REFORMED SCHOLASTICISM AND THE TRINITARIAN RENAISSANCE Gijsbert van den Brink 1. Introduction: The Twentieth Century Trinitarian Renaissance The locus which provokes the most energetic research and lively debate in contemporary systematic theology is no doubt the doctrine of the divine Trinity. As David Cunningham observes, “[o]nce threatened by its relative scarcity in modern theology, the doctrine of the Trinity now seems more likely to be obscured by an overabundance of theologians clustered around it.”1 And in what would become his last book the late Stanley Grenz points to the same fact, when he indicates that “exploring the triunity of God has developed into one of the most popular theolog- ical pursuits . , encompassing the efforts of thinkers representing nearly every ecclesiological tradition and theological persuasion.”2 Indeed, during the twentieth century both Eastern Orthodox and West- ern theologians from all major traditions (Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed etc.) came to reaffirm the doctrine of the Trinity as the result of careful reflection on the biblical narratives concerning God’s concrete action in the world in the coming of the Messiah and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the huge resurgence of interest in the doc- trine of the Trinity and, more widely, in trinitarian theology, can be con- sidered as a first-rate ecumenical event. I will not delve into the background and motives behind this remark- able movement here—an issue as intriguing as it is complex.3 Rather, given this volume’s focus on some of the themes which have the profes- sional interest of Willem van Asselt and on which he has done such 1 David Cunningham, These Three are One: The Practice of Trinitarian Theology (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998), 19. 2 Stanley J. Grenz, Rediscovering the Triune God: The Trinity in Contemporary Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2004), 1. 3 For an insightful analysis, cf. Christoph Schwöbel, “The Renaissance of Trinitar- ian Theology: Reasons, Problems and Tasks,” in Trinitarian Theology Today, ed. C. Schwöbel (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), 1–30; see also my “De hedendaagse renais- sance van de triniteitsleer,” Theologia Reformata 46 (2003): 210–40. REFORMED SCHOLASTICISM AND TRINITY 323 energetic and important work during the past decades, we have to pause for a moment to contemplate the so-called other side of the coin. For we cannot ignore the fact that the present-day trinitarian renaissance goes hand in hand with a profound intuition that, when it comes to the doc- trine of the Trinity, something has gone fatally wrong in the past. Usu- ally, the starting point of the trinitarian renaissance is found in the work of Karl Barth, while an important new impetus on the Catholic side came from Karl Rahner.4 Both thinkers—perhaps the most influential Western theologians of the twentieth century—contributed greatly to the disruption of the widespread idea that trinitarian thought was a mere speculative issue of at best antiquarian interest, as well as to the recov- ery of its central place in the story of Christian theology. If it is true that something has gone wrong in the history of the doc- trine of the Trinity, this fault must be found somewhere prior to the twentieth century. Indeed, this is where most theologians locate it. Opinions differ widely, however, as to where and when exactly the decline of trinitarian theology began. Karl Rahner, for one, accused Thomas Aquinas of taking a crucial wrong turn in his Summa Theolo- giae when he discussed the doctrine of the one God (de Deo uno) prior to the doctrine of the triune God (de Deo trino). For others, however, such as Robert Jenson and Colin Gunton, the root of the West’s trinitar- ian oblivion is to be found already in Augustine’s De Trinitate. Still oth- ers, Catherine LaCugna being their most well-known representative, claim that the main cause of the problems can even be traced back as far as the post-Nicene Greek fathers, who purportedly isolated the imma- nent from the economic Trinity by one-sidedly focusing their attention on the former.5 There is a fourth group of interpreters who, without denying alto- gether the elements of truth in the other historical analyses, point to the seventeenth century as the main period in which crucial shifts took place which led to the marginalization of the Trinity. According to them, it 4 Cf., e.g., Roger E. Olson and Christopher Hall, The Trinity (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002), 95–100; Grenz, Rediscovering, 5, rightly assumes that Barth and Rahner “more than any other thinkers both launched the renewal and set the parameters for the trinitarian theology that would arise in the twentieth century.” 5 Catherine M. LaCugna, God For Us: The Trinity and Christian Life (San Fran- cisco: Harper, 1991). For other references to the literature, and for some thoughtful caveats with regard to this practice of “historical scapegoating,” see Cunningham, These Three are One, 31–3; cf. also his “Trinitarian Theology since 1990,” Reviews in Religion and Theology 2 (1995): 13–4..