Grace, Knowledge, and Obedience

"Thus the origin of knowledge is trinitarian: The Father knows all and reveals truth to us by the grace of His Son through the work of the Spirit in our hearts. Note how each person of the Trinity is involved in the knowing process (cf. 1 Sam. 2:3; Ps. 73:11; Isa. 11:2; 28:9; 53:11; Matt. 11:25f.; Eph. 1:17; Col. 2:3). Thus it is all of God, all of grace. . . . There is a "circular" relation between knowledge and obedience in Scripture. . . . It is certainly true that if you want to obey God more completely, you must get to know Him; but it is also true if you want to know God better, you must seek to obey Him more perfectly" (John Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 42-43).

Trinitarian Communion: Archetype of Organic Unity and Individual Freedom

The organic unity of church and society depend, at least in part, upon our perception of the whole and its relation to the parts. To the degree that we regard ourselves primarily as individuals, or even groups (placing the part before the whole), our ecclesiastical and political structures will never rise above the level of a voluntary association. Here, unity and organic wholeness are nothing more than nominalistic abstractions. Only the individual is real and enduring. The organization is, by comparison, an arbitrary convention. This inherently unstable structure will, in the end, give way to self-interest, chaos, and secession.

 Historically, however, the tendency toward democracy, voluntarism, and decentralization in our society is a legitimate reaction against top-heavy organic structures (political and ecclesiastical) that have become too powerful and bureaucratic. It is essential, therefore, that the rights and freedoms of the individual be preserved while, at the same time, avoiding the error of radical individualism and balkanization. In [John W.] Nevin's view such a balance cannot be achieved simply by legislation, reorganization, or even education -- though these are necessary. Rather, these external arrangements must be the spontaneous outgrowth of a deeper sentiment which originates not in politics or business, but in the transforming and leavening power of religion in society. 

Unity and freedom begin with the love of God. Not, however, by way of natural religion or even individual Christianity (these are dim and fragmentary at best), but through the mediatorial life of Christ supernaturally present in the church and its ministry. "The soul," says [John W.] Nevin, "takes its quality and complexion always from the objects with which it is accustomed most intimately and habitually to converse." Participation in this spiritual world of powers leads to a kind of apotheosis [the climax of a development], so that by beholding the glory of Christ the inner person is changed into His likeness. "This spiritual vision imparts a heavenly complexion to his soul, answerable to its own object." In the end, it is only as we are taken up into the transcendental reality of this Trinitarian communion, through the ministry of the word and sacrament, that we come to realize the archetype of organic unity and individual freedom. This realization is the only passage that leads finally from "all" to the "whole" (William DiPuccio, The Interior Sense of Scripture: The Sacred Hermeneutic of John W. Nevin, 193-194).

Trinitarian Reading: The Deep Things of God: How the Trinity Changes Everything by Fred Sanders

The Deep Things of God: How the Trinity Changes Everything (Crossway, 2010) by Fred Sanders is excellent. The book is not a Systematic treatment of the doctrine of the Trinity. Sure, there is a lot of theological-speak but Sanders' feet are firmly planted on the ground, this book is not idealistic or abstract. It is a highly readable,  very good introduction to Evangelicalism's Trinitarian shape (cf. Chapter 4 - "The Shape of the Gospel"). Sanders aim is emphatic -- "The central argument of this book is that the doctrine of the Trinity inherently belongs to the gospel itself" (9) -- and, since Evangelicals have historically been all about the gospel, Sanders demonstrates that Evangelicals have historically been all about the Trinity.

Sanders soberly considers the link between the Trinity and the gospel: "A gospel that rearranges the components of your life but does not put you personally in the presence of God is too small." The doctrine of the Trinity that inherently belongs to the gospel is itself the very "deep things of God" that changes everything for an Evangelical Christian. Sanders quotes Beeson Divinity School's Gerald Bray to highlight the efficacy of  Trinitiarian grace in the changed life of an Evangelical Christian.

Without pride in our own tradition or prejudice against other forms of Christianity, we must surely proclaim that the experience of a personal relationship with God, sealed by the Spirit in the finished work of the Son from Whom He proceeds, is a deeper and more satisfying faith than any other known to man. . . . Evangelical Protestants are not wrong in insisting that theirs is a deeper, more vital experience of Christ than that enjoyed by Christians of other traditions. We have not received the grace of God in vain and we must not be ashamed to own the Christ we know as the only Lord and Saviour of men (10-11). 

Sanders aims to do nothing less than stir up our Evangelical memories, challenging Evangelicals to take ownership of their shared, rich history of vital Trinitarianism. Sanders sends out a clear note, a conservative call (in the traditional use of the word ... progressing while simultaneously conserving) for Evangelicals to celebrate the vital and meaningful life which is changed/created when a Christian lives life in light of the doctrine of the knowledge and truth of the Trinity. Sanders advocates an emphatic refocus upon the Trinity and gospel, the very  "deep things of God." This conservative action will subvert the contemporary "spiritual shallowness," which has plagued Evangelical Christianity and given rise to "evangelical coldness toward the Trinity" (11). The Evangelical recollection of memory will, Sanders hopes, carry a Christian further up and further into the Trinity and the gospel, that is, into the "deep things of God."

Trinitarian Reading: Fred Sanders' "The Trinity" from Mapping Modern Theology edited by Kelly M. Kapic & Bruce L. McCormack

Fred Sanders contributes the chapter on "The Trinity" in Kapic and McCormack's Mapping Modern Theology: A Thematic and Historical Introduction. Starting with Hegel and ending with the contemporary "surge of interest in all things trinitarian" (22), Sanders outlines what people have been saying about the Trinity for the past 200 years. A the story goes, many theologians chose to criticize the doctrine of the Trinity: when those criticisms are at their worst, Sanders' history accounts for a twisting and honest denial of the deposit handed down; and when those criticisms are at their best, Sanders' history accounts for theologians who were trying to find new modes of expression (oftentimes faulty) for presenting a doctrine considered pre-modern and antiquated. This history, however, has a plot change (according to some).

The retrieval of the doctrine of the Trinity is oftentimes oversimplified--as are all pocket summaries--and attributed to Karl Rahner and Karl Barth, the latter who was able to successfully "put the Trinity back on the agenda of self-consciously modern theology, specifically among the liberal mainstream of academic theology in Europe and America, and specifically among those for whom history and experience were decisive modern categories dictating the conditions of Christian thought" (41). For many, Barth is a theological hero. They believe he conducted theological CPR on the dying doctrine of the Trinity; it was as good as dead until Barth worked his magic fingers and rubbed Church Dogmatics Awesome Sauce on the blue corpse and said, "Rise. Be resurrected."

Sanders is not so easily convinced. He doesn't really see this as a plot change or a paradigm shift. He doesn't think the historical evidence points to motif where retrieval can be interpreted as a form of resurrection. Rather, Sanders believes it was a normalistic retrieval, what some call conservation.

There is an oft-told tale of how the doctrine of the Trinity was marginalized in the modern period, until a heroic rescue performed by one of the Karls (Barth or Rahner). But for theologians like [British Methodist William Burt] Pope, [American Presbyterian Charles] Hodge, [Dutch Calvinist Herman] Bavinck, and [American Episcopalian Francis J.] Hall, as for most Christians, there was no need for an absolute retrieval of a completely lost doctrine. Retrieval is a normal part of responsible theological method, and theologians were actively engaged in a kind of low-level, ordinary retrieval throughout the modern period, a retrieval so incremental as to be indistinguishable from conservation (44). 

Sanders ends his historical analysis of what people have been saying about the Trinity during the past 200 years with a suggestion for how theologians riding the wave and wake of modernity might navigate forward:

As trinitarian theology continues to be discussed and developed, theologians will do well to carry on the modern trinitarian project by articulating this classic Christian doctrine in such a way that the doctrine is not an opaque monolith of inherited terminology, but is transparent to history, transparent to human experience, and transparent to biblical foundation.