Yesterday, I finished
reading the above book by Dr. Stephen R. Holmes, which was published back in
November, 2012. [A good portion of the book is available via Google books
preview: LINK.]
Given
my recent focus on the doctrine of God, the Trinity, and the Monarchy of God
the Father, I think most readers will understand why I chose this book; and
those who will take the time to read it for themselves, will also understand
why I am taking the time to blog about it.
The
book, given its scope (i.e. a history of the development of the doctrine of the
Trinity), is rather small (231 pages), but Dr. Holmes has a lucid style of
writing, and is able to pack more pertinent information in those 231 pages,
than I suspect most could accomplish in twice the number. As for the
intent/purpose of the book, I shall let Dr. Holmes speak for himself:
This
book is on a big-picture scale, necessarily. Covering in one brief volume two
thousand years of debate over what is possibly the central topic of Christian
devotion, together with the necessary biblical background, means that at every
turn I have obscured details of debates, offered impressionistic sketches of
complex positions, and otherwise done violence to scholarly ideals. I do not
apologize for this; not only is there value for students in a text which
renders a broad vision of the subject, but there is also an argument made in
the text that follows that could not have been convincingly made with any less
breadth of focus.
In
brief, I argue that the explosion of theological work claiming to recapture the
doctrine of the Trinity what we have witnessed in recent decades in fact
misunderstands and distorts the traditional doctrine so badly that it is
unrecognizable. A statement of the doctrine was settled in the fourth century,
and was then maintained, with only very minor disagreement or development, by
all strands of the church – West and East, Protestant and Catholic – until the
modern period. (Page xv)
Dr.
Holmes then touches on a number of 20th century theologians who have
contributed to this "explosion of theological work", which includes
such notables as Karl Barth, Karl Rahner, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jürgen Moltmann
and John Zizioulas (all of whom I have had the privilege of reading).
He
then delves into the OT, intertestamental, and NT periods; this is followed by
the early Patristic age through the 20th century. The entire book is worth
readinig (IMHO), but right now, I would like to focus on two aspects: the
'theory' of Theodore de Rėgnon and Augustine.
Now,
I suspect that a number of folk who have interest in the doctrine of the
Trinity have never heard of Theodore de Rėgnon, and yet, his 'theory' has
played an extremely important role in much of "the explosion of
theological work" concerning the doctrine of the Trinity that Dr. Holmes
spoke of. In a nut shell, it was de Rėgnon who put forth the proposal that there
exists a significant difference between Latin/Western and Greek/Eastern
theologians in how they approach the doctrine of the Trinity. John Meyendorff
(a supporter of this 'theory') provides the following from de Rėgnon:
Latin
philosophy considers the nature in itself first and proceeds to the agent;
Greek philosophy considers the agent first and passes through it find the
nature. The Latins think of personality as a mode of nature; the Greeks think
of nature as the content of the person. (Byzantine Theology, page 181.)
Concerning
this issue/theory, Dr. Holmes writes:
The
proposal is that a paradigm for interpreting patristic Trinitarianism was
offered by Theodore de Rėgnon over a century ago; this paradigm suggested that
Latin Trinitarianism, supremely represented by Augustine, started with one God,
and asked how he could be triune; by contrast Greek Trinitarianism began with
the three hypostases, and asked how they could be one God. (Page 129)
Dr.
Holmes included the above in his section on Augustine. He firmly believes that
Augustine has been misunderstood, and that the de Rėgnon "paradigm" is
seriously flawed. His section on Augustine (pages 129 - 139) presents his assessment
of Augustine's thought that runs counter to those who have been influenced by
the de Rėgnon "paradigm". A few pages later, Dr. Holmes pens:
One
of my themes in this book is the falsity of what is called, however fairly, the
'de Rėgnon thesis': the idea that, from Augustine on, Trinitarian theology in
the Greek-speaking East and the Latin-speaking West took decisively different
turns, leading to two distinct traditions. (Page 144)
Over
the next 20 pages, Dr. Holmes presents his evidence to the contrary—i.e. there
is no fundamental difference/s between Eastern and Western traditions
concerning the doctrine of the Trinity apart from the filioque (and even
here, he believes the difference has been inflated due to politics).
Though
I am at present unable to assent to all that Dr. Holmes has written, I can say
that he has certainly given me much to ponder and reflect on. It is my sincere
hope that a good number of those who read this thread will obtain this book,
read it, and then share their thoughts with me.
Grace
and peace,
David
Hey Dave,
ReplyDeleteThis new book sounds refreshingly interesting to me. Obviously as a Catholic, I am bound to support that which condemns neither the Eastern nor Western Fathers.
I have never quarrelled with what I call "your theory" about how the East and West approached the Trinity differently, although I did maintain that they arrived at the same positions. I said this more out of faith that the Church (including the Eastern Fathers) was true than from an ability to demonstrate the claim.
If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that in this book, Dr. Holmes challenges "your theory". He presents it then as a largely uncriticized assumption only about a hundred years old, which has led numerous modern scholars, and yourself, to posit unwarranted differences between St. Augustine and the Cappadocians.
I have not thought myself adequate to the debates as they have been presented so far on your blog. So soon as I have to defend Augustine against "neo-Platonism" I am finished. I don't know my neo-Platonism and I have no desire to defend it. Do you think this book provides tools that could enable one to engage Augustine's view of Scripture and his contemporaries in the East while by-passing the question of Augustine's alleged neo-Platonism?
Thanks,
Rory
Hi Rory,
ReplyDeleteThanks much for taking the time to comment; in your post you wrote:
== If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that in this book, Dr. Holmes challenges "your theory". He presents it then as a largely uncriticized assumption only about a hundred years old, which has led numerous modern scholars, and yourself, to posit unwarranted differences between St. Augustine and the Cappadocians.==
Me: You are understanding me "correctly". Dr. Holmes, based on the in depth research of Dr. Michel René Barnes, challenges the 'de Regnon thesis'; and IMO the challenge is a substantial one. (See my upcoming post for links to Barnes' impressive research.)
==I have not thought myself adequate to the debates as they have been presented so far on your blog. So soon as I have to defend Augustine against "neo-Platonism" I am finished. I don't know my neo-Platonism and I have no desire to defend it. Do you think this book provides tools that could enable one to engage Augustine's view of Scripture and his contemporaries in the East while by-passing the question of Augustine's alleged neo-Platonism?==
Me: Dr. Holmes only briefly touches on the issue concerning Augustine and Neo-Platonism; Dr. Barnes does a better job, but it seems that Dr. Lewis Ayres' recent book, Augustine and the Trinity, is the definitive work on this subject (link to Google preview). The book is expensive, and I have held off on buying it, but I finally 'bit the bullet' earlier today and ordered it.
Grace and peace,
David