What do you think?
Rate this book
By Colin E. Gunton - The Triune Creator: A Historical and Systematic Study
Excellent Book
- GenresTheologyChristianity
Paperback
First published October 1, 1998
22 people are currently reading
84 people want to read
About the author
Colin E. Gunton
40 books17 followersColin Ewart Gunton (1941-2003) was a British systematic theologian. As a theologian he made contributions to the doctrine of Creation and the doctrine of the trinity. He was Professor of Christian Doctrine at King's College London from 1984 and co-founder with Christoph Schwoebel of the Research Institute for Systematic Theology in 1988. Gunton was actively involved in the United Reformed Church in the United Kingdom where he had been a minister since 1972. He was arguably the most important British theologian of his generation.
Gunton's most influential work was on the doctrines of Creation and the Trinity. One of his most important books is The One, the Three and the Many: God, Creation and the Culture of Modernity" (1993), and is "a profound analysis of the paradoxes and contradictions of Modernity." The One, the Three and the Many remains a "majestical survey of the western intellectual tradition and a penetrating analysis of the modern condition."
Gunton's most influential work was on the doctrines of Creation and the Trinity. One of his most important books is The One, the Three and the Many: God, Creation and the Culture of Modernity" (1993), and is "a profound analysis of the paradoxes and contradictions of Modernity." The One, the Three and the Many remains a "majestical survey of the western intellectual tradition and a penetrating analysis of the modern condition."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
Read
August 4, 2011This book is brilliance gone awry. It is essential reading simply because Gunton attempts a tour-de-force regarding ontology. I think he overshoots his case and horribly misreads several key figures. I will first state the bad:
Augustine: He criticizes Augustine for not having enough exegesis. However, St Augustine has more Trinitarian exegesis than does Gunton!
Aquinas: Gunton gives us th bald statement than Aquinas didn't need Christology in his Trinitarianism because he had Aristotle. Honestly?!
Scotus: He tries to make Scots into an orthodox philosopher because Scotus posits a Creator/creature distinction. Well, I guess he can be read that way. But this is where Gunton should have read Milbank. Scotus's doctrine went beyond that: by making being univocal, he unhinged creation. He did well in making creation and God distinct. He did poorly by not allowing creation to participate in God. Thus began secular modernity.
Darwin: This was the most embarrassing. He said that a non-six day reading of creation upheld the goodness of it, which Darwin would have agreed with. Unfortunately, Darwinism simply continued the Modernity's critique of Christianity.
Gunton begins his study by showing the uniqueness of the Creation Ex Nihilo to the Christian faith. Other mid east legends are dim copies. Despite the universality of evidence, there is a corresponding universality of failure to read it correctly (Calvin). Creation is the outcome of God's unrestrained love.It is Christo-centric. It is through and to Christ. The incarnate one entered into history and creation to redeem it.
Gunton then sets the stage by showing the biblical context out of which the doctrine of Trinitarian Creation was realized. Old Testament. God's creation is rooted historically. It is not eternal. New Testament. God freely willed creation. velation 4:11). Christ is the mediator and sustainer of creation (Heb. 1:2).Christ's miracles over demons is a oretaste of the future liberation of creation (Romans 8).As Christ is the mediator of creation, the Holy Spirit is the animator of it. This ties together in the resurrection of Christ.The freedom of God in the created order. The destiny of the created order is related to the resurrection of Christ.
Next he examines the Greek Worldview, showing it be pessimistic and dualistic, incapable of answering the ultimate questions. Ontology:
Pantheism: Is the universe divine?
If God is not personal creator, we then have an impersonal force governing reality (c.f. John Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God, p.35-40 for an excellent discussion of personality and deity). To personalise the non-personal is to succumb to crude forms of superstition.Only a theology which distinguishes God from the world ontologically justifies the practices of science.
The Hero of the study is Irenaeus. Trinitarian Mediation: Irenaus of Lyons
Goodness of creation
If God the Son takes upon himself a material body, then nothing material can be intrinsically bad. God creates out of nothing.
There are no degrees of being but only two realities: God and everything else. Although very good, creation, even before the fall, was not yet complete and perfected. It is waiting for an eschatological perfection. Salvation is that which returns creation to its directed purpose. The world is to be understood as a process, but not--as in contemporary process theologians--a linear process.
All in all it was a fascinating study, save a few faults. He tried his darndest to exonerate Darwin, to no avail. Despite all of Gunton's brilliant reasoning--and mind you he is sharp--Darwin, given Gunton's own admissions elsewhere, could not account for human personality and dignity given his premises. Second, is a faulty over-reliance on several flawed studies of Calvin, rendering his discussion of primary-secondary causes problematic. But other than that, a superb study.
Augustine: He criticizes Augustine for not having enough exegesis. However, St Augustine has more Trinitarian exegesis than does Gunton!
Aquinas: Gunton gives us th bald statement than Aquinas didn't need Christology in his Trinitarianism because he had Aristotle. Honestly?!
Scotus: He tries to make Scots into an orthodox philosopher because Scotus posits a Creator/creature distinction. Well, I guess he can be read that way. But this is where Gunton should have read Milbank. Scotus's doctrine went beyond that: by making being univocal, he unhinged creation. He did well in making creation and God distinct. He did poorly by not allowing creation to participate in God. Thus began secular modernity.
Darwin: This was the most embarrassing. He said that a non-six day reading of creation upheld the goodness of it, which Darwin would have agreed with. Unfortunately, Darwinism simply continued the Modernity's critique of Christianity.
Gunton begins his study by showing the uniqueness of the Creation Ex Nihilo to the Christian faith. Other mid east legends are dim copies. Despite the universality of evidence, there is a corresponding universality of failure to read it correctly (Calvin). Creation is the outcome of God's unrestrained love.It is Christo-centric. It is through and to Christ. The incarnate one entered into history and creation to redeem it.
Gunton then sets the stage by showing the biblical context out of which the doctrine of Trinitarian Creation was realized. Old Testament. God's creation is rooted historically. It is not eternal. New Testament. God freely willed creation. velation 4:11). Christ is the mediator and sustainer of creation (Heb. 1:2).Christ's miracles over demons is a oretaste of the future liberation of creation (Romans 8).As Christ is the mediator of creation, the Holy Spirit is the animator of it. This ties together in the resurrection of Christ.The freedom of God in the created order. The destiny of the created order is related to the resurrection of Christ.
Next he examines the Greek Worldview, showing it be pessimistic and dualistic, incapable of answering the ultimate questions. Ontology:
Pantheism: Is the universe divine?
If God is not personal creator, we then have an impersonal force governing reality (c.f. John Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God, p.35-40 for an excellent discussion of personality and deity). To personalise the non-personal is to succumb to crude forms of superstition.Only a theology which distinguishes God from the world ontologically justifies the practices of science.
The Hero of the study is Irenaeus. Trinitarian Mediation: Irenaus of Lyons
Goodness of creation
If God the Son takes upon himself a material body, then nothing material can be intrinsically bad. God creates out of nothing.
There are no degrees of being but only two realities: God and everything else. Although very good, creation, even before the fall, was not yet complete and perfected. It is waiting for an eschatological perfection. Salvation is that which returns creation to its directed purpose. The world is to be understood as a process, but not--as in contemporary process theologians--a linear process.
All in all it was a fascinating study, save a few faults. He tried his darndest to exonerate Darwin, to no avail. Despite all of Gunton's brilliant reasoning--and mind you he is sharp--Darwin, given Gunton's own admissions elsewhere, could not account for human personality and dignity given his premises. Second, is a faulty over-reliance on several flawed studies of Calvin, rendering his discussion of primary-secondary causes problematic. But other than that, a superb study.
November 30, 2025
Better late than never! (Albeit the last few chapters were while caring for Xavier, so may have been not as engaged)
Some cool ideas:
* Ancient Greece (& ANE contexts) had violent change as the only constant, and the gods wresting creation out of that, giving credence for Kings to violently wrench control from the chaos through battle. But the bible’s view is way different, with love at the centre, impacting our ethics.
* Modern day bioligists are now more pantheist than ever, where creation in itself “makes” and “in its image” transforms itself.
* you need a clear barrier between eternal God and timebound creation.
* “New creation” isn’t really right, as likely God will never “create” again as he did in Genesis. He created order, once for all.
* Reconciliation goes forwards not upwards. (i.e. we aren't upgraded humans, but fulfilled humans)
* The spirit perfects creation, takes the fallen flesh of Mary (which is where Jesus gets his flesh from) and renews it. + Resurrection is thus the anticipatory realisation of the eschatological destiny of the whole creation.
Some cool ideas:
* Ancient Greece (& ANE contexts) had violent change as the only constant, and the gods wresting creation out of that, giving credence for Kings to violently wrench control from the chaos through battle. But the bible’s view is way different, with love at the centre, impacting our ethics.
* Modern day bioligists are now more pantheist than ever, where creation in itself “makes” and “in its image” transforms itself.
* you need a clear barrier between eternal God and timebound creation.
* “New creation” isn’t really right, as likely God will never “create” again as he did in Genesis. He created order, once for all.
* Reconciliation goes forwards not upwards. (i.e. we aren't upgraded humans, but fulfilled humans)
* The spirit perfects creation, takes the fallen flesh of Mary (which is where Jesus gets his flesh from) and renews it. + Resurrection is thus the anticipatory realisation of the eschatological destiny of the whole creation.
September 9, 2017
Some fascinating insights, but marred by an unnecessarily dense and verbose writing style.
July 13, 2017
Third time is the charm. Four stars because this was extremely tough sledding. So much of it went right over my head because I didn't have enough background with the theologians and philosophers Gunton is engaging with.
That said, there is much here to meditate on and return to.
Summing up the book: Irenaeus contra mundum.
Gunton successfully argues that in the early church fathers, Irenaeus's trinitarian theology truly grasped the uniqueness of Christianity's theology of creation against the descendants of Plato (the gnostics) and Aristotle. That the church choose to follow Plato and later Aristotle rather than Irenaeus on creation was to their detriment.
Platonic dualism (soul and body) led to the gnostic elevation of the immaterial (spiritual) over the material (physical). This dualism Gunton demonstrates played foundationally in both Origen and Augustine.
For Irenaeus, Trinitarian theology of creation means this: The Father creates, sustains, and perfects through his two "hands", the Son and the Spirit.
Recovering this allows space for scientific investigation without slipping into Newtonianism (a mechanistic and deterministic world which leads to deism) and Darwinianism (metastasized Newtonianism which brings God imminently into the creation).
Of special note: Gunton provides a strong critique of gnostic gender-less souls and its corollary devaluation of the body.
Before I read this again, I need to read Irenaeus "Against Heresies," which may be the most important book in the 21st century for the church.
That said, there is much here to meditate on and return to.
Summing up the book: Irenaeus contra mundum.
Gunton successfully argues that in the early church fathers, Irenaeus's trinitarian theology truly grasped the uniqueness of Christianity's theology of creation against the descendants of Plato (the gnostics) and Aristotle. That the church choose to follow Plato and later Aristotle rather than Irenaeus on creation was to their detriment.
Platonic dualism (soul and body) led to the gnostic elevation of the immaterial (spiritual) over the material (physical). This dualism Gunton demonstrates played foundationally in both Origen and Augustine.
For Irenaeus, Trinitarian theology of creation means this: The Father creates, sustains, and perfects through his two "hands", the Son and the Spirit.
Recovering this allows space for scientific investigation without slipping into Newtonianism (a mechanistic and deterministic world which leads to deism) and Darwinianism (metastasized Newtonianism which brings God imminently into the creation).
Of special note: Gunton provides a strong critique of gnostic gender-less souls and its corollary devaluation of the body.
Before I read this again, I need to read Irenaeus "Against Heresies," which may be the most important book in the 21st century for the church.
September 2, 2025
A very helpful and accessible summary of the historic philosophical influences on the theology of creation.
May 26, 2015
2015: To my mind Gunton contributes to the theological world with this book in that he offers an overview of and contribution to the doctrine of creation. It is not that I have a waste knowledge of the place of doctrine of creation in the main theologians since the reformation, but my impression is that there certainly is a lack of a systematic study of it, as Gunton points out. Even though Gunton points out that the theologian should not be in the hands of the scientists when formulating a doctrine of creation it is obvious that he is claiming that contemporary physics adheres quite well to his view of a relational ontology. Having said that, I think Gunton does provide quite good argument for why he isn't making a "god of the gaps"-God out of this, particularly since he stresses the ontological discontinuity between creator and creation. One of the strong points in the book comes in right here that he, firstly, really wants to emphasize how creation is good and also good for what it is in itself. Secondly, with a strong trinitarian emphasis I think Gunton provides a good way of thinking in terms of one is to avoid deism on the one hand and pantheism on the other, Christ becomes key in a doctrine of creation and Gunton brings in the worked out idea of mediation. With that in mind I am not convinced about Gunton's rejection of kenosis in the act of creation. He wants to place kenosis as a concept only relevant to salvation. I don't quite understand why it should be limited to that. It appears as if Gunton understands kenosis to mean 'emptying' of the divine in some sense, but that would make Jesus something less than divine, wouldn't it? Or at least there would be that danger. I prefer the interpretation from Kärkkäinen and Grenz (I think) that kenosis is a characteristic of the divine, a description of how God acts towards his creation. If that is the case, then I see no reason for why kenosis might not be a relevant concept also within the doctrine of creation.
1st reading: This is an excellent book that should be in every theologians book shelf if s/he is at all interested in trinitarian theology and how one should start to think about creation. He is able to use orthodox theology and engage well with today's question and debate about our world and the origins.
1st reading: This is an excellent book that should be in every theologians book shelf if s/he is at all interested in trinitarian theology and how one should start to think about creation. He is able to use orthodox theology and engage well with today's question and debate about our world and the origins.
September 2, 2007
The recent explosion of trinitarian studies is fascinating, and Colin Gunton has been in the thick of it. The may be the easiest introduction to his thoughts. I have mixed feelings about Gunton though. Sometimes brilliant. But sometimes I scratch my head and wonder how it is he misses the point so easily.
Want to read
November 26, 2008Tim Keller recommends the works of Colin Gunton, especially this one, for "some extremely stimulating reflections on the promise of Trinitarian thought."
September 10, 2008
This is a brilliant and wonderful book exploring creation and Trinitarian theology.
December 18, 2012
Ehhh... ultimately redundant if you have read other more foundational or primary works by Gunton.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews