more on Hart, The Beauty of the infinite

Part II, I.1: Trinity ii. Divine Fellowship. In the previous section, Hart addressed one of the dangers of misreading Rahner?s rule, namely, the danger of dissolving the ontological Trinity into the economic. In this section, he discusses the opposite danger of forsaking ?the economic for the . . . . Continue Reading »

Jenson has a say

Since I posted a lengthy summary of David Hart’s sharp critique of Robert Jenson, it’s only fair to note that Jenson disputes Hart’s account of his theology. In a review in Pro Ecclesia, Jenson claims that Hart “seriously misrepresents me,” though he adds that they . . . . Continue Reading »

Not One and Many

Is the Trinity a solution to the “problem of the one and many”? I think not. It is less a solution than a subversion of the problem itself. In Trinitarian theology, “one” no longer means what “one” means in the traditional problem of the one and many. If it does . . . . Continue Reading »

Dynamic theism

Rhetorically, many of the recent attacks on “classical theism” gain a foothold by characterizing classical theism as presenting a Hellenistic, static, and immobile God very much at odds with the dynamic, very Live God of Scripture. It is time to challenge this rhetorical move, and . . . . Continue Reading »

Subsistent relations

Thomas explained the Triune Persons as subsistent relations: “As to essence, the Father is in the Son because the Father is his essence and he shares it with the Son without any change taking place in himself.” Stephen Long explains Thomas’s claim that Father, Son and Spirit are . . . . Continue Reading »

Creator and Reconciler

Barth interestingly ( CD 1.1, p. 410) suggests a correspondence between soteriology and Trinitarian theology: “reconciliation or revelation is not creation or a continuation of creation but rather an inconceivably new work above and beyond creation, so we have also to say that the Son is not . . . . Continue Reading »

Perichoresis Overload?

Princeton’s Bruce McCormack protests against the “uncritical expansion of the concept of perichoresis today on the past of a good many theologians.” He suggests that the term “is rightly employed in trinitarian discourse for describing that which is dissimilar in the analogy . . . . Continue Reading »

Escher and the Trinity

Thinking about perichoresis or about Gregory Nazianzen’s famous “No sooner do I conceive of the one than I am illumined by the splendour of the three; no sooner do I distinguish them than I am carried back to the one” always makes me think of Escher. I find now that I am not the . . . . Continue Reading »

Salvation as Communion

Mark Heim has a fine piece on salvation as communion in the October 2004 issue of Theology Today . He begins by distinguishing various sorts of relations that human beings have with one another. It is possible for two persons to have an impersonal relationship (a man falls off a roof and hits . . . . Continue Reading »