Stephen R. Holmes

In the twentieth century there was a flowering of Trinitarian theology from such luminaries as Karl Barth, Karl Rahner, John Zizioulas, Jurgen Moltmann, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Robert Jenson, Miroslav Volf, Leonardo Boff, Cornelius Plantinga, Michael Rea, Brian Leftow and others. While this so-called Trinitarian revival begins with Barth and best intentions (to rescue the doctrine of the Trinity from Liberal theology’s refuse pile) those that followed him took avenues which broke with the show more tradition. Sometimes this was because scholars willfully lay aside earlier theological reflection, other times it is because they fail to appreciate the meaning and nuances of earlier theological discussions.

In The Quest for the Trinity Stephen R. Holmes, senior lecturer in theology at St. Andrews, has written a short book which gives an overview of the contemporary approaches to the Trinity, and sets it against the backdrop of the theological tradition. Holmes basic premise is that the contemporary quest to recapture the doctrine of the Trinity, misunderstands and distorts the tradition (xv). In his first chapter, Holmes sketches the contours of the ‘Trinitarian revival.’ In the chapters which follow, he walks chronologically through the history of the church, demonstrating the broad consensus of Trinitarian theology from the 4th Century councils until the Nineteenth Century. Holmes presents and summarizes the writings of many of the theologians and thinkers who reflected on the nature of the Triune God.

This is a short book (232 pages) and therefore cannot necessarily give a detailed analysis of all twenty centuries of theological reflection. Yet Holmes demonstrates his thesis and illuminates significant details along the way. Holmes is able to shows that the method and understanding of the Trinity had significantly changed in the modern period from what it was in the patristic, medieval or Reformation eras. For instance, when Holmes looks back on the Biblical texts which formed the basis of patristic reflection on the Trinity, he observes that many of the go-to-texts were from the Old Testament. In the modern period, the Old Testament is treated as though it had nothing significant to teach us about the Christian doctrine of the Trinity because historical critical approaches trained us to read the Bible, solely through the lens of authorial intent. Patristic exegetes were committed to reading the Old Testament Christologically and mined it for theological treasures.

Beyond method, Holmes demonstrates that contemporary approaches to the Trinity employ language differently than earlier approaches. In the fourth century debates, which culminated in the councils of Nicea and Constantinople, the language of personhood (hypostasis, persona) was employed to refer to the members of the Trinity. In contemporary theology, personhood is understood as fully personal, possessing will, intellect, personality. In the patrisitic period, personhood denotes a self-consciousness but the individual distinctions between persons is not stressed (there are not three I-centers). Rather the Cappadocian formulation affirms that the Triune God exists as one substance, trice over. Likewise traditional theologians were committed to the ineffability of God, where modern theologians sometimes claim a fuller understanding of God’s nature.

One conclusion which Holmes makes that is controversial in some quarters is his assertion that Greek and Latin conception of the Trinity are in substantial agreement. My own theological training taught me that the model of the Trinity in the East was a ‘Social Trinity model’ which stressed the inter-relation of the persons but in the West, the Trinity was understood in more psychological terms. Often the blame for the difference is assigned to Augustine for his ubiquitous influence on the West and his failure to understand the Cappadocians. Against this Holmes asserts that Augustine was the greatest interpreter of Cappadocian Theology (122). Holmes observes that, ” Augustine is held not to have understood the Cappadocian achievement, and to have stumbled through some metaphysical arguments which are best sub-Trinitarian when compared to the glories of the two Gregories. (130)” Holmes finds unlikely that Augustine would present a radically different Trinity from the Cappadocians without knowing that he did. He asserts to the contrary:

If any explanation is offered to account for this extraordinarily unlikely state of affairs, it usually turns on a suggestion that Augustine’s grasp of Greek was at best partial, and therefore that he did not understand the texts that led to the Constantinopolitian settlement. Against this, we might note: that Augustine’s grasp of Greek was actually rather good, at least by the time he wrote De Trinitate, that there are several earlier Latin interpreters of Nicene theology whom he could have read, some whom we know he stood in close relationship to (e.g. Ambrose of Milan), and that no writer of the day accuses Augustine of misunderstanding Constantinopolitian Trintarianism. Further, my discussion of Hilary, above, has indicated just how dependent on Eastern categories his developed Trinitarianism theoloogy was. (130-1).

Nevertheless, differences in Eastern and Western Trinitarianism develop with the controversy over the filioque clause in the Nicene Creed (In the original creed, ‘the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father’, in the West the word’s ‘and the Son’ were added to the Creed. However this difference did not threaten the Church’s orthodoxy or catholicity; there was full communion for centuries between Christians on both sides of the debate(164).

Without going into the details of every thinker Holmes profiled, I think he demonstrates well that Christians were united in their understanding of the Trinity until the 19th Century (when the ferment of the Reformation and enlightenment style rationalism prompted a decisive break with tradition). You do not need to be an expert of the Trinity to read this book; however I think those who have followed the Trinitarian conversation will find this book most valuable.

Thank you to Intervarsity Press for providing me a copy of this book in exchange for this review. show less

The Quest for the Trinity is one in a series of books that strives to examine Christian doctrines from their biblical roots, trace them through historical development, and place them in their current discourse. Dr. Holmes’ book, like the rest of the series, is a sort of theological checksum to assess the overwhelming volume of theological work in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. In The Quest for the Trinity, Dr. Holmes makes an alarming claim: modern theologians have show more essentially departed from the historical doctrine of the Trinity, while simultaneously claiming to have rediscovered its original sense. If true, this departure would necessarily affect fundamental aspects of the way Christians view their faith and the world around them.

Holmes offers his argument in an unusual arrangement. Rather than starting with scripture and working to the present, he begins with the present then jumps back to antiquity to allow the reader to weigh the modern expression of doctrine against historical developments as they unfold. In modernity, he describes how the term ‘person’ lost its usefulness for theological discussion as its meaning changed through eighteenth-century philosophy. He also argues that modern theologians have exercised excessive liberty in applying trinitarian themes to ecclesiology and society at large (in comparison with patristic trinitarianism). The remainder of the book takes a linear walk through scriptural and deuterocanonical witness, explores doctrinal developments through the fourth century, and argues that a largely stable doctrine remained through to the eighteenth century with a few notable challenges along the way. Holmes observes that the main voices of the reformation invested little effort into developing Trinitarian doctrine, appearing to accept it as received from the historical church. Although a few minor voices championed various strands of anti-trinitarian developments, they did not take significant hold. In a final, sweeping move, Holmes asserts that the doctrine was never literally lost, but that the nature of theologians’ relationships with the doctrine fundamentally changed by the beginning of the twentieth century. Instead of assuming the received doctrine was trustworthy, they found it necessary to relitigate each facet through modern thought and terminology.

Perhaps the most noteworthy aspect of Holmes’ treatment of New Testament exegesis is not what is said, but rather what is omitted. He only gives a passing mention of Jesus’ baptism to illustrate the relationship between God the Father and God the Son, and – far more striking – the sending of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost is not mentioned at all. In The Triune God, Fred Sanders powerfully illustrates that the visible sending of the Son and Holy Spirit is how God ultimately revealed the Trinity to mankind. These momentous events (Jesus’ baptism and Pentecost), especially when considered in concert with Jesus’ incarnation, provide a sure foundation for constructing a robust and faithful trinitarian doctrine. In chapter two, Holmes often refers to how various early church theologians exegeted specific texts, so a more detailed treatment of Jesus’ baptism and Pentecost may have been unhelpful to his argument because there was little room for substantive disagreement in the relevant texts. In belaboring this point, I may be a living illustration of Holmes’ claim that relitigating trinitarian doctrines from their foundations is part of the modern problem.

While the book is helpful from cover to cover, Holmes made an editorial decision that ultimately limited his ability to portray crucial debates of the fourth century. In a footnote, Holmes states that he chose to employ the transliterated terms ousia and hypostasis exclusively to “draw attention to changing and contested usages through the fourth century.” On the following page, he mentions that Athanasius aligns with Nicaean language of Father and Son sharing one ousia, while Marcellus argues they are of one hypostasis. He does not provide any explanation of initial definition or usage (apart from a footnote giving translation of each term into English), which makes deciphering the evolution of terms far more challenging. If the terms were interchangeable, it would be helpful to plainly say so. If they were not interchangeable, a sentence or two describing the difference would give much more clarity to the debate that followed. In short, a more overt description of how the usage of these terms varied among church fathers and how that affected meaning and communication between parties of the debate would be valuable.

In the author’s introduction, he states that upper-level undergraduates are his primary intended audience. This may be implied, but the amount of assumed knowledge required to fruitfully engage with the text would require those upper-level undergraduates to have already completed significant theological and religio-historical studies. The pace of tracing historical developments, especially from the fifth century to present, would be challenging for most readers without a healthy grasp of church history and philosophical history. As such, this book would be excellent for any reader with a background in studying historical religion and philosophy who desires an overview of the developments of one of the most fundamental Christian doctrines. show less

This is one of the best books that I have read in my life. The author covers his subject with great skill and with wide-ranging knowledge. I was extremely satisfied as he draws on so much of contemporary discussion and then challenges some of the assumptions of the moderns with penetrating insights from the formative era of Patristic theology. One will find insightful analysis from a host of writers throughout church history and a masterful handling of secondary literature to boot.

As someone show more who has struggled with the doctrine of the trinity and though I am fully persuaded of the correctness of a fully co-equal trinity of all three divine persons, I still have difficulties with the topic of origins. This notion, even as employed so carefully by Holmes and various writers that he cites to explain the so-called trinitarian relations of the persons, is still a troubling feature for me. There are times when I "see" or I "think" I see, and therefore am ready to throw in my hat with those who so easily affirm that the Son has an origin of a kind in the Father, even though they are still both eternal. Other times, I am not so sure that I can reconcile eternal generation and procession in terms of "origin" even if only personal. I will continue to wrestle, and no doubt, I will also continue to look up insights from this text again and again!

One of my goals is to write on the trinity. I only hope that if and when I do my work will be half as good as Holmes's excellent volume!

A true gem of a book! show less

Utilizing people and events of Church history as case studies (e.g. Anselm, Calvin, Edwards, Barth, baptism, and more), Holmes effectively argues the case for the use of tradition in constructing theology. Holmes ultimately sees church tradition as a manifestation of Christian fellowship and the communion of saints. Great resource for integrating church history into contemporary life, although somewhat disjointed. A-