Zugl.: Heidelberg, Univ., Magisterarbeit, 2007

Since Schleiermacher, in nineteenth century, liberal theologians neglected the doctrine of the Trinity. However, on the basis of the Hegelian influence, leading 20th century theologians, Barth, Moltmann, Jüngel and Pannenberg revitalized the doctrine of the Trinity. This revitalization was however based on a re-interpretation of the Nicene theology, in which vital elements of Nicene theology and its reformed affirmation were altered by their approach to the doctrine of the Trinity. Reformed doctrine of the Trinity is based on the Nicene formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity. In order to make a reformed assessment of this revitalization of the doctrine of the Trinity, one first has to attend to its Nicene formulation. Nicene theologians interpret the doctrine of the Trinity on the basis of the Scripture against heresies. Athanasius confirms not only the Son’s ‘homoousia’ with the Father, but also the Spirit’s homoousia with the Father. In this regard, Athanasius protects the deity of the Son and the Spirit. Basil and the two Gregories follow Athanasius. They also apply the term ‘homoousia’ to the Spirit. Especially, the Cappadocian theologians set the following formula of the doctrine of the Trinity: One essence, three hypostaseis. For them, according to the particularity of their attributes, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinguished, however, according to their common essence, there is one God. Their main idea is that the three hypostaseis are equally God. They focus on the deity of the Son and the Holy Spirit against Arians and Pneumatomachians. They strongly emphasize the unity of nature or essence of God on the basis of the priority of theologia over economia. <ol> <li> Karl Barth’s starting point is the revelation of God. For him the doctrine of the Trinity is three repetitions of God himself: Revealer, Revelation, and Revealedness. Barth identifies the the immanent Trinity with the economic Trinity. From this, his Christology always refers to the ensarkos Logos. And he uses the term ‘Seinsweise’ instead of the term ‘person’.</li> <li> For Moltmann, the content of the doctrine of the trinity is the crucifixion of Christ itself, and the form of the crucified one is the Trinity. He focuses on the passibility of God. He also identifies the immanent with the economic Trinity. His social understanding of the concept of divine Person is based on panentheism.</li> <li> As with Moltmann Jüngel concentrates on the ‘death of God’. For him, the theology of the death of God is based on Luther’s theology of the cross. The Christian doctrine of the triune God is the epitome of the story of Jesus Christ. With Barth and Moltmann he identifies the immanent Trinity with the economic Trinity.</li> <li> Pannenberg’s doctrine of the Trinity implies the divine self-disclosure in Jesus Christ. His Christology is ‘from below. And Pannenberg’s concept of person is the reciprocal relationship between persons.’ He confirms the identification of the immanent Trinity and economic Trinity.</li> <li> Modern understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity on the basis of Panentheism differs from the Reformed tradition which emphasizes the distinction between the immanent Trinity and economic Trinity, and uses the notion of person as a metaphor of the distinction.</li></ol> The doctrine of the Trinity is closely connected with the Church since it is constituted by the Triune God. Therefore, the implications of the doctrine of the Trinity are important for practical church life. / Thesis (PhD)--University of Pretoria, 2008. / Dogmatics and Christian Ethics / unrestricted

Part 1. Chapter 1. Introduction: the Man and his work. The intellectual life of Russia at the turn of the century was marked by a lively interest in religious questions, and, in some circles, a cautious rapprochement between the intelligentsia and the Orthodox Church. Vladimir Lossky was born into an academic environment which looked more sympathetically upon traditional Christianity than had previously been usual: and the fact of his being brought up in a household both academic and (articulately and critically) Christian tends to set him apart from the religious thinkers of his father's generation (Bulgakov, Berdyaev, and others) who had discovered, or rediscovered, Orthodox faith in adult life adter experiencing disillusion with radicalism or Idealism, or both. Lossky's first major theological essay was, in fact, directed against the ethos of Russian 'religious philosophy', especially its preoccupation with the Wisdom of God (Sophia) as a cosmic principle. In this, as in later works, he pleads for a theology rooted in the historical experience of the Church and free from philosophical systems. His commitment to the 'historical experience' of the Church is reflected in his lifelong allegiance to the Patriarchate of Moscow as the only canonically authoritative Russian ecclesial body. His thinking on the relation between Church and culture was clarified in his experiences in the Second War, which also brought him into close association with several Catholic theologians. It was in this context that he first attempted a synthetic presentation of Orthodox dogma in his best-known work, the 'Essai sur la théologie mystique de l'Eglise d'Orient'. In the post-war period he continued his professional work as a mediaevalist at the Sorbonne, but continued to write on theological questions, developing, in particular, a distinctive approach to the concept of the human person and to the catholicity of the Church. He was much involved in ecumenical gatherings in France and England, and, in Paris, up to the time of his death, assisted in the training of clergy for the Patriarchal jurisdiction (though his hopes for the development of a western-rite group were frustrated). Chapter 2: The debate with Bulgakov. Superficially, Lossky's theology has much in common with that of Sergei Bulgakov, especially in their attitudes to tradition and catholicity, and Lossky's hostility to Bulgakov is surprising. However, a brief examination of Bulgakov's thought reveals its extensive dependence upon the notion of 'Sophia', the Divine Wisdom, as an all-embracing cosmic reality, both divine and human - a notion which Lossky rejects absolutely as deterministic, destructive of a proper sense of both divine and human freedom. He also condemns Bulgakov's Christology: the idea of 'Godmanhood', fundamental to Bulgakov's theology, jeopardises the reality of Christ's humanity, and tends to reduce the Incarnation to a manifestation of cosmic process. The basic theme of Lossky's critique is that Bulgakov's system, in Christology, ecclesiology, and Trinitarian theology, is dominated by metaphysical presuppositions incompatible with orthodox belief: it is insufficiently apophatic, too preoccupied with concepts. Lossky's own theology shows a marked and conscious reaction away from this kind of conceptualism. Chapter 3. The Via Negativa. The 'negative way' is not, for Lossky, merely a dialectical step in theology, a 'corrective' to affirmative theology: it is the essential ground of all theology. Theology beings in personal encounter with a personal God, an encounter which cannot be expressed in concepts; negative theology, which declines to speak of God in concepts, most closely reflects this basic reality. It is the μετάνοια, the conversion and self-sacrifice, of the intellect. The Greek patristic language about meeting God in 'darkness' is simply a 'dogmatic metaphor' for this experience, complementing, not contradicting the imagery of 'light': darkness and light together here represent the experience of transcending the sphere of the intellect. The history of early Christian spirituality shows a gradual movement towards a via media between intellectualism and agnosticism, a position which allows for both the absolute incomprehensibility of God in seipso, and His accessibility to man. This via media is expressed most fully by Gregory Palamas, but is anticipated by the Cappadocians, pseudo-Dionysius, and Maximus. It envisages God 'transcending His transcendence, expressing His unknowable 'essence' in His 'energies', His manifestation in the world. God's self-transcendence calls forth man's 'ecstacy'. The personal encounter of man with God is a mutual movement of self-giving: man is nearest to God and so most fully God-like in this movement. And since God is always fully personal, man is therefore most personal in the act of self-renunciation: negative theology alone is adequately 'personalist'. Chapter 4. Imago Trinitatis. Man is in the image of God because he is personal: he cannot be reduced to his 'nature', to what is common, repeatable and conceptualisable. He is more than an individual of a species; and this constitutes him in the image of God's trinitarian life, in which individuality is perfectly transcended in full communion. The Church, in which man realises his capacity for communion can also be called imago Trinitatis: it is a plurality of persons, each called and sanctified in a unique manner by the Spirit, sharing one nature, the humanity which Christ has restored and 'deified'. This 'trinitarian' life is what is designated by the term 'catholicity', the existence of the whole in the part. Lossky's method in discussing the theology of personality is resolutely Christocentric: the impossibility of interpreting ὑπόστᾰσις as 'individual' is established by an appeal to the inadmissibility of so interpreting it in Christology. Lossky's appeal to the Fathers in support of this thesis is, however, problematic: his concern to include the body in the imago Dei, and his understanding of ὑπόστᾰσις both lack a clear and consistent patristic foundation. Although he does genuinely build upon certain Greek patristic ideas, he is, as a 'personalist', essentially and inevitably - a -post-Augustinian'. The ambiguity of the patristic evidence raises the serious question of how far Lossky is justified in criticising Western theology (as he does) according to alledgedly patristic criteria. Chapter 5: The debate with the West (i). Lossky presupposes the unity of Christian theology; if one doctrinal topic is infected with error, the whole theological system is poisoned. In the West, it is the doctrine of the double procession of the Spirit, the filioque, which is the basic error: it suggests that the Spirit is somehow less personal than the Son, rejects the patristic idea that the Father is the sole source of 'cause' of the other persons, and so makes the unity of the Trinity reside not in the person of the Father but in a super-personal 'essence', that which is common to Father and Son. Western theology opts for a divine essence, in place of the living God of revelation: it is as much in thrall to philosophy as Bulgakov's system. Consequently, it is consistently impersonalist, not only in Trinitarian theology, but in its ecclesiology, its doctrine of grace, and its ascetical theology. Protestantism is as much conditioned as Catholicism by the basic assumption implicit in the filioque that real communion, sharing (in some sense) of substance, is impossible between God and man, because both are encapsulated in their 'essences'. Historically, Lossky's critique is often inaccurate and unjust; but he makes a good case, nonetheless, for the dominance, in much of Western theology, of conceptualism and impersonalism. There is little to correspond to Lossky's profound apophoticism and 'kenotic' idea of personality.

This thesis argues that Barth’s asymmetrical structuring of the Trinity in I/1, his doctrine of election in volume II, his concept of the humanity of Christ as the imago Dei in III/2 and his account of the obedience of the Son being reflected in his incarnate life, as detailed in IV/1 and IV/2, are not just coherent but mutually reinforcing. The thesis demonstrates that Barth uses a nexus of crucial terms, including ‘correspondence’ [Entsprechung], ‘reflection’ [reflex/Abbildung] and ‘overflowing’ [Ueberstroemen], to express that God’s actions and relationships ad extra reveal who God is. The concept of ‘correspondence’, tentatively present in the first two volumes, gathers pace through III/2 and achieves full force in volume IV, where the obedience of Christ in IV/2 ‘reflects’ or ‘mirrors’ the obedience of the Son in IV/1. Crucially, the fact that the economic Trinity ‘reflects’ the immanent Trinity, or (differently stated) that the immanent Trinity ‘overflows’ into the economy, establishes a direction, an asymmetry, to the relationship of ‘correspondence’. In ch. II of the thesis we argue that the asymmetry developed in the doctrine of the Trinity in I/1 is the basis for this asymmetric correspondence. Barth describes the triune life as one of giving and receiving existence, suggesting a divine order with an irreversible direction, an asymmetric order. This is shown to be particularly evident in Barth’s defence of the filioque clause which enables him to claim that the Spirit is the one in whom the ruling Father and obedient Son are united ad intra. On this basis we argue, in ch. III, that, when Barth revises his doctrine of election, he comes to see it as the event of triune reflection: the Father, Son and Spirit electing to reflect who they are with a direction of determination, an asymmetry, which is irreversible. In this respect we argue against Bruce McCormack, who sees election as the event in which God elects triunity. In ch. IV we read Barth’s III/2 account of the humanity of Christ as the imago Die, as an attempt to demonstrate that God’s economy of salvation corresponds to who he is. This theme comes into full focus in the first two part-volumes of volume IV, explored here in ch. V. The obedience of Christ reflects, corresponds to, the obedience of the Son. There is obedience in God. This concept, which so mystifies Paul Molnar and Rowan Williams, is shown to be theologically consistent with a doctrine articulated by Barth some thirty years previously: his asymmetrically structured doctrine of the Trinity.

Cette étude tend à étayer deux hypothèses : 1. La dévotion chrétienne à la Trinité Dieu un en trois Personnes doit sa fortune en Occident continental à la promotion qui lui a été réservée par l'Eglise carolingienne sous l'influence d'Alcuin. 2. Les débats théologiques à forte connotation trinitaire de la fin du 8e siècle, la querelle des images, la condamnation de ladoptianisme et la défense du filioque ont retenu lattention de Charlemagne, lont sensibilisé au danger que représentaient les divergences doctrinales pour lunité politique du royaume et lont finalement convaincu dassumer personnellement une part de la mission de prédication dévolue aux clercs. Ce travail se veut une histoire de la théologie franque ; une synthèse qui mette en exergue la subtile influence de la connaissance de Dieu sur la politique internationale de la fin du 8e siècle. Il propose une mise au point sur la place réellement dévolue au roi des Francs dans les débats théologiques et dans la propagation de la doctrine chrétienne à lheure de lunification du royaume, ainsi quune analyse des conséquences politiques et ecclésiologiques de l'adhésion franque à la position doctrinale de lévêque de Rome. Lenquête menée sur le rôle dévolu à Charlemagne dans les débats théologiques souvre sur un retour aux fondements religieux de la monarchie carolingienne. Au vu des conclusions les plus récentes relatives à lhistoriographie franque de la seconde moitié du 8e et du premier quart du 9e siècle, cette étude tend à rejeter catégoriquement lidée du sacre de Pépin par Boniface en 751. Elle propose de voir dans lonction conférée, en 754, par le pape Etienne II à Pépin et à ses deux fils la symbolique dune protection spirituelle accordée à la veille dun départ en campagne contre les Lombards. Les actes des conciles carolingiens attestent quaucun roi des Francs ne se prononça en matière doctrinale avant la dernière décennie du 8e siècle. Charlemagne ne peut revendiquer le titre de théologien ; jamais, dailleurs, il na prétendu être lautorité doctrinale de lOccident. Largement influencé par Alcuin, il sest, néanmoins, peu à peu imposé comme un roi prédicateur (rex praedicator). La chronologie de la querelle adoptianiste met en exergue linterpénétration des trois débats théologiques dès la fin de lété 792. Ces controverses éclatèrent à la veille de lan 800 qui devait, selon les calculs de Bède le Vénérable, coïncider avec lavènement du « Temps de lEglise » fixé en lan 6000 (AM). Ce contexte millénariste a probablement contribué à exacerber les querelles. Contrairement à ce qui a longtemps été affirmé, ladoptianisme ne peut être assimilé à lhérésie du patriarche dAntioche Nestorius qui, au début du 5e siècle, distinguait deux Personnes dans le Christ. Ladoptianisme est une tentative de sauvegarde du monothéisme trinitaire. Les théologiens espagnols de la fin du 8e siècle portaient laccent sur lhumanité du Christ, qualifié dadopté, comme instrument de la Rédemption, en distinguant la mission de lHomme-Jésus de celle du Verbe. Les Francs et la papauté nont pas compris ou pas voulu comprendre que, dans ce modèle christologique, les termes adoptivus et adoptio n'ont pas d'équivalence avec ceux d'assumptus ou d'assumptio. Ils ont refusé dadmettre que le terme adoption désigne le résultat de la kénose fait que le Verbe se soit vidé de sa divinité pour se remplir dhumanité plutôt que la création dun lien artificiel de filiation. Cette recherche concède au concile de Ratisbonne (792) une place bien plus grande que celle qui lui est traditionnellement réservée dans lhistoire tant politique que religieuse du royaume franc ; sans le synode de Ratisbonne, celui de Francfort (794) naurait pu être ce quil a été : le haut lieu de la manifestation des compétences des théologiens carolingiens. La méthode de réfutation des hérésies utilisée en Francia durant la dernière décennie du 8e siècle révèle lattachement des théologiens carolingiens à la tradition scripturaire, patristique et conciliaire garantie par lautorité romaine. Ces querelles témoignent du souci de Charlemagne dimposer son Eglise parmi les plus hautes instances doctrinales en soulignant toute la faiblesse de linterprétation orientale ou byzantine des écritures. Le roi entendait incontestablement affranchir définitivement lEglise franque de lautorité théologique de lempereur dOrient, seul domaine dans lequel Byzance pouvait encore prétendre prévaloir contre lOccident. Les campagnes franques déradication de la doctrine adoptianiste dans le Sud de lEurope furent brutalement interrompues à la suite des tractations diplomatiques menées, à la cour franque, par les ambassades du roi des Asturies en vue denrayer les ambitions expansionnistes carolingiennes dans la péninsule ibérique. Ces événements offrent une autre preuve de la récupération des questions doctrinales à des fins politiques. Ces querelles contribuèrent au renouvellement et au développement de la pensée théologique en Occident. Elles dynamisèrent le processus de formation des prêtres et encouragèrent lenseignement et la mémorisation du Credo trinitaire en gage dadhésion à la foi chrétienne, premier critère dappartenance à lEmpire franc et chrétien, né le 25 décembre 800.