The Trinity (by Nature) is Freedom (Geoff Holsclaw)

Last updated on: March 27, 2015 at 12:04 am by Scot McKnight

The Trinity (by Nature) is Freedom (Geoff Holsclaw) 2015-03-26T19:13:13-05:00 Scot McKnight

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Geoff Holsclaw is Affiliate Professor of Theology at Northern Seminary, and Director of their new Masters in Theology and Mission. You can also follow Geoff on Twitter and Facebook.

The Trinity (by Nature) Is Freedom

Does God love us because God has to, or wants to? Is God free to love us? Or is God compelled to love us?

These questions create the background of concern for Paul D. Molnar‘s chapter in Two views on the Doctrine of the Trinity. Last time we talked about Stephen R. Holmes’ “classical” view of the Trinity, and Molnar essentially builds on this view but with a more polemical edge.

Classical Definition

Molnar starts by stating his commitment the Nicene-Constantinoplitan Creed, that in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit there is “One Godhead, Power and Being of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, equal in Honour, Majesty and eternal Sovereignty in three most perfect Subsistences [hypostasesin], that is, in three perfect Persons [prosopois].”

For Molnar this entails several basic commitments.

1) The Three Persons are fully One God

2) God is Triune without and before creating or redeeming the world.

3) Or again, God in God’s self is not constituted by actions in the economy of creation and redemption.

As Molnar stresses throughout, God is Triune by nature (or substance, or essence, or whatever most basic category you prefer), but God creates and redeem in freedom. Molnar, as with Holmes, stresses that discussion of God’s nature or essence (“what” God is) is generally directed toward preserving mystery as a control over our ever-ready idolatrous language, looking for a way to fashion God in our own image. The emphasis on divine unity in classical formulas, therefore, was to safeguard mystery, not suppress diversity.

Knowing Too Much

Throughout much of the chapter Molnar takes aim at “social Trinitarian” construals of the Trinity because these start from human life-in-relationship (often “love”) as a clue to understanding the triune life of God. He sees this as problematic for several reasons (somewhat scattered throughout the chapter): 1) Molnar fears we will end up dissolving the mystery of the Trinity (we will say too much) in our own understandings of relationality. Arguments of take the shape of “Because love looks like this and feels like this and acts like this for us, so too must the Trinity.” We end up describing the inner life of the Trinity in terms borrowed from our experience. 2) Molnar worries that all we are really doing is projecting onto God our experiences. 3) And lastly, when we project our experiences we often reduce the “immanent” Trinity into the “economic” Trinity and therefore historicize the Trinity (again, Molnar doesn’t always explain why this is bad, he just states that it is bad).

Freedom Lost? Love Lost?

So why does it matter that we not import or project our categories of relationality into the Trinity? Well, Molnar does give one clear answer: Because too often we lose the freedom of God.

Starting with the Father-Son relationship, if we import our understanding of love (as “making room for another” a-la Moltmann), then part of the definition of Triune love seems also to include creation, for otherwise God would not be as loving as God could be by keep God’s own love within God, not others. If God only creates room within God for God (Father, and Son, and Spirit), then there is still no making room for the other because the Trinity is not really “other” but is the “same” as God. Therefore, for God to truly “make room for another” God would have to create the world as an expression and true fulfillment of love.

Molnar worries that while this sounds nice (and loving) what we have actually done is argue that God is compelled to love us (by basing it in his nature) rather insisting on God’s freedom to love us. God’s love should be understood as a “super-abundance” (something we can’t quite understand), but instead God’s love is now thought as “self-limitation”. Of course this conversation must be driven toward what Scripture thinks of love (which is often lacking all around), but Molnar worries that this type of projection of love (from our experience to God’s inner life) results in various heresies (modalism, panentheism, patripassianism, etc.), and often fails to uphold Christological categories of unity and distinction of the divine/human nature of Jesus (but that is for another blog series). All that to say, I agree with Molnar that often times strong understandings of the “social Trinity” often seem to require suffering and the fall in order for God to be truly loving, to actually be Trinity (which is pure Hegelianism, which is bad, but like Molnar I won’t explain why [wink]).

Sum Up

So Molnar desires to maintain the freedom of God to love us (in grace) by securing the Trinity of persons within the one nature of God, a Trinity that is Triune without and before creation and redemption (to ensure the gracious gift of both). All in all, Molnar’s chapter will convince the convinced, but probably won’t persuade those who long for a more relational understanding of the Trinity.

The second half of the book explores two examples of a more “relational” understanding of the Trinity, examples that seem to have learned from the excesses of some “social Trinitarian” models. To those we will turn next time.

Theology

Previous Post

March 26, 2015

Pope Francis: Death Penalty "Inadmissible"

Next Post

March 27, 2015 Easter Sunday: Christos Anesti

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Acts of the Apostles Adam Advent Anabaptism Angels Anglican Apologetics Atonement Baptism BCP Prayers Bible Biblical Studies Birds Blogging Bloglossary Bonhoeffer Books Calvinism Christianity Church Church History Coffee Colossians Commentary Recs Conversion Creation Creeds Culture Death Ecclesiastes Economics Education Embracing Grace Emergent Emerging Movement Eschatology Essays Ethics Eucharist Evangelicalism Family Fasting Fathers Fellowship of Differents Footsteps Tour Fun and Whimsical Gospel Grace Happiness Heaven Hell Holy Spirit Irenaeus James Jesus Jesus Creed Job Justification Kingdom of God Law Lectures Lent Liberalism Love and Marriage Mabanteneni Manhood Mary Miracles Missio Alliance MissioLife Missional Missional Jesus Movies and Film New Perspective Northern Seminary OneLife Origins Project Orthodox Parables Pastor's Spouse Pastoring and Leading Pastoring and Preaching Patristics Paul Paul-John Tour Pharisees Pietism Political Theology Prayer and Formation Preaching Problems for Faith Psalm 119 Psalms Public Issues Purgatory Religions Resurrection Revelation Romans Rule of JCreed Science and Faith Sermon on the Mount Sports Ten Commandments Theology Third Way Top Ten Lists Translations Uncategorized Universalism University Ministry Way Out Weekly Meanderings Wisdom Women and Ministry Work Worship Writing & Blogging Youth Ministry

Select a Month July 2021 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 0000

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What is the biblical view of work?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Only kings should work Work is a curse Work hard as for the Lord Avoid work