Monthly Archives: November 2010

  • Trinity – Part III

    Chapter 2 in Sanders’s The Deep Things of God, is long like the first chapter—36pp—but very important. The title says it all, “Within the Happy Land of the Trinity.” Essentially this is a chapter about what theologians have generally referred to as the ontological trinity (such nomenclature as, the essential Trinity, the Trinity of being, or the immanent Trinity have also been used). To speak of the ontological Trinity is to speak about what God actually is rather than what he does (p. 89). To speak of what God does is to speak of the economic Trinity. As you might imagine, to speak of what God is means that we must bore down well beneath the surface. For that reason some will no doubt find this chapter to be fairly technical and dense. But don’t give up. Like with anything … Read More »

  • Trinity – Part II

    Chapter 1 of Sanders’ book, The Deep Things of God: How the Trinity Changes Everything,  is too long (33pp), should have been divided into two, and could have been easily reduced to say the same things much more powerfully. Even so, it is a fascinating chapter at a number of levels and one that will probably get you thinking in a way and about things that you haven’t before. The thesis of the chapter is that evangelicals are profoundly Trinitarian whether they know it or not. This is illustrated by Aslan in his conversation with the cabbie when he tells him, “You know me better than you think you know, and you shall come to know me better yet.” One of the reasons that many Christians don’t know how Trinitarian they are is because the doctrine of the Trinity is … Read More »

  • Trinity – Part I

    “Trinity inherently belongs to the gospel itself.”Fred Sanders – The Deep Things of God

    In his recent book, The Deep Things of God, Biola University professor Fred Sanders suggests that the “Trinity changes everything.” To forget the Trinity is for Christians to “forget why we do what we do” (p. 9). More than just an unattached doctrine or one that floats independently among other independently floating doctrines, Sanders rightly recognizes that the “Trinity inherently belongs to the gospel itself” (p. 9). In fact, that is the thesis of his little work. And because Christians are gospel people we are “by definition Trinity people…” (p. 10). At this point Houston is radioed and altered that there is a problem. Sanders rightly points out that there is a coldness toward the Trinity among evangelicals (p. 11). “We tend to acknowledge the doctrine with … Read More »