The Christian Doctrine of God, One Being Three Persons

Written by Thomas F. Torrance Reviewed By Nozomu Miyahira

Professor Torrance has already published books on the Trinity, including The Trinitarian Faith: The Evangelical Theology of the Ancient Catholic Church (1988) and Trinitarian Perspective: Toward Doctrinal Agreement (1994). The former magisterial work presents an exposition of the theology of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed formulated in AD 381, and the latter, a collection of his articles on the Trinity, is concerned to highlight ecumenical perspectives of the doctrine of the Trinity, especially in relation to the recent agreement between Orthodox and Reformed Churches. These concerns are carried over to The Christian Doctrine of God. One Being Three Persons, and this inevitably overlaps with his previous works, but he aims to recast the doctrine of the Trinity as explicated in Greek patristic theology in interaction with modern theologians such as Hugh Ross Mackintosh and Karl Barth and some contemporary intellectual fruits brought about by scientists including Albert Einstein and Michael Polanyi. This newly published work is, therefore, both (1) of ecumenical nature, in that he depends heavily on Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers, who played the great role in formulating the aforementioned Creed whose contents the confessions of nearly all later major churches have not denied, and (2) of scientific rigour, in that he attempts to make the academic accuracy of theological knowledge compatible to that of any scientific knowledge which has a coherent conceptual system and certain ultimate axioms with no independent demonstrations.

Specifically, the following significant points of this work may be singled out: (1) the dynamic understanding of homoousios. Influenced by Athanasius and Barth, he argues that this term found in the Creed is not merely ‘of one being with’ but also ‘of one act with’ at the same time. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are of one being and act with one another; (2) an ‘onto-relational’ concept of the divine persons. They are of one being and act with one another precisely because they are ontologically closely related in such a way that they are interpenetrating one another. This is what the traditional doctrine of the perichoresis teaches. The concept of the onto-relation found within the Trinity is not additional or peripheral but essential and intrinsic to the concept of the divine persons; (3) the ‘holistic’ approach to the Trinity. Drawing on some of Polanyi’s theory, Professor Torrance thinks of the Trinity as a differentiated whole. In this approach the whole, while understood by itself, is nevertheless understood by a subsidiary awareness of the particular persons, and the persons are properly understood by an implicit awareness of the whole Trinity. It is important to note that this approach is slightly different from an argument of the whole and its parts, because the particular parts of the whole Trinity, or persons, are inherently co-indwelling one another and thus the whole is found and known even in any person of the Trinity. Based on this approach, he further seeks to present a settlement to the Filioque controversy. According to Torrance, the Holy Spirit proceeds not in any partitive way from the Father or from the Father and the Son but rather in a holistic way from the mutual relations of the Trinity.

Professor Torrance’s contribution to clarification of the doctrine of the Trinity and to the ecumenical movement through it are undoubtedly immense, but it would be helpful to the readers of this book if he could give more clarification of the following three points: (1) Ancient mathematics. He clarifies the manner in which the doctrine of the Trinity interacts with contemporary scientific knowledge, but he does not refer to the relation of this doctrine to its original scientific context. That is to say, in order to clarify the relation of it to contemporary scientific knowledge, to clarify the relation of it to the knowledge of ancient mathematics, for instance, would give us the original pattern of the relation of it to science. In the mathematics of the days when this doctrine was formulated, the smallest number was two, not one. That means that the number one had a kind of different ontological status from other numbers, beginning with two. I think that this ‘one’ is very close to what Professor Torrance calls ‘a differentiated whole’. As he stresses, the trinitarian terms and concepts should first of all be understood in their original setting; (2) The divine love toward us. He says a few times, based on one of Mackintosh’s works, that God loves us more or better than himself. According to Professor Torrance, what God is toward us in his revealing and loving he is in himself in his own eternal being and loving, and this divine love flows freely toward us. But how does the divine love flow more or better out toward us than the divine love flows within the Trinity? What are the implications of this? He seems to mean that in giving up his beloved Son as the sacrifice for us. God the Father loves his own Son less than us. But does not the divine love convince us more, when we know that God loves us as much as he loves himself? In other words, is it not truer that the more the Father loves the Son, the more precious and convincing this sacrifice will be? At best we can say, as Professor Torrance also says, that the divine internal love is the same as, or corresponds to, the divine love toward us, but it will be confusing to compare the divine internal love with the outward love; (3) Ecumenical perspectives. He seeks to draw an ecumenical foundation from the Trinity, but the formula ‘one being, three persons’ is ecumenical only within the Greco-Roman and its later derivative cultures. This is a matter of course, because this formula was originally set up in the Greco-Roman culture. But if Christianity is to be globalized to the point where it reaches deeply outside those cultures, the formula has to be changed according to each cultural conceptuality so that those outside them can really appreciate the doctrine of the Trinity congenially to their mindsets, although the realities of the triune revelation always transform it. Professor Torrance may argue against this that the trinitarian onto-relational concept of person is new. But for those from some of the Asian countries, the onto-relational concept of person is not new, but old and independent of Christianity. That is to say, they have a quite similar concept of person; person is what it is in relation. As he says, all theological terms and concepts fall short of the realities which they intend and are open to further modification. The trinitarian formula will have to continue to be modified according to each culture, if Christianity is to be truly ecumenical.


Nozomu Miyahira

Dr Miyahira, who earned his doctorate on the doctrine of the Trinity, is currently Visiting Scholar at Green College, Oxford.