The New Natural Theology Is a Trinitarian Theology of Nature
5
The New Natural Theology
Is a Trinitarian Theology of Nature
In the previous chapter, we proposed that the message of Scripture and language of nature represent one unified revelation. Since, viewed through the lens of the Christian tradition, God’s very nature is a tri-unity between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, then divine revelation in nature should reflect this. Said another way, embedded into the very fabric of the creation one should apprehend the reflection and revelation of the Trinity. If a new proposed version of Natural Theology cannot produce a constructive Trinitarian Theology of Nature, then it is not explicitly Christian, but is instead a theistic or even deistic Theology of Nature. As Molnar explains, “What this means in this context is that those who would try to know God from the works of creation are really no better off than the Greeks who do not know the revelation of God in Jesus Christ because then, in that approach, God is not known as the Father of his Son Jesus Christ.” Thus, a new Theology of Nature would be self-consciously Christological in setting it apart from previous incarnations of Natural Theology or schematic theologies of the natural world. In this way, a proper understanding of creation is only possible in light of a Creator God, the incarnation of the Son, and revelation of a consonant divine reality by the Spirit of Truth.
Although theistic approaches to a theology of nature in other faith traditions may provide helpful insights into the ontic structure of the natural world in terms of God’s omnipotence and presence, McGrath asserts that the Christian tradition has something unique to offer. He states it this way, “A natural theology, when shaped and informed by the fundamental themes of the Christian tradition—in short, a Trinitarian natural theology—can act as a point of convergence between the Christian faith . . . and above all the natural sciences. A Trinitarian approach to natural theology allows the Christian faith to shine its own distinct intellectual light on the landscape of reality.” Here we see another important departure from Natural Theology, which was theistic but not necessarily explicitly Trinitarian. It is one matter to say that the Christian tradition offers insight into this discussion of the natural world, it is quite another to theologically decipher precisely how.
McGrath confidently asserts that a new version of Natural Theology that is to be constructed on contemporary terms invoking the natural sciences must be fully Trinitarian. He claims, “Natural Theology is therefore best understood as the enterprise of engaging and interpreting nature on the basis of the fundamental beliefs of the Christian tradition. It is the way of seeing nature that is made possible and made appropriate by the Christian faith. For this reason, it is a fundamentally Trinitarian and incarnational undertaking.” McGrath here stakes a claim to the Christian tradition as a preferred “way of seeing nature,” as a lens through which nature can most rightly be viewed and comprehended. He implies here that a new theological understanding of nature can “best” be grasped through that lens, in order to interpret its embedded messages as divine revelation.
The strength of McGrath’s assertion is that it holds out the grail to be picked up and worked through in order to arrive at an understanding of the natural world informed by the Trinitarian essence of God through the lens of the Christian faith. As McGrath explains, “However, a Trinitarian natural theology does more than articulate a theology of nature; it also offers an account of the active and constructive role of the human observer of nature. A Trinitarian theology offers a rich ontology which generates and sustains an understanding not merely of nature, but also of the human engagement with nature as well.” McGrath seems to be implying that a Trinitarian theology of the natural world would offer a deeper ontology, one that would somehow involve and reveal all three persons of the godhead.
In order to begin, we ask whether in fact Scripture supports a Trinitarian account of the natural world. In several key passages, Scripture indicates that all of the creation has been made in Christ, for Christ, by Christ and through Christ. Emil Brunner, drawing on these Scriptures and others, postulated that indeed, all of nature is understood Christologically. He writes, “Hence all that is taught in accordance with Scripture about the revelation of God in the works of creation, is to be understood Christologically.” Brunner’s didactic claim is particularly instructive here. Not only are we understanding nature as being created by God, but holding another dimension, one that involves Christ in its very inception. If such a paradigm pointing to a Trinitarian Theology of Nature holds, then nature should speak of Christ. Torrance affirms it in this way, “What we learn from the doctrine of creation interpreted through the incarnation, and thus interpreted in a Trinitarian way, is that the universe is ‘endowed with an openness, spontaneity and freedom which will always take us by surprise.’”
As Torrance is suggesting here, scripture indeed indicates a strongly Christological connection with the natural world, far beyond the universe being created as the stage upon which the play of redemption is performed. In John 1:2–3 we read, “He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made.” The Greek word “through,” δι’ (di’), connotes passing through, by way of, by the instrumentality of. This means that all of the creation came into being by way of Christ. This is the same word used in John 1:10, “He was in the world, and though the world was made through Him.” Romans 11:36 has three separate prepositions for the relation of Christ with “all things,” it reads, “For from ἐξ (ex) Him and through δι’ (di’) Him and for εἰς (eis) Him are all things.” Each preposition nuances the Christological connection with “all things,” including the creation. The preposition from ἐξ (ex) suggests “from the interior outwards.” The next preposition, “through” δι’ (di’) is used as we have seen in John 1:1 and 1:10 meaning “by way of.” Finally, “for” εἰς (eis) is more commonly translated as “into” numerous times in the New Testament. Thus, the verse might be read this way: Out from the interior of Christ, and passing through or by way of Christ, and into Christ are all things. This seems to indicate a fluid trajectory where “all things” including all of the creation, came from within Christ, pass through Christ and return back into Christ. This very same idea is expressed by the Apostle Paul in Colossians 1:15–17, note the use of prepositions:
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in (ἐν, en) him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through (δι’, di’) him and for (εἰς, eis) him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Here Paul uses ἐν (en) which just as in ἐξ (ex) used in Romans 11:36 conveys “from the interior.” So, the Scripture then would read,
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For from the interior of Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created by way of, passing through Him and into Him.
Both of these passages, in Romans 11:36 and Colossians 1:15–17, indicate a similar metaphysical relationship in the ontological reality of the creation from the interior of Christ, passing through the person of Christ and back into Christ. However, the metaphysical relation does not stop here. Scripture also teaches that Christ sustains and upholds all things in the creation. In Hebrews 1:3, we read “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining (φέρων, pherōn) all things by his powerful word.” The Greek word φέρων (pherōn) means to bear, carry, bring forth. Again in Colossians 1:17, “and in (ἐν, en) Him all things hold together (συνέστηκεν, synestēken),” where συνέστηκεν (synestēken), means composed of, cohere. These verses offer two different ideas: first that Christ is holding up, bearing, and carrying the creation, and second, holding things together as a cohesive whole, such that what reality is composed of is cohesively held together.
From these Scriptures, a Christological connection emerges, one that designates the creation as not only a theater or stage for which Christ enters at a time in human history. Rather, the creation itself is intricately embedded in Christ, comes through Christ and reverts back to Christ, who is holding up the creation, and cohesively holding it together as a structural whole. This provides a deeper metaphysical understanding of a Christology of nature, one that ontologically and metaphysically offers an account of the relation of Christ and the natural world.
Why Is the Trinity a Starting Point
for a Theology of Nature?
As we have just seen, Scripture indicates a metaphysical connection with the Word of Life, Jesus Christ, and the natural world. This Christological connection points toward a deeper relation between nature and the divine acting of a triune God in the Christian tradition. Later chapters will address the role of third person of the Trinity and how understanding these worldly traces of the Trinity offers the most complete understanding of nature, both structurally and spiritually. Hunsinger refers to these worldly traces of the Trinity as a “second root” for the doctrine of the Trinity found in the natural world, one that comes alongside Scripture. He states, “[We] would therefore need to assume ‘a second root’ for the doctrine of the Trinity. Quite apart from biblical revelation, or alongside it, these worldly traces would function as a root or ground from which to develop the Trinitarian dogma.” As Hunsinger indicates here, the natural world reveals a Trinitarian knowledge of the divine, apart from, or alongside of, the biblical revelation. By a second root he seems to suggest that the biblical understanding of God in three persons can be traced in the features of the natural world. This harkens back to Augustine’s doctrine of vestigia trinitatis in creation,
It is necessary that we, viewing the Creator through the works of his hands, raise up our minds to the contemplation of the Trinity, of which creation bears the mark in a certain and due proportion”. It is a truth of faith that the world has its beginning in the creator, who is the Triune God. Although the work of creation is attributed especially to God the Father” . . . it is also a truth of faith that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are the unique and indivisible “principle” of creation.
In line with the Augustinian lineage, I suggest, then, that there exists untapped information embedded in the framework of the creation that will affirm God’s Trinitarian essence. Perhaps, as proposed by Jonathan Edwards, Brunner, Torrance, McGrath and others that nature points toward an Augustinian understanding of vestigia trinitatis in creatura, revealing traces of the Trinity within the structures of the actual world. Such a case study might open up into a broad spectrum of investigations into the myriad of vestiges of the Trinity throughout the creation. In this way, what is communicated through the findings of science may reveal the triune God of Scripture, affirming at all moments that God differs from the world; God is non-composite, metaphysically simple, invisible, “in essence infinite, illimitable, impassible, incomparable, unchangeable, inconvertible, self-potent . . . subsisting in essence alone the infinitely worthy good.” In this indivisible essence of divine simplicity lies the mystery of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity, which fell out of favor for several centuries, was re-asserted largely by Karl Barth who is considered by some as “the twentieth-century catalyst of a renaissance in the doctrine of the Trinity.” Barth says
If God is “he who loves in freedom,” and if God is truly who he is among us in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, and if God’s salvation is completely in us in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, and if God’s salvation is completely free and gracious: then the trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit—embedded in the very fabric of the historical reality—must also be a reality in God’s own inner being in eternity.
A revelation of the Trinitarian essence of God in nature does not detract from the God of Scripture, but on the contrary, should be consonant with it. A Trinitarian Theology of Nature is not intended to supplant or refine other understandings of the doctrine of the Trinity in the corpus of Systematic Theology as such. Rather, the aim is to take the understanding of God’s Trinitarian essence from that body of scholarship and use this knowledge of God’s Being as a lens. This lens helps to understand what God intends to communicate about Himself to the creature through the natural world. With this in mind, we do not seek to advance an understanding of the Doctrine of the Trinity per se, but rather to ground our Theology of Nature in the reality of the Trinitarian essence of God. That is, God eternally exists as a complex relational union of Father, Son, and Spirit according to the creeds of the church. Within this union there is, as Alister McGrath asserts, “a continuity of relationships between Father, Son and Spirit, thus establishing an unbreakable link between encounter with, or experience of, the Spirit, Son, and Father.”
Given this Trinitarian analysis, the question of divine agency is still left to be discerned with respect to precisely what about the Trinitarian God is being revealed in nature and how this revelation is being communicated. As Christoph Schwöbel states, “By giving this understanding of creation a distinctive a Trinitarian form . . . we can recognize that God’s conversational relationship with creation is rooted in God’s own communicative being as a Trinitarian conversation.” The idea is really two-fold. First, what is needed is an understanding of what divine truths nature reveals that point to the Trinity. Second, a construction is needed expounding how these truths are conveyed to the creature. Where we are heading here is a complex structure of divine action that expands and extends former views of the ways God acts. Previous and current views of God’s acting in the creation (natural causation) do not refine divine action in Trinitarian terms.
Typically, divine action in the natural world (not including free agent action) has been relegated to the Father/Creator God of the triune-Godhead. However, one wonders, might each divine Person of the Trinity be acting, in unique ways yet coordinately, in nature? It is here that I introduce one of the most salient quotes from Jonathan Edwards supporting what we are now calling a Trinitarian Theology of Nature. Here Edwards introduces the unique idea that each divine Person of the Trinity is uniquely, intentionally, coordinately, and specifically involved in the creation. Edwards states in his 1745 sermon, “Of God the Father,”
The whole Trinity is concerned in every work of God. All the persons of the Trinity are concerned in the creation of the world. Each person [of the Trinity] has a distinct part, and as it were, sustains a distinct character and charge in that affair. They are all not only concerned as joint actors and co-workers in the affairs of creation but each has a distinct part in the affair assigned to him. There is this order that is observed by the persons of the Trinity in their acting in all affairs pertaining to the glory of the Godhead in the creation of the world. (emphasis mine)
Here Edwards is introducing a new way of understanding divine acting in the creation of the world by refining this in terms of each Person of the Trinity. This quote was from one of Edwards’ final sermons written in his lifetime. He did not have the opportunity to continue this theology or to expound upon how each person of the Trinity might be acting in nature. In such a construct, a Trinitarian account of divine action in nature must avoid collapsing into tritheism or partialism. To avoid these mistakes, we refer to the Doctrine of Appropriation, dating back to the earliest periods of Christian theology. In this understanding of God’s Trinitarian nature, all features belonging to the nature of God, which are common to all three persons, may be especially ascribed to one of the divine persons. This theological construct aligns the properties of each Person of the Trinity with their essential divine attributes.
Likewise, this can be extended to all the works of God which ontologically are the indivisible works of the triune God. This is supported by the witness of scripture revealing distinctive works of the persons of the Trinity, while retaining a unity in all God does. Karl Barth contributed a refined understanding of the Doctrine of Appropriation that may be helpful for our discussion. Here, Barth refers to the “Trinity in unity,” bringing to speech the language of distinguishing the operations of the triune God, while simultaneously recognizing the perichoretic unity in the One living God. This seems fitting to apply to the idea of God’s acting “trinitarianly” within the actual world and mechanisms in nature. This construct, at a minimum, should explore the communication of God’s Self-revelation in nature and God’s divine Trinitarian acting to carry it out. Thus, this enterprise should offer a unified Trinitarian account of a) divine action and b) a theological model that together might serve as the conditions of doing a Trinitarian Theology of Nature, one that retains divine simplicity and avoids veering toward tritheism, modalism, or partialism.
. Molnar, Thomas F. Torrance: Theologian of the Trinity, 76.
. McGrath, A Fine-Tuned Universe, XIII–XIV.
. McGrath, A Fine-Tuned Universe, 27.
. McGrath, A Fine-Tuned Universe, 36.
. See John 1:3; Romans 11:36; Colossians 1:16.
. Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, 29.
. Torrance, The Trinitarian Faith, 107.
. For additional analysis of Greek prepositions, see Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 355–89.
. Hunsinger, Evangelical, Catholic, and Reformed, 62.
. Augustine of Hippo. De Trinitate VI, 10, 266.
. It is important to note here that vestiges of the Trinity was rejected by Karl Barth, on the same grounds that he rejected Natural Theology. In Barth’s high Christology, the only revelation of the Trinity was in Christ, and Christ alone. See Barth, Church Dogmatics, I/1, 383–85, 390–99.
. Hunsinger, Evangelical Catholic and Reformed, 63.
. Olson and Hall, The Trinity, 4.
. Barth, Church Dogmatics, II/1, 326–29.
. Olson and Hall, The Trinity, 52. “The Nicene (Niceno-Constantinopolitan) Creed of 381 gradually became accepted practice in Western monasteries and was justified on the basis of Augustine’s doctrine of the Trinity, in which the Holy Spirit is distinguished from the Father and Son by “procession” or “spiration” from both of them.”
. McGrath, Understanding the Trinity, 129.
. Schwöbel, “We Are All God’s Vocabulary,” 67.
. Edwards, “Of God the Father,” in Sermons and Discourses, 1743–1758, 145–46.
. Emery, The Trinitarian Theology of St Thomas Aquinas. Giles’ chapter on Appropriation discusses the history of the Doctrine of Appropriation beginning early on in Christian History, then adding Thomas’ theology on appropriations to the discussion.
. Barth, Church Dogmatics I/1, 368–70.
. It will be the aim in Chapter 13 to show how a constructive Trinitarian Theology of Nature relies on “the eternal perichoresis of the tri-unity” emphasizing the inter-relation of the three persons of the triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) to one another, with one another, and with the creation, as Edwards put forth in his Discourse on the Trinity, and in accomplishing God’s Original Ultimate End in creating. In this way, such a constructive theology does no fall into the trap of tritheism, partialism or modalism. Also see, Chester, Delighting in the Trinity, 115.