JETS 56/4 (2013) 781–800 WHAT GOD HATH DONE TOGETHER: DEFENDING THE HISTORIC DOCTRINE OF THE INSEPARABLE OPERATIONS OF THE TRINITY KYLE CLAUNCH * I. INTRODUCTION The anti-Arian polemics of the fourth century eventually gave rise to a con- sensus Trinitarian grammar, often referred to as pro-Nicene theology, 1 by which the unity of God is understood in terms of one divine essence common to all three persons. Understood as a consequence of this account of divine unity, the doctrine of the inseparable operations of the Trinity ad extra contends that all of the works of the Triune God with respect to the creation are works of all three persons of the Godhead. 2 This doctrine, often expressed by the Latin axiom, opera trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa 3 has been a staple of orthodox Trinitarian theology for centuries. Statements and defense of the doctrine can be found among the Church fathers of the East (e.g. Athanasius and Gregory of Nyssa) and the West (e.g. Hilary of Poi- tiers and Augustine) as they engaged in anti-Arian polemical discourse. The doc- trine is later expressed and defended by the medieval giant Thomas Aquinas and is fully embraced by the seventeenth-century Reformed Orthodox in their polemical engagement with the Socinians. The nineteenth-century heirs and defenders of Reformed Orthodoxy (e.g. Herman Bavinck and Charles Hodge) also held to this doctrine without wavering. In recent years, however, Trinitarian theological discourse has taken a so- called “relational turn,” 4 and the pro-Nicene account of divine unity has come un- der attack. As a consequence, the historic doctrine of inseparable operations has * Kyle Claunch is a Ph.D. student at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2825 Lexington Road, Louisville, KY 40280. 1 For a very helpful discussion of the difference between the early Nicene theology of Athanasius and his contemporaries and the pro-Nicene theology of Hilary, Ambrose, Gregory of Nyssa, and Augus- tine, see Michel René Barnes, “One Nature, One Power: Consensus Doctrine in Pro-Nicene Polemic,” in Theologica et Philosophica, Critica et Philologica, Historica (Studia Patristica 29; ed. Elizabeth A. Livingstone; Louvain: Peeters, 1997) 5–23. 2 Stating the doctrine generally like this raises more questions than it answers. The precise meaning of this proposition and the ontological framework which necessitates it will all be considered in detail throughout the essay. 3 “The external works of the Trinity are undivided.” See Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985) 213. 4 The term “relational turn” is commonplace in discussions of recent Trinitarian theology. It refers to attempts to conceive of divine unity in relational rather than substance terms. See Stanley Grenz, Rediscovering the Triune God: The Trinity in Contemporary Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004); and Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Re- formed, 2004).