What do you think?
Rate this book
The Trinity
The ground-breaking treatment of the doctrine of the Trinity by one of the most important theologians of the century is here reprinted on the 30th anniversary of its orginal publication. In this treatise, Karl Rahner analyzes the place of the doctrine of the Trinity within Catholic theology and develops his own highly original and innovative reading of the doctrine, including his now-famous dictum.
144 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 1997
9 people are currently reading
318 people want to read
About the author
Karl Rahner
681 books82 followersKarl Rahner, SJ (March 5, 1904 — March 30, 1984) was a German Jesuit and theologian who, alongside Bernard Lonergan and Hans Urs von Balthasar, is considered one of the most influential Roman Catholic theologians of the 20th century.
He was born in Freiburg, Germany, and died in Innsbruck, Austria.
Before the Second Vatican Council, Rahner had worked alongside Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac and Marie-Dominique Chenu, theologians associated with an emerging school of thought called the Nouvelle Théologie, elements of which had been criticized in the encyclical Humani Generis of Pope Pius XII.
He was born in Freiburg, Germany, and died in Innsbruck, Austria.
Before the Second Vatican Council, Rahner had worked alongside Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac and Marie-Dominique Chenu, theologians associated with an emerging school of thought called the Nouvelle Théologie, elements of which had been criticized in the encyclical Humani Generis of Pope Pius XII.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
June 14, 2022
Rahner’s essay on the Trinity is a succinct systematization of the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity. It is an experimental application of the axiom he posits in the beginning of “the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity.”
It is this (in)famous axiom that I knew about Rahner beforehand. Prior to engaging him first hand, I thought his axiom was silly on its face and I was unsure how his theology could have come to influence the Christian world, Roman and beyond, so significantly.
Coming to this text has been a vivid lesson in understanding something before attempting to evaluate it. Rahner is conversant with the broad swathe of biblical, traditional, and magisterial theology in a way that is helpful for bolstering his arguments and also approachable even as someone outside of his tradition. This translation renders his words as readable albeit intricate, clear but dense.
I’m impressed by this work both as a systematic presentation of the Trinity, and as a major monument of 20th century theology. It is well worth the time.
It is this (in)famous axiom that I knew about Rahner beforehand. Prior to engaging him first hand, I thought his axiom was silly on its face and I was unsure how his theology could have come to influence the Christian world, Roman and beyond, so significantly.
Coming to this text has been a vivid lesson in understanding something before attempting to evaluate it. Rahner is conversant with the broad swathe of biblical, traditional, and magisterial theology in a way that is helpful for bolstering his arguments and also approachable even as someone outside of his tradition. This translation renders his words as readable albeit intricate, clear but dense.
I’m impressed by this work both as a systematic presentation of the Trinity, and as a major monument of 20th century theology. It is well worth the time.
December 4, 2024
I actually liked this short work more than I expected. Rahmer is not (it seems to me) trying to be radical and start a pantheistic trinitarian movement, even if his axiom may lead that way. His anti-extrinsicism leads him to erroneous intrinsicism, finding our experience of God to be revelatory of the Trinity. I’ll need to reread this to fully understand everything though.
January 6, 2024
Thoughtful and deep book about the Trinity. More accessible in the first part as I see it although it is in the second part that Rahner develops more of a theology of a Trinity. He attempts to show in what way "Rahner's rule" applies without loosing the mystery.
Read
April 11, 2022Still mulling on what I think but its interesting to read about Rahner's take on the economic and immanent Trinity, which is much more modest than many of those who take up the idea after him (ex. Moltmann).
August 12, 2014
Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet that “brevity is the soul of wit.” Roman Catholic author Karl Rahner illustrates the Bard’s statement as he unpacks one of the most complex doctrines of the Christian faith in his continually relevant yet conservatively sized volume The Trinity. Rahner leans heavily on logical processing and parses through Roman Catholic doctrinal statements to formulate the central tenant of his work, that “The ‘economic’ Trinity is the ‘immanent’ Trinity and the ‘immanent’ Trinity is the ‘economic’ Trinity” (23). While he is concerned with other Trinitarian issues as well, the lion’s share of Rahner’s work is devoted to buttressing his central idea of the active Trinity’s self revelation.
Summary
Rahner divides his work into three sections and begins by discussing the deficiency in the understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity in his day. He writes the memorable line that “We must be willing to admit that, should the doctrine of the Trinity have to be dropped as false, the major part of religious literature could well remain virtually unchanged” (11). In an effort to correct this weak grasp of Trinitarian priority, Rahner specifically takes issue with Aquinas, disagreeing with the order in which Aquinas explained the Trinity in his On the One God before describing God’s triune nature in On the Triune God (17-18). As mentioned already, the crux of Rahner’s work is his statement “The ‘economic’ Trinity is the ‘immanent’ Trinity and the ‘immanent’ Trinity is the ‘economic’ Trinity” (23). In his first section Rahner also refutes the idea that any of the members of the Godhead could have incarnated, emphasizing only the ability of the Son to take on human form (28-29).
The second section of his work concerns almost entirely Roman Catholic doctrinal statements in regards to the Trinity and its compositional members. Additionally, Rahner discusses the usage of the words “person” (56-57), as well as “substance” and “hypostasis” (73). Especially in regards to the former word, Rahner makes it clear that the shades of meaning that it has collected over time are conducive to establishing tritheism when applied to Trinitarian dogma, unless it is carefully defined.
The third section of Rahner’s work is once again concerned with his central thesis, yet he is able to explain his idea in considerably greater detail (101-103). Aspects of God’s self communication are also arranged into four couplets, Origin-Future, History-Transcendence, Invitation-Acceptance, and Knowledge-Love, that cast God’s disclosure of Himself within salvation history in a new perspective (89). As he concludes, Rahner proffers a nuanced definition of the word “person,” explaining it as “the one God subsists in three distinct manners of subsisting” (109). Rahner finishes his work by preemptively explaining untreated topics, in preparation for future works.
Critical Evaluation
Rahner’s central thesis “The economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity and the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity” is an argument of great importance. Rahner himself elaborates more fully on what he means by saying “Without our experience of Father, Son, and Spirit in salvation history, we would ultimately be unable to conceive at all of their subsisting distinctly as the one God” (111). It is certainly true that the actions of the members of the Trinity in redemption history are indicative of who the person performing the action is ontologically. In making his claim about the essential link between the economic and immanent Trinity, Rahner has served the global Christian Church by making aspects of the Trinity essential in the life of the believer. Rather than the Trinity being just one more doctrine, treated at the end of Theology Proper, Rahner is able to elevate it to the height that it should have in Christian thought by demonstrating its essential connection to soteriology, Christology, and pneumatology. In a way, he has made concrete the abstract by helping the believer see the essential identity of the whole Trinity in salvation history.
However, Rahner’s argument, though thought provoking, is not without issue. He goes beyond what Scripture itself has to say about the Trinity in formulating his theory, owing more to theologians than to the inspired writers of the New Testament. Additionally, it is possible to arrive at an orthodox understanding of the Trinity without necessarily holding to his axiom, as generations of thoughtful believers have done successfully before Rahner wrote. Even his four categories of divine self-disclosure are necessarily taken with a measure of hesitation as he presents them as logical statements bereft of Scriptural or even historical support. Rahner’s tendency to come to conclusions based on the weight of his own intellect rather than divine revelation is a serious hindrance to the adoption of his ideas.
Rahner is attempting to make sense of the Trinity, its being and revelation. However, he himself defines the Trinity as “absolute mystery which we do not understand even after it has been revealed” (50). While it would be wrong to blithely dismiss discussions of the Trinity because the Trinity is mysterious and cannot be fully known, Rahner overstates when he goes so far as to claim the word axiom, a self evident truth, for his thesis. His statement needs a more thorough explication and interaction with Scripture before it should be accepted as a fact. Even then, the mysterious nature of the Trinity is such that dogmatic statements should be approached with the greatest of care.
A strength of Rahner’s work, and something for which he should be commended, is his accurate statement that “despite their orthodox confession of the Trinity, Christians are, in their practical life, almost mere monotheists.” (10) This statement is alarming as the Trinity is one of—if not the—foundational doctrines of Christianity. Certainly, the Trinity is the clearest distinctive of Christian faith in comparison to the world’s other religions. However, at the practical level of church life, and in the daily walk and prayers of believers, it is true that very often Christians relate to God as if He is one, and yet not three. Rahner’s words are still pertinent to many American churches, almost fifty years after they were written, with his discussion of the blurred “person’ being addressed by many “Our Father” prayers being a particularly relevant observation (12).
Additionally, Rahner is keen to draw knowledge of the Trinity into the believer’s life at the most basic level. Bemoaning the fact that theologies of his day did not connect the knowledge of the Trinity to the doctrine of creation (13), Rahner goes further and explains how the Trinity’s isolation in theological systems causes it to be isolated away from the self-understanding of the believer. Rahner asks the question “Is our awareness of this mystery [the Trinity] merely the knowledge of something purely extrinsic…isolated from all existential knowledge about ourselves…?” (15) In the same way that knowledge of the Trinity allows true understanding of creation, revelation, and redemption, so too does it bear on true knowledge of the human self. The Trinity should not be extrinsic, but intrinsic to the Christian’s life.
A glaring problem with Rahner’s work is that in explaining the intricacies of the Trinity, he fails to draw explicitly upon the only sure proof for the Trinity, the Bible. Rahner writes one hundred pages of dense, complex prose on a mystery that is two millennia old without offering a single verse of Scriptural support for any of his positions. For example, in discussing the word “person,” Rahner says “the concept of ‘person’ implies nothing more than what our starting point has derived from the testimony of Scripture” (45) but he fails to identify what Scriptural testimony he is referring to. Given his denominational affiliation, Rahner’s reliance upon the Fathers, especially Augustine, is understandable, as is his frequent interaction with Catholic thinkers. However, it is perplexing that a theologian could strive to write on God’s personal identity without in any way referring to God’s personal revelation, the Holy Scriptures.
Conclusion
Karl Rahner’s The Trinity is an important treatise on the essential being of the Holy Trinity and its self-revelation to men. The book is deservedly being read almost a half century after its initial release. Rahner has added a truly new piece of fuel to the fire of theological discussion that burns around the great mystery that is the Triune God, three and yet one, one and yet three.
Summary
Rahner divides his work into three sections and begins by discussing the deficiency in the understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity in his day. He writes the memorable line that “We must be willing to admit that, should the doctrine of the Trinity have to be dropped as false, the major part of religious literature could well remain virtually unchanged” (11). In an effort to correct this weak grasp of Trinitarian priority, Rahner specifically takes issue with Aquinas, disagreeing with the order in which Aquinas explained the Trinity in his On the One God before describing God’s triune nature in On the Triune God (17-18). As mentioned already, the crux of Rahner’s work is his statement “The ‘economic’ Trinity is the ‘immanent’ Trinity and the ‘immanent’ Trinity is the ‘economic’ Trinity” (23). In his first section Rahner also refutes the idea that any of the members of the Godhead could have incarnated, emphasizing only the ability of the Son to take on human form (28-29).
The second section of his work concerns almost entirely Roman Catholic doctrinal statements in regards to the Trinity and its compositional members. Additionally, Rahner discusses the usage of the words “person” (56-57), as well as “substance” and “hypostasis” (73). Especially in regards to the former word, Rahner makes it clear that the shades of meaning that it has collected over time are conducive to establishing tritheism when applied to Trinitarian dogma, unless it is carefully defined.
The third section of Rahner’s work is once again concerned with his central thesis, yet he is able to explain his idea in considerably greater detail (101-103). Aspects of God’s self communication are also arranged into four couplets, Origin-Future, History-Transcendence, Invitation-Acceptance, and Knowledge-Love, that cast God’s disclosure of Himself within salvation history in a new perspective (89). As he concludes, Rahner proffers a nuanced definition of the word “person,” explaining it as “the one God subsists in three distinct manners of subsisting” (109). Rahner finishes his work by preemptively explaining untreated topics, in preparation for future works.
Critical Evaluation
Rahner’s central thesis “The economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity and the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity” is an argument of great importance. Rahner himself elaborates more fully on what he means by saying “Without our experience of Father, Son, and Spirit in salvation history, we would ultimately be unable to conceive at all of their subsisting distinctly as the one God” (111). It is certainly true that the actions of the members of the Trinity in redemption history are indicative of who the person performing the action is ontologically. In making his claim about the essential link between the economic and immanent Trinity, Rahner has served the global Christian Church by making aspects of the Trinity essential in the life of the believer. Rather than the Trinity being just one more doctrine, treated at the end of Theology Proper, Rahner is able to elevate it to the height that it should have in Christian thought by demonstrating its essential connection to soteriology, Christology, and pneumatology. In a way, he has made concrete the abstract by helping the believer see the essential identity of the whole Trinity in salvation history.
However, Rahner’s argument, though thought provoking, is not without issue. He goes beyond what Scripture itself has to say about the Trinity in formulating his theory, owing more to theologians than to the inspired writers of the New Testament. Additionally, it is possible to arrive at an orthodox understanding of the Trinity without necessarily holding to his axiom, as generations of thoughtful believers have done successfully before Rahner wrote. Even his four categories of divine self-disclosure are necessarily taken with a measure of hesitation as he presents them as logical statements bereft of Scriptural or even historical support. Rahner’s tendency to come to conclusions based on the weight of his own intellect rather than divine revelation is a serious hindrance to the adoption of his ideas.
Rahner is attempting to make sense of the Trinity, its being and revelation. However, he himself defines the Trinity as “absolute mystery which we do not understand even after it has been revealed” (50). While it would be wrong to blithely dismiss discussions of the Trinity because the Trinity is mysterious and cannot be fully known, Rahner overstates when he goes so far as to claim the word axiom, a self evident truth, for his thesis. His statement needs a more thorough explication and interaction with Scripture before it should be accepted as a fact. Even then, the mysterious nature of the Trinity is such that dogmatic statements should be approached with the greatest of care.
A strength of Rahner’s work, and something for which he should be commended, is his accurate statement that “despite their orthodox confession of the Trinity, Christians are, in their practical life, almost mere monotheists.” (10) This statement is alarming as the Trinity is one of—if not the—foundational doctrines of Christianity. Certainly, the Trinity is the clearest distinctive of Christian faith in comparison to the world’s other religions. However, at the practical level of church life, and in the daily walk and prayers of believers, it is true that very often Christians relate to God as if He is one, and yet not three. Rahner’s words are still pertinent to many American churches, almost fifty years after they were written, with his discussion of the blurred “person’ being addressed by many “Our Father” prayers being a particularly relevant observation (12).
Additionally, Rahner is keen to draw knowledge of the Trinity into the believer’s life at the most basic level. Bemoaning the fact that theologies of his day did not connect the knowledge of the Trinity to the doctrine of creation (13), Rahner goes further and explains how the Trinity’s isolation in theological systems causes it to be isolated away from the self-understanding of the believer. Rahner asks the question “Is our awareness of this mystery [the Trinity] merely the knowledge of something purely extrinsic…isolated from all existential knowledge about ourselves…?” (15) In the same way that knowledge of the Trinity allows true understanding of creation, revelation, and redemption, so too does it bear on true knowledge of the human self. The Trinity should not be extrinsic, but intrinsic to the Christian’s life.
A glaring problem with Rahner’s work is that in explaining the intricacies of the Trinity, he fails to draw explicitly upon the only sure proof for the Trinity, the Bible. Rahner writes one hundred pages of dense, complex prose on a mystery that is two millennia old without offering a single verse of Scriptural support for any of his positions. For example, in discussing the word “person,” Rahner says “the concept of ‘person’ implies nothing more than what our starting point has derived from the testimony of Scripture” (45) but he fails to identify what Scriptural testimony he is referring to. Given his denominational affiliation, Rahner’s reliance upon the Fathers, especially Augustine, is understandable, as is his frequent interaction with Catholic thinkers. However, it is perplexing that a theologian could strive to write on God’s personal identity without in any way referring to God’s personal revelation, the Holy Scriptures.
Conclusion
Karl Rahner’s The Trinity is an important treatise on the essential being of the Holy Trinity and its self-revelation to men. The book is deservedly being read almost a half century after its initial release. Rahner has added a truly new piece of fuel to the fire of theological discussion that burns around the great mystery that is the Triune God, three and yet one, one and yet three.
October 16, 2020
Rahner’s short work on the Trinity presents some legitimate concerns about modern misinterpretations of the Church’s Trinitarian doctrine, including the tritheism arising from the redefinition of the word “person” by the likes of Leibniz and Descartes, and the “mere monotheism” of many believers who insufficiently understand the Divine Persons, their relations, and the importance of the distinctive Christian doctrine of The Trinity. Unfortunately, Rahner’s solutions to these issues lead him to affirm positions that while being technically interpretable as orthodox, are dangerously close to modalism and creational/incarnational necessitarianism. His famous axiom that “the economic Trinity is the imminent Trinity (and vice versa)” is far too simplistic to solve the issues he identifies without leading him into error in other areas of Theology, namely belief that creation and the Incarnation occurred of necessity. Rahner’s attempt to explain “person” in the traditional Trinitarian formula as “distinct manner of subsisting” likewise fails, avoiding tritheism only to fall into modalism. (There is certainly merit in Rahner’s attempt to clarify and more deeply explain the term “person,” but his effort to clarify one aspect leads to almost certain misunderstanding in another.) Nonetheless, this short treatise is worth the read to understand certain errors in Trinitarian theology, both those Rahner makes and those he critiques; of particular interest is “mere monotheism” which insufficiently appreciates the rich uniqueness of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and its relevance to man’s personal salvation through the Church.
August 7, 2024
Excellent essay on the Trinity and how the operations of the Father, Son and Spirit in salvation history (economy) inform, direct and display the Triune God in his immanence or essential nature.
When God communicate Himself to man, He does so in His true form, not in some Aristotelian accidental form of created grace. When we encounter the economic Trinity, we encounter the immanent Trinity.
This is Rahner’s basic thesis, and its implications and emphases provide rich avenues of thought for the Christian seeking to know and love this Triune God.
Key quotes:
“Despite their orthodox confession of the Trinity, Christians are, in their practical life, almost mere ‘monotheists.’”
“The Trinity is a mystery of salvation, otherwise it would never have been revealed.”
“The economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity and the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity.”
“Man is possible because the exteriorization of the Logos is possible.”
“Thus we may say that the mystery of the Trinity is the last mystery of our own reality, and that it is experienced precisely in this reality.”
“We take it for granted that many subtle considerations of school theology do not approach much nearer to the most secret, the ultimately forbidden goal: to render the mystery logically transparent and intelligible, by trying to master the formal dialectics of unity and trinity with increasingly sublime considerations.”
When God communicate Himself to man, He does so in His true form, not in some Aristotelian accidental form of created grace. When we encounter the economic Trinity, we encounter the immanent Trinity.
This is Rahner’s basic thesis, and its implications and emphases provide rich avenues of thought for the Christian seeking to know and love this Triune God.
Key quotes:
“Despite their orthodox confession of the Trinity, Christians are, in their practical life, almost mere ‘monotheists.’”
“The Trinity is a mystery of salvation, otherwise it would never have been revealed.”
“The economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity and the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity.”
“Man is possible because the exteriorization of the Logos is possible.”
“Thus we may say that the mystery of the Trinity is the last mystery of our own reality, and that it is experienced precisely in this reality.”
“We take it for granted that many subtle considerations of school theology do not approach much nearer to the most secret, the ultimately forbidden goal: to render the mystery logically transparent and intelligible, by trying to master the formal dialectics of unity and trinity with increasingly sublime considerations.”
June 18, 2025
Had me until the very end when he wanted to replace person with distinct manner of subsisting but didn’t address the egregious weakness of not fitting the Chalcedonian and Nicene form of a certain number of x in a certain number of y (for Jesus, two natures in one person, for the Trinity three persons and one nature) instead requiring “one subsistence with three distinct manners of subsistence” which seems unnecessarily confusing at a formal level.
But the large thrust of his thesis that the immanent is the economic and the economic is the immanent is definitely something I want to build into my thinking more.
But the large thrust of his thesis that the immanent is the economic and the economic is the immanent is definitely something I want to build into my thinking more.
May 19, 2020
An essential modern understanding Of the Trinity consist with Church Dogma. Essential argument that the economic trinity is the immanent trinity.And the economic trinity is communicated to humanity in origin-future, history-transcendence, invitation-acceptance, and knowledge-love.
October 11, 2023
Rahner makes some good points: the "economic" Trinity is the "immanent" Trinity; the inadequacy of the term "persons," yet the role of the theologian in defending the Church's terminology.
If it hadn't given me as many headaches as it did, it might have gotten a higher rating.
If it hadn't given me as many headaches as it did, it might have gotten a higher rating.
April 1, 2025
If, like me, you're an evangelical who regularly hears Rahner's Rule cited as a given, it's well worth checking out this little book to get a broader understanding of what he was trying to do in his own words.
Read
January 10, 2022interested
Read
February 19, 2022Rahner's brother once said he was contemplating a translation of his works into German. It's a pity he wasn't able to carry it out.
April 25, 2023
This book is famous in Trinitarian theology for a hot take this sorta orthodox German Catholic had: “The economic Trinity is the Immanent Trinity.” His claim is ambiguous and no one is really certain what he meant, so naturally it became classic in modern systematic theology.
October 18, 2024
Dogwater
September 20, 2025
Buenas exposición de su Teoría de la Trinidad. Aunque con planteamientos muy universalistas pero sustentados.
January 20, 2011
Perhaps, the most muddled and neglected aspect of my theological speculation has been the concept of the Trinity. When folks have tried to pin me down, I've hedged by stating that I like some aspect of Social Trinitarianism, but I have trouble keeping those ideas out of the morass of tritheism. I sort of like the crude analogy of an individual as parent/spouse/occupation, but find it doesn't do justice to the real distinctiveness for Father, Son, and Spirit as indicated in the biblical revelation. The crude human trinity of parent/spouse/occupation refers strictly to functionality and doesn't do justice to the distinctiveness of each aspect even though it covers the unified substance of the personality.
Since I liked what Rahner did in Foundations of Christian Faith, I plunged into The Trinity with great curiosity. I was immediately assaulted with an observation that put me on my head. After speaking of how often Trinitarian doctrine is relegated to the back shelf simply because it is so difficult to speak intelligibly of it, Rahner asserts "The Trinity is a mystery of salvation, otherwise it would never have been revealed." (p. 21) I was flabbergasted. It was as if he said, "Either the doctrine matters in the way we are accepted by and can approach God or it doesn't." Frankly, from my perspective in the past, I had acted as if it really didn't matter. My prayers intermingled the "identities" within the Godhead so much that the distinctiveness simply didn't matter in any practical way.
Even though this is a very short book, it is the kind of book that would rock me back on my heels every so often so that I had to process the ideas and evaluate them against my own understanding of scripture and tradition. Only a couple of pages later, I came to a complete halt as Rahner spoke of the "mission" of the Logos (p. 23) and wrote, "The second divine person, God's Logos, is man, and only he is man. Hence there is at least one 'mission,' one presence in the world, one reality of salvation history which is not merely appropriated to some divine person, but which is proper to him." To me, this was as profound as reading in Wolfhart Pannenberg about the pre-existent Christ (my imprecise term, not Pannenberg's)"agreeing" with the Father and Spirit about creation, redemption, and eschatology in the light of the interaction of the Trinity. I liked that idea of interaction, but still was up in the air about how this could work (ultimately, I still am, but I'm starting to see the possibilities in a new light).
For example, Rahner powerful observes that it is preposterous from a practical human conception to conceive of an invisible God with no utterable words communicating with humanity. God had to allow God's own self (the verb Rahner uses most often here is "self-determine" and I like it a lot as it fits with the key idea in my Christological thought, self-limitation) to become the Logos, the Word, that would communicate with humanity in word and in flesh/deeds. (p. 29)So, his repeated thesis is that "each one of the three divine persons communicates himself to man in gratuitous grace in his own personal particularity and diversity." (pp. 34-35, 36).
So, this idea of "mission" with regard to the "persons" was helpful to me, but I still had a problem. IF we can speak of "persons," why weren't we speaking of three different beings instead of one, however we disguised it as three-in-one. Rahner helped me with this concept, too. He observed that the modern definition of "person" is different from that of even, say, Thomas Aquinas (pp. 104-5). Person in traditional theology does not mean personality. Rather, "There is only one real consciousness in God, which is shared by Father, Son, and Spirit, by each in his own proper way. Hence, the threefold subsistence is not qualified by three consciousnesses." (p. 107)
Certainly, no effort of slightly more than 100 pages can possibly mine all of the veins of profundity in the doctrine of the Trinity. Yet, Rahner's approach of conceiving the Trinity in terms of two constant, eternal activities--knowing and loving--helps us understand a little more and his insistence on our experience of God in salvation history as being a result of the divine self-communication is extremely helpful. It is impossible to ignore the implications of the Trinity if we are honest enough to admit that the mystery is grounded in God's self-determination but revealed to us through God's self-communication. Yes, the Trinity makes a difference and my understanding is richer as a result of this marvelous work of Catholic theology. That says something when you remember that I was raised and ordained in the Southern Baptist denomination.
Since I liked what Rahner did in Foundations of Christian Faith, I plunged into The Trinity with great curiosity. I was immediately assaulted with an observation that put me on my head. After speaking of how often Trinitarian doctrine is relegated to the back shelf simply because it is so difficult to speak intelligibly of it, Rahner asserts "The Trinity is a mystery of salvation, otherwise it would never have been revealed." (p. 21) I was flabbergasted. It was as if he said, "Either the doctrine matters in the way we are accepted by and can approach God or it doesn't." Frankly, from my perspective in the past, I had acted as if it really didn't matter. My prayers intermingled the "identities" within the Godhead so much that the distinctiveness simply didn't matter in any practical way.
Even though this is a very short book, it is the kind of book that would rock me back on my heels every so often so that I had to process the ideas and evaluate them against my own understanding of scripture and tradition. Only a couple of pages later, I came to a complete halt as Rahner spoke of the "mission" of the Logos (p. 23) and wrote, "The second divine person, God's Logos, is man, and only he is man. Hence there is at least one 'mission,' one presence in the world, one reality of salvation history which is not merely appropriated to some divine person, but which is proper to him." To me, this was as profound as reading in Wolfhart Pannenberg about the pre-existent Christ (my imprecise term, not Pannenberg's)"agreeing" with the Father and Spirit about creation, redemption, and eschatology in the light of the interaction of the Trinity. I liked that idea of interaction, but still was up in the air about how this could work (ultimately, I still am, but I'm starting to see the possibilities in a new light).
For example, Rahner powerful observes that it is preposterous from a practical human conception to conceive of an invisible God with no utterable words communicating with humanity. God had to allow God's own self (the verb Rahner uses most often here is "self-determine" and I like it a lot as it fits with the key idea in my Christological thought, self-limitation) to become the Logos, the Word, that would communicate with humanity in word and in flesh/deeds. (p. 29)So, his repeated thesis is that "each one of the three divine persons communicates himself to man in gratuitous grace in his own personal particularity and diversity." (pp. 34-35, 36).
So, this idea of "mission" with regard to the "persons" was helpful to me, but I still had a problem. IF we can speak of "persons," why weren't we speaking of three different beings instead of one, however we disguised it as three-in-one. Rahner helped me with this concept, too. He observed that the modern definition of "person" is different from that of even, say, Thomas Aquinas (pp. 104-5). Person in traditional theology does not mean personality. Rather, "There is only one real consciousness in God, which is shared by Father, Son, and Spirit, by each in his own proper way. Hence, the threefold subsistence is not qualified by three consciousnesses." (p. 107)
Certainly, no effort of slightly more than 100 pages can possibly mine all of the veins of profundity in the doctrine of the Trinity. Yet, Rahner's approach of conceiving the Trinity in terms of two constant, eternal activities--knowing and loving--helps us understand a little more and his insistence on our experience of God in salvation history as being a result of the divine self-communication is extremely helpful. It is impossible to ignore the implications of the Trinity if we are honest enough to admit that the mystery is grounded in God's self-determination but revealed to us through God's self-communication. Yes, the Trinity makes a difference and my understanding is richer as a result of this marvelous work of Catholic theology. That says something when you remember that I was raised and ordained in the Southern Baptist denomination.
November 3, 2012
In authoring this work, Karl Rahner has two main goals. First, to correct methodological errors in regards to the typical Western approach to developing the doctrine of the Trinity. Second, to offer a systematic treatment based on correcting those perceived errors while still being in line with official Catholic doctrine.
His methodological complaints are addressed at the Western traditional in general and at Augustine and Aquinas in particular. He gives special attention to Aquinas’ two treatises in the Summa “On the One God” and “On the Triune God.” Rahner claims that by separating the two topics, and especially in starting with God in general rather than God as Father, Thomas has effectively isolated the Trinity and failed to show a satisfactory union between the Economic and Immanent Trinities. The effect of this, according to Rahner, is a practical ambivalence to the Trinity in Western thought and practice. The Trinity is acknowledge in the creed, but has little impact anywhere else.
Rahner’s solution to this is to draw a strong connection, even an equation, between the Economic and Immanent Trinities. His starting point is God as Father rather than God in abstraction. He argues that this is where the Scriptures start and therefore provides the most accurate basis for understanding the Trinity.
For Rahner, the Economic Trinity tells us not only how God has revealed himself but how God actually is. When the Son becomes incarnate, it is inaccurate to assert that the Father and the Spirit could also have done so. The Economic Trinity is not one of several ways in which God could have participated in the economy of salvation; it is how he must participate since what he we see of God interacting as the Economic Trinity is the same as how he exists as the Immanent Trinity.
I found both positive and negative points to Rahner’s analysis. I’ll begin with the positive. First, he correctly points out the pitfalls of the Western view of the Trinity. The post-Augustinian method is in danger of isolating the Trinity to the point of abstraction. In addition, Rahner’s case that the Scriptures, by starting with God as Father, provide a model for us to follow is a point well-made and one worth following. I also found that, for the most part, Rahner’s systematic treatment was successful in staying faithful to Catholic doctrine despite his methodological differences.
I also found Rahner lacking on a couple key points. While his perspective as a systematician is often helpful, it also becomes a liability in places – especially is assessment of Augustine and Aquinas. Particularly in Augustine’s case, Rahner pays little to no attention to the historical realities that led Augustine to select his method. Augustine was attempting to avoid the dual errors of Arianism and Sabellianism, not to mention the persistence of pagan belief in God as a corporeal being, at a time when those heresies were alive and well. While Rahner is also conscious of avoiding those heresies, he has the benefit of writing over 1,500 years after they were defeated. For him those issues are one consideration among many. For Augustine, avoiding them and consolidating the Catholic counter-argument was his primary concern. This led to Augustine needing to adopt a methodology which Rahner has the freedom to leave behind.
I was also not fully convinced by how closely Rahner tied the Economic and Immanent Trinities. While I believe he has a valid point in showing a close relationship between them, I am unconvinced that his argument fully appreciates God’s mystery and transcendence. Equating the two seems to make our theological reflections too experiential and, as a result, says too much about God’s nature.
Overall, I found Rahner’s work to be a helpful, but flawed, corrective to the Western understanding of the Trinity.
His methodological complaints are addressed at the Western traditional in general and at Augustine and Aquinas in particular. He gives special attention to Aquinas’ two treatises in the Summa “On the One God” and “On the Triune God.” Rahner claims that by separating the two topics, and especially in starting with God in general rather than God as Father, Thomas has effectively isolated the Trinity and failed to show a satisfactory union between the Economic and Immanent Trinities. The effect of this, according to Rahner, is a practical ambivalence to the Trinity in Western thought and practice. The Trinity is acknowledge in the creed, but has little impact anywhere else.
Rahner’s solution to this is to draw a strong connection, even an equation, between the Economic and Immanent Trinities. His starting point is God as Father rather than God in abstraction. He argues that this is where the Scriptures start and therefore provides the most accurate basis for understanding the Trinity.
For Rahner, the Economic Trinity tells us not only how God has revealed himself but how God actually is. When the Son becomes incarnate, it is inaccurate to assert that the Father and the Spirit could also have done so. The Economic Trinity is not one of several ways in which God could have participated in the economy of salvation; it is how he must participate since what he we see of God interacting as the Economic Trinity is the same as how he exists as the Immanent Trinity.
I found both positive and negative points to Rahner’s analysis. I’ll begin with the positive. First, he correctly points out the pitfalls of the Western view of the Trinity. The post-Augustinian method is in danger of isolating the Trinity to the point of abstraction. In addition, Rahner’s case that the Scriptures, by starting with God as Father, provide a model for us to follow is a point well-made and one worth following. I also found that, for the most part, Rahner’s systematic treatment was successful in staying faithful to Catholic doctrine despite his methodological differences.
I also found Rahner lacking on a couple key points. While his perspective as a systematician is often helpful, it also becomes a liability in places – especially is assessment of Augustine and Aquinas. Particularly in Augustine’s case, Rahner pays little to no attention to the historical realities that led Augustine to select his method. Augustine was attempting to avoid the dual errors of Arianism and Sabellianism, not to mention the persistence of pagan belief in God as a corporeal being, at a time when those heresies were alive and well. While Rahner is also conscious of avoiding those heresies, he has the benefit of writing over 1,500 years after they were defeated. For him those issues are one consideration among many. For Augustine, avoiding them and consolidating the Catholic counter-argument was his primary concern. This led to Augustine needing to adopt a methodology which Rahner has the freedom to leave behind.
I was also not fully convinced by how closely Rahner tied the Economic and Immanent Trinities. While I believe he has a valid point in showing a close relationship between them, I am unconvinced that his argument fully appreciates God’s mystery and transcendence. Equating the two seems to make our theological reflections too experiential and, as a result, says too much about God’s nature.
Overall, I found Rahner’s work to be a helpful, but flawed, corrective to the Western understanding of the Trinity.
July 16, 2025
(a few words on this work from 2017. another I'll have to revisit.)
In The Trinity, Karl Rahner laments the lack of scholarship put “towards development within [trinitarian theology]”. (The Trinity, p. 9) Positive work in trinitarian theology has fallen so far by the way that “should the doctrine of the Trinity have to be dropped as false,” Rahner says, “the major part of religious literature could well remain virtually unchanged”. (pp. 10-11) The doctrine of the Trinity, it seems, bears little to not at all on the Christian life. This stems, in part, from an imposed disjunction of theological loci in dogmatics: namely, the disjunction between the treatises “On the One God” and “On the Triune God”. Progress in trinitarian theology can be achieved in part seeing again the mutual indwelling of these two treatises.
Rahner’s fundamental thesis is as follows: “The ‘economic’ Trinity is the ‘immanent’ Trinity and the ‘immanent’ Trinity is the ‘economic’ Trinity.” (p. 22) In other words, the God who has revealed himself in salvation history as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the one true God, and this God truly is, within the divine life, as he has revealed himself. We know what we know of God through his self-revelation, and he has revealed himself in the Word by the Spirit.
While addressing difficulties connected with his thesis, Rahner states a presupposition that seems fundamental to his project:
“We develop a theology which neither explicitly nor (more dangerously) implicitly considers a pretended possibility never mentioned in revelation; we cling to the truth that the Logos is really as he appears in revelation, that he is the one who reveals to us (not merely one of those who might have revealed to us) the triune God, on account of the personal being which belongs exclusively to him, the Father’s Logos.” (p. 30)
Rahner makes this statement in respect, particularly to the question of the uniqueness of incarnation of the Son, ruling out an ‘incarnational potentiality’ in the divinity in general. More broadly, though, this presupposition carries through the rest of his thought: that what we see of God in salvation history matches what is true of God in himself, ontologically.
In The Trinity, Karl Rahner laments the lack of scholarship put “towards development within [trinitarian theology]”. (The Trinity, p. 9) Positive work in trinitarian theology has fallen so far by the way that “should the doctrine of the Trinity have to be dropped as false,” Rahner says, “the major part of religious literature could well remain virtually unchanged”. (pp. 10-11) The doctrine of the Trinity, it seems, bears little to not at all on the Christian life. This stems, in part, from an imposed disjunction of theological loci in dogmatics: namely, the disjunction between the treatises “On the One God” and “On the Triune God”. Progress in trinitarian theology can be achieved in part seeing again the mutual indwelling of these two treatises.
Rahner’s fundamental thesis is as follows: “The ‘economic’ Trinity is the ‘immanent’ Trinity and the ‘immanent’ Trinity is the ‘economic’ Trinity.” (p. 22) In other words, the God who has revealed himself in salvation history as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the one true God, and this God truly is, within the divine life, as he has revealed himself. We know what we know of God through his self-revelation, and he has revealed himself in the Word by the Spirit.
While addressing difficulties connected with his thesis, Rahner states a presupposition that seems fundamental to his project:
“We develop a theology which neither explicitly nor (more dangerously) implicitly considers a pretended possibility never mentioned in revelation; we cling to the truth that the Logos is really as he appears in revelation, that he is the one who reveals to us (not merely one of those who might have revealed to us) the triune God, on account of the personal being which belongs exclusively to him, the Father’s Logos.” (p. 30)
Rahner makes this statement in respect, particularly to the question of the uniqueness of incarnation of the Son, ruling out an ‘incarnational potentiality’ in the divinity in general. More broadly, though, this presupposition carries through the rest of his thought: that what we see of God in salvation history matches what is true of God in himself, ontologically.
August 9, 2011
A milestone in Catholic theology indeed. Rahner's desire to overcome the irrelevance of the traditional doctrine of the Trinity led to this remarkably systematic and consistent retrieval. By an historical analysis showing how reflections on the Trinity became more and more divorced from the concrete reality of the manifestation of salvation in history, particularly in the person of Christ, Rahner shows how, particularly in the medieval period, Christian theology became almost completely centered on Christ to the detriment of showing how the three Divine Persons (not to be confused with "person" in the modern sense) were reduced to what was for all intents and purposes a strict monotheism. This is the inheritance of history Rahner tries to overcome. He seeks to show how it is particular to the being of the Person of the Divine Word to become incarnate, and that in doing so Christ expresses the salvific will of the Father, and both together constitute the reality of the Spirit.
Rahner points out that this divine communion, far from being esoteric and separate from our lives is absolutely essential for living a truly Christian life that is concerned for the well-being of 'the other.' One can see in Rahner's perspective on the Trinity a genuine relevance to anthropology, ecclesiology, liturgy, and even social justice. Although a bit individualistic in its perspective on the influence of the Trinity on the particular believer, this milestone is the foundation upon which much subsequent Trinitarian theology in the present has been built.
Rahner points out that this divine communion, far from being esoteric and separate from our lives is absolutely essential for living a truly Christian life that is concerned for the well-being of 'the other.' One can see in Rahner's perspective on the Trinity a genuine relevance to anthropology, ecclesiology, liturgy, and even social justice. Although a bit individualistic in its perspective on the influence of the Trinity on the particular believer, this milestone is the foundation upon which much subsequent Trinitarian theology in the present has been built.
November 28, 2012
Ehhh... I understand that this was (is?) an important book. And Rahner raises brilliant questions... what difference would it make, really (in day to day living or practically in theology) if the doctrine was abandoned, or if we became Binitarian or something else - would it really(!) matter?! The bottom line is for all intents and purposes, we have practically (though perhaps not confessionaly) ignored this key life-giving doctrine... his dictum on the that "the 'economic' Trinity is the 'immanent' Trinity, and the 'immanent' Trinity is the 'economic' Trinity," brought a much needed corrective to Western "Trinitarianism"... and his taking to task the key western/Roman thinkers, I think was great - but in the end, he still makes the same western mistakes so many Papist before him have. Worthy of engaging if you have the (genuine) time to engage it - but NOT a must read as many have claimed. Time could and perhaps should be spent elsewhere.
June 22, 2013
I found this text to be helpful in explaining how one should properly approach the doctrine of the Trinity. Matters of terminology aside, I believe Rahner convincingly presents his argument that the way the Trinity is in its distinct persons, and the way the Trinity acts by those distinct persons in the world, are related. Perhaps with this explanation more people would, indeed, understand the Trinity without becoming monotheists or tritheists. The Trinity would then be understood in the way it impacts one’s personal everyday life in grace and salvation.
March 2, 2015
You need some background in both Rahner and the doctrine of the Trinity in order to appreciate this book... And a large dose of caffeine to muster through Rahner's often abstruse language. That being said, this book is helpful for engaging in a deeper theological understanding of the Trinity, and it is not as difficult to read as some of Rahner's other works.
December 1, 2025
Rahner, is an interesting figure. At some points, he makes absolutely brilliant observations, and other times make what seem to be contradictory statements. Like many Jesuits, he is great mind, and I often find myself shaking my fist (metaphorically) saying, "you're so close to the truth." Just as I do reading many ancient Rabi's.
February 13, 2013
Excellent primary on the trinity from a famous catholic theologian.
December 13, 2018
Rahner has divided this short book into three concise sections, and each are arranged by topic. The first part discusses what he calls “inadequate theologies of Incarnation and grace that characterized new-scholasticism in the twentieth century”. Here he has reviewed theories of the Incarnation to contrast and compare against his own ideas. The second section is devoted to Church doctrine on the Trinity, followed in part three by an explanation of Rahner’s theory on the Trinity. For such an abstract topic Rahner has made most of this book understandable. And like some of his contemporaries, Rahner sees the importance of all three persons of the Trinity in community with each other. He is one seen as a leader in the doctrine of the Holy Spirit and writes to bring more attention to this person of the Trinity.
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews