There are several tensions present in George Lindbeckís postliberal theology. One of these is between realist intuitions and a non-epistemic account of truth, on the one hand, and a social- constructivist non-realism with regard to theological statements. Theology is relegated to the status of second-order discourse, while first order language comprises the practices, rituals, vocabulary of a religion. I am challenging this intermediary status of religion with the help of Donald Davidsonís critique of the dualism between scheme and content. Since (...) there isnít much to be made of the notion of epistemic intermediaries (either as ëcontentí or as ëschemeí) it does not make sense to continue to speak either in terms of realism or of non-realism. This clears the way for treating theology as cognitive. (shrink)

The present paper situates the Western and Eastern models of divine agency within their respective ontological frameworks. I show how the Western conception of divine agency as the production of ‘created effects’ is rooted in a particular understanding of the relationship between transcendence and immanence, but also in a trinitarian ontology which understands God as pure actuality. On the other hand, the Eastern understanding of divine agency through the conceptuality of uncreated energies is similarly rooted in the real distinction between (...) God’s nature and energies. Without trying to critique the Eastern model, I demonstrate one particular strength of the Western approach, namely its ability to distinguish between divine actions, which are inseparable, and divine missions, which are proper to the triune persons. Such a distinction enables us to affirm both the inseparability of triune operations, as well as the possibility of relations to distinct triune persons. (shrink)

The present article argues that the doctrine of the inseparable external operations of the Trinity is consistent with the doctrine of the incarnation of the Son alone. To demonstrate this, it will be shown, first, that the assumption of human nature can be ascribed to the Son alone when taken as a state, as opposed to an action. Secondly, I will defend John Owen’s claim that the Son is not the “immediate” agent of Christ’s actions. Finally, an appeal is made (...) to Trinitarian “missions” to show the coherence of OAE with our having communion with distinct divine persons. (shrink)