Love this stuff. You may be aware that part of my dissertation is focussed on precisely this area. The point of Augustinian knowing is that it shows us, our ’selves’ to be immediately implicated in the pursuit of knowledge. The dichotomy of reason and will, so central to modern epistemology, is just not tenable for Augustine. Which is why among other reasons the good Bishop is usually not categorised as a true ‘philosopher’ by today’s standards. But then this is his whole point!

So I would add the second (or third?) only real theologian is Augustine.

When I received Kent’s message, I felt a rather ironic stress. On the one hand, I had this sense that blog-conversations unfold rather quickly and that the topic of conversation might move-on to something else sooner rather than later. On the other hand, the topic of conversation was “tradition.” Tradition has to do with continuity over extended spans of history, and I felt the need to respond “right away, before it’s too late.” My problem.

With appreciation for the posts on tradition made thus far, I’ll venture comment on two matters which, I think, must be included in grappling with the matter of Tradition/tradition, and which are of particular challenge for evangelicals: ecclesiology, and the development of doctrine.

Ecclesiology: Discussion of Tradition/tradition eventually must be connected to one’s understanding of the identity of “the church.” And, as has been rightly observed by many in recent years, evangelicals are notoriously weak or shallow with respect to theological ecclesiology. No need to labor this point further right now. I think it is, however, important to observe that some weakness and/or shallowness with respect to ecclesiology within evangelicalism qua evangelicalism – and, consequently, to some degree, limits on our ability to adequately conceptualize Tradition/tradition – is inevitable and, probably, unavoidable. Evangelicalism – unlike, for example, Lutheranism or Anglicanism or Methodism or Presbyterianism or (you get it) – is not an single, ecclesio-theological tradition. To the contrary, by its very nature evangelicalism encompasses many ecclesio-theological traditions. Individual ecclesio-theological traditions which are evangelical in character (example, the Evangelical Presbyterian church or the Anglican Mission in America) have the potential to formulate and embody a deep and rich ecclesiology if they choose to do so. But “evangelicalism” cannot do this, even if “it” wanted to. I won’t here pursue evaluative questions as to whether this is good or bad, to be embrace or challenged. But it is, I would suggest, the fact of the matter.

Development of doctrine: Evangelicals have not yet invested much time or energy in exploring the intersection of history and theology – an intersection through which any discussion of Tradition/tradition must pass. We have not even come close to formulating serious theories of the development of doctrine, which is intimately related to notions of Tradition/tradition. (Again, due in part to our limitations with respect to ecclesiology [above].) How does doctrine behave over time? How are we to conceive of the combination of change and continuity with respect to doctrine? How does ecclesiology inform these understandings? This is an area wide open for evangelical engagement.

Well, there you are, Kent and others. It will probably be a while, Kent, before you “prompt” me again :)

God’s peace.

I agree that Edwards is on to something. THe Cappadocian Fathers hammered out a notion of particular personhood that was very firmly grounded in what we might otherwise call a notion of dynamic mutual constitution. So Basil referred to the notion of Sonship from the Father as “alone only begotten received from unregenerate light.” (Ep.38.4.32) When we add this to the appropriation of “formative cause” to the Son – the Father being the originating cause and the Spirit being the perfecting cause – of creation, we get an appropriate sense of the nature of divine personhood both transcendently and economically. (De Spiritu 16)

I have to say I prefer these kind of categories to the tradition of appropriating cognitive metaphors as these only ever seem to dissolve the actual notion of personhood and personal agency as they are portrayed in Scripture.

“The Spirit (of Love) then, who proceeds from the Father as the one in whom the Father begets the Son, both conforms or defines (persons) the Son to be the Son and simultaneously conforms or defines (persons) the Father to be the Father. The Holy Spirit, in proceeding from the Father as the one in whom the Father begets the Son conforms the Father to be the Father for the Son and conforms the Son to be the Son for (of) the Father.”

Sincerely, kyle

Have you read my paper on this in Engaging the Doctrine of God, ed. Bruce McCormack? I think Edwards has a somewhat unique take on this matter because he divides the attributes into real and ‘meer modes or relations.’ I’d be interested to hear your comments on the paper.

Best,

Oliver.