What do you think?
Rate this book
The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity
This interdisciplinary study is the result of an international and ecumenical meeting of nineteen scholars held in New York at Easter 1998: the Trinity Summit. Biblical experts examine the scriptural roots of trinitarian doctrine, patristic scholars correct those who continue to misinterpret the trinitarian teaching of the Cappadocians and Augustine, and five scholars examine systematic and foundational issues like the viability of social models for the Trinity. The volume ends with a study of the Trinity in art and the challenge of preaching the Trinity today. The international reputation of the participants reflects and guarantees the high quality of this joint work.
- GenresTheology
393 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1999
29 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 - 3 of 3 reviews
October 30, 2025
This book was a collection of papers written in preparation for a Trinity Summit held in 1998. The summit included 16 scholars of various disciplines including Craig Evans, Michel René Barnes, Eleonore Stump, and Brian Leftow. A few others, such as Jürgen Moltmann and Alvin Plantinga, had initially accepted the invitation but later had to decline. The preface explains, “we hope this volume will…remain accessible and illuminating to its intended audience of well-educated but not over-specialized readers.” And also states, “The volume proposes approaching multi-faceted Trinitarian faith by reflecting on biblical, historical, systematic (both theological and philosophical), and practical data and questions.”
I became aware of it because Lewis Aryes referenced Barnes’ relevant article therein in his book, “Augustine and the Trinity” which I’m currently reading.
With the exception of one chapter that I personally found unintelligible (something about modernity separating form and content instead of merely drawing a distinction IDK), the book was an enjoyable and challenging exercise in contemplation on the Trinity. I really enjoyed Craig Evans contribution where he argued that Jesus’ words and claims lead to his followers’ conclusions of His full divinity by, among other reasons, his self-designation as “the Son of Man” in light of Daniel 7. My favorite section (unsurprisingly) was the 3 chapters on Patristic Witness. Barnes’ chapter arguing against the widespread assumption that the source of Augustine’s Trinitarian view is predominantly neo-Platonist was worth the read. He states in his conclusion, “In his earliest writing on the Trinity, Augustine invokes the doctrine and terminology associated with Nicene theology…I have proposed that Augustine’s theology of the Trinity is centered on divine unity conceived in terms of the inseparable activity of the Three (the traditional Nicene understanding of divine unity), the epistemic character of the Incarnation as the decisive revelation of the Trinity, and the role of faith in leading our reflection of the Trinity.”
different but noteworthy, was Franz Jozef Van Beeck’s chapter titled “Trinitarian Theology as Participation.” He begins by delineating a distinction between ourselves and other creatures. The presence of other humans around us calls for participation in a way that other creatures do not. To truly ignore the presence of other people requires a tremendous amount of effort. (Maybe somewhat less for introverts, but I think he’s right) He calls, more poignantly than I’m about to, for participation in/with God as not just holding facts or truths we know or reason to but don’t experience. He defines the Greek verb myō that literally means ‘to close one’s mouth or eyes’ and from which the word mysterious comes as more accurately meaning “observing the kind of silence that becomes so eloquent that it elicits the kind of speech that reveals the Truth (while at the same time veiling it), and this creates room for a sacred silence once again, inclusive, pregnant with truth, and intolerant of falsehood.” He’s not saying knowledge is wrong but we are missing the best part of we do not participate with God personally. Soteriology should never be divorced from doxology. He continues, “The inner affinity with the Mystery in whom we are alive and move and have being—Father, Son, Holy Spirit—…The God who never comes alone but always with the entire cosmos and all of humanity. This experience is the heart of common worship…its interplay of the seen and the unseen—in sum, it’s doxology made tangible.” Our relationship with and worship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in prayer, silence, faith, liturgy, common worship should always accompany any contemplative quest to more correctly answer Jesus’ question, “Who do you say that I am?”
Altogether, I quite enjoyed the book!
I became aware of it because Lewis Aryes referenced Barnes’ relevant article therein in his book, “Augustine and the Trinity” which I’m currently reading.
With the exception of one chapter that I personally found unintelligible (something about modernity separating form and content instead of merely drawing a distinction IDK), the book was an enjoyable and challenging exercise in contemplation on the Trinity. I really enjoyed Craig Evans contribution where he argued that Jesus’ words and claims lead to his followers’ conclusions of His full divinity by, among other reasons, his self-designation as “the Son of Man” in light of Daniel 7. My favorite section (unsurprisingly) was the 3 chapters on Patristic Witness. Barnes’ chapter arguing against the widespread assumption that the source of Augustine’s Trinitarian view is predominantly neo-Platonist was worth the read. He states in his conclusion, “In his earliest writing on the Trinity, Augustine invokes the doctrine and terminology associated with Nicene theology…I have proposed that Augustine’s theology of the Trinity is centered on divine unity conceived in terms of the inseparable activity of the Three (the traditional Nicene understanding of divine unity), the epistemic character of the Incarnation as the decisive revelation of the Trinity, and the role of faith in leading our reflection of the Trinity.”
different but noteworthy, was Franz Jozef Van Beeck’s chapter titled “Trinitarian Theology as Participation.” He begins by delineating a distinction between ourselves and other creatures. The presence of other humans around us calls for participation in a way that other creatures do not. To truly ignore the presence of other people requires a tremendous amount of effort. (Maybe somewhat less for introverts, but I think he’s right) He calls, more poignantly than I’m about to, for participation in/with God as not just holding facts or truths we know or reason to but don’t experience. He defines the Greek verb myō that literally means ‘to close one’s mouth or eyes’ and from which the word mysterious comes as more accurately meaning “observing the kind of silence that becomes so eloquent that it elicits the kind of speech that reveals the Truth (while at the same time veiling it), and this creates room for a sacred silence once again, inclusive, pregnant with truth, and intolerant of falsehood.” He’s not saying knowledge is wrong but we are missing the best part of we do not participate with God personally. Soteriology should never be divorced from doxology. He continues, “The inner affinity with the Mystery in whom we are alive and move and have being—Father, Son, Holy Spirit—…The God who never comes alone but always with the entire cosmos and all of humanity. This experience is the heart of common worship…its interplay of the seen and the unseen—in sum, it’s doxology made tangible.” Our relationship with and worship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in prayer, silence, faith, liturgy, common worship should always accompany any contemplative quest to more correctly answer Jesus’ question, “Who do you say that I am?”
Altogether, I quite enjoyed the book!
March 5, 2013
The contributors cover a wide range of topics regarding the trinity and, generally, do an excellent job. I especially enjoyed Coakley, Alston, and Leftow's contributions. These will probably be the most relevant chapters for those interested in philosophical theology. Alston provides a great analysis of substance and Coakley and Leftow critique social trinitarianism, which seems to have a strong presence among philosophical theologians (and some apologists). While Leftow provides a direct critique and interaction with social trinitarianism, Coakley focuses on Gregory of Nyssa and whether he is accurately read in social trinitarian terms (she ends with some remarks on feminism that felt forced). Also relevant to Coakley's chapter is Lienhard's earlier chapter on ousia and hypostasis. The two should probably be read together. And although not directly concerned with kenotic theory, Davis has an interesting defense of its philosophical (not exegetical) coherence.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews