Can the electing God be God without us? Some implications of Bruce McCormack's understanding of Barth's doctrine of election for the doctrine of the trinity
Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||This article is the attempt at a dialogue with Bruce McCormack about the position he espoused in The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth concerning the relation between God's Election of grace and God's Triunity. I had criticized McCormack's position in my book, Divine Freedom and the Doctrine of the Immanent Trinity (2002), but I did not elaborate on it in great detail. To develop the dialogue I will: 1) consider McCormack's claim that in CD II/2 Barth made Jesus Christ “rather than” the Eternal Logos the subject of election; 2) consider what Barth means when he speaks of Jesus Christ “in the beginning”; 3) compare McCormack's thesis that the Father never had regard for the Son, apart from the humanity to be assumed, with Barth's belief that we must not dispute the eternal will of God which “precedes even predestination”; 4) analyze in detail McCormack's rejection of Barth's belief that the logos asarkos in distinction from the logos incarnandus is a necessary concept in trinitarian theology; 5) discuss Barth's concept of the divine will in relation to the concept advanced by McCormack and suggest that McCormack has fallen into the error of Hermann Schell by thinking that God in some sense takes his origin from himself, so that God would only be triune if he elected us; 6) explain why it is a problem to hold, as McCormack does, that God's self-determination to be triune and his election of us should be considered one and the same act; and finally 7) explain McCormack's confusion of time and eternity in his latest article on the subject in the February, 2007 issue of the Scottish Journal of Theology, and his own espousal of a kind of indeterminacy on God's part (which he theoretically rejects).|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|External links||This entry has no external links. Add one.|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jeffrey E. Brower & Michael Rea (2004). Understanding the Trinity. Logos 8:145-157.
Dr Peter S. Oh (2007). Complementary Dialectics of Kierkegaard and Barth: Barth's Use of Kierkegaardian Diastasis Reassessed. Neue Zeitschrift Für Systematische Theologie Und Religionsphilosophie 48 (4).
William Werpehowski (1981). Command and History in the Ethics of Karl Barth. Journal of Religious Ethics 9 (2):298 - 320.
Eberhard Jüngel (2001). God's Being is in Becoming: The Trinitarian Being of God in the Theology of Karl Barth: A Paraphrase. W.B. Eerdmans.
Colin E. Gunton (1978). Becoming and Being: The Doctrine of God in Charles Hartshorne and Karl Barth. Oxford University Press.
Gerald P. McKenny (2010). The Analogy of Grace: Karl Barth's Moral Theology. Oxford University Press.
ProfDr Dirk-Martin Grube (2008). God or the Subject? Karl Barth's Critique of the “Turn to the Subject”. Neue Zeitschrift Für Systematische Theologie Und Religionsphilosophie 49 (3).
Amy Marga (2010). Karl Barth's Dialogue with Catholicism in Göttingen and Münster: Its Significance for His Doctrine of God. Mohr Siebeck.
Bruce L. McCormack (2010). Karl Barth's Version of an "Analogy of Being" : A Dialectical No and Yes to Roman Catholicism. In Thomas Joseph White (ed.), The Analogy of Being: Invention of the Antichrist or the Wisdom of God? W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co..
Paul D. Molnar (2010). Can Jesus' Divinity Be Recognized as 'Definitive, Authentic and Essential' If It is Grounded in Election? Just How Far Did the Later Barth Historicize Christology? Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie Und Religionsphilosophie 52 (1).
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads18 ( #74,685 of 740,430 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,960 of 740,430 )
How can I increase my downloads?