Doctrine of God, EC Style

Here is Paul Molnar relaying a fundamental of TF Torrance’s Doctrine of God,

Torrance’s view of God the Creator was strictly determined by his trinitarian theology so that, in order to understand his explication of the doctrine of creation, it is important to realize that his thinking remains structure by Athanasius’ insight that it is better to “signify God from the Son and call him Father, than to name God from his works alone and call him Unoriginate”. What this means is not only that, following the Council of Nicaea, Athanasius stressed the centrality of the Father/Son relation for understanding God the Father Almighty who is the Creator, but that he wanted to stress that this same relation must have “primacy over the Creator/creature relation. The latter is to be understood in the light of the former and not vice versa”. Or, to put it another way,”while God is always Father he is not always Creator” and “it is as Father that God is Creator, not vice versa”. . . . (Paul D. Molnar, “Thomas F. Torrance: Theologian Of The Trinity,” 73)

This point is sorely important for “EC,” in fact we hold this as one of our primary principles: i.e. that God’s PERSON always precedes His WORKS. What this does is forces us to speak and think Trinitarianly and personally about God and concepts like creation, Incarnation, grace, salvation, etc. We are not allowed to, methodologically, speak about grace as if it is a “quality” or “attribute” that God gives certain people. We aren’t allowed to talk about God in impersonal ways, and think of Him in terms of relating to creation through absolute decrees. We aren’t allowed to try and conceive of God through looking at His works in creation, and try to manufacture an idea of “Godness” that those kinds of works must require. In short, we aren’t allowed to look for “A God behind the back of Jesus!”

Speaking of which, didΒ  I mention that shortly I am going to re-open a blog I started awhile ago called “Behind The Back?” This is a blog primarily devoted to TF Torrance’s theology. And at just the right time πŸ˜‰ I will be shifting my focus from this blog to that one . . . in short order actually. So be ready. I expect every single one of you to follow me over when than transition comes. Clearly, this blog will always be here — and I may update here at points (once and after I do make this imminent transition) — but I am actually very excited to transition into Thomas F. Torrance studies as my primary mode of operation (of course my studies at that point are going to include quite a bit of stuff and reading, beyond Torrance . . . like in the area of Patrisitics and Modern Theology as well . . . I’m just sayin’ get ready dear readers πŸ™‚ ). Oh, here’s the url to that blog: http://tftorrance.wordpress.com (there are already some really good articles up there, a few from my good friend Myk Habets . . . check it it out!).

8 thoughts on “Doctrine of God, EC Style

  1. Hi Bobby,

    I take the point that God is Father (and Son) before he is Creator, chronologically speaking. In terms of the Incarnation and the Christian confession that Jesus truly reveals who God is, I wonder if this emphasis — that God’s person always (logically) precedes his works — is doing just the opposite of ruling out a “God behind the back of Jesus.”

    Pannenberg’s critique of the ancient tradition is along just these lines. (I’m reading “Jesus – God and Man” over the holidays …) He follows Barth in saying that if Jesus is to be taken as a true revelation of God, then his lived history is not something that is separate from or inimical to the eternal being (or person) of God. As George Hunsinger emphasizes so well: Jesus’ person is his work, and vice versa. The person and work of Jesus Christ are not sequential, but mutually grounding.

    This is why there is no “God behind the back of Jesus” — not because personhood is dogmatically established and described a priori, but just the opposite: because there is no divine “person” who is other than the God revealed in the Christ event.

    Happy New Year!

  2. Hey Darren,

    I think I agree with that, but at the same time I also would want to say that while there is mutual grounding it is so in a differentiating sense. So that the work that the Son does in the economy is consonant with “who” He is in eternity; at the same time there are aspects of that work that are unable to be read back into the ousia.

  3. Pingback: As Father, God is Creator- not vice versa « Dappled Thoughts

Comments are closed.