P
PluniaZ
Guest
In modern discussions of the Most Holy Trinity, there is frequently invoked a distinction between the “ontological” or “immanent” Trinity on the one hand, and the “economic” Trinity on the other. The “immanent” Trinity is said to refer to the inner-life of the Trinity, and the “economic” Trinity is said to refer to God’s working toward creation.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity#Economic_and_immanent_Trinity
But I’m having a hard time finding the historical origin of this distinction. The distinction is not found in the early Church Fathers, for whom the term “economy” simply refers to the Incarnation:
heartandmouth.org/2017/02/21/economic-subordination-son-part-1-theologia-oikonomia/
Aquinas does not speak of an “economic” Trinity in the Summa Theologica, referring simply to the “missions” of the Divine Persons.
newadvent.org/summa/1.htm
When I search for the historical origins of the “immanent” vs “economic” Trinity, the earliest reference I find is in Karl Rahner’s 1967 book, “The Trinity”, where he says, “the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity, and the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity.”
Evangelical scholar Fred Sanders traces the origins back to Johann August Urlsperger, who argued that God is only “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” in the economy of salvation. I don’t have a copy of Sanders’ work, so I can’t yet confirm that the immanent vs economic distinction arose in response to Urlsperger. But Urlsperger’s doctrine is obviously heretical, so I don’t understand why anyone would base a distinction of “immanent” vs “economic” on the ideas of a heretic.
If anyone has any insight, please let me know.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity#Economic_and_immanent_Trinity
But I’m having a hard time finding the historical origin of this distinction. The distinction is not found in the early Church Fathers, for whom the term “economy” simply refers to the Incarnation:
heartandmouth.org/2017/02/21/economic-subordination-son-part-1-theologia-oikonomia/
Aquinas does not speak of an “economic” Trinity in the Summa Theologica, referring simply to the “missions” of the Divine Persons.
newadvent.org/summa/1.htm
When I search for the historical origins of the “immanent” vs “economic” Trinity, the earliest reference I find is in Karl Rahner’s 1967 book, “The Trinity”, where he says, “the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity, and the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity.”
Evangelical scholar Fred Sanders traces the origins back to Johann August Urlsperger, who argued that God is only “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” in the economy of salvation. I don’t have a copy of Sanders’ work, so I can’t yet confirm that the immanent vs economic distinction arose in response to Urlsperger. But Urlsperger’s doctrine is obviously heretical, so I don’t understand why anyone would base a distinction of “immanent” vs “economic” on the ideas of a heretic.
If anyone has any insight, please let me know.