Divine Simplicity: Article Reviews and Responses By Paul R. Hinlicky and Steven J. Duby Response to Steven J. Duby Paul R. Hinlicky This response by Paul R. Hinlicky to Steven J. Duby is part 3 of 4 in a dialogue on divine simplicity. For the other articles please see: Book Review Article of Divine Simplicity: A Dogmatic Account by Paul R. Hinlicky Book Review Article of Divine Simplicity: Christ the Crisis of Metaphysics by Steven J. Duby Share this on: FacebookTwitterLinkedin
Divine Simplicity: Article Reviews and Responses By Paul R. Hinlicky and Steven J. Duby Book Review Article of Divine Simplicity: Christ the Crisis of Metaphysics Steven J. Duby Steven J. Duby is Associate Professor of Theology at Grand Canyon University Paul R. Hinlicky, Divine Simplicity: Christ the Crisis of Metaphysics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016. Debates about the doctrine of divine simplicity have escalated in recent years and given rise to defenses, rejections and modifications of the doctrine. It is a teaching that is often unfamiliar to Christians living in the twenty-first century, but it has played a significant role in Christian accounts of the triune God from the very beginning of church history. At a general level, it can be described as the teaching that God is not composed of parts but is really identical with (the same “thing” as) his own essence, existence and attributes. The divine attributes (e.g., wisdom, love) are not qualities added to God’s essence but rather are descriptions of that essence viewed from different angles. The persons of the Trinity are not parts composing a greater divine whole. Rather, the whole divine essence exists in the Father, Son and Spirit, who are distinguished…
Divine Simplicity: Article Reviews and Responses By Paul R. Hinlicky and Steven J. Duby Book Review Article of Divine Simplicity: A Dogmatic Account Paul R. Hinlicky Paul R. Hinlicky is Tise Professor of Lutheran Studies, Roanoke College and Graduate Faculty, Institute of Lutheran Theology Steven J. Duby, Divine Simplicity: A Dogmatic Account. London and New York: T & T Clark Studies in Systematic Theology, 2016. Steven J. Duby has written an excellent work of theological scholarship in support of what is, to my mind, a dubious cause. He writes as a restorationist of Reformed scholastic orthodoxy (pp. 3, 122), and in “dogmatics” he deploys a pre-critical method of garnering and systematizing propositions found in Scripture (Lindbeck’s “propositionalism”1). This restorationism hinges upon two special commitments which recur regularly throughout the work: first, the interpretation of Trinitarian persons as modalities of the single deity-person (pp. 24, 121, 155, 158, 218, 227-8), a move which, following Augustine, confounds the crucial distinction between ousia and hypostasis worked out by the Cappadocians between Nicea and Constantinople; and second, also following Augustine, the corresponding assignment of God taken “absolutely” to the category of “nature” or “essence,” treating, then, Father, Son and Holy Spirit as the same…
Divine Simplicity: Article Reviews and Responses By Paul R. Hinlicky and Steven J. Duby A Brief Editorial Note The editors invited Paul R. Hinlicky and Steven J. Duby to review one another’s books on the topic of divine simplicity. The following presents their respective review articles and then their responses to one another’s review. The order is as follows: 1. Paul R. Hinlicky’s review article of Duby’s book, Divine Simplicity: A Dogmatic Account 2. Steven J. Duby’s review article of Hinlicky’s book, Divine Simplicity: Christ the Crisis of Metaphysics 3. Paul R. Hinlicky’s response to Duby 4. Steven J. Duby’s response to Hinlicky The editors would like to thank both Paul and Steve for participating in this friendly engagement. We believe that Christian scholarship is strengthen by dialogue across different Christian traditions. Paul and Steve exemplify this dialogue well between themselves. The editors would also like to thank Mark R. Kreitzer for initially suggesting that this dialogue take place in JBTS. Ryan A. Brandt Managing Editor Share this on: FacebookTwitterLinkedin
This is My Beloved Son, Whom I Hate? A Critique of the Christus Odium Variant of Penal Substitution Joshua R. Farris & S. Mark Hamilton Joshua R. Farris is an Assistant Professor of Theology at Houston Baptist University. S. Mark Hamilton is a PhD candidate at the Free University of Amsterdam. Abstract: There is a subtle, almost imperceptible, theological metamorphosis underway and it is taking place not only in the academy and as a result, in the pulpit, it is taking place in the pew. For, in some evangelical quarters, it is no longer enough to simply believe that Christ absorbed the wrath of God as a penal substitute. Some have recently gone so far as to claim that, as a penal substitute, Christ became the object of the Father’s perfect hatred. In this paper, we take a closer look at this rather frightening aspect of this Christus Odium variant of penal substitution—something that we think, if gone unchecked, may well become the logical (better still, illogical) deposit of a new dogmatic inheritance for the American evangelical tradition as it pertains to substitutionary atonement. Key Words: retribution, rectoral, reparation, substitution, odius, satisfaction Share this on: FacebookTwitterLinkedin
