Trinity Questions...
Last Semester I was in a Trinity Meta-Torrey with Dr. Fred Sanders. Before every session we were required to post at least three question that we had from the reading (a reading list that ranged from Tertullian to Pannenberg). Since I spent the time working on these questions, I thought, "Why not post them? Maybe they will spark conversations or more questions?" So, here they are.
Discussion Questions: Warfield and Sanders
1. Warfield claims that the writers of the NT "spoke out their common Trinitarian conciousness," stating that the Trinity is presupposed rather than inculcated, proceeding further to explain that the Trinity "naturally finds an echo also in the consciousness of everyone who has experienced this salvation." [e.g. section 7, 21] What does he mean by this? What is this Trinitarian conciousness that comes from salvation? Is he right and justified in making such claims?
2. How has the development of the doctrine of the Trinity affected the church's relationship with God? Do we know more about God now than the church has in the past? Do we need the doctrine of the Trinity? (consider in the context of Warfield's point on "Trinitrian conciousness")
3. Warfield states emphatically that "In His Trinitarian mode of being, God is unique; and, as there is nothing in the universe like Him in this respect, so there is nothing which can help us to comprehend Him." How does this principle sober our endeavors to define the doctrine of the Trinity?
Discussion Questions: John and Köstenberger and Swain
1. According to John, when do we know the Father? Consider the role of knowledge in the Gospel, i.e. how it is imparted, its effect, what it tells us about the OT revelation of God and the NT revelation, etc.
2. What does the gospel narrative reveal about the tri-unity of God (i.e. processions, missions, etc.)? How does it accomplish its task of revealing God?
3. Köstenberger and Swain stress the equality of the Son and Father. While explaining the subordination of the Son to the Father they are careful to assert the Son's equality in terms of subordination, stating, "the Son is equal in authority to the Father as the Son of the Father, whose will is always to obey the Father's will" (124). Is the subordination of the Son in the text grounds for saying that the Father and Son are not equal? How are we supposed to understand Christ's statements that the Father is indeed "greater than I"? In what way are the Father and Son equal?
4. Does indwelling a believer belong specifically to the Holy Spirit?
Discussion Questions: Tertullian and Athanasius
1. Do Athanasius and Tertullian mean the same thing when they refer to the Word as the "Reason" of the Father? What does this title "Reason of the Father" say about ontic relations? And how does it relate to the Word's other names (i.e. "Word," "Son," "Creator," "Life," "Image of God," etc.)?
2. According to Tertullian, what is the difference between Person and Substance? How does his exposition answer Paxeas' objection to a triune Godhead? Or, in other words: how does his explanation of the Trinity as "three persons and one substance" answer objections to the doctrine based on the potential for disunity in God?
3. What does it mean to say that the Father creates through the Son (using both Athanasius and Tertullian)?
4. Consider the importance of our own character when studying Scripture. At the beginning of Against Praxaes Tertullian spends a while explaining the character of Praxeas and at the end of On the incarnation, Athanasius spends time explaining the importance of who we are when we seek to know God as He is. What is this theological pursuit we are on we that we cannot know the divinity of the Word or assent to the Trinity unless we are pursuing righteouesness?
Discussion Questions: Gregory of Nazianzus
1. Considering the tension between God's immanent reality [being incomprehensibe and incorporeal] and our limited expression of that reality through words, how does Gregory view words (ie. Father, Son, Spirit, Begotten, etc) and how can we use them to speak about God? (I have had the most difficulty forming this question...basically I want to ask: "What are words? What are their limitations when talking about God? and, How does Gregory use this point [their limitation] to argue against almost 50% of the objections raised by his opponents in the text?")
2. What are the implications of saying that one of the Trinity became flesh? How does Gregory mediate the tension between the Son eternal and the Son incarnate? Consider his use of salvation history in the text.
3. What does Gregory mean when he states that if we get rid of a member of the Trinity we might as well not worship the other two, because that would be "incomplete deity"? How do the three persons of the Trinity form "complete" deity? (considered particularly in the context of the Holy Spirit's Holiness and his distinction between person and substance) How does the Trinity both add nothing to the shared nature and still contribute something to one another through being united by that one nature?
4. Consider the personal distinctions between the members of the Trinity and their equal share in our worship. Do I worship the Son for different reasons than I worship the Spirit? Or for different reasons than I worship the Father? How do I worship them equally if they are distinct? Do I worship their nature or persons?
5. How do the first and second theological orations (with their predominate emphasis on God's incomprehensibility) set the conceptual ground for the exposition of the Trinity?
6. When should we be silent in our exposition of the Trinity? Consider the use of senses, reason, and faith in the text.
Discussion Questions: Augustine
1. How can we attribute certain actions to a single member of the Godhead (i.e. activity of the Word in the Incarnation) while asserting the inseparable action of the Trinity? Consider how Augustine explains and defends the "unity of action" in the Trinity.
2. How does Augustine define person, essence/substance, and what contribution does he make to the discussion of what a relationship is within the Trinity?
3. Last class we talked about "coming-fromness" as a quality of the relationship between the Father and the Son and the Father and the Spirit. How does Augustine explain this "coming-fromness"? What exactly is coming from what?
4. According to Augustine: In what way are the members of the Trinity united and in what way are they distinct? How are they internally inseparable and yet also distinct (especially in outward acts)?
5. Both Gregory and Augustine (and Ambrose) state that unless their audience believes, they will not understand the doctrine of the Trinity. How can we be sensitive to the relationship between faith and reason in our discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity?
6. How does Augustine explain wisdom and charity with regard to the immanent life of the Trinity (with special reference to the Son and Spirit respectively)? Consider the discussion in VI.1.
Discussion Questions: Augustine 2
1. How/When should we use analogies for the Trinity? Are they useful and if so, in what way?
2. Is the Image of God an analogy for understanding the Trinity or something more?
Does the "psychological model" (seeking to know the Trinity through the Image of God within us) help us to know the Trinity? Or does it become too autonomous from the gospel narrative to be helpful or trustworthy? Regardless of whether or not this thought project yields good fruit, is the method condemnable?
3. Could we love and know the Trinity if we were not made in their Image? Do we know and love the Trinity because of the gospel? or because of the Image of God? Both?
Discussion Questions: St. Thomas Aquinas, Questions 27-32
1. During the course of our reading, Thomas defines and develops the relationship between the terms "relations," "processions," "persons," "natures," "hypostases," and "essences." What is the relationship between them? How closely does Aquinas associate them? (particularly thinking of his discussion in questions 27-29)...Also, are relations rightly taken to refer to something in the essence?
2. By what standard does Thomas justify his theories of the Trinity (considered in the context of question 32 and 27 in particular)? Does Thomas depend too heavily on the Intellectual substance as a model for the processions in God? Do Thomas' arguments fall apart if we cannot use the intellect of man as a model for understanding Triune relations? By model I mean "functional parallel," or "demonstration."--of course with the proper reserves established in light of God's transcendence.
3. When explaining the generation of the Word, repeatedly states, "the divine act of intelligence is the very substance itself of the one who understands." Is this true? How might this principle help us to understand the sort of unity and diversity that is in the godhead (according to Thomas)?
Discussion Questions: St. Thomas Aquinas, Questions 33-43
1. Does it make a different to say "one in three" vs. "three in one"? In what way are the three persons in God? What does it mean to be in the essence but not the essence (i.e. shared absolutely) and yet simple? Does the doctrine of divine simplicity blur the categories of "person" and "essence" in question 39? Explain Thomas' use of the doctrine rightly in explaining the Trinity? ex. "...divine simplicity requires that in God essence is the same as "suppositum," which in intellectual substances is nothing else than person...in creatures relations are accidental, whereas in God they are the divine essence itself...in God essence is not really distinct from person; and yet that the persons are really distinguished from each other. For person, as above stated (29, 4), signifies relation as subsisting in the divine nature. But relation as referred to the essence does not differ therefrom really, but only in our way of thinking; while as referred to an opposite relation, it has a real distinction by virtue of that opposition. Thus there are one essence and three persons."
2. So...filioque? or no filioque? Does it matter?
3. What is a "mission" according to Thomas? What is the place of missions in his systematic treatment of the doctrine of the Trinity? Compare "mission" and "procession."
4. What does it mean to say that the son is a principle from a principle and that the Spirit is a principle from the one principle of the Father and Son? Explain "origin" in the Trinity using Thomas.
Discussion Questions: Calvin
1. What is the place of the doctrine of the Trinity in defining true religion and piety, especially in light of Calvin's statement, "Unless we grasp these [the three persons] only the bare and empty name of God flits about in our brains, to the exclusion of the true God" (pg. 122)? Compare this statement with his distinction between the two types of knowledge of God on page 61.
2. Consider Calvin's placement of the doctrine of the Trinity. Why does he place it after a conversation about idols?
3. Explain Calvin's method of interpretation (i.e. his arguments for the deity of the Son and Spirit, his explanation of what a person is, etc.). Is it the same as Thomas’ and Augustine’s hermeneutic? Or is it different? In other words, how does Calvin go about biblically solidifying claims about the Trinity?
4. Why do we read Calvin? Considering the history of thought on the Trinity, other authors (i.e. Bonaventure) go more in-depth in their treatment of the doctrine than Calvin does. Even after reading Thomas, Calvin seems rather basic. So, what does Calvin contribute to the conversation?
5. How should we balance complexity and simplicity when speaking on the Trinity? What is Calvin's project and how does it explain the degree of detail he includes in his discussion of the Trinity?
6. Do creation and the seed of religion have any Trinitarian content? If the doctrine of the Trinity is necessary for piety and true religion, could a man come to true religion and piety (assuming he was not "fallen") without Scripture's testimony to the Trinity?
Discussion Questions: Owen
1. According to Owen we have communion with the persons of Trinity particularly/peculiarly (i.e. we have a particular/peculiar communion with the Father, which is characterized by "love"), but not exclusively (i.e. the Son and Spirit are involved in a distinct, but secondary way, when considered in terms of our relating to a particular person peculiarly). What does this mean? How does Owen mediate unity and particularity/distinction in the Trinity? Does our communion with each person peculiarly overlap with the communion we have with the other persons of the Trinity?
2. Considering the depth of Owen's treatment of the doctrine of the Trinity, would Calvin approve of this work? Is the depth of speculation that Owen invests in explaining the Trinity too far, just right, or not enough according to Calvin?
3. Who is more helpful thus far in explaining the Trinity? Aquinas or Owen? Are they both answering the same question about the Trinity? If not, which question is more important?
Discussion Questions: Barth
1. How does the Trinity answer questions rather than simply raising questions?
2. What is the basis for our confidence that we know God? Where do Scripture, the Obedience of Christ, and human language come into this discussion?
3. How does Barth describe subordination in the Trinity as distinguished from subordinationism? How does he arive at subordination (hermenutically)?
4. Barth uses the term "modes" frequently to talk about the persons of the Trinity. How does Barth explain persons (on pg. 31 in particular)?
5. On page 29 Barth says that "we have to abandon" two ways of thinking about God's being. What are these two ways and how do they affect our discussion of the Trinity?
6. What role does history play in interpretation? And, how should we interpret history in light of the Trinity?
Discussion Questions: Rahner
1. Is Rahner's Trinitarian axiom ("The economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity and vice versa") saying anything new? Is this axiom true? Is it helpful? What standard does Rahner give us for identifying whether or not something in the economy reflects the immanent life of God?
2. How is Rahner's explaination of love and knowledge in the Trinity similar to or different from the way Augustine explains it?
3. How has this class challenged your "almost mere monotheism"? How have you learned to integrate the doctrine of the Trinity into soteriology, ecclesiology, etc.?
Discussion Questions: Pannenberg
1. If relations of origin are unable to explain all the relations in the Trinity, what other types of relations can be used to distinguish the members of the Trinity from one another? How does the prospect of different classifications of relation affect the filioque discussion?
2. How does Jesus reveal the Father to us? What is the basis for Trinitarian statements according to Pannenberg?
3. How are we not Tritheists or Modalists according to Pannenberg?
4. What is the role of the resurrection in revealing the Trinity?
5. How is the Son's self-distinction from the Father (through subjection) a witness to His Sonship and participation in the divine nature? Explain the dynamics of Jesus calling the Father His "God."
Discussion Questions: Warfield and Sanders
1. Warfield claims that the writers of the NT "spoke out their common Trinitarian conciousness," stating that the Trinity is presupposed rather than inculcated, proceeding further to explain that the Trinity "naturally finds an echo also in the consciousness of everyone who has experienced this salvation." [e.g. section 7, 21] What does he mean by this? What is this Trinitarian conciousness that comes from salvation? Is he right and justified in making such claims?
2. How has the development of the doctrine of the Trinity affected the church's relationship with God? Do we know more about God now than the church has in the past? Do we need the doctrine of the Trinity? (consider in the context of Warfield's point on "Trinitrian conciousness")
3. Warfield states emphatically that "In His Trinitarian mode of being, God is unique; and, as there is nothing in the universe like Him in this respect, so there is nothing which can help us to comprehend Him." How does this principle sober our endeavors to define the doctrine of the Trinity?
Discussion Questions: John and Köstenberger and Swain
1. According to John, when do we know the Father? Consider the role of knowledge in the Gospel, i.e. how it is imparted, its effect, what it tells us about the OT revelation of God and the NT revelation, etc.
2. What does the gospel narrative reveal about the tri-unity of God (i.e. processions, missions, etc.)? How does it accomplish its task of revealing God?
3. Köstenberger and Swain stress the equality of the Son and Father. While explaining the subordination of the Son to the Father they are careful to assert the Son's equality in terms of subordination, stating, "the Son is equal in authority to the Father as the Son of the Father, whose will is always to obey the Father's will" (124). Is the subordination of the Son in the text grounds for saying that the Father and Son are not equal? How are we supposed to understand Christ's statements that the Father is indeed "greater than I"? In what way are the Father and Son equal?
4. Does indwelling a believer belong specifically to the Holy Spirit?
Discussion Questions: Tertullian and Athanasius
1. Do Athanasius and Tertullian mean the same thing when they refer to the Word as the "Reason" of the Father? What does this title "Reason of the Father" say about ontic relations? And how does it relate to the Word's other names (i.e. "Word," "Son," "Creator," "Life," "Image of God," etc.)?
2. According to Tertullian, what is the difference between Person and Substance? How does his exposition answer Paxeas' objection to a triune Godhead? Or, in other words: how does his explanation of the Trinity as "three persons and one substance" answer objections to the doctrine based on the potential for disunity in God?
3. What does it mean to say that the Father creates through the Son (using both Athanasius and Tertullian)?
4. Consider the importance of our own character when studying Scripture. At the beginning of Against Praxaes Tertullian spends a while explaining the character of Praxeas and at the end of On the incarnation, Athanasius spends time explaining the importance of who we are when we seek to know God as He is. What is this theological pursuit we are on we that we cannot know the divinity of the Word or assent to the Trinity unless we are pursuing righteouesness?
Discussion Questions: Gregory of Nazianzus
1. Considering the tension between God's immanent reality [being incomprehensibe and incorporeal] and our limited expression of that reality through words, how does Gregory view words (ie. Father, Son, Spirit, Begotten, etc) and how can we use them to speak about God? (I have had the most difficulty forming this question...basically I want to ask: "What are words? What are their limitations when talking about God? and, How does Gregory use this point [their limitation] to argue against almost 50% of the objections raised by his opponents in the text?")
2. What are the implications of saying that one of the Trinity became flesh? How does Gregory mediate the tension between the Son eternal and the Son incarnate? Consider his use of salvation history in the text.
3. What does Gregory mean when he states that if we get rid of a member of the Trinity we might as well not worship the other two, because that would be "incomplete deity"? How do the three persons of the Trinity form "complete" deity? (considered particularly in the context of the Holy Spirit's Holiness and his distinction between person and substance) How does the Trinity both add nothing to the shared nature and still contribute something to one another through being united by that one nature?
4. Consider the personal distinctions between the members of the Trinity and their equal share in our worship. Do I worship the Son for different reasons than I worship the Spirit? Or for different reasons than I worship the Father? How do I worship them equally if they are distinct? Do I worship their nature or persons?
5. How do the first and second theological orations (with their predominate emphasis on God's incomprehensibility) set the conceptual ground for the exposition of the Trinity?
6. When should we be silent in our exposition of the Trinity? Consider the use of senses, reason, and faith in the text.
Discussion Questions: Augustine
1. How can we attribute certain actions to a single member of the Godhead (i.e. activity of the Word in the Incarnation) while asserting the inseparable action of the Trinity? Consider how Augustine explains and defends the "unity of action" in the Trinity.
2. How does Augustine define person, essence/substance, and what contribution does he make to the discussion of what a relationship is within the Trinity?
3. Last class we talked about "coming-fromness" as a quality of the relationship between the Father and the Son and the Father and the Spirit. How does Augustine explain this "coming-fromness"? What exactly is coming from what?
4. According to Augustine: In what way are the members of the Trinity united and in what way are they distinct? How are they internally inseparable and yet also distinct (especially in outward acts)?
5. Both Gregory and Augustine (and Ambrose) state that unless their audience believes, they will not understand the doctrine of the Trinity. How can we be sensitive to the relationship between faith and reason in our discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity?
6. How does Augustine explain wisdom and charity with regard to the immanent life of the Trinity (with special reference to the Son and Spirit respectively)? Consider the discussion in VI.1.
Discussion Questions: Augustine 2
1. How/When should we use analogies for the Trinity? Are they useful and if so, in what way?
2. Is the Image of God an analogy for understanding the Trinity or something more?
Does the "psychological model" (seeking to know the Trinity through the Image of God within us) help us to know the Trinity? Or does it become too autonomous from the gospel narrative to be helpful or trustworthy? Regardless of whether or not this thought project yields good fruit, is the method condemnable?
3. Could we love and know the Trinity if we were not made in their Image? Do we know and love the Trinity because of the gospel? or because of the Image of God? Both?
Discussion Questions: St. Thomas Aquinas, Questions 27-32
1. During the course of our reading, Thomas defines and develops the relationship between the terms "relations," "processions," "persons," "natures," "hypostases," and "essences." What is the relationship between them? How closely does Aquinas associate them? (particularly thinking of his discussion in questions 27-29)...Also, are relations rightly taken to refer to something in the essence?
2. By what standard does Thomas justify his theories of the Trinity (considered in the context of question 32 and 27 in particular)? Does Thomas depend too heavily on the Intellectual substance as a model for the processions in God? Do Thomas' arguments fall apart if we cannot use the intellect of man as a model for understanding Triune relations? By model I mean "functional parallel," or "demonstration."--of course with the proper reserves established in light of God's transcendence.
3. When explaining the generation of the Word, repeatedly states, "the divine act of intelligence is the very substance itself of the one who understands." Is this true? How might this principle help us to understand the sort of unity and diversity that is in the godhead (according to Thomas)?
Discussion Questions: St. Thomas Aquinas, Questions 33-43
1. Does it make a different to say "one in three" vs. "three in one"? In what way are the three persons in God? What does it mean to be in the essence but not the essence (i.e. shared absolutely) and yet simple? Does the doctrine of divine simplicity blur the categories of "person" and "essence" in question 39? Explain Thomas' use of the doctrine rightly in explaining the Trinity? ex. "...divine simplicity requires that in God essence is the same as "suppositum," which in intellectual substances is nothing else than person...in creatures relations are accidental, whereas in God they are the divine essence itself...in God essence is not really distinct from person; and yet that the persons are really distinguished from each other. For person, as above stated (29, 4), signifies relation as subsisting in the divine nature. But relation as referred to the essence does not differ therefrom really, but only in our way of thinking; while as referred to an opposite relation, it has a real distinction by virtue of that opposition. Thus there are one essence and three persons."
2. So...filioque? or no filioque? Does it matter?
3. What is a "mission" according to Thomas? What is the place of missions in his systematic treatment of the doctrine of the Trinity? Compare "mission" and "procession."
4. What does it mean to say that the son is a principle from a principle and that the Spirit is a principle from the one principle of the Father and Son? Explain "origin" in the Trinity using Thomas.
Discussion Questions: Calvin
1. What is the place of the doctrine of the Trinity in defining true religion and piety, especially in light of Calvin's statement, "Unless we grasp these [the three persons] only the bare and empty name of God flits about in our brains, to the exclusion of the true God" (pg. 122)? Compare this statement with his distinction between the two types of knowledge of God on page 61.
2. Consider Calvin's placement of the doctrine of the Trinity. Why does he place it after a conversation about idols?
3. Explain Calvin's method of interpretation (i.e. his arguments for the deity of the Son and Spirit, his explanation of what a person is, etc.). Is it the same as Thomas’ and Augustine’s hermeneutic? Or is it different? In other words, how does Calvin go about biblically solidifying claims about the Trinity?
4. Why do we read Calvin? Considering the history of thought on the Trinity, other authors (i.e. Bonaventure) go more in-depth in their treatment of the doctrine than Calvin does. Even after reading Thomas, Calvin seems rather basic. So, what does Calvin contribute to the conversation?
5. How should we balance complexity and simplicity when speaking on the Trinity? What is Calvin's project and how does it explain the degree of detail he includes in his discussion of the Trinity?
6. Do creation and the seed of religion have any Trinitarian content? If the doctrine of the Trinity is necessary for piety and true religion, could a man come to true religion and piety (assuming he was not "fallen") without Scripture's testimony to the Trinity?
Discussion Questions: Owen
1. According to Owen we have communion with the persons of Trinity particularly/peculiarly (i.e. we have a particular/peculiar communion with the Father, which is characterized by "love"), but not exclusively (i.e. the Son and Spirit are involved in a distinct, but secondary way, when considered in terms of our relating to a particular person peculiarly). What does this mean? How does Owen mediate unity and particularity/distinction in the Trinity? Does our communion with each person peculiarly overlap with the communion we have with the other persons of the Trinity?
2. Considering the depth of Owen's treatment of the doctrine of the Trinity, would Calvin approve of this work? Is the depth of speculation that Owen invests in explaining the Trinity too far, just right, or not enough according to Calvin?
3. Who is more helpful thus far in explaining the Trinity? Aquinas or Owen? Are they both answering the same question about the Trinity? If not, which question is more important?
Discussion Questions: Barth
1. How does the Trinity answer questions rather than simply raising questions?
2. What is the basis for our confidence that we know God? Where do Scripture, the Obedience of Christ, and human language come into this discussion?
3. How does Barth describe subordination in the Trinity as distinguished from subordinationism? How does he arive at subordination (hermenutically)?
4. Barth uses the term "modes" frequently to talk about the persons of the Trinity. How does Barth explain persons (on pg. 31 in particular)?
5. On page 29 Barth says that "we have to abandon" two ways of thinking about God's being. What are these two ways and how do they affect our discussion of the Trinity?
6. What role does history play in interpretation? And, how should we interpret history in light of the Trinity?
Discussion Questions: Rahner
1. Is Rahner's Trinitarian axiom ("The economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity and vice versa") saying anything new? Is this axiom true? Is it helpful? What standard does Rahner give us for identifying whether or not something in the economy reflects the immanent life of God?
2. How is Rahner's explaination of love and knowledge in the Trinity similar to or different from the way Augustine explains it?
3. How has this class challenged your "almost mere monotheism"? How have you learned to integrate the doctrine of the Trinity into soteriology, ecclesiology, etc.?
Discussion Questions: Pannenberg
1. If relations of origin are unable to explain all the relations in the Trinity, what other types of relations can be used to distinguish the members of the Trinity from one another? How does the prospect of different classifications of relation affect the filioque discussion?
2. How does Jesus reveal the Father to us? What is the basis for Trinitarian statements according to Pannenberg?
3. How are we not Tritheists or Modalists according to Pannenberg?
4. What is the role of the resurrection in revealing the Trinity?
5. How is the Son's self-distinction from the Father (through subjection) a witness to His Sonship and participation in the divine nature? Explain the dynamics of Jesus calling the Father His "God."
