Gregory of Nyssa identifies Arianism as a form of tragic metaphysics. They go astray because they “define God’s being by its having no beginning, rather than by its having no end . . . . If they must divide eternity, let them reverse their doctrine and find that mark of deity in . . . . Continue Reading »
Is God’s being in His becoming? We might not want to say that. But we can’t avoid the question, if we want to continue the patristic project of “evangelizing metaphysics.” For the Greeks, Jenson writes, “Being” is “what satisfies the . . . . Continue Reading »
Definitely not this either: “there is properly no mutual love between the Father and Son, for this would presuppose two acts” and “within the Trinity there is no reciprocal ‘Thou.’” . . . . Continue Reading »
Barth did not see Nazism as a reaction to or restriction on the untrammeled freedom of choice celebrated by modern liberals. On the contrary, it was itself the product of the same “false concept of freedom” that shaped post-Enlightenment Europe. If freedom means life “in . . . . Continue Reading »
Barth argues that the Trinity is not a challenge or a qualification of monotheism, but the only true form of monotheism. Antitrinitarianism always collapses either into the denial of God’s revelation or of God’s unity. Denial of revelation because “To the degree that it . . . . Continue Reading »
Here’s my best effort to summarize Robert Jenson’s take on God-and-time, written with faux-Jensonesque pithiness. Is God eternally and infinitely the eternal and infinite God that He is? Of course. He’s God. Is God dependent on creation for His fulfillment? Of . . . . Continue Reading »
Ask anyone who recognizes the name Anselm, and they will tell you that he was the formulator of a theory of the atonement in which God is an exacting accountant of honor. Damaged honor has to be restored; and, tallied up, the damaged honor proves infinite, and so demands infinite restoration. . . . . Continue Reading »
Jenseon writes: “The Crucifixion puts it up to the Father: Would he stand to this alleged Son? To this candidate to be his own self-identifying Word? Would he be a God who, for example, hosts publicans and sinners, who justifies the ungodly? The Resurrection was the . . . . Continue Reading »
Graced nature, yes. We are always already encountering God, of course. But not this: “Insofar as this subjective, nonobjective luminosity of the subject in its transcendence is always oriented toward the holy mystery, the knowledge of God is always present unthematically and without . . . . Continue Reading »
INTRODUCTION Modern atheists try to test God by their own moral and logical standards, and they think they are very, very clever. They are more evangelical than they know: Humanity’s trial of God is one of the central episodes of the Passion Narrative. THE TEXT “And those who had . . . . Continue Reading »
Subscribe
Latest Issue
Support First Things
