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.
Moral Certitude and the Iran War
The current military engagement with Iran calls renewed attention to just war theory in the Catholic tradition.…
The Slow Death of England: New and Notable Books
The fate of England is much in the news as popular resistance to mass immigration grows, limits…
Ethics of Rhetoric in Times of War
What we say matters. And the way we say it matters. This is especially true in times…