Pre-existence, and the Freedom of the Son in Creation and Redemption: An Exposition in Dialogue with Robert Jenson

Abstract:  In the New Testament, the Son is personally pre-existent in a real (as opposed to ideal) sense, and the incarnation is a free, gracious act on the part of the Son. The present article engages critically with the arguments of Robert Jenson that the Son is pre-existent principally (a) in and as the nation of Israel, and (b) in that the Son's eternal birth from the Father precedes his birth from Mary; this 'precedes' is not linear, or temporal, however. It is concluded that Jenson's account fails on two counts: first, it does not do justice to the canonical witness; secondly, it is incoherent in introducing an atemporal element into Jenson's avowedly temporal construal of the divine identity. The Son's gracious freedom should be seen both in creation and incarnation in a much stronger sense than Jenson allows.     

Eternal progression and temporal procession of the Holy Spirit

ABSTRACT

This article exposes the way in which Anglican ecumenists have adopted mutually conflicting positions on the historically controverted filioque clause in agreed statements with different bilateral partners. It contrasts the restriction of the filioque to the divine economy agreed with representatives of the Oriental Orthodox tradition in the Procession and Work of the Holy Spirit (2017) with the possibility of an eternal manifestation of the Spirit from the Father through the Son which is explored in the Moscow, Dublin and Cyprus discussions (with the Chalcedonian Orthodox). The article shows how the latter position resonates better with the pneumatology contained in historic Anglican formularies and in theologians such as John Pearson and William Beveridge. The paper concludes by springboarding into broader questions about the purpose and method of Anglican ecumenical endeavour.     

Leashing God with Levinas: Tracing a Trinity with Levinas

Levinas' ethical metaphysics opens up a nexus of relationships, in the midst of which God becomes accessible as the counterpart of the justice I render to others. Although Levinas refuses a theorising theology which does violence to God, we attempt in this article nonetheless to glimpse the possibility of a divine threesome (leash) which can be articulated in the language of ethical metaphysics. We seek to trace a Trinity, not in Levinas, but with Levinas. We seek to 'leash God with Levinas.'
Thus, we argue the liturgical nature of God . God is utterly 'for-the-other.' The Father, as utterly self-diffusive, is 'for-the-Son', and the Son, as utterly responsive, is 'for-the-Father.' The divine nature ( ousia ) is the ethical reality of 'for-the-other.' Secondly, this one nature ( ousia ) has three distinct hypostases , which need to be understood ethically. The relationship between Father and Son is not the same as the relationship between the Son and the Father. The Father and the Son are the same in that they are essentially 'for-the-other,' bound by a bond or a Spirit of responsibility . Yet, the Son's relation to the Father is responsive, whereas the Father's relation to the Son is initiative or originary. Thus, there is both an identity yet a non-identification of Father and Son. Again, since responsibility is the ethical hypostasis of 'the-other-person-in me,' we might say that the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father (cf. John 14:10,11), in a non-identical way, and that it is precisely this perichoresis of the one in the Other which constitutes the hypostasis of each.     

Motion According to Aquinas and Newton

This article seeks to examine the theological basis of the understanding of motion in the work of Aquinas and Newton. As well as the Aristotelian roots of Aquina's view, attention is also paid to motion understood as a participation in the perfect 'motionless motion' of the emanation of the Son from the Father. This is contrasted with the crucial theological context of Newton's view of motion as expressed in the Principia , namely his Arianism and theological voluntarism. Motion becomes a purely physical and spatial category predicted on violent competition rather than mutual enhancement and the goal of perfection. Meanwhile, it is suggested that Newton has to resort to unmediated divine action within absolute and eternal space in order to describe how a universe in motion might have anything to do with God.     

The Livingness of God; or,the Place of Substance and Dynamism in a Theology of the Divine Perfections

Theological reflection on the divine character is serviceable to the extent that it prevents the livingness of the triune God – and so the subject matter of theology – from disappearing behind rigorous consideration of the perfections themselves. The topic of God's livingness, in other words, informs the locus de Deo as a whole. The present article begins with a biblical‐dogmatic proposal for the form and content of this livingness: God's life in and for the world, it is proposed, is at every point rooted in the life which God has from himself as Father, Son and Spirit. Two clarifications are subsequently offered. An appeal to the livingness of God should be distinguished both from an abstract rejection of ‘substance’ language and from a conceptualization of reality under a general theory of the forward advancement of the world process.     

Person and Being: Conversation with T.F. Torrance about the Monarchy of God

In whom is the unified rule of God centred? Does ultimate determination and authority reside with God the Father or is supreme power shared equally by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? T.F. Torrance's conception of a triune Monarchy, with its differentiated senses of God's Fatherhood, is here expounded and contrasted with Karl Barth's account of command and obedience as integral to God's eternal Being. A brief exegetical study in the Fourth Gospel is also undertaken to seek clarification. The main strengths of Torrance's view are reckoned the unqualified divinity of the Son and Spirit, and their full participation together with the Father in all God's ways and works. A weakness is identified, however, in an under‐determination of the Father's fatherliness. Resolution is then pursued in terms of Person and Being. Although Torrance makes wide‐ranging use of these terms, he does not appear to employ them sufficiently regarding the Monarchy. It is subsequently argued that with respect to Person God the Father is Monarch, while with respect to Being the Three share the Monarchy of God equally and eternally.     

SEXUAL DIFFERENCE AND TRINITARIAN DEATH: CROSS,KENOSIS, AND HIERARCHY IN THE THEO‐DRAMA

Hans Urs von Balthasar's “Theo‐Drama: Theological Dramatic Theory” exhibits a mutual funding of a hierarchical ordering of the relation between “man” and “woman” and a hierarchical ordering of the relation between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. The two hierarchies explain, illustrate, and support one another. Von Balthasar's oscillation between hierarchy and equality, particularly in the divine case, results in a tortured understanding of personhood where being in relation means handing oneself over to another with the threat of death always present. Von Balthasar's understanding of personhood turns out to be fundamentally masochistic. Further, difference collapses into hierarchy and thus turns out to be no more than repetition in the mode of reception, which then poses a serious challenge to Balthasar's account of divine and human being. Since the point of connection between the two is found in his account of the way inner‐trinitarian relations of origin are extended into the world in the sending of the Son, this is the thesis which needs problematizing. For von Balthasar, the kenotic nature of the inner‐trinitarian processions explains what in the life of God makes the cross possible, but this move ascribes something like suffering and death to the inner life of God in a way that undercuts the fullness of divine love while undergirding a hierarchical understanding of divine relationality.     

'One Commixture of Light': Rethinking some Modern Uses and Critiques of Gregory of Nazianzus on the Unity and Equality of the Divine Persons

Gregory of Nazianzus' doctrine of the Trinity is both a constructive source and an object of critique for Leonardo Boff's account of the Trinity. I argue that Gregory's account of the unity of the Trinity in the monarchy of the Father does not entail the ontological subordination of Son and Spirit nor otherwise obviate the equality of the divine persons. On Gregory's account, the unity and equality of the divine persons is bound up with that of their distinct identities in the very particular modes in which they relate to one another: a unity transcending all human commonality. By contrast, Boff's theology of the Trinity seems to elide the real distinction between God and creatures and erode the differences between the divine persons, so subverting the social programme he derives from his doctrine.     

‘God,the Father Almighty’: A Theological Excursus

The confession of ‘God, the Father almighty’ in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds can be interpreted as offering a progressively more focused characterization of the First Person of the Trinity, such that ‘Father’ clarifies the meaning of ‘God’, and the force of ‘almighty’ is controlled by the meaning of ‘Father’. The results of such an exegesis accentuate divine transcendence in a way that raises questions about theological claims to natural knowledge of God. More specifically, they suggest that the very comprehensiveness of God's relationship to the world implied by divine almightiness blocks any direct line of inference from creation to Creator.     

A Compelling Trinitarian Taxonomy: Hans Urs von Balthasar's Theology of the Trinitarian Inversion and Reversion

In trinitarian theology, the problematic place of the Holy Spirit in the taxonomy of the immanent Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) does not seem to correspond to what is revealed in the economy (Father, Holy Spirit and Son). Because of this pneumatological problem, some theologians have abandoned the traditional trinitarian taxonomy. This approach, however, does not provide a finally convincing answer that is consistent with both the biblical witness and the theological tradition. In this article, I argue that Hans Urs von Balthasar's theology of the trinitarian inversion and reversion does provide a convincing answer to the trinitarian taxonomy problem. After supporting my thesis by first referencing the traditional trinitarian taxonomy offered in Augustine's de Trinitate and then examining the possibility of abandoning the taxonomy given by Jürgen Moltmann and Leonardo Boff, I will offer von Balthasar's solution as the most compelling trinitarian taxonomy, especially in light of the ecumenical dialogue between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.     

ECCLESIAL EXISTENCE: PERSON AND COMMUNITY IN THE TRINITARIAN ANTHROPOLOGY OF ADRIENNE VON SPEYR

Best known for her extraordinary influence upon Hans Urs von Balthasar, Adrienne von Speyr is perhaps overshadowed by the same. Here is an effort to expose her profound mystical insights concerning the specifically Trinitarian dimension of anthropology. Of key significance is the concept of surrender, whereby the human person participates in the fundamental disposition of Christ, whose self-gift is revealed as obedient receptivity vis-à-vis the Father and loving generosity vis-à-vis the world. This in turn is revelatory of the eternal surrender of each divine Person to the Others in a continuous exchange of love. The human person thus participates in divine life by the means that characterize it: love of God and neighbor.     

Gregory of Nyssa and Divine Simplicity: A Conceptualist Reading

Andrew Radde‐Gallwitz probes Gregory of Nyssa on divine simplicity, a topic that Radde‐Gallwitz treated earlier in a book‐length monograph and takes further here in response to critics. As he notes, the Cappadocians and their opponents shared belief in divine simplicity. But for Gregory, simplicity functions as part of affirming the co‐equal divinity of the Father and Son, against his opponents. Radde‐Gallwitz lists six negative claims that Gregory’s understanding of divine simplicity supports: (1) God is immaterial; (2) God is without parts; (3) God does not possess any perfection “by acquisition”; (4) God does not possess any perfection “by participation”; (5) in God, there is no mixture or conflux of qualities, especially opposite qualities; (6) in God, there are no degrees of more or less. Yet with regard to positive statements about God’s perfections—for example the relation of God’s goodness to God’s wisdom—things are more difficult, as Radde‐Gallwitz shows. Interpreters of Gregory have differed sharply on this issue, in part because Gregory does not make his position crystal clear. Radde‐Gallwitz himself earlier held that Gregory considers God to have real but non‐definitive perfections distinct from the divine essence. Indebted to Richard Cross, however, Radde‐Gallwitz here adjusts his view, distinguishing more firmly between the divine essence itself and our limited concepts. He draws upon the Platonic distinction between natural and conventional naming, which differ in their accounts of what makes words meaningful. Arguing that Gregory is a “naturalist,” he reads Gregory’s texts on divine simplicity in this light.     

‘Word without Measure’: The (Ir)reducible History of Jesus Christ in John Webster

John Webster's Christology bears a twofold character. First, Webster attends to the particular identity of the Son of God who is and acts in and as Jesus Christ. Second, Webster articulates, in increasing measure, the rootedness of the Word's assumption of the flesh in the Son's eternal relation to Father and the Holy Spirit. Both features of Jesus' history – namely its irreducible particularity and architectural traceability – establish God's self-correspondence: the concrete history of God with us corresponds to God's eternal being and act. Webster's later work accords material priority to the Son's antecedent existence as the second person of the Holy Trinity. I locate the impetus for this shift in Webster's theological construal of history which serves, in turn, to inform and revise the dogmatic task of unfolding Jesus' history. No longer inhibited by a predominately modern view of human history, Webster more readily traces the history of Jesus Christ to the eternal procession of the Son of God.     

What's Not to Love? Rethinking Appeals to Tradition in Contemporary Debates in Trinitarian Theology

Contemporary discussions of the doctrine of the Trinity are sometimes centered on debates between ‘Social Trinitarians’ and ‘Classical Trinitarians.’ Those who align with ‘Social Trinitarianism’ usually insist that an adequate doctrine of the Trinity demands an affirmation of intra-Trinitarian mutual love – and thus reject the doctrine of divine simplicity and numerical sameness out of a commitment to being fully Trinitarian. Meanwhile, those who want to recover ‘Classical Trinitarianism’ insist that the doctrine of divine simplicity is true and salutary – and thus reject any notion of love shared between the Father and Son within the divine life. I argue that both alternatives are profoundly out of step with the theological tradition they claim to retrieve and represent, for simultaneous affirmations of divine simplicity and mutual love are found all across the tradition of Latin scholastic theology. Constructive Trinitarian theology that makes appeal to the ‘classical’ tradition should take this diversity and complexity into account.     

Kenosis,Necessity and Incarnation

The doctrine of the Incarnation faces the following modal challenge: ‘The Son, as God, exists of necessity; Jesus, as man, exists only contingently. Therefore they cannot be one and the same.’ On the face it, the kenotic model, on which the Son gave up some of the divine properties at the Incarnation, cannot help to meet this challenge, since the suggestion that the Son gave up necessary existence implies that the necessity in question was only contingent, and this notion makes no sense. A necessary being is necessarily (and therefore eternally) so. This paper, however, argues that some necessities may appropriately be described as ‘contingent’, being conditional on contingent and mutable circumstances, and that there is a natural understanding of divine necessity on which the Son could give up necessary existence on becoming incarnate.     

Sabellianism reconsidered

Sabellianism, the doctrine that the Persons of the Trinity are roles that a single divine being plays either simultaneously or successively, is commonly thought to entail that the Father is the Son. I argue that there is at least one version of Sabellianism that does not have this result and meets the requirements for a minimally decent doctrine of the Trinity insofar as it affirms that each Person of the Trinity is God and that the Trinity of Persons is God while maintaining monotheism without undermining the distinctness of Persons. I am grateful for comments by participants at the Society of Christian Philosophers 2000 meeting and University of San Diego Philosophy colloquium at which earlier versions of this paper were read, and by anonymous referees for this journal.     

Divine Simplicity and the Eternal Truths: Descartes and the Scholastics

Descartes famously endorsed the view that (CD) God freely created the eternal truths, such that He could have done otherwise than He did. This controversial doctrine is much discussed in recent secondary literature, yet Descartes’s actual arguments for CD have received very little attention. In this paper I focus on what many take to be a key Cartesian argument for CD: that divine simplicity entails the dependence of the eternal truths on the divine will. What makes this argument both important and interesting is that Descartes’s scholastic predecessors share the premise of divine simplicity but reject the CD conclusion. To properly understand Descartes, then, we must determine precisely where he diverges from his predecessors on the path from simplicity to CD. And when we do so we obtain a very surprising result: that despite many dramatic prima facie differences, there is no substantive difference between the relevant doctrines of Descartes and the scholastics. Or so I argue.     

Nature and Grace: Two Participations in the Thought of Jonathan Edwards

Christian theologians are increasingly interested in both ontological and soteriological forms of participation theology. Paul Gavrilyuk challenges scholars to be more precise in how these relate to each other. This article contributes to the need for further precision by engaging with the thought of Jonathan Edwards. Edwards employed both types of participation, but did not embed one within the other. Ontological participation, dubbed ‘common participation’, undergirds created nature and is a methexis in God for being. Soteriological participation, dubbed ‘special participation’, explains special grace and is a relational koinonia in the love between the Father and the Son. These two participations are complementary and facilitate a clear distinction between nature and grace.