The Ontological and Economic Trinity - Essay Example

? The Ontological and Economic Trinity s s The Ontological and Economic Trinity Research Question: What are the differences and the relationship between the Ontological and Economic Trinity, and how do they work together? Proposed Thesis Statement: The Three Persons in Trinity Have Different Roles but Work In Relation To One Another Introduction According to the Christianity teachings of Trinity, God consists of three eternal persons namely; the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit1. The three persons are said to be equal in nature and in their attributes. By saying that the three persons are equal in attributes, it means that they are omniscience, they are omnipresent and they are holy. It is acceptable among all Christians across the world that the three persons do not change, they are holy and that they are divine. This state of the three persons having equal attributes and being equal in nature is referred to as the Ontological Trinity2.The word Ontology refers to the study of essence. As a result, the Ontological Trinity can also be referred to as the Essential Trinity or the Immanent Trinity. On the other hand, these three persons are said to differ in the manner with which they work and also the way they associate with the world and with each other. Each of them has varying roles in how they relate to the world. Their roles within the Godhead are also different. Each of them has their own activities and they perform them independently. This difference in how these persons relate to each other and to the world is referred to as the Economic Trinity. The name economic has been derived from the Greek word oikonomikos which means management of activities3. Therefore, the three persons manage their activities differently. The Ontological Trinity and the Economic Trinity are usually confusing among many Christians This makes it difficult for Christians to understand the exact nature of God Himself. It is not easy for a typical Christian to distinguish between the Ontological Trinity and the Economic Trinity. In addition, it is not easy for Christians to figure out the relationship between the two. This makes the understanding of God and how He works to become a mystery to many. Understanding these two issues can be of much importance to Christians in that they will understand how God works Project Summary The purpose of this project is to conduct a research that will help Christians understand the three persons in Trinity. They will be able to distinguish between the Economic Trinity and the Ontological Trinity. Having understood this, Christians will be in a better position to understand the Existence of God and also understand how God works in through the three persons in trinity (i.e.) the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In this project, I hope to bring out a clear distinction between Ontological Trinity and the Economic Trinity. I also hope to outline and evaluate how the three persons relate to each other and how they work together. Once I am able to achieve this, the project will have achieved its mission which is to enable Christians understand God in a better way. To accomplish this purpose, I will do extensive research from academic literature and compile a report at the end of the research that gives relevant answer to the research question. History of the Doctrine of the Trinity The root of the doctrine of the Trinity can be traced from as early as the first century. The doctrine has taken centuries to develop leading to the modern definition that is the subject of this paper. The word "Trinity" is not seen in the New Testament and neither is the doctrine explicitly taught in the scriptures4. However, we can trace the foundations of the concept of the Trinity from the New Testament, particularly from the Gospel of John, which arguably is one of the latest and one of the most theologically developed books of the New Testament. Mentions of the Trinitarian beliefs also can be seen in the extra-biblical teachings of theological writers dating back as early as the end of the first century. However, the purest of the early expression of the concept was introduced by Tertullian, a Latin theologian who lived and wrote in the early period of the 3rd century. Tertullian was among the first writers to successfully coin the words "Trinity" and "person" and gives an explanation that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were "one in essence rather than those they are one in Person." Essence here refers to being. Nearly a century later, in 325, the Council of Nicea decided to officially define the relationship of God the Father and God the Son counter the teachings of Arius which were at the time deemed controversial and even seen by many to be false. The council under the leadership of Bishop Athanasius established the doctrine of the Trinity as orthodoxy. It further condemned the teaching of Arius that in summary suggested that Christ was God’s first creation. The creed from the council stated that Christ was "God of God, Light of Light, begotten and not made, very God of very God, being homoousios (of one substance) with the Father." Nicea did not however fully end the controversy that was existent during the time involving the interpretation of the creed. One of the controversial issues was especially the phrase "one substance" where theologians and religious scholars question on its mode of interpretation. This debate was to continue for several decades that followed. One group in trying to resolve the raging debates explained that the phrase in the doctrine adopted by Nicea meant that Christ was of “similar substance" (homoiousios) as the Father. Notwithstanding, Nicea for the most part had managed to settle the issue of the Trinity and, by the 5th century, it had seized to be a focus of serious controversy. Most post-Nicene theological literature focused on the Trinity with concepts that were developed in an attempt to understand this unique concept of trinity5. Gregory of Nyssa for example, in his treatise, That There are Not Three Gods, compared the divinity shared by the three persons of the Trinity to the common human nature (humanness). Ironically however, his explanation is seen by many to yield a quite opposite conclusion to the title of his work. Saint Augustine, who has been described to be one of the greatest theological thinkers of the early church, described the Trinity as comparable to the three parts of an individual human being: mind, spirit, and will. They are conceivably three distinct aspects, yet they constitute one unified human being and they are inseparable. However, it is the recent works of great theologians such as Karl Rahner in his book The Trinity, Jurgen Moltmann in his book The Trinity and the Kingdom, both authored in the 1950s and the most recent Colin E. Guton (1997) in his work The Promise of Trinitarian Theology that have provided deep insights in this unique concept. This has been achieved by separating the doctrine of Trinity into two parts, the Ontological Trinity and Economic Trinity. These authors have clearly distinguished between the two concepts and explained their roles and how they work together successfully. This paper as stated in the Proposed Thesis Statement seeks to discuss the Three Persons in Trinity, their roles, and relationship based on a better understanding of Ontological and Economic Trinity as described by an array of modern theological books and literature. It is important however to state beforehand that Ontological Trinity and Economic Trinity are not two Trinities but just one Trinity that has been portioned for a better understanding. Today perspective on Ontological and Economic Trinity Karl Rahner declares in his book titled The Trinity that Christians practically are “almost monotheists” in the basis that supposing the doctrine of the Trinity were to be proved false, many of the religious literature would still remain virtually unchanged . The difficulty experienced by many Christians in their expression to some extent supports Rahner’s hypothesis. Whereas triune God is evident in the entire scriptures, the word “Trinity” itself is not found in the Scriptures. The exact premise of the word trinity is also not systematically presented or defended in the Bible. Encountered with this challenge, many Christians turn to the theologians for assistance who in their response, have come up with theological constructs of the “Ontological Trinity” and the “Economic Trinity.” Their “help” however have to some extent unintentionally confused some Christians. However, to theological and Bible students, the concept of Ontological and Economic Trinity has shed an important light in the doctrine of Trinity6. Economic Trinity The word Economic Trinity in simple terms refers to the biblical presentation of the participation of God in his creation; the “economy of salvation” as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit. This understanding is drawn from the distinction of Tertullian between the divine substantial (which is one) and divine oikonomia (multiple dispensations, administrations or activities) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Greek word oikonomia which means household management, or economy, is used here in the context of God’s involvement in the world, predominantly the works of salvation. The practical definition and understanding of the persons of trinity is portrayed by this activity of the triune God in the history of salvation. The Economic Trinity therefore infers the threefold self-manifestation of God as the Father (creator), Son (redeemer), and Holy Spirit (sustainer), relative to humanity. Karl Barth in his book follows this functional description by replacing the word “economic Trinity,” with the nomenclature “modes of God’s being,” with the aim of presenting a clear understanding of this distinction7.Barth says that these “modes of God’s being” (creator, reconciler, or redeemer) are seen to occur within the context of the revelation of God. Jurgen Moltmann in his book The Trinity and the Kingdom concurs with Barth in this revelatory context of the economic Trinity by stating that it can also be referred as the “revelatory Trinity”. Jurgen continues to say that the revelation of the triune God is manifest through his dispensation of salvation. The economic Trinity is grounded in our experience predominantly in the concept of salvation. The economic Trinity, based on God’s activities in relation to our experiences God’s revelatory triune actions through salvation, is more easily understood. However, ontological Trinity has always proved to be a more difficult concept for us or any other typical Christian to understand for the typical Christian to understand because by definition it excludes our experience. Ontological Trinity The ontological Trinity, also called the essential or immanent Trinity, refers to the three-in-one nature of God (in eternity) without reference to creation. During this time prior to creation, God was still God by himself, without reference in the definition to the works of creation. In other words, we can say God was God in himself in the essence that He was essential in being. Barth in his book users another of his own terminology to discuss the pre-creation ontological understanding of God. Barth states that “God is antecedently in himself.” According to Barth, we can see that he is trying to define the immanent Trinity of God as antecedent to God’s revelation as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit. However, it is important to point out here that Ontological discussion of God as discussed in this paper (that He “being” before creation), does not in any way mean he was “by himself,” or otherwise put, that he was “alone.” Numerous arrays of theological studies and the scriptures attest to this. Colin E. Guton in his 1997 work titled The Promise of Trinitarian Theology captures this description in the first pages of the book. Guton describes the manifold nature of the ontological Trinity, by stating God as a “being-in-relation” prior to creation took place8. Guton states that God at this time was already in relationship, but that there was no need for God to create what is other than himself. Moltmann echoes this hypothesis in The Trinity and the Kingdom by saying that it is conceivably difficult to imagine an imminent Trinity God where he is by himself not in relationship and without love. Rahner in his Trinity joins in and affirms that a “lifeless self-identity,” is an extremely false assumption of the immanent Trinity of God but attest that any acceptable understanding of the immanent trinity should start from the point where God is in relationship9. The ontological Trinity can therefore be summarized as the triune God essential in being before creation, and already in relationship as three and one. Understanding Ontological and Economic Trinity and its Role The ontological Trinity (in existence) by definition precedes the economic Trinity as demonstrated in this paper. Barth encapsulates this fact by propositioning that the actuality of the “revealed Trinity” was possible entirely because the ontological Trinity was already existed in God. This understanding is by all means philosophically pure; in experience however, our information on the ontological Trinity can only be gained through the economic Trinity. This is because it is through the Economic Trinity that we obtain the theological truths and understanding about the ontological Trinity. Moltmann supports this fact by pronouncing that knowledge of the economic Trinity (the experience of salvation in specific) precedes and must precede the knowledge of the immanent Trinity. The Cross being an inspiring aspect to his theology, Moltmann concludes that not only does the economic Trinity reveal the ontological Trinity but that it also has a “retroactive effect” on the ontological theory. He advises that the relationship of the triune God both in himself and in creation should never be seen as a “one-way,” but asserts of a “mutual relationship” between God and his creation. However, Moltmann is quick to state that this mutuality does not in any way equate God’s relationship to the world with the relationship of God to himself. Paul Molnar in his theological research article also brings across a transactional element between the economic and ontological trinity. Molnar understands that, “the immanent or ontological Trinity is a description of who God is, God who meets us through our experiences with Him, and not simply salvation history descriptions, or of our faith experiences or our experiences of hope10.” Accepting the economic Trinity based in experience through salvation, and the fact that it precede the ontological Trinity understanding, has raised numerous debate as to whether there should be any distinction between the two after all. Some theologians have even proposed abandoning the ontological Trinity. Catherine Mowry LaCunga says that we cannot truly speak meaningfully of God’s interior state when she discusses on the subject of practical relevancy of the Trinity to Christian living. Her proposition is that the Trinitarian doctrine would be revitalizing under a wholly economic model, which she suggests that it would essentially collapse the ontological understanding into the economic. This reconstruction however appears to run parallel to Rahner’s self proclaimed axiomatic statement which goes like, “The ‘economic’ Trinity is the ‘immanent’ Trinity and the ‘immanent’ Trinity is the ‘economic’ Trinity.” Many other theologians however, argue that this distinction between the ontological and economic Trinity is vital. Molnar believes that an accurate understanding of the triune God is conceivable when we think from “a center in God rather than from our own perspectives.” Operating from the human perspectives and experiences has the danger of the limitations of that understanding being imposed on God. This results in God’s trinity being shaped by our own natural knowledge about God, ultimately compromising both the divine and human liberation in the process. Moltmann agrees that a distinction between the two “secures God’s liberty and grace.” Moltmann while he advocating for this distinction, declares that this should never mean that there are two Trinities11. This in other words is to mean that the same triune God in the saving revelation (economic trinity) is the same as he is in himself (ontological trinity). This can also be described as the meaning Rahner sought to present in his axiomatic statement. Conclusion The whole issue of Ontological and Economic Trinity has generated the risk of potential introduction of the misleading notion of two Trinities. To quell this matter, this paper has distinguished between the meanings of these terms, and addressed their implications on our understanding of the Trinity. Trinitarian faith should therefore be understood as ontologically Christian faith. This means that a person cannot claim to be a Christian and not be Trinitarian. This is a determining and essential dogma. Nonetheless there are many Christians out there who belief in the triune God but are devoid of Trinitarian understanding. The theological models of the economic and ontological Trinity are fundamental tools having a true understanding of the Trinity of God beyond the personal experience. Yet as Moltmann has said, “The concepts and ideas with which we conceive and know God all derive from the very impaired life of ours that we have.” In spite of our mortal efforts to define, describe, and clarify the Trinity, the Trinity of God is a subject that remains and will always remain a mystery that must be inevitably be accepted by faith. Bibliography Baik, Chung-Hyun. Green Bay-Fox River Mass Balance Study, [S.l.]: Proquest, Umi Dissertatio, 2011, 56 Coppedge, Allan. The God Who Is Triune: Revisioning the Christian Doctrine of God. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2007, 114 Gunton, Colin E. The Promise of Trinitarian Theology. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997. Grenz, Stanley J. Theology for the Community of God. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000, 66 Johnson, Keith E. Rethinking the Trinity & Religious Pluralism: An Augustinian Assessment. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2011, 80 Molnar, Paul D. "The Trinity and the Freedom of God." Journal for Christian Theological Research 8, (2003): 59-66. Moltmann, Jurgen. The Trinity and the Kingdom: the Doctrine of God. Translated by Margaret Kohl. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 2001. Molnar, Paul D. Thomas F. Torrance: Theologian of the Trinity. Farnham, England: Ashgate Pub. Ltd, 2009, 42 Peters, Ted. God As Trinity: Rationality and Temporarily in Divine Life. Louisville, Ky: Westminster/J. Knox Press, 1993, 20 Powell, Samuel M. The Trinity in German Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009, 119 Rahner, Karl. The Trinity. New York: Herder and Herder, 2002. Read More