tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post5145211831278391206..comments2024-03-25T13:40:30.747-04:00Comments on Faith and Theology: George Hunsinger and Kim Fabricius: propositions on the logos asarkosBen Myershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-33163192587923552202007-11-12T13:11:00.000-05:002007-11-12T13:11:00.000-05:00Dr. Packer always said that theology leads to doxo...Dr. Packer always said that theology leads to doxology, and God clearly has a sense of humor (why else the platypus?), so put me in with byron. (And Rich Mullins, for that matter: "It don't do to preach on glory if you never dare to laugh.")<BR/><BR/>On another note, while I won't claim to be up to the level of this discussion, it seems to me that if one understands God's existence as outside of our timestream (as human authors are outside of the timestream of their books), then there's no problem with denying the <I>logos asarkos</I>; whereas affirming that at a particular point, there was a significant change in the Son of God seems quite problematic to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-62114202974402064702007-11-02T09:12:00.000-04:002007-11-02T09:12:00.000-04:00You guys have me in stiches! Yes, theology should ...You guys have me in stiches! Yes, theology should be this fun.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-21871992660570937502007-10-31T08:08:00.000-04:002007-10-31T08:08:00.000-04:00I think Fred wins!I think Fred wins!Patrick McManushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10717639457555961172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-44671984930605595732007-10-31T04:33:00.000-04:002007-10-31T04:33:00.000-04:00Marvellous, Fred — a work of art! Your rhymes of "...Marvellous, Fred — a work of art! Your rhymes of "Faith and Theology / demythology" and "neo-Hegelian / Australian" are sheer genius!Ben Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-39622725060717991062007-10-31T03:47:00.000-04:002007-10-31T03:47:00.000-04:00The reg'lars at Faith & TheologyHave a post-ontolo...The reg'lars at Faith & Theology<BR/>Have a post-ontologic ontology<BR/>And a settled insistence<BR/>That the Word's pre-existence<BR/>Should be stated with much Demythology.<BR/><BR/>It ain't easy to not be Sabellian<BR/>When you're Bultmannesque neo-Hegelian.<BR/>It's exciting and fresh<BR/>To eternalize flesh<BR/>And hear Barth blog with accents Australian.<BR/><BR/>Here in history God's being finds perfection:<BR/>"Son of God," you see, means "resurrection."<BR/>And don't tell us the story<BR/>That he came down from glory<BR/>Or from some other time or direction.<BR/><BR/>So surprising was Jesus' rising<BR/>That all of your thought needs revising.<BR/>In the Bible's vicinity<BR/>There's no immanent Trinity<BR/>(Which is all of Paul Molnar's devising).<BR/><BR/>So away with all greekified preaching,<BR/>The true gospel is this simple teaching:<BR/>Jesus rose! This sheer novum<BR/>Is the true Easter ovum<BR/>And the dissolution and re-creation of the kosmos takes place in the absolutely singular (and therefore absolutely universal) event of the tearing-open of being itself so that it can be reconstituted by the pure actualism of an act which is no mere disclosure of an already-existing state of affairs but rather divine apocalypse, trinitarian becoming, and eternity itself --or is that over-reaching?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03465280885219360208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-6682224176417986182007-10-30T22:38:00.000-04:002007-10-30T22:38:00.000-04:00Hi George,Trying to tease out what Ben calls the "...Hi George,<BR/><BR/>Trying to tease out what Ben calls the "ontological implications of our Christology" is as different from promoting some new-fangled metaphysics as, well, (your own distinction) thinking systematically is from creating a systematics - or (perhaps even better) the so-called metaphysical poetry of Donne and Herbert is from, well - metaphysics! Otherwise, I think we are in complete agreement about the theological deployment, not only of ontological ideas, but of thought-forms per se, solely in tactical and indeed transformative ways, in semantic worship, not control, of the mystery of God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-55830163350630114182007-10-30T22:06:00.000-04:002007-10-30T22:06:00.000-04:00Hey all,Just caught up. Been working. Don't have...Hey all,<BR/><BR/>Just caught up. Been working. <BR/><BR/>Don't have anything to add. Just wanted to say thanks for the exchange, especially to Halden. Also, thanks for the acknowledgements from kim fabricius, et al. It's been a pleasure. See you all around the theoblogosphere.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>AndyAndyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02322476768181129691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-12988518320852167092007-10-30T21:39:00.000-04:002007-10-30T21:39:00.000-04:00By the way, since this fascinating discussion seem...By the way, since this fascinating discussion seems to be drawing to a close, I thought it might be time for another limerick:<BR/><BR/>There was a blog most academic,<BR/>Where debaters were sage and acerbic; <BR/>They declaimed and decried<BR/>Till they all forgot why,<BR/>Then they sat down to tea and wrote limericks.Ben Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-87706821740329177492007-10-30T21:35:00.000-04:002007-10-30T21:35:00.000-04:00G'day Aric: "what the hell does the word 'new' mea...G'day Aric: <I>"what the hell does the word 'new' mean in relation to an eternal deity in any case?"</I><BR/><BR/>I think that's a terrific question, and it's just the kind of question that a theological ontology would have to explore in detail. I myself don't have any easy answers; but one of the reasons I find Alain Badiou so congenial is that his whole philosophy is oriented around the question, "what does is mean for something new to take place?"<BR/><BR/>And of course Barth did some very patient thinking about the categories of act/event. Barth's own answer to your question runs along these lines: God's being <I>is</I> event, and therefore it's always new — and eternity is the "time" in which this newness unfolds.Ben Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-23403892269863803992007-10-30T20:38:00.000-04:002007-10-30T20:38:00.000-04:00Ben, I'm not at all clear about what you mean when...Ben, I'm not at all clear about what you mean when you write:<BR/><BR/><I>"to think through the specific ontological implications of our christology."</I><BR/><BR/>Why would we want to do this? To what end? <BR/><BR/>Barth's whole point is that there is no system, no metaphysics, no ontology by which "our christology" can be contained. We are dealing precisely with the ineffable mysteries of the Christian faith.<BR/><BR/>I agree with Lewis Ayres: "Ultimate attention must be reserved for the mystery of God revealed in Christ" (<I>Nicaea and Its Legacy</I>, p. 416). Reserved <I>for the mystery</I>, not for its supposed "ontological implications," no matter how jazzy or "apocalyptic" they may seem to be. <BR/><BR/>The "ontological implications" of our christology all point in the direction of the fundamental inutility of any past, present or future metaphysics as such (or "post-metaphysics").<BR/><BR/>Ontology is of absolutely no theological interest in and for itself. The only point of interest is whether there are ontological ideas that can be pressed into the service of elucidating the fundamental mysteries of the faith. The venerable Nicene <I>homoousios</I> has done this in one way, along with "before all worlds" (<I>pro panton ton aionon</I>); and more recently, being-in-act has done it in another. But the use of such ideas is — and must be — entirely <I>ad hoc</I> and <I>post hoc</I> relative to the mystery of revelation itself.<BR/><BR/>Not to put too fine a point on it, any "post-metaphysical" metaphysics that undermines the logical and ontological priority of the Holy Trinity has usurped a position that does not, and could not possibly, belong to it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-41405464651450108452007-10-30T19:11:00.000-04:002007-10-30T19:11:00.000-04:00Okay, in too many ways this conversation is above ...Okay, in too many ways this conversation is above my level, but I'm appreciating it.<BR/><BR/>I have a couple questions/problems for Kim/Halden/Ben...<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that you are focusing on the Resurrection as "event" or novum so much that you lose sight of the Incarnation as an event or novum as well.<BR/><BR/>What does it mean to "take flesh" or "become flesh" if not that previously the Word was without flesh?<BR/><BR/>What does it mean that God is Spirit?<BR/><BR/>What does it mean to say that God is distinct from creation if flesh exists eternally within God in the form of the Logos Ensarkos?<BR/><BR/>Why isn't it reasonable to say that Jesus of Nazareth, far from being an addition to or a change of the Word is the perfect expression of that Word so much so that the two are identified wholly one with the other, while still maintaining that Jesus was/is a NEW expression of that Word as opposed to the Word prior to incarnation, or as evidenced in the people of Israel?<BR/><BR/>Indeed, what the hell does the word, "new" mean in relation to an eternal deity in anycase?<BR/><BR/>Hope you have time and interest to answer.<BR/><BR/>Cheers!Aric Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15241157655075444268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-10298872559489289862007-10-30T13:15:00.000-04:002007-10-30T13:15:00.000-04:00Hi George. Thanks for this excellent quote from Jü...Hi George. Thanks for this excellent quote from Jüngel — and I don't think anyone would dispute Jüngel's point that Barth's theology "is not an ontology; at least not in the sense of a doctrine of being drawn up on the basis of a general ontological conception within which the being of God ... would be treated in its place".<BR/><BR/>In fact, this is precisely the point that I wanted to make earlier: it's illegitimate to squeeze christology or the doctrine of God into some ontological framework which we've imported (explicitly or implicitly) from elsewhere. Instead, we should be trying to think through the <I>specific ontological implications</I> of our christology. We confess that "the third day he rose again from the dead" — what might this entail <I>for being itself</I> (or for time, or eternity, or history, etc.)? <BR/><BR/>This is precisely the kind of ontological questioning that takes place at crucial points in Barth's dogmatics — e.g. in the doctrine of election, and again in the doctrine of time, and again in the doctrine of nothingness, etc. To return to Jüngel's statement, Barth isn't trying to think of God "on the basis" of a general ontology — just the opposite: he's trying to think of "being" on the basis of Jesus Christ. And that's quite a difference!<BR/><BR/>Since we're exchanging obscure Barthian quotes at the moment, here's a nice one where Barth is praising Balthasar's book — just as a side remark, he refers (in <I>CD</I> IV/1, 768) to "the well-known book which Hans Urs von Balthasar addressed to me, in which I find a [powerful] understanding of the concentration on Jesus Christ attempted in the Church Dogmatics, <I>and the implied Christian concept of reality</I>..." (emphasis added). <BR/><BR/>I'm not trying to make a big deal out of this insignificant remark — but that last phrase neatly encapsulates the big difference between "having no ontology whatsoever" (which is, I take it, what you're advocating), and inquiring whether a "concentration on Jesus Christ" might also "imply" some kind of vision of reality.Ben Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-38244813745498717892007-10-30T12:47:00.000-04:002007-10-30T12:47:00.000-04:00On Barth and "ontology" "Barth's Dogmatics makes o...<B>On Barth and "ontology"</B><BR/> <BR/>"Barth's <I>Dogmatics</I> makes ontological statements all the way through. But this dogmatics is not an ontology; at least not in the sense of a doctrine of being drawn up on the basis of a general ontological conception within which the being of God (as highest being, being-itself, etc.) would be treated in its place." –Eberhard Jüngel, <I>God's Being is in Becoming</I> (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2001), p. 75.<BR/> <BR/>"... I have come to abhor profoundly the spectacle of theology constantly trying above all to adjust to the philosophy of its age, thereby neglecting its own theme....<BR/> <BR/>"The Platonism and Aristotelianism of the orthodox was not a hindrance to my ... perceiving what was at issue and therefore to adopting the older terminology into my own vocabulary without identifying myself with the underlying philosophy....<BR/> <BR/>"With reference to matters that I saw to be at issue in the Bible and the history of dogma, I have reached out on the right hand and the left for terms or concepts that I found to be most appropriate, ... because my hands were already full trying to <I>say</I> something very specific....<BR/> <BR/>"My own concern is to hear at any rate the voice of the church and the Bible, and to let this voice be heard, even if in so doing, for want of anything better, I have to think somewhat in Aristotelian terms."<BR/> <BR/>— Karl Barth, Letter to Rudolf Bultmann, 12 June 1928Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-81232341875983265422007-10-30T11:30:00.000-04:002007-10-30T11:30:00.000-04:00Paul Molnar, you actually quoted Barth (some had f...Paul Molnar, you actually quoted Barth (some had foolishly tried the Bible) after we had descended to limericks? Why even bother?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-6438561782141913162007-10-30T11:28:00.000-04:002007-10-30T11:28:00.000-04:00In my ignorance of Barth I've avoided contributing...In my ignorance of Barth I've avoided contributing to this discussion so far, but regarding some recent posts I can't help remarking:<BR/><BR/>(1) It's nice to see explicit attention being drawn to the role of time in the problem.<BR/><BR/>(2) Kim the <EM>filioque</EM> notwithstanding, I find your deflationary remarks about the so-called Nicene Creed --- which I admit were mild --- a little disturbing. One should not worship the thing, but respect for the creed properly goes well beyond its ancientness or its ecumenical implications. <BR/><BR/>You drew attention to <EM>male-only priesthood (ecclesiology), or the exclusion of lesbian and gay people</EM>. (I know what is meant by male-only priesthood, but "exclusion" could mean a number of things, and one could easily be for some senses and against some others. But this is another topic.) I'm surely not alone in setting the bar <EM>much, much higher</EM> for any argument in apparent conflict with the creed, than I do for arguments concerning reform of teaching re orders of ministry, or "lesbian and gay people". <BR/><BR/>For example: if ordaining women creates an ecumenical headache, well that is a headache, but maybe our brothers are wrong; if [some_doctrinal_move] puts us outside Nicea, that will probably create an ecumenical headache as well ... but maybe <EM>we</EM> are wrong.Bruce Yabsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10091471695711534450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-90417857342671915522007-10-30T11:12:00.000-04:002007-10-30T11:12:00.000-04:00Barth leaves stuff sketchy when he doesn’t want to...Barth leaves stuff sketchy when he doesn’t want to talk it into independent existence – like the church. So with the logos asarkos, it’s important (because otherwise you risk making the world co-eternal with God), but he doesn’t want to talk it into completely separate existence (because otherwise you risk Nestorianism and run into problems with revelation). It’s a theological crash barrier. You don’t want to get rid of it, but you don’t want to be running into it all the time either.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-25575094339967204792007-10-30T08:56:00.000-04:002007-10-30T08:56:00.000-04:00It might be worth mentioning a few statements Bart...It might be worth mentioning a few statements Barth made regarding the logos asarkos.<BR/><BR/>First, he wrote: “It has to be kept in mind that this whole conception of the logos asarkos, the ‘second person’ of the Trinity as such, is an abstraction. It is true that it has shown itself necessary to the Christological and trinitarian reflections of the Church. Even to-day it is indispensable for dogmatic enquiry and presentation, and it is often touched upon in the New Testament, though nowhere expounded directly. The New Testament speaks plainly enough about the Jesus Christ who existed before the world was, but always was with a view to the concrete context of the eternal divine will and decree. For this reason it does not speak expressly of the eternal Son or Word as such, but of the Mediator, the One who in the eternal sight of God has already taken upon Himself our human nature, i.e., not of a formless Christ who might well be a Christ-principle or something of that kind, but of Jesus the Christ,” CD III/1, 54. Clearly, the quote from John Godsey is referring to the fact that we cannot use this abstraction in place of Jesus Christ who is the second person of the Trinity. So Barth rejected Brunner’s logos asarkos as a retreat to a kind of natural theology because he was attempting to evade the fact that one cannot separate the form of revelation from its content which is Jesus Christ himself. He was not rejecting the logos asarkos altogether but only if it is used to evade the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.<BR/><BR/>Second, he wrote: “The second ‘person’ of the Godhead in Himself and as such is not God the Reconciler. In Himself and as such He is not revealed to us. In Himself and as such He is not Deus pro nobis, either ontologically or epistemologically. He is the content of a necessary and important concept in trinitarian doctrine when we have to understand the revelation and dealings of God in the light of their free basis in the inner being and essence of God. But since we are now concerned with the revelation and dealings of God, and particularly with the atonement, with the person and work of the Mediator, it is pointless, as it is impermissible, to return to the inner being and essence of God and especially to the second person of the Trinity as such, in such a way that we ascribe to this person another form than that which God Himself has given in will to reveal Himself and to act outwards,” CD IV/1, 52, some emphases mine. This is hardly and outright rejection of the logos asarkos. In fact it is a statement that without it one might conclude that it was ontologically necessary for God to create and to become incarnate in order to fulfill his divine being. Clearly, Barth always opposed such thinking because these are free actions on God’s part and they are not demanded by his essence or by anything outside his being as one who loves in freedom. Barth, however, is consistent. He insists that the logos asarkos cannot be used to evade the form that revelation has actually taken in the history of the man Jesus Christ according to God’s eternal will and decree. And thus he rejects the logos asarkos whenever it is so used because it is an “abstraction” required in order to perceive the freedom of grace whose shape is in reality identical with Jesus himself as the Word of God incarnate.<BR/><BR/>Third, he wrote: “The Son is both logos ensarkos and logos asarkos. Do we not have to say this afresh and for the first time truly the moment we speak about the union of God and man in revelation lest we forget that we stand here before the miracle of God? Can we ever have said it enough?” The Göttingen Dogmatics, 160. This hardly sounds like a ringing endorsement of the idea that there is only a logos ensarkos in Barth’s thinking.<BR/><BR/>Fourth, Barth wrote: “The Word is what He is even before and apart from His being flesh. Even as incarnate He derives His being to all eternity from the Father and from Himself, and not from the flesh. On the other hand, the flesh not only could not be the flesh apart from the Word, but apart from the Word it would have no being at all . . .” CD I/2, 136.<BR/><BR/>Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, Barth wrote: “We must guard against disputing the eternal will of God which precedes even predestination. We must not allow God to be submerged in His relationship to the universe or think of Him as tied in Himself to the universe. Under the concept of predestination, or the election of grace, we say that in freedom (its affirmation and not its loss) God tied Himself to the universe. Under the concept of predestination we confess the eternal will of the God who is free in Himself, even in the sense that originally and properly He wills and affirms and confirms himself,” CD II/2, 155. Those who reject the idea of the logos asarkos altogether or those who reduce the logos asarkos to the logos incarnandus without remainder cannot, in my view, reconcile their thinking with Barth’s very clearly articulated distinction between God in himself and God for us offered here and in many other statements such as: “the Word of God is properly understood only as a word which has truth and glory in itself and not just as spoken to us. It would be no less God’s eternal Word if it were not spoken to us, and what constitutes the mercy of its revelation, of its being spoken to us, is that it is spoken to us in virtue of the freedom in which God could be ‘God in Himself’ and yet He does not will to be so and in fact is not so, but wills to be and actually is ‘God for us’ (CD I/1, 171-2, emphasis mine).<BR/><BR/>The ultimate question here, it seems to me, is this: have those who reject the logos asarkos altogether not advanced a view of “God for us” that is in the grip of what Barth called “an untheologically speculative understanding of the ‘for us’,” CD I/1, 420-21. One of the three indicators of this “untheologically speculative understanding” is the fact that “His being God for us” is turned “into a necessary attribute of God” so that God’s being is then essentially limited and conditioned as a being revealed, i.e., as a relation of God to man,” CD I/1, 421.<BR/><BR/>For all of these reasons I fully support George Hunsinger’s propositions on the logos asarkos.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-29294824940518704362007-10-30T08:49:00.000-04:002007-10-30T08:49:00.000-04:00This one if offered with a smile and a nod to Nich...This one if offered with a smile and a nod to Nicholas Lash:<BR/><BR/>Some hold their creed like container,<BR/>words that couldn't be plainer;<BR/>holding each word so dear,<BR/>like a bottle of beer,<BR/>whose contents remain a no-brainer.<BR/><BR/>Some find the creed rather steep,<BR/>words over time tend to seep;<BR/>meaning must be found<BR/>in looking all around,<BR/>to the company that they now keep.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-73436792870764375022007-10-30T07:29:00.000-04:002007-10-30T07:29:00.000-04:00"...How soon, unaccountable, I became tired and si..."...How soon, unaccountable, I became tired and sick;<BR/>Till rising and gliding out, I wander'd off by myself,<BR/>In the mystical, moist night-air, and from time to time,<BR/>Look'd up in perfect silence at the stars."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-36301203178594486192007-10-30T04:45:00.000-04:002007-10-30T04:45:00.000-04:00Fantastic, Kim! Actually, this could be a very use...Fantastic, Kim! Actually, this could be a very useful way to settle otherwise-irresolvable theological debates: the best limerick wins.Ben Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03800127501735910966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-7036506243446700862007-10-30T04:14:00.000-04:002007-10-30T04:14:00.000-04:00Oh - I meant to post a concluding limerick in my l...Oh - I meant to post a concluding limerick in my last comment.<BR/><BR/>There once was a Word without flesh,<BR/>anorexic, alone, and depressed;<BR/>then he saw in a glass,<BR/>looking back bold as brass,<BR/>Jesus Christ - who would ever have guessed!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-63417062511827117032007-10-30T03:53:00.000-04:002007-10-30T03:53:00.000-04:00A few years ago I did a little work in Barth's doc...A few years ago I did a little work in Barth's doctrine of election. Although, like Jonathon, this debate is a little beyond me, I did find some interesting citations:<BR/><BR/>In answer to the question, ‘Does the incarnation make a change in the Trinity?’ Barth responded, “No, the incarnation makes no change in the Trinity. In the eternal decree of God, Christ is God and man. Do not ever think of the second Person of the Trinity as only Logos. That is the mistake of Emil Brunner. There is no Logos asarkos, but only ensarkos. Brunner thinks of a Logos asarkos, and I think this is the reason for his natural theology. The Logos becomes an abstract principle. Since there is only and always a Logos ensarkos, there is no change in the Trinity, as if a fourth member comes in after the incarnation” [Godsey, J. D. 1963, Karl Barth’s Table Talk, 49].<BR/><BR/>McCormack: “(A)s a consequence of the primal decision in which God assigned to himself the being he would have throughout eternity... God is already in pre-temporal eternity – by way of anticipation – that which he would become in time” [Grace and Being, 100]. <BR/><BR/>Thompson: “Jesus Christ as a man is not eternal... (T)he Son of Man in his union with the Son of God existed in the divine counsel as the pre-supposition and condition of creation and time and the being of all men, even before the dawn of his own time” [Thompson, The Humanity of God in the Theology of Karl Barth, 255]. <BR/><BR/>Finally, note that Barth did not equivocate in this matter: “The specific object of (election) is the Son of God in His determination as the Son of Man, the God-man Jesus Christ” [CD II/2: 110]. Apparently the Kirchliche Dogmatik (II/2: 118) reads “der praeexistierende Gottmensch Jesus Christus” [cited by Thompson, 254]. For some reason the translators did not translate the word ‘pre-existent’.<BR/><BR/>Gunton: is “increasingly unhappy with the replacement of ‘substance’ with ‘event’ language in the ontology of God. Neither is in itself personal, and that is surely the heart of the matter of divine being” (Theology Through the Theologians, 101-104). He suggests that Barth’s understanding of God’s being as constituted by his decision reflects a vestige of the existentialism he sought so valiantly to divest himself of in the decade following his commentary on Romans. Rather, he desires to understand the freedom of God in election as grounded not in decision per se, but in the freedom of the God who exists perichoretically as a triune being-in-communion. It may be that Barth also thought more in this direction than McCormack is willing to admit, for in several places Barth speaks of the being of God preceding the decision of election (e.g. CD II/2: 102, 175). Nonetheless, it is evident that Barth conceives of the decision for election as determinative for the being of God (not the resurrection per se?). For the Son this clearly means his determination for ontological union with humanity. For the Father it implies his self-giving and self-impartation to humanity in and through the person of the Son, in order to be God and Father, not only of the Son, but of all those represented in him. <BR/><BR/>Michael.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-4449016116143361292007-10-30T03:39:00.000-04:002007-10-30T03:39:00.000-04:00Wow! What a humdinger! Many thanks to everyone p...Wow! What a humdinger! Many thanks to everyone participating in this fantastically fecund discussion - without meaning to be invidious, especially to Andy and Halden, for acting (if you like) as seconds respectively to George and me (though George and I just threw down the gauntlet, it's you guys who have been doing all the duelling), and perhaps especially to Andy for his sharp questions goading Halden to his finer precision (though beware over-egging Cartesian clarity and distinction, remember Wittgenstein: "What is ragged should be left ragged" - particluarly when it comes to the fractured thought-forms of theology!).<BR/><BR/>There is nothing I want to - or could - add, but to clarify a few points of contention...<BR/><BR/>On the two (potential) heresies hiding in the rejection of the <I>logos asarkos</I>:<BR/><BR/>Modalism? But the particular man Jesus, who is neither the Father nor the Spirit, is co-eternal with the Logos-Son.<BR/><BR/>Marcionitism (or Gnosticism)? But as Romans 9-11 makes crystal, Jesus and the Father of Jesus are "cut from the same cloth" (as Jacob Taubes puts it), "namely the God of the Old Testament". Nor is there any wedge here between creation and redemption.<BR/><BR/>(Interestingly, Barth was tarred with both these heretical brushes, though admittedly not over the <I>logos asarkos</I>.)<BR/><BR/>Arianism and adoptionism I take to be hallucinations. If anything, the attack should shift to the <I>communicatio idiomatum</I>! And to even more daring suggestions - like pushing Barth's radical and quite unorthodox - un-Nicene? - idea that the Logos assumed sinful flesh to its conclusion.<BR/><BR/>And that takes me, finally, to the apotheosis of Nicea and belonging to a "church worthy of the name". Which vintage of Nicaea are we drinking, 325 or 381? I mean, what about the <I>filioque</I>? I know that George, with Barth, is a big fan. But presumably, in deference to the ecumenical future, it has to go? But if so, isn't it with fingers double-processionally crossed (we don't say it but we think it)? A church that insists that the <I>logos asarkos</I> is non-negotiable - like a church that insists that a male-only priesthood (ecclesiology), or the exclusion of lesbian and gay people (ethics) is non-negotiable - ancient teachings to be sure - nevertheless if that's the great coming church I won't be waiting for it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-54242871289789431602007-10-30T03:35:00.000-04:002007-10-30T03:35:00.000-04:00This debate is a little beyond my ability, and I'v...This debate is a little beyond my ability, and I've probably understood neither side correctly. But I wonder whether there is an assumption on one side that a body must be understood to have been created. Ben, Kim, Halden and others disagree with this and hold that God's body, revealed in Christ, is uncreated and yet elected by God. Elected, that is, in time (precisely at the moment of the resurrection) and yet that body is an aspect of the eternal being of God. Am I close?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14261952.post-87785759095335060002007-10-29T23:25:00.000-04:002007-10-29T23:25:00.000-04:00Halden,I appreciate your defense of Jenson and fee...Halden,<BR/>I appreciate your defense of Jenson and feel that you may be able to help others in understanding a very key point to his position . . . Jenson's view of time.<BR/>In particular, it may be helpful to note the way that Jenson conceives divine volition as the unifying element of both time and space. I may be confuse on this point, but it seems that this necessarily changes the language of 'pre-existence' to more fully account for God as event. Our understanding of 'pre-existence' would also need to be reordered around a volitional content.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13983598908546243181noreply@blogger.com