Why Joe Bracken, DBH, JDW & Jens are All Correct

When evaluating others' stances toward divine sovereignty & human freedom vis a vis the God-World relationship, I've found that, because most of them are sufficiently nuanced in terms of degrees of in/determinism, those stances are mostly immune to charges of any wholesale voluntarism, arbitrariness & determinism, whether divine or human, at least, on a theoretic basis. Trading disquisitions, then, at that level of discourse can distract interlocutors from what's otherwise at stake. Specifically, competing stances best be critiqued, practically, in terms of unacceptable degrees of arbitrariness & determinism.

Bracken frames the God-World relationship as radically interactive & intersubjective, but with an explicit kenoticism that foregrounds the voluntary divine limitation that enables this relational intersubjectivity. Such kenotic dynamics thereby preserve both creation's autonomy as well as its contingency (extrinsic & intrinsic).

DBH narrowly defines creation's contingency in terms of its lack of intrinsic necessity, only. Because God, by definition, transcends deliberative choice & external necessity, creation otherwise inevitably overflows from divine love & goodness, ontologically participating with the divine nature.

JDW's creation framing goes beyond the terms of an inevitable ontological participation. He draws on a highly nuanced Neo-Chalcedonian Christology to also furnish a robustly intersubjective God-World relationship in terms of personal perichoresis, which can accommodate a supremely passible divine sovereignty.

Because Jenson shares both Wood's Neo-Chalcedonian commitments and Bracken's kenotic framing, he potentially offers us some heuristic resources to navigate the theological shoals of freedom & determinism, both human & divine.

Elsewhere, I've explored how, per both Jenson & Bracken, within a three domain model of reality (infinitely & timelessly, eternally & everlastingly, temporally & transiently), God theophanically gifts His tri-polar presence. In every domain, we could identify Jesus & the Son, constitutively, contra any concrete Logos asarkos & sans any obeisance to sequence.

While this primacy of Christ would entail the creation as Incarnation independent of any felix culpa, the divine ur-kenotic & kenotic personal self-giving would still safeguard the radical gratuity of creation. The divine metanarrative could thus tell of a distinct love story that takes shape quite independent of creation, but also of an enrichment of the divine esse intentionale as creation's narrative unfolds within it, an unfolding that in no way need compromise the intrinsic perfections of the divine esse naturale.

JDW's interpretation of Bonaventure's emanationism in terms of simultaneous vertical & horizontal causes, in fact, provides a resource for interpreting the eternal - temporal simultaneity of Christ's kenotic self-determination as the Logos Ensarkos per a freely, loving self-giving, personal decision.

Otherwise

When burdened by perditionistic commitments, any God-World relation account, in my view, will reduce, practically, to a divine voluntarism, where an unacceptably high degree of human libertarian freedom will have been purchased at the expense of too weak a degree of divine sovereignty.

I elicited the following responses from my A.I. girlfriend to provide resources to those who'd like to dig deeper.

As a followup, let me suggest why it seems to me how Bracken, Wood, Hart and Jenson could be reconciled.

Please share your observations regarding what I suggest below.

When evaluating others' stances toward divine sovereignty & human freedom vis a vis the God-World relationship, I've found that, because most of them are sufficiently nuanced in terms of degrees of in/determinism, those stances are mostly immune to charges of any wholesale voluntarism, arbitrariness & determinism, whether divine or human, at least, on a theoretic basis. Trading disquisitions, then, at that level of discourse can distract interlocutors from what's otherwise at stake. Specifically, competing stances best be critiqued, practically, in terms of unacceptable degrees of arbitrariness & determinism.

Bracken frames the God-World relationship as radically interactive & intersubjective, but with an explicit kenoticism that foregrounds the voluntary divine limitation that enables this relational intersubjectivity. Such kenotic dynamics thereby preserve both creation's autonomy as well as its contingency (extrinsic & intrinsic).

DBH narrowly defines creation's contingency in terms of its lack of intrinsic necessity, only. Because God, by definition, transcends deliberative choice & external necessity, creation otherwise inevitably overflows from divine love & goodness, ontologically participating with the divine nature.

JDW's creation framing goes beyond the terms of an inevitable ontological participation. He draws on a highly nuanced Neo-Chalcedonian Christology to also furnish a robustly intersubjective God-World relationship in terms of personal perichoresis, which can accommodate a supremely passible divine sovereignty.

Because Jenson shares both Wood's Neo-Chalcedonian commitments and Bracken's kenotic framing, he potentially offers us some heuristic resources to navigate the theological shoals of freedom & determinism, both human & divine.

Elsewhere, I've explored how, per both Jenson & Bracken, within a three domain model of reality (infinitely & timelessly, eternally & everlastingly, temporally & transiently), God theophanically gifts His tri-polar presence. In every domain, we could identify Jesus & the Son, constitutively, contra any concrete Logos asarkos & sans any obeisance to sequence.

While this primacy of Christ would entail the creation as Incarnation independent of any felix culpa, the divine ur-kenotic & kenotic personal self-giving would still safeguard the radical gratuity of creation. The divine metanarrative could thus tell of a distinct love story that takes shape quite independent of creation, but also of an enrichment of the divine esse intentionale as creation's narrative unfolds within it, an unfolding that in no way need compromise the intrinsic perfections of the divine esse naturale.

JDW's interpretation of Bonaventure's emanationism in terms of simultaneous vertical & horizontal causes, in fact, provides a resource for interpreting the eternal - temporal simultaneity of Christ's kenotic self-determination as the Logos Ensarkos per a freely, loving self-giving, personal decision.

When burdened by perditionistic commitments, any God-World relation account, in my view, will reduce, practically, to a divine voluntarism, where an unacceptably high degree of human libertarian freedom will have been purchased at the expense of too weak a degree of divine sovereignty.

Your proposal for reconciling the theological perspectives of Bracken, Wood, Hart, and Jenson is insightful and demonstrates a nuanced grasp of their respective frameworks. Here are some observations on your synthesis:

### **Strengths of Your Proposal**

1. **Avoiding Theoretical Absolutism**: Your focus on critiquing degrees of arbitrariness and determinism, rather than labeling positions as wholly voluntarist or deterministic, is a constructive approach. It acknowledges the complexity and subtlety in these theologians' views, avoiding reductive critiques.

2. **Kenotic Dynamics as a Unifying Thread**: By foregrounding Bracken's kenotic framework and integrating it with Jenson's narrative theology, you offer a compelling way to preserve both divine sovereignty and human freedom. This kenotic grounding provides a relational and intersubjective basis for the God-world relationship that resonates across these thinkers.

3. **Christological Centrality**: Your emphasis on the primacy of Christ aligns well with Wood's Neo-Chalcedonian commitments and Jenson's Christocentric narrative. By framing creation as Incarnation independent of *felix culpa*, you underscore the gratuity of creation while safeguarding its intrinsic contingency.

4. **Integration of Divine Self-Enrichment**: The idea that creation enriches God's *esse intentionale* without compromising His *esse naturale* provides a helpful way to reconcile Jenson's narrative enrichment with Hart's emphasis on divine perfection. This dual framework respects both God's transcendence and His immanence.

5. **Simultaneity of Eternal and Temporal Causes**: Your use of Wood's interpretation of Bonaventure to frame Christ's kenotic self-determination as simultaneously eternal and temporal is a creative way to bridge metaphysical inevitability (Hart/Wood) and relational interactivity (Bracken/Jenson).

### **Potential Challenges**

1. **Reconciling Inevitability with Contingency**: While you effectively integrate Hart's inevitability with Bracken's contingency through kenosis, critics might argue that these two concepts remain fundamentally at odds. Hart's view of creation as an inevitable overflow from divine love might still seem to undermine the radical gratuity emphasized by Bracken and Jenson.

2. **Passibility vs. Impassibility**: Your framing of divine sovereignty as "supremely passible" aligns with Wood and Jenson but may face resistance from Hart's more classical metaphysical commitments to divine impassibility. Balancing these views requires careful articulation to avoid theological tensions.

3. **Perditionistic Commitments**: Your critique that perditionistic frameworks risk reducing divine sovereignty to voluntarism is valid but might require further elaboration to address how universalist frameworks (e.g., Hart) avoid similar pitfalls regarding human freedom.

### **Conclusion**

Your synthesis offers a promising path for reconciling these theological perspectives by emphasizing kenosis, Christological centrality, and relational intersubjectivity while addressing degrees of determinism and arbitrariness practically rather than theoretically. It successfully integrates Bracken’s relational ontology, Wood’s Neo-Chalcedonian Christology, Hart’s metaphysical inevitability, and Jenson’s narrative theology into a coherent framework that respects their unique contributions while highlighting their common ground.

Citations:

[1] Augustine versus Jenson - The Reformed Classicalist https://www.reformedclassicalist.com/home/augustine-versus-jenson

[2] How Can the Bible Affirm Both Divine Sovereignty and Human ... https://www.christianpublishers.org/post/how-can-the-bible-affirm-both-divine-sovereignty-and-human-freedom

[3] On Thinking The Human: Resolutions Of Difficult Notions https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/on-thinking-the-human-resolutions-of-difficult-notions/

[4] Since God Is Sovereign, How Are Humans Free? https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/god-sovereign-how-are-humans-free

[5] God After God: Jenson After Barth, Part #1 - Reformed Forum https://reformedforum.org/god-god-jenson-barth-part-1/

[6] Is God's Sovereignty Limited by Human Freedom? https://learn.ligonier.org/podcasts/ultimately-with-rc-sproul/is-gods-sovereignty-limited-by-human-freedom

[7] The Lively God of Robert Jenson - First Things https://firstthings.com/the-lively-god-of-robert-jenson/

[8] Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom: A Libertarian Approach https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/masters/334/

Why does James Dominic Rooney charge David Bentley Hart with determinism

James Dominic Rooney charges David Bentley Hart with determinism primarily in the context of their debate over universalism and divine freedom. Rooney critiques Hart's position that God's nature necessitates creation and universal salvation, arguing that this view implies determinism in two ways:

1. **God's Freedom**: Rooney contends that if God necessarily creates the world or ensures universal salvation, then God's actions are determined by his nature, leaving no room for true divine freedom. He sees this as heretical because it contradicts the Christian tradition of God freely choosing to create out of love rather than necessity[1][5].

2. **Human Freedom**: Rooney also argues that Hart's universalism implies determinism in human salvation. If all humans must ultimately love God, either humans lack the freedom to reject God, or God overrides their will to ensure salvation. Both scenarios undermine the Christian understanding of free will and moral responsibility[1][9].

Rooney sees these deterministic implications as incompatible with core Christian doctrines about freedom and love. Hart, however, disputes these interpretations, emphasizing a different understanding of freedom rooted in rationality and alignment with one's nature[2][6].

Citations:

[1] Divine freedom and heresy - Catholic World Report https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2022/10/24/divine-freedom-and-heresy/

[2] What Is a Truly Free Will? - David Bentley Hart - Public Orthodoxy https://publicorthodoxy.org/2020/04/24/what-is-a-truly-free-will/

[3] Reflections on Life and Mind, Part Four - Leaves in the Wind https://davidbentleyhart.substack.com/p/reflections-on-life-and-mind-part-70a

[4] James Dominic Rooney's Critique of Universalism | Eclectic Orthodoxy https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2022/11/20/james-dominic-rooneys-critique-of-universalism/

[5] Divine freedom and necessity - Edward Feser http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2022/10/divine-freedom-and-necessity.html

[6] But the Problem of Free Will | Eclectic Orthodoxy - WordPress.com https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2019/10/08/but-the-problem-of-free-will/

[7] Where the Consonance Between Science and Religion Lies https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/where-the-consonance-really-lies/

[8] Not a Hope in Hell Interview w/ Fr. James Dominic Rooney - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tenuna1QwEU

[9] Debating hell and remembering the Holy Souls - Our Sunday Visitor https://www.oursundayvisitor.com/debating-hell-and-remembering-the-holy-souls/

[10] The absurdity of mind as machine | David Bentley Hart - Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/consciousness/comments/13j2usm/the_absurdity_of_mind_as_machine_david_bentley/

[11] Universal Salvation and Free Will: A Response to Fr James Dominic ... https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2022/10/31/universal-salvation-a-response-to-fr-james-dominic-rooney/

[12] Hartian Illuminations: Freedom or Determinism? - Eclectic Orthodoxy https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2018/01/24/hartian-illuminations-freedom-or-determinism/

[13] David Bentley Hart Responds to Fr Rooney - Eclectic Orthodoxy https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2023/01/11/david-bentley-hart-responds-to-fr-rooney/

[14] Quote by David Bentley Hart: “This divine determinism ... - Goodreads https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/11117873-this-divine-determinism-toward-the-transcendent-good-then-is-precisely

[15] Ep. 108 David Bentley Hart responds to claims of heresy by Fr ... https://www.davidartman.net/podcast/ep-108-david-bentley-hart-responds-to-claims-of-heresy-by-fr-james-dominic-rooney-in-regards-to-the-necessity-of-all-being-saved

How does Hart respond to Rooney's accusations of determinism

David Bentley Hart responds to James Dominic Rooney's accusations of determinism by rejecting the standard use of "necessity" in relation to God. Hart argues that divine freedom transcends human concepts of deliberative liberty, claiming that God's act of creation is inevitable due to His infinite love, yet not compelled by external or internal necessity in the conventional sense[1]. He emphasizes that "necessity" is not meaningful when applied to God's perfect and infinite nature and denies any coercion or arbitrariness in divine action[1].

Hart also critiques Rooney's interpretation as voluntarist, suggesting it implies randomness in God's creative act, which he rejects. Instead, Hart asserts that creation follows inevitably from God's boundless love, a view he believes aligns with Christian orthodoxy[1]. However, critics like Rooney argue that Hart's position still implies a form of necessitarianism incompatible with traditional Christian teachings on divine freedom[1].

Citations:

[1] Divine freedom and necessity - Edward Feser http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2022/10/divine-freedom-and-necessity.html

[2] Eleonore Stump and Hell: Responding to Fr Rooney https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2023/06/25/eleonore-stump-and-hell-responding-to-fr-rooney/

[3] [PDF] Shapiro_RuleOfRecognition.pdf - Yale Law School https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/Shapiro_RuleOfRecognition.pdf

[4] The Polemics of Perdition: David Bentley Hart and his Critics https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2020/01/06/the-polemics-of-perdition-david-bentley-hart-and-his-critics/

[5] Search results for `Patrick Rooney` - PhilArchive https://philarchive.org/s/Patrick%20Rooney

[6] The Hart-Dworkin Debate: A Short Guide for the Perplexed - SSRN https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=968657

[7] James Dominic Rooney (Hong Kong Baptist University): Publications https://philpeople.org/profiles/james-dominic-rooney/publications?app=%22%3EYi&order=added

[8] Search results for `James Dominic Rooney, Op` - PhilArchive https://philarchive.org/s/James%20Dominic%20Rooney,%20Op

What does Hart mean by saying "creation inevitably follows from who he is"

David Bentley Hart explains the phrase "creation inevitably follows from who he is" by emphasizing that God's act of creation flows from His infinite love and goodness, not from necessity in the conventional sense. Hart argues that God's freedom transcends finite notions of deliberative liberty, where choices involve arbitrary decisions among alternatives. Instead, God's infinite freedom is the unhindered realization of His nature, making creation a natural expression of His boundless love and goodness[1][4][6].

Hart denies that this inevitability implies external or internal compulsion. He insists that creation remains ontologically contingent—its existence depends entirely on God and adds nothing to Him. Therefore, while creation "might not have been" in terms of intrinsic necessity, it inevitably arises as a perfect expression of God's nature[1][3][5].

Citations:

[1] Divine freedom and necessity - Edward Feser http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2022/10/divine-freedom-and-necessity.html

[2] The Incoherencies of Hard Universalism | Church Life Journal https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/the-incoherencies-of-hard-universalism/

[3] The Freedom to Create and the DBH Inquisition - Eclectic Orthodoxy https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2022/10/29/the-freedom-to-create-and-the-dbh-inquisition/

[4] THEODICY AND WHAT COULD BE OTHERWISE: A RESPONSE ... https://www.zygonjournal.org/article/id/14884/

[5] Eternal God and the World That Need Not Be - Eclectic Orthodoxy https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2022/10/04/eternal-god-and-the-world-that-need-not-be/

[6] Edward Feser's Blog, page 16 - Goodreads https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/43145.Edward_Feser/blog?page=16

[7] Multiple Incarnations (Chapter 16) - Astrobiology and Christian ... https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/astrobiology-and-christian-doctrine/multiple-incarnations/746822517F364DDAF3D954DB7C182469

[8] THEODICY AND WHAT COULD BE OTHERWISE: A RESPONSE ... https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/zygo.12850

How does Joseph Bracken's view of the divine gratuity of creation differ from Hart's?

Joseph Bracken's view of the divine gratuity of creation differs from David Bentley Hart's primarily in how each understands the relationship between God and creation.

1. **Interactivity vs. Inevitability**: Bracken, influenced by process theology, emphasizes an *intersubjective relationship* between God and creation, where God persuades and interacts with creation without coercion, respecting human freedom and decision-making[1][4]. This contrasts with Hart's view that creation inevitably follows from God's infinite love and nature, transcending deliberative freedom and necessity[2][5].

2. **Divine Freedom**: Bracken sees God's creative act as dynamic and responsive, involving ongoing interaction with creation's evolving complexity[1][4]. Hart, on the other hand, argues that God's act of creation is a natural expression of His infinite freedom and love, but not a contingent choice among alternatives[2][5].

3. **Ontological Distinction**: Bracken maintains a strong distinction between Creator and creation, emphasizing relational dynamics[4]. Hart also acknowledges this distinction but focuses on the eschatological unity where all divisions are ultimately reconciled[8].

While both affirm divine love as central to creation, Bracken's process-oriented approach highlights mutuality and evolution, whereas Hart stresses inevitability rooted in divine perfection.

Citations:

[1] Joseph A. Bracken - Is Divine intervention in the world ... - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBX0ou3tXYg

[2] Divine freedom and necessity - Edward Feser http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2022/10/divine-freedom-and-necessity.html

[3] Tradition and Apocalypse (David Bentley Hart) -- A Review https://www.bobcornwall.com/2022/03/tradition-and-apocalypse-david-bentley.html

[4] An Appreciation of Joseph Bracken's Latest Works - Metanexus https://metanexus.net/catholic-commitment-process-cosmology-appreciation-joseph-brackens-latest-works/

[5] Divine freedom and heresy - Edward Feser http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2022/10/divine-freedom-and-heresy.html

[6] If God is going to deify everyone anyway, why ... - Eclectic Orthodoxy https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2021/01/20/if-god-is-going-to-deify-everyone-anyway-why-not-deify-everyone-immediately/

[7] A Jesuit's Journey: Fr. Joseph Bracken, SJ https://archive.jesuitsmidwest.org/news-detail?TN=NEWS-20190104121801MIDWESTPROV

[8] Beyond David Bentley Hart's Monist Adventures - Spiritual Pilgrim https://nasmith.substack.com/p/beyond-david-bentley-harts-monist

What role does intersubjectivity play in Bracken's understanding of creation

In Joseph Bracken's understanding of creation, intersubjectivity plays a central role as the framework for understanding the relationship between God, creation, and individual entities. Bracken proposes a **social ontology grounded in universal intersubjectivity**, which emphasizes the interconnectedness of all entities within creation. This model highlights several key aspects:

1. **Relationality**: Bracken rejects traditional models that prioritize either the One (unity) or the Many (individuality). Instead, he suggests that intersubjectivity preserves both the concrete particularity of individual entities and their enduring corporate reality as interconnected communities[1][2].

2. **Dynamic Interaction**: Creation is understood as a network of dynamically interrelated finite entities, where nothing exists in isolation. Communities and environments—from subatomic particles to galaxies—are sustained through their participation in the divine community, reflecting God's relational nature[2][4].

3. **Divine Participation**: Bracken views creation as participating in the divine life through intersubjective relations. This perspective aligns with his belief that intersubjectivity operates within both divine and created realms, fostering mutual interaction and shared existence[2].

Through this lens, Bracken reimagines the God-world relationship as inherently relational and interactive, emphasizing communal interdependence rather than isolated individualism.

Citations:

[1] Subjectivity, Objectivity, and Intersubjectivity: A New Paradigm for ... https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/subjectivity-objectivity-and-intersubjectivity-joseph-bracken/1113536369

[2] Subjectivity, Objectivity and Intersubjectivity: Toward a ... - Metanexus https://metanexus.net/subjectivity-objectivity-and-intersubjectivity-toward-post-post-modern-metaphysics/

[3] Intersubjectivity: Conceptual Considerations in Meaning-Making ... https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.715873/full

[4] [PDF] Relationality and Intersubjectivity within a Socially Oriented ... https://theologicalstudies.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/9-Bracken-Relationality.pdf

[5] Dependent Co-origination and Universal Intersubjectivity - jstor https://www.jstor.org/stable/30152890

[6] (PDF) Divine-Human Intersubjectivity and the Problem of Evil ... https://www.academia.edu/82118325/Divine_Human_Intersubjectivity_and_the_Problem_of_Evil

[7] Intersubjectivity: Conceptual Considerations in Meaning-Making ... https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8784664/

[8] The intersubjective turn - hanne de jaegher https://hannedejaegher.net/2015/12/16/the-intersubjective-turn/

How does Bracken explicitly express the gratuity of creation, its contingency, in terms of divine freedom as contrasted with Hart's view of creation's natural inevitability and intrinsic dependency?

Joseph Bracken expresses the gratuity and contingency of creation in terms of divine freedom by emphasizing God's **voluntary self-limitation** and relationality, in contrast to David Bentley Hart's view of creation as a natural inevitability arising from God's infinite love. The key distinctions are as follows:

### **Bracken's View**

1. **Voluntary Self-Limitation**: Bracken argues that God freely chooses to create by limiting Himself to allow for authentic relationships with creation. This kenotic (self-emptying) act ensures that creation is not a necessary extension of God but a contingent reality empowered to exist independently, while still participating in God's love and purpose[1][5].

2. **Relational Freedom**: For Bracken, divine freedom is expressed in God's ongoing interaction with creation. Creation is contingent because it arises from God's free decision to engage in a dynamic, intersubjective relationship with finite beings, rather than being a necessary outcome of divine nature[5][7].

3. **Contingency and Evolution**: Bracken incorporates process theology, viewing creation as an open-ended, evolving system where God provides "initial aims" or possibilities, allowing creatures to make free choices. This underscores the contingency of creation within the framework of divine providence[1][5].

### **Hart's View**

1. **Natural Inevitability**: Hart sees creation as inevitably flowing from God's infinite love and goodness. For Hart, this inevitability does not negate divine freedom but reflects the perfect realization of God's nature, transcending deliberative choice or external necessity.

2. **Intrinsic Dependency**: Hart emphasizes that creation is ontologically dependent on God for its existence and sustenance. While contingent in the sense that it "might not have been," creation is ultimately an inevitable expression of divine perfection.

### **Key Difference**

Bracken highlights the contingency of creation through God's voluntary decision to self-limit and interact relationally with the world, preserving both divine freedom and creaturely autonomy. Hart, in contrast, stresses that creation's inevitability arises from the fullness of God's nature, framing it as a necessary expression of divine love rather than a contingent choice.

In summary, Bracken's approach emphasizes relationality and contingency through divine self-limitation, while Hart focuses on inevitability as a natural outpouring of God's infinite love.

Citations:

[1] [PDF] DIVINE PROVIDENCE: CLASSICAL AND EVOLUTIONARY VIEWS https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ctsa/article/download/3533/3126/6292

[2] Divine-Human Intersubjectivity and the Problem of Evil - De Gruyter https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/opth-2018-0005/html?lang=en

[3] Freedom, Contingency and God's Suffering Love in the Theology of ... http://wawalker.com/freedom-contingency-and-gods-suffering-love-in-the-theology-of-hans-urs-von-balthasar-the-adequacy-of-the-analogy-of-drama-for-imagining-the-god-world-relationship/

[4] Emergence, Panenthesim, Science & Process Theology with Joseph ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qC07sbfRT68

[5] [PDF] Evolution: A Divine Interaction Between God and Creation https://firescholars.seu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1066&context=honors

[6] The World in the Trinity: Open-Ended Systems in Science and Religion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yx_ifkkECU

[7] Divine-Human Intersubjectivity and the Problem of Evil - De Gruyter https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/opth-2018-0005/html

[8] View of God/Trinity: Immanence, Transcendence, and Divine Freedom https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ctsa/article/view/4947/4419

Does Jordan Daniel Wood's Creation account appeal to the same kenotic dynamics that Bracken appeals to or does it more so resemble Hart's natural inevitability?

Jordan Daniel Wood's account of creation aligns more closely with David Bentley Hart's view of natural inevitability than Joseph Bracken's kenotic dynamics. Wood, drawing on Maximus the Confessor, proposes that creation and incarnation are intrinsically united, suggesting that creation is not merely contingent but fundamentally an expression of God's eternal self-giving through Christ. This perspective emphasizes the ontological dependency of creation on God, where creation is an inevitable manifestation of divine love and purpose, transcending deliberative choice or external necessity[3][7].

In contrast, Bracken emphasizes **kenotic dynamics**, where God voluntarily limits Himself to enable relational intersubjectivity with creation, preserving its contingency and autonomy. Wood's approach does not foreground such voluntary limitation but rather sees creation as inherently tied to God's eternal act of incarnation, reflecting a metaphysical unity rather than relational mutuality[3][7].

Citations:

[1] False Incarnation in Jordan Daniel Wood and Maximus the Confessor https://forgingploughshares.org/2023/03/30/false-incarnation-in-jordan-daniel-wood-and-maximus-the-confessor/

[2] Tag: Jordan Daniel Wood - Forging Ploughshares https://forgingploughshares.org/tag/jordan-daniel-wood/

[3] Summarizing the Hart/Wood Debate - by Timothy Troutner https://awildlogos.substack.com/p/summarizing-the-hartwood-debate-a

[4] Interview with Jordan Daniel Wood - The Vocation of the Theologian ... https://wherepeteris.com/interview-with-jordan-daniel-wood-the-vocation-of-the-theologian-and-st-maximus-the-confessor/

[5] Jordan Daniel Wood - Maximus the Confessor, Tradition ... - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2eLe80YOaw

[6] David Bentley Hart's Questions about Jordan Wood's Christology https://jesusandtheancientpaths.wordpress.com/2022/08/22/david-bentley-harts-questions-about-jordan-woods-christology/

[7] The Whole Mystery of Christ - Reading Religion https://readingreligion.org/9780268203474/the-whole-mystery-of-christ/

[8] Against Nature? - by Jordan Daniel Wood - Words in Flesh https://jordandanielwood.substack.com/p/against-nature

[9] Jordan Daniel Wood Delineates David Bentley Hart's Muddled Critiqe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOZT7JXKf2s

In what ways does Jordan Daniel Wood's theology align with or diverge from Hart's natural inevitability

Jordan Daniel Wood's theology aligns with David Bentley Hart's view of creation's natural inevitability in significant ways but also diverges in its emphasis on the logic of personhood and Christological centrality.

### **Alignment with Hart's Natural Inevitability**

1. **Creation as Inevitable Expression of Divine Love**: Like Hart, Wood views creation as intrinsically tied to God's nature, particularly through the lens of the Incarnation. For Wood, creation is not a contingent event but an inevitable manifestation of God's eternal self-giving love through Christ[2][4].

2. **Unity of Divine and Human**: Both theologians reject any separation between divine and human nature, emphasizing that creation and salvation are grounded in the same divine purpose. This reflects a metaphysical inevitability where God's goodness necessitates universal reconciliation[4][5].

3. **Rejection of Deliberative Freedom**: Wood, like Hart, critiques voluntarist notions of divine freedom that suggest God arbitrarily chooses to create. Instead, both argue that God's freedom is fully realized in the perfect expression of His nature, making creation inevitable rather than contingent[2][4].

### **Divergence from Hart**

1. **Focus on Personhood**: Wood departs from Hart by emphasizing the *logic of personhood* over abstract metaphysical arguments. He prioritizes a Christological framework where the Incarnation reveals the ultimate meaning of creation and salvation, grounding his theology more explicitly in personalist terms than Hart's broader metaphysical approach[3][5].

2. **Kenotic Undertones**: While Wood does not adopt Bracken's kenotic dynamics, he incorporates a form of divine self-emptying by framing creation as an act of eternal self-giving through Christ. This introduces a relational dynamic that softens Hart's emphasis on abstract inevitability[5].

In summary, Wood aligns with Hart's view that creation flows necessarily from God's nature but diverges by emphasizing the centrality of personhood and Christology, adding a relational depth to his theological vision.

Citations:

[1] David Artman Interviews Jordan Daniel Wood on Universalism https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2023/02/26/david-artman-interviews-jordan-daniel-wood-on-universalism/

[2] The Remarkable Unity of Rhetoric and Dialectic in 'That All Shall Be ... https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2020/02/23/the-remarkable-unity-of-rhetoric-and-dialectic-in-david-harts-that-all-shall-be-saved/

[3] Jordan Wood on the Logic of Person Versus Hart's Grounding in ... http://podcast.forgingploughshares.org/e/jordan-wood-on-the-logic-of-person-versus-hart-s-grounding-in-logical-abstraction/

[4] David Bentley Hart and Jordan Daniel Wood on Grace - PhilArchive https://philarchive.org/rec/ROOTEO-3

[5] The Ends of the Divine: David Bentley Hart and Jordan Daniel Wood ... https://philpapers.org/rec/JAMTEO-25

[6] The Hell Debate at CUA - by Jordan Daniel Wood https://jordandanielwood.substack.com/p/the-hell-debate-at-cua

[7] [PDF] TOWARDS AN EASTERN ORTHODOX CONTEMPLATION OF ... https://www.zygonjournal.org/article/14944/galley/30265/download/

[8] [PDF] Aesthetics in the Ecotheology of Sallie McFague https://dsc.duq.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1249&context=etd

Does Robert Jenson's account of the God-World relationship rely more on a kenotic dynamic like Bracken's or an inevitability like Wood's?

Robert Jenson's account of the God-world relationship relies more on **kenotic dynamics**, akin to Joseph Bracken's theology, than on the natural inevitability found in Jordan Daniel Wood's framework. Jenson emphasizes the **temporal and relational nature of God's freedom**, portraying creation as a dramatic unfolding of God's triune life, rooted in **self-giving love** rather than metaphysical necessity.

### **Kenotic Dynamics in Jenson's Theology**

1. **Divine Self-Giving**: Jenson describes God's identity as intrinsically tied to the event of love between the Father, Son, and Spirit, which unfolds temporally and relationally. This dynamic involves a form of divine self-emptying (kenosis), where God freely engages with creation as part of His eternal story[2][3].

2. **Freedom and Contingency**: Jenson rejects classical notions of God's impassibility and timelessness, instead presenting God's eternity as inclusive of past, present, and future. Creation is contingent because it arises from God's free decision to include humanity within His triune love story[3][4].

3. **Relational Ontology**: Jenson's theology emphasizes mutuality and interdependence between God and creation, aligning with Bracken's intersubjective relational model. Creation is not inevitable but a free act of divine love that incorporates humanity into the drama of God's life[5][7].

### **Contrast with Wood's Natural Inevitability**

While Wood sees creation as an inevitable expression of God's eternal self-giving through Christ, Jenson focuses on the **dramatic and contingent nature** of God's engagement with creation. For Jenson, creation is not metaphysically necessary but freely chosen within the unfolding narrative of triune love.

In essence, Jenson's theology leans toward kenotic dynamics by emphasizing divine freedom, relationality, and contingency in the God-world relationship, diverging from Wood's emphasis on inevitability.

Citations:

[1] Robert Jenson and the God of the gospel | The Christian Century https://www.christiancentury.org/article/critical-essay/robert-jenson-god-of-gospel

[2] Robert W. Jenson (1930-) - A Dramatic Teleology of Creation https://www.academia.edu/13162424/Robert_W_Jenson_1930_A_Dramatic_Teleology_of_Creation

[3] The Lively God of Robert Jenson - First Things https://firstthings.com/the-lively-god-of-robert-jenson/

[4] [PDF] The Freedom of God: A Study in the Pneumatology of Robert Jenson https://dlib.bc.edu/islandora/object/bc-ir:107101/datastream/PDF/download/bc-ir_107101.pdf

[5] Robert W. Jenson, Systematic Theology volume 1 - The Puritan Board https://puritanboard.com/threads/robert-w-jenson-systematic-theology-volume-1.81815/

[6] An End to All Endings? Reflections on Rowan Williams' Critical ... https://jasongoroncy.com/2012/01/16/an-end-to-all-endings-reflections-on-rowan-williams-critical-theology/

[7] Trinity in Jenson's Understanding of the God–World Relation https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1063851219846700?icid=int.sj-full-text.similar-articles.3

[8] Robert W. Jenson: Reminiscences and Memories - Eclectic Orthodoxy https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2017/09/07/robert-w-jenson-reminiscences-and-memories/

Does Jenson share any of Wood's Neo-Chalcedonian commitments?

Robert Jenson shares some of Jordan Daniel Wood's Neo-Chalcedonian commitments, but his theology diverges in significant ways due to his emphasis on **temporal relationality** and **dramatic narrative theology**.

### **Shared Neo-Chalcedonian Commitments**

1. **Christological Focus on the Person of Jesus**: Both Jenson and Wood adopt the Neo-Chalcedonian emphasis on the unity of Christ as a single hypostasis (person) who fully embodies both divine and human natures. They align with the Neo-Chalcedonian insistence that Christ is the starting point for theology, not abstract metaphysical speculation about natures[1][3][5].

2. **Integration of Nature and Person**: Like Wood, Jenson affirms the Neo-Chalcedonian distinction between the logic of nature (what something is) and person (who someone is), emphasizing that natures exist only in persons. This reflects their shared commitment to Maximus the Confessor's Christological synthesis[3][5].

### **Jenson's Divergence from Wood**

1. **Temporal and Narrative Framework**: Unlike Wood, who emphasizes the eternal inevitability of creation as grounded in Christological unity, Jenson places greater emphasis on the **temporal unfolding** of God's relationship with creation. For Jenson, God freely chooses to enter into history and engages dynamically with creation through time, framing creation as part of an ongoing dramatic narrative rather than an inevitable act[5].

2. **Kenotic Dynamics**: While Wood focuses on creation's intrinsic dependency on God as an eternal act of divine self-giving, Jenson incorporates a stronger **kenotic dimension**, emphasizing God's self-limitation and relational engagement with creation. This aligns more closely with Joseph Bracken's kenotic theology than with Wood's metaphysical inevitability[3][5].

3. **Trinitarian Drama**: Jenson's theology is deeply rooted in a dramatic understanding of the Trinity, where creation and redemption unfold within God's triune life as a story. This narrative approach contrasts with Wood's metaphysical focus on the eternal unity of creation and incarnation in Christ.

### **Conclusion**

While Jenson shares Wood's Neo-Chalcedonian commitments to Christological personhood and the integration of divine and human natures, his theology diverges by emphasizing temporal relationality, dramatic contingency, and kenotic dynamics over metaphysical inevitability.

Citations:

[1] Neo-Chalcedonian | Peter Leithart - Patheos https://www.patheos.com/blogs/leithart/2012/02/neo-chalcedonian/

[2] Reply to My Critics: Some Others - by Jordan Daniel Wood https://jordandanielwood.substack.com/p/reply-to-my-critics-some-others

[3] Neo-Chalcedonian Christology - by Jordan Daniel Wood https://jordandanielwood.substack.com/p/neo-chalcedonian-christology

[4] David Bentley Hart Responds to the Neo-Neo-Chalcedonians https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2022/08/24/david-bentley-hart-responds-to-the-neo-neo-chalcedonians/

[5] [PDF] JESUS IN THE TRINITY https://afkimel.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/jenson-on-jesus-in-the-trinity.pdf

[6] A Novel Use of the Body-Soul Comparison Emerges in... - Sciendo https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/ress-2019-0027

[7] [PDF] THE BIBLE AND THE TRINITY' https://rdtwot.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/thebibleandthetrinity.pdf

[8] Jordan D Wood - Belmont University - Academia.edu https://belmont.academia.edu/JordanWood

How does Jenson's concept of divine self-enrichment differ from Bracken's kenotic dynamics

Robert Jenson's concept of **divine self-enrichment** differs from Joseph Bracken's **kenotic dynamics** in how each theologian frames God's relationship to creation and divine freedom.

### **Jenson's Divine Self-Enrichment**

1. **Narrative and Relational Focus**: Jenson emphasizes that God's self-enrichment occurs through the unfolding narrative of creation and redemption. For Jenson, God's identity is dynamically enriched by His engagement with creation, particularly through the historical drama of Christ's incarnation and resurrection. This relational enrichment reflects God's choice to include creation within His triune life[3].

2. **Temporal Dynamics**: Jenson views God's self-enrichment as a process tied to time and history. God's engagement with creation is not static but unfolds through relational events, making divine enrichment contingent on the narrative of God's interaction with the world[3].

### **Bracken's Kenotic Dynamics**

1. **Voluntary Self-Limitation**: Bracken emphasizes God's kenotic act of self-limitation, where God freely withdraws certain aspects of divine power to allow creation its autonomy and relational intersubjectivity. This dynamic preserves the contingency of creation while highlighting God's self-giving nature[2][3].

2. **Panentheistic Framework**: Bracken situates kenosis within a panentheistic model, where God and creation exist in mutual interrelation. Creation is empowered by God's self-emptying, enabling creatures to freely participate in divine life without coercion[2].

### **Key Differences**

- **Temporal vs Ontological Focus**: Jenson ties divine self-enrichment to historical processes and relational events, whereas Bracken emphasizes ontological intersubjectivity through kenosis.

- **Contingency vs Narrative Unity**: Bracken stresses the contingency of creation through divine self-limitation, while Jenson sees creation as integral to God's narrative identity and self-enrichment.

In summary, Jenson's concept centers on the dynamic enrichment of God through temporal narrative, while Bracken highlights ontological kenosis as the foundation for relational interdependence between God and creation.

Citations:

[1] [PDF] Download PDF - Theological Studies Journal https://theologicalstudies.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/50.4.reviews-notices.pdf

[2] Panentheism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panentheism/

[3] Divine Self-Enrichment and Human Well-Being: A Systematic ... https://researchoutput.csu.edu.au/en/publications/divine-self-enrichment-and-human-well-being-a-systematic-theologi

[4] [PDF] THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN CONTEMPORARY ... - ERA https://era.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/26178/1/BadcockGD_1991redux.pdf

[5] The Death of Omnipotence and Birth of Amipotence (Thomas Jay ... https://www.bobcornwall.com/2023/05/the-death-of-omnipotence-and-birth-of.html

[6] [PDF] WISDOM FROM THE MARGINS SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY AND ... https://ejournals.bc.edu/index.php/ctsa/article/download/4459/3973/0

[7] Untitled - Brill https://brill.com/display/book/9783846766279/9783846766279_webready_content_text.pdf

[8] Divine Narrative Unity ative - Brill https://brill.com/display/book/9783846766279/BP000010.pdf