2017
DOI: 10.5040/9780567675118
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Divine Freedom and the Doctrine of the Immanent Trinity

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2
2

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 0 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…44 Because it is only as God is ontologically free from us that he can be free for us, Molnar establishes the following counterfactual as a necessary proposition for theological speech: 'God exists eternally as Father, Son and Holy Spirit and would so exist even if there had been no creation, reconciliation or redemption'. 45 Given the contours of his proposal, McCormack cannot conceive of trinitarian protology in the form of absolute ontological independence. Even so, trinitarian protology remains an important part of his proposal in the form of the logos asarkos.…”
Section: Mccormack's Christological Proposalmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…44 Because it is only as God is ontologically free from us that he can be free for us, Molnar establishes the following counterfactual as a necessary proposition for theological speech: 'God exists eternally as Father, Son and Holy Spirit and would so exist even if there had been no creation, reconciliation or redemption'. 45 Given the contours of his proposal, McCormack cannot conceive of trinitarian protology in the form of absolute ontological independence. Even so, trinitarian protology remains an important part of his proposal in the form of the logos asarkos.…”
Section: Mccormack's Christological Proposalmentioning
confidence: 99%