Trinitas

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.

John's Logos-hymn reflect a response to the Johannine narrative, functioning with other Christological hymns to pose a Jewish challenge to Empire and its divine-Caesar cult. It is added to the final edition of John as an experientially engaging introduction. Published in Creation Stories in Dialogue: The Bible, Science, and Folk Traditions (Radboud Prestige Lecture Series by Alan Culpepper), eds. R. Alan Culpepper and Jan van der Watt, BINS 139 (Leiden: E.J. Brill 2016)--uncorrected proofs.

Jesus speaks three words - or sayings - to Thomas in a moment of revelation, and when his comrades urge Thomas to reveal them he issues a warning: "If I tell you one (...) you will stone me (...)"

Which are these words that have such a profound impact?

The 'where' can be disclosed already; they're right in the text where they have been hiding in plain sight all along, for two millennia

Tauhid dan Trinitas adalah konsep sentral di dalam Islam dan Kristen sebab berhubungan dengan hakikat terdalam tradisi keagamaan sekaligus penanda utama dari keunikan identitas masing-masing. Melalui pemahaman akan Allah yang trinitarian–Bapa, Anak, dan Roh Kudus–kekristenan muncul dalam sejarah sebagai sebuah identitas yang unik. Demikian juga melalui pemahaman akan Allah yang Esa–walau berada di tengah pusat peribadahan kepada banyak dewa-dewi–Islam mendaku sebagai kelanjutan yang sah dari iman monoteisme Abraham. Melalui artikel ini, penulis hendak menunjukkan bagaimana pertemuan Tauhid dan Trinitas di dalam sejarah Kristen dan Islam lebih didominasi oleh polemik dan konfrontasi, terutama di masa lampau, namun di masa kini dialog muncul sebagai salah satu ciri dari perjumpaan keduanya. Hal ini dapat menjadi kunci bagi hubungan yang lebih harmonis di dunia plural masa kini.

In his extant letters and speeches, Emperor Constantine often referred to God. However, these references were seldom theological elaborations on the concept of God. Instead, they were usually limited to the use of certain ambiguous titles of God. Accordingly, this article examines the emperor’s concept of God with the help of the so-called title-theology. Arguably, Constantine’s understanding of God developed from inclusive “pagan” henotheism to a qualified Christian monotheism, yet so that it retained the promise of accommodating various views of God. Vagueness in theological matters served the purpose of establishing the widest possible religious consensus in the Roman Empire. At the same time, this calculated vagueness also enabled different interpretations of Constantine’s theological utterances and perhaps contributed indirectly to the Trinitarian controversies within the Christian church. A comparison between Constantine’s concepts of God and that of Nicaea shows both a significant agreement and the existence of different underlying incentives.

Head of the Department of Church Archaeology of the Central Museum of Ancient Russian Culture and Art named in honour of St. Andrei Rublev proposes a multilateral iconological review of Byzantine and Russian icons "Philoxenia of Abraham" and "Saint Trinity". The author does not avoid the attention typology adopted by most researchers in the interpretation of image of the Holy Trinity, as well as the question of its dogmatic justification.

This article builds on C. S. Peirce’s suggestive blueprint for an inclusive outlook that grants reality to his three categories. Moving away from the usual focus on (contentious) cosmological forces, I use a modal principle to partition various ontological layers: regular sign-action (like coded language) subsumes actual sign-action (like here-and-now events) which in turn subsumes possible sign-action (like qualities related to whatever would be similar to them). Once we realize that the triadic sign’s components are each answerable to this asymmetric subsumption, we obtain the means to track at which level of complexity semiosis finds itself, in a given case. Since the bulk of such a “trinitarian” metaphysics would be devoted to countenancing un-interpreted phenomena, I argue that current misgivings about sign-based ontologies are largely misplaced.

This is a syllabus for a summer course on the Trinity.  Each class day on the schedule is equivalent to three days of a semester class that would meet twice per week (i.e., three 75-minute sessions). 
Rather than using a traditional textbook, I assign primary text readings to show first-hand how the doctrine has been discussed at different times and in different places throughout the history of the Church.

This article studies the role of theological preunderstanding in interpreting the text of Scripture in the middle of the fourth century CE. It investigates Hilary of Poitier’s use of Scripture in Trinitarian controversies, his hermeneutical approach in his De Trinitate, and his theological exegesis of John 1:1-2. It is contended that Hilary’s pro-Nicene theology determined his particular reading of the opening verses of the Gospel of John. The article demonstrates how this exactly worked. Encountering the exegesis of Arius/‘Arians’/Latin Homoeans, Hilary attempted to show that the Son was eternally born from the Father and therefore, one could not speak about the temporal or even pre-temporal beginning of the Son’s existence. The Son already ‘was’ ‘in the beginning’.

Sungguh, Kami telah memberikan wahyu kepadamu (Muhammad) sebagaimana Kami telah memberikan wahyu kepada Nuh dan nabi-nabi kemudian, dan Kami telah memberikan wahyu (juga) kepada Ibrahim, Ismail, Ishak, Ya'qub dan anak-anaknya, Isa, Ayyub, Yunus, Harun dan Sulaiman. Dan Kami memberikan Zabur kepada Dawud.(QS.An Nisa':33)

This article investigates the implications of the ancient nomos/physis debate to Trinitarian theology. While the Cappadocians, countering Heteroousians, eventually demonstrated that naturalist understanding of naming did not work for Christian theology, Hilary still assumed that it did. Hilary is usually grouped with naturalists who held that names were not arbitrary and conventional impositions, but that they corresponded to the nature of what they designated. Yet, there are several complications with such a grouping, because not all naturalists (e.g., Cratylus, Stoics, Origen, Eunomius) say the same thing, focus on same issues, have theological interest in names, or agree with Hilary. Accordingly, this paper will argue that Hilary can be called a “naturalist” only in a qualified sense.

Topik ini sebenarnya merupakan topik yang sangat menarik dalam iman Kristen, sehingga perumusan atau penjelasan mengenai Roh Kudus dan Trinitas ini cukup mendapat sambutan yang luar biasa. Doktrin ini sejatinya kita dapat melihat bahwa, doktrin Trinitas itu bukan ciptaan orang Kristen semata tetapi itu merupakan perwujudan dari kepenuhan bagi Allah yang dinyatakan dalam sejarah. Bila kita melihat secara ontologi, kita tidak bisa menafikan bahwa Allah itu bernatur "Trinitarian" (Bapa, Firman dan Roh Kudus). Berbicara mengenai realisasi dari personalitas Allah tidak ada yang benar-benar tunggal atau satu, semua itu tidak pernah tunggal yang benar-benar satu. Semua selalu dimulai dari "Dual" atau dua. Bila melihat eksistensi dalam benda, itu hanya mencakup "dual" (eksistensi dan juga nama dari benda itu). Sedangkan pada konteks Nature manusia itu polanya "Trinitarian", jadi ada eksistensi kemanusiaan kita, lalu ada roh kita yang membuat kita hidup sebagaimana Allah menghembuskan nafas kepada Adam pada saat penciptaan dan juga nama dari nature kita. Maka dengan demikian manusia tidak pernah selalu datangnya tunggal, pasti selalu "Trinitarian". Jadi bila kita melihat gambaran secara logis dengan dataran pengertian yang lebih kepada Humanitas kita maka tidak ada alasan untuk menolak "Trinitas". Terkadang kita suka terbentur dengan persoalan "Logos" menjadi manusia. Bila kita bertanya mengapa Allah harus menjelma menjadi manusia dan tidak menjadi yang lain ? Jawabannya apa kepentingannya sehingga Allah harus menjadi yang lain ? Jadi dalam hal ini Allah menjadi manusia karena ada keperluan dalam konteks penebusan. Penebusan sebagaimana dalam perjanjian lama itu memiliki konsep kurban yang dipersembahkan oleh Nabi dan juga orang Israel sebagai pengganti dari manusia yang berdosa. Sekarang bila kita cermati seandainya manusia yang berdosa itu harus dihukum mati, pertanyaannya: Adakah manusia sekarang yang hidup di hadapan Allah yang tidak berdosa? Jawabannya jelas tidak ada, karena semua manusia itu berdosa maka kecenderungan hatinya melahirkan dosa, dan semua itu kita terima dari dosa Adam dan Hawa. Kalau mengikuti pola pikir kita mana mungkin ada manusia di bumi ini yang dapat menebus dosanya. Maka dari itulah kepentingan dari inkarnasi logos menjadi manusia itu tidak bisa dilepaskan.

La presente ricerca – Premio Bellarmino 2019 – si pone l’obiettivo di istruire un confronto tra le prospettive trinitarie di Bonaventura da Bagnoregio e Tommaso d’Aquino a partire dai loro Commenti alle Sentenze del maestro Pietro Lombardo. Questi testi vengono spesso relegati in secondo piano negli studi dei due autori, ma la loro analisi presenta numerosi punti di interesse: affrontano tutte le questioni teologiche fondamentali; si prestano ottimamente a essere comparati, in quanto trattano i medesimi argomenti in parallelo; mostrano uno dei vertici della profondità tecnica e teologica dei due maestri. Il confronto si concentra su due temi di primaria importanza nel contesto accademico scolastico. Il primo tema è la ragione della distinzione tra le processioni divine, che risulta la chiave di accesso per comprendere ogni distinzione in Dio Trinità. Come è possibile che due azioni immanenti in Dio siano realmente distinte? Si vedrà la proposta “qualitativa” di Bonaventura e quella “quantitativa” di Tommaso. Il secondo tema è la teologia della persona divina, che Bonaventura articola attraverso i classici concetti di proprietà, relazione, emanazione e origine, mentre Tommaso studia secondo due prospettive differenti, che abbiamo chiamato efficiente e formale. La ricerca include l’analisi di alcuni aspetti di Agostino, Boezio, Riccardo di San Vittore e Pietro Lombardo.

The aim of this thesis is to compare the Trinitarian theologies of Saint Bonaventure and Saint Thomas Aquinas with respect to the first book of their Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard. The first chapter of the study includes their biographies and describes their academic studies; it also contains the main bibliography and discusses the structure of the Book of Sentences. In the second chapter, important reference authors are studied: Peter Lombard, obviously, but also Augustine, Boethius and Richard of Saint Victor. The study of the two medieval schoolmasters then begins. The third chapter deals with the concept of distinction in God, especially between the two divine processions; Generation and Spiration are really distinct, but the reasons for this distinction are characterized differently by Aquinas and Bonaventure. In the last two chapters, the theology of the divine person is studied. As for Bonaventure, the fourth chapter points out his concept of a person in the Trinity, linking the classical views of property, relation, emanation and origin together. For Aquinas, the fifth chapter describes two perspectives on the divine person. It’s proposed to recognize two viewpoints in his text: an “efficient perspective”, based on the idea of the relation of origin and a “formal perspective” that uses terms like essence, person and relation.

From my correspondence with an African American willing to undertake studies in Egyptology in order to contribute to the his community's need of cultural and spiritual betterment.
https://megalommatiscomments.wordpress.com/2017/11/15/the-yet-untold-truth-of-ancient-egypt-africans-best-path-to-identity-integrity-and-spirituality/

Bapa tidak berasal dari siapapun, tidak diperanakan dan tidak diciptakan. Bapa memperanakan Anak, dimana kata "memperanakan" disini berarti "melahirkan". Anak dilahirkan dari Bapa sejak kekekalan bukan karena kehendak Bapa tapi memang natur-Nya. Bapa adalah pribadi yang sempurna dan yang tidak terbatas oleh waktu sehingga semua gambar diri-Nya dapat dilahirkan dengan komplit dan sempurna. Gambaran Bapa yang sempurna tersebut adalah Sang Anak, yaitu ide, perkataan, pengetahuan, kebenaran, dan kebijaksanaan Sang Bapa. Bapa menunjukkan perbuatan cinta kepada Anak dan begitu pula sebaliknya. Perbuatan cinta tersebut adalah Roh Kudus. Roh Kudus keluar dari Bapa dan dihembuskan keluar oleh Anak. Dalam pengajaran kepada siswa mengenai ke-tritunggal-an Allah, siswa mungkin akan mempertanyakan hal-hal seperti apakah berarti Bapa telah ada lebih dulu dari Anak atau apakah Bapa sama dengan Anak. Guru Kristen dapat menjawab pertanyaan ini dengan perumpamaan api dan cahaya.
Rika Kristyanti Praba Gracia (18 ELT1 / 01101180016)

This article was written for the forthcoming Volume of Studia Patristica on the basis of my presentation in the workshop 'Neoplatonism and the Fathers' on 12th August 2015.
Abstract: Act of vision is an important analogy used to describe the proceeding of the Intellect from the One in the metaphysical system of Plotinus. It implies that the formation of the universal Intellect is achieved through the process of intellectual contemplation of the First principle, the One, when the Intellect receives its independent existence as a separate divine substance. Latin Christian Platonists, Marius Victorinus and St. Augustine of Hippo, borrowed this idea from Plotinus to describe how the Son and the Holy Spirit originate from the Father. According to Victorinus, the Son is begotten by the Father (the pure divine Being) as a primary movement or life, which corresponds to the intellectual vision which has not yet perceived its object, while the Holy Spirit represents a return of this indefinite intellectual vision to the Father, thus constituting divine Intelligence, or Self-Consciousness. On the other hand, St. Augustine, for the sake of his trinitarian theology, used to construct so-called trinities of the 'external' and 'internal vision', where the first element – an object of vision or immaterial form of an object in the human mind (resembling God the Father) – is connected with the second element – so-called inner vision or gaze of the mind, which receives from it its own form (resembling the Son) – through an intention of the will, uniting these two elements and representing their mutual love (resembling the Holy Spirit). Thus the doctrine of Plotinus was interpreted differently by both Christian thinkers to serve the needs of the Christian Trinitarian theology as a rational means to explain the mystery of the Holy Trinity.

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that due to the so‐called “accusation of Christomonism” made especially by the Orthodox observers during the Vatican II sessions, the pneumatology of French theologian Yves Congar proceeded to develop in a way that would have never happened without such a reproach. We will go through the accusation itself, its theological consequences, and then we will study the direct and indirect responses of Congar. Was Congar even aware of the effects that this accusation had on his theology?

It is usually thought that only one being can be all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving. Challenging this monotheist conviction, I propose a universe ruled by two deities: ‘day shift God’ oversees the events that occur while the sun is up, whereas ‘night shift God’ oversees the events that occur while the sun is down. I survey objections to this proposal and conclude that the real obstacle is not an argument, but an aesthetic preference.

Il concetto di processione compare nella Scrittura e nelle prime riflessioni ecclesiali, descrivendo la vita intima di Dio. L'articolo mette a tema il problema della distinzione della generazione e della spirazione nell'assoluta e semplice unità di Dio. Se Agostino e Pietro Lombardo indicano come incomprensibile la ragione di tale distinzione, Riccardo di San Vittore e Alberto Magno propongono alcune soluzioni. La presente ricerca si concentra sulle posizioni teologiche di Bonaventura e Tommaso d'Aquino, provando ad evidenziare, a partire dalle ragioni di questa distinzione, alcuni tratti della loro teologia.

The concept of Procession appears in the Scriptures and in early ecclesial reflections , and describes the intimate life of God. This article examines the problem of the distinction between generation and spiration in the absolute and simple unity of God. If Augustine and Peter Lombard indicate the reason for such a distinction as being incomprehensible, Richard of Saint Victor and Albert the Great put forward some solutions. This present research concentrates on the theological positions of Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas, attempting to highlight some traits of their theology, beginning with the reasons for this distinction.

Paolo Brambilla, LA DISTINZIONE DELLE PROCESSIONI DIVINE IN BONAVENTURA E TOMMASO, La Scuola Cattolica 146 (2018) 535-564.

Di quale “natura divina” (cf. 2 Pt 1, 4) siamo resi partecipi? L’articolo si propone di rispondere all’interrogativo attraverso un confronto fra due punti di vista, uno cattolico e l’altro ortodosso, partendo dal diverso modo di concepire il rapporto fra Trinità immanente ed economica, che si pone a fondamento della visione di ciò che la teologia chiama, nella Chiesa d’Occidente, “dottrina della grazia”, e in quella d’Oriente, “divinizzazione”. Il punto di domanda prevede una risposta che concerne, dunque, prima di tutto una comprensione maggiore di ciò che di Dio l’uomo è reso partecipe (di Se stesso? delle sue energie?), intendendo poi se tale partecipazione è riferita unicamente all’unità della Sua natura, o specificatamente a ciascuna delle Persone divine. A distanza di 50 anni, la constatazione di Rahner di un mistero trinitario solo professato e non vissuto nella pratica religiosa, si fa ancora attuale e ci conduce a voler nuovamente, con questo scritto, riportare la Trinità sulla terra, nell’esistenza di ogni cristiano, chiamato a prendere coscienza e a vivere da “familiare di Dio” (Ef 2, 19).

Glenn D. Butner is Assistant Professor of Theology and Christian Ministry at Sterling College, KS. Prior to The Son who Learned Obedience (subsequently, SLO), he authored articles on the Trinity including, “For and Against de Régnon: Trinitarianism East and West,” (International Journal of Systematic Theology 17.4) 2015, 399-412, and “Eternal Functional Subordination and the Problem of the Divine Will” (Journal for the Evangelical Theological Society 58.1) 2015, 131-49. His article, “Against Eternal Submission: Changing the Doctrine of the Trinity Endangers Salvation and Women,” (Priscilla Papers 31.3) 2017, 15-21, was published in the academic journal of Christians for Biblical Equality, an organization devoted to equipping people for egalitarian ministry. SLO only touches on socio-cultural issues briefly. It contends that eternal relational authority and submission (hereafter, ERAS), a perspective on Trinitarian relations, undermines the Trinity and salvation.

The sixteen essays of Trinity without Hierarchy (subsequently, TwH) together argue that conceptualizing the Trinity in terms of eternal relations of authority and submission (hereafter, ERAS) conflicts with the "the apostolic and evangelical faith" (Bird, 21). TwH's editors Michael F. Bird and Scott Harrower lecture at Ridley College in Melbourne. Bird has defended ERAS previously, but he now argues that this approach (popularized by Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware) is "analogical to a semi-Arian subordinationism" (Bird, 9-12; 10). Harrower published Trinitarian Self and Salvation in 2012 and God of All Comfort (2019), both exploring Trinitarian theology. TwH largely responds to the 2015 monograph edited by Ware and John Starke, One God in Three Persons. TwH presents ERAS as implicitly subordinating the Son's glory in teaching that he eternally submits and that this grounds creational hierarchies (Bird, 10-11). TwH provides biblical, historical, and systematic analysis to counter ERAS's hermeneutics and theological conclusions. According to TwH, ERAS errantly interprets Scripture's Trinitarian economy. Amy Peeler (57-83) exemplifies the book's hermeneutical case with her biblically focused argument: "Hebrews does not demand [the ERAS] interpretation," (68). Both John Owen, according to T. Robert Baylor's historical argument (165-193), and the entire Reformed tradition, in Jeff Fisher's historical analysis (195-215), understood Trinitarian subordination to be history-dependent. Harrower provides analysis from systematics in "Bruce Ware's Trinitarian Theology" (307-330), presenting Ware as selectively choosing when to connect the economic and immanent Trinity. TwH makes the case that an immanent-based submission structure conflicts with God's self-existence (Cole, 283). From a historical perspective, Amy Brown Hughes (123-139) appeals to Gregory of Nyssa in describing God's otherness as the barrier between subordination and self-existence. Jules A. Martinez-Olivieri (217-239) makes a case from systematics that if Christ's obedience is relationally proper, then creation becomes "a necessary reality for God and the life of the Son" (231). Self-existence dooms Trinity-society analogies (235).

Pribadi Yesus sebelum Inkarnasi-Nya Sebelum inkarnasi-Nya, Yesus sudah ada sebelum Abraham ada. Ia ada sebelum penciptaan dan Ia menopang segala sesuatu dengan kuasa-Nya. Yesus adalah Anak Allah sebelum inkarnasi-Nya dan sekarang pun Ia adalah Anak Allah.  Rika Kristyanti Praba Gracia (18 ELT1 / 01101180016)

Доклад «Афонский извод «Живоначальной Троицы» преподобного Андрея Рублева» (The Athos παραδείγματα of the world-famous icon “Life-GivingTrinity” by St. Andrei Rublev) на открытии пленарного заседания международной научной конференции «Mount Athos – the Light of the Orthodox Christianity» 5 октября 2016 г. в конференц-зале Российской академии художеств: http://www.artsacademy.ru/additionally/news/698/