1

Rahner’s Rule: A Critical Examination

Rahner’s Rule states that ‘The “economic” Trinity is the “immanent” Trinity and the

“immanent” Trinity is the “economic” Trinity.’1 How are we to understand this odd

tautology, and what led Rahner to coin it in the first place?

Phan (2011) stresses the importance of placing the Rule within its historical context.

He observes that Rahner’s theology was developed at a time when Trinitarianism was

in decline. Rahner himself blamed the decline on a historic lack of engagement with

Trinitarian theology in the West.

Yet Phan believes this deterioration was not the fault of Augustine and Aquinas, as

Rahner proposed,2 but rather the result of a theological over-reaction to the

secularist/atheist legacy of the Enlightenment.3 Having failed to seize the initiative,

1
The term ‘economic Trinity’ refers to the ways in which Father, Son and Holy Spirit act in relation to the world
(e.g. involvement in history, salvation, creation, etc.) The term ‘immanent Trinity’ refers to the relationships
between Father, Son and Holy Spirit without reference to creation.

2
‘Rahner traces this eclipse of the Trinity in the West to the influence of Augustine and Aquinas on the way the
treatise on God was structured.’ Peter Phan (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to the Trinity (Cambridge
Companions to Religion), Cambridge University Press, 2011, Kindle Edition, 194.

3
‘Whether one agrees with Augustine's or Aquinas’ theologies of the Trinity or not, it is incontrovertible that
their understanding of the one God is rooted in the Bible and not in Greek philosophy, either Platonic or
Aristotelian. Rather, the eclipse of the Trinity in Western theology is, in the view of many, to be laid at the door
of modern theology. In reacting to the deistic and, later, atheistic challenges of the Enlightenment, Christian
theology suffered a loss of nerve and was co-opted into elaborating philosophical counter-arguments for the
existence of an Absolute Being and its essence rather than expounding what Christian revelation affirms who
(and not what) God is and God's behaviour and character (and not God's “attributes”). Phan, The Cambridge
Companion to the Trinity, 195.

D. Burke 2014 #TCA102646

 2

Christian theology was driven into a defence of God’s essence and existence. As a

consequence, appreciation of His identity and attributes was neglected.

To some extent it may be said that Christianity was left with a ‘minimalistic’ God.4

Phan claims this ‘eclipse of the Trinity’ produced ‘a defective understanding of key

Christian doctrines.’5 Rahner, citing what he called ‘anti-Trinitarian timidity’,

identified creation as one of these.

Formerly understood as both ‘an ad extra operation common to all the three divine

persons by way of efficient causality’ and ‘the distinct work of each person of the

Trinity by way of exemplary causality’6, creation was now seen only as a work of the

homogeneous ‘triune.’

Prayer, too, had suffered. Christians prayed to God in general instead of addressing

the three by reference to their distinctive roles (‘to the Father, in the Son, and by the

power of the Spirit.’) Perhaps most significantly (from Rahner’s perspective) the Mass

was ‘understood as being offered by Jesus to a generic deity rather than by the Son to

God the Father.’7

4
‘Or, as Rahner puts it somewhat hyperbolically, “Christians are, in their practical life, almost mere
‘monotheists,’” (The Trinity, 10) or, more accurately, unitarian or deist.’ Phan, The Cambridge Companion to
the Trinity, 195.

5
Phan, The Cambridge Companion to the Trinity, 195.

6
Phan, The Cambridge Companion to the Trinity, 196.

7
Phan, The Cambridge Companion to the Trinity, 196.

D. Burke 2014 #TCA102646

 3

Rahner’s Rule was formulated to address ‘the question of the relationship between

the economic (or historical) and immanent (transcendent) Trinity.’8 This was made

necessary by the pressing need to restore the heart of Christian soteriology by placing

the Trinity at its core. Since in his view ‘all grace is Christological and

pneumatalogical’, Rahner believed it made sense to understand redemption in

Trinitarian terms.9

Rahner’s Rule has been widely received as a long overdue corrective to the neglect of

Trinitarian theology.10 The attractiveness of the Rule is found in its capacity to

rebalance postmodern Trinitarian theology, which it achieves in two ways: (a)

8
Phan, The Cambridge Companion to the Trinity, 197.

9
‘For Rahner, this is the crux of trinitarian theology: determining whether the Trinity is seen as the mystery of
salvation lying at the heart of the Christian life and the centre unifying all the other Christian doctrines, or is
treated as a theological conundrum, to be expounded through various kinds of analogies but bereft of any
connection with and impact upon theology and spirituality.’ Phan, The Cambridge Companion to the Trinity,
197.

10
‘In contemporary Catholic theology no one has done more than Karl Rahner to reawaken interest in
trinitarian theology.’ Catherine Mowry LaCugna, God For Us: The Trinity and Christian Life. New York City, NY:
Harper San Francisco, 1973, 210.

D. Burke 2014 #TCA102646

 4

emphasising the necessity and uniqueness of the Son’s incarnation,11 and (b)

preserving the economic Trinity without compromising its unity.12

Thus Rahner thus reaffirms the inherently triune nature of God’s role in the salvation

process13 while directly confronting the problem of immutability.14 Kärkkäinen (2007)

summarises the elegant manner in which this is accomplished,15 particularly noting

11
‘In his estimation, the incarnation comprises the point in salvation history at which the unity of the
immanent Trinity and the economic Trinity is most evident. In Jesus Christ the Logos, the second person of the
Trinity, actually became a human person, with the consequence that the Logos in salvation history and the
eternal Logos are identical. According to Rahner, this identity means that only the Logos could have become
incarnate in Jesus. ...He believes that by elevating the principle of the unity of the divine activities in the world
and in so doing failing to be sufficiently trinitarian in their account of the divine work “for us and for our
salvation,” Catholic theology (following Aquinas himself) had come to the erroneous conclusion that any of the
trinitarian members could have been the subject of the incarnation.’ Stanley J. Grenz, Rediscovering the Triune
God: The Trinity in Contemporary Theology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2004, 64.

12
‘Against the position of Neoscholastic theology, Rahner claims that the three members of the Trinity are
distinct from each other precisely as persons or hypostases, and hence that these two words refer to each of
the three in a unique manner.’ Grenz, Rediscovering the Triune God, 65.

13
‘In a day when Catholic theologians were neglecting the trinitarian structure of the divine activity in
salvation in favour of speculation regarding the inner dynamic of God apart from the world, Rahner hoped to
shift the starting point for theology to God’s interaction with humans in the economy of salvation, which
always comes by means of the work of one or the other of the three trinitarian members.’ Grenz,
Rediscovering the Triune God, 67.

14
‘Equating the economic Trinity with the immanent Trinity seems to suggest that God changes in and through
his relations with history. To deal with this potential problem, Rahner draws from the incarnation a distinction
between God changing within the divine being and God changing in another, that is, between internal and
external divine change. According to Rahner, “God can become something. He who is not subject to change in
himself can himself be subject to change in something else.” This is possible because God created the human
creature in such a way so as to be the “grammar of God’s possible self-expression” and thus as a proper
vehicle for God’s own becoming-in-self-expression.’ Grenz, Rediscovering the Triune God, 65.

15
‘For Rahner, the idea of a change in something else makes the idea of the immutability a “dialectical
assertion” not unlike the idea of the Trinity vis-à-vis unity, but not a contradictory idea. …In other words, not
only is the coming-to-flesh of the Son of God a proper self-expression of God, but the self-expression can only

D. Burke 2014 #TCA102646

 5

Rahner’s use of the term ‘distinct manner of subsistence’ as opposed to the more

traditional ‘person.’16

Notwithstanding the popularity of Rahner’s Rule, it has been subject to criticism.

Most objections stem from the same observation: that the tautological nature of the

Rule renders it inherently problematic. Smith (2009) says the Rule results in

theological error regardless of which way it is read.17 If the immanent is defined by the

economic, God is robbed of His transcendence.18 If the economic is defined by the

happen to the Logos rather than to the undifferentiated Godhead: “If this God expresses his very own self into
the emptiness of what is not God, then this expression is the outward expression of his immanent Word, and
not something arbitrary which could also be proper to another divine person.”’ Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, The
Trinity: Global Perspectives. Lousville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007, 80.

16
‘In order to avoid tritheism, this term is supposed to underline the idea that in the Godhead “there are not
three consciousnesses; rather, the one consciousness subsists in a threefold way. There is only one real
consciousness in God, which is shared by Father, Son, and Spirit, each in his proper way. In other words,
Rahner wants on the one hand to avoid modalism, by speaking of distinct manner of subsistence, and on the
other, to avoid tritheism, by speaking of subsistence, which is not “as personal” as person.’ Kärkkäinen, The
Trinity: Global Perspectives, 81.

17
‘Hart offers two criticisms, which amount to saying that whichever side of the equation one takes as a
standard, the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity is endangered. In Rahner’s equation, the immanent equals the
economic. If that is the case, one could start with the economic and make it the standard by which to judge
and evaluate the immanent.’ Ralph Allan Smith, Against Rahner’s Rule, 2009, nr [cited 12 December 2014].
Online: http://www.berith.org/pdf/against-karl-rahner-s-rule.pdf

18
‘In fact, if the immanent is defined by the economic, then God must create the world and become incarnate
in order to become who He really and truly is. …Hart devotes quite a few pages to eloquent and profound
refutation of this reasoning. But the point concerning Rahner is already clear—if the defining side of the
equation is the economic, the Creator God must be understood as a God who had to create in order to realize
His Trinitarian self. This is not a Christian view of God.’ Smith, Against Rahner’s Rule, 2009, nr.

D. Burke 2014 #TCA102646

 6

immanent, the revelation of God in Christ becomes incidental19 and the differentiation

of persons within the godhead collapses.20

Kärkkäinen refuses to see the Rule as tautological21, and concurs with Peters’ critique

of Rahner’s attempt at resolving the problem of immutability.22 Grenz (2004) notes

that ‘The perceived difficulties in Rahner’s theological proposal have led many

theologians to add qualifiers to Rahner’s Rule.’23 As with Kärkkäinen, it is the

supposedly tautological nature of the Rule that gives him most cause for concern,24

19
‘On the other hand, if one makes the immanent Trinity the defining side of the equation, much of the
historical revelation of God in Christ is relegated to the mere contingent.’ Smith, Against Rahner’s Rule, 2009,
nr.

20
‘The One God of eternity is reduced to a God in whom there are three “persons”, where the word “person”
is defined as “a mode of relation to the essence of God”, or some other abstruse expression. Thus, the Persons
sound impersonal, as in formulas like: there are three modes of subsistence in the one substance. The
dynamically passionate love between Father and Son revealed in the Gospels finds no place in this theology of
the “one God.” Ironically, Rahner himself… falls into the category of those for whom the immanent Trinity
swallows the economic trinity, leaving an abstract doctrine of the one God, in whom there are three relations
but only one subject.’ Smith, Against Rahner’s Rule, 2009, nr.

21
‘Yet, at least on this side of eternity, one can say that the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity but
should be careful to not turn the equation too hastily the other way.’ Kärkkäinen, The Trinity: Global
Perspectives, 86.

22
‘I find Peters’ comments on Rahner’s struggle with change in God quite convincing. I agree with him that by
introducing the idea of two kinds of changes Rahner hardly clarifies the issue. One has to ask, naturally, what is
the relationship between the internal and external change? If the external change is really “external” to the
divine life (even though, as Rahner says, not arbitrary), how can it relate to the inner life of the Trinity?’
Kärkkäinen, The Trinity: Global Perspectives, 86.

23
Grenz, Rediscovering the Triune God, 69.

24
‘Congar has voiced what has become the most typical cautionary revision. Citing as Rahner’s axion, “The
economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity and vice versa”, Congar suggests that the first half of the statement is
“beyond dispute.” But he proposes that the “vice versa” be dropped, so as to preserve the distinction between

D. Burke 2014 #TCA102646

 7

and like Smith he is acutely aware of the need to maintain a distinction between the

immanent and economic Trinity.25

LaCugna (1973) was another who recognised the Rule’s vulnerability. Following

Kasper,26 she made the point that ‘there is not a simple ontological identity between

“God” and “God with us”’,27 and parted company with Rahner on the issue of

differentiations within the godhead.28

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Rahner’s concept of personhood within

the godhead is substantially to blame for the weakness of his Rule. Unusually for a

“the free mystery of the economy and the necessary mystery of the Tri-unity of God.”’ Grenz, Rediscovering
the Triune God, 69.

25
‘Moreover, trinitarian thinkers since Rahner seek to give utmost seriousness to the epistemological link
between the economic Trinity and the immanent Trinity. Yet, the question remains as to whether an
epistemological connection does not also imply an ontological link, and thereby perhaps inevitably submerges
the immanent Trinity into the economic Trinity. Wiring in 1973, Helmut Thielicke cautions against just such a
wholesale equating of the two (although the target of his attack is largely Schleiermacher, and he omits any
reference to Rahner).’ Grenz, Rediscovering the Triune God, 69-70.

26
‘Walter Kasper’s fundamental reservation about Rahner’s axiom is that, taken at face value, it does not
convey that there is something new about God because of God’s entry into history. It is necessary, he tells us,
to allow the economic Trinity its full historical distinctiveness and to “take seriously the truth that through the
incarnation the second divine person exists in history in a new way.” He is careful to add that it would be an
error to dissolve the immanent in the economic Trinity, as if the immanent Trinity came into existence for the
first time in history.’ LaCugna, God For Us, 220.

27
LaCugna, God For Us, 220.

28
‘However, Rahner’s principle evidences that he is caught in the stranglehold of the post-Nicene problematic
when he uses the undeniable distinction of persons in the economy to posit an intradivine self-
communication, intradivine relations, God in Godself. As Roger Haight points out, Rahner simply asserts but
does not explain what difference it makes that there be real differentiations in God. This is a return to Thomas
Aquinas’ understanding of theology as the science of God in Himself, and is at odds with the Bible, creeds, and
Greek theology that Rahner explicitly seeks to follow.’ LaCugna, God For Us, 222.

D. Burke 2014 #TCA102646

 8

Western theologian, Rahner understood the term ‘God’ not as a reference to the

essence of deity but solely as a reference to the Father.29 Phan insists this does not

diminish the distinct personhood of the Son and Spirit30 (as Modalism would do), yet

Smith remains unconvinced.31

If Smith is correct, the formula of Rahner’s Rule—when understood tautologically, as

Rahner appears to insist upon—results in a kind of neo-Monarchianism which is

Modalistic in all but name.32 This is clearly untenable. Even LaCugna cannot resolve

the problem without abandoning traditional Nicene presuppositions33 and proposing a

29
‘Following the biblical and Greek patristics tradition, Rhaner takes “God” to refer to the Father and not the
divine essence. The Father communicates himself in history as Word and Spirit while himself remaining the
unoriginated source of divinity or the Absolute Mystery. The theological challenge, as Rahner sees it, is how to
understand these two self-communicating modalities as intrinsically related, yet distinct, moments of the one
act of the Father’s self-communication.’ Phan, The Cambridge Companion to the Trinity, 201.

30
‘These two modalities are not simply two interchangeable “functions” of the Father, but together with the
Father, they constitute the economic Trinity that is identical with the immanent Trinity.’ Phan, The Cambridge
Companion to the Trinity, 202.

31
‘Rahner’s tortured explanation reveals the difficulty of finding a way to reconcile the Biblical picture of the
relationships among Father, Son, and Spirit with the doctrine that God is One. In his definition of a Trinitarian
person, what Rahner does, in effect, is reduce one side of his equation—the economic side—to the other side
of his equation—the immanent side. We know that God cannot be three subjects who mutually love one
another—even though the Bible unquestionably speaks this way—because God is one.’ Smith, Against
Rahner’s Rule, 2009, nr.

32
‘If the economic Trinity is defined by our knowledge of this absolute One, then the relationships among
Father, Son, and Spirit in the Gospels cannot really be relationships among three subjects, three conscious
persons. What we really have is three distinctions in the one consciousness of the one absolute being of God, a
threefold subsistence in the one substance.’ Smith, Against Rahner’s Rule, 2009, nr.

33
‘In fact, Rahner seems to conceptualise the one self-communication of God in the economy of Christ and the
Spirit as having two levels… Despite the axiomatic identity of these two aspects of the one divine self-
communication, the connection between economic and immanent Trinity remains confounded by the Nicene
problematic because of the postulation of an intradivine self-communication.’ LaCugna, God For Us, 221.

D. Burke 2014 #TCA102646

 9

new ‘chiastic’ framework34 which completely removes the concepts of immanent and

economic Trinity altogether.35

If Rahner’s Rule is to stand, it requires careful qualification. We must replace its

underlying assumptions, amend the phrasing to remove the implied tautology, or

agree that although it appears tautological, it must not be read in that way. Yet the last

of these options still requires us to preference economic over immanent Trinity or vice

versa—and is this not precisely the issue that produced our dilemma in the first

place?36 LaCugna’s new paradigm suddenly appears most attractive.

The fact that so many supporters of the Rule cannot endorse it without serious

qualification should give us pause for thought. Ultimately it seems the Rule only

operates within a narrow set of theological parameters, and even then some

allowances must be made. This is not to say that the Rule lacks virtue; its contribution

34
‘This chiastic model of emanation and return, exitus and reditus, exzpresses the one ecstatic movement of
God outward by which all things originate from God through Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit, and all
things are brought into union with God and returned to God. …In this framework, the doctrine of the Trinity
encompasses much more than the immanent Trinity, envisioned in static ahistorical and transeconomic terms;
the subject matter of the Christian theology of God is the one dynamic movement of God, a Patre ad Patrem.
…Any analysis of the immanent structure of this economy could not separate itself from the economy of
salvation.’ LaCugna, God For Us, 222.

35
‘This revision of the basic trinitarian framework obviates the need to adhere to the language of economic
and immanent Trinity. …The revision—more accurately, the return to the biblical and pre-Nicene pattern of
thought—suggests not only that we abandon the misleading terms, economic and immanent Trinity, but also
that we clarify the meaning of oikonomia and theologia.’ LaCugna, God For Us, 222.

36
‘To summarise then, either side of Rahner’s maxim may be emphasised to the detriment of the other. …In
either case, one side of the equation strips the other. The fruit of the three, together with its leaves, is
violently wrenched off, and the trunk severed from the root. What originally seemed to offer a delicious repast
has been reduced to firewood.’ Smith, Against Rahner’s Rule, 2009, nr.

D. Burke 2014 #TCA102646

 10

to Trinitarian theology cannot be underestimated.37 But perhaps it should be seen not

as a definitive answer. Instead, let us recognise it as the essential first chapter in a

wider conversation about the divine family and our role in its purpose.

37
‘The great merit of Rahner’s theology is the principle that no adequate distinction can be made between the
doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the economy of salvation. This affirms the essential unity of
oikonomia and theologia.’ LaCugna, God For Us, 221.

D. Burke 2014 #TCA102646

 11

Bibliography

Grenz, Stanley J. Rediscovering the Triune God: The Trinity in Contemporary Theology.

Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2004.

Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. The Trinity: Global Perspectives. Lousville, KY: Westminster

John Knox Press, 2007.

LaCugna, Catherine Mowry. God For Us: The Trinity and Christian Life. New York City,

NY: Harper San Francisco, 1973.

Phan, Peter (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to the Trinity (Cambridge Companions to

Religion), Cambridge University Press, 2011, Kindle Edition.

Smith, Ralph Allan. Against Rahner’s Rule, 2009 [cited 12 December 2014]. Online:

http://www.berith.org/pdf/against-karl-rahner-s-rule.pdf

D. Burke 2014 #TCA102646