What do you think?
Rate this book
Counterpoints
Two Views on the Doctrine of the Trinity
The doctrine of the Trinity stands front and center of the Christian faith and its articulation. After a sustained drought of trinitarian engagement, the doctrine of the Trinity has increasingly resurged to the forefront of Evangelical confession. The second half of the twentieth century, however, saw a different kind of trinitarian theology developing, giving way to what has commonly been referred to as the social Trinity. Social---or better, relational---trinitarianism has garnered a steady reaction from those holding to a classical doctrine of the Trinity, prompting a more careful and thorough re-reading of sources and bringing about not only a much more coherent view of early trinitarian development but also a strong critique of relational trinitarian offerings. Yet confusion remains. As Evangelicals get better at articulating the doctrine of the Trinity, and as the current and next generation of believers in various Christian traditions seek to be more trinitarian, the way forward for trinitarian theology has to choose between the relational and classical model, both being legitimate options. In this volume, leading contributors---one evangelical and one mainline/catholic representing each view---establish their models and approaches to the doctrine of the Trinity, each highlighting the strengths of his view in order to argue how it best reflects the orthodox perspective. In order to facilitate a genuine debate and to make sure that the key issues are teased out, each contributor addresses the same questions regarding their trinitarian methodology, doctrine, and its implications. Contributors include: Stephen R. Holmes; Paul D. Molnar; Thomas H. McCall; and Paul S. Fiddes."
240 pages, Paperback
First published September 2, 2014
72 people are currently reading
168 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
June 13, 2022
I generally enjoy the Zondervan "Counterpoints" series, and this book was no exception. Like other books in the series, this book on the Trinity is an arrangement of four essays, each presenting a slightly different view on the matter being discussed. So while the title suggests only two views are discussed, there are in fact four distinct views which fit into two larger umbrella categories.
As with any collection of essays, the book's overall quality is largely contingent on the quality of individual contributions. The format of this book is excellent, however, the essays in this particular volume are very hit or miss.
The format, as with other installments in the "Counterpoint" series, is brilliant. Each author presents their essay, outlining their unique perspective on the topic of the Trinity. Each other contributor then has an opportunity to respond to the essay and offer their own praises and critiques. The initial contributor then responds to the responses. I honestly can't think of a better format for presenting multiple perspectives well.
Unfortunately, the various contributors here have drastically varying quality in their contributions. The best two essays by far come from Stephen Holmes (representing a "classical" view of the Trinity) and Thomas McCall (representing a "relational" view of the Trinity). Both essays exhibit clarity of thought, strong logical argument, transparency of methodology, and great interaction with both scripture and tradition. Fortunately, these two essays also happen to come from opposing sides of the aisle, so the book as a whole still succeeds in presenting fair arguments from across the spectrum.
The other two essays, however, leave a lot to be desired. Molnar (representing a "classical" view alongside Holmes) largely indulges in unfounded assertions and ad hominem attacks against dissenters to his own view. He seems infatuated with certain other theologians (especially T.F. Torrance), but seems to have little original thought of his own to offer. He often misunderstood and misrepresented the other views in his responses as well.
Fiddes (representing a "relational view" alongside McCall) occasionally does offer a good response, but even these are sometimes poorly argued. His actual essay is aesthetically appealing and rhetorically beautiful, but is ultimately lacking in logical suasiveness. His view is indeed "radical," and needed much more rigorous argument than Fiddes offered. It is an interesting view to have included in this collection, but unfortunately isn't given the defense necessary for something so unorthodox and odd (and this may be, in part, because I believe Fiddes position to be logically indefensible, but nevertheless, I would have appreciated more detail and support for the position).
In summary, two of the essays presented here are excellent and well worth the read. Fiddes essay is intriguing, but ultimately disappointing. Molnar's essay and general contributions are severely lacking.
This is a decent starting point for those interested in the doctrine of the Trinity, but certainly not the best volume out there on the subject. At least two of the essays here are well worth the price of the book, but the other two leave much to be desired.
As with any collection of essays, the book's overall quality is largely contingent on the quality of individual contributions. The format of this book is excellent, however, the essays in this particular volume are very hit or miss.
The format, as with other installments in the "Counterpoint" series, is brilliant. Each author presents their essay, outlining their unique perspective on the topic of the Trinity. Each other contributor then has an opportunity to respond to the essay and offer their own praises and critiques. The initial contributor then responds to the responses. I honestly can't think of a better format for presenting multiple perspectives well.
Unfortunately, the various contributors here have drastically varying quality in their contributions. The best two essays by far come from Stephen Holmes (representing a "classical" view of the Trinity) and Thomas McCall (representing a "relational" view of the Trinity). Both essays exhibit clarity of thought, strong logical argument, transparency of methodology, and great interaction with both scripture and tradition. Fortunately, these two essays also happen to come from opposing sides of the aisle, so the book as a whole still succeeds in presenting fair arguments from across the spectrum.
The other two essays, however, leave a lot to be desired. Molnar (representing a "classical" view alongside Holmes) largely indulges in unfounded assertions and ad hominem attacks against dissenters to his own view. He seems infatuated with certain other theologians (especially T.F. Torrance), but seems to have little original thought of his own to offer. He often misunderstood and misrepresented the other views in his responses as well.
Fiddes (representing a "relational view" alongside McCall) occasionally does offer a good response, but even these are sometimes poorly argued. His actual essay is aesthetically appealing and rhetorically beautiful, but is ultimately lacking in logical suasiveness. His view is indeed "radical," and needed much more rigorous argument than Fiddes offered. It is an interesting view to have included in this collection, but unfortunately isn't given the defense necessary for something so unorthodox and odd (and this may be, in part, because I believe Fiddes position to be logically indefensible, but nevertheless, I would have appreciated more detail and support for the position).
In summary, two of the essays presented here are excellent and well worth the read. Fiddes essay is intriguing, but ultimately disappointing. Molnar's essay and general contributions are severely lacking.
This is a decent starting point for those interested in the doctrine of the Trinity, but certainly not the best volume out there on the subject. At least two of the essays here are well worth the price of the book, but the other two leave much to be desired.
August 24, 2018
Here’s a volume in the Zondervan’s popular Counterpoints series. Because a proponent of each view presented debates others of varying viewpoints, these volumes can be particularly effective. A single author often has trouble fairly presenting opposing views, but here every chapter is presented by someone who strongly believes in the position described. Knowing that others will debate every point keeps each contributor on his or her toes.
This book describes two views on the doctrine of the Trinity: classical Trinity and relational Trinity. Each of those viewpoints is divided yet again by two contributors who hold slightly different perspectives within the model. The only thing that strikes me as odd about this volume as compared to others of its type that I have seen is that the four contributors, Stephen R. Holmes, Paul D. Molnar, Thomas H. McCall, and Paul S. Fiddes, are not that far apart in what they believe. If you have not been deeply immersed in Trinitarian debate, the differences in these four contributors may almost seem like splitting hairs. Fortunately, there’s a lot to learn by working through their interactions.
The style is the same as the others in the series. First, a contributor presents his perspective, the other three contributors offer responses, and the original contributor gives a final rejoinder. It’s a quite fair method as every contributor gets to give the last word on his own perspective. The general editor, Jason S. Sexton, also gives a 10-page conclusion reflecting on what was presented. For the most part, this is just a nice summary. Additionally, there’s a glossary which can be quite helpful as this subject has a lot of specialized vocabulary.
Usually when I peruse one of these volumes I find myself gravitating most closely to one of the presenters, but in this case, I agreed with great portions of all four of them. That’s not to say that they don’t disagree on a few points, but they are an essential agreement about the importance and main facts of the Trinity.
Though it’s a little different than what I expected, I still found it to be an overall nice resource well worth consulting if you are tackling the doctrine of the Trinity.
I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255.
This book describes two views on the doctrine of the Trinity: classical Trinity and relational Trinity. Each of those viewpoints is divided yet again by two contributors who hold slightly different perspectives within the model. The only thing that strikes me as odd about this volume as compared to others of its type that I have seen is that the four contributors, Stephen R. Holmes, Paul D. Molnar, Thomas H. McCall, and Paul S. Fiddes, are not that far apart in what they believe. If you have not been deeply immersed in Trinitarian debate, the differences in these four contributors may almost seem like splitting hairs. Fortunately, there’s a lot to learn by working through their interactions.
The style is the same as the others in the series. First, a contributor presents his perspective, the other three contributors offer responses, and the original contributor gives a final rejoinder. It’s a quite fair method as every contributor gets to give the last word on his own perspective. The general editor, Jason S. Sexton, also gives a 10-page conclusion reflecting on what was presented. For the most part, this is just a nice summary. Additionally, there’s a glossary which can be quite helpful as this subject has a lot of specialized vocabulary.
Usually when I peruse one of these volumes I find myself gravitating most closely to one of the presenters, but in this case, I agreed with great portions of all four of them. That’s not to say that they don’t disagree on a few points, but they are an essential agreement about the importance and main facts of the Trinity.
Though it’s a little different than what I expected, I still found it to be an overall nice resource well worth consulting if you are tackling the doctrine of the Trinity.
I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255.
November 12, 2021
Normally I really like these Counterpoints-style books, where different scholars argue their case for a particular theological view and then respond to one another's presentations so that readers can evaluate the different views. But the keys to having a successful entry in this series lie with whether each author can write a clear and persuasive essay, and whether the breadth of authors/perspectives chosen does justice to the topic at hand. This particular volume (covering modern developments in Trinitarian theology) only half-succeeds on both these counts.
Of the essays given, McCall's was the most readable and easy to follow. Holmes and Molnar both offer useful information, but their writing is dense and dry. The last essay by Fiddes was... interesting, but also unorthodox and unpersuasive. At the end of the day, the points of disagreement between the first three authors are SO minutely subtle and on matters that are nigh-impossible to achieve final clarity on (dealing, as they are, with the deep mysteries and technicalities of how exactly God can be one Being who eternally and necessarily subsists as three Persons/Hypostases, yet without divisibility). So I found myself both agreeing with much in those first three essays while also scratching my head over what actual view I'm walking away endorsing.
I suppose my biggest complaint is that, while I did learn some useful information from this book, I came away a little disappointed at how little was actually clarified. It felt like an experiment in showing just how much we need further doctrinal work done to try and reach some synthesis between classical Trinitarianism and the insights brought by newer developments in analytic theology. This book is so technical on such a narrow topic that it can't really be recommended to anyone but specialists in systematic theology. None but the most educated laypeople would benefit from it, I think, unless they wanted to put in some serious legwork to think through it.
Also, why in the world was no Eastern Orthodox scholar invited to contribute on this topic?? That's a sorely disappointing omission, as I think adding an Eastern perspective really would have enhanced the conversation. 2.5 out of 5 stars.
Of the essays given, McCall's was the most readable and easy to follow. Holmes and Molnar both offer useful information, but their writing is dense and dry. The last essay by Fiddes was... interesting, but also unorthodox and unpersuasive. At the end of the day, the points of disagreement between the first three authors are SO minutely subtle and on matters that are nigh-impossible to achieve final clarity on (dealing, as they are, with the deep mysteries and technicalities of how exactly God can be one Being who eternally and necessarily subsists as three Persons/Hypostases, yet without divisibility). So I found myself both agreeing with much in those first three essays while also scratching my head over what actual view I'm walking away endorsing.
I suppose my biggest complaint is that, while I did learn some useful information from this book, I came away a little disappointed at how little was actually clarified. It felt like an experiment in showing just how much we need further doctrinal work done to try and reach some synthesis between classical Trinitarianism and the insights brought by newer developments in analytic theology. This book is so technical on such a narrow topic that it can't really be recommended to anyone but specialists in systematic theology. None but the most educated laypeople would benefit from it, I think, unless they wanted to put in some serious legwork to think through it.
Also, why in the world was no Eastern Orthodox scholar invited to contribute on this topic?? That's a sorely disappointing omission, as I think adding an Eastern perspective really would have enhanced the conversation. 2.5 out of 5 stars.
May 19, 2025
In my years of studying theology, I’ve come to accept that most areas of theology are far more simple than we care to admit. Our belief system is not complicated. However, one of the few areas that is complicated. is the doctrine of the Trinity. The fact that God is Trinitarian is actually so clear from scripture that only the most fringe elements of Christian groups even debate it. In fact in this book, the fact that God manifests as a Trinity is not even debated. However, the intricacies of God being three and one is discussed.
Reading this book makes me realize they’re really is a level of theologian that I am not willing to aspire to. These are men and women who either have God-given intellect that enables them to understand the nuances of this discussion, or they are individuals that have gone to a depth of historical study that 99.9% of believers are not going to be willing to do. Still, I respect them and enjoyed the depth in which they tackled at this topic.
In the end, the book does deserve four stars because it clearly succeeds in what it sets out to do. However, I don’t think I would tell any of the people in my life to read the book unless they are willing to really, really explore the historical and philosophical Ideas behind the doctrine of the Trinity with great depth.
If you are really looking to understand the concept of the Trinity, I would suggest reading a good systematic theology that will have a few chapters on the topic.
Reading this book makes me realize they’re really is a level of theologian that I am not willing to aspire to. These are men and women who either have God-given intellect that enables them to understand the nuances of this discussion, or they are individuals that have gone to a depth of historical study that 99.9% of believers are not going to be willing to do. Still, I respect them and enjoyed the depth in which they tackled at this topic.
In the end, the book does deserve four stars because it clearly succeeds in what it sets out to do. However, I don’t think I would tell any of the people in my life to read the book unless they are willing to really, really explore the historical and philosophical Ideas behind the doctrine of the Trinity with great depth.
If you are really looking to understand the concept of the Trinity, I would suggest reading a good systematic theology that will have a few chapters on the topic.
July 7, 2023
This was the first book that made me aware that my associations (at the time) at a denominational level (Acts29), local church level, and my "Christian-branch-affiliation" overall (Confessional Protestantism / Classical Evangelicalism) were all using the same vocabulary with wildly different meanings. When I first read this, I gave it 4 stars for helping me come to this awareness. Today, I give it 3 because it fails to resolve the issue.
About two years after this book came out, we started to see debates on the small-o "orthodoxy" of the ESV Study Bible and popular Classical Evangelicals like Wayne Grudem, William Lane Craig, and others. As of 2023, it seems that LBC 1689 Reformed Baptists are ready to split over who really understands their confession of faith versus who's a heretic, based on their definition of what it means to say, "God is simple."
Today, it is amazing to me the disconnect. People can simultaneously show they are not able to determine what a group of men within the last 350 years meant writing a Statement of Faith meant. The confession was written in their own language - within their own worldview and within their own hermeneutical principles - and they even wrote entire books fleshing out their beliefs and views to determine the contexts of their words and thought.
Yet, these same groups will not blink to come up with interpretations unknown to the church of the first 1,000 years and believe in their ability to determine the true meaning and interpretation of texts far removed from our language, hermeneutics, and worldview.
About two years after this book came out, we started to see debates on the small-o "orthodoxy" of the ESV Study Bible and popular Classical Evangelicals like Wayne Grudem, William Lane Craig, and others. As of 2023, it seems that LBC 1689 Reformed Baptists are ready to split over who really understands their confession of faith versus who's a heretic, based on their definition of what it means to say, "God is simple."
Today, it is amazing to me the disconnect. People can simultaneously show they are not able to determine what a group of men within the last 350 years meant writing a Statement of Faith meant. The confession was written in their own language - within their own worldview and within their own hermeneutical principles - and they even wrote entire books fleshing out their beliefs and views to determine the contexts of their words and thought.
Yet, these same groups will not blink to come up with interpretations unknown to the church of the first 1,000 years and believe in their ability to determine the true meaning and interpretation of texts far removed from our language, hermeneutics, and worldview.
April 25, 2020
This was my second book in the Counterpoints series. I love the way that this series encourages thoughtful and charitable dialogue on controversial issues.
In this volume, four authors discuss two views on the trinity. The “classical” view was presented by an evangelical and a Catholic. Their views were basically the same, aside from some minor differences. Two "relational” views were presented, but really they were very different from one another. One agreed mostly with the classical view but emphasized the relational nature of the persons of the trinity. The other abandoned or redefined many traditional concepts, promoting a highly innovative (and problematic, in my opinion) view of the trinity not as three relational entities, but “relationSHIPS.”
This was a challenging read. Technical terminology abounds, and so does analytic theology and philosophy. It didn’t help that the writing itself was sometimes unclear. Even the authors, in their responses, expressed confusion about what the others were really saying. Nevertheless, I still emerged from this book with some new ideas, and a healthier sense of how much I don’t know about theology!
In this volume, four authors discuss two views on the trinity. The “classical” view was presented by an evangelical and a Catholic. Their views were basically the same, aside from some minor differences. Two "relational” views were presented, but really they were very different from one another. One agreed mostly with the classical view but emphasized the relational nature of the persons of the trinity. The other abandoned or redefined many traditional concepts, promoting a highly innovative (and problematic, in my opinion) view of the trinity not as three relational entities, but “relationSHIPS.”
This was a challenging read. Technical terminology abounds, and so does analytic theology and philosophy. It didn’t help that the writing itself was sometimes unclear. Even the authors, in their responses, expressed confusion about what the others were really saying. Nevertheless, I still emerged from this book with some new ideas, and a healthier sense of how much I don’t know about theology!
August 3, 2020
The structure of the book is excellent. It’s four theologians each providing an essay on their determination of the true meaning and value of the Trinity. After each essay, the other three theologians provide their critiques followed by the original authors’ response.
The trouble with this particular book is the four authors all come from western Christianity. Additionally, the authors are divided up into traditional vs. “radical” theology but all of them are arguing that each of their opinions can be traced to traditional church belief. On top of that, the first two authors start their arguments by warning against the dangers of “relational/social Trinitarianism” and more modern theologies like it. That would be fine but none of the four writers claimed to represent that so it was confusing to read about such an important topic without better and wider representation.
The trouble with this particular book is the four authors all come from western Christianity. Additionally, the authors are divided up into traditional vs. “radical” theology but all of them are arguing that each of their opinions can be traced to traditional church belief. On top of that, the first two authors start their arguments by warning against the dangers of “relational/social Trinitarianism” and more modern theologies like it. That would be fine but none of the four writers claimed to represent that so it was confusing to read about such an important topic without better and wider representation.
December 20, 2018
I found this helpful. It is, as others have pointed out, more appropriately understood as four views than two views. There are four contributors: a Classical Evangelical perspective; a Classical Catholic Perspective; a Creedal Relational perspective and a Radical Relational perspective. The two classical views have much in common but the relational perspectives have very little in common with each other. Although many of the "Views" books serve well as introductions to their subject, this is not an introductory book to the study of the Trinity. Recommended for those who have some background in studying the Trinity and are looking for a good summary of various perspectives. I will use this and refer back to this when I teach the Trinity; it has value.
December 24, 2019
As an Christian I know the doctrine of the Trinity is vitally important. As an evangelical it was not a major emphasis and my knowledge/understanding is poor. I am however relatively well read in many aspects of orthodox (lower case "O") Christianity. I sought to improve my knowledge in this area and purchased this book among others. I will say that this is a poor first choice to read for someone without extensive reading and knowledge of the Trinity. If you have a seminary degree it may be an OK book to start with.
May 23, 2021
This was my first book in the Counterpoints series and I truly enjoyed it. The categorization of "classical Trinitarianism" and "relational Trinitarianism" seemed rather unhelpful when considering the scope to which the supposed "relational Trinitarians" Fiddes and McCall differed. While I enjoyed reading this, it would by no means be one of my first recommendations on the subject. To someone who has not read extensively on the Trinity before, it may come across as confusing and seem to be rather superfluous.
April 17, 2023
Trinity
Could not get anything from this book. I tried to parse out what was written and failed. This book on the Trinity didn't help mr.
Could not get anything from this book. I tried to parse out what was written and failed. This book on the Trinity didn't help mr.
July 12, 2023
Great little book. Technical, but readable. Offers helpful insight to current discussions on the Trinity.
October 18, 2023
McCall’s chapter was worth the price of the book. His exposition of Yandell’s understanding of the Trinity was fire.
Read
January 22, 2025More like 4 views am I right?
October 22, 2022
Analogies and Mysteries
I was raised in the Roman Catholic church (became a Protestant in adulthood) and still have a few notable memories about the nuns and Saturday morning catechism classes. No, I’m not talking about getting disciplined with a slap of the ever-present ruler. I’m talking about theology. In one lesson that made a lasting impression Sister (I can’t remember any of their names, sadly) demonstrated the idea of the Trinity by striking a match. The flame glowed brightly, and then she separated it to show that it was actually three matches. One essence (the flame) yet three separate entities. Interesting analogy. Most of us love analogies. The other lesson was repeated frequently by several of the nuns over the years. Asked a difficult question, they (too often in our estimation) responded that it was a mystery. Probably true, but frustrating to us elementary-age students.
It is only as an adult that I’ve come to appreciate some further related truths. As much as we love learning by analogy, analogies only go so far, and that is especially true in theology. And, when we are trying to fathom the unfathomable about God we eventually will encounter mysteries. We finite creatures can’t fully comprehend our infinite Creator. But we keep on trying.
“Two Views on the Doctrine of the Trinity” is such an attempt. In the format of several other “Views” books on theological topics, Sexton acts as editor for essays by four contributors, two presenting variations of the traditional view, and two presenting variations of the “relational” view. After each essay, the other three contributors provide critiques, followed by a response by the author of the essay. It’s an excellent format.
I probably am not remotely qualified to provide a review because I still am immersed in the mystery of how One God can be Three Persons. This is, in my opinion, deep theology, and probably fitting given the subject. The Trinity is unique and foundational to Christianity, yet not really understood by most, including me. (And, perhaps also the contributors, since, in spite of certain important areas of agreement, they present some significantly different arguments.) I can’t say that I came away from “Two Views” with better comprehension of what the Trinity IS, but I did develop a better understanding of the weaknesses of some of my prior conceptions (I was leaning strongly toward the relational view) and therefore what it likely IS NOT. Analogies and mysteries. I’ll keep on searching.
I was raised in the Roman Catholic church (became a Protestant in adulthood) and still have a few notable memories about the nuns and Saturday morning catechism classes. No, I’m not talking about getting disciplined with a slap of the ever-present ruler. I’m talking about theology. In one lesson that made a lasting impression Sister (I can’t remember any of their names, sadly) demonstrated the idea of the Trinity by striking a match. The flame glowed brightly, and then she separated it to show that it was actually three matches. One essence (the flame) yet three separate entities. Interesting analogy. Most of us love analogies. The other lesson was repeated frequently by several of the nuns over the years. Asked a difficult question, they (too often in our estimation) responded that it was a mystery. Probably true, but frustrating to us elementary-age students.
It is only as an adult that I’ve come to appreciate some further related truths. As much as we love learning by analogy, analogies only go so far, and that is especially true in theology. And, when we are trying to fathom the unfathomable about God we eventually will encounter mysteries. We finite creatures can’t fully comprehend our infinite Creator. But we keep on trying.
“Two Views on the Doctrine of the Trinity” is such an attempt. In the format of several other “Views” books on theological topics, Sexton acts as editor for essays by four contributors, two presenting variations of the traditional view, and two presenting variations of the “relational” view. After each essay, the other three contributors provide critiques, followed by a response by the author of the essay. It’s an excellent format.
I probably am not remotely qualified to provide a review because I still am immersed in the mystery of how One God can be Three Persons. This is, in my opinion, deep theology, and probably fitting given the subject. The Trinity is unique and foundational to Christianity, yet not really understood by most, including me. (And, perhaps also the contributors, since, in spite of certain important areas of agreement, they present some significantly different arguments.) I can’t say that I came away from “Two Views” with better comprehension of what the Trinity IS, but I did develop a better understanding of the weaknesses of some of my prior conceptions (I was leaning strongly toward the relational view) and therefore what it likely IS NOT. Analogies and mysteries. I’ll keep on searching.
November 10, 2015
I think this book should be titled four views rather than two. The division between "classical" and "relational" perspectives is somewhat superficial and misleadingly conflates the positions of each scholar. The editor admits that the two-fold division is of limited value, so this is not a strong criticism as much as I intend it to be a modest observation.
The book is, actually, quite enjoyable. The perspectives are not as divergent as would be possible given the current state of scholarship, but the aim is not exhaustive as much as to provide dialogue on some current options in Trinitarian theology.
The particular strength of this book, in my opinion, is that every author explicitly touched on the traditional terms that have come into play for Trinitarian doctrine: the metaphysical simplicity of God's being and the trinity of persons in the Godhead. The doctrine of simplicity has reemergence in recent years as an important philosophical component. This has tempered some of the radical claims of so-called "social trinitarians" -- a group which all four contributors to this book take joy in criticizing (except Paul Fiddes, who despite distancing himself from them is a bit gentler in his criticisms). Seeing how each theologian articulates the role of the doctrine of simplicity in Trinitarian doctrine was illuminating, and their responses to each others' essays increased the value.
I hope no one would read this and decide thereby to ignore the representatives of the social Trinity. Despite the merit of some criticisms, people like Jürgen Moltmann deserve careful attention. This volume offers excellent essays from diverse perspectives and so provides a helpful vantage on some current options in Trinitarian theology.
The book is, actually, quite enjoyable. The perspectives are not as divergent as would be possible given the current state of scholarship, but the aim is not exhaustive as much as to provide dialogue on some current options in Trinitarian theology.
The particular strength of this book, in my opinion, is that every author explicitly touched on the traditional terms that have come into play for Trinitarian doctrine: the metaphysical simplicity of God's being and the trinity of persons in the Godhead. The doctrine of simplicity has reemergence in recent years as an important philosophical component. This has tempered some of the radical claims of so-called "social trinitarians" -- a group which all four contributors to this book take joy in criticizing (except Paul Fiddes, who despite distancing himself from them is a bit gentler in his criticisms). Seeing how each theologian articulates the role of the doctrine of simplicity in Trinitarian doctrine was illuminating, and their responses to each others' essays increased the value.
I hope no one would read this and decide thereby to ignore the representatives of the social Trinity. Despite the merit of some criticisms, people like Jürgen Moltmann deserve careful attention. This volume offers excellent essays from diverse perspectives and so provides a helpful vantage on some current options in Trinitarian theology.
December 6, 2020
This was a helpful book to read when considering the doctrine of the trinity. It helped me clarify the major distinctions between the "traditional" and the "relational" trinitarian understandings of God. Holmes, Molnar, McCall, and Fiddes are good discussion partners with distinct emphases. Each author had the chance to write an essay with their view, critique each of the other authors' essays, and respond to the criticisms levied against them, leading to a helpful discussion of the content discussed. Most of the arguments revolved around how immutable God really is, how the economic trinity relates to the immanent trinity, and what the one ousia and three hypostases really entail.
Unlike most of Zondervan's Counterpoints books, however, the knowledge level that is assumed coming into the book was very high. The summary that Sexton made at the end of the book would have provided a helpful starting place for readers like me who weren't well versed in the material when coming into the book.
Unlike most of Zondervan's Counterpoints books, however, the knowledge level that is assumed coming into the book was very high. The summary that Sexton made at the end of the book would have provided a helpful starting place for readers like me who weren't well versed in the material when coming into the book.
February 4, 2020
While the format and debate is beneficial, (some of) the authors didn't have enough space to espouse their views adequately. The relational views could've used more space and lacking that they suggest further reading which is definitely necessary. Having said that both relational authors distanced themselves from social trinitarianism in argument and theology. So what we have is a serious attempt at trinitarian discourse without a major contemporary voice present in this debate. This book is good introduction into the debate while also being inadequate in presenting a true glimpse of contemporary views.
February 4, 2017
Holmes is excellent. His essay and his responses are luminous. Molnar has some good points to make too.
Holmes on EFS: “To be brief and straightforward, the language of ‘function’ is necessarily meaningless in narrating the eternal life of God. There is one will, one activity, one life, that is the divine Trinity. So language of ‘functional subordination’ is either a logically confused attempt to reintroduce Arianism, or is simply meaningless.” (48)
Holmes on EFS: “To be brief and straightforward, the language of ‘function’ is necessarily meaningless in narrating the eternal life of God. There is one will, one activity, one life, that is the divine Trinity. So language of ‘functional subordination’ is either a logically confused attempt to reintroduce Arianism, or is simply meaningless.” (48)
December 29, 2016
Though it's clear from this book that "divine simplicity" is anything but simple, this is a worthwhile read. I prefer Olson's book on the subject but it does get to the heart of some of the thorny, hard to understand debates over just exactly how God is three-in-one.
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews