Revelation and Trinity

Revelation and Trinity provides a guide for the serious study of the systematic theologies of John Calvin and Karl Barth.

The controversial debate between Karl Barth and Emil Brunner drew attention to John Calvin’s theology. Each one claims his theology is more faithful to Calvin’s theology than the other. In Revelation and Trinity, author Sang-Hwan Lee analyzes and interprets the theologies of Calvin’s 1559 Institutes and Barth’s Church Dogmatics and how they affect Christianity.

Originally a doctoral thesis, Lee’s analysis demonstrates their conceptual basis in the revelation of the triune God to which the Bible and the Church attest, and he imparts the implications of this basis. Revelation and Trinity highlights the relationship that both Calvin and Barth find between the ontology of the living God in revelation and its noetic and conceptual possibility in faith.

Revitalizing the discussion on the theologies of Calvin and Barth and their relationship, Lee offers a critical assessment of the tenability of the oneness and the threeness of God in their theologies. Revelation and Trinity offers old and new insights into their theologies, and examines their relationship with a fresh discussion.

This book analyses and interprets the theologies of Calvin's 1559 Institutes and Barth's Church Dogmatics. Its principal purpose is to demonstrate their conceptual basis in the revelation of the triune God to which the Bible and the Church attest, and the implications of this basis. The living truth of God in revelation and faith is indispensable as the basis for the theological formation found in these works. The book therefore highlights the relationship which Calvin and Barth find between the ontology of the living God in revelation and its noetic and conceptual possibility in faith. Their dogmatic freedom and autonomy in faith derive from the free and objective revelation of the triune God. This dependence underlines and preserves their dogmatic objectivity and dynamism in faith; it is decisive in avoiding a rigid rational systematisation of biblical or dogmatic or philosophical principles. It is, however, the determinative role of the triune God which is the basis of their ontology of God. For this reason, it is necessary to inquire into the hermeneutical relevance of their concept of God (i.e. in their doctrines of the Trinity and election) for the structure of their theology. The book offers a critical assessment of the tenability of the oneness and the threeness of God in their theologies. Old and new insights into their theologies and their relationship are examined and a fresh discussion of them provided.

The first part of the book is a fresh reading of the Institutes in the light of the relevance of the revelation of the triune God for faith. The major argument of this part concerns the trinitarian orientation of the Institutes. The Institutes focuses on presenting the one true God as the Trinity from the revelation in creation, redemption and sanctification. The argument in this part rests on an elaboration of Calvin's insistence on the indispensability of faith (piety) for the noetic and conceptual possibility of the trinitarian revelation. Faith identifies the revelation of God as Creator in creation with the Father in Book I, as Redeemer in the redemption of Jesus Christ with the Son in Book II, and as Sanctifier in the sanctification of the elect with the Holy Spirit in Book III-IV. The book traces the exact nature of Calvin's trinitarian theology from the triune nature of God in revelation (i.e. in his doctrine of the Trinity). A particular inquiry is made into the tenability of the oneness of God in his trinitarian orientation. Such a critical inquiry is virtually absent in the usual discussions of his theology.

The significance of the trinitarian interpretation of the 1559 Institutes advanced in this book is this. It demonstrates the trinitarian revelation of God as the determinative source of the Institutes, and thereby its trinitarian orientation, or centre, consistency and unity. A constructive interpretation of the whole Institutes (i.e. including its treatment of natural knowledge of God in Book I.iii-v) is possible in this. Trinitarian interpretation here opposes any formalistic interpretation that regards the Institutes merely as a formalistic exposition of diverse and contradictory biblical1 or dogmatic principles,2 and rejects its systematic centre,3 consistency and unity. A formalistic interpretation overlooks Calvin's dogmatic freedom and autonomy, and the dynamism and objectivism in faith. His perspective of faith derives from the living Word of the triune God in the biblical revelation,4 and assigns the objectivity of this dynamic Word as the determinative source of his Institutes. It emancipates him from a rigid fidelity to biblical and dogmatic views of the creator-God and creation, and enables him to interpret and conceptualise them in accordance with his own hearing of God's Word in revelation.

The book spells out the exact nature of Calvin's trinitarian orientation, which has been either ignored or misunderstood by Brunnerian and Barthian interpreters. It surpasses their hermeneutical framework for the Institutes, and offers a perspective in which they may be critically evaluated. The Brunnerian interpreters5 (e.g. G. Gloede,6 E. A. Dowey7) assert that Calvin's 1559 Institutes is based in the duplex (general and special or nontrinitarian and trinitarian) revelation of God. They uphold its natural theology and systematic inconsistency and discontinuity. They dismiss the trinitarian revelation of God as its determinative source and its trinitarian orientation, consistency and relatedness. The Barthian interpreters8 (e.g. W. Niesel9 and T. H. L. Parker10) attempt to oppose any suggestion of Calvin's natural theology. They suggest that Calvin's treatment of natural knowledge of God is not integral to his view of doctrine, marginalising it from the rest of his theology. They argue that his central purpose is to witness the truth exclusively in the revelation (action) of the Word (Son) of God in Jesus Christ.11 Their christocentric interpretation of the ontic and noetic reality of the revelation of God gives rise to a christocentric interpretation of his theology. They distort his well balanced trinitarian account; they overlook the fact that the attestation of the revelation (action) of God the Father (Creator) in creation and the Holy Spirit in sanctification are also the central goal of the Institutes (i.e. its Book I and III-IV).12