the reciprocity between the trinitarian theology and doxology

The Reciprocity between

the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology

By

Timothy Ching Lung LAM

A Term Paper Submitted to Dr. Hung Biu KWOK of

Alliance Bible Seminary

in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Course of

TH511-E: Systematic Theology I

Spring 2003

Timothy Ching Lung LAM

Student ID Number: D023111

July 11, 2003

Table of Content

1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1

2 PROPOSITIONS FOR THE IMPRACTICALITY OF THE TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY 2

2.1 IMMANUEL KANT ................................................................................................................... 2

2.2 KARL RAHNER ....................................................................................................................... 3

2.2.1 Rahner’s Concerns over the Practicality of the Doctrine of the Trinity ............ 3

2.2.2 Rahner’s Grundaxiom of the Economic Trinity and the Immanent Trinity ........ 4

2.2.3 Limitations of Rahner’s Grundaxiom ................................................................. 4

3 THE PRACTICALITY OF THE TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY IN TERMS OF

CHRISTIANS’ DOXOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 5

3.1 CATHERINE MOWRY LACUGNA ............................................................................................. 6

3.1.1 The Paradigm of Oikonomia and Theologia ..................................................... 6

3.1.1.1 The Inseparability of Oikonomia and Theologia ........................................... 6

3.1.1.2 Doxological Character of LaCugna’s Trinitarian Theology .......................... 8

3.1.2 Relational Ontology ......................................................................................... 10

3.1.2.1 God’s Relational to Creature: Persons in Communion ................................ 10

3.1.2.2 Doxological Character of the Divine -human Relationship ......................... 11

3.1.3 Concerns over LaCugna’s Trinitarian Theology ............................................. 11

3.1.3.1 Doxology – A “Father-only” View? ............................................................. 11

3.2 THOMAS F. TORRANCE ........................................................................................................ 17

3.2.1 Stratified Levels ................................................................................................ 17

3.2.1.1 The Evangelical and Doxological Level ...................................................... 17

3.2.1.2 The Theological Level ................................................................................. 18

3.2.1.3 The Higher Theological Level ..................................................................... 19

3.2.2 Onto-relational Concept of Trinitarian Persons .............................................. 20

3.2.2.1 Homoousion ................................................................................................. 20

3.2.2.2 Onto-relational Concept: Perichoresis ......................................................... 21

3.2.3 Concerns over Torrance’s Trinitarian Theology .............................................. 23

3.2.3.1 Universal Intent vs. Universal Truth ............................................................ 23

3.2.3.2 The Participatory Evangelical and Doxological Approach .......................... 24

3.3 STRATIFIED STRUCTURE OF THE RECIPROCITY BETWEEN THEOLOGIA AND DOXOLOGIA ... 26

4 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 28

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................. I

The Reciprocity between the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology

Systematic Theology I Page 1 By Timothy Ching Lung LAM

1 Introduction

“Bring me a worm that can comprehend a man, and then I will show you a man that can

comprehend the triune God,” said John Wesley.1 This statement appears to be a

succinct expression of the human perception of the incomprehensible Trinity as viewed

by the church traditionally and even presently. Accordingly, Immanuel Kant accuses

that the doctrine thereof should then be impractical to Christian living as he says, “From

the doctrine of the Trinity, taken literally, nothing whatsoever can be gained for practical

purposes, even if one believes that one comprehended it – and less still if one is

conscious that it surpasses all our concepts.”2 Furthermore, Karl Rahner charges that

Christians fail to make the doctrine of the Trinity “a reality in the concrete life of the

faithful,” and then suggesting “the fact that, despite their orthodox confession of the

Trinity, Christians are, in their practical life, almost mere ‘monotheists.’”3

Notwithstanding that the doctrine of the Trinity has been perceived as impractical to

Christian living, more and more contemporary theologians such as Catherine M.

LaCugna and Thomas F. Torrance argue against such perspective by formulating an

inextricable relationship between Trinitarian theology and doxology. The reason why

doxology is used to reflect the Trinitarian faith in Christian living because it

characterizes every aspects of Christian life that:

“Doxology is not merely the language of direct prayer and praise,

but all forms of thought, feeling, action and hope directed and

offered by believers to the living God. Doxological affirmations

are therefore not primarily definitions or descriptions. They are

performative and ascriptive, lines of thoughts, speech and action

which, as they are offered, open up into the living reality of God

himself.”4

1 Keathley III J. Hampton, “The Trinity (Triunity) of God.” Bible Studies Press. 1997, 4. From

<http://www.bible.org/doc/theology/proper/trinity.htm> (May 7, 2003). 2 Immanuel Kant, Der Streit der Fakultäten (Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1975 [Philosophische Bibliothek,

Band 252]), 33 quoted in Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Person: A Contemporary Interpretation of the

Trinity, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House Company, 1995), 111. 3 Karl Rahner, The Trinity, trans. J. Donceel, (New York: Herder & Herder, 1970), 10.

4 C.M. LaCugna is of the opinion that this statement is apparently written by D. Ritschl. See D. Ritschl,



By relating the doxological characters of Christian living to Trinitarian theology, the

doctrine of the Trinity is no longer impractical, but rather “a practical doctrine with

radical consequences for Christian life” as adamant by LaCugna.5 Furthermore,

Torrance sees a reciprocal relationship between Trinitarian theology and doxology to

which Christian’s doxological expression of the Trinity constitutes the movement of

theological thought from level to level towards the ontological Trinity while “…the

doctrine of the Trinity belongs to the very heart of saving faith where it constitutes the

inner shape of Christian worship and the dynamic grammar of Christian theology.”6

Accordingly, what is going to prove here is that the Trinitarian Theology is a practical

theology in reciprocal relation to Christian doxology which constitutes the dynamic

movement of theological thoughts beginning from Christian’s evangelical and

doxological participation in the Gospel and culminating in Christian’s doxology towards

God’s own ontological Trinitarian Life as God.

2 Propositions for the Impracticality of the Trinitarian Theology

2.1 Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant, a critical philosopher, claims that Trinitarian theology is

impractical because one cannot have knowledge of “supersensible objects.”7 As

he explains in his treatise of Critique of Pure Reason, content of knowledge is, by

no means but, provided by human sense experience.8 However, the Trinity, as a

supersensible object, is impossible to be apprehended in the form or structure of

knowledge. Accordingly, Kant concludes that the doctrine of the Trinity has

indeed no practical value for it, itself, cannot be comprehended even one claims

Memory and Hope (New York: Macmillan, 1967), 168-176 quoted in Catherine M. LaCugna, God for Us: The

Trinity and Christian Life, (New York: Haper Collins, 1991), 336. 5 Ibid, 1.

6 Thomas F. Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God, One Being Three Person, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,

1996), 10, 83. 7 Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Person: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, (Grand Rapids,

Michigan: Baker Book House Company, 1995), 111. 8 Ibid.



to believe in it.9 As a result, as Kant further elaborates, there is no difference in

one’s belief as to his/her practical living, which, for instance, could be

demonstrated in Christian liturgical practice that there is no difference for

Christians worship three gods or ten.10

Therefore, should the doctrine of the

Trinity in much the same way as religion not be abandoned, Kant believes that

Trinitarian theology should be reformulated from the practical consideration of

ethics rather than pure theoretical reasons.11

2.2 Karl Rahner

2.2.1 Rahner’s Concerns over the Practicality of the Doctrine of the Trinity

Karl Rahner, who appears to assent to Kant’s challenge, contends the

practicality of Trinitarian theology. He says that major religious

literature would remain unchanged even if there were no doctrine of

Trinity.12

For instance, Rahner comments that today’s Christians only

emphasize on God being a man rather than the particular one divine

person being a man.13

Indeed, Rahner is dissatisfied with the traditional

doctrine of the Trinity that it apparently overlooks the distinctiveness

between each person in the Trinity. To make his point clear, he asks a

hypothetical question on whether or not each of the divine persons has

become man.14

Certainly his answer is negative although the answer, he

believes, would be positive for the traditional doctrine of the Trinity.15

Nevertheless, Rahner is not accusing that the traditional doctrine of the

Trinity undermines the incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity,

but rather, in practice, it does not. As a result, Rahner concludes

disappointedly, “…the Christian’s idea of the incarnation would not have

to change at all if there were no Trinity.”16

Therefore, Christians

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid, 117.

12 Karl Rahner, The Trinity, trans. J. Donceel, (New York: Herder & Herder, 1970), 10-11.

13 Ibid, 11.

14 Ibid.

15 Ibid.

16 Ibid, 11.



practical living are almost mere monotheistic rather than Trinitarian due

to their perspectives of incarnation, grace and redemption merited by God

only rather than the Incarnate Word of God.

2.2.2 Rahner’s Grundaxiom of the Economic Trinity and the Immanent

Trinity

In an attempt to solve this problem, Rahner relates God's own

intra-trinitarian life to the world in His saving economy by his influential

Grundaxiom that: “The ‘economic’ Trinity is the ‘immanent’ Trinity and

the ‘immanent’ Trinity is the ‘economic’ Trinity.”17

According to this

axiom, Rahner maintains the identity of ‘the Son of the economic Trinity’

with ‘the Son of the immanent Trinity’ that “here the Logos with God and

the Logos with us, the immanent and the economic Logos, are strictly the

same.”18

However, Rahner is not saying that the two are ontologically

identical, for doing so would result in pantheism. Rather, the economic

Trinity is the starting point of theology as he sees a “relative” (relational)

differentiation between the two sets of the Trinity, namely, the economic

Trinity is “grounded” in the immanent Trinity.19

In short, what Rahner

is trying to articulate is that the immanent Trinity can be manifested

through the economic Trinity for they are the united and thus the doctrine

of the Trinity does matter in Christian practical life.

2.2.3 Limitations of Rahner’s Grundaxiom

Notwithstanding that Rahner’s Grundaxiom has made its contribution to

the development of the Trinitarian theology over the past several decades,

its implications have not worked through fully as they should be.

Catherine M. LaCugna queries this axiom by saying that,

“Is there a way to preserve a distinction of reason between

17

Ibid, 22. 18

Ibid, 33.



economic and immanent Trinity without allowing it to

devolve into an ontological distinction? This is crucial

because if the distinction is ontological, then theologia is

separated from oikonomia. If the distinction is

epistemological, then oikonomia is our means of access to

theologia, and, it is truly theologia that is given in

oikonomia”20

Accordingly, LaCugna contends that the terminology of the immanent

and economic Trinity is imprecise and misleading.21

Consequently,

Rahner’s identity of the two Trinities may lead to an impression of “two

discrete realities,” which may “hamper the doxological movement of the

human heart insofar as its very discourse may reify or objectify the

Trinity.”22

Ironically, the attempt to restore the doctrine of the Trinity in

Christian practical living, which Rahner was trying, results in impeding

Christian’s exercise of the doxological character of theology.

3 The Practicality of the Trinitarian Theology in terms of Christians’ Doxology

According to Prosper of Aquitaine (435 – 472 AD), the law of prayer determines the law

of belief (“lex orandi; lex credendi”)23

. This maxim is commonly interpreted that the

content of prayer is synonymous with the faith of the one praying, so that we can

understand one’s faith by examining his/her liturgical practice in use. Therefore,

Christian’s doxology denoting offering of worship to “the three persons of the Blessed

Trinity,”24

should establishes the belief of “the threefold manifestation of the one God as

19

Ibid, 101-103. 20

Catherine M. LaCugna, 217. 21

LaCugna, in God for Us Review Symposium, Horizons 20 (1993), 127-42 quoted in Elizabeth T. Groppe,

“Catherine Mowry LaCugna’s Contribution to Trinitarian Theology,” Theological Studies 63 (2002): 732. 22

Ibid, 735. 23

Prosper of Aquitaine, a monk who served as a secretary to Leo the Great, said, “the order of supplication

determines the rule of faith.” (“ut legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi.”). See Prosper of Aquitaine,

Capitula Coelestini 8 in Paul De Clerk, “‘Lex orandi; lex credendi’: The Original Sense and Historical Avatars

of an Equivocal Adage,” trans. Thomas M. Winger, Studia Liturgica 24 (1994), 181 quoted in Nicholas A.

Jenson, “Lex orandi, lex credendi: Towards a Liturgical Theology,” Nov. 2001, 7. From

<http://www.ecumenism.net/archive/jesson_lexorandi.pdf> (June 11, 2003). 24

Walter A. Elwell, ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology Grand Rapids, (Michigan: Baker Book House

Company, May 1990), 356.



Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”25

As mentioned previously, LaCugna, and Torrance both

formulate their Trinitarian theologies connecting the Trinitarian Theology with doxology,

which is indeed in accordance with Prosper’s axiom.

3.1 Catherine Mowry LaCugna

LaCugna, in her influential “God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life,” has

demonstrated that the doctrine of the Trinity is “an eminently practical teaching

with radical consequences for Christian life.”26

Throughout the entire book,

LaCugna’s Trinitarian theology is proved to be practical as it weds all theologies

related to all dimensions of Christian life which first comes to an expression in

Christian’s doxology.27

For LaCugna, doxology is the only means, through

which Christians are able to speak of “God in se”.28

Most profoundly she

believes, “Trinitarian theology culminates in doxology, in the praise and

adoration of God.”29

In this regard, LaCugna’s Trinitarian theology is not an

abstract concept of God's inner life, but rather focuses on God's life related to

humanity, as revealed in the economy (events of salvation) through the Son in the

Spirit. In order to understand how LaCugna builds a strong connection between

Trinitarian theology and doxology, her Trinitarian theology should be examined.

3.1.1 The Paradigm of Oikonomia and Theologia

3.1.1.1 The Inseparability of Oikonomia and Theologia

With the inspiration of Karl Rahner’s Grundaxiom (i.e. “the economic

Trinity is the immanent Trinity and the immanent Trinity is the

economic Trinity”), LaCugna develops her Trinitarian theology as an

alternative approach, namely, “the Inseparability of Oikonomia and

Theologia,” which not only maintains the spirit of Rahner’s axiom,

25

Ibid, 502. 26

Elizabeth T. Groppe, 730. 27

C.M. LaCugna, and K. McDonnell, “Returning from ‘The Far Country’: Theses for a Contemporary

Trinitarian Theology,” Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. 41 (1988): 196, 211. 28

Ibid, 191. 29

Elizabeth T. Groppe, 735.



but also avoids the problems resulted from Rahner’s employment of

the terms, “economic and immanent.”30

In fact, LaCugna’s adoptions of Oikonomia and Theologia are not

merely literal substitutes for Rahner’s terms of “economic and

immanent,” for the meaning and relationship thereof are different.

Rather, she articulates a new framework of Trinitarian theology. For

Rahner, the economic Trinity refers to “the historical manifestation of

that eternal self-communication in the mission of Jesus Christ and the

Spirit” while the immanent Trinity means the “‘intra-divine’

self-communication: Father to Son and Spirit.”31

In contrast,

LaCugna’s oikonomia means the “comprehensive plan of God

reaching from creation to consummation, in which God and all

creatures are destined to exist together in the mystery of love and

communion” while theologia refers to “the mystery of God.”32

When considering Rahner’s axiomatic identity of the economic and

immanent Trinity as a starting point, LaCugna’s adoption of theologia

with oikonomia best describes the inseparable but distinctive

relationship between the mystery of God and the mystery of salvation

(rather than identical), which she claims “more accurately the return

to the biblical and pre-Nicene pattern of thought.”33

In history

during the process of writing the Nicene Creed, soteriology was

separated from the doctrine of God and that theologia came to refer to

the inner workings of the divine life apart from the work of saving

economy. LaCugna considers it as a mistake that the intra-divine

relations of the Three Persons have lost their connection to God’s

economy in the world, which leads to a result of two discrete realities.

In view of this problem, Rahner’s Grundaxiom was used to attempt to

30

Elizabeth Groppe listed out eight limitations of the paradigm of the economic and immanent Trinity.

See Ibid, 731-740. 31

In fact, Karl Rahner did not explicitly explain the meanings of “economic and immanent Trinity” in his

book, The Trinity. However, one would not be difficult to determine Rahner’s definitions of the two terms

throughout the entire book. In order to introduce her ‘inseparability of oikonomia and theologia’ as an

alternative terminologies for Rahner’s axiom, LaCugna defines the meanings for “economic and immanent

Trinity’ in view of Rahner’s theology. See Catherine M. LaCugna, 212. 32

Ibid, 223.



affirm the essential unity of oikonomia and theologia. However,

LaCugna claims that such unity cannot be strictly identical, although

“theologia is fully revealed in oikonomia while oikonomia rightly

expresses the ineffable theologia.”34

Rather, as she explains,

theologia transcends what can be expressed in oikonomia, “just as our

own personhood exceeds anyone self-expression or even a lifetime of

self-expression.”35

In addition, should God’s act in Himself be

identical with His acts in the world, the world would therefore

become the reflection of God, denoting the world is divine in that

sense, which may result in the criticism of being pantheistic. In this

respect, LaCugna’s axiom is considered more appropriate that

theologia and oikonomia are not identical, but rather they are

distinctive and inseparable.

3.1.1.2 Doxological Character of LaCugna’s Trinitarian Theology

For LaCugna, doxology is the practice of Christian’s Trinitarian

theology, which was indeed first given in the expression within

liturgical practice such as rite of baptism, creeds, eucharistic prayer

and doxologies.36

As Jürgen Moltmann says, “Real theology, which

means knowledge of God, finds expression in thanks, praise,

adoration. And it is what finds expression in doxology that is the

real theology…Here we know in order to participate. Then to know

God means to participate in the fullness of the divine life.”37

Accordingly, there is an inextricable relationship between doxology

and theology, i.e. doxology establishes theology and theology

culminates in doxology. However, Rahner’s Grundaxiom may

hinder the exercise of theology in the mode of doxology for it “may

reify or objectify the Trinity” into two discrete realities, which causes

33

Ibid. 34

Ibid. 35

Ibid, 304. 36

C.M. LaCugna, and K. McDonnell, 196. 37

Jürgen Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, trans. Margaret Kohl, (San Francisco, CA:

Harper & Row, 1981), 152 quoted in Sean William Anthony, “The Holistic Pneumatology of Jürgen Moltmann:

A Pentecostal Examination,” From <http://members.tripod.com/~Xanthicus/moltmann.html> (May 23, 2003).



Christians to think the relationship intellectually between the two

Trinities rather than to worship to the unobjectifiable God.38

Alternatively, LaCugna’s axiom not only avoids the risk of

objectification but also maintains the unity of God and God for us and

that “doxology is the ‘practice’ of the unity of oikonomia and

theologia; all knowledge, love, and worship of God must be routed

through Christ by the power of the Spirit.”39

In the act of doxology,

the praise is offered to God as a reflective language of Christian’s

faith because of God’s divinity (the mystery of God) and because of

what God has done, is doing and will do on our behalf (the mystery of

economy).40

In this regard, there is no distinction between ‘we

worship God’ and ‘we worship God for us’ in doxology and hence

doxology preserves the unity of theologia and oikonomia.

The term of doxology is indeed derived from the Greek word, “doxa”

meaning glory.41

LaCugna’s terminology of doxology is in agreement

with this definition and that glory is “the face of God that may not be

seen (the mystery of God), and the saving act that is witnessed (the

mystery of salvation).”42

With this definition, God’s glory is no

difference to His saving glory. In this respect, Christian’s doxology

is an expression of glory which articulates the proper connection

between oikonomia and theologia.

Along with the above thought, there is a reciprocal relationship

between theology and doxology where theologia is fully revealed in

oikonomia which doxology is rooted in and doxology rooted in

oikonomia eventually reaches to theologia..”43

As a result, one,

in the mode of doxology, would see a dynamic movement of

theologia towards God’s other in oikonomia, and that all things

38

Elizabeth T. Groppe, 735. 39

Catherine M. LaCugna, 15-16. 40

Ibid, 15-16. 41

Walter A. Elwell, ed., 356. 42


Elizabeth T. Groppe, 746.



“exitus” from God through Christ in the Spirit will be brought

together in God and “reditus” to God in the Spirit through Christ.44

Such ecstatic movement can be best described in a parabolic

presentation as follows:45

3.1.2 Relational Ontology

3.1.2.1 God’s Relational to Creature: Persons in Communion

One of the LaCugna’s concerns on Rahner’s equality of the economic

Trinity and the immanent Trinity is God’s way of being in

relationship with human in view of God’s personhood. She

disagrees that the immanent Trinity is intra-divine

self-communication by arguing that “God is not self-contained,

egotistical and self-absorbed but overflowing love, outreaching desire

for union with all that God has made.”46

Accordingly, God’s own

Trinitarian life does not belong to God alone, but rather relates to us

in His eternal glory revealed through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit.

“Trinitarian life is therefore also our life.”47

It is notable that

LaCugna replaces the term, “substance”, by “Person” as “both God

44

Catherine M. LaCugna, 222-223. 45

Ibid, 223. 46

Ibid, 15. 47

Ibid, 228.

God (Father)

Jesus Christ Jesus Christ

Holy Spirit

World

God (Father)

Holy Spirit

Oikonomia and Theologia



and the creature exist and meet as persons in communion.”48

As a

result, the doctrine of the Trinity is hence not a teaching about the

abstract nature of God apart from human, but rather a teaching about

God’s life interacted with human. Such relational ontology affirms

the inseparability of oikonomia and theologia: “God’s To-Be is

To-Be-in relationship, and God’s being-in-relationship-to-us is what

God is.”49

3.1.2.2 Doxological Character of the Divine -human Relationship

The term, ‘glory’ (meaning for doxology) is not only well-suited in

explaining the doxological character of LaCugna’s axiomatic

inseparability of oikonomia and theologia, but it also reflects the

divine-human relationship in view of God’s act towards human.

Firstly, Jesus is the reflection of God’s glory and that the Father is

glorified through Jesus’ life on earth such as His salvation, suffering,

death and resurrection. Then, Christians are commanded by Jesus to

give glory to God not only in prayer but also with their whole lives.

However, it is human impossible for Christians to give glory and

honor to God without being deified by the Holy Spirit. Accordingly,

Christian’s doxology is an act of God that are mediated through

Christ and made possible in the power of the Spirit to be directed

towards God. In this respect, doxology actuates the true relationship

between people and with God, which unifies Christians with God by

restoring in a right relationship.50

3.1.3 Concerns over LaCugna’s Trinitarian Theology

3.1.3.1 Doxology – A “Father-only” View?

LaCugna’s formulation of Christian’s doxology directed to God the

48

Ibid, 250. 49

Ibid. 50

Ibid, 338.



Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit appears to be a

“Father-only” maxim, which is indeed controversial.51

According to

LaCugna’s survey of Christian liturgical practice throughout the first

few centuries, “praise was addressed to God or to God the Father

through Christ in the Holy Spirit.”52

In fact, this Trinitarian pattern

was gradually changed after Nicene creeds in the 4th

Century due to

the controversy brought by Arianism. As a doctrine formulated

against the Arian heretical concept of Christ’s subordination to God

the Father, LaCugna contends that the “role of Christ as mediator and

High Priest in His humanity (cf. Heb. 4:14-16) gradually was

replaced by Christ the heavenly High Priest who in His divinity

intervenes for us, making an offering of glory efficacious before God

the Father.”53

Similarly, the church’s liturgical practice affected by

Arianism witnesses the transition where the Spirit of the efficacious

role becomes also the object of the praise together with the Father and

the Son.54

As a result, LaCugna accuses that Prosper’s axiom is

reversed from “lex orandi, lex credendi” (the law of worship

establishes the law of belief) to “lex credendi, lex orandi” (the law of

belief, namely the doctrine of the Trinity, comes to establish the law

of worship).55

It appears that one of the grounds LaCugna’s Trinitarian pattern based

on is the historical practice of Church’s liturgical tradition before

Nicene creeds. However, it is problematic:

First of all, although there appears to be no evidence of such practice

before Nicea to give praise and honor to the Father and the Son and

the Holy Spirit, it does not imply that such practice should be

prohibited as there is no such teaching explicitly stated in the

51

This is termed by Erickson to say that prayers are to be directed to the Father only. See Millard J.

Erickson, Making Sense of the Trinity: 3 Crucial Questions, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House

Company, 2000), 77. 52


Ibid. 54

Ibid, 127. 55

Ibid, 135.



Scriptures against it.

Secondly, human apprehension of God is still in an ongoing process.

As LaCugna says, God “is alive and whose ongoing relationship with

creation and person cannot be frozen or fixed in time. God is a

‘walking God’ who accompanies a pilgrim people, according to a

providential plan administered (economized) throughout time.”56

Therefore, human’s knowledge of God is like a journey with God in

history.57

Along with this thinking, such ongoing interaction

between God and human implies that human’s apprehension of God is

still developing throughout the history. For instance, people in the

New Testaments would know more about God than the people in the

Old Testaments particularly in the saving act of God through Jesus

Christ in the Holy Spirit.

In this regard, what human apprehends God in history is important as

LaCugna agrees that “history, in the sense of ‘what really happened,’

is recognized as the criterion of the most real.”58

In line with this

view, Rahner says, “it is ultimately in history that we receive God’s

answer to the human question.”59

Although there is no evidence of

praise given to the unity of the three coequal divine persons before

the Nicea, it does not mean that such practice happened in history

afterward is incorrect. Therefore, both practices (i.e. prayers to the

Trinity and prayers to the Father through the Son in the Spirit) are

historical incidents, or commonly termed as “traditions” that should

be considered at the same time rather than taking the earliest tradition

as the only criteria to justify the appropriateness of Christian liturgical

practice. As Alister McGrath says, “Tradition is to be honored

where it can be shown to be justified and rejected where it cannot.”60

56

Ibid, 321. 57


Ibid, 4. 59

Karl Rahner, Faith in a Wintry Season: Conversation and Interviews with Karl Rahner in the Last Years

of His Life, ed. Paul Imbof and Hubert Biallowons (New York: Crossroad, 1990), 28 quoted in Elizabeth T.

Groppe, 754. 60

Alister E. McGrath, “The Importance of Tradition for Modern Evangelicalism,” In Doing Theology for



Accordingly, the tradition, as he further suggests, should be critically

appraised based on the “interpretation of Scripture,” which should be

justified in accordance with the same way precisely in which it has

been interpreted in the past.61

However, there are indeed many

traditional ways of interpreting the Scripture and that some

interpretations may not only be different, but also be contradicted.

An example would be the Protestant Reformation in the 16th

century

when Luther’s rediscovery of “justification by faith” caused his break

with the Roman Catholic Church, which had eventually become a

central doctrine of the Protestant Reformation. The question would

then be, “whether our traditions conflict with the only absolute

standard in these matters: Holy Scripture.”62

In order to determine whether or not the tradition of doxology

addressed to Christ is in accordance with the Holy Scripture, it would

be required to survey through the Bible. In fact, Geoffrey

Wainwright has examined that there are evidences in the New

Testaments proving earliest Christians practicing worship to Jesus.

In sum, Jesus was addressed as the Lord as seen in Christian

confession as criteria for justification (Rom 10:8-13); Christian

assembly (‘Come, O Lord’ in 1 Cor. 16:22 as an expression in the

early church crying for the second coming of Christ to be taken place

soon); Christian worship (Phil 2:5-7); Stephen’s last prayer before his

death (Acts 7:5-9); and Paul’s pleading for removal of his thorn (2

Cor. 12:8).63

In addition, even LaCugna admits that such lordship

makes it possible to refer Jesus Christ as God as evidenced in Rom.

9:5 and Heb. 13:21 in view of some doxologies directed to Jesus

although they are rare.64

Accordingly, in contrary to the accusation

that doxology addressed to Christ is simply developed under the

the People of God: Studies in Honour of J.I. Packer, 159-173, (Leicester: Apollos. 1996), 160.

61 Ibid, 160-161.

62 Ibid, 162.

63 Geoffrey Wainwright, Doxology: The Praise of God in Worship, Doctrine, and Life: A Systematic

Theology, (New York: Oxford University Press,1980), 47-48. 64

Catherine M. LaCugna, 124.



pressure in the post-Nicene anti-Arian era, Christian doxology

directed to Jesus is “scripturally” appropriated.

While doxology directly addressed to Christ is justified in light of the

Holy Scripture, doxology directed to the Spirit should also be open to

challenge in the same manner. Generally, two approaches should be

considered, namely, (1) the biblical witness and (2) the practices of

the early church in order to justify on whether or not prayer or

worship can be addressed directly to the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless,

Geoffrey Wainwright says, “…we may conclude that there is no case

in which the Spirit figures as an object of worship in the New

Testament writings.”65

In addition, Leonard Hodgson said,

“Now it is time, so far as I know, there is extant no instance

of hymns or prayers addressed to the Holy Spirit that is

certainly earlier than the tenth century. It is also true that

the standard form of Christian worship is worship offered

by the Christian to the Father in union with the Son

through the Spirit.”66

With respect to the above two findings, one may conclude that prayer

or worship should not be addressed to the Spirit directly. This

conclusion, seemingly correct, is however questionable. Erickson

argued that “not all of God’s intention for our conduct or even all of

doctrine is explicitly stated in the Bible,” for such approach would

limit our ability to use our “methodology of evangelism” to amend

situations.67

Accordingly, Erickson suggested that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit

should be considered in addition to the above two approaches of

65

Geoffrey Wainwright, 92-93. 66

Leonard Hodgson, The Doctrine of the Trinity (New York: Scribners, 1944), 232 quoted in Millard J.

Erickson, Making Sense of the Trinity: 3 Crucial Question, 81. 67

Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Person: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, 313.



biblical witness and early church’s practice.68

In fact, the Holy

Spirit is a person as also emphasized by LaCugna that the Spirit is

“not a ‘by-itself’ or an ‘in-itself’ but a person, a toward-another.”69

As a person, the Spirit can be directly and personally related to by the

human persons. As Erickson surveys through the Bible, the Holy

Spirit, as a person, “convicts person of sin, righteousness, and

judgement (John 16:8-11); regenerates (John 3:5-8); guides into truth

(John 16:13); sanctifies (Rom. 8:1-17); and empowers for service

(Acts 1:8),” and “…inspired the writers who produced the scriptures

(2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21),” etc.70

With such a personal character, a

personal relationship between Christians and the Spirit is possible.

In this regard, should one seek conviction, regeneration, guidance into

truth, sanctification and empowerment in services, which are

primarily works of the Spirit, payer directly addressed to the Spirit is

appropriate.

Notwithstanding the above, one may wonder the practice of prayers

or worships directly addressed to each individual person may be led

to a risk of tritheism that there are three gods. Nonetheless, with the

concept of “perichoresis” highlighting the “mutual indwelling, loving,

and inexisting between the Trinitarian Persons in Being and Activity,”

it is noted that the whole Trinity is involved in every divine works.71

Even though a particular divine work is the distinctive responsibility

of one divine person, the other two divine persons are also integrally

present and active in such work. Accordingly, Erickson suggested

that prayers and worships should be directed primarily to the Triune

God, of which in part could be addressed to each individual Persons

of the Godhead, but keeping in mind that it is that particular Person

doing the particular work on behalf of the other two or the Trinity

doing the work through one particular Person.72

68

Millard J. Erickson, Making Sense of the Trinity: 3 Crucial Questions, 83. 69


Millard J. Erickson, Making Sense of the Trinity: 3 Crucial Questions, 83. 71

Elmer M. Colyer, “T.F. Torrance on the Trinity: An Invitation for Dialogue,” 6. 72

Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Person: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, 328.



3.2 Thomas F. Torrance

In view of the limitation of LaCugna’s Trinitarian pattern in Christian doxological

expression, Torrance’s onto-relational concept of his Trinitarian may refine such

shortcoming. Though some concepts are similar to LaCugna’s axiom, Torrance

develops a very thorough and comprehensive Trinitarian Theology by adopting a

scientific approach of “stratified levels” to articulate the doctrine of the Trinity.

Furthermore, through Torrance’s Trinitarian Theology, a reciprocal relationship is

observed between the Trinitarian Theology and Doxology: the proper

understanding of God (the Trinitarian Theology) both issues in doxology and

presupposes doxology.

3.2.1 Stratified Levels

Torrance’s Trinitarian theology is not a set of doctrinal propositions

deducting from the biblical witnesses or theological speculations of

Christian experiences, but rather from “coherent convictions, creedal

formulae” that “articulate in explicit manner the implicit mystery of

Trinity inherent in God’s oikonomia and in an evangelical and doxological

participation in it.”73

Along with this thinking, Christian’s formulation

of the doctrine of the Trinity can be best described by a scientific

approach through the three-interrelated-level stratified structure, which

begins with “the evangelical and doxological level” moving through “the

theological level” and eventually to “the higher theological level.”74

3.2.1.1 The Evangelical and Doxological Level

This ground level refers to “the day-to-day life and activity of the

Church” where Christians encounter God evangelically and respond

73

Thomas F. Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God, One Being Three Person, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,

1996), 75-76. 74

Ibid, 83-84.



to God doxologically.75

For Torrance, the ‘evangelical trinity’ is

revealed in “the historical facts and events of divine redemption

through which there took place a revelation of the Father through the

Son and in the Holy Spirit.”76

In return, Christians, without

undergoing thorough analytical and logical thinking, are compelled to

respond in the mode of doxology in the Spirit through the Son to the

Father imprinting the evangelical Trinity.77

At this level, Christian’s

apprehension of God can only be described as inchoate, informal,

conceptual and experiential.

3.2.1.2 The Theological Level

With the knowledge arising from the evangelical and doxological

level, a more explicit understanding of the ‘economic Trinity’ is

developed. Actually, LaCugna shares the same view that theology

arising in the act of doxology is primary theology (“theologia prima”)

while verification and affirmation established from primary theology

are secondary theology (“theologia seconda”).78

In this second level,

Torrance thinks that the Trinitarian character of God in His

redemptive activity self-revealed in history through Jesus Christ and

in the Spirit comes to basic expression as terms like ‘Trinity’ and

‘homoousion.’79

These terms are indeed in accordance with the

biblical expressions of thoughts and speeches to give their theological

meanings in a sharper and more precise manner, which can also be

used to prevent such knowledge of God being wrongly interpreted by

heresies. Accordingly, historical events like the formulation of the

Nicene Creeds could be best perceived as an evidence of this level

and that explicit theological terms are used to face challenges and

misunderstandings arising from the Trinitarian controversies at that

time.

75

Ibid, 88-89. 76

Ibid, 89. 77

Elmer M. Colyer, 4. 78


Thomas F. Torrance, 93-94.



3.2.1.3 The Higher Theological Level

Torrance claims that the concept of ‘homoousion’ developed in the

theological level also serves a linkage which articulate the movement

of theological reflection from the theological level to the higher

theological level where Christian perception of God’s self-revelation

in the redemptive history through Christ in the Spirit to the God’s

own immanent or ontological Trinitarian life.80

At this level, what

God is towards us in His saving act through Christ in the Spirit

(God’s economy) is the same as God eternally in His own being (the

ontological or theological Trinity). In this respect, Torrance thinks

that the knowledge of the very Being of God must be rooted in the

knowledge of God through Christ and in the Spirit. Similar to

LaCugna’s inseparability of oikonomia and theologia, Torrance does

not simply equate the economic Trinity and the immanent Trinity as

Rahner does, but rather articulates the interrelationship between the

knowledge of the economic Trinity and the immanent Trinity. For

Torrance, he believes that the mystery of God is still ineffable that

“remains transcendent over all space and time, so that a significant

distinction and delimitation between the economic Trinity and the

ontological Trinity must be recognized as well as their essential

oneness.”81

In order to have a better understanding on God’s own ontological

Trinitarian life, Torrance, similar to LaCugna, prefers to use the

concept of ‘person’ describing God ontologically. With his adoption

of “perichoresis” to describe the mutual indwelling, loving, and

coinherence of the Trinitarian Persons in Being and Activity, Torrance

develops an onto-relational concept of expressing the relations

between the divine Trinitarian Persons.82

Accordingly, God is not

80

Elmer M. Colyer, 5. 81

Thomas F. Torrance, 97. 82

Elmer M. Colyer, 6.



three discrete Persons but rather “a communion of Persons in which

Being and Communion are ultimately one.”83

3.2.2 Onto-relational Concept of Trinitarian Persons

Along with the stratified structure of Christian apprehension of God, two

theological concepts, “homoousion”, and “perichoresis”, play important

roles in Torrance’s Trinitarian Theology.

3.2.2.1 Homoousion

The term, “homoousion,” which is the “all-important hinge in the

center of the Nicene Creed,” demonstrates the oneness of God’s

Being (Ousia), that articulates the movement of thoughts between the

two upper stratified levels in way of the ontological interrelations

between the economic Trinity and God’s own Trinitarian Life

(ontological Trinity).84

In fact, “homoousion,” affirms the Divinity of Christ and the Spirit in

the same manner as God the Father. First of all, Jesus Christ is the

only begotten Son of God who is of the same being with the Father

and thus He is true God from true God. Such affirmation is indeed

important to prove the bonding between the Incarnate Son and the

eternal God; otherwise Christian’s evangelical and doxological

participatory knowledge of the Gospel would be totally meaningless

and that the foundation of Church would be consequently collapsed.

Secondly, “homoousion,” not only applicable to Christ, but also

demonstrates that the Holy Spirit is ‘homoousious’ with God as “the

Lord and Giver of Life whose renewing and sanctifying operation in

the faithful was identical with the direct act of God himself.”85

With

the concept of “homoousion,” the deity of both Jesus and the Spirit is

83

Ibid. 84


Ibid, 97.



affirmed and a close connection between God’s economy and God

Himself is therefore established. In Torrance’s words, “What Jesus

Christ does for us and to us, and what the Holy Spirit does in us, is

what God himself does for us, to us and in us.”86

This emphasizes the

Ousia of God being not different in the “communion-constituting

activity of God” (i.e. the love of God the Father through the grace of

Christ in the communion of the Spirit), which comes to an expression:

“Being in communion, Being for others.”87

On the other hand, “homoousion,” not only articulates and affirms the

divinity of Christ and the Spirit with the Father, but also their divine

distinctiveness in self-revelation as the Son and the Spirit for nothing

is homoousious with itself.88

As Torrance says that the homoousion

applies to the Spirit, in the same manner but in a different way as to

Christ, which is appropriate to His distinctive personal nature for the

Holy Spirit is towards us in His divine acts of renewal and

sanctification in Christ.89

Though we understand the oneness of

Being within the three differentiated and not interchangeable divine

persons, an ontological interrelation among them should be observed

in view of their unified but differentiated relationship. Such

knowledge comes to a better expression as what the Latin terms,

“perichoresis” which will be discussed in the next session.

3.2.2.2 Onto-relational Concept: Perichoresis

The “onto-relational” concept expresses the interrelationship of the

three Persons (hypostasis) within the one Being (Ousia) of the Trinity

in the third theological level, which comes to an expression of

“perichoresis”. In order to understand this relationship, Torrance

starts off from the one Being, which is understood in His interior

relations as the communion of the three divine Persons with one

86

Ibid, 95. 87

Ibid, 116. 88

Elmer M. Colyer, 5 & 8.



another (“One Being, Three Persons”). Then, he focuses more on

the communion of the three divine Persons who in their perichorectic

interrelation are the one Being of God (“Three Persons, One

Being”).90

Most profoundly it states, “One Being, Three Persons”

and “Three Persons, One Being” are the obverse of each other.91

For Torrance, “perichoresis” intensifies the differentiated but

inseparable wholeness of God’s Trinity not only in God’s Being but

also all of God’s Activities for each Person acts in a way in

accordance with His own differentiated nature in communion with

other Persons within the one Being of God. For Torrance,

perichoresis “refers to the reciprocal relations between the Father, the

Son and the Holy Spirit in which they mutually indwell, coinhere,

inexist, and wholly contain one another without in any way

diminishing the Persons without commingling or compromising the

integrity of the Persons and their real distinctions.”92

Accordingly, it

articulates the substantive and constitutive character of the relations

between the three divine Persons who are “Trinity in Unity and Unity

in Trinity.”93

Not only God in three divine Persons should be thought in

perichorectic term, but also God’s activities should be thought in the

same way. With Torrance’s perichorectic coactivity of the Trinity,

all God’s activities indwell in God’s Being and vice versa, and that all

these activities are God’s act in which each Person, within the

oneness of Being, acts in a way in accordance with that Person’s

distinctive activities, but in union and communion with the other

divine Persons.

89


Ibid, 136. 91

Ibid. 92

Elmer M. Colyer, How to Read T.F. Torrance: Understanding His Trinitarian and Scientific Theology,

(Downers Grove, III.: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 253-55 quoted in Elmer M. Colyer, 8. 93

Thomas F. Torrance, 173-175.



3.2.3 Concerns over Torrance’s Trinitarian Theology

3.2.3.1 Universal Intent vs. Universal Truth

Torrance, same as LaCugna, appears to adopt the modern approach in

understanding the ontological Trinity strictly through the divine

saving act of God’s economy, has failed to consider the pluralistic

perspective as asserted by postmodernism. Both Torrance and

LaCugna emphasize the importance of soteriology, through which

human are able to understand the universal truth, namely, “God in

se.” In contrast, Stanley Grenz appeals to “universal intent”

claiming that propositions if expressing universal truths only

represent “truncated view of belief” as truth always surpasses our

interpretation of it.94

Along this line of thinking, Millard Erickson

employs the example of “five blind men and the elephant” which

describes different blind men having their own “truths” about what

they perceive the elephant is such as “rope”, “tree”, and “wall” etc.

depending on which part of the elephant they touch.95

However,

none of the five “truths” expresses the final truth although they are

regarded as truths within one’s best perception. In addition, the

final truth cannot be achieved even though consolidating all these

“truths” together. Nevertheless, they are getting closer to what the

final truth is when considering all the “truths” rather than taking only

one. By the same token, one may have his/her “truth” (i.e. divine

saving act) regarding what the theologia is while others may have

their owns such as “divine speech, whether through dreams, visions,

or concurrent inspiration.”96

Although they may not be able to

perfectly understand what the final truth about what the theologia is,

they are getting closer to grasp it after taking into account all these

94

Douglas Groothus, Truth Decay. Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism,

(Downers Grove: IVP, 2000), 117 95

Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd

ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House Company,

1998; 2nd

reprint, June 1999), 171-172. 96

Bernard Ramm, Special Revelation and the Word of God, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), 53-69

quoted in Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Person: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity, 307.



“truths”. In this respect, these “truths” intend to be universal in their

extents, but the universal truth may still transcend human

interpretations as argued by Grenz. Nonetheless, a metanarrative,

in contrary to postmodernist notion, should be employed to ensure

the validity of these truths. Otherwise, it may go into a divergent

case like Buddhism and Christianity that they are considered “truths”

within two different communities but are contradicted to each other

in nature. In short, when formulating Trinitarian theologies,

pluralism should also be carefully considered.

3.2.3.2 The Participatory Evangelical and Doxological Approach

With respect to LaCugna’s Trinitarian pattern of Christian doxology

directed to God the Father through Christ in the Spirit, Torrance’s

stratified structure of Christian apprehension of God may provide

another perspective of the recipient of doxology. When LaCugna

says that the shift to direct praise to the three divine Persons is

developed under the pressure from Aria’s heretical challenge on

Christ’s subordination to God, she may undervalue such tradition.

As mentioned previously, “homoousion,” affirms the Deity of Christ

and the Spirit, which is not merely a speculative theological concept,

but rather a faithful exegetical filtration of the biblical witness.

Under the guidance of these carefully developed theological insights,

each stratified level is hinged together, which serves deeper and

coherent understanding of the ground level of evangelical and

doxological participation to relate to God’s saving activities in Christ

and the Spirit. As a result, Christians are inspired to give praise,

adoration, and thanksgiving to the triune God.

Furthermore, though LaCugna charged that Prosper’s axiom of ‘lex

orandi, lex credendi’ was reversed as ‘lex credendi, lex orandi,’ as a

result after the Nicene Creed, Torrance is not guilty of such

accusation. As he said, “the reverse is also true, lex credendi, lex



orandi, for true belief informs worship – belief and worship are

inextricably intertwined, as in the theological use of doxologia (the

Latin term of doxology), which refers both to worship and

doctrine.”97

An example could be taken from several verses of the

Wesleyan hymnodies, A Collection of Hymns for the use of the People

called Methodists, which reflects the Trinitarian doctrine of the

Athanasian Greed as follows:

“Adoring One in Persons Three,

And Three in nature One.

A Trinity in Unity

Three uncompounded Persons One,

One undivided God proclaim,

One Person of the Sire we praise,

Another of the Son adore,

Another of the Spirit confess,

Equal in majesty and power.

To each the glory appertains,

The Godhead of the Three in One;

The Father, Son, and Spirit of love,

One uncreated God we hail!

Supreme, essential One, adored

In co-eternal Three!

The Father is both God and Lord;

Both God and Lord his people own.

Both God and Lord, who him believe,

Each Person by himself we name:

Yet not three Gods or Lords receive,

Blessing, and honor, praise, and love,

Co-equal, co-eternal Three.”98

97

Epiphanius, Ancoratus, 24 quoted in Thomas F. Torrance, 134. 98

Seng-Kong Tan, “The Doctrine of the Trinity in John Wesley’s Prose and Poetic Works.” Journal for

Christian Theological Research. 7 (2002): 9.



In this regard, for Torrance, Christian doxology establishes theology

(as seen in the ground level of the stratified structure) while theology

informs worship. Therefore, a reciprocal relationship between

doxology and theology is well established. Nevertheless, Torrance

is of the opinion that this principle does not generally concern us at

the moment for either worship of the Father and the Son and the Holy

Spirit or worship of the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit is

the worship of one God.99

As Torrance argues that there is no

separation or division between the one Being and the three Persons of

God and that “one Being, three Persons are the obverse of each

other,” worship of and prayer to each Person are indeed the same as

worship of and prayer to the indivisible wholeness of God’s

Triunity.100

While being conscious with the oneness of God, the

personal differentiation between the Father, the Son and the Spirit

should be maintained in Christian thought. Hence, the love of the

Father, the grace of the Son and the fellowship of the Spirit should be

distinguished, however, in perichorectic interrelations as one Being of

God.

3.3 Stratified Structure of the Reciprocity between Theologia and Doxologia

Considering the limitations of LaCugna’s Trinitarian theology, an integration of

the two axioms of LaCugna and Torrance may be considered, which should

maintain the doxological characters of LaCugna’s paradigm of oikonomia and

theologia as well as Torrance’s perichoresis in the stratified structure of human

apprehension of God. In doing so, a model should characterize the following:

1. Theologia (the mystery of God) is revealed in God’s economy through Christ

in the Spirit (“oikonomia”), which culminates in doxologia (the Latin term of

doxology used here as a parallel terminology to theologia) and doxologia is

rooted in oikonomia in the Spirit through Christ directed to theologia.

99

Thomas F. Torrance, 134.



2. A persistent reciprocal interrelation between theologia and doxologia is

therefore established and that human apprehension of God commences at the

ground level of evangelical and doxological participation in the Gospel

moving through the theological level to the higher theological or ontological

level eventually.

3. In this model, oikonomia is inseparable from theologia and that theologia is

not an abstract concept of God’s immanent life, but rather a focus on God’s

own Trinitarian life related to human through the act of Christian doxology

which is indeed the act of theologia mediated through Christ and made

possible in the Spirit. Accordingly, God is a person-in-relation to human.

4. Although the Trinitarian pattern of ‘through Christ in the Spirit to God the

Father’ is correct, worship of and prayer to each Persons of the Triune God is

also appropriate through the concept of perichoresis and homoousion.

Accordingly, each Person, though along the parabolic line displaying the

Trinitarian ‘sequence,’ is a Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity in a

perichorectic activity, who is not only the ineffable divine wholeness

revealed in His economy, but also the recipient of Christian’s doxologies.

In an attempt to utilize the superb concepts of both LaCugna and Torrance’s

Trinitarian theologies while avoid the limitations that may arise as outlined above,

a model in a graphical presentation, though required to be refined further, is

suggested as follows:

100

Ibid, 112-113 & 134.



4 Conclusion

In summary, the Trinitarian theology is proved not to be impractical to Christian living,

but rather constitutes the inner shape of Christian faith in the mode of doxology with

regard to the reciprocal relationship between the Trinitarian theology and doxology.

First of all, God’s own Trinitarian life, although ineffable, can be known through His

self-revelation in the economy through Christ in the Spirit, and thus it does matter on

whether Christian worships three Gods or ten as opposed to Kant.

Secondly, Christians should no longer be “monotheists”, particularly in terms of the

incarnation, grace and redemption merited by the Second Person of the Trinity as

demonstrated in Rahner’s axiomatic identity of the economic Trinity and the immanent

Trinity.

Thirdly, with LaCugna’s inseparability of oikonomia and theologia, there is no

objectified God that may arise from Rahner’s terminology of the economic and the

immanent Trinity, which, as a result, prevents the doctrine of the Trinity from being

impractical to Christian life in the mode of doxology. Rather, LaCugna’s axiom affirms

the dynamic Trinitarian movement from God who acts into creation, redemption,

consummation through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit and then in return Christian

doxology is offered back to God in the Holy Spirit through Jesus Christ. Accordingly,

for LaCugna, the Trinitarian Theology, rooted in doxology, culminates in doxology.

God (Father)

Jesus Christ Jesus Christ

Holy Spirit

World

God (Father)

Holy Spirit Holy Spirit

World World

Holy Spirit

Jesus Christ

God (Father) God (Father)

Jesus Christ

Evangelical & Doxological Level Theological Level Higher Theological Level

Stratified Structure of Theologia and Doxologia



Fourthly, with Torrance’s stratified structure of human apprehension of the Trinity and

onto-relational concept, LaCugna’s doxological Trinitarian theology can be further

refined in view of the stratified structure of theologia and doxologia. Doxologia rooted

in oikonomia is directed to theologia and theologia, revealed in oikonomia, culminates in

doxologia. In such a reciprocal relationship between theologia and doxologia,

Christians, who begins from evangelical and doxological participation in the Gospel, are

directed to know God’s own ontological Trinitarian Life as God.

To conclude, there is nothing better than to end the discussion of theologia by doxologia

as theologia culminates in the act of doxologia: “O God, Almighty Father:”

“1. O God, Almighty Father, Creator of all things,

the heavens stand in wonder, while earth Your glory sings,

O most Holy Trinity, undivided Unity,

Holy God, mighty God, God immortal be adored.

2. O Jesus, Word incarnate, Redeemer most adored,

all glory, praise, and honor be Yours, O sovereign Lord.


Holy God, mighty God, God immortal be adored.

3. O God, the Holy Spirit, who lives within our soul,

send forth Your light and lead us to our eternal goal.


Holy God, mighty God, God immortal be adored.”101

101

“O God, Almighty Father,” trans. Irvin Udulutsch, in Century Praise, Bilingual Version, ed. Richard R.

Lin (Hong Kong: Chinese Baptist Press (International) Limited, 2001), 259.

i

Bibliography

Books:

Century Praise. Bilingual Version. Edited by Lin, Richard R. Hong Kong: Chinese Baptist

Press (International) Limited, 2001.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2nd

ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House

Company, 1998; 2nd

reprint, June 1999.

Erickson, Millard J. God in Three Person: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity.

Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House Company, 1995.

Erickson, Millard J. Making Sense of the Trinity: 3 Crucial Questions. Grand Rapids,

Michigan: Baker Book House Company, 2000.

Groothus, Douglas. Truth Decay. Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of

Postmodernism. Downers Grove: IVP, 2000.

LaCugna, Catherine M. God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life. New York: Haper Collins,

1991.

McGrath, Alister E. “The Importance of Tradition for Modern Evangelicalism.” In Doing

Theology for the People of God: Studies in Honour of J.I. Packer. 159-173. Leicester:

Apollos. 1996.

Rahner, Karl. The Trinity. Translated by Donceel, J. New York: Herder & Herder, 1970.

Torrance, Thomas F. The Christian Doctrine of God, One Being Three Persons. Edinburgh:

T&T Clark, 1996.

Wainwright, Geoffrey. Doxology: The Praise of God in Worship, Doctrine, and Life: A

Systematic Theology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1980.

Dictionary

Elwell, Walter A. ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker

Book House Company, May 1990.

Article

Colyer, Elmer M. “T.F. Torrance on the Trinity: An Invitation for Dialogue.”

ii

Journal Articles

Groppe, Elizabeth T. “Catherine Mowry LaCugna’s Contribution to Trinitarian Theology.”

Theological Studies 63 (2002): 730-763.

LaCugna, C.M. and McDonnell, K. “Returning from ‘The Far Country’: Theses for a

Contemporary Trinitarian Theology.” Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. 41 (1988):

191-215.

Tan, Seng-Kong. “The Doctrine of the Trinity in John Wesley’s Prose and Poetic Works.”

Journal for Christian Theological Research. 7 (2002): 3-14.

Websites:

Anthony, Sean William. “The Holistic Pneumatology of Jürgen Moltmann: A Pentecostal

Examination.” From <http://members.tripod.com/~Xanthicus/moltmann.html> (May 23,

2003).

Hampton, Keathley III J. “The Trinity (Triunity) of God.” Bible Studies Press. 1997. From

<http://www.bible.org/doc/theology/proper/trinity.htm> (May 7, 2003).

Jenson, Nicholas A. “Lex orandi, lex credendi: Towards a Liturgical Theology.” Nov. 2001.

From <http://www.ecumenism.net/archive/jesson_lexorandi.pdf> (June 11, 2003).

the reciprocity between the trinitarian theology and doxology

Documents

chinese baptist press

oxford university press

john wesleys prose

christian theological research

rahners axiomatic identity

lacugnas trinitarian pattern

higher theological level

torrances stratified structure