Trinity

Reviews the historical origins and principal elements of Karl Rahner's critique of Thomas Aquinas and Bernard Lonergan. Argues that Rahner's critique fails to come to terms with the basic problematic of Trinitarian theology, and misunderstands the significance of Thomas Aquinas's achievement.

Wayne Grudem is known for rejecting the "eternal generation of the son" and revising the historic doctrine of the Trinity (i.e., asserting the eternal subordination of the son) to re-enforce permanent female subordination. The argument is that women should always submit to men in the world just as Jesus always submitted to God the Father. This debacle came to a head at the 2016 Evangelical Theological Society Annual Meeting in San Antonio, TX, which was themed "The Trinity."
The following transcript is a portion of the post-panel discussion Q and A where audience members in the hotel ball room asked questions to Grudem. There, it was revealed that Grudem changed from his former views, now adopting eternal generation, though still maintaining his original argument for women's subordination and male headship. A half dozen books have been written about this controversy in the last decade, three of which are cited in this PDF.

The panel consisted of Sam Storms (moderator and then President elect of ETS), Kevin Giles, Millard Erickson, Bruce Ware, and Wayne Grudem.

Inanna is typically the waning out of the feminine spirituality of Pre-Ice-Age Homo Sapiens to the masculine spirituality of Neolithic time. We are dealing with Sumerian mythology and it is the matrix of at least two Semitic religions, Judaism and Christianity.

Inanna is the last omnipotent goddess and she is becoming a triple goddess, the merging of three divine principles into one, which Greek mythology and other European mythologies will do whereas Christianity invest this ternary pattern directly in the trinity of the omnipotent and omniscient god.

That shift corresponds to the social development from the hunting and gathering ancient prehistoric society to the agricultural and pastoral society that completely changed the position of women.

This essay was published in The Bible and Early Trinitarian Theology, edited by Christopher A. Beeley and Mark E. Weedman, for the CUAP Studies in Early Christianity (Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2018); this is the uncorrected proofs. Exploring the humanity and divinity of Jesus, the Son's relation to the Father, and the agency of the Holy Spirit, it is one of five essays suggesting Johannine contributions to trinitarian discussions in the early church.

PROLOGUE of this paper is an extreme detail analysis of Chartres Cathedral's the symbolism embedded into the three Rose Windows. The whole purpose of this paper is to illustrate how Ezekiel's Merkabah is symbolized by the North and South Rose Windows. This analysis will demonstrate the pivotal esoteric teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. The history of Chartres will be discussed along with some of its sculpture. This is the second paper in a three part series on the analysis of Ezekiel's Merkabah. Part-One of the series will be on Ezekiel's Merkabah in the first chapter of Genesis and Part Three will be on Ezekiel's Merkabah laid out symbolically in the Sistine Chapel. Part-Two of the series is published first; because, I was well into writing it and; because, I had already written a paper on Ezekiel's Merkabah in the first chapter of Genesis; however, that second version has to be revised to incorporate other interpretations of the texts of the first chapter of Genesis in order for the initiate to envisage the symbolism laid out in Chartres Cathedral and the Sistine Chapel.

Go here for uncorrected proofs: http://kellenplaxco.weebly.com/uploads/2/6/5/4/26547638/vc_070_04_1277-plaxco.pdf

This article provides an account of Didymus’s subtle attention to theological nuance and invites readers to reconsider his importance for the theological debates of the late fourth century. The polemical shape of Didymus the Blind’s theology of the trinity is underdetermined. This article argues that Didymus responded to Eunomius’s first Apology. The argument takes the shape of a short history of the reception of John 16:14. This verse was used in anti-monarchian tradition to distinguish the Holy Spirit from the Son, but it also led to low pneumatologies that in some cases implied angelomorphic pneumatology. Eunomius’s pneumatology in Apology 25 is a radicalization of this anti-monarchian reading of John 16:14, which Didymus opposed with careful attention to Scripture’s usage of terms for “pouring out.”

The subject of the Holy Spirit has always been very important
for the church of Jesus Christ. This is also true for the last few
generations of believers. This book is basically a word study. It
follows the use of the word "spirit" in the Old and in the New
Testament as it points to the Spirit of God. It tries to cover all
relevant contexts in an orderly and systematic way. The different
bible passages are not only given as references but quoted fully
so that the reader can follow the subject through the Bible in
the words of the Holy Scriptures. Often the immediate context
is included in the quotation to enable the reader's perception of
the different meanings of the relevant phrases within their proper
setting.
Following this overview, it becomes very clear that the Holy
Spirit was always very active in the salvation history of God's
people. He also took part in creation and is still active in main-
taining life on earth. The Holy Spirit is God. He is divine. As
members of the New Covenant we can never be too grateful
for the gift of the Holy Spirit through Jesus Christ.

Il capitolo approfondisce l'idea che lo studio della Trinità è necessario per conoscere chi è l’uomo. Più approfondiamo il mistero del Dio Trino, più capiremo chi è l’essere umano e qual è il suo destino eterno. L'uomo è creato a immagine di un Dio Triunico, questo lo fa una creatura dipendente, relazionale e orientato verso la vita eterna, l'eschaton.

Cet article du Figaro est en quelque sorte surprenant car il ne contient pas même un lien vers le mémoire de l'étudiante et il est donc un peu réducteur, définitivement scolastique et assurément superficiel. Il ressort cependant que l'étudiante en queston hésiterait entre le positionnement dans un multi-quelquechose qui n'est pas vraiment précisé et une neutralité qui serait la simple négation de la dualité gauche-droite comme si une telle négation était un non-réel, une virtualité du type "limbes" bibliques alors que c'est bien au contraire l'assertion  d'une troisième dimension, vous savez le 3D?

The present paper intends to focus on the laic dimension of the trinitarian principle, analys-ing – in particular – some passages of Antonio Rosmini’s Theosophy. The main thesis is that in the Italian thinker there is a laic way to introduce Trinity into philosophical dis-course, where “laic” does not mean a rationalistic reduction of the Trinitarian mystery, but – as the etymological meaning suggests – its popular use, which does not make Trinity “embarrassing” for philosophical argumentation. On the contrary, far from being exclusive pre-rogative of theologians, the Trinitarian one is a laic principle that describes the grammar of being and that, therefore, has to be used in ontology as an authentic perspective of thinking, and also as form of thinking itself.

E. Pili, La Trinità è laica. Rosmini e il rapporto tra filosofia e rivelazione, «Quaderni di InSchibbolleth», 12 (2/2019), pp. 173-186

현대의 많은 학자들이 오웬의 신학을 삼위일체적이라고 규정했다. 대표적으로 싱클레어 퍼거슨, 칼 트루먼, 켈리 캐픽, 브라이언 키, 피터 드 프리스 등은 삼위일체론이야말로 오웬 신학의 핵심이라고 주장한다.

퍼거슨은 오웬을 가리켜 “깊이 있는 삼위일체론적 신학자”라고 부른다. 트루먼은 “오웬의 작품을 통틀어 –그 작품들이 신론이나 구원론, 혹은 칭의론을 다루든 상관없이- 삼위일체론은 언제나 근본적이다.”라고 주장한다.

오웬 자신도 다음과 같이 쓴 적이 있다. “삼위일체론을 제거해 보라. 다음과 같은 두 가지가 사라져 버릴 것이다. 성자 안에서 성부에 의해 주어지는 은혜의 목적이 있을 수 없게 되어, 그 목적에 따라 실행이 이뤄지는 언약이 없어진다. 또한 사랑과 선의 모든 열매의 근거가 영혼으로부터 박탈된다.”

삼위일체론은 오웬의 전체 작품에 두루 나타난다. 그의 주요 작품 중에 하나인 『그리스도의 죽음 안에서 죽음의 죽음』(1647)이라는 작품은 삼위일체론에 근거하여 제한속죄 교리를 설명하고 있다. 『복음의 변호들』(1655)이라는 작품에서 오웬은 초기 잉글랜드 유니테리언이었던 존 비들(John Biddle)을 비판하는데, 그때에도 역시 다양한 성경 구절을 근거로 삼위일체론을 옹호한다. 오웬은 『성부, 성자, 성령 하나님, 구별된 각 위격과의 교제에 관하여』(1657)라는 책도 썼다. 대작(大作), 『히브리서 주석』(1668-84)에서도 오웬은 삼위일체론을 여러 곳에서 다루었다. 오웬은 삼위일체론을 지지하는 소품, 『삼위일체론에 대한 짧은 선언과 옹호』(1669)을 남기기도 했다. 그 외에도 오웬의 다양한 작품들이 삼위일체론과 연관되는데, 예를 들어 『그리스도의 위격에 관하여』, 『그리스도의 영광에 대한 묵상들과 설교들』, 『성령에 대한 설교』, 『기도 안에서 성령의 사역에 관하여』, 『성령과 그분의 사역에 관하여』라는 작품들이 그러하다. 『이신칭의 교리』라는 작품에서도 역시 오웬은 그리스도의 의의 전가 교리를 삼위일체론과 연관시켜서 설명한다.

이 글에서는 이상과 같은 오웬의 주요 작품들에 나타난 삼위일체론을 다룰 것이다. 하지만 오웬의 삼위일체론이 가지는 모든 측면들을 다룰 수는 없으므로, 현재 이슈가 되고 있는 하나의 논의를 중심으로 접근하면서 그의 삼위일체론을 설명하겠다. 특히 오웬의 삼위일체론에 핵심적으로 등장하는 두 교리, “삼위의 분리불가적인 작용에 대한 교리(Doctrine of Inseparable Operations)”와 “작용의 종단에 대한 교리(Doctrine of Terminus Operationis)”를 중심으로 하여 그의 삼위일체론의 특징을 설명하겠다.

Contrary to much of the recent literature on the trinitarian theology of John Owen, which often ascribes radical personal distinction to his account of triune relations and actions, this paper argues that Owen's account of distinct divine persons and trinitarian actions ought not to be contrasted with his theological forebears: Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and Calvin. Instead, his account of trinitarian ontology and operation is thoroughly consistent with (and dependent upon) the Augustinian principles that these interpreters suspect Owen is rejecting. The argument unfolds by presenting four putative points of strong personal distinction in John Owen's trinitarian theology and then reinterpreting each of the themes and passages that these four points are supposedly rooted in, evidencing his Augustinian account of trinitarian unity and distinction.

El presente trabajo intenta llenar un vacío concreto en la comprensión de la teología trinitaria de Buenaventura: la primitas del Padre, presente en los fundamentos de todo su discurso teológico. Nunca hasta ahora ha sido este tema objeto de una investigación sistemática. Existen algunas aportaciones parciales que -a pesar de ser muy importantes- no son suficientes, porque no estudian al Padre en el amplio horizonte trinitario de Buenaventura.

This article will research the philosophical system known as Thomism to ascertain whether it will support the Doctrine of the Trinity in light of God’s simplicity. An emphasis will be made on what kinds of distinctions and relations are possible among the Divine Persons as stated by Thomism without violating God’s simplicity.

The statement that a human being is a soul and a body is not sufficient. The way their union comes about in the mutual creation of one human being is what matters. Moreover, the spiritual substance of a human being has a different structure than the material substance, yet there is some similarity, indeed something in common. The most difficult issue refers to the existence of the spiritual element in the body, which unites it with the soul and creates the human body out of it. The combination of body and soul, as well as the human community, has its structure. Individual human beings and communities are engrafted in the life of the Triune God. The substantial structure of a human being constitutes the foundation of the social structure and coherent wholeness with the structure of life of the Divine Persons.

La Trinité ou Le Trône de grâce, fresque monumentale (667 cm de haut sur 317 cm de large) réalisée sur la troisième travée de la nef gauche de l'église Santa Maria Novella, fut l’oeuvre du peintre florentin Tommaso di Giovanni Cassai alias Masaccio (1401 – 1428). Peinte entre 1425 et 1427, au matin du Quattrocento, siècle durant lequel les arts mécaniques – peintures, architectures, sculptures – sont réhabilités, signant ainsi les prémisses de la future Renaissance italienne, l’oeuvre s’inscrit dans un cadre spatio-temporel dans lequel l’Église et la religion catholique détiennent une place centrale dans la vie des fidèles, c’est-à-dire de la majorité des Européens. L’artiste du Bas Moyen Âge peint ainsi son œuvre dans un lieu de culte sous le contrôle des dominicains. Le commanditaire nous est cependant inconnu. Si des hypothèses à son sujet ont été avancées par les historiens de l’art, aucune n’est assez concluante pour pouvoir affirmer un quelconque semblant de vérité.
Réalisée lors d’une période complexe, véritable nœud chronologique à la croisée de deux âges – entre la pré-Renaissance des Duecento et Trencento et la Haute Renaissance –, l’œuvre nous met face à de multiples interrogations, historiques comme artistiques. Pourquoi celle-ci représente typiquement les mentalités de l’époque, lesquelles sont régies par la foi envers le Christ ? Pourquoi l’œuvre, encore grandement influencée par l’esthétique médiévale dévoile, en fait, des caractéristiques proprement modernes, à l’aune du Quattrocento ? Afin de répondre à ces interrogations, nous tâcherons d’abord de décrire et de déceler la signification iconographique de l’œuvre, avant d’analyser sa plastique et sa stylistique. Nous terminerons par une remise dans son contexte de l’œuvre par le biais de comparaisons.

An internationally recognized scholar highlights the important role the North African church played in the development of Christian thought. This accessible introduction brings Africa back to the center of the study of Christian history by focusing on key figures and events that influenced the history and trajectory of Christianity as a whole. Written and designed for the classroom, the book zeroes in on five turning points to show how North African believers significantly shaped Christian theology, identity, and practice in ways that directly impact the church today.