Or who? As TFT preferred to ask.
I made my first comment before I listened to the video. 😉
I like Behr. And his response is surely the way TFT would respond and frame this as well. Nice!
Ah, I assume you mean T. F. Torrance.
Only a “what” can be shown, so if Christ “shows” God, there is “whatness”, for nothing can “show up” that has no content, and if it has content, it has “whatness”.
He seems to be uninterested in the intelligibility of the word “God”, reducing it to “god”, which means that we can only talk about Christ publicly, and not about God publicly, for, in Fr. Behr’s world, there is no public language about God — which, if I’m not mistaken, runs counter to the meaning of the word “God”, as well as classical Christian metaphysics.
I wrote about this position of Fr. Behr’s before: https://intotheclarities.com/2016/05/10/confession-why-this-is-not-an-apologetics-website-part-four/
It might be that Fr. Behr is right, and that a metaphysical theology and a confessional Christian theology don’t mix; but then the _Via Moderna_, Luther (not Calvin, who wanted to preserve the appearances of the _analogia entis_) and Barth are basically right, and nearly all of the fathers are wrong, including Aquinas &c. I know that figures like Buber want to go this route.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course, if God has no content or “whatness”, then we need to clear up, in language, what we mean by that, and what that means about God, if there is any “aboutness” left. If something else is going on, then we clear that up, too. It is not clear to me how Christ shows us anything, in Behr’s thinking, other than Christ, and, in Behr’s thinking, we seem simply to project behind and beyond Christ to something imagined, some being with properties inferred from the particulars of the figure of Jesus. This runs counter to what one finds in Irenaeus of Lyons, which is odd, because that’s who Fr. Behr cut his academic teeth on.
Gregory, I share your concern. I wonder if Fr Behr’s position is based on a predisposition towards Scripture – a position which drives a wedge between theology and philosophy/metaphysics.
I really could only speculate. There are plenty of metaphysical positions in the NT, so that would be a flimsy excuse.
Robert shared a link to Greg’s comments on a conversation we were having over at my place. I’d be interested in your thoughts too Greg.
Comments are closed.
Follow on Facebook
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.