Incarnational Realism: Trinity and the Spirit in Augustine and Barth (T&T Clark Studies in Systematic Theology, 21)

by Travis E. Ables

In the last half of the 20th century, a consensus emerged that Christian theology in the Western tradition had failed to produce a viable doctrine of the Holy Spirit, and that Augustine's trinitarian theology bore the blame for much of that failure. This book offers a fresh rereading of Western trinitarian theology to better understand the logic of its pneumatology. Ables studies the pneumatologies of Augustine and Karl Barth, and argues that the vision of the doctrine of the Spirit in these theologians should be understood as a way of talking about participating in the mystery of God as a performance of the life of Christ. He claims that for both theologians trinitarian doctrine encapsulates the grammar of the divine self-giving in history. The function of pneumatology in particular is to articulate the human reception and enactment of God's self-giving as itself part of the act of God; this "self-involving" logic is the special grammar of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.

288 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2013

Reviews

[Joseph Sverker]

The choice of Barth and Augustine is a surprising one in many respects, but also very enlightening in light of recent theological scholarship. There is a strong tradition of critique against Augustine that springs from theologians strongly influenced by Barth, Robert Jensen and Colin Gunton are simply two to mention. Ables shows how there certainly are similarities between Barth and Augustine, and if there are similarities there are certainly fruitful connections to be made. Although, since Augustine has come in vogue again (in reaction against for example Jensen and Gunton) it is a little strange that it seems like Augustine is the one to follow. There are similar tendencies in Brad Green's book on Colin Gunton and Augustine for example.

Anyway, Ables provides a very good critique against social understandings of the Trinity and he argues that it is the social trinitarianism that includes "a fourth" in the Trinity, namely by saying that the community that emerges by the three hypostases must be something "fourth". I do not completely agree with this, but need to think it through in order to exactly know how I would respond to Ables. It is a bit of shame though because Ables present the social interpretation of the Trinity with quite some nuance in the opening chapters yet it seems to me that his critique in the final chapter addresses more of the common simplified misrepresentation of social trinitarianism, that of meaning that social trinitarians make a direct connection between the divine perichoresis and human community. Maybe some do that, but it seems to me that most adherers of social trinaitariansim do their best to qualify that relation. And particularly in light of Colin Gunton's theology Ables conclusion that social trinitarians (which Gunton does not want to be defined as) treat christology and pneumatology univocally is close to mindboggling, since that is precisely what Gunton works hard not to do with his reference to Irenaeus. If it nonetheless is a conseuqnce of that type of thinking i think Ables need to show that clearer.

What I certainly do agree with is to place christology at centre stage for doctrine of Trinity and that should also lead to an emphasis on pneumatology. All in all a thought provoking and informed book. The section on Augustine's view on knowledge and wisdom is very good. I learnt much from this.