I guess that I am more interested in WP’s argument (against Barth) as regards the theme and task of theology, which is, as I understand it, testing the truthfulness of Christian discourse itself. Hence, the truth of Christian doctrine cannot be presumed from the outset (as Barth does) without lapsing into either sujbectivism or authoritarianism (which WP claims Barth did in CD I/1). This is the argument that I am not sure about. I think Molnar went some way in showing that Barth’s theology is neither of these -isms but I think that there is still an important issue to debate here and my thoughts are not sufficiently well-formed to have an opinion on the matter just yet.

thanks again Kent

Let me think out loud about this for a minute. As I have read Molnar, Pannenberg seems to be an often-used whipping boy for him to illustrate how certain theological systems can unwittingly compromise divine freedom. His use of Pannenberg in Divine Freedom and the Imminent Trinity and the article you referred to in SJT (“Some Problems with Pannenberg’s Solution to Barth’s Faith Subjectivism” 48, no. 3 (1995)) are good examples and I suspect the same is true for how he interacts with him in Resurrection and Incarnation (on my short list).

I have a lot of respect for Molnar, and I am sure he is on to something, but it remains an open question for me whether Pannenberg has unwittingly committed himself down the paths that worry Molnar. Pannenberg is certainly aware of the issues and thinks he has worked with them adequately.

So, for the time being, I am trying to give Pannenberg the benefit of the doubt that his doctrine of God really is able to hold together his prized tensions (ask me again right before my viva). With Molnar, a big one for me is the manner in which he parses the relationship between the imminent and economic trinity. At one point he will say, “the imminent trinity is to be found in the Trinity of salvation history. God is the same in his eternal essence as he reveals himself to be historically” (1:331, et passim) and elsewhere “the progress of events decides concerning his deity as well as the deity of the Son (1:329). Understandably, then, Molnar worries that by identifying the imminent and economic trinity mere lip service gets paid to the imminent, and God is then seen as dependent on the course of history

Can Christian theology adequately maintain both? Pannenberg certainly thinks so, and he also thinks one can go too far in equating the two, such as Jenson: “there is also a necessary distinction that maintains the priority of the eternal communion of the triune God over that communion’s explication in the history of salvation. Without this distinction, the reality of the one God tends to be dissolved into the process of the world” (First Things 103 (May 2000)).

Though Pannenberg certainly has a running prioritization on the imminent trinity through his dogmatics, I’m still not convinced that such emphasis washes out his desire for historicity, or that his stress on historicity makes the prioritization of the imminent trinity incomprehensible. Thus, I’m sympathetic to Molnar’s worry here and, honestly, it’s hard not to agree with him. In the end, perhaps the issue comes down to whether or not one is completely willing to take on board Pannenberg’s presuppositions regarding time (Plotinus) and anticipation (Heidegger) and feel that these solve the relevant problems.

Sorry for the noncommittal response. Your work on Barth would, certainly, be illuminating for me. You want to weigh in?

I would like to know what you yourself think about Pannenberg’s criticisms of Barth on theological methodology. I have read Molnar’s response to these complaints in the SJT but was wanting to know what a Pannerberg expert thought about the matter.

thanks!