It was one of those “blinding flashes of the obvious” that Jim Jordan often talks about (and apparently, experiences). I was asked the other day if the effort to formulate a thorough-going Trinitarian theology was an exercise of systematics, and if so how this fit with my bias (and that of many others, especially of the Biblical Horizons crowd) toward biblical theology.
I had answered before I realized fully what I was saying: Yes, of course, Trinitarian theology is systematics, but it’s systematics with a necessary connection with biblical theology. Since our access to the Trinity comes only in the history of redemption, in the economy, we cannot do Trinitarian systematics without a heavy dose of biblical theology.
On the other hand, inconsistently Trinitarian theology tends to be abstracted from history and philosophical. It has no inherent need to deal with the incarnation or the cross; those events have no role in theology proper. For a Trinitarian theology, the incarnation and the cross become central motifs of theology proper.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Ethics of Rhetoric in Times of War
What we say matters. And the way we say it matters. This is especially true in times…
How the State Failed Noelia Castillo
On March 26, Noelia Castillo, a twenty-five-year-old Spanish woman, was killed by her doctors at her own…
The Mind’s Profane and Sacred Loves
The teachers you have make all the difference in your life. That they happened to come into…
