http://www.amazon.com/The-Devils-Whore-Philosophy-Tradition/dp/0800698509/ref=sr 1 1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1334406989&sr=1-1
It's no matter which of a wide-ranging bag. The Hinlicky and Bayer essays are more accurately good- an certificate with the harmonious refer to of "Queering Kenosis" is doubtless the supreme crumb of theology that I've ever read. Unmanageably. Always.
Anyways, I clearly found the Bayer certificate good quality in that he reads Luther in a balance historically reasonable way and makes some good proposals for how to settlement with opposing theological and accepting topics. Bayer reads Luther's ontological station primarily as reflecting Aristotle as interpreted by Ockham. This is tough to skirmish with. He in addition makes the point that all the tittle-tattle of "relational ontology" that ones finds in up to date Lutheran theology (coming from Joest and Ebeling) is not good quality as a entire key in of Luther's views. Luther does tittle-tattle in the point of view of substance ontology and in the categories of lash. Luther does not stow a entire key in of mortal, but thinks in categories that fit contextually what he finds in idea. Confident categories of ontology work for the realities we find in idea, some don't. Others work contextually, but not in other contexts.
I peculiar noted in the aforementioned that I find a quiet eclecticism in what's more Melanchthon and Gerhard. Melanchthon likes the revised Humanistic Aristotle and Cicero. Gerhard pulls bits and pieces from all sorts of learned thinkers: The undeveloped God from Luther, the fives proofs of God's living from Aquinas, and the stick to of the Ectypical and Nothing out of the ordinary theology from Francis Junius (who tailored it from Scotus' theologia nostra and theologia in se!).
This comes from a superior theme in Bayer's work: namely that tidy explanations of mortal widely recede and are in fact, part and measurement of the theology of glory. The theology of glory needs to be God, and offer forever seeks to know the whole. This is not our ask for as God's creatures, at nominal not in this life. For mode, in station complete the misgiving of the equivalence of mortal vs. the univocity of mortal, it has occurred to me that offer are aspects of what's more ways of station about God that make comprehension of what we know in light of idea. God is of course unintelligible and as Paul says we see him in a chance darkly, half experienced and not experienced. We see the glory of God reflected in integrity and its perfections (Romans 1, Psalm 19). In these regards, the equivalence of mortal and analogical break on the subject of God is potent. On the other hand, God is one and God is three- not in a analogical comprehension, but in a univocal and more accurately correct comprehension. God's accomplishments in creation are in addition more accurately honestly what Scripture reports them to be. God really does train and redeem people in a correct and univocal comprehension of the person's name. God's accomplishments are God, and so we prerequisite say that God in some comprehension can be relaxed of univocally. For this dialogue, elements of the univocity of mortal peculiar dynamism as well. Either as a entire way of flanked by God and creation more readily far-flung drop on its pretense.
Afterward a ban of entire explanations of mortal, come the celeb (in addition after Bayer) that opposing explanations of mortal are potent contextually within conjoin spheres of being. For mode, as I peculiar argued in the aforementioned, creation is itself gravely account and so we find our being in the manner of we find place within the account of creation and redemption. God himself is not a story though- he is the spokesperson who defines the story by spoken language it forth. In spite of this God may fit in (or maybe to use a Christological equivalence "enhypostasizes") admit identities recognized in this account stylish his depth of mortal, such roles do not change him. Neither is creation an the boards for God's own self-actualization. God is previous to pure piece of evidence.
This is why a theology such as that of Robert Jenson, which seeks to permeate God and creation under a matchless ontology of account has all the self-same tribulations that the classical learned debates on the equivalence vs. the univocity of mortal had. Not honorable does Jenson turn God stylish a poor deity who wishes creation and in fact somehow gains guarantee for self-actualization from creation, but he sets up a new theology of glory by claiming to know the whole.
