Two Types of Argumentation on the Trinity

 

 

 

 

TWO ARGUMENTS on THE TRINITY:
BERKHOF’S FORTRESS AND MOLTMANN’S WEB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seong Kim

G 10174396

 ST501: Systematic Theology I

Prof. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen

Fuller Theological Seminary

Fall 2010

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

Introduction ..............................................................................................................           1

 

Preliminary Research ................................................................................................           1

 

The Core Arguments of Berkhof and Moltmann .....................................................           3

Louis Berkhof ................................................................................................           3

Jűrgen Moltmann ..........................................................................................           5

 

Critique and Evaluation ............................................................................................           6

Against Berkhof .............................................................................................           6

Against Moltmann .........................................................................................           8

 

Conclusion ................................................................................................................           10

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................           11

 

 

 

 

Introduction

Louis Berkhof (1873- 1957) and Jűrgen Moltmann (1926- ) never met each other. Their lives overlapped by 30 years, but they resided in different countries and pursed different goals. Why then should we spend time comparing these two men? Berkhof and Moltmann were ‘representatives’ for their own distinct theological traditions. Therefore, that we can extract marrow from the two comparable theological perspectives, bringing attention to the Trinity, which is at the heart of both of their theologies.[1] Furthermore, we can equip ourselves theologically by contrasting these ‘giants,’ and engage with crucial questions that postmodern thinkers are raising about God, and the resulting implications in their lives and society. We will particularly compare the philosophical characteristics of these two theological veins.

 

Preliminary Research

Berkhof was a Dutchman who moved to study and eventually teach in the United Sates. It is not hard to notice that Berkhof takes a Calvinistic posture on dogmatics. Wayne Grudem called Berkhof's Systematic Theology his magnum opus: "a great treasure-house of information and analysis... probably the most useful one-volume systematic theology available from any theological perspective."[2] Berkhof is not deemed to be a creative theologian, but a defender and organizer of Reformed dogmatics. Fearing oversimplification, we notice the rudiment of Reformed scholasticism in Berkhof's masterpiece.

How could it be that this demanding work has gained such fame as a basal text for 70 years in both Reformed and Evangelical camps? This is partially due to the peculiar landscape of American Protestantism in which we observe constant theological challenges and responses since the early 20th Century. As we know, many threats buffeted traditional mainline Christian beliefs, such as high-criticism of the Biblical text, evolutionary theory, social and cultural changes, beliefs of immigrants from the non-Christian territories, industrialization, urbanization, and the “scare” of communism.[3] Berkhof is believed to have recognized and fought against these challenges in order to defend Reformed beliefs.4

In approaching Moltmann’s theology, we should not disregard his personal journey as a PWO in World War II. In the madness of the Nazi regime and the collapse of trust in human intellect, he led the young guilt and shame stricken convert to a fundamental question: What is the meaning of humanity and history? Is there a possibility of enabling the western civilizations (including Christianity) to significantly address future hope once again? With this conscience, Moltmann said goodbye to Neo-Orthodoxy, mainly catalyzed by Karl Barth, whom once he studied, because of its decisive apathy from human experience and history. He also rejected Wolfhard Pannenberg, whose theology claims history as revelation, in terms of its closeness to the potential of future.

Moltmann, in fact, is a composite of many ideas: from dialectic theology (Barth & Brunner), Christian social ethic (Bonhőffer), Theology of the Pain of God (Kitamori), Neo-Marxist interpretation of history (Bloch), to Existentialist philosophy and even the Frankfurt School. But his theological/philosophical genealogy can be boiled down to Luther and Hegel. From Luther, he learned the theology of cross and justification of God, which offered a platform for his thoughts on human suffering and its meaning.5 From Hegel, he resonated with the sense of history, which was thought to be meaningful and central to the Christian message, and the future drive toward ultimate hope.[4] 

 

The Core Arguments of Berkhof and Moltmann

Two masters’ arguments on Trinity are sharply contrasted. We will examine their core discussions.

Louis Berkhof

Berkhof's account on the Trinity is found in Chapter 8 of Systematic Theology. He starts his argument by summarizing the short history of the subject, which was divided before the Reformation and post-Reformation. It evokes curiosity that he affirmed that the discussion of the Trinity had not improved since the Reformation, and he seemed to have highly commended Barth highly for his non-Sabellian contemplation on the Trinity.[5]

Berkhof emphasizes the personality of God. While humans are personal in terms of his having 'ectypal' (copy-able, reflecting) personality, God has 'archetypal' personality. God and humans have personhood in common, but God’s personhood is prefect and three-persons in godhead, whereas the human person is imperfect and mono-person. Berkhof holds that we cannot imagine the non-trinitarian God on the basis of personal unless "self-reflection, self-conscience and self-communication"[6] could be reality in his deity. Personality neither develops nor exists in isolation.

Berkhof anchors his argument on the Trinity in biblical evidence. While he opens a back door by acknowledging that some philosophical discussions have aided to make this subject more decent and sophisticated,[7] he quickly references Old Testament sources (Gen. 16.7-13; Ps. 33.6; Pr. 8.12-31; Mal. 3.1) and NT (Matt. 1.21; Luke 1.76-79; Jn. 4.42; Acts. 2.4; Rom. 8.9; 1Cor. 12.4-6; 2Cor. 13.13; 1Pet. 1.2). In summation, he insists that the bible refers to a progression of evidence detected throughout the Scripture regarding the triune God.[8]

However, the climax of his argument lies in the 'doctrinal' statements about the Trinity. He catalogs several doctrinal features of the trinitarian God, as follows.[9] He begins his argument from an ontological base (being and mode). He maintains that there is in the Divine Being but one indivisible essence (ousia, essentia), yet in this one Divine Being there are three Persons or individual subsistences: Father, Son, and the Spirit. And the whole undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons. The subsistence and operation of the three persons in the divine Being, however, is marked by a certain definite order. In addition, there are certain personal attributes by which the three persons are distinguished. As we recognized, he begins with a thorough ontological basis for God (his being and mode), and ends in complete concealment of any attempt toward heretic interpretations of the triune God; on par with the Monotheism, Monarchianism, Modalism and Tritheism that have been rejected since the early church.

Jűrgen Moltmann

Surprisingly, Moltmann sets forth experience and practice as the starting point of theology because he believes that he can access the doctrine of God very practically through experience and practice.[10] Both our experience of God and God’s experience with us attested to in Scripture can frame the doctrine of the Trinity in a very realistic fashion. Moltmann is asking if the doctrine of the Trinity is a practical truth.[11] When the doctrine of the Trinity meets our experience and has a practical purpose, it begins to influence our life. Thus we need to recognize the doctrine of the Trinity with practice of theology.[12]

Moltmann’s Trinitarian God is particularly revealed in the cross and resurrection of Christ. [13] Therefore, apart from attending to Jesus, who suffered and was crucified, in our practice we cannot understand Jesus’ pain.[14] Likewise, cognition accompanies experience and practice. As it relates to theological analysis, Moltmann emphasizes the necessity of both experience and practice of the crucified Jesus in the Bible.

While most scholars begin their understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity with one God, Moltmann’s doctrine of the Trinity begins with God’s threeness. His doctrine of the Trinity starts from these three Persons. The Triune God thus means that there are three distinct Persons of the Godhead. Among western theologians the thought of three Persons existing in one divine substance has been the dominant view, but Moltmann is very critical of this idea.[15] Moltmann insists that these conceptions made the doctrine of the Trinity a very abstract monotheism because they had emphasized too much the unity of the triune God and neglected the importance of each distinction.[16]

We call Moltmann’s trinity a social Trinity. He understands the scriptures as the testimony to the history of the Trinity’s relations of fellowship.[17] Also for Moltmann, the doctrine of the Trinity begins with the relationship among Father, Son, and Spirit. This means that his doctrine of the Trinity begins with relationship and community. Moltmann says that the Triune God is one substance, but not one Person.[18] He explains God’s threeness through a form of unity he terms ‘Perichoretic.’ By this, he stresses that the Triune God is three different Persons: Father, Son, and Spirit; emphasizing their unity because they are penetrated by each other.[19] So, each Person dwells in two different Persons, as indicated by Johannine theology, which shows the mutual indwelling of God and human beings in love: “He who abides in love abides in God and God in him” (1 John 4:16 RSV).[20] However, Moltmann rejects tritheism which considers the Trinity as three Gods, and insists that the Trinity is three Persons. We call Moltmann’s doctrine of the Trinity a Social Doctrine of Trinity. He leads from this concept of the Trinity to a model of the church community in the world.

 

Critique and Evaluation

Through comparison of the two theological tycoons, their arguments, I realized, have weaknesses to be studied on. We can build the better understandings of the Triune God by letting their shortcomings to be our lessons.

Against Berkhof

In the terminology of Apologetics, Berkhof inexcusably exemplifies “Foundationalism.” He literally starts from the axiomatic propositions of the biblical doctrines. I think that he presupposes a priori from the outset of the argumentation, and does not pose a question over the assumption itself.[21] He allows not only external fusion with other debates, as well as internal inquisition. So, it becomes educational and beneficial to those who accepted the beliefs. In a sense, Berkhof's argument on the Trinity can be likened to a fortress analogy. The building has a critical weakness. In short, what if one was to refuse the assumptions or propositions? To those outside the circle of shared beliefs, the edifice of Berkhof is a mere haunted mansion where absurd subjectivity and a circular logic reside. More so, what if the basement proved to be questionable, or half-truth alone? Given the discrepancy reported, Berkhof's construction then surely turns out to be "a house on the sand.” It disintegrates and falls in the manner that “not one stone here will be left on another,” since the foundation at the deepest level was disturbed.

Even among Evangelicals, there exists significant concern regarding a foundational argument, like that of Berkhof.[22] Foundationalism has been in a deluge, bombarded with postmodern deconstruction, and claimed to have been buried with its head. Cartesian. Regardless of one’s view, the proponents and heirs of modernity saw how their core principle, or the bedrock of recognition and knowledge, has been dissembled by postmodernism.

Apart from critic reaction concerning Berkhof’s structure of argumentation, a real embarrassment around his view of the Trinity exists among Korean believers who adore him as the Reformed theologian-in-chief. Rather, he and his systematic theology have played a role in catalyzing denominationalism, church splits and dogmatism mixed with Confucian Biblicism, even though he did not intend this result.[23]

Against Moltmann

Moltmann has his own Achilles heel in that his Trinity discussion could be easily reckoned as a tritheistic. This is due to his placement of the community of the Triune God ahead of the absolute Godhead, which is central to Berkhof’s robust system. A bedrock or First principle is not found in Moltmann’s assertions. Like the fortress analogy used for Berkhof, an image of a web is more fitting for Moltmann’s Trinity. His social doctrine of the Trinity appears to be a philosophical demand that invokes a God in order to propel an eschatological hope into the future. It even reminds us of Kant’s well-known demand for a God. God is neither demanded nor required to be proved in the biblical sense. In spite of being labeled as Foundationalism, there is a God who exempts himself from the all-human reasoning.

The concept of Perichoresis also blows some fresh air into modern minds. However Moltmann is silent where non-westerners or so-called Gen-‘Y’ers seek to apply the view to their situations, where community was either not conceptualized fully or was broken down in post- industrialized societies. Moltmann’s terminology is a bit lacking in this sense.

While Berkhof was ahistorical, ‘hyper-historical’ would characterize Moltmann. Moltmann’s theology has been introduced and implemented into Korean churches since the mid-1970s, but his works was tagged as 'antinational' by the then Korean militia government. They associated Moltmann's slant with the New Left. In fact, his theology was optimized by the anti-government activists in majority in the 1980s, and it marred the Evangelical impression of Moltmann before his thought was given proper analysis.[24]

 

Conclusion

Our views and arguments on God must not be isolated from dialogue with mainstream existentialism or historical question, nor have its Christian distinctiveness and uniqueness dissolved in the whirlpool of philosophical trends. In this postmodernism atmosphere, we need to be as flexible and dynamic as a web, but to be as strong and firm as a fortress. The way to deeper truth is not in choosing between Berkhof and Moltmann, but through responsible convergence of their views without syncretizing them.

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology, new edition, Book 2. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996.

 

Calvin Theological Seminary. Calvin Theological Seminary’ Biography, accessed [Nov. 23, 2010]; available from http://www.calvinseminary.edu/aboutUs/presidents/berkhof.php; Internet.

 

Gilford, Paul. “Fundamentalism.” In The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought, Edited by Adrian Hastings, [225-257]. Oxford Univ. Press, 2000.

 

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994.

 

Johnson, G.L. and R.N. Gleason, eds. Reforming or Conforming?: Post-Conservative Evangelicals and the Emerging Church. Wheaton, IL; Crossway Books, 2008.

 

Kim, Y. From Barth to Moltmann: Modern Theologies from the Reformed Perspective. Seoul, Korea: Korea Christian Publishing Society, 1982.

 

Lee, J.S. Suggesting the Creatively Doing Theology for Korean Churches: Revisiting the Personality of Calvin, a blog post essay on J.S. Lee’s blog, accessed [Nov. 23, 2010]; available from http://www.jsrhee.com/; Internet.

 

Moltmann, Jűrgen. The Trinity and the Kingdom. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993.

 

----------. Experiences in Theology: Ways and Forms of Christian Theology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2000.

 

Shults, F. LeRon. Reforming the Doctrine of God. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005.

 

---

[1] This is vividly seen in Moltmann, who speaks of the Trinity in his watershed work The Trinity and the Kingdom (1981). Also, Berkhof substantiates the doctrine in his Systematic Theology.

 

[2] Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI; Zondervan, 1994), 1225.

[3] Paul Gilford, “Fundamentalism,” in The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought, ed. Adrian Hastings (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2000), 255-257.

 

4For instance, Berkhof  “stressed the importance of maintaining orthodoxy in seminaries,” during the Great Depression, when he was given the presidency at Calvin College. Calvin Theological Seminary’ Biography, accessed [Nov. 20, 2010]; available from http://www.calvinseminary.edu/aboutUs/presidents/berkhof.php; Internet.

5 Y. Kim, From Barth to Moltmann: Modern Theologies from the Reformed Perspective (Seoul, Korea: Korea Christian Publishing Society, 1982), 330-35.

 

[4] Ibid. 361.

[5] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, new edition Book 2 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 83.

 

[6] Ibid. 84.

 

[7] Ibid. 85.

 

[8] Ibid. 86.

 

[9] Ibid. 87-89.

[10] Jurgen Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993), 4.

 

[11] Ibid. 6.

 

[12] Ibid. 7.

[13] F. LeRon Shults, Reforming the Doctrine of God. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005), 149.

 

[14] Ibid. 149

 

[15] Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom, 17.

 

[16] Ibid. 19.

 

[17] Ibid. 321.

[18] Ibid. 322.

 

[19] Jurgen Moltmann, Experiences in Theology: Ways and Forms of Christian Theology (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2000), 322.

 

[20] Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom, 323.

 

[21] G.L. Johnson and R.N. Gleason, eds. Reforming or Conforming?: Post-Conservative Evangelicals and the Emerging Church (Wheaton, IL; Crossway Books, 2008), 323.

 

[22] See J.S. Lee, Suggesting the Creatively Doing Theology for Korean Churches: Revisiting the Personality of Calvin, a blog post essay by J.S. Lee. accessed [Nov. 25, 2010]; available from http://www.jsrhee.com/; Internet. He was an associate professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, and taught in many seminaries in the United States and Korea.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Cf. Kim, From Barth to Moltmann, 331.