On Critiquing Social Trinitarianism: Problems with a Recent Attempt Andrew Hollingsworth Andrew Hollingsworth (PhD, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary) is Assistant Professor of Theology and Christian Philosophy at Brewton-Parker College in Mt. Vernon, Georgia. Abstract: In his recent book, Simply Trinity, Matthew Barrett argues that Christians need to retrieve the pro-Nicene doctrine of the Trinity, as articulated by the fathers in the patristic, medieval, and reformation periods of the church’s history. He also argues that social trinitarianism is beyond the boundaries of pro-Nicene orthodoxy, and that many Christians today who have accepted some version or another of social trinitarianism have accepted a false Trinity. In this paper, I object to Barrett’s characterization of social trinitarianism, arguing that he misrepresents the positions and agendas of several thinkers who identify as social trinitarians. I also argue that Barrett does not develop a clear argument demonstrating that social trinitarianism is unbiblical, nor does he develop a clear argument against the social-trinitarian views of those individuals that he lists and critiques. As a result, Barrett’s critiques of social trinitariansism in Simply Trinity ultimately fall flat. I conclude with some practical steps for moving the discussions surrounding social trinitarianism forward. Key Words: Doctrine of the…

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

On Critiquing “on Critiquing Social Trinitarianism”: A Response to Andrew Hollingsworth Samuel G. Parkison Samuel G. Parkison (PhD, Midwestern Seminary) is Associate Professor of Theological Studies and Director of the Abu Dhabi Extension Site at Gulf Theological Seminary in the United Arab Emirates. Before coming to GTS, Samuel was assistant professor of Christian studies at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and pastor of teaching and liturgy at Emmaus Church in Kansas City. Abstract: This brief essay is a response to Andrew Hollingsworth’s article, “On Critiquing Social Trinitarianism: Problems with a Recent Attempt.” In his article, Hollingsworth canvases Matthew Barrett’s third chapter in Simply Trinity: The Unmanipulated Father, Son, and Spirit, which surveys the recent history of social trinitarianism, describing its major figures and their divergence (or, “drift”) from the historic and orthodox trinitarianism of Nicaea. Hollingsworth argues that Barrett’s critique fails on account of (a) inadequate engagement with the proponents of social trinitarianism he names, (b) an inadequate definition of social trinitarianism, and (c) inadequate justification for his presuppositions regarding the relative authority of tradition on hermeneutics and dogmatics. In this essay, I will argue that each of these criticisms fail when we consider (a) the nature of Simply Trinity, (b) Simply…

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

In Other Words? the Difficult Question of Jesus’s Divinity in Schleiermacher Matt Jenson Matt Jenson (PhD, University of St. Andrews) is associate professor of theology for the Torrey Honors Institute at Biola University. Abstract: The apparently straightforward question of whether Friedrich Schleiermacher believed that Jesus is God proves surprisingly complex. As a teenager, he confessed to his father that he had lost his faith; but later he claimed to have become a pietist again, if of a higher order. He sharply critiqued Chalcedonian categories but spoke of “an actual being of God in [Christ].” Perhaps Schleiermacher offers an orthodox Christology in other words, one that purifies philosophical categories while retaining the central biblical witness to Jesus as God in the flesh. In the end, however, I argue a cumulative case on the basis of epistolary, exegetical, and dogmatic evidence that Schleiermacher persevered in his unbelief “that He, who called Himself the Son of Man, was the true, eternal God.” Read the full article: In Other Words? the Difficult Question of Jesus’s Divinity in Schleiermacher * Portions of this article appear in Matt Jenson, Theology in the Democracy of the Dead: A Dialogue with the Living Tradition (Baker Academic, 2019). Used by…

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

Theology in Missional Mode: Harvie Conn’s Contribution Michael W. Goheen Michael W. Goheen is professor of missional theology at Covenant Theological Seminary and director of theological education for the Missional Training Center Systematic Theology Under Attack Today systematic theology is under attack in many circles. It has been knocked off its privileged perch for a variety of reasons. John Goldingay speaks for many that “if systematic theology did not exist, it might seem unwise to invent it.”[1] We are in a new postmodern climate that distrusts both reason and all totalizing systems structured by human rationality. There is suspicion that the systems of theology are less systems found in Scripture and more products of creative human construction. Moreover, there has been a recovery of the storied shape of the Scriptural canon accompanied by a deepened awareness of the diversity of literary genres. The Bible is not simply a data dump of theological propositions,[2] nor a storehouse of isolated theological facts waiting to be arranged coherently by the systematic mind, nor a book with theological pieces of a jigsaw puzzle waiting to be assembled.[3] The Bible is in its overall shape a story of redemption with many genres that equip us…

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

A Rose is Not Just a Rose: Re-integrating Faith with Learning in the Post-Christian Academy [1] Peter Rasor Peter Rasor (PhD, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is Senior Pastor at Lilburn Christian Church in Lilburn, GA and serves as Adjunct Professor in Philosophy at Grand Canyon University Abstract: The integration of the Christian faith with learning has been a subject of discussion in Christian higher education for several decades. One pressing question is exactly how to accomplish this integration in every discipline of the Christian university, from the humanities to the sciences. This has proven to be somewhat difficult. A primary reason for this difficulty is due to the acceptance of what George Marsden calls “methodological secularism.” This paper offers four suggestions for overcoming methodological secularism seemingly entrenched in Christian universities in order to integrate successfully Christian faith with learning across all disciplines. Read the full article: A Rose is Not Just a Rose: Re-integrating Faith with Learning in the Post-Christian Academy [1] The phrase “a rose is not just a rose” is taken from Arthur Holmes, Building the Christian Academy (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 44. Emphasis added. Share this on: FacebookTwitterLinkedin

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

Christology and Economic Ethics: Herman Bavinck’s Prophet, Priest, and King in the Marketplace Matthew Kaemingk Matthew Kaemingk (PhD, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam; PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) is Richard John Mouw Assistant Professor of Faith and Public Life And Director of The Richard John Mouw Institute of Faith And Public Life at Fuller Theological Seminary.   Introduction How should a Christian follow Jesus in the marketplace? Around the world Christian activists and academics, pastors and professionals offer a wide variety of dissenting answers to the critically important relationship between faith and economic life. This article explores a latent potential within Herman Bavinck’s Christology to present a way forward for a divided church on the major marketplace questions of the day. An essay of “public theology,” this brief article develops and applies Herman Bavinck’s munus triplex Christology—Christ as prophet, priest, and king—to illustrate both the unity and diversity of the church’s marketplace responsibilities. This article will examine a Jesus-follower’s threefold vocation in the marketplace: a prophetic calling to speak words of economic truth and justice, a priestly calling to marketplace ministries of reconciliation, grace, and spiritual communion, and a royal calling to economic responsibility, creativity, productivity, and service. Read the full article: Christology and…

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

Revisiting Bavinck and the Beatific Vision Cory C. Brock Cory Brock (PhD, University of Edinburgh) is an assistant pastor at First Presbyterian Church in Jackson, Mississippi. He serves as lecturer in Christian thought at Belhaven University, and he is the author of Orthodox yet Modern: Herman Bavinck’s Use of Friedrich Schleiermacher (Lexham Press, 2020). Introduction This current year, 2021, marks the centenary death of Herman Bavinck—a season in which the world lost several superior theologians. With such an occasion, one reflects on the most noteworthy and meaningful contributions of the Dutch theologian with such magisterial influence in the discipline of theology as well as the life of the church. As Bavinck’s readership rises in the twenty-first century, it has been common for readers to reflect on the doxological character of his dogmatics, his irenic, catholic spirit that accompanied his catholic theological vision, and his unflinching commitment to biblical and confessional dogmatic logic. In all these ways and in all his efforts, his writing is a typically Godward, theological theology, to borrow a phrase from Webster, where dogmatics proceeds according to its own principia despite the modern turn to Wissenschaft.[1] Bavinck defined his theological project commensurate with the history of Christian theological…

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

Dogmatics: A Progressive Science? Cameron Clausing Cameron Clausing (PhD University of Edinburgh) is Lecturer in Applied Theology and Missional Engagement at Christ College, Sydney, Australia. Introduction In an interview with economist, Russell Roberts, John Maynard Keynes’ biographer, Robert Skidelsky, stated, “Economics is not a progressive science.”[1] By this Skidelsky was asserting that economics, unlike physics or chemistry, is not a science in which the body of knowledge has seen growth on a macrolevel. One wonders if this provocative comment about the science of economics could be made about the theology as a science. To what extent is theology a progressive science? To what extent does the body of knowledge grow?[2] Herman Bavinck (1854–1921) was unequivocal in his assertion that the science of dogmatics includes a progressive quality. In one article Bavinck asserted that dogmatics has a characteristic of “being progressive and striving for perfection.”[3] For the contemporary reader this statement does not seem to be radical. The obvious appeal, at least in the Reformed tradition, that the church is ecclesia reformata semper reformanda is taken for granted. There is a sense in which the church is striving for perfection. However, the assertion that dogmatic theology is progressive in nature was…

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

Bavinck’s Doctrine of God: Absolute, Divine Personality Gayle Doornbos Gayle Doornbos (PhD, University of St. Michael’s College) is an Associate Professor of Theology at Dordt University. She has also taught in Calvin Theological Seminary’s distance program. She lives in Sioux Center, IA. Introduction[1] Given the Dutch Reformed Theologian Herman Bavinck’s insistence on the centrality of the doctrine of the Trinity and the serious debates surrounding the doctrine at the turn of the twentieth century, it is surprising that there remain few extended treatments of Bavinck’s doctrine of God within secondary scholarship, especially those situating his theology proper within his theological and philosophical context. While there remains a widespread recognition of the trinitarian nature of Bavinck’s theology as well as examinations of the triniform structure of various doctrines,[2] the structure, shape, sources, and context of Bavinck’s doctrine of God remains underexamined (at best) and unexamined (at worst).[3] Why is this? Syd Hielema’s treatment of Bavinck’s doctrine of God in his 1998 dissertation “Herman Bavinck’s Eschatological Understanding of Redemption” illuminates at least two potential reasons in older scholarship. First, describing the doctrine of the Trinity, Hielema claims that Bavinck’s treatment is “certainly not remarkable or unusual in any way.”[4] Second, describing Bavinck’s…

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

Jesus the Law Restorer: Law and the Imitation of Christ in Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Ethics Jessica Joustra Jessica Joustra (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary, Free University of Amsterdam) is assistant professor of religion and theology at Redeemer University and an associate researcher at the Neo-Calvinist Research Institute at the Theological University of Kampen (NL). She is an editor and translator of Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Ethics: Created, Fallen, and Converted Humanity and associate editor for the Bavinck Review. Introduction “Jesus matters,” asserts Reformed philosopher James K.A. Smith.[1] A seemingly innocuous claim in Christian scholarship, one might assume he was lauding the Reformed, specifically neo-Calvinist, tradition for its well-known insistence that “there is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human life of which Christ, who is Sovereign of all, does not cry: ‘Mine!’”[2] Smith’s claim, however, is a critique, not a praise of the Reformed tradition. He continues by offering an important insight into an area of theological deficiency, speaking specifically of theological ethics: “in the Reformed tradition, we also speak more about creation than we do cross, and we speak more about law than we do Jesus.”[3] In other words, the Reformed tradition needs to continue to mine its own resources—and…

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin