113 Religion in Philosophy and Theology

Religion in Philosophy and Theology

Editors

Helen De Cruz (St. Louis, MO) · Asle Eikrem (Oslo) Thomas Rentsch (Dresden) · Hartmut von Sass (Berlin) Heiko Schulz (Frankfurt a. M.) · Judith Wolfe (St Andrews)

113

Tyler J. Frick

Karl Barth’s Ontology of Divine Grace

God’s Decision is God’s Being

Mohr Siebeck

Tyler J. Frick, born 1986; 2010 BA; 2013 MA; 2019 PhD in Systematic Theology from King’s College, University of Aberdeen; currently an independent scholar living in Seattle, Washing- ton.

ISBN 978-3-16-159558-5 / eISBN 978-3-16-160803-2 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-160803-2

ISSN 1616-346X / eISSN 2568-7425 (Religion in Philosophy and Theology)

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie;

detailed bibliographic data are available at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2021 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. www.mohrsiebeck.com

This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to repro- ductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems.

The book was printed on non-aging paper by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen, and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren.

Printed in Germany.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the following individuals and institutions who have as- sisted me during this project, which began as a doctoral dissertation at the Uni- versity of Aberdeen.

Initial thanks must go to my doctoral supervisor Paul Nimmo, who consist- ently provided me with insightful and pointed feedback on every single draft I submitted. Paul was a constant source of encouragement throughout this project when it was in dissertation form. I could not have asked for a better supervisor.

I am immensely indebted to my viva examiners, Phil Ziegler and Matthias Gockel, for an engaging viva and insightful comments concerning how best to proceed toward publication. I owe many thanks to Professor Gockel for recom- mending that I publish with Mohr Siebeck.

I would like to thank the Erasmus Exchange Program at the University of Aberdeen for providing me with the wonderful opportunity to study at Hum- boldt Universität zu Berlin for the 2015–16 academic year. Much gratitude to Humboldt Universität zu Berlin for the opportunity to use their impressive li- braries and resources.

Many thanks go to my friends and colleagues, Sara Mannen and Derrick Pe- terson, who read through and commented on multiple manuscripts and offered stimulating discussion throughout the writing process. This book would not have been possible without their support. I am also indebted to Dr. Travis Ables for editing this manuscript and assisting me in ensuring that it is fit for publica- tion. Any errors that remain are, of course, solely my responsibility.

I would like to thank the editors of the Religion in Philosophy and Theology Series, Professor Ingolf Dalferth, and Professor Heiko Schulz, for accepting this project for publication and to the publishing team at Mohr Siebeck for their generous assistance in helping me bring this publication to completion. Thank you, Elena Müller, Tobias Stäbler, Jana Trispel, and Kendra Mäschke.

Finally, I would like to express gratitude to my parents, Ken and Diana Frick, for their unwavering generosity and support.

Seattle, Washington, USA, July 2021

Contents

Abbreviations ... X

Introduction ... 1

Barth’s Reconstruction of Divine Election ...1

The Purpose of This Study ... 10

An Outline of This Book ... 13

Chapter 1: A Debate in Barth Interpretation ... 16

God Is What God Does: Jüngel and McCormack ... 17

The Nature and Explanation of Divine Action ... 32

Chapter 2: God Is God’s Decision ... 41

Barth’s Reconstructive Project ... 41

The Act in Question ... 44

The Concreteness of Divine Action ... 52

Self-Existence Concretized by Self-Movement ... 59

God Is God’s Decision ... 66

Decision and Trinity ... 72

Summary ... 73

VIII

Chapter 3: God’s Essential Grace ... 74

The Divine Loving ... 75

What God Wills and What God Rejects ... 85

Provisional Summary ... 89

God Is Essentially Gracious ... 90

Invisible Grace: A Trinitarian Deficit ... 95

Summary ... 99

Chapter 4: The Divine Decision Concretized ... 101

Election and Theology Proper ... 102

The Abstract Character of a Preelective Triunity ... 111

The Telos of Divine Election: Justification ... 117

Jesus Christ as Active Subject of Election ... 127

Election and Obedience ... 136

Summary ... 140

Chapter 5: God Is Essentially Covenantal ... 142

Covenantal Gemeinschaft ... 142

The Necessity of Creation: Grace ... 147

Summary ... 154

Contents

IX

Chapter 6: Reconceiving Divine Triunity ... 155

Obedience and Election ... 156

The Son’s Self-Correspondence ... 167

The Eternal Processions ... 171

Intratriune Grace ... 177

Summary ... 185

Conclusion ... 187

Involved in History but Not Reduced To History ... 189

The Trinity Is Not a Social Exemplar ... 191

God Is Irreducibly Triune ... 192

Bibliography... 197

Index of Names ... 217

Index of Subjects ... 219

Abbreviations

CD The Church Dogmatics. Edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley and T. F. Tor-

rance. 14 vols. Edinburgh T&T Clark, 1936–69.

lag, 1932, and Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1938–65.

ST

Aquinas, Thomas.

English Dominican Province. New York: Benziger, 1948.

Introduction

This introduction will highlight what is arguably the most innovative feature of Barth’s doctrine of divine election, enter the conversation surrounding the best way to interpret Barth’s doctrine in light of his theology as a whole, and detail how this particular study contributes to the current discussion. To accomplish this task, the introduction first addresses Barth’s novel understanding of divine election as a component of theology proper, rather than under the locus of so- teriology or divine providence, as was conventional in traditional articulations of the doctrine. It will then provide a description of two strands of interpretation surrounding the question regarding how best to understand the significance of Barth’s novel placement of divine election within the context of the doctrine of God. From there it will explain this study’s particular contribution to the debate surrounding the interpretation of the significance of Barth’s doctrine of election for his theology as a whole. It will conclude with a brief outline of the ensuing chapters of this study, noting how the content of each chapter substantiates its particular understanding of the comprehensive significance of Barth

of election. A detailed literature review of the debate surrounding how best to interpret the ontological implications of Barth’s integration of divine election with theology proper will be reserved for the second chapter of the book. The reason for this is that highlighting the differences between the two main strands of interpretation regarding Barth’s doctrine of election requires a thoroughgoing exposition and analysis in order to rightly frame what follows in the subsequent chapters.

Barth’s Reconstruction of Divine Election

Arguably the most innovative and controversial doctrine within Barth’s theo-

logical writings is his doctrine of election elaborated in Church Dogmatics II/2

(1942). In his doctrine of election, Barth subjects his Reformed theological tra-

dition to critical scrutiny, and his concern to ground all theological claims ex-

clusively on God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ becomes most visibly appar-

ent. Arguably, the most significant feature in Barth’s treatment of election is

found in his placement of the doctrine under the heading of theology proper,

2

rather than under a separate heading pertaining to soteriology or divine provi- dence, as was typical in traditional articulations of the doctrine. By placing elec- tion within the doctrine of God, Barth was seeking to elucidate with precision the identity of the one encountered in Jesus of Nazareth. Such a move was thought to deflect all potential abstractions from entering into theological dis- course by insisting that there is no God other than the God who graciously elects to become humanity’s God in the covenant-fulfilling existence of Jesus of Naz- areth.

Despite the fact that all recognize the unique features present in Barth’s in- tegration of divine election with his understanding of the being of God, strong disagreements have arisen regarding how to properly interpret the implications of Barth’s attempt to define God in terms of the specific content set forth in God’s pretemporal elective decision. A major source of scholarly debate sur- rounding Barth interpretation concerns how best to consider the ontological sig- nificance of Barth’s innovation. The debate concerns whether or not Barth’s doctrine of election pertains to God’s original and proper being, or if it is ex- clusively related to what God decides to do in relation to the economy of salva- tion. On the one side, advanced by Bruce McCormack, is a maximalist under- standing of the ontological significance of divine election.

These interpreters

1 This book will be citing the latest versions of republished material. Bruce L. McCor- mack, “Grace and Being: The Role of God’s Gracious Election in Karl Barth’s Theological Ontology,” in Orthodox and Modern: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth, by Bruce L.

McCormack (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 183–99; originally published in a slightly different form under the title, “Grace and Being: The Role of God’s Gracious Election in Karl Barth’s Theological Ontology,” in The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, ed. John Webster (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 92–110; “Seek God Where He May Be Found: A Response to Edwin Chr. Van Driel,” in McCormack, Orthodox and Mod- ern, 261–78; originally published in a slightly different form under the title “Seek God Where He May Be Found: A Response to Edwin Chr. van Driel,” Scottish Journal of Theology 60 (2007): 62–79; “‘We Have “Actualized” the Doctrine of the Incarnation . . . ’: Musings on Karl Barth’s Actualistic Theological Ontology,” Zeitschrift für dialektische Theologie, no. 1 (2016), 179–98; “The Actuality of God: Karl Barth in Conversation with Open Theism,”

in Engaging the Doctrine of God: Contemporary Protestant Perspectives, ed. Bruce L.

McCormack (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 185–242; “The Doctrine of the Trinity after Barth: An Attempt to Reconstruct Barth’s Doctrine in the Light of His Later Christology, in Trinitarian Theology after Barth, ed. Myk Habets and Phillip Tolliday, Princeton Theo- logical Monograph Series (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2011), 87–118; “Election and the Trinity: Theses in Response to George Hunsinger,” in Trinity and Election in Contempo- rary Theology, ed. Michael T. Dempsey (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 115–37; originally published under the title “Election and the Trinity: Theses in Response to George Hun- singer,” Scottish Journal of Theology 63, no. 2 (2010), 203–24; “God Is His Decision: The Jüngel-Gollwitzer ‘Debate’ Revisited,” in Theology as Conversation: The Significance of Di- alogue in Historical and Contemporary Theology, ed. Bruce L. McCormack and Kimlyn J.

Bender (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 48–66; “Justitia Aliena: Karl Barth in Conversation with the Evangelical Doctrine of ‘Imputed Righteousness,’” in Justification in Perspective,

Barth’s Reconstruction of Divine Election

3 argue that Barth’s doctrine of election requires of those who wish to follow in

Barth’s train to critically rethink divine triunity and the being and attributes of God based on Barth’s primary focus in his treatment of divine election, the God who elects.

On the other side, advanced by George Hunsinger and Paul Molnar,

ed. Bruce L. McCormack (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 167–96; “What’s at Stake in Current Debates over Justification? The Crisis of Protestantism in the West,” in Justifica- tion: What’s at Stake in the Current Debates, ed. Mark Husbands and Daniel J. Treier (Down- ers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004), 81–117; “Karl Barth’s Historicized Christology: Just How

‘Chalcedonian’ Is It?” in McCormack, Orthodox and Modern, 201–33; this essay was origi- nally published in a slightly different form under the title “Barths Grundsätzlicher Chal- cedonismus?” in Zeitschrift für dialektische Theologie 18 (2002): 138–73; “Karl Barth’s Ver- sion of an ‘Analogy of Being’ A Dialectical No and Yes to Roman Catholicism,” in The Analogy of Being: Invention of the Antichrist or Wisdom of God?, ed. Thomas White (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 54–112; “Let’s Speak Plainly: A Response to Paul Molnar,” The- ology Today 67, no. 1 (April 2010): 57–65; “The Lord and Giver of Life: A ‘Barthian’ De- fense of the Filioque,” in Rethinking Trinitarian Theology: Disputed Questions and Contem- porary Issues in Trinitarian Theology, ed. Robert J. Woźniak and Giulio Maspero (London:

T&T Clark, 2012), 230–53; “The Ontological Presuppositions of Barth’s Doctrine of the Atonement,” in The Glory of the Atonement, ed. Charles Hill and Frank James (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004), 346–66; “Participation in God, Yes; Deification, No: Two Modern Protestant Responses to an Ancient Question,” in McCormack, Orthodox and Mod- ern, 235–59; this essay was originally published in a slightly different from under the title,

“Participation in God, Yes, Deification, No: Two Modern Protestant Responses to an Ancient Question”‘ in Denwürdiges Geheimnis – Beiträge zur Gotteslehre: Festschrift für Eberhard Jüngel zum 70 Geburtstag, ed. Ingolf U. Dalferth, Johannes Fischer, and Hans-Peter Gross- hans (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 347–74; “Processions and Missions: A Point of Con- vergence between Thomas Aquinas and Karl Barth,” in Thomas Aquinas and Karl Barth: An Unofficial Catholic-Protestant Dialogue, ed. Bruce L. McCormack and Thomas J. White, OP (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 99–126; “Sanctification after Metaphysics: Karl Barth in Conversation with John Wesley’s Conception of “Christian Perfection,”‘ in Sanctification:

Explorations in Theology and Practice, ed. Kelly M. Kapic (Downers Grove, IL: InterVar- sity, 2014), 103–26; “Karl Barth’s Christology as a Resource for a Reformed Vision of Ke- noticism,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 8 (2006): 243–51; “Whither Protestant Ecumenicism? The Contribution of Karl Barth’s Later Christology to the Task of Protestant Ecumenical Theology Today,” in Dogmatics after Barth: Facing Challenges in Church, Society and the Academy, ed. Günter Thomas, Rinse H. Reeling Brouwer, and Bruce L. McCormack (Leipzig, Germany: Create Space Independent Publishing Platform, 2012), 144–51; “Why Should Theology Be Christocentric? Christology and Metaphysics in Paul Tillich and Karl Barth,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 45, no. 1 (2010), 42–80; “Divine Im- passibility or Simply Divine Constancy? Implications of Karl Barth’s Later Christology for Debates over Impassibility,” in Divine Impassibility and the Mystery of Human Suffering, ed.

James F. Keating and Thomas J. White (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 150–86.

2 Scholars who strongly endorse the basic insights set forth in McCormack’s interpreta- tion of the ontological significance of Barth’s doctrine of election include Paul T. Nimmo, Be- ing in Action: The Theological Shape of Barth’s Ethical Vision (London: T&T Clark, 2007);

“Barth and the Christian as Ethical Agent: An Ontological Study of the Shape of Christian Ethics,” in Commanding Grace: Studies in Karl Barth’s Ethics, ed. Daniel L. Migliore (Grand

4

Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010, 216–38; “Barth and the Election-Trinity Debate: A Pneumatologi- cal View,” in Dempsey, Trinity and Election in Contemporary Theology, 162–81; “Karl Barth and the Concursus Dei: A Chalcedonianism Too Far?” International Journal of Systematic Theology 9, no. 1 (2007): 58–72; “The Compassion of Jesus Christ: Barth on Matthew 9:36,”

in Reading the Gospels with Karl Barth, ed. Daniel L. Migliore (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 69–79; Matthias Gockel, “On the Way from Schleiermacher to Barth: A Critical Re- appraisal of Isaak August Dorner’s Essay on Divine Immutability,” Scottish Journal of The- ology 53, no. 4 (2000): 490–510; Barth and Schleiermacher on the Doctrine of Election: A Systematic-Theological Comparison (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006); “Theology af- ter Barth – the Dogmatic Challenge,” in Thomas et al., Dogmatics after Barth, 109–22; Ben- jamin Myers, “Election, Trinity, and the History of Jesus: Reading Barth with Rowan Wil- liams,” in Habets and Tolliday, Trinitarian Theology after Barth, 121–37; Matthew J. Aragon Bruce, “Theology without Voluntarism: Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Divine Freedom” (PhD diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 2013); Shannon Nicole Smythe, Forensic Apocalyptic Theology: Karl Barth and the Doctrine of Justification (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016); “The Sum of the Gospel: Barth’s Intracanonical and Intertextual Interpretation of Paradiōmi,” in Reading the Gospels with Karl Barth, ed. Daniel L. Migliore (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 2017), 187–203. John Flett does not deal with issues surrounding McCormack’s reading of Barth’s doctrine of election directly, but it is apparent that his reading of Barth is compatible with McCormack’s interpretation when he writes that “the cleavage of church from mission derives from the cleavage of God’s being in his relationship to the world. Specifically, the fullness of God’s being is presented without material reference or perhaps even in antithesis to his movement into his economy. The witness of God is, as Barth suggests, ‘a problem of God,’ for it is a question of how in anticipation of his being in and for himself includes human existence with him. Only in correspondence to God’s overcoming of the gap between himself and the world does the church live in her connection with the world” (John G. Flett, The Witness of God, the Trinity, Missio Dei, Karl Barth, and the Nature of Christian Commu- nity [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010], 4). It is clear that he sees God’s essential act of turning toward the world in Jesus Christ as what grounds and shapes the church’s outward focused existence as witnessing community. Scholars who share sympathies with McCormack’s max- imalist reading of Barth’s doctrine of election, but do not endorse his thesis entirely (specif- ically in his suggestion that the conceptual arrangement of triunity and election be ordered with divine election as logically preceding divine triunity) include Kevin Diller, “Is God Nec- essarily Who God Is? Alternatives for the Trinity and Election Debate,” Scottish Journal of Theology 66, no. 2 (2013): 209–20; Kevin W. Hector, “God’s Triunity and Self-Determina- tion: A Conversation with Karl Barth, Bruce McCormack and Paul Molnar,” in Dempsey, Trinity and Election in Contemporary Theology, 29–46; originally published as “God’s Tri- unity and Self-Determination: A Conversation with Karl Barth, Bruce McCormack and Paul Molnar,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 7, no. 3 (2005): 246–61; “Immutabil- ity, Necessity and Triunity: Towards a Resolution of the Trinity and Election Contro- versy,” Scottish Journal of Theology 65, no. 1 (2012): 64–81; Paul D. Jones, “Karl Barth on Gethsemane,” The International Journal of Systematic Theology 9 (2008): 148–71; The Hu- manity of Christ: Christology in Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics (London: T&T Clark, 2008); “Obedience, Trinity and Election: Thinking with and beyond the Church Dogmatics,”

in Dempsey, Trinity and Election in Contemporary Theology, 138–61; Aaron T. Smith,

“God’s Self-Specification: His Being Is His Electing,” in Dempsey, Trinity and Election in Contemporary Theology, 201–25; originally published as “God’s Self-Specification: His Be- ing Is His Electing,” Scottish Journal of Theology 62, no. 1 (2009): 1–25; A Theology of the

Barth’s Reconstruction of Divine Election

5 is a minimalist understanding of Barth’s doctrine.

These scholars claim that

although Barth’s doctrine of election is significant for his theology, its signifi- cance must be restricted to God’s dealings with creation rather than require a

Third Article: Karl Barth and the Spirit of the Word (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014); Darren O. Sumner, Karl Barth and the Incarnation: Christology and the Humility of God (London:

T&T Clark, 2014); Faye Bodley-Dangelo, Sexual Difference, Gender and Agency in Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics (London: T&T Clark, 2020), 5, 10–14, 114–37.

3 George Hunsinger, Reading Barth with Charity: A Hermeneutical Proposal (Grand Rap- ids: Baker Academic, 2015); George Hunsinger, “Election and the Trinity: Twenty-Five The- ses on the Theology of Karl Barth (Revised),” in Evangelical Catholic and Reformed: Doc- trinal Essays on Barth and Related Themes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015); 32–55; pub- lished prior in different form as “Election and Trinity: Twenty-Five Theses on the Theology of Karl Barth,” in Dempsey, Trinity and Election in Contemporary Theology, 91–137; origi- nally published as “Election and Trinity: Twenty-Five Theses on the Theology of Karl Barth,” Modern Theology 24, no. 2 (April 2008): 179–98; “Introduction,” in Evangelical Catholic and Reformed, xii–iv; “Karl Barth on the Trinity,” in Evangelical Catholic and Re- formed, 1–20; “The Trinity after Barth: Moltmann, Pannenberg, Jüngel and Torrance,”

in Evangelical Catholic and Reformed, 21–31; Paul Molnar, Divine Freedom and the Doc- trine of the Immanent Trinity: In Dialogue with Karl Barth and Contemporary Theology, 2nd ed. (New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017); “Considering God’s Freedom Once Again,”

in Faith, Freedom and the Spirit: The Economic Trinity in Barth, Torrance and Contempo- rary Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2015), 129–86; “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?” in Faith, Freedom and the Spirit, 260–312;

originally pubished as “Can Jesus’ Divinity Be Recognized as ‘Definitive, Authentic and Essential’ If It Is Grounded in Election? Just How Far Did the Later Barth Historicize Chris- tology?” Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 52, no. 1 (2010): 40–81; “Can the Electing God Be without Us? Some Implications of Bruce McCor- mack’s Understanding of Barth’s Doctrine of Election,” in Dempsey, Trinity and Election in Contemporary Theology, 63–90; originally published as “Can the Electing God Be God with- out Us? Some Implications of Bruce McCormack’s Understanding of Barth’s Doctrine of Election for the Doctrine of the Trinity,” Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 49, no. 2 (2007): 199–222; “The Obedience of the Son in the Theology of Karl Barth and of Thomas F. Torrance,” in Faith, Freedom and the Spirit, 313–54; origi- nally published as “The Obedience of the Son in the Theology of Karl Barth and Thomas F.

Torrance,” Scottish Journal of Theology, no. 67 (2014): 50–69; “Origenism, Election, and Time and Eternity,” in Faith, Freedom and the Spirit, 187–224; “Orthodox and Modern: Just How Modern Was Barth’s Later Theology?” Theology Today 67, no. 1 (April 2010): 51–6;

“The Perils of Embracing a ‘Historicized Christology,”‘ in Faith, Freedom and the Spirit, 225–59; “The Trinity, Election, and God’s Ontological Freedom: A Response to Kevin W.

Hector,” in Dempsey, Trinity and Election in Contemporary Theology, 47–62; originally pub- lished as “The Trinity, Election and God’s Ontological Freedom: A Response to Kevin W.

Hector,” Scottish Journal of Theology 8, no. 3 (2006): 294–306; “Was Barth a Pro-Nicene Theologian? Reflections on Nicea and Its Legacy,” Scottish Journal of Theology 64, no. 3 (2011): 347–59; Incarnation and Resurrection: Toward a Contemporary Understand- ing (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007).

6

rethinking of the doctrine of the Trinity, or the doctrine of God in light of it.

Bruce McCormack’s maximalist understanding of Barth’s doctrine of elec- tion can be briefly explained in the following manner. McCormack claims that Barth’s doctrine of election contains revisionary significance for the doctrine of God, since Barth’s doctrine of the Trinity and his treatment of the being and attributes of God preceded his innovative reconstruction of divine election.

Therefore, he believes it is essential to go back and reconfigure Barth’s earlier doctrinal formulations in order to align them with the mature insights that arose as a result of his christologically conditioned understanding of divine election.

As McCormack insists, “[Barth’s] mature view of election would have required the retraction of certain of his earlier claims about the relation of revelation and triunity, finding in them a far too open door to the kind of speculation his mature doctrine of election sought to eliminate.”

McCormack thus locates the con- structive significance in the fact that Barth’s doctrine of election contains the potential for an elaborate theological ontology that is capable of concretely ex- plaining how God is truly identified with what God does in the vicarious history

4 Others who are sympathetic to Hunsinger and Molnar’s aversion toward McCormack’s thesis regarding the ontological significance of Barth’s doctrine of election are Edwin chr.

Van Driel, Incarnation Anyway: Arguments for Supralapsarian Christology (Oxford: Oxford University, 2008); “Karl Barth on the Eternal Existence of Jesus Christ,” Scottish Journal of Theology 60, no. 1 (2007): 45–61; D. Stephen Long, Saving Karl Barth: Hans Urs Von Bal- thasar’s Preoccupation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014); Adam J. Johnson, God’s Being in Rec- onciliation: The Theological Basis of the Unity and Diversity of the Atonement in the Theol- ogy of Karl Barth (London: T&T Clark, 2012); Justin Stratis, “Speculating about Divinity?

God’s Immanent Life and Actualsitic Ontology,” International Journal of Systematic Theol- ogy 12, no. 1 (January 2010): 20–32; God’s Being Towards Fellowship: Schleiermacher, Barth and the Meaning of “God is Love” (London: T&T Clark, 2019); Alan Torrance, “The Trinity,” in Webster, Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, 72–91; Shao Kai Tseng, Karl Barth’s Infralapsarian Theology: Origins and Development 1920–1953 (Downers Grove, IL:

InterVarsity, 2016). Robert B. Price, Letters of the Divine Word: The Perfections of God in Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics (London: T&T Clark, 2011); Nicholas M. Healy, “Karl Barth, German-Language Theology, and the Catholic Tradition,” in Dempsey, Trinity and Election in Contemporary Theology, 229–43; Scott. A Kirkland, Into the Far Country: Karl Barth and the Modern Subject (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016); Christopher R. J. Holmes, “‘A Specific Form of Relationship’: On the Dogmatic Implication of Barth’s Account of Election and Commandment for His Theological Ethics,” in Dempsey, Trinity and Election in Con- temporary Theology, 182–200; ‘The Person and Work of Christ Revisited: In Conversation with Karl Barth,’ Anglican Theological Review 95 no. 1 (2013): 37–55; Michael T. Dempsey,

“Love Is Free or It Is Not Love: Why the Immanent Trinity Still Matters in the Thought of Karl Barth and in Contemporary Theology,” Science Et Esprit 63, no. 2 (2011); “Introduc- tion,” in Dempsey, Trinity and Election in Contemporary Theology; Ivor J. Davidson, “Di- vine Light: Some Reflections after Barth,” in Habets and Tolliday, Trinitarian Theology after Barth, 48–69.

5 McCormack, “Grace and Being,” 192–96.

6 McCormack, “Grace and Being,” 192.

Barth’s Reconstruction of Divine Election

7 of Jesus as portrayed in the biblical witness.

He views Barth’s doctrine of elec-

tion as providing an explanation for God’s full and unreserved involvement in the event of Jesus’s atonement. In addition, McCormack believes Barth retains all the essential values of the ecumenical tradition, while eliminating many of the abstract premises that prevented those values from adequately conforming to the way God is concretely presented in the biblical witness.

Thus, his attempt to revise some of Barth’s theological claims is not intended to be a departure from Barth’s theological project. Rather, it arises from the peculiar theological ontology that resulted from Barth’s novel treatment of divine election and the historicized Christology that his doctrine of election made possible.

Those who see Barth’s doctrine of election as functioning in a limited capac- ity that exclusively pertains to God’s relationship to creation contend that the maximalist interpreters impose their insights upon Barth’s texts and fail to read him in a textually sensitive and contextually accurate manner. As George Hun- singer contends, “I am convinced that the Barthian-revisionist viewpoint [his term for the maximalist line of interpretation] rests to a large degree on a series of unwarranted inferences.”

Hunsinger writes that the maximalist interpreters of Barth “rests mainly on deductions derived from Barthian arguments that are taken from their context and treated in isolation.

The minimalist interpreters claim that statements can be found in Barth’s thought that follow his treatment of divine election that reflect many of the concerns resident in his earlier theo- logical formulations.

Therefore, they contend that any attempts to revise Barth’s earlier doctrine of the Trinity and his doctrine of God cannot be textu- ally sustained and, therefore, that the maximalist interpreters should discontinue ascribing their doctrinal formulations to Barth, since much of what Barth says directly refutes their interpretive conclusions.

As Hunsinger posits, “The in- ferred Barth is the gold standard against which the actually existing textual Barth comes up wanting. The deduced entity is used to claim that the textual Barth is inconsistent.”

From a constructive standpoint, the minimalist inter- preters of Barth see the maximalist line of interpretation as failing to recognize Barth’s concern to develop a theology that reflected the trinitarian and christo- logical insights of “the ecumenical church.”

Molnar insists that the maximalist interpreters of Barth “[are] at variance not only with the ‘textual Barth’ but also

7 McCormack, “Impassibility,” 173.

8 McCormack, “Historicized,” 216–32; “We Have ‘Actualized,’” 180–82.

9 Hunsinger, Charity, xvi.

10 Hunsinger, Charity, 12.

11 Hunsinger, “Election and the Trinity,” 54.

12 Hunsinger, “Election and the Trinity,” 54–55.

13 Hunsinger, Charity, 14.

14 Hunsinger, “Karl Barth on the Trinity,” 1; Molnar, Divine Freedom, 92.

8

with the classical doctrine of the Trinity and with Christology as well.”

Mini- malist interpreters see Barth’s legacy as champion for catholicity and Nicene and Chalcedonian orthodoxy as potentially becoming eclipsed by the version of Barth presented by the maximalist interpreters. Therefore, they argue that the maximalist interpretation is both textually unwarranted, and also a deviation from the bounds of the limits fixed by the dogmatic formulations set forth by the ancient church.

Despite the fact that McCormack’s reading is often treated as a novel inter- pretation of Barth that diverts from conventional understandings of Barth’s the- ology, his understanding of Barth is anything but new. It is actually the logical outworking of a consistent way of reading Barth present in the work of noted German scholars for many decades now.

Accordingly, many of those who ad- vance a minimalist understanding of the ontological significance of Barth’s doc- trine of election incorrectly categorize McCormack’s reading of Barth’s theol- ogy as “revisionist” in character. Hunsinger categorizes McCormack’s interpre- tation as completely novel when he makes the following claim: “That in Barth there is some supposed contradiction [...] is easy to assert, but it has never been

15 Molnar, Divine Freedom, 92.

16 Eberhard, Jüngel, God’s Being Is in Becoming: The Trinitarian Being of God in the Theology of Karl Barth: A Paraphrase, trans. John B. Webster, 2nd ed. (London: T&T Clark, 2014); Gottes Sein ist im Werden: Verantwortliche Rede vom Sein Gottes bei Karl Barth:

Eine Paraphrase (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1986); Barth-Studien (Gütersloh:

Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1982); Wilfried Härle, Sein und Gnade, Die Ontologie in Karl Barths Kirklicher Dogmatik (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1975); Hans Theodor Goebel,

“Trinitätslehre und Erwählungslehre bei Karl Barth: Eine Problemanzeige,” in Wahrheit und Versöhnung: theologische und philosophische Beiträge zur Gotteslehre, ed. Dietrich Korsch and Hartmut Ruddies (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, Gerd Mohn, 1989), 147–66; Vom freien Wählen Gottes und des Menschen: Interpretationsübungen zur ‘Analogie’ Nach Karl Barths Lehre von der Erwählung und Bedenken ihrer Folgen für die Kirchliche Dogmatik (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1990); Thies Gundlach, Selbstbegrenzung Gottes und Die Autonomie des Menschen: Karl Barths Kirkliche Dogmatik als Modernisierungsschritt evangelischer Theologie (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1992). These scholars do not directly draw the connections made between the doctrine of election and the divine identity, but the fact that they recognize that Barth’s theology possesses a peculiar theological ontology corroborates with our under- standing of Barth’s theology in many ways: Berthold Klappert, Die Aufweckung des Gekreu- zigten: der Ansatz der Christologie Karl Barths in Zusammenhang der Christologie der Ge- genwart (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1971); Versöhnung und Befreiung: Versuche, Karl Barth kontextuell zu verstehen (Dusseldorf: Neukirchener, 1994); Walter Kreck, Grun- dentscheidungen in Karl Barths Dogmatik: zur Diskussion seines Verständnisses von Offen- barung und Erwählung (Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1978); Ingolf U. Dalferth, “Karl Barth’s Eschatological Realism,” in Karl Barth: Centenary Essays, ed. Stephen W. Sykes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 14–45; Wolf Krötke, “Gott und Mensch als

‘Partner.’ Zur Bedeutung einer zentralen Kategorie in Karl Barths Kirklicher Dogma- tik,” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 6 (1986): 158–75.

Barth’s Reconstruction of Divine Election

9 proven or even clearly set forth.

However, a closer inspection of the history

of Barth interpretation yields a much different conclusion.

McCormack’s in- sistence that Barth’s doctrine of election warrants the revising of some of Barth’s earlier dogmatic formulations in order to be articulated with greater consistency may not be completely free from criticism. But, it certainly has

“been clearly set forth” by German interpreters over the span of many decades

17 Hunsinger, “Election and the Trinity,” 54.

18 Statements intended to place McCormack’s understanding of Barth’s theology within the realm of novelty fail to acknowledge how McCormack’s interpretation of Barth is antic- ipated by the German scholars mentioned above. The thesis that Barth’s doctrine of election ought to be seen as operating in a critical capacity in relation to Barth’s earlier understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity and his doctrine of God is most eloquently described by Thies Gundlach, who contends that “Barth muß darin kritisiert werden, daß seine frühzeitige Einfürung der Trinitätslehre vor der Erwählungslehre und das entsprechendes Theologume- non von dem erwählenden Gott Jesus Christus faktisch die Intention konterkariert, die seine Erwählungslehre verfolgt: Die theologisch einzigartige Bedeutung der Offenbarung Gottes in Jesus Christus zu betonen!” (Selbstbegrenzung Gottes und die Autonomie des Menschen, 162). The criticism offered by Gundlach is the result of the fact that the identification of God with Jesus requires a certain rethinking of the divine being that makes election function in a capacity that ought to shape even Barth’s trinitarian reflections. God is the God self-deter- mined to be God exclusive as Jesus Christ and that self-determination then shapes how one ought to conceive of the divine identity, the triune relations, and the attributes one ought to ascribe to the divine identity. Gundlach is perceptive to recognize the significance of divine election as an act regarding the very divine identity itself. Consequently, Gundlach concludes that “Diese Einwände führen zu der These, daß nach der hier vorgelegten Interpretation die Erwählungslehre als eine korrigierende Präzisierung der trinitätstheologischen Offenba- rungslehre Barth’s verstanden werden muß” (Selbstbegrenzung Gottes und die Autonomie des Menschen, 164. Emphasis original). The corrective element Gundlach rightly perceives in passages such as these is that the content of Jesus Christ’s vicarious history now informs how one ought to perceive God’s identity rather than the earlier claim regarding God’s self- sufficient Lordship (Cf. KD I/1, 323). Therefore, it is nothing less than the distinctly Christian character of God’s self-revealing activity that is concretized in Barth’s doctrine of election, as Gundlach himself posits: “Die Trinitätslehre Barths leistet diesen Aufweis doch gerade darum nicht, weil – wie der Name schon sagt – die Christlichkeit der christlichen Offenbarung an Jesus Christus hängt und nicht schon daran, daß Gott sich als der Herr offenbart! Ist die Herrschaft Gottes nicht wirklich eine so unspezifische und formale Bestimmung, daß sie für jede Offenbarungsreligion gelten kann und nicht nur für die christliche?” (Selbstbegrenzung Gottes und die Autonomie des Menschen, 162). See also Goebel, “Trinitätslehre und Erwäh- lungslehre,” 154. In the English-speaking world, this shift in Barth’s trinitarian reflections was noted by Rowan Williams, “Barth on the Triune God,” in Karl Barth – Studies in His Theological Methods, ed. Steven W. Sykes (Oxford: Clarendon, 1979), 147–93. Needless to say, it has been a consistent observation in Barth interpretation that Barth’s doctrine of elec- tion and his later Christology indicate that certain material changes have arisen in his theology as a whole and that some of the formulations set forth in the earlier volumes of the Church Dogmatics require revision as a result.

10

now. Although there may be certain points of disagreement regarding the par- ticular way in which divine election critically shapes the overall structure of Barth’s Offenbarungstheologie project, the recognition that certain formula- tions in Barth’s theology ought to be subjected to critical scrutiny in light of Barth’s doctrine of election, or its paradigmatic role in rightly discerning the comprehensive logic that governs Barth’s theology as a whole, is certainly not unique to McCormack. In fact, much of what has preceded McCormack’s thesis regarding the ontological significance of Barth’s doctrine of election anticipates the basic lines of argumentation elaborated by McCormack. This becomes es- pecially apparent when one reads the interpretation offered by Eberhard Jün- gel’s 1965 monograph, Gottes Sein ist im Werden: Verantwortliche Rede vom

Many of the insights central to McCormack’s maximalist view on the divine ontology that flows from Barth’s conception of divine election can be clearly seen in Eberhard Jüngel’s treatment of Barth’s theology over fifty years ago. In other words, McCormack’s thesis regarding the ontological significance of Barth’s doctrine of election is a natural outworking of consistent observations registered by German interpreters of Barth for a significant amount of time now. Thus, to adequately challenge McCormack’s understanding of Barth’s theology, one must also challenge the insights adduced by the interpreters that preceded McCormack, since a close observation of how these scholars interpreted Barth yields conclusions that lead in the direction of McCormack’s maximalist reading of Barth.

The Purpose of This Study

To clarify what this book intends to achieve in its interaction with Barth, this section will provide a summary of the argument the book is seeking to substan- tiate, and detail how this particular argument falls in line with McCormack’s maximalist thesis. Along the way, it will underscore several reasons why a rig- orous textual analysis is needed for the maximalist understanding of Barth’s doctrine of election, and finally, clarify the scope of the argument. Ultimately, this study chronicles Barth’s theological development in order to provide the necessary textual evidence to validate the specific contention concerning the significant role Barth’s doctrine of election has in animating the theological ontology peculiar to the later volumes of the Church Dogmatics.

This book intends to highlight the theological ontology that arises when one rigorously examines Barth’s integration of divine election with his conception of the divine being. The argument is that Barth’s claim that God is essentially

19 This will become apparent in the next chapter.

Index of Names

Ables, Travis E., 176–77 Asbil, Brian, 51, 68, 72 Aquinas, Thomas, 42, 85 Beeley, Christopher A., 193 Braun, Herbert, 18

Bruce, Matthew 12, 42, 55, 60, 68, 79–

84

Busch, Eberhard, 46, 80, 109 Bultmann, Rudolf, 17 Calvin, John, 116–17, 132 Coakley, Sarah, 80

Collins, Paul, 37, 45, 49, 106–108, 181 Cyril of Alexandria, 178

Dorner, Isaak, 61, 69, 79, 84 Drury, John, 180–82 Eitel Adam, 46, 177–8 Flett, John, 4, 39–40, 110, 191 Gallaher, Brandon, 54–5, 85

Goebel, Hans Theodor, 9, 103, 118–19, 124, 146, 160

Gollwitzer, Helmut, 17–18, 22 Graf, Friedrich Wilhelm, 60 Gregory of Nazianzus, 193–94 Gundlach, Thies, 8–9, 29–30, 37, 98,

108, 120, 124, 126, 139

Härle, Wilfried, 3, 8, 11, 17, 38, 44–45, 58, 89, 91–92, 95–98, 143–144, 147–148, 151, 153, 164

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, 46, 54, 56, 61–62

Herrmann, Wilhelm, 57 Hodgson, Peter, 56 Holmes, Christopher, 16, 24

Hunsinger, George, 2–3, 5–9, 13, 16, 20, 25, 27, 32–36, 50, 87, 105, 111–

12, 116, 163 Johnson, Keith, 37

Jones, Paul D., 78, 84, 85, 107, 116, 122, 133, 138–39, 162, 172 Jüngel, Eberhard, 8, 10, 13, 16, 17–27,

29–32, 35–36, 40, 86, 89, 104, 115, 117, 121, 133, 135, 138, 164 Klappert, Berthold, 160, 173, 180 Kreck, Walter, 92, 103, 126 LaCugna, Catherine Mowry, 81, 191 McCormack, Bruce, 2–13, 16–17, 23,

25–32, 36–40, 43–45, 54, 61, 69, 71, 78–79, 81, 83, 98, 103–4, –106, 109, 115–16, 120–21, 128, 132, 134, 155–57, 169, 173–74, 176, 190 Meijering, E.P., 169

Molnar, Paul, 6–7, 33–33, 70, 92, 146, 158–59, 162–163, 168

Moltmann, Jürgen, 79, 169, 174, 189, 191

Muller, Richard, 52 Myers, Ben, 166 Neder, Adam, 37

Nimmo, Paul, 37, 106, 139, 175 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, 46, 158–59, 170,

189

Polanus, Amandus, 49 Price, Robert, 50, 81, 91, 95 Rahner, Karl, 157, 161, 173 Rendtorff, Trutz, 39, 70 Rogers, Eugene, 176–77

218

78–80

Schwöbel, Christoph, 53, 60, 69 Smith, Aaron, 105, 133, 135, 177 Smythe, Shannon, 120, 160 Stratis, Justin, 60, 69 Sumner, Darren, 37

Tanner, Kathryn, 58–59, 191–92 Torrance Alan, 16

Webster, John, 37, 143–144 Weinandy, Thomas, 63 Welker, Michael, 46 Zizioulas, John, 37, 191

Index of Subjects

actualism, 8–10, 31, 33–35, 37–38 analogia fidei, 37

atonement, 7, 74, 76, 99, 118, 120–127, 130, 147, 152–56, 160–68, 170–73.

See also cross covenant

– and Christ, 104, 145–53, 162 – and creation, 12–13, 143–46 – Gemeinschaft, 144–7

– and God, 2, 11–13, 30, 106, 123, 130–32, 143–45, 146–47, 155, 163, 172, 189

– and grace, 147–53 – and history, 142–44 – and humanity, 162 – and love, 144–52 – obedience, 156, 164

– and processions, 171–86, 189, 190–

95

– and reconciliation, 148–49 creation

– and covenant, 12–13, 143–46 – and God, 10-13, 143–46, 150–55 – goodness, 142–48

– and justification, 145, 148–54 – and love, 145–53

– necessary, 13, 148–54

– and obedience of Christ, 148–52 cross, 103–4, 118–19, 121, 126, 148–

49, 156, 160, 162–63, 169, 173, 178, 180–81 184, 186

See also atonement

ecumenical tradition, 7–8, 12, 33, 156, 169– 70, 189–90

election

– and Christ, 7, 24, 27, 30–31, 35–38, 103–07, 116, 120, 122, 133, 135, 137, 150, 163, 170, 173, 175–76, 183

– decision, 2, 24–26, 27, 30–31, 38, 40, 70, 103–7, 113, 116, 120, 122, 133, 135, 137, 158, 163, 166, 170, 190

– and essence, 26, 31, 38, 40, 70, 106–

7, 113, 116, 133, 137, 163, 183 – and freedom, 32, 35–38, 70, 104,

106–7, 113, 116, 133, 135, 163, 166, 175

– and God, 1–10, 16, 24–27, 30–32, 35–40, 70, 103–7,

– and grace, 24, 27, 31, 97–100, 103–

4, 107, 113, 133, 135, 150, 158, 163, 166, 170, 173, 176, 183, 190–95 – great exchange, 118, 122, 137, 140,

157

– and justification, 117–27, 139–40, 149, 152–53, 179, 184–86, 192 – and love, 104–7, 120, 150, 163, 166,

175, 183–86

– and obedience, 31, 116, 133, 135, 136–40, 150, 158, 163, 170, 173, 175

– and ontology, 6–10, 30–32, 36–38, 40

– pretemporal, 24, 26, 31, 103, 133, 135, 158, 166, 170, 183–86, 190–91 – and processions, 27, 31, 38, 40,

127–36, 173–186, 190

– and Reformed tradition, 1, 115–17 – subject, 10, 14, 30–31, 38, 103, 116,

127–136, 137, 170, 190

– and Trinity, 2, 6–8, 24, 26–27, 31–

32, 35, 37–38, 70, 113, 116, 135, 137, 158, 163, 166, 170, 173, 176, 182-86

ethics, 37 God

– action/activity, 17, 19, 24, 26–7, 30–

32, 35–40, 42–3, 46, 49, 52, 62, 68,

220

148, 163, 173, 175, 177, 183, 190–

91

– actus purus, 42, 45, 57, 58, 63, 69 – aseity, 18–20, 39–41, 45–46, 49, 51,

53–55, 57, 60, 61, 64–66, 71–2, 79, 87, 129

– and atonement, 7, 120, 122, 126, 130, 145, 152, 161, 163, 166, 170, 173,

– attributes, 3, 6, 9, 33, 38, 44–45, 48, 60, 72, 76, 98, 105, 107–12, 119, 129, 134, 137, 140, 158–59, 177, 181–86, 192–93

– becoming, 18, 23, 25, 27–28, 31, 34, 39, 40, 49, 59–65, 68, 71, 83, 106–7, 126, 130, 148, 163, 166

– being, 2–3, 6, 8–15, 16–28, 30–32, 34–40

– being-in-act, 41, 44, 48, 65 – and Christ, 6–8, 16–17, 19, 24, 27,

30–31, 35, 37–38, 40, 42, 46, 48, 62, 68, 72, 79, 84, 97, 103–4, 106–7, 116, 120, 122, 126, 133, 135, 137, 143, 145, 150–52, 161, 163, 170, 173, 175–77, 183, 189, 190–91 – consciousness, 46, 60–62, 66, 68–

69, 79, 113, 193

– correspondence, 21–22, 26, 35–36, 40, 42, 44, 81, 88, 155, 167–8, 170–

71, 181, 192–4

– and covenant, 2, 11–13, 14–15, 27, 29, 30–31, 35–36, 40, 42, 66, 68, 80, 98, 101–15, 117–19, 121–22, 127–

33, 135–41, 142–54, 155–56, 158, 160–66, 168–178, 181–86, 188–94 – and creation, 14–15, 37, 42, 52, 54–

55, 58–59, 62, 65, 70, 80, 82, 102–3, 106, 123, 126, 128, 141–52, 153–54 – as decision, 2, 11, 13–14, 17, 23–26,

29, 30–31, 38–40, 41–42, 55–56, 64–65, 66–73, 98, 101–17 – determination, 9, 12–13, 22–27, 31,

35, 40, 42, 51, 54–56, 58–59, 63–65, 67, 70, 72–73, 77, 84, 85, 88–92, 95, 97–98, 102–113, 115–17, 120–122, 126, 129, 130–139, 141, 144, 149–

50, 155–57, 159, 161–62, 165–72, 175, 181, 184–85, 193–5

– and election, 2–3, 6–8, 10, 16, 24, 26–27, 30–32, 35–38, 40, 70, 103–7, 113, 116, 120, 122, 133, 135, 137, 150, 158, 163, 166, 170, 173, 175–

76, 183–86, 190–95

– essence, 31, 38, 40, 42–43, 46, 48–

49, 52, 62, 68, 70, 72, 78–79, 80, 106–7, 113, 116, 130, 133, 137, 145, 148, 152, 163, 177, 183, 189 – event, 7, 11–12, 15, 17–21, 24–31,

33–34, 36, 44–49, 52–59, 61–64, 66–68, 72–76, 83, 86, 89, 90, 93, 97, 102–3, 105–110, 113, 115, 120, 125, 127–29, 132–33, 135–36, 139, 143, 145–46, 150, 153, 156, 158–60, 164, 178–79, 181, 187–189, 191, 194 – existence, 17–18, 22–23, 25–27, 29,

34–37, 39–40, 41–43, 45, 49–50, 55, 58–59, 62–66, 68, 70, 72–73, 78–79, 81–85, 87–80, 92–94, 102, 118, 121–23, 126–27, 132–33, 136–37, 139, 142–46, 148, 150–60, 162, 164, 169, 170, 173, 175, 177–78, 181, 188–90

– Father, 15, 23, 37, 115, 129–130, 134, 136–141, 144, 146, 149, 154–

55, 158–59, 162–63, 166, 168–77, 177–86, 193–95

– fellowship, 65, 74–76, 78, 80–90, 92–3, 96–100

– and forgiveness of sins, 91–2, 118 – freedom, 12, 14, 28–29, 32–39, 41,

45, 49–51, 54–57, 61–65, 67–70, 72–73, 78, 85, 87, 92, 95, 99, 100, 101, 104–110, 112–13, 115–16, 128, 130, 132–33, 138, 145–46, 149, 162–63, 165–66, 175, 187 – goodness, 72, 84–85, 87, 133, 143,

150, 152 – grace, 89, 90–100

– and hermeneutics, 11, 13, 18, 21, 30, 32

– in history, 6, 9, 11–13, 15, 18, 22, 24–26, 28–41, 43–5, 48–49, 54–56, 58–61, 63–67, 71–72, 76, 90–91, 95, 97, 101–2, 104–110, 112–17, 119, 121–25, 128, 130–32, 135–36, 139, 143–54, 155–58, 160–76, 178, 180–

86, 188–91

Index of Subjects

221

36–37, 39, 65, 77–83, 85–89, 92–95, 103–7, 110–11, 113, 115, 117, 130–

31, 138, 146, 149–50, 152–54 – humility as Son, 157–59, 165 – and hypostatic union, 82–83, 121,

134, 138, 150, 168, 185, 190 – immutability, 26, 28, 36, 42, 118–

19, 122, 137–40, 157, 170 – infinity, 52

– intentionality, 38–39, 41, 43–44, 49, 50, 53–56, 58–69, 71, 73, 79, 81–82, 88, 98, 100, 102, 104–8, 111, 113–

15, 119, 128–30, 134, 137–38, 140–

48, 150–53, 156, 161–66, 168, 171, 173–77, 181–86, 188, 190, 193–94 – knowledge, 61–63, 114–16 – life/living, 57–59, 116–18 – lordship, 28–29, 96–98

– love, 75, 76–81, 84–85, 87, 92, 95, 99–100, 102, 104–7, 109–10, 115, 119–21, 123–24, 128, 130–131, 138, 141, 144–46, 149–51, 154, 163, 166, 168, 175, 178, 183–86, 191, 193 – mercy, 118–19, 125, 140, 148–49,

160, 179, 183

– missions, 27, 40, 110, 115, 123, 157, 195

– modes of being, 15, 24–26, 72, 89, 99–100, 102, 107, 117, 127, 135, 140–41, 154–55, 157, 159–60, 171, 174–76, 185, 188–90, 192, 194–95 – motivation/movement, 19, 38, 40,

45, 51, 54–56, 58, 60–66, 69–71, 81, 88, 92–93, 104

– nature, 54–59, 61, 64

– obedience, 114, 116–117, 127, 130, 133, 135–141, 148–52, 154–60, 162–65, 167–68, 170–75

– oneness, 131–33, 160, 172, 175–76, 185–86

– ontology, 20–21, 36–38, 40–42, 63–

65, 71–79, 88, 98–100, 114, 121, 129–36, 140, 147–50, 153, 158, 162, 167–71, 183–86, 193–95

– and otherness, 77–79, 81–89, 92–94, 96, 99, 145, 149

– overflowing, 77, 81–88, 91, 100, 105, 122–25, 138, 146

– personal, 53, 59–60, 62, 67, 69–70, 72, 87, 156–57

– and predestination, 21–2

– processions, 99–100, 115, 128, 159, 169, 171, 172–74, 177, 181, 183, 187, 189–90

– qua Son, 101, 105, 107, 115, 124, 127–28, 130, 133–35, 136–41, 146, 148–54, 157–66, 172–5

– and reconciliation, 18, 36, 39, 55, 100, 106, 128, 143, 147, 148, 151, 156, 159, 160, 167, 173, 185, 193 – Reformed scholasticism, 49, 52 – and resurrection, 177–86

– revelation, 6, 11, 16, 17–23, 26–30, 33, 36, 38–39, 41, 43–53, 55–58, 60, 62–66, 68–69, 71–72, 75–76, 85, 90–92, 95–97, 103, 105, 112, 123, 128, 135, 136–37, 140, 147–48, 153, 155, 170, 173, 178

– righteousness, 118–19, 125, 184 – self-giving, 77–80, 82, 84–89, 93–

94, 99–100, 107, 115, 120, 124, 129, 138, 141–42, 146, 151–52, 154, 158, 170, 177, 180, 182–83, 185–86 – self-related, 77–78, 89, 92–93, 98–

100

– simplicity, 41–44

– and sin, 91–93, 96, 98–99, 123–27 – Son, 101, 105, 107, 115, 124, 127–

28, 130, 133–35, 136–41, 146, 148–

54, 157–66, 172–5

– sufficiency, 77, 79, 84, 87, 96, 112, 152

– and time, 121–23, 128–29 – transcendence, 34, 45, 51–54, 57–

58, 64, 82, 93–94

– volition, 22, 38, 51, 54–56, 59–61, 64, 68–71, 73, 79–81, 85–88, 93, 107, 113–114, 119, 129, 134, 146, 149, 163, 172, 183

grace

– actualism, 7–8, 11–12, 18, 22, 25–

27, 30, 33–34, 36–38, 40–42, 45, 49–51, 53, 56–57, 60, 63–65, 71–73, 76, 78–79, 83, 88, 114, 121, 129–

136, 140, 147–50, 153, 158, 162, 167–71, 183–86, 190, 193–5

222

11, 181–86

– and Christ, 91–94, 103–4, 107, 133, 135, 143, 145, 150–51, 163, 170, 173, 176–77, 183, 190–91 – and covenant, 147–50

– and election, 24–5, 103–4, 107, 113, 133, 135, 150, 158, 163, 166, 170, 173, 176, 183, 190

– God, 24–25 75–76, 90–100, 107–

111, 180, 183–86

– ontology, 2, 30–31, 97–100, 148, 191

– and resurrection, 177–86 – and revelation, 91–94 – Son, 167–71

– and Trinity, 75, 96–100, 127–36, 171–86

hermeneutics, 18, 21, 30, 32 history, 43–45, 48–49, 54–56, 58–61,

63–67, 71–72, 76, 90–91, 95, 97, 102, 104–110, 112–17, 119, 121–25, 128, 130–32, 135–36, 139, 143–158, 160–76

Holy Spirit, 130–31, 133–34, 136–37, 141, 163, 172, 175–77, 193–95 humanity

– and Christ, 104–7, 108–9, 134–36 – and covenant, 161–63

– and God, 19, 24, 26–27, 31, 36–38, 40, 84–85, 97, 103–4, 106–7, 113, 120, 122, 126, 130, 133, 135, 137, 143, 145, 148, 150, 151–52, 161, 163, 166, 170, 173, 175–77, 183, 189–91

idolatry, 50–51, 104, 109 Jesus Christ

– and atonement, 120, 122, 126, 145, 152, 161, 163, 170, 173

– and covenant, 27, 30, 35–36, 40, 68, 103–107, 122, 133, 135, 137, 143, 145, 150–52, 161, 163, 170, 173, 175–77, 183–86

– divinity, 170, 173, 175

– electing God, 11, 13, 15, 23, 24–25, 27, 31, 81, 98, 101–2, 106–10, 113–

14, 116–17, 119, 123–125, 127–29, 132–37, 139–40, 145, 147, 155–56, 159, 161–65, 174, 176, 184–86, 190, 193–4

– and fellowship-generating activity, 74–76, 77, 79, 80–81, 84–89, 91, 96–100, 107, 119, 124, 127, 128, 141–142, 144, 146, 151–52, 154, 171, 175

– and God, 2, 4, 5–7, 17, 19, 24, 26–

27, 30–31, 35–38, 40, 79–80, 84, 97, 103–4, 106–7, 116, 120, 122, 126, 130, 133, 135, 137, 143, 145, 148, 150, 152, 158, 161, 163, 166, 170–

77, 183, 189–91

– great exchange, 118, 137, 140 – and humanity, 24, 36–37, 48, 62, 68,

72, 79–80, 84, 97, 103–4, 106–7, 120, 122, 126, 130, 133, 135, 137, 143, 145, 148, 150–52, 161, 163, 170, 173, 175–76, 177, 183–86 – humility, 157–59, 165, 167, 172 – hypostatic union, 24, 26, 29. 34, 37.

65. 82–85, 91, 101, 103, 111, 121, 130–38, 143, 148, 150, 154, 157–

174, 185, 189–90

– incarnation, 26, 34, 37, 83, 91, 103, 111, 133, 143, 157, 160, 162–63, 173, 190, 193

– logos, 12, 101, 117, 127–28, 132, 134–35, 138, 141, 157, 161, 173, 178, 189–191, 194–5

– obedience, 13, 15, 31, 92, 101, 114, 116–17, 127, 130, 133–41, 148–52, 154–60, 162–75, 177–80, 184–86, 191–95

– predestination, 23, 118, 120, 125, 133

– resurrection, 177–86

– and revelation, 97, 103, 135, 137, 170, 173, 191

– and sin, 84, 103, 107, 116, 120, 122, 126, 133, 137, 145, 150–52, 161, 163, 173, 175–177

– Son of God, 11, 13, 15, 23, 24–25, 27, 31, 81, 97–100, 101–2, 106–10, 113–14, 116–17, 119, 123–125, 127–29, 132–37, 139–40, 145, 147,

Index of Subjects

223

184–86, 190, 193

– subject of election, 10, 12, 23–24, 28–31, 38, 101–3, 105, 108–110, 114, 116–17, 127–40, 170, 176, 182–86, 190, 193–5

– sufferings, 103, 107, 116, 120–7, 133, 137, 145, 150–52, 161, 163, 170, 173, 176–77

– and Trinity, 6–7, 24, 27, 31, 35, 37–

38, 72, 79, 116, 135, 161, 173, 176–

177, 189–195

– two-natures Christologies, 156, 167–71, 189–91

Johannine prologue, 134–35 justification, 117–27, 153, 182–86 kenosis, 158–59

metaphysics, 26–27, 32, 36, 45, 49, 54, 176

obedience

– Christ, 15, 127, 133–34, 136–41, 149–50, 156–60, 172–75, 178–80 – and covenant, 156, 162–64 – and creation, 149–50 – and election, 136–40, 156–66 – God, 114, 118, 130, 133–34, 136–

41, 158–66, 185–6

– Son, 157–60, 162–66, 172–5, 185–

86

Offenbarungstheologie, 10, 17–18, 21, 29, 33, 37–38, 44, 62, 90, 147–48, 156, 187

onto-theology, 50 pneumatology, 176–77 predestination, 22, 134

See also election

revelation

– and being, 44–51, 68, 71, 83, 106–7, 126, 130, 148, 163, 166

– and Christ, 65, 129–30, 135 – decree, 123–25

– God, 18–22, 26–28, 38, 44–48, 52–

53, 58, 64–65, 76, 92, 97, 123 – and grace, 92–99

– and love, 75–76 – and natural theology, 47

– and ontology, 19–21, 30–34, 36–40, 42, 44, 49, 90, 95–99, 147–48, 186 – self-, 46–7, 97

– subject, 45–46, 48, 50–51, 53, 58 sin, 91–93, 117–24, 127, 132 Trinity

– abstract, 111–17

– antecedent, 34–36, 77–80, 82–89, 93–94, 99–100, 146–52

– and attributes, 182–86, 193–95 – and Christ, 15, 101, 136–41, 149–

50, 156–60, 172–75, 178–80, 190 – and decision, 72–3

– deficit, 95–99

– and economy, 35, 75, 191–95 – and election, 2–3, 6, 12–13, 15, 23–

26, 28–31, 72, 101, 111–17, 128, 132, 171–77, 183–86

– and freedom, 70, 72–3

– and grace, 75–76, 95–99, 177–86 – processions, 128–29, 171–77, 183–6 – and Reformed tradition, 115–17 voluntarism, 54–55, 61, 70, 112, 163