Page History

Scanned PDF Version of this Document

Concerning the Trinity

Isn't it possible that arguing from the economic to the immanent trinity, as I have sometimes done, is analogous to the (in my view, misguided) procedure of arguing from the meaning of Jesus to the being of Jesus in himself, so as to be able to apply to Jesus either a classical or a revisionary a priori christology? In other words, if I am right that Jesus could be the Christ, in the sense that he could be what the constitutive christological assertion asserts him to be, whether or not either classical or revisionary a priori christologies were true, why couldn't I also be right in holding -- in agreement with Roger Haight -- that God could be triune, in the sense that God could be who the doctrine of the trinity asserts God to be, whether or not either a unitarian or a trinitarian doctrine of the being of God in Godself were true?

...