. 21 LaCugna, in God for Us Review Symposium, Horizons 20 (1993), 127-42 quoted in Elizabeth T. Groppe, Catherine Mowry LaCugnas 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.
20
19
Page 5
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 Prospers 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, LaCugnas 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 Christians doxology. 27 For LaCugna, doxology is the only means, through Most profoundly she which Christians are able to speak of God in se. 28 adoration of God.29
believes, Trinitarian theology culminates in doxology, in the praise and In this regard, LaCugnas 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 Rahners 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 Rahners axiom,
25 26
Ibid, 502. 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. Systematic Theology I Page 6 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
but also avoids the problems resulted from Rahners employment of the terms, economic and immanent.30 In fact, LaCugnas adoptions of Oikonomia and Theologia are not merely literal substitutes for Rahners 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, LaCugnas 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 Rahners axiomatic identity of the economic and immanent Trinity as a starting point, LaCugnas 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 Gods economy in the world, which leads to a result of two discrete realities. In view of this problem, Rahners Grundaxiom was used to attempt to
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 Rahners definitions of the two terms throughout the entire book. In order to introduce her inseparability of oikonomia and theologia as an alternative terminologies for Rahners axiom, LaCugna defines the meanings for economic and immanent Trinity in view of Rahners theology. See Catherine M. LaCugna, 212. 32 Ibid, 223. Systematic Theology I Page 7 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
30
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 Gods 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, LaCugnas 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 LaCugnas Trinitarian Theology For LaCugna, doxology is the practice of Christians 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 Jrgen 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 theologyHere 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, Rahners 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
Ibid. Ibid. 35 Ibid, 304. 36 C.M. LaCugna, and K. McDonnell, 196. 37 Jrgen 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 Jrgen Moltmann: A Pentecostal Examination, From <http://members.tripod.com/~Xanthicus/moltmann.html> (May 23, 2003).
34 33
Page 8
Christians to think the relationship intellectually between the two Trinities rather than to worship to the unobjectifiable God. 38 Alternatively, LaCugnas 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 Christians faith because of Gods 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 LaCugnas 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, Gods glory is no In this respect, Christians doxology difference to His saving glory.
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 Gods other in oikonomia, and that all things
38 39 40 41 42 43
Elizabeth T. Groppe, 735. Catherine M. LaCugna, 15-16. Ibid, 15-16. Walter A. Elwell, ed., 356. Catherine M. LaCugna, 367. Elizabeth T. Groppe, 746. Page 9 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
Oikonomia and Theologia

God (Father) Jesus Christ Holy Spirit God (Father) Jesus Christ Holy Spirit
World
3.1.2
Relational Ontology
3.1.2.1 Gods Relational to Creature: Persons in Communion One of the LaCugnas concerns on Rahners equality of the economic Trinity and the immanent Trinity is Gods way of being in relationship with human in view of Gods personhood. disagrees that the immanent Trinity is She
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, Gods 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 45 46 47
Catherine M. LaCugna, 222-223. Ibid, 223. Ibid, 15. Ibid, 228. Page 10 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 Gods life interacted with human. Such relational ontology affirms the inseparability of oikonomia and theologia: Gods To-Be is To-Be-in relationship, and Gods 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 LaCugnas axiomatic inseparability of oikonomia and theologia, but it also reflects the divine-human relationship in view of Gods act towards human. Firstly, Jesus is the reflection of Gods 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, Christians 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 Concerns over LaCugnas Trinitarian Theology
3.1.3
3.1.3.1 Doxology A Father-only View? LaCugnas formulation of Christians doxology directed to God the
48 49 50
Ibid, 250. Ibid. Ibid, 338. Page 11 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 LaCugnas 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 Christs 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 churchs 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 Prospers 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 LaCugnas Trinitarian pattern based on is the historical practice of Churchs 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
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. Systematic Theology I Page 12 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
51
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, humans 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 humans 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 answer to the human question.59 In line with this view, Rahner says, it is ultimately in history that we receive Gods 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
Ibid, 321. 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
57 56
Page 13
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 Luthers rediscovery of justification by faith caused his break with the Roman Catholic Church, which had eventually become a central doctrine of the Protestant Reformation. standard in these matters: Holy Scripture.62 The question would then be, whether our traditions conflict with the only absolute
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); Stephens last prayer before his death (Acts 7:5-9); and Pauls 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. Systematic Theology I Page 14 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 Gods 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
Geoffrey Wainwright, 92-93. 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.
66
65
Page 15
biblical witness and early churchs 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 69 70 71 72
Millard J. Erickson, Making Sense of the Trinity: 3 Crucial Questions, 83. Catherine M. LaCugna, 14. Millard J. Erickson, Making Sense of the Trinity: 3 Crucial Questions, 83. Elmer M. Colyer, T.F. Torrance on the Trinity: An Invitation for Dialogue, 6. Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Person: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, 328. Page 16 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
3.2
Thomas F. Torrance In view of the limitation of LaCugnas Trinitarian pattern in Christian doxological expression, Torrances onto-relational concept of his Trinitarian may refine such shortcoming. Though some concepts are similar to LaCugnas 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 Torrances 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
Torrances 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 Gods oikonomia and in an evangelical and doxological participation in it.73 Along with this thinking, Christians 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
Thomas F. Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God, One Being Three Person, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 75-76. 74 Ibid, 83-84. Systematic Theology I Page 17 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
73
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, Christians
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 76 77 78 79
Ibid, 88-89. Ibid, 89. Elmer M. Colyer, 4. C.M. LaCugna, and K. McDonnell, 196. Thomas F. Torrance, 93-94. Page 18 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 Gods self-revelation in the redemptive history through Christ in the Spirit to the Gods own immanent or ontological Trinitarian life.80 At this level, what
God is towards us in His saving act through Christ in the Spirit (Gods 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 LaCugnas 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 Gods 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
80 81 82
Accordingly, God is not
Elmer M. Colyer, 5. Thomas F. Torrance, 97. Elmer M. Colyer, 6. Page 19 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 Torrances 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 Gods 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 Gods 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 Christians 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 84 85
Ibid. Thomas F. Torrance, 93. Ibid, 97. Page 20 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
affirmed and a close connection between Gods economy and God Himself is therefore established. In Torrances 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. perichoresis which will be discussed in the next session. Such
knowledge comes to a better expression as what the Latin terms,
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 87 88
Ibid, 95. Ibid, 116. Elmer M. Colyer, 5 & 8. Page 21 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 Gods Trinity not only in Gods Being but also all of Gods 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 Gods activities should be thought in the same way. With Torrances perichorectic coactivity of the Trinity, all Gods activities indwell in Gods Being and vice versa, and that all these activities are Gods act in which each Person, within the oneness of Being, acts in a way in accordance with that Persons distinctive activities, but in union and communion with the other divine Persons.
Thomas F. Torrance, 100. 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.
90
89
Page 22
3.2.3
Concerns over Torrances 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 Gods 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 regarded as truths within ones best perception. However, none of the five truths expresses the final truth although they are 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. Systematic Theology I Page 23 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 LaCugnas Trinitarian pattern of Christian doxology directed to God the Father through Christ in the Spirit, Torrances 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 Arias heretical challenge on Christs 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 Gods 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 Prospers 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
Page 24
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
Epiphanius, Ancoratus, 24 quoted in Thomas F. Torrance, 134. Seng-Kong Tan, The Doctrine of the Trinity in John Wesleys Prose and Poetic Works. Journal for Christian Theological Research. 7 (2002): 9.
98
97
Page 25
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 Gods 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 LaCugnas Trinitarian theology, an integration of the two axioms of LaCugna and Torrance may be considered, which should maintain the doxological characters of LaCugnas paradigm of oikonomia and theologia as well as Torrances 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 Gods 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. Page 26 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 Gods immanent life, but rather a focus on Gods 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 Christians doxologies.
In an attempt to utilize the superb concepts of both LaCugna and Torrances 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. Page 27 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
Stratified Structure of Theologia and Doxologia
God (Father) Jesus Christ Holy Spirit World
God (Father) Jesus Christ Holy Spirit
Evangelical & Doxological Level
Theological Level
Higher Theological Level
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, Gods 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 Rahners axiomatic identity of the economic Trinity and the immanent Trinity. Thirdly, with LaCugnas inseparability of oikonomia and theologia, there is no objectified God that may arise from Rahners 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, LaCugnas 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.
Systematic Theology I Page 28 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
Fourthly, with Torrances stratified structure of human apprehension of the Trinity and onto-relational concept, LaCugnas 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 Gods 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
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. Systematic Theology I Page 29 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM
101
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.
Journal Articles Groppe, Elizabeth T. Catherine Mowry LaCugnas 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 Wesleys Prose and Poetic Works. Journal for Christian Theological Research. 7 (2002): 3-14.
Websites: Anthony, Sean William. The Holistic Pneumatology of Jrgen 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).
ii

The Reciprocity Between The Trinitarian Theology and Doxology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Reciprocity Between The Trinitarian Theology and Doxology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Reciprocity between the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology

Timothy Ching Lung LAM

Timothy Ching Lung LAM Student ID Number: D023111

July 11, 2003

2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3

THE PRACTICALITY OF THE TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY IN TERMS OF

CHRISTIANS DOXOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 5 3.1 CATHERINE MOWRY LACUGNA ............................................................................................. 6