The Trinitarian Koinōnia and Its Socio-Economic Implications
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAs it currently stands, this manuscript is not publishable in Religions. The manuscript does not provide a compelling argument establishing the necessary connection between divine and human koinonia. The manuscript also is too long. Too many sections are filled with summaries of well-known arguments by influential theologians that do not provide new critical insights into the latter. The section on the biblical foundations of Trinitarian koinonia could be removed without detrimentally impacting the argument. The sections on LaCugna's and Boff's theologies should be significantly shortened and focused. The critical section should be enhanced to provide a more compelling articulation of the limitations of LaCugna's, Boff's and Moltmann's perspectives. The section on socio-economic analysis should be enhanced to provide a more comprehensive overview of globalized dynamics and their effects. The final constructive section should be revised to demonstrate the connection between divine and human koinonia and then articulate practical implications following from this connection. The manuscript would also benefit from referencing more recent sources. If these changes are made, the manuscript should be reconsidered for possible publication. For more detailed comments, see file attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The manuscript requires significant editing; errors of syntax and grammatical typos are many, the language and formatting style should also be revised to meet the standards of academic publishing. For more detailed comments, see file attached.
Author Response
TO REVIEWER 1
21 November 2024
THANK YOU FOR THE PEER REVIEW
Dear Dr/Prof!
Greetings from the University of KwaZulu Natal (UKZN)!
Thank you very much for taking much of your time to review my manuscript!
I am very grateful for your corrections and recommendations.
In general, I have followed most of your corrections and recommendations.
Your review has helped me improve my manuscript.
One of my doctorates was on the Holy Trinity. My thesis was submitted to the University of London and was entitled ‘Critique of the Trinitarian Social Model of Leonardo Boff: Small Christian Communities of the Archdiocese of Tabora in Tanzania, a Case Study.’ Your review has helped me to tie the loose ends and to include other voices in my manuscript, ‘The Trinitarian koinōnia and Its Socio-Economic Implications.’
For English, I have attentively read and corrected my manuscript several times. Furthermore, I have corrected the manuscript with the help of Grammarly Premium. Finally, I gave my manuscript for correction to a colleague of mine who is one of the editors of our university.
I have harmonised your corrections and recommendations together with the corrections and recommendations of other reviewers of my manuscript.
Once again, thank you very much for everything. I wish you all the best in all your activities!
Kind regards,
Wilbert Gobbo (PhD, STD)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
page 1, second paragraph: why is there a reference to a "fourth chapter"? This is confusing to the reader.
page 1, second paragraph: consider a consistent use of the Oxford Comma to avoid confusion. Example: insert a comma after "Leonardo Boff."
page 2, 2.1: It is confusing to talk about the "roots" of the Trinity in the New Testament. Wouldn't those roots be in the Old Testament, why or why not?
page 2, 2.1.1: You should cite some literature on the "Angel of the Lord" in the Old Testament as the pre-incarnate Christ or Son of God. There are many more passages that support proto-Trinitarianism than "Ecc 24" and Prov 8:22-31. You should cite some of those passages.
Page 2, 2.1.2: Who are these modern exegetes who deny these are the ipsissima verba of Jesus? Based on what criteria? This is a surprising claim that should be backed up with at least two or three references. My first inclination is to think that this claim makes the paper very weak.
Page 3 (and elsewhere?), the SBL standard abbreviation for Romans is "Rom" not "Rm." You use "Rom" on page 13, so make it consistent and use "Rom." Also look at the abbreviations for Hebrews as "Heb"
page 3: the claim that the New Testament is "Not clear about the divine persons of one God in se" is essentially stating that there is a weak doctrine of God as he is inherently or in his essence. Why or why not should you interact with these passages:
1 Timothy 2:5
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"
1 Corinthians 8:4-6
"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him"
Mark 12:28-29
Jesus says, "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one'"
Ephesians 4:4-6
"One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all"
John 17:3
"And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent"
James 2:19
"You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!"
If these passages do not deal with God as he is inherently (in se), then explain why they are not. Otherwise, this paper seems to not deal sufficiently with the issues.
If the NT presents a weak doctrine of God in se (ad intra?), then how does your notion of koinonia deal with unity?
Page 4: How does your quote align with Rahner's rule? Rahner's Rule is the statement that "the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity and the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity". You seem to state there is no doctrine of the "immanent" Trinity, which means there is no doctrine of the economic Trinity. Which, for Rahner, makes no sense and eliminates God! Please revisit this and make sure you understand Rahner.
Page 14: You define "capitalism" as being "controlled by a few individuals at the expense of the majority of people." Is this definition from Boff? It seems totally different from the way it is defined by the IMF (International Monetary Fund): "Capitalism is often thought of as an economic system in which private actors own and control property in accord with their interests, and demand and supply freely set prices in markets in a way that can serve the best interests of society. The essential feature of capitalism is the motive to make a profit." Your definition is biased toward Socialism, Marxism, and Communism. Capitalism does NOT demand or require the exploitation of the majority. It is actually the best model that gives a majority of people the most freedom. Please engage with this book by Jay W. Richards, Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem.
Page 14: Eradicating class differences based on material wealth is close to the definition of "stealing." You are suggesting it is a good thing to take people's goods away so it can be redistributed to others who have less. Doesn't this entail violence and sin as defined by the New Testament? How do you understand the commands in the New Testament to not steal? Don't they entail a notion of personal ownership rather than socialism or group ownership?
Page 18: Why and how can you summarize the entire globe as a singular "socio-economic structure"? Doesn't this erase the real differences between economies like China, North Korea, Mexico, and the USA? Aren't there real differences between these cultures/economies? What about the biblical notion of reaping what you sow? What are the economic repercussions for sin, both privately and culturally? Does the bible (book of Proverbs) encourage the reader to see how wealth comes from work and saving, but poverty comes to those who do not work? (see Proverbs 10:4).
Page 18: You refer to the poor being in a vicious circle of poverty. I think this claim is also factually wrong, and does not engage with the literature about the improvements made in various countries. Again, please engage with actual citations from scholarship and also from Jay W. Richards, Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The quality of this paper is low because it is trying to accomplish too much. It needs to be two separate papers.
1. The section on the biblical foundation for Trinitarian Koinonia is very weak. To do this correctly should be a separate paper.
2. The sections on Trinitarian community and society should be another paper. There is much more work to be done on this topic to clarify the methodology and presuppositions. The author attacks capitalism and aligns with socialism/Marxism without careful regard for biblical passages and actual facts about economics.
Author Response
|
Response to comments of reviewer 2
|
||
|
1. Summary |
|
|
|
Dear Dr/Prof (Reviewer)! Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
|
||
|
2. Questions for General Evaluation |
Reviewer’s Evaluation |
Response and Revisions |
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
I have improved the introduction. |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
I have improved the reference. |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
I have improved it. |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
I have respected the methodology used in the theological reflection in the Catholic Church. |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
Not applicable. It is not based on fieldwork. |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
I have improved the conclusion. |
|
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
||
|
Comments 1: page 1, second paragraph: why is there a reference to a "fourth chapter"? This is confusing to the reader.
Response: 1: It has been corrected!
Comment 2: second paragraph: consider a consistent use of the Oxford Comma to avoid confusion. Example: insert a comma after "Leonardo Boff."
Response: I have not understood the comment.
Comments 3: page 2, 2.1: It is confusing to talk about the "roots" of the Trinity in the New Testament.
Response: It has been corrected.
Comment 4: page 2, 2.1.1: You should cite some literature on the "Angel of the Lord" in the Old Testament as the pre-incarnate Christ or Son of God.
Response: It has been done.
Comment 5: Page 2, 2.1.2: Who are these modern exegetes who deny these are the ipsissima verba of Jesus? Based on what criteria? This is a surprising claim that should be backed up with at least two or three references.
Response: It has been done.
Comment 6: Page 3 (and elsewhere?), the SBL standard abbreviation for Romans is "Rom" not "Rm." You use "Rom" on page 13, so make it consistent and use "Rom." Also look at the abbreviations for Hebrews as "Heb"
Response: It has been done.
Comment 7: page 3: the claim that the New Testament is "Not clear about the divine persons of one God in se" is essentially stating that there is a weak doctrine of God as he is inherently or in his essence. Why or why not should you interact with these passages: 1 Timothy 2:5; 1 Corinthians 8:4-6; Mark 12:28-29; Ephesians 4:4-6; John 17:3; James 2:19.
Response: I have briefly done so.
Comment 8: Page 4: How does your quote align with Rahner's rule? Rahner's Rule is the statement that "the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity and the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity". You seem to state there is no doctrine of the "immanent" Trinity, which means there is no doctrine of the economic Trinity. Which, for Rahner, makes no sense and eliminates God! Please revisit this and make sure you understand Rahner.
Response: I have highlighted the complexity of the Rahnerian Grundaxiom.
Comment 9: age 14: You define "capitalism" as being "controlled by a few individuals at the expense of the majority of people." Is this definition from Boff? It seems totally different from the way it is defined by the IMF (International Monetary Fund)…
Response: Thank you for the suggestion of the book by W. Richards, Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem. It has helped me to see capitalism from a different perspective.
Comment 10: Page 14: Eradicating class differences based on material wealth is close to the definition of "stealing." You are suggesting it is a good thing to take people's goods away so it can be redistributed to others who have less. Doesn't this entail violence and sin as defined by the New Testament? How do you understand the commands in the New Testament to not steal? Don't they entail a notion of personal ownership rather than socialism or group ownership?
Response: Even for Leonardo Boff, socialism is not the solution. There were abuses of socialism in the Eastern Europe.
Comment 11: Page 18: Why and how can you summarize the entire globe as a singular "socio-economic structure"? Doesn't this erase the real differences between economies like China, North Korea, Mexico, and the USA? Aren't there real differences between these cultures/economies?
Response: I have accepted the differences between countries.
Comment 12: Page 18: You refer to the poor being in a vicious circle of poverty. I think this claim is also factually wrong, and does not engage with the literature about the improvements made in various countries.
Response: This is debatable. It depends whether one is talking from the point of view of the South or from the North.
Comment 13: Thank you for the suggestion to separate the paper into two.
Response: However, inter alia, following the theoretical framework I have followed which is based on a methodology in the Catholic theology of three theological pillars (loci theologici) I will prefer to maintain the methodology. Furthermore, I have reviewed more than 20 articles of MDPI, there are some articles are quite long. Otherwise, I am very grateful for everything.
Comments 14: On the Quality of English Language Nothing mentioned!
Response 14: (For English, once more, I have attentively read and corrected my manuscript several times. Furthermore, I have corrected the manuscript with the help of Grammarly Premium. Finally, I gave my manuscript for correction to a colleague of mine who is one of the editors of another university.)
|
||
|
15. Additional clarifications |
||
|
[One of my doctorates was on the Holy Trinity. My thesis was submitted to the University of London and was entitled ‘Critique of the Trinitarian Social Model of Leonardo Boff: Small Christian Communities of the Archdiocese of Tabora in Tanzania, a Case Study.’ The review has helped me to tie the loose ends and to include other voices in my manuscript, ‘The Trinitarian koinōnia and Its Socio-Economic Implications.’]
|
||
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsWith the addition of several clarifications and supporting rationales for specific claims and components and the elimination of unnecessary text and subsections, this revised manuscript provides a much more compelling argument/case for the importance of considering the concrete implications of Trinitarian koinonia in and for concrete socio-economic conditions and life. The manuscript is now worthy of publication in Religions.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere remain a significant number of typos and missing words. Please make sure to carefully review the entire manuscript once more to eliminate all these.
Author Response
|
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
|
||
|
1. Summary |
|
|
|
Dear Dr/Prof (Reviewer)! Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
|
||
|
2. Questions for General Evaluation |
Reviewer’s Evaluation |
Response and Revisions |
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
I have improved the introduction. |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
I have improved the reference. |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
|
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
I have respected the methodology used in the theological reflection in the Catholic Church. |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
Not applicable. It is not based on fieldwork. |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
I have improved the conclusion. |
|
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
||
|
Comments 0: Abstract: [omission of the; take out “which will be”; replacing pilar by pillar].
|
||
|
Response 0: Abstract: the human situation; which will be used; pillar! Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have changed the indicated aspects in the abstract.
|
||
|
Comments 1: 1 Introduction: [to take out "pp."; to remove “chapters”; to complete a sentence; to provide a rationale for choosing some authors as dialoguing partners; to take out the] |
||
|
Response 1: I did not take out “pp” because according to the MDPI writing style “pp” is used for several pages (cf. My article “Christian Education, Quo Vadis?” which was published by MDPI in 2023). I have replaced chapters by sections; I have completed the suggested sentence. I have highlighted the reasons for choosing Catherine LaCugna and Leonardo Boff as dialoguing partners. I have taken out “the”.
Comments 2: What is the Foundation of the Trinitarian Koinōnia?: [2.1 Why not assume it to be the dogma of faith and proceed to the last part?; 2.1.1 remove of in despite of ; to take out “p”; 2.1.2 when citing the original New Testament passages, using Greek letters is customary; 2.3 support for the claim “fundamental texts of the Trinitarian koinōnia is 1 Jn 1:3.” 2.4 Invitation to strengthen the argumentation; 2.4.2 more than a reference of John Paul II.]
Response 2: This article intends to follow a systematic and systemic approach in our theoretical framework which is based on studying the three theological pillars (loci theologici) of the Bible, Christian Tradition and Human Context. I have removed “of” after despite. I have removed the Greek words in Greek alphabets because the MDPI did not have Greek fonts; I have added more biblical Texts of the New Testament which are attributed to the Holy Trinity. At the end of 2.1.2, I have added more literature to substantiate the claim. However, I did not want to add too much literature to increase the number of words in the article. In 2.3, I have briefly supported the claim with the writing of G. Panikulam, Koinōnia in the New Testament: A Dynamic Expression of Christian Life, Analecta Biblica, 85. Subsection 2.4 is just a short introduction to what is to follow. 2.4.1, 2.4.2 and 2.4.3. It calls for faith in the Trinity and the Trinitarian koinōnia. In 2.4.2, I have added the reference of Oscar Cullmann and Wilbert Gobbo (Gobbo 2014, pp. 55-62) to that of John Paul II.
Comments 3: 3 Some Contemporary Views of the Trinitarian Koinōnia [In 3.1, A Brief Reflection on God for Us - Catherine M. LaCugna, the reader struggles to see the connection between the reflection on God for Us of Catherine LaCugna and the argument; 3.2. A Brief Reflection on Trinity and Society – Leonardo Boff, the reader struggles to see the connection between the reflection on God for Us of Catherine LaCugna and the argument; 3.4.1 The Contribution of LaCugna, and Boff on the Trinitarian Koinōnia, in simple terms; 3.4.2 Theologians do not need to be experts in the Bible; In the last paragraph, I was asked to announce the main claim/thesis of the article in the introduction and be centred throughout the argument; to enhance 3.4.2.]
Response 3: In fact, the Contribution of Catherine LaCugna (and that of Leonardo Boff) represents part of the second theological pillar (locus theologicus of Christian Tradition). In the Catholic Church, not only Scriptures (scriptura) but also the Apostolic Tradition (Traditio Apostolica) are very important in theological reflection. Someone who does not share the Catholic Tradition might limit oneself either to only the Bible (sola scriptura) or only the human context (humanus contextus). The Catholic theological approach is not an “either-or” but a “both-and.” In the last paragraph of 3.1, I have briefly explained the connection between the reflection of Catherine LaCugna and the argument in this article. In the first paragraph of 3.2, I have briefly mentioned the way, in the Catholic Church, the three theological pillars (loci theologici) are important in a theological reflection. In the first paragraph of 3.4.1, I have, in a nutshell, highlighted the importance of the contributions of Catherine LaCugna and Leonardo Boff in the argument of the socio-economic implications of the Trinitarian Koinōnia. NB, I have removed the contribution of Jürgen Moltmann. I believe that the contributions of Catherine LaCugna and Leonardo Boff can be enough to represent the theological pillar(locus theologicus) of Apostolic Tradition (Traditio Apostolica). 3.4.2 I have simply removed the argument that theologians need to have a good biblical knowledge in their theological reflections. However, Bible is considered to be the soul of theology, At the end of 3.4.2, I have added one paragraph without going into details to avoid having many more pages.
Comments 4: 4 The Socio-Economic Implications of the Trinitarian Koinōnia [Invitation to enhance the introduction of section 4 which comprises of 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3; 4.1.2 Invitation to a more comprehensive global socio-economic situation; 4.2.1 why is kenōsis essential to/for koinōnia?]
Response 4: I have enhanced and clarified the introduction of section 4 in the last two paragraphs of 4; 4.1.2 I have added a paragraph for a more comprehension of the complexity of the global socio-economic situation; For 4.2.1, I have added a paragraph to highlight the importance of kenōsis to koinonia.
Comments 5: 5. General Conclusion [Invitation to substantiate the claims in the conclusion.]
Response 5: Apart from the above improvement, which strengthens the argument of the article, please confer the last paragraph of 4.2.2; the last paragraph of 4.3.1; the last but one paragraph of 4.3.2; the last paragraph of 4.3.4; and the last paragraph of 5 which also substantiate the argument. Finally, we maintain that at least from “right reason” or “incarnate reason” (recta ratio), of reason informed by faith, the Trinitarian koinonia has some socio-economic implications.
|
||
|
6. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language |
||
|
6: The manuscript requires significant editing!
|
||
|
Response 6: (For English, I have attentively read and corrected my manuscript several times. Furthermore, I have corrected the manuscript with the help of Grammarly Premium. Finally, I gave my manuscript for correction to a colleague of mine who is one of the editors of our university.)
|
||
|
7. Additional clarifications |
||
|
[One of my doctorates was on the Holy Trinity. My thesis was submitted to the University of London and was entitled ‘Critique of the Trinitarian Social Model of Leonardo Boff: Small Christian Communities of the Archdiocese of Tabora in Tanzania, a Case Study.’ The review has helped me to tie the loose ends and to include other voices in my manuscript, ‘The Trinitarian koinōnia and Its Socio-Economic Implications.’]
|
||
|
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
|
||
|
1. Summary |
|
|
|
Dear Dr/Prof (Reviewer)! Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
|
||
|
2. Questions for General Evaluation |
Reviewer’s Evaluation |
Response and Revisions |
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
I have improved the introduction. |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
I have improved the reference. |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
|
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
I have respected the methodology used in the theological reflection in the Catholic Church. |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
Not applicable. It is not based on fieldwork. |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
I have improved the conclusion. |
|
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
||
|
Comments 0: Abstract: [omission of the; take out “which will be”; replacing pilar by pillar].
|
||
|
Response 0: Abstract: the human situation; which will be used; pillar! Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have changed the indicated aspects in the abstract.
|
||
|
Comments 1: 1 Introduction: [to take out "pp."; to remove “chapters”; to complete a sentence; to provide a rationale for choosing some authors as dialoguing partners; to take out the] |
||
|
Response 1: I did not take out “pp” because according to the MDPI writing style “pp” is used for several pages (cf. My article “Christian Education, Quo Vadis?” which was published by MDPI in 2023). I have replaced chapters by sections; I have completed the suggested sentence. I have highlighted the reasons for choosing Catherine LaCugna and Leonardo Boff as dialoguing partners. I have taken out “the”.
Comments 2: What is the Foundation of the Trinitarian Koinōnia?: [2.1 Why not assume it to be the dogma of faith and proceed to the last part?; 2.1.1 remove of in despite of ; to take out “p”; 2.1.2 when citing the original New Testament passages, using Greek letters is customary; 2.3 support for the claim “fundamental texts of the Trinitarian koinōnia is 1 Jn 1:3.” 2.4 Invitation to strengthen the argumentation; 2.4.2 more than a reference of John Paul II.]
Response 2: This article intends to follow a systematic and systemic approach in our theoretical framework which is based on studying the three theological pillars (loci theologici) of the Bible, Christian Tradition and Human Context. I have removed “of” after despite. I have removed the Greek words in Greek alphabets because the MDPI did not have Greek fonts; I have added more biblical Texts of the New Testament which are attributed to the Holy Trinity. At the end of 2.1.2, I have added more literature to substantiate the claim. However, I did not want to add too much literature to increase the number of words in the article. In 2.3, I have briefly supported the claim with the writing of G. Panikulam, Koinōnia in the New Testament: A Dynamic Expression of Christian Life, Analecta Biblica, 85. Subsection 2.4 is just a short introduction to what is to follow. 2.4.1, 2.4.2 and 2.4.3. It calls for faith in the Trinity and the Trinitarian koinōnia. In 2.4.2, I have added the reference of Oscar Cullmann and Wilbert Gobbo (Gobbo 2014, pp. 55-62) to that of John Paul II.
Comments 3: 3 Some Contemporary Views of the Trinitarian Koinōnia [In 3.1, A Brief Reflection on God for Us - Catherine M. LaCugna, the reader struggles to see the connection between the reflection on God for Us of Catherine LaCugna and the argument; 3.2. A Brief Reflection on Trinity and Society – Leonardo Boff, the reader struggles to see the connection between the reflection on God for Us of Catherine LaCugna and the argument; 3.4.1 The Contribution of LaCugna, and Boff on the Trinitarian Koinōnia, in simple terms; 3.4.2 Theologians do not need to be experts in the Bible; In the last paragraph, I was asked to announce the main claim/thesis of the article in the introduction and be centred throughout the argument; to enhance 3.4.2.]
Response 3: In fact, the Contribution of Catherine LaCugna (and that of Leonardo Boff) represents part of the second theological pillar (locus theologicus of Christian Tradition). In the Catholic Church, not only Scriptures (scriptura) but also the Apostolic Tradition (Traditio Apostolica) are very important in theological reflection. Someone who does not share the Catholic Tradition might limit oneself either to only the Bible (sola scriptura) or only the human context (humanus contextus). The Catholic theological approach is not an “either-or” but a “both-and.” In the last paragraph of 3.1, I have briefly explained the connection between the reflection of Catherine LaCugna and the argument in this article. In the first paragraph of 3.2, I have briefly mentioned the way, in the Catholic Church, the three theological pillars (loci theologici) are important in a theological reflection. In the first paragraph of 3.4.1, I have, in a nutshell, highlighted the importance of the contributions of Catherine LaCugna and Leonardo Boff in the argument of the socio-economic implications of the Trinitarian Koinōnia. NB, I have removed the contribution of Jürgen Moltmann. I believe that the contributions of Catherine LaCugna and Leonardo Boff can be enough to represent the theological pillar(locus theologicus) of Apostolic Tradition (Traditio Apostolica). 3.4.2 I have simply removed the argument that theologians need to have a good biblical knowledge in their theological reflections. However, Bible is considered to be the soul of theology, At the end of 3.4.2, I have added one paragraph without going into details to avoid having many more pages.
Comments 4: 4 The Socio-Economic Implications of the Trinitarian Koinōnia [Invitation to enhance the introduction of section 4 which comprises of 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3; 4.1.2 Invitation to a more comprehensive global socio-economic situation; 4.2.1 why is kenōsis essential to/for koinōnia?]
Response 4: I have enhanced and clarified the introduction of section 4 in the last two paragraphs of 4; 4.1.2 I have added a paragraph for a more comprehension of the complexity of the global socio-economic situation; For 4.2.1, I have added a paragraph to highlight the importance of kenōsis to koinonia.
Comments 5: 5. General Conclusion [Invitation to substantiate the claims in the conclusion.]
Response 5: Apart from the above improvement, which strengthens the argument of the article, please confer the last paragraph of 4.2.2; the last paragraph of 4.3.1; the last but one paragraph of 4.3.2; the last paragraph of 4.3.4; and the last paragraph of 5 which also substantiate the argument. Finally, we maintain that at least from “right reason” or “incarnate reason” (recta ratio), of reason informed by faith, the Trinitarian koinonia has some socio-economic implications.
|
||
|
6. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language |
||
|
6: The manuscript requires significant editing!
|
||
|
Response 6: (For English, I have attentively read and corrected my manuscript several times. Furthermore, I have corrected the manuscript with the help of Grammarly Premium. Finally, I gave my manuscript for correction to a colleague of mine who is one of the editors of our university.)
|
||
|
7. Additional clarifications |
||
|
[One of my doctorates was on the Holy Trinity. My thesis was submitted to the University of London and was entitled ‘Critique of the Trinitarian Social Model of Leonardo Boff: Small Christian Communities of the Archdiocese of Tabora in Tanzania, a Case Study.’ The review has helped me to tie the loose ends and to include other voices in my manuscript, ‘The Trinitarian koinōnia and Its Socio-Economic Implications.’]
|
||
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
