Doctrine of the Trinity.

Discussion in 'Pneumatology' started by Ray, Jan 5, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Professor

    Where can that be purchased from?
     
  2. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

  3. Ask Mr. Religion

    Ask Mr. Religion Flatly Unflappable

    Then again, Torrance's affinity for Barth should be a filter through which all that he writes be read.

    One should read Torrance and Barth mining some gold here and there, but disavow their views that would break the ontological gap between the divine and the human natures. It requires a good understanding of theology proper to separate what these Neo's have to say that is meaningful and what requires one to abandon the WCF.

    Patrick
     
  4. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    Noted, but Torrance is also clear on where he corrects Barth.

    I have read Torrance's stuff just for his exegesis of Athanasius and Hilary of Poitiers, especially during the Evangelical chaos on the Grudem/Ware Trinity stuff this summer.
     
  5. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Professor

    Would you mind expanding about what views they held as to the nature of Jesus makes them suspect?
     
  6. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Professor

    Knew that Dr Grudem and Dr Erickson had some debates over the Trinity, but wha were Dr Grudem and Dr ware contending about?
     
  7. Ask Mr. Religion

    Ask Mr. Religion Flatly Unflappable


    Which might leave one assuming Torrance is not in need of correction.

    https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/about-40-thomas-torrance-lectures.88419/

    See also Muller's THE BARTH LEGACY: NEW ATHANASIUS OR ORIGEN REDIVIVUS? A RESPONSE TO T. F. TORRANCE, in Richard A Thomist: a Speculative Quarterly Review; Oct 1, 1990; 54, 4; Periodicals Archive Online pg. 673
     
  8. Ask Mr. Religion

    Ask Mr. Religion Flatly Unflappable

  9. Ask Mr. Religion

    Ask Mr. Religion Flatly Unflappable

    To avoid derailing the thread, try some of the results here (wait for the process shown below to complete):
    http://bfy.tw/9RSy
     
  10. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    One can "need correction" on some points (I think Torrance is wrong on Nazianzus's use of the monarchia) and still be an authority in a field.

    I take it we agree that Robert Letham is a good scholar on the Trinity? His chapter on Torrance praises Torrance (and Letham rejects the idea Torrance can simply be labeled a Barthian).

    As to the Torrance lectures, I know a lot of conservative TR types who privately thanked me for the Torrance lectures and outlines on the Trinity.

    And with the exception of volume 4 of PRRD, I've read everything Muller has written. And I think Muller is mostly correct that Torrance kind of cooks the evidence on Barth's being an Athanasian. True, there are quotes from Barth in CD II/2 that sound like Athanasius's Contra Arianos, but I don't think they are as strong as Torrance makes them out to be.
     
  11. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    Barth, especially the early barth of the Romans commentary, said God was "wholly other," which makes him unknowable, which really puts Jesus in a bind. Now, to the extent he held that line from his Marburg Neo-Kantian professors, he is wrong. I'm not sure whether his "Anselmian" turn meant a break from "Wholly Other" thinking or no. McCormack says it did, but most disagree with McCormack.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  12. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    And Barth rejects substance metaphysics, so he is wrong on that. Interestingly, I think Torrance moved back closer to orthodoxy on that point, given Torrance's belief in the reality and knowability of God's creation
     
  13. earl40

    earl40 Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    Umm, may I ask what part of God is part of man? Please notice I did not say what part of Jesus is like men. :)
     
  14. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Professor

  15. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Professor

    That makes sense to me, as hard to see how Jesus would be seen as being God Incarnate and know God by viewing Him if God cannot ever be really known!
    So he did not see God in supernatural terms than?
     
  16. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    Well, on one hand the Reformed, unlike the Lutherans, do not believe that Jesus' human nature and mind, especially the latter, is omniscience. We hold to the theologia unionis between archetypal and ectypal knowledge. But I don't think that is what barth was saying.

    His Kantian masters would have made a divorce between the noumenal realm, which is the thing in itself, which man can never know, and the phenomenal realm, which man can never know. According to the standard reception and interpretation of Barth, God is in the noumenal realm.

    Did Barth actually believe that? I don't know. I'm not a Barthian (indeed, Barth's and Torrance's disciples have attacked me) so I don't have much at stake in whether Barth was a neo-Kantian or not.


    I don't know what that means. He would not have seen God in natural terms (that was part of his whole attack against natural theology). A rejection of substance metaphysics means he rejected the claim that there was a "something" behind the Person of Jesus.
     
  17. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    I'm not sure what you are getting at. Barth didn't say a part of God is a part of man, if you mean part as a part constituting a whole.
     
  18. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Professor

    Jesus knew all things in His deity, but learned new ings as to His humanity, correct? And whever we know of and about God comes from His revelation in nature, Bble, and most of all in Jesus Christ, so what would hmean that we cannot know things?
     
  19. Justified

    Justified Puritan Board Sophomore

    Unless you know something about Kantian epistemology, what Jacob is saying will fall on deaf ears. To attempt to clarify, there where two "realms" for Kant: the noumenal realm in which things are as they really are in themselves; and the phenomenal realm in which things are as we experience them. Kant's point, to oversimplify, is that we know the world only as we experience it; all our knowledge is mediated through our experience of it. We never know the Ding An Sich, the thing in itself.

    Now, enter Schleiermacher and company. Kantianism essentially attempts (emphasis on attempts) to marry Christian doctrine with Kantian metaphysics and epistemology, and from thence comes modern theology.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  20. earl40

    earl40 Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    I am saying God, so far as the divine essence, is "wholly other".
     
  21. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    Okay. So what was your original question again?
     
  22. earl40

    earl40 Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    My question is do you believe that God is not 'wholly other"?
     
  23. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    Not in Barth's sense of the phrase.
     
  24. earl40

    earl40 Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    In what sense? Jesus was not wholly other according to His human nature, but according to His divine nature was He not wholly other? I ask because I understand Barth erred on accommodated truth but so far as the divine essence I think he was correct in that it (divine essence) is wholly other.
     
  25. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    I reject that God is placed in the noumenal realm, and hence on that reading cannot be known.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page