Robert Jenson's Systematic Theology: a review essay

Abstract

The essay explores the inner logic that connects Jenson's view of the work of Christ, the person of Christ, and the doctrine of God. More specifically, it examines his understanding of the cross, the incarnation, and the trinity. Despite clear intentions to the contrary, Jenson lands outside the bounds of established ecumenical consensus. His view of the cross tends toward Socinus, of the incarnation toward Arius, and of the trinity toward Hegel in ways that seem subordinationist and tritheistic. One possible reason for this outcome is a rationalistic mindset that displays a low tolerance for paradox in dogmatic theology.

Trinity, incarnation and time: a restatement of the doctrine of God in conversation with Robert Jenson

“…George Hunsinger has suggested that Jenson's christology has tendencies in the seemingly opposite directions of monophysitism (because of its lack of a divine Son conceived of otherwise than the man Jesus), adoptionism (because of the constitutive character of the resurrection) and Arianism (because of the temporal beginning of the Son who is Jesus). 38 However, it must be noted that Hunsinger sees these only as tendencies and that Jenson believes Hunsinger has fundamentally missed the point. 39 Of more weight is Hunsinger's observation that Jenson's reading of the Cappadocians tends towards tritheism.…”

Trinity, time and ecumenism in Robert Jenson’s theology

“…What is interesting though is that all of his critiques also appreciate a lot of his theological contribution. George Hunsinger (2002:161) says for example: ""Robert W. Jenson gives us the twentieth century's most accomplished systematic theology written in English. It has few peers in any language.…”

Reliable knowledge, true freedom: The remnant of the analogia temporalis in the theology of Robert Jenson and its implications for the epistemology–freedom debate

“…In short, since Jesus' sonship is constituted by his resurrection, he pre-exists as the Father's preexisting decision to resurrect him. 61 Jenson therefore denies both charges that the divine identity is dictated by factors external to God's agencywhether the fall or serendipityby asserting the eternal intention of Jesus' existence and resurrection, using this same assertion to explain references to Jesus' pre-existence in the New Testament while maintaining his identification of the second person of the Trinity with Jesus Christ simpliciter. In so doing, however, Jenson undermines one of his key divergences from Barth's theologythe relocation of the decision of election from primordial time to the event of the resurrection.…”

“…45 This transcendence of temporal distinctions by the unity of the divine being can be understood through the concept of perichoresis, which denotes for Jenson the mutual work of the three persons in which every work 'is begun in the Father, accomplished in the Son, and perfected in the Spirit'. 46 Thus, returning to Jenson's assertion that God is most truly himself in the future by virtue of the teleological constitution of the divine identity, Jenson argues that God is most accurately described as existing in the future. However, while this is true of all living personal beings in principle (e.g.…”

“…However, since the resurrection is the act by which the crucified Jesus transcends time to become eternal, this event becomes, moreover, 'a constitutive element in the triune God's perichoretic unity', as the archetypal perichoretic transcendence of time. 49 As such, it defines eternity, meaning that the character of the resurrection appearances provides vital information about the nature of this eternity. In this regard, Jenson notes the elusive quality of the experiences, arguing that they are elusive precisely because Jesus in these appearances belongs not to the present but the future, meaning by extension that the appearances are appearances of the future: promises of a final fulfilment that is 'now characterized as fulfilment precisely of the resurrection'.…”