The Grammar of Salvation: The Function of Trinitarian Theology in the Works of Karen Kilby and Robert Jenson
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the purpose of trinitarian theology in relation to theological knowledge, examining whether the doctrine of the Trinity is designed to serve an apophatic or cataphatic purpose. Through a comparative analysis of Karen Kilby and Robert Jenson, I argue that trinitarianism serves a hermeneutical and incorporative function in theology, encompassing both apophatic and cataphatic language, connecting our knowledge of God with God's revelation in the missions of the triune persons. Kilby and Jenson represent apophatic and cataphatic tendencies respectively, but their differences largely concern methodology. Regarding the purpose of trinitarian doctrine, they each hold that the dogma functions as an interpretive grammar for the Scriptures, so that by patterning our lives on the biblical narrative, human beings may be incorporated into Trinity itself. These hermeneutical and incorporative principles create room within Nicene trinitarianism to accommodate varying methods and theories of theological knowledge while preserving the doctrine's core functions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".