In his book Intermezzo5.1 Dr Pieter van Hoof characterizes Van Ruler's theology as patrocentric. Certainly Van Hoof presents many other criticisms of Van Ruler's work but his most basic criticism is that of patrocentrism. Thus he states: ``zo kan men stellen, dat Van Ruler's theologie, die van de eerste tot de laatste letter mede gevoed werd door het verzet tegen Barth's christologische koncentratie....[maar] tegenover het christomonisme van Barth heeft Van Ruler de facto niets anders gestelt dan een patromonisme'', and ``het patrocentrische gezichtspunt,..., geldt naar onze mening voor de gehele theologie van Van Ruler.''5.2
In order to do justice to this criticism we will present the basis of Van Hoof's objection before we decide whether it is justified.
According to Van Hoof the whole of Van Ruler's theology is characterized by a patrocentrism. This is so because it is ultimately God the Father that stands in the foreground in all christological and pneumatological discussions. The eschatological is more than the messianic. God only became flesh and the Spirit was only poured out for the sake of the eschatological kingdom. When this kingdom is realized there will only be God himself, the Father. In its protology and eschatology Van Ruler's theology emphasizes God the Father and the idea of a Trinity loses its significance. The idea of the Trinity is only applicable between the times of proton and eschaton.5.3 Thus Van Hoof's objection comes down to the idea that Van Ruler's theology is not trinitarian because Jesus Christ and the out-poured Spirit are intermezzo's which cease to exist in the eschaton.
However it seems to me that Van Hoof has not taken into consideration the fact that there is a difference between the ontological Trinity and the economical Trinity.5.4Certainly the doctrine of the immanent relation existing between the three persons in the ontological Trinity is based on what has been revealed concerning those relations in time. Thus H. Bavinck says: ``The generation of the Son is the eternal arche-type of the incarnation of the Logos, and the procession from the Father and the Son is the proto-type of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.''5.5Following this Van Ruler asks: ``Heeft de leer van de immanente triniteit niet een eigen zelfstandigheid, ook in haar betekenis voor de theologische methode?'', and he answers: ``God gaat toch niet op in zijn handelen met de wereld!... Deze vragen en meningen zijn misschien de diepste achtergrond van de hele aanzet en het hele ontwerp van een ten volle ontwikkelde trinitarische theologie.''5.6
Van Ruler's theology does not claim to have a trinitarian structure simply because it discusses God the Father, who is especially associated with creation, Jesus Christ, the redeemer and the Holy Spirit of sanctification. His theology has a trinitarian structure because he considers creation, redemption and sanctification against the background of the ontological and the economical trinity. Opera ad intra trinitatis sunt divisa. Therefore the different points of view (of creation, redemption and sanctification) must be kept separate from each other. However the opera ad extra sunt indivisa. ``Maar dat betekent niet dat zij werken Gods zijn naar slechts een zijnswijze (persona), maar juist dat zij de werken zijn van de volle trinitarische God naar zijn drie zijnswijzen. Daarom zal men elk van zijn werken naar buiten moeten zien onder de drie verschillende gezichtspunten van de Vader, de Zoon en de Geest en daarbij de dubbele denkbeweging moeten maken van het wederkerig op-elkaar-betrekken en van het principieel uit-elkaar-houden.''5.7 Throughout this essay we have seen this structure in Van Ruler's thought, for example in the relationship between the christological and the pneumatological points of view.5.8 It is simply impossible to understand Van Ruler's thought if we do not see the ontological trinity as the metaphysical background and basis for a correct interpretation of the economical trinity. This is what O. Noordmans meant when he wrote that the church introduced the dogma of the trinity to keep the confession of Christ pure.5.9 The ontological trinity is not only the background of the economical trinity, it also helps us to understand the latter. There is a direct relationship between the two, but they must not be identified with each other.5.10 Thus Van Ruler can say that in the eschaton ``nothing will remain other than the triune God and all things in their naked (redeemed) existence.''5.11 This is perfectly clear when we realize that there is a distinction between Jesus Christ and the second person of the trinity (the eternal Son of God) on the one hand, and between the out-poured Holy Spirit and the third person of the trinity on the other hand. The eternal Son of God took on human flesh in the incarnation in order to fulfil the function of saving us and the third person of the trinity was poured out in order to express this salvation in us, but once this function has been accomplished they will return to their eternal places in the trinity. Then there will be no mediation between God and man but only the triune God (as He has existed eternally) and the naked existence of things. The incarnation does not constitute the abiding structure of reality. Man (and the world) do not become deified. The distinction between Creator and creature must be respected.
The doctrine of the trinity is important for three reasons: in the first place it reveals God to us as the truly Living One. The doctrine of the trinity maintains God's distinct existence, on the one hand, and his fullness of essence, on the other. ``Once we have accepted the trinity we begin to understand that even apart from the universe and entirely in and by himself God is the independent, omniscient, and all-benevolent One, love, holiness, and glory.''5.12 This doctrine protects the church from all forms of Arianism and Sabellianism.
The doctrine of the trinity is also important for our understanding of creation. Only on the basis of the confession of the triune God can the distinction between God and the universe be maintained over against pantheism and panentheism. As soon as the economical trinity is torn loose from its metaphysical basis creation becomes a manifestation of the self-developing God.5.13 We see this danger in those theologies that follow K.Barth in asserting that the covenant is the purpose of creation. This, however, brings the elements of necessity, development of God, and pantheism into the doctrine of creation, as Christ's mediation of redemption and therefore his mediation of creation refers to his essence.5.14 Moltmann goes even further in this direction and states: ``the Trinity is no self-contained group in heaven, but an eschatological process open for man on earth, which stems from the cross of Christ.''5.15 His theology clearly emerges with a panentheistic conception of God.5.16 God is a living God and the doctrine of his fullness of being excludes any form of pantheism. The idea of the imminent trinitarian relations (ie. God as a living God) also excludes any form of deism. God is able to impart himself: in an absolute sense to the Son and to the Spirit, in a relative sense also to the creature. The divine self-communication within the essence of God is the archetype of God's work in creation. Generation and procession within the being of God are the immanent deeds of God which make the outward work of creation and revelation possible.5.17 The economical trinity is not to be identified with the ontological trinity, but neither must the two be separated from each other - the former rests in the latter and can only be understood correctly against the background of the latter.5.18
This leads to the third significance of this doctrine. ``whenever any one rejects God's tri-unity, he destroys the very foundation of Christian belief, and casts aside all of special revelation. The doctrine of the trinity is the sum and substance of Christian faith, the root of all dogmas, the essence of the new covenant.''5.19 Therefore Van Ruler states: ``Deze formule heeft de kerk niet gesmeed, toen zij bezig was in de hete smidse van haar dogmavorming. Zij stamt uit de alleroudste traditie van de christenheid. Zij komt rechstreeks uit de evangelien, het allermeest uit dat van Johannes.''5.20 A denial of this dogma has far reaching consequences - K. Barth states: ``Inevitably -...- all anti-Trinitarianism falls into the dilemma of denying either the revelation of God or the unity of God.''5.21 God's revelation and his unity can only be accepted and understood on the basis of and against the background of his tri-unity as expressed in the traditional (orthodox) doctrine of the ontological trinity. Van Ruler has certainly taken this doctrine into account5.22 and his entire theology is worked out on this basis. In his criticism of Van Ruler, Van Hoof has not taken this doctrine into consideration and therefore has not understood his theology. Thus his criticism of patrocentrism (or patromonism) cannot be accepted as valid.