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 Trinity’s third chapter in the context of the book as a whole, and (c) the way tradition has functioned—and continues to function—for the faithful orthodox throughout history. This latter contextual consideration challenges where Hollingsworth presumes the burden of proof lies regarding a Protestant adoption of Nicene orthodoxy in light of sola scriptura.
Key Terms: Doctrine of the Trinity, Social Trinitarianism, Trinity Models, Classical Theism, Tradition, Matthew Barrett, Sola Scriptura, Andrew Hollingsworth
Read the full article: On Critiquing “on Critiquing Social Trinitarianism”: A Response to Andrew Hollingsworth
