Trinity concepts after Orthodoxy

by koot van wyk (DLitt et Phil; ThD)

Kyungpook National University

Sangju Campus

South Korea

cojoint lecturer of Avondale College

Australia

12 October 2009

Adventism is working with the concept of Trinity since that is what a careful reading of the Bible brings us to. Not must was said by the pioneers or Ellen White about the intricacies of the Three. Only what the Bible revealed was mirrored in the pioneers and her work. What Adventism cling to, is a revealed trinity not a being trinity since the being is much larger than what was revealed.

Our source for this section is the seminal work of the Calvinist Dutch Reform systematic theologian, J. J. F. Durand, Die Lewende God: Wegwysers in die Dogmatiek (Pretoria: N. G. Kerkboekhandel, 1976). Durand indicated that although the Calvinistic and Lutheran orthodoxy were hoping to keep to appropriate continuity of the concepts of the Reformers, yet, there was a shift in their theology (Durand 1976: 32). Due to the revival of the Aristotelian scientific ideal, these post-reformistic scholars tried to make theology scientific and again, just like the time of Thomas Aquinas, there was a strong desire to define theology in metaphysical ideas. The result was a number of fine distinctions. Although the orthodoxy scholars admitted that God can be known only in the Holy Scripture, they do give to natural knowledge of God a greater role, greater than what Calvin envisioned.

The Lutheran Orthodox scholar Johann Gerhard, a personal friend of John Arndt, who actually wanted to study medicine but became very sick and then turned his mind to theology, made a difference between three kinds of knowledge about God: notitia Dei naturalis innata (conscience knowledge), notitia Dei naturalis acquisita (knowledge out of creation), notitia Dei revelata (knowledge out of Scripture) (Durand 1976: 32). The same was done by Quenstedt and Hollaz and in Reformed theology, Alsted and Voetius. These scholars are now attaching to their doctrine of God all kinds of analogies between science and reality by using scholasticism via negationis, via eminentiae and via causalitatis. Also Thomas Aquinas concepts of resting and working characteristics returned in orthodoxy (Durand 1976: 32). Reformed theologians differentiated between shared and unshared characteristics.

Durand indicated that when one investigates the unshared characteristics of Reformed theologians of the orthodoxy, His independency (aseitas), simplicity (simplicitas), inifiniteness (infinitas) and unchangeability (immutabilitas) "you cannot but get the impression that you have to do here with philosophical abstractions" (Durand 1976: 32-33).

As to the role of Scripture for these scholars Durand says: "The call for Scripture in this context only gets another function namely as an authoritative confirmation of an already constructed insight" (Durand 1976: 33).

For SDA's this point is very important in the light of attempts by some from time to time to enter the domain of the Trinity beyond scripture, setting up their own philosophical explanation and then attach prooftexts to it.

Orthodoxy's doctrine of God became abstract and cold and without relation to Christology (the science of Christ) or soteriology (the science of salvation). Their treatment of the subject differed with Luther who's doctrine of God is bound together with his vision of God's acts of salvation in Jesus Christ (Durand 1976: 33).

Herman Bavinck

In Reformed theology, the line goes from Calvin over orthodoxy to Herman Bavinck, says Durand. Bavinck demonstrated that he is in relation with Reformed orthodoxy but there is a difference since he is more critical of scholasticism and Scripture functions different for him (Durand 1976: 33).

Bavinck rejects natural theology and an inborn knowledge of God. All knowledge of God is revelation knowledge, also knowledge that can be gained from creation knowledge. God is the Unknown but He made Himself known to humans in the works of His hands. Since there is a relationship between God and His works, man can attain a knowledge of God. This knowledge is derived, and stand opposite to the perfect archetypical self knowledge of God.

The archetype-scheme Bavinck took from Thomistic theology (scholasticism) but he rejected the temptations of natural theology. He said that the knowledge that we get of God out of nature is already taken up in Scripture and that it can only be unfolded from Scripture. He discussed the content of characteristics of God more with a direct approach from Scripture than what one got in scholasticism.

Bavinck also felt that, like orthodoxy, God's characteristics can be shared and unshared. However he complained that it seems as if God can be divided into two halves. Therefore Bavinck suggested that the characteristics of God is at the same time shared and unshared. For the unshared characteristics he followed the traditional way of grouping God's aseitas, immutabilitas, infinitas and unitas. With the shared characteristics Bavinck relied on analogies. Man is created in the image of God and this provide us with the division of the shared characteristics: God let Himself known as the living Spirit: spirituality (spiritualitas) and invisibility (invisibilitas). Then there is the characteristics of God that He is perfectly aware of Himself: His science (scientia) wisdom (sapientia) and truthful (veracitas). The third group of characteristics points to the ethical nature of the Godly being: kindness (bonitas), righteousness (iustitia) and holiness (sanctitas). Fourthly is there the characteristics that points to God's rulership: His will (voluntas), freedom (libertas) and allpowerfulness (omnipotentia). Also the characteristics of God known in His absolute salvation: perfection (perfectio), beauty (beatitudo), and glory (gloria).

In close relation with the analogical knowledge of God, Bavinck stress the anthropomorphisms of Scripture. God speaks in a human-understandable language, even concerning the unshared characteristics. Does this mean that the actual unknown God is hiding behind an "non-existent" way of speaking and that one must doubt the veracity of His revelation? Bavinck realize the tension but he mentioned that God came to us as the incarnated Logos that is nothing less than a humanizing of God. "Who argues against anthropomorphism, rejects in principle the possibility of God's revelation and is forced to total quietness" (Durand 1976: 34).

For Durand the problem with Bavinck is that he is not always focussing on the Deus erga nos but press forward to the Deus apud se (Durand 1976: 34). Bavinck has a problem to maintain the relation of the anthropomorphistic aspects with the being of God. One of the problems Bavinck entered in, is that he tried to explain the unchangeability of God. God is unchangeable and this aspect is analyzed with the difference between being and becoming. All creatures are in the process of becoming and God as Being is without becoming. For that reason all changes are foreign to God. Bavinck borrowed this idea from the aristotelian philosophy and the theology of scholastics and this brought Bavinck into trouble when he placed this concept next to the Holy Scripture that knows of the movable acts of God in salvation-history (Durand 1976: 35). Bavinck realized this tension and he placed the movable actions of God in Scripture in one column and the immovable actions of God from Scripture in another. The solution to the problem Bavinck tried to find with Augustine and Thomas Aquinas and scholastic philosophy (Durand 1976: 35). God meet creatures in many instances but He maintains His unchangeability absolutely. There are changes around Him and outside of Him, there are changes in relation to Him but there is no change in God Himself. What about Scripture that explains God's living relationship with the world? Suddenly, Bavinck changed with the idea that the anthropomorphisms are speaking non-existencies. It is not actually how God is. One can see the influence of scholasticism in his doctrine of God. 

In Bavinck's Trinity doctrine he is not influenced by scholasticism and his view is very similar to that of Calvin. The Trinity let us know God as the true living One and with this confession stands or fall the whole of Christianity (Durand 1976: 35).

Liberal protestantism (Durand's neo-protestantism)

When we come to this section of the Trinity in post-reformistic circles, we enter the hermeneutics of suspicion. Friedrich Schleiermacher was the son of a Moravian pastor and mother who was very faithful to the Word of God. They sent their children to be educated faithfully and spiritually but Schleiermacher and his friends secretly read books written with suspicion about the Scripture and became so bad that they were expelled from that school. They went to study at Halle and in letters to his father he denounced the veracity of the atonement and the role of Jesus Christ much to his father's horror. His roommate witnessed that Schleiermacher was skeptical with anything in the Bible. Schleiermacher's suspicious theology would become the popular theology of western Europe for the 19th century.

Schleiermacher was influenced by Rationalism and the Enlightenment. He wants to break with the metaphysical doctrine of God of the previous ages. He takes his point of departure from the religious subject (Durand 1976: 35). The doctrine of God's characteristics must constantly orientate itself to the spiritual selfconsciousness. For Schleiermacher the pious selfconsciousness is part of human and is present in his dependency feeling to a power outside of himself, and this is for Schleiermacher the consciousness of God. This consciousness of God falls apart in a number of Godly characteristics that corresponds with the variety of humanity's moments in life. He does not treat the characteristics of God as a separate part of his Glaubenlehre but spread it out over three chapter divisions thereof. This scheme is as follows: 1. the pious self-conscious as far as the relation with God is concerned, eternity, omnipresence, almight, and alwise God. 2. the pious self-conscious that is determined by the consciousness of sin. God's characteristics are holiness and justice. 3. the pious self-consciousness that is determined by grace. Salvation science and the characteristics are love and wisdom. God as the Living is for him the most important. He is against resting and working characteristics of God. For him the being of God and His acts cannot be separated. He interpreted thus the characteristics of God as causualities: Love works love. In the end, Schleiermacher also had a metaphysical image of God. God as living, acting Person is described by Schleiermacher in philosphical principles of cause.

Schleiermacher's treatment of the Trinity is at the end of his Doctrine of Faith. His subjectivism as point of departure is clear in his design of doctrine. He acknowledge a revelation-trinity because he felt that it answered satisfactory to the christian self-consciousness. About a being-trinity one cannot make a conclusion since it is beyond the limits of our sphere of religious knowledge (Durand 1976: 36).

Schleiermacher's views of Trinity were defective "The church doctrine of the Trinity demands that we should think each of the three persons equal to the Divine Being, and vice versa; and each of the three persons equal to the others. We are unable to do either the one or the other, but can only conceive the persons in a gradation; and in like manner the unity of the substance either less than the persons, or the contrary" (John F. Hurst, History of Rationalism [New York: Charles Scribner & Co, 1865], 244). Schleiermacher is eloquent about the Spirit but teaches that the Holy Spirit is only the common spirit of the Christian church as a corporate body striving after unity. The term "common spirit" which he employs, he understands to be the same as that used in world politics, that is, a common tendency in all, who form one moral person, toward the welfare of the whole. Here we can see the seeds of pluralism and ecumenism in his Holy Spirit doctrine. The Holy Spirit is for Schleiermacher the union of the Divine Being with human nature in the form of the common spirit animating the corporate life of the faithful. We must remember that Schleiermacher also rejected miracles, angels, Satan, and the Rebellion in Heaven Motif. He rejected, like Bultmann later in 1960's, the conception, resurrection, ascension, Advent and Judgement. For him sin was hurtfulness not guilt. "It is astonishing that we find so much truth and error concentrated in the same man" (Hurst 1865: 245).

Conclusion

It was in 1821 that Schleiermacher published his system of doctrine. This defective Trinity theologian affected many churches around the world at that time so much so that some of the early Adventist pioneers came out of churches that were affected by his defective views on the Trinity. We need to emphasize that the problem with Schleiermacher is that he wanted to build his views on psychology and in doing so is back with scholasticism that brought him increasingly in trouble with the Holy Scriptures and finally led to a rejection of cardinal aspects revealed about God in the Bible. The Holy Spirit was denied personhood and made a common spirit in us all and finally he must have come close to the Unitarian views that we picked up with some of the early pioneers of Adventism. Schleiermacher operated with the hermeneutics of suspicion in which reason replaces any faith.

A pamphlet was published in 1815 by two Unitarians, drs. Channing and Worcester which led to this movements split with orthodoxy. If one reads his books Ellery Channing, Works, Introductory Remarks [Boston: 1841-1846], viii and vi; xviii-xix (op. cit. Hurst 1865: 544), one cannot but think that he was influenced in his view of the Holy Spirit by Schleiermacher "What but a vague shadow, a sounding name, is the metaphysical Deity, the substance of modes, the being without properties, the naked Unity which performs such a part in some of our philosophical system. The only God whom our thoughts can rest on and our hearts can cling to, and our consciences can recognize is the God whose Image dwells in our own souls".

End item