All Things Torrance: An Introductory Post

OK, gang. Here we go with "all things Torrance." Starting with this post, we are going to probe deeply into "the mediation of Jesus Christ" in the "scientific" theology of T. F. Torrance.

If you have tried to read Torrance, you have made an inevitable discovery: this brother is hard to read. For a while, I thought it must be me. Then I discovered that Torrance is notorious for his "difficult writing style" and "overly-compressed prose" that is "dense to the point of obscurity" (as Elmer Colyer puts it). No mistake, Torrance will compress an entire chapter into a paragraph! So don't feel bad if you have trouble with Tom Torrance. His writing style is not only difficult, but the content of his thought presupposes a working knowledge of the history of theology, the history of philosophy, and the history of science. If you have struggled with Torrance, join the club.

In coming posts, I hope to untangle some of Torrance's intricate, highly complex thought and perhaps even shed some light on an evangelical, doxological view of the mediation of Jesus Christ that is unparalleled since Athanasius.

So kick back, light up a big cigar, and let's get started.

(In today's post, I will introduce some fundamental concepts in Torrance's thought. These will be developed in detail in future posts.)

While T. F. Torrance was widely known throughout his career for his interest in the relation between theology and the natural sciences, a number of Torrance's works, arguably his greatest, were published relatively late in his long life, after the end of his formal academic career. These books are concerned primarily with the nature of God, particularly as revealed in the economy of salvation in the incarnate Son, Jesus Christ. Among his most compelling books (at least for the present writer) are: The Mediation of Christ (1983; rev. ed. 1992), which introduces readers to a number of important themes in Torrance's christocentric theology, including his understanding of Israel as "the womb of the incarnation" as well as his vision of the one simultaneous activity of revelation and reconciliation in the incarnation of Jesus Christ; The Trinitarian Faith (1988), which, as it subtitle indicates, is a thoroughly evangelical exposition of the ancient catholic faith as expressed in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and is also an excellent introduction to the Patristic roots of Torrance's theology, especially as found in Athanasius; Karl Barth: Biblical and Evangelical Theologian (1990), which describes Torrance's relation to his great teacher and introduces Torrance's own theological vision, and his last book, and one that has been regarded as his masterpiece, The Christian Doctrine of God (1996a). Published when Torrance was in his early eighties, this book is a thorough articulation of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity grounded in God's self-revelation in Jesus Christ, implicit in the New Testament and articulated in the doxology and theology of the early church. This important work should serve as a classic treatise on the Holy Trinity well into the third millennium (and perhaps beyond). These late works, combining the intellectual rigor of the accomplished theologian with the compassionate heart of the son of Scottish missionary parents, reveal the doxological, evangelical, and thoroughly christocentric content of Torrance's theology.

Despite his life-long interest in the interface between theology and the natural sciences, Torrance remained a deeply devotional man of faith. In his introduction to Theological Science (1969:v), he wrote:

If I may be allowed to speak personally for a moment, I find the presence and being of God bearing upon my experience and thought so powerfully that I cannot but be convinced of His overwhelming reality and rationality. To doubt the existence of God would be an act of sheer irrationality, for it would mean that my reason had become unhinged from its bond with real being. Yet in knowing God I am deeply aware that my relation to him has been damaged, that disorder has resulted in my mind, and that it is I who obstruct knowledge of God by getting in between Him and myself as it were. But I am also aware that His presence presses unrelentingly upon me through the disorder of my mind, for He will not let Himself be thwarted by it, challenging and repairing it, and requiring of me on my part to yield my thoughts to His healing and controlling revelation.

Despite his intellectual rigor, Torrance insisted that accurate knowledge of God cannot be developed in a detached, merely academic way. To know God intimately requires that we enter into a personal and saving relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Hence, revelation and reconciliation are inseparable in Torrance's theology, for we cannot know God in a detached, impersonal manner without regard for his purpose for our lives (Torrance, 1988:3; 1996b:132). For Torrance, theology is one aspect of the church's response to grace in obedience and worship; thus, theology can never be more than a refinement and extension of the knowledge of God as it arises in the liturgy and doxology of the community of faith and in the believer's living personal relationship with Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. Throughout his work, Torrance intertwines theology and worship, so that the theology of T. F. Torrance is not only rigorously scientific and intellectually challenging but devotional and evangelical as well (Colyer, 2001a:25, 28).

Torrance's theology, including his doctrine of the mediation of Jesus Christ, is strongly influenced by the methodology of the natural sciences. For Torrance, the basic methodological principle of scientific theology, like that of the natural sciences, is that knowledge in any field of inquiry must be developed according to the nature (kata physin) of the reality under study. Thus, a scientific theological method is one in which every aspect of its inquiry is governed by, and proceeds in accordance with, the nature of the 'object' in question: "God in Jesus Christ as the Truth" (Torrance, 1969:112, 113; cf. 1988:51).

In relation to its object of inquiry, a rigorous scientific approach to theology must be informed by actual knowledge of God as revealed to us in the economy (oikonomia) of salvation, that is, in God's historical dialogue with Israel and particularly through the incarnation of Jesus Christ and the sending of the Holy Spirit. God's self-revelation in Christ and the Spirit calls into question "all alien presuppositions and antecedently reached conceptual frameworks" regarding knowledge of God. For Torrance, this necessitated the development of a rigorous, scientific epistemology that was governed from beginning to end by the 'nature' of its object of inquiry: "God in his self-communication to us within the structures of our human and worldly existence" (Torrance, 1990:122).

Because God has given himself to be known in Jesus, "the central and pivotal point of all genuine theological knowledge" is found in christology. Scientific theology, therefore, will operate on a christological basis, for christology is critical to the understanding of the nature of God. Rather than go "behind the back" of Jesus to develop knowledge of God, christology teaches us to know God in strict accordance with the steps he has taken to make himself known to us and, therefore, to test our knowledge of God in accordance with the steps in which knowledge of him has actually arisen in space and time (Torrance, 1990:71). Hence, for Torrance, the incarnation of Jesus Christ is the "actual source" and "controlling center" for the Christian doctrine of God (Torrance, 1996a:18). To know God through the incarnate Son, Jesus Christ, who is of "one substance with the Father" (homoousios to Patri) is to know God in strict accordance with God's nature (kata physin) and, hence, in a theologically scientific way (cf. Torrance, 1969:110-113; 1988:3, 51, 52).

In addition to the basic methodological principle that knowledge of God must be developed in his strict accordance with the divine nature as revealed in Jesus Christ, an important aspect of Torrance's scientific approach to theology is his attempt to reduce a vast amount of theological data to a few "elemental forms," that is, basic concepts that have the effect of illuminating and simplifying an otherwise incomprehensible array of data (Torrance, 1969:116-119). A grasp of these constitutive concepts is essential to an understanding of Torrance's overall vision of the mediation of Jesus Christ.

Two central concepts on which Torrance builds his doctrine of the mediation of Christ are the Nicene homoousion, that is, the creedal assertion that Jesus Christ is "of one being with the Father" (homoousios to Patri), and the doctrine of the 'hypostatic union' of the divine and human natures of Jesus Christ. After studying Barth, Torrance realized that concepts such as the Nicene homoousion and the hypostatic union provide a framework for embodying the "essential connections" of the material content of our knowledge of God, so that a "coherent and consistent account of Christian theology as an organic whole" might be developed in a rigorously scientific way in terms of its own "objective truth and inner logic" (Torrance, 1990: 123). Torrance believes that basic theological concepts such as the homoousion and the hypostatic union enable us to apprehend and articulate the inner matrix of relations revealed to us in the economy of God's self-revelation (oikonomia) in the Old and New Testaments. Together, these concepts provide a "disclosure model," or conceptual "lens," through which we allow realities to reveal themselves to us in a progressive way (always subject to revision as realities unfold) that simplifies and clarifies our knowledge of God and enables us to integrate the complexity of Scripture in a way that illumines God's self-revelation in the economy of salvation while strengthening our faith and experience (Torrance, 1980:125, 126; Colyer, 2001b:225).

For Torrance, the Nicene homoousion is the epistemological and ontological "linchpin" of revelation and reconciliation, and, therefore, of the entire enterprise of a Christian scientific theology. The homoousion is of the utmost evangelical significance. It is essential to our salvation that Jesus is of one nature with God, for only God can save. In light of the orthodox creedal assertion that Jesus Christ is "of one being with the Father," the homoousion "crystallizes" the Christian conviction that while the incarnation falls within historical time and space, it also falls within the eternal life and being of God (Torrance, 1980:160, 161; 1988:110ff; 1996a:30; 1996b:128). As noted above, a rigorous scientific theology must be developed in light of the nature of God as it comes into view in God's actual self-revelation. This is precisely what takes place when we develop our knowledge of God in accordance with the divine self-revelation in the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ, who is homoousios to Patri (Torrance, 1988:52).

In addition to the Nicene homoousion, the 'hypostatic union' of the divine and human natures of Jesus Christ is a constitutive elemental form in Torrance's doctrine of the mediation of Christ. While it is essential to our salvation that Jesus Christ is of one nature with God, it is also essential that he is of the same being and nature as humanity. If Jesus is not human as we are, then the gospel is emptied of soteriological content, for his actions have no connection to us and God has not bridged the gulf between himself and humanity created by sin (Torrance, 1988:4, 8, 146, 147; 1992:56-59). Yet the Patristic doctrine of the hypostatic union asserts that God has joined himself to human flesh in the incarnate person of Jesus Christ. In the "God-humanward" movement of the incarnation, God reveals himself within the limits of our creaturely existence (i.e., the mediation of revelation). The eternal Logos takes the form of a servant (Jn 1:1,14; Phil 2:5ff) and assumes our actual diseased, sinful humanity, not only atoning for it, but healing it and bending it back to the Father (Torrance, 1988:153, 157, 161ff). Because the incarnate Son is both fully divine and fully human, he encompasses both sides of the mediating relationship between God and man in his one incarnate person. Thus, the hypostatic union itself is the atoning reconciliation between God and humanity (i.e., the mediation of reconciliation) (Torrance, 1992:56-59).

Closely related to the above is another elemental form that constitutes Torrance's vision of the mediation of Christ: the important concept of "incarnational redemption." For Torrance, the incarnation and the atonement are intimately connected: the incarnation is inherently redemptive and redemption is inherently incarnational. Atoning salvation is not an "external" transaction, as in a forensic concept of atonement; rather, atoning reconciliation occurs "within" the incarnate constitution of the person of Jesus Christ. In the incarnate life of the Mediator there occurs an "agonising union" between God the Judge and man under judgment in a continuous movement of atoning reconciliation running throughout the life of Jesus, from his virgin birth through his resurrection and ascension. Hence, Jesus does not merely "mediate" a reconciliation that is other than himself, as though he were merely an instrument of reconciliation. Rather, Jesus embodies what he mediates, for what he 'is' and what he mediates are the same. He is the reality and content of divine reconciliation. He does not merely propitiate, redeem, and justify; he is our propitiation, redemption, and justification. In the identity of the Mediator and mediation the heart of the gospel is to be found (Torrance, 1986:476-478; 1988:155, 159; 1992:62-67; Colyer, 2001a:85).

A final and particularly characteristic feature of Torrance's understanding of the mediation of Christ is his important concept of the "vicarious humanity" of Jesus Christ. Here Torrance stresses the "human-Godward" movement of Christ, wherein, throughout his entire incarnate life ‒ from birth through death, resurrection, and ascension ‒ Jesus "vicariously" makes the perfect filial response of faith and obedience to the Father on behalf of, and in the place of, all humanity, in such as way as to undergird, rather than undermine, the integrity of our own human response to God in faith, repentance, and obedience (Torrance, 1988:149-154; 1992:73ff; 1996b:132; Colyer, 2001a:28, 29).

In summary, the Nicene homoousion, the hypostatic union of the divine and human natures of Christ, the doctrine of incarnational redemption, and the "vicarious humanity" of Jesus Christ are among the elemental forms of Torrance's vision of the mediation of Christ. Torrance weaves these basic constitutive concepts together into an intricate coherent whole, so that they are not easily conceptually separated from one another. These concepts are closely related, interpenetrating one another because they are all functions of the being and life of Jesus Christ, who in his one incarnate person is the mediation of God to man and man to God.

The coherence of these basic elemental forms is related to another essential aspect of Torrance's thought: his theological "holism." Inspired by his reading of natural scientists such as James Clerk Maxwell and Albert Einstein, Torrance's theological holism is rooted in his basic convictions concerning the "dynamic interrelationality" of reality and the kind of inquiry needed to grasp this interrelatedness. These interrelations, or "onto-relations," as Torrance calls them, are relations so basic they are inseparable from, and characteristic of, the realities they constitute. If we are to understand the nature of various realities, they must be investigated within the nexus of the interrelations of which they are a part. Realities must not be studied in isolation, for they are what they are by virtue of the relations wherein they are embedded (Torrance, 1984:215ff; 1992:2, 3, 47-50; Colyer, 2001a:55, 56).

The holism of Torrance's thought is related to the elemental forms described above, for each basic concept in Torrance's thought is inherently relational. The Nicene homoousion describes the Son's eternal, ontological relationship with the Father. The 'hypostatic union' articulates the nature of the relationship between the divine and human natures "within" the one incarnate person of Jesus Christ. The doctrine of "incarnational redemption" connects the incarnation and atonement in a holistic rather than dichotomous manner. The doctrine of the 'vicarious humanity' of Christ describes the incarnate Son's relationship with the Father as man. Thus, an understanding of the constitutive concepts of Torrance's theological vision arises as they are investigated within the nexus of interrelations that constitute them.

Because the fundamental aspects of reality are 'relational' rather than atomistic, the goal of theology, for Torrance, is to investigate and to coherently articulate the essential interrelations embodied in our knowledge of God through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. Therefore, to understand Jesus Christ and the mediation of revelation and reconciliation, we must view Jesus within the nexus of interrelations that disclose his identity and mission: that is, we must adopt a two-fold approach in which we examine Christ 1) within the matrix of his interrelations with the history and people of Israel in covenant with God and 2) in light of Christ's internal relations with both God and humanity. As theology investigates and articulates these inner relations as disclosed in God's self-communication to us in word and deed as reflected in the gospel, it enables us to grasp the "organic structure" of our knowledge of God and of God's relation to us in creation and redemption. Torrance finds this kind of approach in the early church, wherein the followers of Jesus sought to understand his significance within the dynamic field of God's covenant interaction with Israel and also in light of Christ's relationship to the one he called "Father." Within this complex of interrelations, the early church found itself coming to grips with the essential message of the gospel, a message of salvation for all mankind, embodied in Jesus himself, in continuity with the message of God that had been worked out in covenant partnership with historic Israel. "In that mediation of God's saving revelation, the startling events in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus fell into place within a divinely ordered pattern of grace and truth, and the bewildering enigma of Jesus himself became disclosed: he was incarnate Son of God and Saviour of the world" (Torrance, 1992:1-5, 47-50; cf. Colyer, 2001a:55-57, 345).

Wow!! Yea, Tom!! That wasn't too bad! I hope that whets your appetite for more. Join me again around November 1, for the next post on "All Things Torrance."

References (All references listed may not be used in every post).

Colyer, E.M. 2001a. How to Read T.F. Torrance: Understanding His Trinitarian & Scientific Theology. Downers Grove, IL: IVP. 393pp.

Colyer, E.M (ed). 2001b. The Promise of Trinitarian Theology: Theologians in Dialogue with T. F. Torrance. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. 354pp.

Torrance, T.F. 1969. Theological Science. Oxford: OUP. 368pp.

Torrance, T.F. 1976. Theology in Reconciliation: Essays toward Evangelical and Catholic Unity in East and West. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 302pp.

Torrance, T.F. 1980. The Ground and Grammar of Theology: Consonance Between Theology and Science. (Preface to new edition by T.F. Torrance, 2001). Edinburgh: T & T Clark. 256pp.

Torrance, T.F. 1981. Divine and Contingent Order. (Preface to new edition, 1998). Edinburgh: T & T Clark. 162pp.

Torrance, T.F. 1982. Reality and Evangelical Theology: The Realism of Christian Revelation. (Forward by K.A. Richardson, 1999). Downers Grove, IL: IVP. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster. 174pp.

Torrance, T. F. 1984. Transformation & Convergence in the Frame of Knowledge: Explorations in the Interrelations of Scientific and Theological Enterprise. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 353pp.

Torrance, T.F. 1988. The Trinitarian Faith: The Evangelical Theology of the Ancient Catholic Church. London: T & T Clark. 345pp.

Torrance, T.F. 1989. The Christian Frame of Mind: Reason, Order, and Openness in Theology and Natural Science. Colorado Springs, CO: Helmers & Howard Publishers. 164pp.

Torrance, T.F. 1990. Karl Barth: Biblical and Evangelical Theologian. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. 256pp.

Torrance, T.F. 1992. (orig. ed. 1983). The Mediation of Christ. Colorado Springs, CO: Helmers & Howard. 126pp.

Torrance, T.F. 1994. Preaching Christ Today: The Gospel and Scientific Thinking. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 71pp.

Torrance, T.F. 1996a. The Christian Doctrine of God, One Being Three Persons. London: T & T Clark. 260pp.

Torrance, T.F. 1996b. (orig. ed. 1965). Theology in Reconstruction. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers. 288pp.

God for Us! One Year Anniversary

Greetings Everyone!

This month marks the one year anniversary of God for Us! ‒ a blog on Trinitarian theology.

I am grateful to all you regular readers for your interest, and I especially appreciate the kind comments you have offered. Many have found this blog helpful for their growing understanding of the goodness and unfailing love of God as revealed in Jesus Christ. I have been very encouraged to receive your emails informing me about the ways this blog has been useful to you.

In the last year, we have spent much time and effort discussing the problems in the Western doctrine of God, a rather "un-Christian" synthesis of biblical and pagan thought. We have seen how the doctrine of the Trinity was relegated to the status of a relatively minor appendix to a practical unitarian view of God developed apart from Jesus. The 20^th century, however, witnessed a renaissance in Trinitarian thought, pioneered by the great Karl Barth. This renaissance continues today, and this blog is intended to play a role in the reawakening to the good news of the Father's love as revealed in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

In that light, beginning with the next post, we will charge off in a new direction in this blog. In the months to come, I will be posting on "all things Torrance." I will be sharing with you the things I discover and learn as I probe deeply into the theology of T. F. Torrance, a modern Father of the Christian Church. I hope you will continue on this journey with me, so that we may grow together into a fuller understanding of God's unfailing love for all humanity as revealed in the incarnate Son and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

So stay tuned! The news is good; really good!!

The Self-Revealing God

The following material was originally written for academic purposes. For this blog post, I am taking the liberty to interject comments [in brackets] to bring out certain aspects of the material.

As we saw in our last post (8/22/09), among contemporary trinitarian theologians there is a return to the trinitarianism of the Patristic era. Following Karl Barth, Karl Rahner, and many others, modern theologians are calling the Western Church to return to a doctrine of God that is firmly grounded in God's triune self-revelation in redemptive history (oikonomia) rather than in substantialist metaphysics [see last post] rooted in pagan philosophy. Among contemporary Trinitarians, a renewed interest has arisen in formulating a doctrine of God that is firmly grounded in God's unique self-revelation in the incarnate Son, Jesus Christ.

Gunton (2003:25-27) rightly and cogently argues that whenever our doctrine of God is separated from Jesus, we move either into abstraction or idolatry. Hence, God's self-revelation in the incarnate Son is central to the doctrine of the Trinity. One of the values of the doctrine of the Trinity is that it ties our speech about God to Jesus and helps us not to create gods of our own making [as in certain forms of Protestant evangelicalism]. To be sure, any doctrine of the Trinity which loses its hold on the historical Jesus no longer represents the ancient faith of the Church [Irenaeus, Athanasius, and the Cappadocians are in full agreement!] In the end, argues Gunton (2003:18), the doctrine of the Trinity is only worth knowing if it helps us to know who the God is who reveals himself in the redemptive activity of the Son and Spirit. "Without the doctrine of the Trinity we might have a God of power, or a God in some way identical with the world, but not the God of the Bible, who is a God of love, and whose love takes shape in the story of creation and redemption."

• [Comment: God's essential nature is love; God IS love! His power and sovereignty are in the service of love. If you want a deterministic god of power and unrelenting sovereignty, buy a camel and become a Muslim.]

As Migliore (2004:72) notes, the doctrine of the Trinity "redescribes" God in the light of the incarnation of Jesus Christ and the transforming work of the Spirit. It describes a God whose love for the world is not accidental or capricious. The doctrine of the Trinity assures us that there is no sinister, demonic deity different from the God we know in the stories of Jesus who befriended the poor and forgave sinners. If talk of the Triune God is to be more than "wild speculation," argues Migliore (2004:69, 70), it must be grounded in, and limited by, the scriptural witness to the love of God that is mediated to the world in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. Thus, proper Trinitarian theology does not first speculate on a Trinity in eternity (theologia), only afterward to search for evidence of the Trinity in revelation (oikonomia); rather, it begins with the history of revelation and salvation attested by Scripture and experienced by Christians from the beginning of the Church. Responsible Trinitarian thinking must begin with the 'economic' Trinity, that is, the threefold agency of Father, Son and Spirit revealed in salvation history (oikonomia). "To this beginning point in God's relationship to us through Christ in the Spirit Trinitarian theology must return again and again."

• [Comment: Real and accurate knowledge of God must be grounded in, and developed from, God's triune self-revelation in the Father, Son and Spirit. Real and accurate speech about God does not begin with speculative inferences on the nature of God based on the observation of the cosmos, as in Aquinas and Aristotle (see "Tommy A. and the Western Split," 3/09). Nor do we follow Augustine and look for "vestiges" of the Trinity in the human mind (see "The Wedding Cake Cosmos: Augustine and Neoplatonism, 2/09). As Gunton noted above, that leads to abstraction or idolatry. If we really want to know what God is like, then we need to take a long look at Jesus!]

• [By the way, I recently realized something about Augustine that may seem obvious to one or two of you. The entire Platonic-Neoplatonic (i.e, pagan tradition) is trapped in a damaging dualism that asserts that spirit is good and matter is bad. According to that tradition, human beings are essentially "sparks of divinity" imprisoned in a physical body. Therefore, as a committed Neo-Platonist, it makes sense that Augustine would look for "vestiges" of the Trinity in the human mind, for that is where one finds the spark of divinity. But note that in turning to that Platonic spark within, he turns away from God's self-revelation in the incarnate (i.e., en-fleshed, bodily) Jesus. Western Christians have suffered greatly as a direct result of Augustine's epistemological and methodological error, for he initiated a movement of theological thought that finally turned the Church away from Jesus (and toward the veneration of the saints) and put in the place of the Triune God, whose nature is revealed as love, the awful and dreaded omniGod of Western Christianity (see "How to Make a Western Omelet God," 4/09).]

LaCugna (1991:69, 70) argues that the eternal transcendent being of God (theologia) must not be considered in an abstract way divorced from God's self-revelation in salvation history (oikonomia) [This is the problem of natural theology. We'll examine that in detail in an upcoming post.] The issues important to Medieval Scholasticism, for example, numbers of processions and relations or whether person precedes relation, can no longer be the primary concern of Trinitarian thought. Instead, "Christian theology must begin from the premise that because the mystery of God is revealed in the mystery of salvation, statements about the nature of God must be rooted in the reality of salvation history." In other words, theologia must once again be considered primarily in terms of oikonomia (LaCugna, 1991:3, 4). [Wow! I love LaCugna! Read those last two sentences again!] For LaCugna (1991:97), it is "impossible" to think of the divine essence or substance of God apart from the concrete particularities of the Triune Persons, for it is only through God's self-revelation as incarnate Son and Sprit that "the unknowable God (Father) who dwells in light inaccessible is revealed to us." Hence, in formulating the doctrine of God, the "real question" is whether or not one begins with God's self-revelation in the economy of salvation.

LaCugna's assertion, of the impossibility of speculation on the being (ousia) of God apart from God's self-revelation in salvation history, is persuasively articulated by T. F. Torrance (1996:116). He notes that, while the term ousia [substance, being, nature] was familiar in the various schools of Greek philosophy, Christian theologians [particularly Athanasius and the Cappadocians, but not Augustine] used the term differently, in a way governed by God's self-revelation in redemptive history as attested in Scripture, to denote not static, dumb being but rather living, speaking, personal being. Thus, the divine ousia should not be understood in the static sense of Aristotelian metaphysics variously translated by Western Latin theologians as essentia and substantia; rather, ousia should be understood in terms of the oneness and identity of being of the Father, Son and Spirit. To be sure, if God really is in his eternal, transcendent being (theologia) what he is revealed to be in the person and activity of his incarnate Son (oikonomia), as the Nicene homoousion would indicate, then the being (ousia) of God must be understood in a very "un-Greek way" (Torrance, 1995:131).

• [Comment: That last sentence is what we want to get. We don't want to articulate our understanding of the being of God in terms of pagan Greek philosophy (immutability, impassibility), although that is exactly what has been enshrined in the Westminster Confession of Faith. We want to develop our understanding of the nature of God in personal (not impersonal), dynamic (not static) terms as disclosed in God's triune self-revelation as three distinct persons perichoretically united in one being.]

For Torrance (1995:132; 1996:30), the Nicene homoousion is the "hinge" upon which the whole [Nicene] Creed turns as well as the "ontological and epistemological link" to knowledge of God in his eternal, transcendent nature. Thus, God's self-revelation in the incarnate Son demands a "revolution" in our thinking about God, for "the one Being of God is intrinsically personal, and indeed as intensely personal as God is in the manifestation of himself to us in the Gospel as Father, Son and Holy Spirit" (Torrance, 1996:3, 129). God is, therefore, not the remote deity of Greek philosophy, imprisoned and isolated in his own aloofness, unmoved by human plight; rather, God is the one who, in sovereign freedom, passionately engages and interacts with his creation, "for in his own eternal Being he is the ever living, loving and acting God who will not be without us but who in his grace freely determines himself for us as our God and Saviour" (Torrance, 1996:4). [Way to go, Tom!!]

• [Comment: Jesus is the ontological link to knowledge of God because he is one in 'being' with the Father; he is the epistemological link to knowledge of God because only Jesus 'knows' the Father and he is the express Word (Logos) of God to us; therefore, to establish accurate knowledge of God, we start with Jesus.]

Abstract philosophical speculation on the being (ousia) of God in terms of the presuppositions of the substantialist metaphysics of Greek philosophy is no longer tenable in the light of God's self-revelation in Christ (cf. Torrance, 1996:116). In Jesus, the Word of God incarnate, "God defines himself for us," so that we may rightly apprehend and know God as he really is (Colyer, 2001:76). In light of the divine self-disclosure in Jesus Christ, God can no longer be viewed as remote, aloof, immutable and impassible; rather God must be viewed as dynamic, active and intensely personal. In short, the Fatherhood of God revealed to us through the incarnate Son determines precisely how we are to understand God's being (Torrance, 1996:118).

The incarnation of Jesus Christ is the "actual source" and "controlling centre" of the Christian doctrine of God, for Jesus Christ is one in both being and agency with the Father he came to reveal. As Torrance (1996:18) rightly argues:

[T]o know God in Jesus Christ, and to know him as the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, is really to know God as he is in himself in his eternal Being as God and in the transcendent Love that God is. He is in himself not other than what he is toward us in his loving, revealing and saving presence in Christ.

• [Comment: Linger on that quote, folks; Tom is the man!]

A 'Christian' doctrine of God, therefore, must be developed from the "unique, definitive, and final self-revelation of God" in Jesus Christ, for, in the incarnate Son, God defines and identifies himself for us as he really is. Jesus Christ is the complete revelation of God to man, for in Jesus, who is "of one substance with the Father" (homoousios to Patri), God's historical self-manifestation to us in the Gospel as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is wholly commensurate with who God is "inherently and eternally in himself" (Torrance, 1996:1).

Because Jesus Christ is "of one substance with the Father" (homoousios to Patri), as the Nicene Creed asserts and all orthodox Christians believe, all speculation about the nature of God rooted in Greek metaphysics and natural theology must be abandoned in favour of a return to the Patristic (pre-Augustinian) thinking about the essence or substance of God as revealed particularly in the incarnate Son and his ongoing self-communication to the Church through the Holy Spirit. Through the incarnation of Jesus Christ and the sending of the Holy Spirit, the inner being of God is revealed in salvation history: "the invisible is made visible." In LaCugna's (1991:70) terse but trenchant phrase, "Theologia is recapitulated in oikonomia."

References:

Colyer, E.M. 2001. How to Read T.F. Torrance: Understanding His Trinitarian & Scientific Theology. Downers Grove, IL: IVP. 393pp.

LaCugna, C.M. 1991. God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco. 434pp.

Gunton, C.E. 2003. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Essays toward a Fully Trinitarian Theology. London: T & T Clark. 240pp.

Migliore, D.L. 2004. Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing. 439pp.

Torrance, T.F. 1995. The Trinitarian Faith: The Evangelical Theology of the Ancient Catholic Church. London: T & T Clark. 345pp.

Torrance, T.F. 1996. The Christian Doctrine of God, One Being Three Persons. London: T & T Clark. 260pp.

Look for next post on or shortly after October 1, 2009. See you then!

The Return to Patristic Trinitarianism

In our last post ("The Problematic God of Western Theology", June, 2009) we examined a number of problems associated with the Western doctrine of God, a version of God that has influenced us all. These problems arose from the "substantialist" metaphysics of Augustine, Aquinas, and medieval Scholasticism. By "substantialist metaphysics," I mean an approach to knowledge of God based on rational reflection on the "unitary substance" of God, considered apart from God's threefold self-revelation in salvation history as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. [That last phrase is what is important!] Substantialist metaphysics, markedly influenced by pagan Greek thought, understands the divine nature to be a simple, undivided "essence." With its emphasis on the 'unitary' being of God, substantialist metaphysics is hard-pressed to understand the 'diversity' of the Godhead as constituted by the three divine persons in relationship. As we have noted in previous posts, the Western emphasis on the unitary substance of God, considered apart from God's triune self-revelation, has contributed to the relegation of the doctrine of the Trinity to little more than a relatively minor "appendix" to the doctrine of the One God of substantialist metaphysics.

In order to circumvent the many problems associated with the Augustinian-Thomist doctrine of God, many contemporary Trinitarian theologians have looked primarily to the Fathers of the early Eastern Church in formulating a doctrine of God (theologia) that is firmly grounded in God's threefold self-revelation in salvation history (oikonomia) as Father, incarnate Son and Holy Spirit (cf. Schwöbel, 1995:5).

Irenaeus

Irenaeus serves as a prime example of the pre-Augustinian Fathers' approach to the doctrine of God. He and other theologians of the early Church were faced with the fundamental question of how God's self-revelation in salvation history is related to God's eternal, transcendent being [i.e,. "How do we relate Jesus and the Holy Spirit to the eternal God?"]. They realized that unless there is a "substantial bridge between the visible and the invisible," that is between oikonomia [God's triune self-revelation in salvation history] and theologia [the eternal, transcendent nature of God], there can be no sure foundation for human knowledge about God as God really is in the eternal, intradivine nature. Irenaeus realized that, unless God himself bridged the epistemological gap between his own incomprehensible being and limited human understanding, the Gospel would be torn asunder from any grounding in reality, emptied of all truth and validity, and its account of God's salvific acts for us would be little more than a fanciful projection into the heavens of the contents of our own psyches (cf. Torrance, 1996:77). As Irenaeus pointed out, only God can know himself; therefore, it is only through God that God may be known (Torrance, 1995:54). [That's a really important point; it renders all speculation about the "substance" of God irrelevant for accurate knowledge of God and drives us back to God's triune self-revelation in time and space as the source for true and accurate knowledge of God.] For Irenaeus, no knowledge of God is possible apart from God's revelation of himself. Following Irenaeus, Torrance (1996:77) comments, "A real revelation of God to us must be one which God brings about through himself."

Athanasius

Like Irenaeus, Athanasius approached the internal relations of the Godhead from a Christological, not philosophical, perspective. For Athanasius, the doctrine of the Trinity starts from and is controlled by the self-revelation of God in the incarnate Jesus
who is "of one being with the Father" (homoousios to Patri). Athanasius was little concerned with abstract philosophical speculation about the unknowable substance (ousia) of God. Rather, his thinking about the internal relations of the Triune God began with the self-revelation of God in the incarnate Jesus Christ. For guidance into the inner being of God, Athanasius relied on the truth of Jesus' own words: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30), and "I am in the Father and the Father in me" (John 14:10, 11) (Torrance, 1995:303-305).

For Athanasius, to know the Father through the Son, who is of one substance with the Father, is to know him in "the godly and the theologically precise way," because this is in strict accordance with what the Father actually is in terms of his own being and nature as Father and Son, and as Holy Spirit (Torrance, 1990:213). Thus, if we wish to gain accurate knowledge of God, we should "take our cue" from Athanasius. Insisting that our approach to God must be through the Son, Athanasius argues that it is "more godly and true to signify God from the Son and call him Father, than to name God from his works alone and call him Unoriginate." In other words, to approach God the Father through God the Son is more devout and accurate than to approach God through his works, then tracing them back to him as their Source (Torrance, 1995:49). [Note how different Athanasius' approach is from that of Thomas Aquinas, who, in fact, sought to describe the divine nature by reference to the "works" of creation: God is not this; he is more than that, and he is the first cause of it all. See previous posts: "Tommy A. and the Western Split," 3/09 and "How to Make a Western Omelet God," 4/09].

The difference in epistemology and methodology between Athanasius and the Augustinian-Thomist tradition is striking. Unlike Augustine, who turned away from God's self-revelation in salvation history (oikonomia) to find "vestiges" of the Trinity in the human mind or soul, Athanasius approached the eternal, intradivine being of God through God's self-revelation in the incarnate Son. Unlike Aquinas, who followed Aristotle and approached God through his works by utilizing the principle of natural theology that a cause is known from its effects, Athanasius is content to allow Jesus to reveal the Father, for no one knows the Father but the Son (Mt 11:27). As Athanasius clearly understood, even though the creation proclaims the glory of God, the creation is other than, distinct from, and, therefore, externally related to God. Only Jesus Christ, who is "of one being with the Father," is internally related to God and can, thus, truly reveal the Father as he is (Torrance, 1995:49).

Against Augustine, Aquinas and the Scholastics (both Roman and Protestant), who begin their thinking about God with a syncretic mixture of speculative philosophy [rooted in pagan metaphysics] and biblical revelation, Athanasius begins his thinking about God with reflection on God's incarnate Son, Jesus Christ, the one who is the exact representation of God (Heb 1:3). Athanasius' epistemological and methodological principles rightly assert that access to God the Father is better gained through God the Son than through philosophical speculation or even by reflection on the works of creation.

The Cappadocians

Many contemporary Trinitarian theologians have looked to the Cappadocian Fathers to overcome the "vicissitudes" of Western Trinitarianism (Schwöbel, 1995:5). The Cappadocians rightly asserted that the essence (ousia) of God cannot be grasped through unaided human reason. Despite their own education in rhetoric and philosophy, they abhorred any suggestion that human reason (i.e., philosophy) could comprehend the incomprehensible Godhead (LaCugna, 1991:56). [The Cappadocian rejection of "philosophy" as a means of arriving at knowledge of God is in direct opposition to the approach of Aquinas and medieval Scholasticism.]

The Cappadocians maintained a close connection between theologia and oikonomia by insisting that to speak about the "mystery" of God is possible only because God has revealed himself in the economy of salvation (oikonomia). Because they began their thinking about God with the incarnate Son, they found it necessary to clearly articulate the exact nature of the Father-Son relationship (LaCugna, 1991:60ff). In so doing, they challenged the established view of Greek philosophy, which gave priority to the one over the many, by giving ontological primacy to person over nature (i.e., substance, essence). The Cappadocians developed their Trinitarian ontology based on personhood, that is, "on a unity or openness emerging from relationships, and not one of substance" (Schwöbel, 1995:52, 53). By claiming that the terms "Father" and "Son" refer to relations in the Godhead, the Cappadocians held that person, not substance (ousia), is the highest metaphysical category; thus, they claimed that God is supremely relational. In their insistence on internal relations in the Godhead, the Cappadocians swam against the powerful stream of prevailing Hellenistic thought, wherein the deity was conceived as simple, alone and arelational (Sanders, 2007:147, 148; cf. LaCugna, 1991:63-66).

Unlike the Augustinian-Thomist tradition, the Cappadocians did not regard substance (ousia) as an abstract principle to be considered apart from the concrete particularities of the Triune Persons. Rather, they saw that the divine Persons in relationship among themselves constitute the being (ousia) of God; that is, the Triune Persons exhaust the Godhead without remainder (LaCugna, 1991:69). In short, there is no fourth "something" distinct from, or to be considered apart from, the Triune Persons of the Godhead (cf. Gunton, 2007:86). God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Because God eternally exists as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, God is not an "in-itself," alone and isolated from relationships; rather God is "the epitome of love in relation" (Sanders, 2007:148).

In summary, Irenaeus, Athanasius and the Cappadocians assert the essential principle that our knowledge of God must begin with God's self-revelation in the incarnate Son, Jesus Christ, the One who is homoousios to Patri ("of one being with the Father"). The pre-Augustinian Patristic insistence that real and accurate knowledge of God arises through his self-revelation in the incarnate Son can be summed up succinctly in a phrase said to the present author by theologian, Dr. Robert Lucas: "Jesus is our hermeneutic."

Why It Matters

Does it really matter whether we think of God in terms of substantialist metaphysics, with its emphasis on the unitary being of God, or in the personal, relational terms of God's triune self-revelation in history as Father, Son, and Spirit? Yes, it does matter; it matters a great deal.

If we begin our thinking about God based on rational reflection on the empirical phenomena of the cosmos (as in Aquinas), we can only arrive at concepts of God based on the "way of causality" (via causalitatis), that is, the assertion that a cause (God) is known by its effects. We develop a description of God that is nothing more than a negation of (via negativa), or an extension of (via eminentiae), the phenomena of the cosmos. For example, we say that God is not finite (infinite) or that God does not change (immutability) or that God does not suffer (impassibility). Or we can say that God transcends the limits of time and space and conclude that God is all-wise (omniscient), all-powerful (omnipotent), and everywhere present (omnipresent).

Yet how do we relate an all-powerful, unchangeable and impassible God to the incarnation and the cross? As Barth, Torrance, Moltmann, Pinnock, Sanders and many others have argued, the "substantialist" view of God simply cannot handle Bethlehem and Calvary. To be sure, the unchanging, all powerful God of substantialist metaphysics is not a deity who can identify with our humanity, particularly our suffering; he has never "been there." The God of substantialist metaphysics is not a God who responds to our prayers or is concerned with our plight.

More importantly, the articulation of a doctrine of God based on substantialist metaphysics minimizes the vital importance of God's triune self-revelation. In simple terms, it leaves Jesus out of the picture, diminishes his humanity, and moves him to a far away celestial realm so that the faithful are left with no one to pray to but Mary and the saints!! And that is the real problem! (And that's exactly what happened!)

Catherine Mowry LaCugna describes the doctrine of the Trinity as "the mystery of salvation." It took me a long time to understand what she meant but I think I get it now. In biblical terms, a "mystery" is something that was hidden but is now revealed. Hence, God's eternal nature as Father, Son, and Spirit is a mystery that God had to reveal to us; we would never have gotten it on our own. Moreover, God's triune self-revelation is a salvific revelation. In other words, the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of human salvation (soteriology) go hand in hand (In fact, the doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation upon which all other doctrines must be built.) In revealing to us the fact that he is eternally Father, Son and Spirit, God is revealing to us the fact that he is, by nature, the God who saves, or as LaCugna asserts in the title of her marvelous book, he is God for us! Get that point: The Father sends the incarnate Son to reconcile all humanity to himself (2Cor 5:19); the Father sends the Spirit to unite us to Jesus. Thus, the three persons of the Godhead are "saving" persons. It is God's nature to save. We cannot know that essential fact about the eternal nature of God unless God reveals it to us! Rational reflection on the cosmos can tell us that God is infinite and all powerful but it cannot tell us that God is love; it cannot tell us that God is for us! Thus, God must reveal to us the fact that he is love by sending his Son (and Spirit) to reconcile the entire cosmos to himself.

If we think of God solely in terms of the unitary essence of substantialist metaphysics, we miss the reality of God's salvific nature. We end up with a distant "omni-God" rather than the God who stoops to save. Apart from the doctrine of the Trinity, we miss the Good News that God is for us, that God is on our side. Yet, he has proven his love for us by his gracious self-revelation as Father, incarnate Saviour, and indwelling Holy Spirit. Amen.

(We will continue with this line of thought in our next post, coming on or about September 1, 2009. Stay tuned. The news is good; really good!

References

Gunton, C.E. 2007. The Barth Lectures (transcribed and edited by P.H. Brazier). London: T & T Clark. 285pp.

LaCugna, C.M. 1991. God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco. 434pp.

Sanders, J. 2007. The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence. Downers Grove, IL: IVP. 384pp.

Schwöbel, C. (ed). 1995. Trinitarian Theology Today. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. 176pp.

Torrance, T.F. 1990. Karl Barth: Biblical and Evangelical Theologian. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. 256pp.

Torrance, T.F. 1995. The Trinitarian Faith: The Evangelical Theology of the Ancient Catholic Church. London: T & T Clark. 345pp.

Torrance, T.F. 1996. The Christian Doctrine of God, One Being Three Persons. London: T & T Clark. 260pp.

The Problematic God of Western Theology

Before reading this post, I suggest you read the previous post entitled "The Subordination of the Doctrine of the Trinity."

The following post brings together much of the material that has been presented in previous posts by articulating the problems associated with the Augustinian-Thomist-Western doctrine of God. The post is long but I believe it is vitally important to our understanding of the problems in the Western doctrine of God.

Split Between Faith and Reason

There are a number of serious problems with the Western doctrine of God. The first problem with the Augustinian-Thomist bifurcation of the doctrine of God is a "false disjunction" between faith and reason. While Jesus and the Spirit are known by faith in the apostolic witness revealed in Scripture, the One God, that is, the supreme substance, is known by speculative reason rooted in pagan Greek philosophy (Rahner, 1997:ix).

The Augustinian-Thomist doctrine of God implies that the One God of substantialist metaphysics is the "real" God and is known differently from the Triune God revealed historically in the incarnate Son and the Holy Spirit (oikonomia). As a result, the Augustinian-Thomist tradition has created a split between faith and reason and left the Western Church with two competing sources of knowledge of God, each tending to discredit the other (Gunton, 1990:35). These two versions of God are incompatible, for each posits a distinct but dissimilar view of the nature of God and God's relationship to the world. The One God of the philosophers, that is, the God of reason and natural theology, is the immutable, impassible God of all determining power who is unaffected by the troubles here below. The Triune God revealed in Scripture and known by faith is the God who stoops to interact with creation (cf. Hos 11:4) and whose power is subordinated to his essential nature of love (Pinnock, et al, 1994:18ff).

This split view of God leaves the Church with profound questions: Is the Christian God like the God of the philosophers ‒ remote, aloof, and disengaged? Or is the Christian God the Triune God of grace and mercy revealed in salvation history who freely and lovingly engages creation? In opening an epistemological chasm between the One God and the Triune God, thereby creating a split between faith and reason, the Augustinian-Thomist tradition has left the Western Church with the same question posed to T. F. Torrance (1992:59) by a dying young soldier on the battlefield: "Is God really like Jesus?"

Epistemology and Methodology

As evidenced above, many of the problems in the Augustinian-Thomist bifurcation of the doctrine of God are epistemological and methodological, as can be seen by a comparison to Eastern Patristic theology. The pre-Augustinian Fathers of the Eastern Greek tradition begin their thinking about God with revelation; they do not attempt to describe God ad intra. Rather than offer a "philosophy of being," their primary concern is to explain how we may speak of the God who is revealed in Jesus Christ (Metzger, 2005:52). Whereas the Augustinian-Thomist approach to the doctrine of God begins with an emphasis on the unitary substance of God, only thereafter to consider the Triune Persons, the Eastern theologians of the early Greek-speaking Church begin their doctrine of God by considering first the Triune Persons as revealed in salvation history and only thereafter reflecting on the intradivine substance (ousia) (cf. Gonzales, 1987:335; Grenz, 2004:8, 9). While the Western approach emphasizes nature over person, the Eastern approach emphasizes person over nature (LaCugna, 1991:11).

Moreover, in the Eastern approach to the doctrine of God, the divine persons in relationship among themselves constitute the being (ousia) of God. The being of God is simply what the persons are, one to another; that is, for God to "be" is simply to be the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in their intradivine relations to one another (Gunton, 2007:86). On the other hand, Western theologians, who typically begin their articulation of the doctrine of God based on the substantialist metaphysics of natural theology, tend to talk of three "subsistencies" in the divine being, as though the divine persons exist within the being of God rather than constituting that being. To say, however, that the divine Persons are merely subsistencies in the being of God seems to imply that the being of God is different from the persons. In other words, the Western tradition implies that the being of God is something that underlies the divine persons rather than being constituted by them. Thus, in Western theology, following Augustine, the being (ousia) of God appears to be a substratum, a fourth "something," that underlies the Father, Son and Spirit (Gunton, 2007:87). This presents the Church with an epistemological problem: If the essence of God is different from the Triune Persons, that is, if God is different from God's historical self-revelation in Christ and the Spirit, then Christians are faced with the question, "Who (or what) is God and how do we know?"

Another major problem with the Augustinian-Thomist approach is methodological. Because the identity of God is not rooted primarily in the biblical witness to the incarnate Son and the gift of the Holy Spirit, but is found in rational speculation on the substance (ousia) of God based on Greek philosophy, the Western practice of describing the unitary substance as "God" is liable to making God's redemptive self-disclosure as Father, Son and Spirit subordinate to the essence (ousia) of God. Because this approach begins with substantialist metaphysics, derived from human ideas of what is appropriate for a perfect being to be (dignum deo) (Sanders, 2007:295, n29), the Western tradition suggests that Jesus and the Spirit are to be interpreted in terms of the pre-understanding of the attributes of the divine essence (e.g., immutability and impassibility) rather than in terms of God's self-emptying love for the world revealed at the cross.

The Significant Influence of Pagan Philosophy

Another problem with the Augustinian-Thomist-Western doctrine of God is the ever-present influence of pagan philosophy. According to Bloesch (1995:205, 206), the history of Western Christian thought is marked by a "biblical-classical synthesis," particularly conspicuous in Augustine and Aquinas, wherein the "ontological categories of Greco-Roman philosophy" have been united with the "personal-dramatic categories of biblical faith." LaCugna (1991:3, 4) accurately asserts that, in many respects, the "Christian" doctrine of God is secular, because it is derived more from philosophy than from God's self-revelation in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. She describes the root of this non-soteriological doctrine of God as the "metaphysics of substance": the pursuit of God in his internal, intradivine relations largely considered apart from God's self-revelation in the incarnate Son and the gift of the Spirit. Colin Gunton (2007:39), a rather outspoken critic of Augustine, argues that "Augustine either did not understand the Trinitarian theology of his predecessors, both East and West, or looked at their work with spectacles so strongly tinted with Neoplatonic assumptions that they have distorted his work." Similarly, Moltmann (1993:10-12; 16, 17) is rightly critical of the Thomist emphasis on divine substance derived from Greek philosophy and articulated in the classic "five ways" to knowledge of God (cf. Aquinas, 1989:12ff), wherein the unity of God is given primary consideration with the result that the Trinity is finally explicated only within the framework of the one, divine substance. Moltmann argues that such a rational philosophical approach to the nature of God based on natural theology becomes a "prison" for biblical statements about the nature of God; that is, the scriptural witness to God as revealed in the incarnate Son and the Holy Spirit is constrained by an alien view of God developed from natural philosophy. Moltmann (1993:149) succinctly but accurately summarizes the all-important distinction between the methodological approaches to the doctrine of God: "If the biblical testimony is chosen as point of departure, then we shall have to start from the three persons of the history of Christ. If philosophical logic is made the starting point, then the enquirer proceeds from the One God."

The Compromise of Sola Scriptura

In the Augustinian-Thomist tradition, an alien framework of Greek metaphysics has been given equal place with Scripture in the development of the Western doctrine of God. This syncretic mixture of pagan and biblical thought compromises one of the hallmark principles of the Reformation: sola scriptura. When the doctrine of the One God is separated from the self-revelation of God as Father, Son, and Spirit, then reflection on the nature and character of God becomes merely a matter of philosophical speculation. When theologia is divorced from oikonomia, the biblical witness to God's involvement in the world in the history of Israel and the incarnation of Christ is rendered irrelevant for understanding the transcendent eternal nature of God. This means that rationalist speculative theology on the intradivine nature of God can operate on its own, unsupported by a thorough investigation of Scripture (exegesis). Therefore, while the Reformation principle sola scriptura might still be applied to the divine economy (oikonomia), there is apparently one area where the principal does not apply: "the immanent Trinitarian constitution of the divine being" (Schwöbel, 1995:7).

In the Augustinian-Thomist doctrine of God, natural theology, based on the rational speculation of Greek metaphysics, is the starting point for the doctrine of the One God, while revealed theology, as embraced by the community of faith, is the basis for the doctrine of the Triune God (Torrance, 1980:147, 148). Latin theology has promulgated a union in Western Christian thought between pagan Greek philosophy and biblical revelation that has been taken for granted for centuries, while only recently coming into question. In the Augustinian-Thomist tradition, the biblical revelation of the Father, Son and Spirit is subordinated to a view of God derived from natural philosophy. Consequently, as my friend theologian Robert Lucas notes, the Western Church, while intending to faithfully adhere to the Reformation principle, sola scriptura, at least in its Protestant manifestations, is unconsciously reading Scripture through an alien grid that emphasizes the oneness and unity of God with comparatively little consideration given to the distinctiveness of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit or to the communion of fellowship shared among the Triune Persons of the Godhead. The Trinity is removed from the practical concerns of Christian life and worship and is relegated to the status of a puzzling conundrum whose incomprehensibility is taken as axiomatic. Finally, and most importantly, As my friend theologian Baxter Kruger notes, abstract philosophical reflection on the inner nature of God considered apart from the scriptural witness to salvation history means that Jesus Christ ‒ the One by, in, for, and through whom all things exist (Col 1:16, 17) ‒ is left out of the formulation of the doctrine of God.

In summary, the Western doctrine of God arises from a confluence of two very different streams of thought: 1) natural theology largely derived from the substantialist metaphysics of pagan Greek philosophy and 2) revealed theology based on Holy Scripture. According to theologian Robert Lucas, because the scriptural witness of God as Father, incarnate Son and Spirit has been thoroughly polluted by an alien stream of thought, the Western Church for centuries has unconsciously allowed the presuppositions of pagan philosophy to drive its "biblical" understanding of God.

Loss of Relationality in the Doctrine of God

Because the Latin emphasis on the unitary substance seems to portray God as an "isolated, passionless monad," thus obscuring both the inner relationality of the Trinity and God's loving relationship with creation, contemporary Trinitarian theologians largely eschew the Western emphasis on the metaphysics of substance wherein the divine essence is said to "stand under" (L. substantia) the divine Persons (Cunningham, 1998:25).

The emphasis on the unitary substance of God and the concomitant loss of relationality in the Western doctrine of God can be traced to Augustine. Because of his intense sensitivity to the suffering involved in human relationships, Augustine developed a permanent dislike for interpersonal models of the Godhead. Given the Neoplatonic presupposition that God is utterly simple with no shadow of plurality, Augustine has great trouble positing real relationships, that is, diversity, in the Godhead. For Augustine, the Father is God in respect to substance, yet he cannot say that God is Father in respect to substance because that would make relations an aspect of the being of God, an assertion that is in conflict with divine simplicity (Sanders, 2007:83, 84).

Moreover, Augustine fails to properly define "person," understanding the term to mean simply "relation." Constrained by the Aristotelian "substance-accident" dualism, Augustine gives relations in the Godhead secondary place to the divine unity (ousia) so that relations are understood logically but not ontologically, that is, as something that constitutes the being of God (cf. Thompson, 1994:129). Because Augustine is unable to make claims about the being of the particular persons of the Godhead, the Father, Son and Spirit tend to disappear into the all-encompassing oneness of God (Gunton, 1990:44, 45). In short, while Augustine understands the unity of the persons, he fails to sufficiently grasp the diversity, thus bequeathing to the Western Church a doctrine of God that barely masks an underlying modalism (cf. Gunton, 2007:86, 87).

Following in the tradition of Augustine, the Fourth Lateran Council and Thomas Aquinas formalized the Western habit of privileging unitary substance over the diversity of the Triune Persons. In relegating the concepts of person and relationship to secondary status in the doctrine of God, the Western tradition has further contributed to the separation of theologia and oikonomia by subordinating God's tripersonal self-revelation to a substantialist doctrine of God derived from rational presuppositions.

Practical Unitarianism

Closely related to the loss of a relational concept of God is the issue of practical Unitarianism. LaCugna (1991:6) rightly argues that an ontological distinction between God in se and God pro nobis, that is, God in his eternal intradivine nature (theologia) and God for us as revealed in salvation history (oikonomia), is inconsistent not only with the biblical witness to God's redemptive acts in history but also with early Christian Creeds and doxology. This separation of God in his eternal intradivine nature (theologia) from God's threefold self-revelation in salvation history (oikonomia), most particularly obvious in Aquinas' separation of the two treatises, De Deo Uno and De Deo Trino, can only result, she argues, "in a unitarian Christianity, not a Trinitarian monotheism."

In a similar vein, Moltmann (1993:17) sees in the Thomist approach not only an undue emphasis on the unity of God but also a reduction of the triunity of God to the One God. As he rightly asserts, "The representation of the Trinitarian Persons in a homogenous divine substance, presupposed and recognizable from the cosmos, leads unintentionally but inescapably to the disintegration of the doctrine of the Trinity in abstract monotheism." Moltmann seems to suggest that, given the Western emphasis on the ontological priority of unitary substance, the distinct persons of the Triune Godhead disappear into an undifferentiated ontological "soup," leaving the ordinary believer with a Unitarian view of God.

Following LaCugna and Moltmann, we may assert that the Augustinian-Thomist bifurcation of the doctrine of God, wherein God in his inner being (theologia) is considered apart from God as revealed in Christ and the Spirit (oikonomia), is not commensurate with God's self-revelation in Scripture nor with the Apostles' or Nicene Creeds, both of which are set in an unmistakable Trinitarian framework, nor with Christian prayer and worship, wherein Father, Son and Spirit have been historically worshipped as God. In addition, the Augustinian-Thomist emphasis on the unitary substance of God makes the Trinity appear to be a mere addition to the doctrine of God, thus reducing Christian belief and piety to practical Unitarianism, as evidenced by Rahner's (1997:10, 11) lament that the doctrine of the Trinity is irrelevant in the lives of most Christians, who are, in fact, "almost mere 'monotheists.'"

Pastoral Concerns

The Augustinian-Thomist doctrine of the One God has only minimal connection to the incarnation of Jesus Christ. In the Western Latin tradition, Christology and the doctrine of the Trinity have been virtually divorced, so that the life and work of Jesus is disconnected from the Trinity. Accordingly, there is only an "accidental relation" between the economy of salvation (oikonomia) as revealed in Scripture and the eternal triune being of God (theologia) (Thompson, 1994:22). There are clear pastoral concerns attached to the separation of theologia and oikonomia when the "bond of being" between the incarnate Son and the Father is torn asunder in our doctrine of God. Any disjunction between the being of Jesus and the being of God disrupts the message of grace contained in the Gospel, introducing anxiety into the hearts of many Christians who fear there may be a dark, inscrutable, arbitrary deity hidden behind the back of Jesus "before whom in our guilty conscience as sinners we cannot but quake and shiver in our souls" (Torrance, et al, 1999:16).

A truly Christian doctrine of God (theologia) must be rooted in the economy (oikonomia) of salvation, particularly the self-revelation of God in Jesus Christ. The vital importance of a Christological approach to the doctrine of God is ably demonstrated by a series of questions posed by T. F. Torrance (1995:134):

What kind of God would we have, then, if Jesus Christ were not the self-revelation or self-communication of God, if God were not inherently and eternally in his own being what the Gospel tells us he is in Jesus Christ? Would "God" then not be someone who does not care to reveal himself to us? Would it not mean that God has not condescended to impart himself to us in Jesus Christ, and that his love has stopped short of becoming one with us? It would surely mean that there is no ontological, and therefore no epistemological connection between the love of Jesus and the love of God ‒ in fact there would be no revelation of the love of God but, on the contrary, something that rather mocks us, for while God is said to manifest his love to us in Jesus, he is not actually that love in himself.

Torrance's questions illustrate the important truth that thinking about God that does not begin with Jesus Christ leaves us uncertain about God's care, concern and love for the world. The Augustinian-Thomist bifurcation of the doctrine of God implies that God in his eternal, inner being may be different from God as revealed in his acts in salvation history. Hence, Christians cannot be certain that God as revealed in the incarnate Son and Holy Spirit is the same as God "really" is in his inner-most being. This immediately raises a soteriological concern for the Church: "Is Jesus' death on the cross really the act of God on our behalf?"

Summary

Contemporary Trinitarian theologians, led by Barth and Rahner, have been highly critical of the Augustinian-Thomist bifurcation of the doctrine of God, wherein the doctrine of the Trinity is separate from and subsequent to the doctrine of the One God. The Western bifurcation of the doctrine of God into a major treatise on the unitary substance (ousia) of God, followed by a relatively minor appendix on the Trinity, makes it appear that everything important to say about God is said in the first treatise, while God's threefold self-revelation in salvation history is subordinated to a position of little importance in the development of the Western doctrine of God. This schizoid split in the doctrine of God has created a false disjunction between faith and reason in the mind of the Western Church, burdening the Church with two competing, incompatible and often confusing versions of God: the immutable, impassible God of substantialist metaphysics and the world-engaging, compassionate God revealed in Jesus. Moreover, the Western emphasis on the unitary substance of God, presupposed by natural theology, has led to the disintegration of the doctrine of the Trinity and created a practical unitarianism or mere monotheism in the worship and practice of many Christians. Finally, the Western emphasis on the unitary substance of God raises the issue of knowability by appearing to make the divine essence the "real" God, while subordinating the Triune Persons to the unitary substance of God. Because the Father, Son and Spirit are interpreted in terms of the pre-understanding of substantialist metaphysics, many Christians are burdened with concerns for their salvation, uncertain that God is really like Jesus.

(Next post circa August 15, 2009.)

References

Aquinas, T. 1989. Summa Theologiæ: A Concise Translation (edited by T.S. M^cDermott). Allen, TX: Christian Classics. 652pp.

Bloesch, D.G. 1995. God the Almighty: Power, Wisdom, Holiness, Love. Downers Grove, IL: IVP. 329pp.

Cunningham, D.S. 1998. These Three are One: The Practice of Trinitarian Theology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. 368pp.

Gonzalez, J.L. 1987. A History of Christian Thought (vol 1). Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press. 400pp.

Grenz, S.J. 2004. Rediscovering the Triune God: The Trinity in Contemporary Theology. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress. 289pp.

Gunton, C. 1990. Augustine, the Trinity and the Theological Crisis of the West. Scottish Journal of Theology, vol 43, pp. 33-58.

Gunton, C.E. 2007. The Barth Lectures (transcribed and edited by P.H. Brazier). London: T & T Clark. 285pp.

LaCugna, C.M. 1991. God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco. 434pp.

Metzger, P.L. (ed). 2005. Trinitarian Soundings in Systematic Theology. London: T & T Clark. 225pp.

Moltmann, J. 1993. The Trinity and the Kingdom (translated by M. Kohl). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. 256pp.

Pinnock, C.H. et al. 1994. The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God. Downers Grove, IL: IVP. 202pp.

Rahner, K. 1997. The Trinity: Introduction, Index, and Glossary by Catherine Mowry LaCugna. New York, NY: Crossroads. 122pp.

Sanders, J. 2007. The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence. Downers Grove, IL: IVP. 384pp.

Schwöbel, C. (ed). 1995. Trinitarian Theology Today. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. 176pp.

Thompson, J.R. 1994. Modern Trinitarian Perspectives. Oxford: OUP. 165pp.

Torrance, T.F. 1980. The Ground and Grammar of Theology: Consonance Between Theology and Science. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. 256pp.

Torrance, T.F. 1992. The Mediation of Christ. Colorado Springs, CO: Helmers & Howard. 126pp.

Torrance, T.F. 1995. The Trinitarian Faith: The Evangelical Theology of the Ancient Catholic Church. London: T & T Clark. 345pp.

Torrance, T.F. et al. 1999. A Passion for Christ: The Vision That Ignites Ministry (edited by G. Dawson & J. Stein). Edinburgh: Handel Press. 150pp.

The Subordination of the Doctrine of the Trinity

In the last few posts we have examined how the doctrine of the Trinity was relegated to the status of a relatively minor appendix to the doctrine of the One God in Western Christianity. In order to refresh our memories, let's do a quick review to get our bearings and then move on to new material.

As a result of the theological controversies of the 4^th century, particularly the Arian controversy (see my posts, "Arians are not Skinheads" and "Athanasius contra Mundi," both from 11/08), theologians began to focus on the eternal, intradivine nature of God (theologia) considered apart from God's self-revelation in the history of Israel, the incarnate Son and the Holy Spirit (oikonomia). To answer their Arian critics, the Fathers were forced to consider the eternal nature of God in order to defend the fully divine nature of the eternal Son. Nevertheless, their focus on God ad intra (God in God's eternal divine nature) resulted in a reduced emphasis on God ad extra (God in relation to the world). In technical terms, a conceptual gap was opened between theologia (the eternal intradivine Being) and oikonomia (God's self-revelation in time and space). After the 4^th century, theologians in both the Greek Eastern Church and the Latin Western Church focused more and more attention on theologia so that God's self-revelation in history (oikonomia), particularly in the incarnate Son, became less and less important in the formulation of the Christian doctrine of God. To put it in a raw and simple form, after the 4^th century, Jesus, the incarnate Son, was largely left out of the picture in the portrayal of the Christian God, particularly in the Latin West.

Again, to review, here's what happened. Augustine, the Father of Western Christianity, developed an innovative approach to the doctrine of the Trinity. His innovations were related to his inability to grasp the significance of divine relationality as developed in the Cappadocians' doctrine of the Trinity (see my posts "A Cup O' Cappadocian," parts 1 & 2, posted 1/09) as well as his commitment to Neoplatonism (see my post, "The Wedding Cake Cosmos: Augustine & Neoplatonism," posted 2/09). As a Neoplatonist committed to divine simplicity, Augustine had great difficulty in conceiving relationship as an aspect of the Godhead. Hence, Augustine emphasized the unitary essence of God rather than the diversity of persons of the Godhead that had been the focus of Cappadocian trinitarianism. As Colin Gunton has noted, Augustine made divine "substance" the "real" God so that the divine persons were reduced to mere "subsistencies" in the essence of God. The unitarian substance became a "fourth something" that appeared to underlie the divine persons. (Note: "Subsistence" literally means "to stand under."). The Father, Son and Spirit were submerged into a vague and mysterious ontological soup of substance. Because of the anti-material bias of his Neoplatonism (i.e., matter is evil), Augustine turned away from God's self-revelation in time and space to look for "vestiges" of the Trinity in the human mind or soul. In turning inward to the human psyche, Augustine turned away from God's self-revelation in the incarnate Son and Holy Spirit in order to develop his doctrine of God. In short, Augustine separated theologia and oikonomia. He developed his doctrine of God apart from God's redemptive self-revelation in Jesus and the Spirit.

Augustine's emphasis on divine substance considered apart from God's threefold self-revelation in salvation history as Father, Son and Spirit became standard practice in the theology of the Latin West. In the 12^th century, Thomas Aquinas, like Augustine, turned away from God's redemptive self-revelation in salvation history to develop his doctrine of God based on the observation of the cosmos. Following Aristotle, he argued that a cause (God) can be known from its effects. Aquinas then took the unprecedented step of dividing his doctrine of God into two parts. First he developed a major treatise on the One God (De Deo Uno) derived from human reason and the observation of empirical phenomena (see my post, "Tommy A. and the Western Split," 3/09). He used various rational methods to arrive at a concept of God as infinite, immutable, impassible, omnipotent, omniscient, etc. (see my post, "How to Make a Western OmeletGod," 4/09). Only after he had developed his doctrine of the One God based on the substantialist metaphysics of Aristotle did Aquinas finally get around to his comparatively minor treatise on the Trinity (De Deo Trino). As the Roman Catholic theologian Karl Rahner is famous for noting, Aquinas makes it appear that everything worth saying about God is said in the treatise on the One God so that the doctrine of the Trinity seems nothing more than a minor, unimportant appendix to a thoroughly developed doctrine of the One God. As Catherine Mowry LaCugna has noted, Aquinas introduced the paradigmatic separation of theologia and oikonomia. Aquinas developed his doctrine of the One God (theologia) apart from God's redemptive self-revelation in salvation history (oikonomia).

In the centuries following Aquinas, medieval Latin Scholasticism focused more and more on the intricacies of the divine substance so that the doctrine of the Trinity was hardly studied in the universities of medieval Europe. Because God's self-revelation as Father, Son and Holy Spirit was so obscured, coupled with the loss of an appreciation of the full humanity of Jesus, the persons in the pews were compelled to turn to the more human saints for solace.

The medieval bifurcation of theologia and oikonomia was carried on by the Protestant Scholastics of post-Reformation Europe and enshrined in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646). T.F. Torrance boldly and rightly declares that the God of Westminster theology is "not distinctively or essentially Christian." To be sure, the God of Westminster theology appears more related to the substantialist metaphysics of Aristotelian paganism than to the biblical God who stoops to save his creation. In the 19^th century, Charles Hodge, a well-known Protestant (Calvinist) theologian wrote a three-volume, 2,300 page systematic theology wherein only four pages are dedicated to the doctrine of the Trinity. As is apparent, in Western Latin theology, the doctrine of the Trinity was gradually relegated to the status of an unimportant appendix to the doctrine of the One God (or what Baxter Kruger calls the "omniGod.") This was the state of the Western doctrine of God until the 20^th century.

This ends our review. Let's move on from here with new material. I think you will like it!

In the 20^th century, Karl Barth (Protestant) and Karl Rahner (Roman Catholic) were the first to launch significant critiques of the Augustinian-Thomist approach to the doctrine of God. Both theologians rejected the centuries-old Western habit, formalized by Thomas Aquinas and developed in post-Reformation Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, of bifurcating the doctrine of God, as though the doctrine of the One God could be explicated rationally, based upon the presuppositions of pagan Greek metaphysics, while the doctrine of the Trinity was developed separately and subsequently on the basis of the biblical witness. Rahner (1997:17, 18) argues that the Augustinian-Thomist method of developing first a treatise based on the "unicity of the divine essence" results in an articulation of the One God that is philosophical, abstract, and hardly refers to salvation history. As Karl Barth argues, this is tantamount "to splitting the fundamental concept of God" (Torrance, 1996:10, 11).

The basic split in the Western concept of God caused Barth to attack the division of theology into "natural" theology and "revealed" theology (Torrance, 1980:147, 148). Barth repeatedly emphasized the inappropriateness of developing a doctrine of God from the speculative metaphysics of natural theology. According to Barth (1959:36):

The God of the Christian Confession is, in distinction from all gods, not a found or invented god or one at the last and at the end discovered by man . . . But we Christians speak of him who completely takes the place of everything that elsewhere is usually called "God," and therefore suppresses and excludes it all, and claims to be alone the truth.

For Barth, we can bring no presuppositions to our knowledge of God, for God is his own presupposition. God is not an object we discover through our own reasoning; God is a subject who, in sovereign freedom, chooses to reveal himself in the incarnate Son and the Holy Spirit (Busch, 2004:67-72; cf. Torrance, 1970:121ff). Barth rightly argues that a doctrine of the One God based on natural theology and a doctrine of the Triune God based on revelation creates a "schizoid state of affairs" in the foundation of theology (Torrance, 1980:148).

Other Trinitarian theologians have followed Barth and Rahner in their critique of the Augustinian-Thomist bifurcation of the doctrine of God. T. F. Torrance (1996:8, 9) argues that separating the doctrine of the One God from the doctrine of the Triune God gives expression to a "deistic disjunction" between God and the world that is far removed from God's self-revelation in both the Old and New Testaments "as the God whose covenant love undergirds the whole creation and embraces all humanity with his mercies." Thompson (1994:20) argues that by starting with the One God derived from abstract speculation, the Augustinian-Thomist tradition subordinates the Trinity to a preconceived understanding of God. Likewise, Gunton (1990:35) asserts, following Rahner (1997:17), that everything worth saying about God appears to be given in the treatise, On the One God. Because the doctrine of the Trinity is relegated to a comparatively minor appendix to the doctrine of the One God, Gunton argues, God's triune self-revelation seems irrelevant to the Western doctrine of God, with the result that God in se (theologia) appears to be conceivably other than the God made known in space and time as Father, Son and Spirit (oikonomia). Finally, and perhaps most persuasively, Schwöbel (1995:5, 6) argues that in the Western Latin approach to the doctrine of God, wherein the Trinity is separate from and subsequent to the doctrine of the One God, Trinitarian reflections appear as an adjunct to a thorough exposition of the One God, leaving the impression that Trinitarian statements are not significant for reflection on the nature and character of God. The threefold self-revelation of God in the economy of salvation (oikonomia) appears to be merely a "complicating factor" or a "mystery" that clouds what is already established about the unity of God. The Thomist separation of the One God from the Triune God leaves the impression that all that is important to be said about God is said in the treatise on the One God, while God's self-revelation in Jesus Christ and in the history of Israel, as attested in Scripture, seems relatively unimportant in the Latin Western development of the doctrine of God.

Nevertheless, Schwöbel (1995:6, 7) continues, if a Trinitarian understanding of God is to be constitutive for Christian faith, then the doctrine of the Trinity must not be relegated to the status of a mere "appendix" to the doctrine of the One God. Rather, the doctrine of the Trinity must be the "gateway" through which all theological exposition about God must pass, so that all our speech about God, including all our theological doctrines, is grounded in God's triune self-revelation as Father, incarnate Son and Holy Spirit.

References

Barth, K. 1959. Dogmatics in Outline. New York, NY: Harper & Row. 155pp.

Busch, E. 2004. The Great Passion: An Introduction to Karl Barth's Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 302pp.

Rahner, K. 1997. The Trinity: Introduction, Index, and Glossary by Catherine Mowry LaCugna. New York, NY: Crossroads. 122pp.

Schwöbel, C. (ed). 1995. Trinitarian Theology Today. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. 176pp.

Thompson, J.R. 1994. Modern Trinitarian Perspectives. Oxford: OUP. 165pp.

Torrance, T.F. 1970. The Problem of Natural Theology in the Thought of Karl Barth. Religious Studies, vol 6, pp. 121-135.

Torrance, T.F. 1980. The Ground and Grammar of Theology: Consonance Between Theology and Science. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. 256pp.

Torrance, T.F. 1996. The Christian Doctrine of God, One Being Three Persons. London: T & T Clark. 260pp.

How to Make a Western OmeletGod (in Three Easy Steps)

Hello again, everyone! Before we start cooking' up our Western omeletGod, I want to call your attention to a new article of mine that was just published in The Plain Truth magazine. I'm really excited about the article because it's the feature article in the current edition. It's a tongue-in-cheek critique of the really bad question sometimes heard from more than a few pulpits: "If you were accused of being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?" Check it out. You'll find it in the right-hand column of this blog under "Articles."

Now then, ya'll. Let's put on our tall chef's hats, sprinkle a little flour on our noses, adding a smidgen of bacon grease under our arms to make us smell pretty, and stir up a Western omeletGod. Here we go!

Today we are going to discuss what my friend, theologian Baxter Kruger, calls the "omniGod." For this post, I decided to change the terminology a bit and call it the "omeletGod." The recipe is the same so it won't hurt to play around a little. If you have grown up under the influence of the Western (Latin) Church, as have most readers of this blog, you will be familiar with the omeletGod: the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and generally unpleasant God of Western theology. This God is infinite, ineffable, immutable, impassible and inscrutable. This God is to be approached with extreme caution because this God is unfriendly. This God does not readily invite us to the kitchen table for cookies and milk. In fact, we can never be certain that this God even likes us. (Some extremists would even say this God hated most of us even before we were born! I'm serious. I was taught this kind of gar-bage in a seminary class not that long ago.)

Have you ever wondered where the nasty, distasteful omeletGod comes from? How did the Western Christian church develop a recipe for God that features something so unsavory as its chief ingredient? If you've read this blog for a while, you won't be surprised to discover that the omeletGod was first cooked up in the olive-oiled skillets of ancient Greece. Isn't it strange that every time we start talking about the God of Western Christianity, we soon find ourselves in the tangled web of Greek metaphysics? Go figure!

Let's set the stage for further discussion of the omeletGod with a great quote from Colin Gunton, one of my favorite theologians: My boy Colin (2002:3) writes:

It is one of the tragedies - one could almost say crimes - of Christian theological history that the Old Testament was effectively displaced by Greek philosophy as the theological basis of the doctrine of God, certainly so far as the doctrine of the divine attributes is concerned.

I think that quote speaks pretty clearly, don't you? Notice that Gunton mentions the attributes of God. "Attributes" are those characteristics that philosophers have ascribed or "attributed" to God based upon human ideas of what is "proper" for God to be like (dignum deo). Infinity, immutability, impassibility and omnipotence are some of the standard "attributes" of God, according to Western theology. Gunton, like many others, is arguing that the attributes of the Western "Christian" God are derived more from Greek (pagan) philosophy than from the Bible. That is a sad but highly accurate commentary on the version of God with which most of us have been burdened.

As we have discussed before, the Greeks posited a great cosmic dualism: the divine is way up there―aloof, alone, isolated and uninvolved; we are way down here in this world of dirt, separated from the divine by a great ontological chasm. The divine is good, the material world is evil; thus, there can be no interaction between the two, for relation with the world would "taint" the divine. As Gunton (2002:6) argues, herein lays the key to the entire problem of the so-called "attributes" of God. The Greeks have located the divine in a realm that stands in opposition to, or is a negation of, the world.

The Greeks thought of God as unknowable and ineffable, so far beyond the capabilities of human thought and language and so far removed from earthly concerns that we could say nothing positive about God. All that remained was to say what God is not, a method known as the "way of negation" (via negationis). Proclus, a student of Plotinus, the Neoplatonist who heavily influenced Augustine, argued that we cannot predicate anything positively of the "ultimate Principle"; we can only say what it is not, because "it stands above all discursive thought and positive predication ineffable and incomprehensible" (Gunton, 2002:14). In short, the idea underlying the "way of negation" (via negationis) is that in describing the divine, we can only say that God is essentially what the world is not.

So how do we use "negative" theology to formulate a list of the "attributes" of God? It works like this: I look around and see a world that stands in opposition to the divine (according to Greek thought). I see that this world of evil is finite; therefore, God, who is perfect and totally removed from this world of dirt, must be not finite, in other words, in-finite. I see that the world is mutable (changeable); therefore, God must be not mutable, that is, im-mutable (unchangeable). I see that there is suffering (passibility) in the world; therefore, God must be im-passible. It's really quite simple: I look at the world around me, with all its flaws and imperfections, and assert that God is "not this."

Pseudo-Dionysius (5th C) introduced the "negative way" (via negationis) into Christian theology. Other theologians followed suit, including the great Medieval Latin scholar, Thomas Aquinas, known in this blog as Tommy A. Here's what our boy Tommy did: he added some ingredients to the Western omeletGod that he picked up from the renowned Greek chef, Aristotle. As we saw in the last post ("Tommy A. and the Western Split") Aquinas sought to "prove" the existence of God, as well as describe the general characteristics of the divine nature (ousia), via the "five ways," a series of cosmological proofs for the existence and nature of God. By way of review, here's how it works: Tommy A. looks at the world around him and the first thing he notices is objects in motion (effects). So he puts on his thinking cap and commences to cogitate. Tommy reasons that 1) objects in motion ultimately require a Prime Mover to initiate the first move; 2) the existence of cause and effect requires a First Cause; 3) the existence of contingent beings (effects) requires a Necessary Being; 4) degrees of perfection (effects) require that which is ultimately Perfect, and 5) the design in nature (effects) can be explained only by a Designer (McGrath, 2001:245-247). You'll note that the "five ways" are all variations on a common theme, sort of like Fernando Sor's "Variations on a Theme of Mozart." (Any classical guitarists out there?) The principle behind this method is that a cause can be known by its effects. In other words, knowledge of God (cause) can be derived from observation of the created order or cosmos (effects). In short, these cosmological "proofs" are developed using the "way of causality" (via causalitatis): a cause can be known by its effects. When it's all said and done, Tommy's version of God is a re-hash of the "prime Mover" of Aristotelian metaphysics. God is basically the first cause, the necessary being, the perfect being, the cosmic designer, yada, yada, yada.

In addition to the "negative way" imported into Christian theology by Pseudo-Dionysius and the "way of causality" just described, Tommy added another set of ingredients to his Western omeletGod: the "way of eminence" (via eminentiae). The principle behind the way of eminence is the "denial of limits." Here's what Tommy did: Once again, he looks at the world around him and sees that people have power and knowledge, although in limited amount, as well as the limited ability to be in only one place at a time. So he simply applies all these things to God but removes the limits. In other words, Tommy cogitates that God does not have limited power as we do; so he removes the limitations of human power and says that God is all-powerful, that is, God is omnipotent. Ditto with knowledge. God is not limited in knowledge as we are; God has all-knowledge, that is, God is omniscient. Ditto again with the removal of the limitation of presence. Tommy contends that God is omnipresent.

OK, troops. Let's sum up, because this isn't rocket science. All we've done in these three methods or "ways" is look at the world around us and say God is not this, or God lacks these limitations, or God is the ultimate cause of all these effects. No big deal.

Now then, ya'll. Here's where the fun starts. Let's take all these ingredients from the Western recipe for a doctrine of God and make a Western omeletGod. Do you still have on your tall chef's hat? Good! Here we go! First we have to stoke up the wood stove till the fire's really blazing, then get out the bacon grease and slick down the heavy black cast iron skillet. While the skillet is getting hot, we'll crack open a half dozen eggs, then chop up some green peppers, onions and mushrooms and search the cabinets for the salt and pepper. With luck, we may even find some Louisiana hot sauce somewhere around the kitchen. OK. That's all done and the bacon grease is hot and starting to smell oh so fine. So let's carefully pour in the eggs and start adding the ingredients to make a good'ole Western omeletGod in three easy steps.

• Step 1: First, we add the ingredients from the "way of negation" (via negationis). We'll throw in some infinity since God is not finite. Then we'll add some ineffability since God is not known by human comprehension. Then we'll throw in that ever-present pair of ingredients known as impassibility and immutability since God (supposedly) does not change or suffer.
  
• Step 2: Now we add the ingredients from the "way of causality" (via causalitatis). We throw in a first cause, a prime mover, a cosmic designer, and a necessary being.
  Admittedly, this step is not as fun as the others.
  
• Step Three: Now we add the ingredients from the "way of eminence" (via eminentiae). Like step one, this one is really easy. We grab a handful of this and that, carefully removing the imperfections, and throw it all in the skillet, adding to our omelet some hefty handfuls of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence.

Now, let's carefully fold the egg over all these ingredients and let the stove and skillet do their work. . . . . . Presto! There it is. In just three easy steps we've cooked up a Western omeletGod. Let's grab a spatula and lift this heavy baby onto one of our finest plastic plates. There we go. Now grab a fork and let's dig in! I'll bet this thing is going to be great. After all, our recipe comes from a long tradition of great Western chefs. Here we go: Aaggghhhh! This thing doesn't taste right! It's yucky and awful and I'll bet if we eat it all, it's going to make us all sick!

Yikes! What did we do wrong? We must have left something out. Let's review our ingredients and see where we went wrong. We started by adding infinity, ineffability, immutability, and impassibility. OK. That's all standard for a Western omeletGod. No problem there. Then we added some of those ingredients that Tommy A. borrowed from Aristotle. Let's see: there was a first cause, a prime mover, a designer . . . OK. That all seems pretty standard. Then we added those hefty handfuls of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. Maybe that's where we went wrong. Perhaps we put in too much of the heavy stuff. Still, something is missing from our Western God omelet.

Wow! Silly me! I just figured it out. No wonder this thing tastes like a fried inner tube from my grandson's bike tire. We left out the most important ingredients of all. How dumb can we be? We left out the Father, Son and Holy Spirit! No wonder this omelet tastes so bad.

And there, friends and neighbors, is the problem with the Western doctrine of God. God's triune self-revelation in salvation history has been utterly marginalized (see previous post: "Tommy A. and the Western Split") in favor of a one-sided doctrine of the One God whose characteristics (attributes) are developed solely from rational reflection on the cosmos. Western Christians have been burdened with a doctrine of God that has been developed apart from God's self-revelation in time and space as the God who saves. The Western omeletGod gives us no reason to believe that God is for us, for it is a recipe for a doctrine of God developed apart from God's redemptive activity in salvation history.

It is vital that we teachers and preachers play our part in the ongoing call to bring the Western Church back to the trinitarian vision of God shared by Irenaeus, Athanasius, Hilary, the Cappadocians and others. Only when we understand that God's trinitarian self-revelation in time and space is a redemptive, salvific revelation of the eternal nature of God whose essential being is love will the Western Church finally be freed of its bondage to the omeletGod.

Well, folks, we made an omelet using the ingredients of the Western doctrine of God and found that it didn't taste so good. I guess that's what happens when you leave the most important ingredients out of the recipe. I don't know about the rest of you chefs out there, but I'm throwing away my recipe for a Western omeletGod and I'm going to look for a cook book that's got some Jesus in it! Amen.

(Next major post circa, June 15, 2009. See you then!)

References

Gunton. C. E. 2002. Act & Being: Toward a Theology of the Divine Attributes. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 162pp.