What do you think?
Rate this book
The Holy Trinity: Understanding God's Life
understanding God's Life. Taking the late twentieth-century revival of the doctrine of the Trinity as a context, this book examines the development of that doctrine from the biblical text to the present day. The book traces and evaluates the exegetical and philosophical debates that led to the settling of the ecumenical doctrine of the Trinity in the fourth century, and then explores how this doctrine was developed, questioned and received through history.
- GenresTheologyChurch History
258 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 2011
2 people are currently reading
16 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
June 11, 2024
This is a very well researched book and an excellent introduction to the understanding of and development of the doctrine of the Trinity. Holmes starts with the contemporary discussion of a social interpretation of the Trinity deriving from theologians such as Barth, Rahner, Moltmann and Zizioulas. He is particularly critical against reading back modern ideas of the person in to patristic sources and argues that there is no ontological revolution in the Cappadocians' understanding of hypostasis (against Zizioulas and Gunton). Furthermore, Holmes argues convincingly that Augustine was not a bad interpreter of the greek understanding of the Trinity that came to him from the councils.
Holmes main point is that one has to start from divine simplicity if one is to understand the Church's teaching on the Trinity and this stretches from the earliest attempts to formulate the doctrine up until the 18th century. The doctrine has been understood in a consistent way with very little dispute over that period of time according to Holmes. It should be said though, that what is thought of God in his simplicity is not to say that God is other than Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Whatever God's oneness means it is the instantiations of the Triune hypostases according to Holmes.
As I said, very, very well argued and Holmes have really gone to the sources. I am doing work on Colin Gunton and Holmes have moved away (in opposite direction one could almost say) from Gunton's influence on trinitarian theology. Holmes certainly directs some very viable critique against social understandings of the Trinity, yet I am not completely sure if Gunton falls in under all these points. On the other hand, I might not need to defend Gunton on that many points, but I do wonder how many of the social trinitarians that would feel like they are hit by the critique? Certainly, Zizioulas would have to defend his reading of the Cappadocians, and also the theologians that hold to a relational/personal primacy in the doctrine of the Trinity will have to work out what to do with the fact that the contemporary understanding of person is not what the Cappadocians or any other church fathers understood with the term. Holmes points out, very correctly, and something that I have to think about too, that if one changes the meaning of one of the terms in an explanation, then surely the whole argumentation has to be worked out in relation to that change. Social trinitarians might have been somewhat lazy in following their (our?) logic through.
Does that also mean that what social trinitarians do today is simply projection? Maybe there is a danger of that (as always). On the other hand one might say, a little more generously, that it is a question of trying to make the doctrine of the Trinity relevant in contemporary thinking. I have not completely made up my mind how to relate to all this yet, but I still think there is relevance to somehow have a primacy of the relational when one work out this doctrine.
On a final note - if I get to teach a course on the doctrine of the Trinity this is a very strong candidate for a course book
Holmes main point is that one has to start from divine simplicity if one is to understand the Church's teaching on the Trinity and this stretches from the earliest attempts to formulate the doctrine up until the 18th century. The doctrine has been understood in a consistent way with very little dispute over that period of time according to Holmes. It should be said though, that what is thought of God in his simplicity is not to say that God is other than Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Whatever God's oneness means it is the instantiations of the Triune hypostases according to Holmes.
As I said, very, very well argued and Holmes have really gone to the sources. I am doing work on Colin Gunton and Holmes have moved away (in opposite direction one could almost say) from Gunton's influence on trinitarian theology. Holmes certainly directs some very viable critique against social understandings of the Trinity, yet I am not completely sure if Gunton falls in under all these points. On the other hand, I might not need to defend Gunton on that many points, but I do wonder how many of the social trinitarians that would feel like they are hit by the critique? Certainly, Zizioulas would have to defend his reading of the Cappadocians, and also the theologians that hold to a relational/personal primacy in the doctrine of the Trinity will have to work out what to do with the fact that the contemporary understanding of person is not what the Cappadocians or any other church fathers understood with the term. Holmes points out, very correctly, and something that I have to think about too, that if one changes the meaning of one of the terms in an explanation, then surely the whole argumentation has to be worked out in relation to that change. Social trinitarians might have been somewhat lazy in following their (our?) logic through.
Does that also mean that what social trinitarians do today is simply projection? Maybe there is a danger of that (as always). On the other hand one might say, a little more generously, that it is a question of trying to make the doctrine of the Trinity relevant in contemporary thinking. I have not completely made up my mind how to relate to all this yet, but I still think there is relevance to somehow have a primacy of the relational when one work out this doctrine.
On a final note - if I get to teach a course on the doctrine of the Trinity this is a very strong candidate for a course book
September 5, 2020
Possibly the best book on the Trinity that came from modern day Protestant. I certainly rate it higher than Letham and others. The IVP in the USA released it under the title 'the Quest for the Trinity', that is the same book.
September 23, 2023
This is an excellent historical survey and a potent polemic against 20th century theology.
Will hopefully write a review in a week or two.
Will hopefully write a review in a week or two.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews