Systematic Theology: Volume 1: The Triune God

This is absolutely one of the best systematic theologies out there. Like Halden mentions below, this book (both volumes in fact) are useful in concert with Colin Gunton and Wolfhart Pannenberg, and to various extents Kevin Vanhoozer, especially in his notions of the dramatis personae of God's activity with us in history, His "dramatic coherence," (and in this respect, would be a good read alongside von Balthazar)Jenson begins his prolegomena by outlining what he sees as a deficiency in traditional prolegomenal issues that see Christian thought as an inherently problematic enterprise that must be validated antecedently by "more secure" foundations (e.g. the processes of neo-protestantism bred by Schliermachers defintion of religion as a feeling of absolute dependece, or the so called "greek proof," where much of Christian thinking has been based on supposedly rational inquiry of the Greek period, which Jenson notes, is no more universal than the historically situated expressions in the Bible.) Rather, with Pannenberg, Plantinga, and others (even Heidegger!), Jenson understands that if true, the Bible knows God, the one basic "fact" of all reality, and so theology must be either a foundational discipline or an illusion.That said, the entire program of this book is based on overcoming basic theological notions that seem to have been held out from Greek antiquity, especially static unterstandings of God's immutability and eternity. Rather, Jenson's emphasis is on an active and living God (thought one should not misread Jenson as a panentheist or process philosopher)Other examples include Jenson's reorientation of our notions of infinity. Much like Pannenbergs adoption of the Hegelian postulation for the "true infinite," Jenson shies away from traditional understandings (based on a large part on the aristotelian and platonic leanings of Thomist and post-Thomist scholasticism) of God's infinity as lacking all boundaries. Rather, along with Gregory of Nyssa (and Duns Scotus, among others) God is infinite not because He lacks boundaries, but because He overcomes all boundaries.This leads the way for Jenson's concept of eternity as an embrace of time, in such a way that we are led from a strictly linear conception (such as Aristotle's conception of eternity as an endless line stretching past and future) or as a static timelessness (like Plato and Aristotle's eternity proper, adopted in large part by Augustine) Rather, God is eternal because He is unbounded by past events, nor is He limited by future occurance, rather He (specifically the Holy Spirit) is the Future in that He unrestrictedly anticipates His ends and means. In this sense we see that Eternity is a derivative of Jenson's concept of infinity. He is unboundedly lively, "A Temporal Infinity," no temporal metric may keep pace with Him. Jenson also formulates his notion in such a way that the embrace of time makes God's events in time their own presupposition in God's eternity, so that, strictly speaking, the power that enables Jesus to be resurrected, is in fact, that God unrestrctedly participates already in the resurrection of Jesus. This seems circular, says Jenson, only if we maintain a strictly linear conception of eternity. Rather, God's eternity is an eternal LIFE, rather than a static aloofness. I have to criticize Jenson at this point, because it seems insufficient to merely term God's eternity as "temporal infinity," for, echoing Pannenbergs criticism of Jenson's understanding, God does not merely unrestrictedly anticipate the future, but rather that future is already achieved for God, nor indeed does the past slip away for God (as Jenson seems to say, while nonetheless modifying this understanding that God is not limited by the actualization of events in the past because of his infinite overcoming). Rather I would adopt Pannenbergs understanding of eternity as the simultaneous possession (or authentic possession) of the fullness of life, so that we may adopt Jenson's positive insights without thereby falling into the trap of seeing a future that God does not yet actually possess (even if He anticipates it in an unrestricted way because the Spirit is the transforming future of God)Other aspects of Jenson's work are quite involved (especially his sections "On One Being with the Father," and his chapter on the being of God, are particularly interesting for their interaction with philosophers like Heidegger and Aquinas) Jenson's understanding of the Trinity as the dramatis personae dei (characters of the drama of God) is also illuminating, and Jenson has insights similar to others in the field (i.e. Pannenberg, Gunton, Grenz, Moltmann etc...) of the mutual reciprocities of distinction within the Trinity, so that each would not be themselves if not for the reciprocal distinction to and for the others. Just so Jenson's Christology is similar to Pannenberg's when He understands that Christ defers reference from Himself to the Father, and is so doing is a perfect correlate to the Father. He expands this in his own erudite way, explaining the destinctions with the other two as well, significantly noting the problem with traditional understanding of the Trinity is that the terminology and logic is couched in terms of relations of origin, rather than also considering the active relations of the persons in History. An illuminating piece of scholarship as well is Jenson's discussion on the particular problems inherent in identifying a "three-in-one" God. Why, when we have three instances of the Divine ousia (essence) do we not then have three Gods? "God," says Jenson (following Gregory of Nyssa) "is a predicate." and thus how many Gods we assert depends on how many subjects we attribute to it. "There are three instances of the divine ousia but these are not three gods--as three instances of humanity are trhee human beings--because God is not a word for the divine ousia;...There are three instances of divine ousia does not itself imply there are three gods because divine ousia and god do not have the same referent. Rather, God...refers to the mutual action of the identities...to the perichoretic triune life. And since all divine action is the singular mutual work of the Father, Son, and Spirit, there is only one such life and therefore only one subject of the predicate God."On a final note, I have to also mention that despite Jenson's brilliance here with his work on the Trinity, he seems to maintain terminology of subsistant relation, attempting to re-utilize (in a clearer and more complex way) Augustine's psychological analogies. While this isn't entirely innapropriate due to the context Jenson puts it in (which seems to recall Pannenberg's discussion of ecstatic relationships between the members of the trinity) Jenson nonetheless ends up calling the Trinity "a person," which, despite Jenson's complex argument, didnt convince me, and so I once again defer understanding to Pannenberg, who says that we cannot understand the Trinity as a person, rather the trinity is impersonal in the sense that Robert Jenson would use for "God," being a predicate of the Triune action instead of itself a referent.This book is highly recommended especially for those who enjoy philosophical theology and explanations of historical evolution of thought in the church.

Robert W. Jenson’s systematic theology is refreshingly different from standard models. Loosely drawing upon older medieval and early Reformational loci, Jenson gives us a succinct yet profound model for presenting theology. True, Jenson does cover the standard loci (norms of authority, God, Christology, etc), but Jensons’s theology, either unlike others or more explicitly than others, operates from a common theme. Jensons’s theme is “the identity of God.” The way Jenson works this theme is similar to a musical fugue. As he introduces his theme, he allows it to take upon itself different connotations with each repetition, ending in a stunning climax.Norms of AuthorityJenson’s approach here is very interesting. He doesn’t simply say, “The Baahhbul alone is our authority.” Perhaps we may fault him on that, but neither does he open himself up to immediate counters to that position. He recognizes the inevitability of tradition in the Church’s identity, but he raises a question from that that few do: it was tradition itself in the mid-2nd century that necessitated a formal canon. The implication: tradition, whatever its specific liturgical content may have been, was no longer adequate to the Church’s life by itself.Jenson adds yet another key to this piece: the Spirit’s life in the church (26ff). Such a move sounds a lot like Eastern Orthodoxy, and it does incorporate a lot of Orthodoxy’s strengths on this point, but Jenson takes it to a different (and utterly more biblical) conclusion: the Spirit’s presence is the in-breaking of the Kingdom, which opens God’s future to God’s people. A Spirit-founded church is a future-moving church.Jensons’s theme, accordingly,is “the identity of God.” The practice of theology, then, is “speaking this identity,” which is speaking the gospel. Jenson defines the gospel as “Jesus of Nazareth, the one who….is risen from the dead.”What is God’s identity? Classical theology will say “3 Persons/1 Essence.” This is of course true, but the twilight of classical ontology and the current earthquakes from nihilism force clarification upon the theologian. This is the Church’s opportunity. Jenson identifies God as “The One who brought Israel out of Egypt” (44, quoting Exodus 20:2). The New Testament expands this identity as “The One who raised Jesus from the dead.” God is the one who rescued the Israelite from the dead. It is important to see that God is identified by his events (59). Jenson that follows with several profound meditations on the nature of idolatry.God’s identity is told by his story. In identifying God, we have a dramatis dei personae, “characters of the divine drama” (75). Exegetes have since come to the conclusion that “Son” is often a title for Israel. Yet Israel as a fallen nation cannot live up to that sonship. Another Israelite, God’s Son in a different sense, is with and by whom God is identified. “He is God himself as a participant in Israel’s story” (76). This leads naturally to an extended discussion of the Servant passages. Jenson, contrary to many evangelicals, does not say that the “Servant” is simply code for “Jesus.” He allows the Servant narratives to unfold and in the unfolding we see “Suddenly, the Servant is an individual within Israel” (80). Giving his prophetic speech, rising from the dead, and ushering in eschatological peace, the Church could not help but identify this servant with the Son of David from Nazareth.enson has an interesting, yet ultimately unsatisfying chapter on the atonement. He accepts many of the criticisms of Anselm: strictly speaking, on Anselm’s view there is no need for the Resurrection. Upon the death of Christ the transaction is complete. Theology, unfortunately, remains incomplete. Even more pointedly, “The New Testament speaks of God’s action to reconcile us to himself, and nowhere of God’s being reconciled to us” (186). The problem, however, with these subjective critiques of Anselm, and the theories they represent, fail to say how Jesus’s death accomplished anything specific.After a brief and interesting discussion of the Christus Victor model, Jenson proposes a liturgical understanding of the atonement: the church’s primal way of understanding the atonement is that we live this narrative (189). “We rehearse the Word-event in our lives.” I am not exactly sure how he describes his proposal. He gives an interesting outline of public liturgies during Passion week and ends with an admittedly interesting suggestion: “If a theological proposition is one that says, ‘To be saying the gospel, let us say F rather than G,’ and if the gospel is spoken in language and by more embodied sorts of signs, by sacrament and sacrifice, then we must expect theology to take the form of ritual rubrics” (190). This isn’t wrong, per se, and I can attest to the power of liturgy in my own life, but one suspects that Jenson himself isn’t entirely free from the critique he offered of subjective models: precisely what happened on the cross? He answers it was Israel’s denouement of her Scriptures” (183). Very good and well said, but what does that have to do with me?Conclusion:Astute readers will notice some similarities between Jenson’s approach and that of David Bentley Hart. Both theologians write musically. There are some differences, to be sure. Hart, for the most part, accepts classical ontology; Jenson does not. Jenson, further, is sympathetic to those in the Reformed tradition (see his spirited defense of Jonathan Edwards). Hart’s vitriol towards Calvinism is well-known. Most importantly, perhaps, is that Jenson can write in a coherent and readable (if sometimes dense) manner. Hart cannot.Appendix: God and the FutureOur God is different from the Pagan gods because he is not afraid of “time.” God’s acting in salvation for his people is an acting in time, “not defending against the future, but securing it” (67). Gregory of Nyssa was on the verge of completely dismantling classical metaphysics hold on God-doctrine. Identifying the divine ousia as infinity, Gregory took it a step forward and identified it as temporal infinity, a future-oriented infinity (infinity qua infinity would dissipate into nothingness, the temptation of absolute models of simplicity). According to Jenson, “The Arians err defining God as having no beginning, when they should define God as having no end” (216). In Jenson’s succint pjhrase, “The Father is the whence of the divine life; The Spirit is the whither, and the Son the specious present” (218-219). The way in which the whence and the whither are one, the way in which the Triune God is eternal, is by the events in Jesus’s death and resurrection” (219).

excellent book. Thanks