kmoney

I'm having a good week. Time just flies by, spending my time with a very good friend and some good reading. Arranging for my internship as a pastor this fall as well, looking forward to that.

You?

:e4e:

Welker seems to say that the kingdom is an emergent reality in the present. I agree with that. He does not deny a future consumation of the kingdom, but if I remember correctly he speaks about it being possible to reject that part. That I disagree with, without a future eschatological culmination Christianity collapses.

Been reading a lot of and about Luther this week. He really is quite interesting. His theologia crucies, thoughts about the revelation of God and his insight into human psychology in his views on his dichotomy between law and gospel are quite deep. Sadly, he was more of a polemic than a systematic theologian, so most of the time he just gets superficially quoted and caricatured.

I can give you the contents of the book, although I will have to translate it from my Danish edition:

Father, Son and Holy Spirit
-Meaning of the word "God"
-Israels identification of God
-Identification of God in the New Testament
-The Triune Name
-The Name as Doctrine

Trinitarian Logic and Experience
-The Trinitarian Logic
-The Soteriological Necessity of the Trinitarian Logic
-Trinitarian Life
-The Hebrew Scriptures as the Root of Trinitarianism
-Primary Trinitarianism
-The Three-article Confessions

Of the Same Being as the Father
-The Hellenistic Interpreation of God
-The Start of the Christianization of Hellenism
-The Arian Crisis
-Nicea and Constantinople

The One and the Three
-The Cappadocian Language
-Hypostasis/Identity
-"Being " or "Event"
-The Western Version
-Changes in Western Trinitarianism
-Suggestions

Triune Infinity
-Infinite Divinity
-Triune Infinity
-God as Event
-Being

Hey kmo.

Just stopping in to say hi, don't think I'll be by again anytime soon but I hope things are well in work and life. Hope your dad is doing all right too.

How are you? Been reading anything interesting?

I'm reading some more Jenson, his book on the trinity. I think you would find that interesting (The Triune Identity: God according to the gospels). Also re-reading parts of Michael Welker's book on Christology, a lot of good and interesting perspectives in that as well, although I disagree with his playing with presentist eschatology (although he does not dismiss a future eschaton).

:e4e:

Take this with a grain of salt, since I'm not even close to knowing enough about Barth's theology. As far as I understand it, God is sovereign to the point of determining his own nature and I would guess that it is in this freedom that the decision to create is made and thus you could have God self-determining before creation and still the Son could be the one who will be incarnate. That is a rather extreme position on the sovereignty of God though. Not sure I think the idea of an entirely self-determining being to be coherent (caveat emptor on my understanding of his position on this though), that brings up another interesting conundrum though, the idea that God is determined by something can be viewed as strange or problematic by some as well.

I do like the focus on the knowledge of God through the revelation in Christ though, including some healthy skepticism (if not dismissal) of grasping at the nature of God. Feuerbach's criticism of religion must be taken seriously.

"Almost every night when I wake up the devil is there and wants to dispute with me. I have come to this conclusion: When the argument that the Christian is without the law and above the law doesn’t help, I instantly chase him away with a fart.”

Sometimes you just have to love Martin Luther... :chuckle:

As far as I understood Jenson. Jesus Christ is God's self-identifying speech, and this is salvific related to the final judgment. It is salvific because this reveals the identity of the judge and the truth he will judge by, the one who pardons sinners and lifts up the downtrodden. Jenson also rejects the conflict view of judgment, he argues that the old testament conception of judgment is restoration of community, to establish everlasting shalom through the final judgment.

Also bumped into another interesting topic. Whether there is such a thing as a Logos asarkos, the Word/Son in a way that is not defined by the act of incarnation. Karl Barth for example seems to deny that there is, for him the eternal Son always was defined as the one who would be incarnate, thus rejecting that the incarnation was just a contingent event in history that did not have to happen.

Thank you

I will elaborate on Jensen and comment on your previous post about church and politics soon.

:e4e:

An important part of his soteriology is the narrative aspect. For him, the cross is the final test of the teachings and life of Christ which represents an understanding of God, the final temptation to free himself from the cross is overcome by him rather forgiving those who crucify him. He sees this in connection with the resurrection, which is God's yes to this identifying act. The source of our salvation is that God is identified by the crucified Son and everything that implies. God saying yes to the crucified and no to the powers and principalities represented by Rome and her unholy alliance with Jewish aristocrats.

Quite pleased today, my final thesis got graded with an "A" today

:chuckle:

Can't say that I have been watching the women's world cup.

I'm good. Quite busy, but I enjoy it. Reading quite a lot theology Been reading more Jenson, he has some interesting perspectives on a lot of things. Reading the soteriology part of his systematic theology now, quite interesting.

How are you?

:e4e:

:chuckle: I only pick at a couple of people like that and with any frequency. Consider it the highest compliment in my quiver.

I think you are indeed, because this reply isn't real...

:noid:

Hope things are okay?

This can be seen in Jenson's theology as well. When he asks who God is, there is no metaphysical response. He claims that for a Christian, God is he who raised Jesus Christ from the dead. God is revealed in history and revelation, not in metaphysical reasoning. We discussed something similar a while back, this is similar to the more accurate translation of the divine name in Exodus, "I will be who I will be". For the Jews, God is he who freed the Jews from Egypt, he is only defined by his actions. This tradition culimanted in Barth who basically claimed that all knowledge about God comes straight from above (senkrechts von oben), all reasoning from below is just religion in the derogatory sense of the word. Personally I think this approach is way too one sided, and prefera theology where "from below" and "from above" must meet somehow.

Of course, it is wise for any theologian to realize that Luther was no systematic theologian. He was a polemicist writing on singular issues in a very polemical and antagonizing way. So taking singular statements of Luther and then thinking they are grounds for a systematic theology would not be very wise.

:e4e:

It is true that there is a general skepticism towards nuatral law and similar forms of reasoning in Protestant theology. It can be traced back to Luther's skepticism of metaphysical reasoning I think. He is the father of the theology of the cross, which is a radical turning point for theology in general. He thinks the scholastics ultimately reached a God that was different to that revealed in Christ, particularly on the cross. This involves an inversion of human values. The cross reveals the God who enters into suffering on the cross, metaphysics reaches the God of glory and might. This has impact on good and evil, as he says in one of his theses:

"He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross. [...] A theology of glory calls evil good and good evil."

I think this inversion is what ultimately affects the Protestant belief in natural law revealed to reason.

:chuckle: We are talking abstract at the level of absurdity in this case though

If you are interested in ecological responsbility, then "Ask the Beasts" by Elizabeth Johnson might be an interesting read, I want that book myself. Elizabeth Johnson is a very interesting theologian.

Careful so you do not inspire H&G too much when it comes to deep sea exploration, the consequences could be quite expensive, if not catastrophic...lain:

:e4e:

I've been good.

Jenson is quite an interesting thinker. He is influenced by Karl Barth, but a bit less one sided than Barth himself when it comes the view of revelation in scripture.
Been taking a bit of a break from Jenson now. Read two rather heavy articles on the trinity, especially one of them was quite abstract and difficult They were quite interesting though.

Another thinker I would like to read on a topic like you talked about there would be Walter Brueggeman. Heard some talks by him, he seems very interesting.

:e4e:

Just out of curiosity, have you read any of my chapter-comments?

Jenson is quite renowned, he is a Lutheran theologian. He has some very interesting perspectives on systematic theology. He is the theologian David Bentley Hart said that everyone should read, even though he disagrees with him. So Im reading his systematic theology.

It would be the pressure part for me. I get a bit self-conscious when I write my own papers

:e4e: