Peter J. Leithart

The Spirit who comes to dwell “in” us is the Spirit who is “in” the Son, who is also “in” the Father.  By grace, we are capacious enough to house God. But it goes in the opposite direction too: We live and move “in” the Spirit, who is . . . . Continue Reading »

Athanasius expounds the prayer of Jesus in John 17 as follows: “whence is this their perfecting, but that I, Your Word, having borne their body, and become man, have perfected the work, which You gave Me, O Father? And the work is perfected, because men, redeemed from sin, . . . . Continue Reading »

For Thomas, the advantage of explicating the Trinity by reference to knowing and willing was that these are two human processes that remain within the soul.  They remain within the realm of praxis. Jenson notes that the great achievement of Barth’s Trinitarian theology is to start . . . . Continue Reading »

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 »