« History of Doctrine or Historical Fiction? | Main | Fairlight on Civil Religion »

January 10, 2005



That is, Robert Jenson claims that the Nicene decisions do not "sever God from the world and from the realities of lived history" as some contemporary critics believe?


I certainly wouldn't contend that Nicene was intended to or even remotely unintentionally accomplished the severing of God "from the world..." That took a fair amount of time. I do agree that the severing that ultimately occurred was largely an adoption of Hellenistic presuppositions, though. But that is because it was a Hellenistic world. If Jesus had born in China, then the Church that emerged would inevitably have adopted Confucian suppositions. I've found in my own thinking that the return to the Nicene forms of Trinitarian thought have been very liberating. Yet I also try to avoid the monarchical notions of Trinity that can be part of that.


Jaroslav Pelikan, as did T.F. Torrance in his lectures on the Nicene Creed.

Nicea was a transformation of Greek thougth patterns, not a surrender to them. Arius, on the other hand may have surrendered.


What I meant to say was that Jaroslave Pelikan made the exact same argument in his Gifford lectures, as did T.F. Torrance in his lectures on the Niceen Creed.


...and I meant to spell "Jaroslav" and "Nicene" right too.

refrigerated trailers

The decision is a civilized move.

The comments to this entry are closed.