The Trinity, Election and God's Ontological Freedom: A Response to Kevin W. Hector

Abstract

A recent article by Kevin Hector considered the disagreement between Bruce McCormack and me over the relationship between the doctrines of election and the Trinity raising a number of crucial issues such as the proper relation of the immanent and economic Trinity, the nature of God's freedom and the identity of the logos asarkos. In this article I explore how and why Barth's dialectical understanding of the triune God's freedom from and for creatures disallowed equating God's ontological freedom with election in the manner suggested by McCormack and Hector, because that would reduce God's omnipotence to his omnicausality, the immanent to the economic Trinity.In a recent IJST article (vol. 7, no. 3, July 2005) entitled 'God's Triunity and Self-Determination: A Conversation with identified several crucial questions in an attempt to resolve a disagreement between Bruce McCormack and me over how to conceptualize the relationship between the immanent and economic Trinity: (1) Can we say that God's determination to be with us is the basis of God's triunity? (2) Must we identify the Son's being as eternally toward-incarnation? (3) How does God's freedom relate to God's eternal decision to be God-with-humanity? Central to the discussion are the issues of just how to conceive God's freedom and how exactly to conceive the logos asarkos. In this response I hope to show that Kevin Hector did not properly interpret the concept of divine freedom that I offered in my book, Divine Freedom and the Doctrine of the Immanent Trinity; 1 that he then incorrectly equated triunity and election; that he mistakenly assumes that Barth's emphasis on God for us meant that Barth no longer emphasized God's freedom from us (whereas Barth always

A critical assessment of Bruce L. McCormack's christological proposal

“…self-moved) and gratuitous. 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.…”

Is God Necessarily Who God Is? Alternatives for the Trinity and Election Debate

“…Triunity, it is thought, must be seen as the wellspring rather than the outcome of election. 20 While I am strongly inclined not to prioritise election over triunity, it also seems to me that we are not required to prioritise triunity over election. Hector argues that election should be thought of as an outworking of the immutable triune life of God.…”

“…19 Molnar argues that keeping the priority of election is necessary to maintain 'God's freedom to have existed from all eternity without us.' 20 While I am strongly inclined not to prioritise election over triunity, it also seems to me that we are not required to prioritise triunity over election. I contend that if more attention is paid to modal and metaphysical options with respect to the existence and essence of God, one will see that there are a number of viable positions, each of which conforms to the relevant concerns of the revelation axiom, divine immutability and divine freedom.…”