Basic HTML Version
74
2. THE POST-REFORMATION PERIOD.
We have no further development of the doctrine of the
Trinity, but only encounter repeatedly some of the earlier erroneous constructions of it after
the Reformation. The Arminians, Episcopius, Curcellæus, and Limborgh, revived the doctrine of
subordination, chiefly again, so it seems, to maintain the unity of the Godhead. They ascribed
to the Father a certain pre-eminence over the other persons, in order, dignity, and power. A
somewhat similar position was taken by Samuel Clarke in England and by the Lutheran
theologian, Kahnis. Others followed the way pointed out by Sabellius by teaching a species of
Modalism, as, for instance, Emanuel Swedenborg, who held that the eternal God-man became
flesh in the Son, and operated through the Holy Spirit; Hegel, who speaks of the Father as God
in Himself, of the Son as God objectifying Himself, and of the Holy Spirit as God returning unto
Himself; and Schleiermacher, who regards the three persons simply as three aspects of God:
the Father is God as the underlying unity of all things, the Son is God as coming to conscious
personality in man, and the Holy Spirit is God as living in the Church. The Socinians of the days
of the Reformation moved along Arian lines, but even went beyond Arius, by making Christ
merely a man and the Holy Spirit but a power or influence. They were the forerunners of the
Unitarians and also of the liberal theologians who speak of Jesus as a divine teacher, and
identify the Holy Spirit with the immanent God. Finally, there were also some who, since they
regarded the statement of the doctrine of an ontological Trinity as unintelligible, wanted to
stop short of it and rest satisfied with the doctrine of an economic Trinity, a Trinity as revealed
in the work of redemption and in human experience, as Moses Stuart, W. L. Alexander, and W.
A. Brown. For a considerable time interest in the doctrine of the Trinity waned, and theological
discussion centered more particularly on the personality of God. Brunner and Barth have again
called attention to its importance. The latter places it very much in the foreground, discussing it
in connection with the doctrine of revelation, and devotes 220 pages of his Dogmatics to it.
Materially, he derives the doctrine from Scripture, but, formally and logically, he finds that it is
involved in the simple sentence, “God speaks.” He is Revealer (Father), Revelation (Son) and
Revealedness (Holy Spirit). He reveals Himself, He is the Revelation, and He is also the content
of the Revelation. God and His revelation are identified. He remains God also in His revelation,
absolutely free and sovereign. This view of Barth is not a species of Sabellianism, for he
recognizes three persons in the Godhead. Moreover, he does not allow for any subordination.
Says he: “Thus, to the same God who in unimpaired unity is Revealer, Revelation, and
Revealedness, is also ascribed in unimpaired variety in Himself precisely this threefold mode of
being.”[The Doctrine of the Word of God, p. 344.]