Contemplating God with the Great Tradition ~ Recovering Trinitarian Classical Theism - A Review Article
by Craig A. Carter
Contemplating God was supposed to be Carter’s initial book (not this exact form) many years ago, when he identified as a relational theist, with a pacifist leaning. His research for the book led him down an obscure path to theological liberalism—but he made a U-turn. His doubts led him to look to the theologians of the Nicene culture, a tradition of theology in which he assumed his views of God were rooted. But when he heavily engaged in reading the early church fathers, medievals, and the Reformers, he observed the radical disparity in hermeneutics between the classical tradition of Nicene orthodoxy and that which emerged in the age of the Enlightenment, notably in the writings of Spinoza and Schleiermacher, along with the metaphysics of Kant, Hume, and Hegel—thus the “culture” of Modern Protestantism. His personal ad fontes led him to the classical God that Modern theology eschewed. And therefore, he realized he needed to address the interpretation piece before he could write a work on the doctrine of God, which he published with Baker Books in 2018, titled Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition: Recovering the Genius of Premodern Exegesis.
The opening page of Interpreting Scripture is imprinted on my mind. Carter, in Babe Ruth-like fashion, stepped up to the plate, pointed to the bleachers, and smashed the curve ball of contemporary hermeneutics out of the park. The “conventional wisdom of evangelical hermeneutics” that much of modern evangelicalism had succumbed to, Carter said— “Nope, get that out of here.” And in the pages to follow, Carter, in meticulous detail, set forth his argument exposing the secularity of modern evangelical hermeneutics—the famed historical-critical method. Carter showed that the riches of the Christian tradition, the adorning vision of the Triune God of the Bible, had been veiled by the Law of (not Moses) Modernity. The Triune God revealed in Holy Scripture reached its fullest expression (as can be expressed in human language and concepts) in the Great Tradition of the Christian faith. The Great Tradition imbibed “a pro-Nicene culture,” a theological framework with three interconnecting elements: spiritual exegesis, dogma, and metaphysics. And these essentials provided the support structure for the doctrines of classical theism (in fact, they identify us as Christians), showcasing the transcendence of the One True God. This is the Great Tradition of Trinitarian classical theism.
Interpreting Scripture laid out the classical theological hermeneutic of the Great Tradition, which Carter argues reached its pinnacle in John Calvin. Undergirding this hermeneutic is metaphysics. Debating over hermeneutics never gets beneath the surface. A fundamental shift in metaphysics is the root of the issue. And the metaphysic of the Great Tradition is Christian Platonism (Carter’s coinage).[1] While modern evangelicals are quick to retort at the mention of Platonism, since modern theology has accepted in toto that the early church Fathers uncritically adopted Greek metaphysics (i.e., Platonism), polluting the ethos of the New Testament, Carter dispels those assertions, turning the tables on contemporary theism’s uncritical acceptance of the metaphysics of the day—Hegelianism. In the end, Carter’s reordering is doxologically appropriate: We must learn to interpret Scripture with the Great Tradition if we are to contemplate God with the Great Tradition.
Now, for my review.
The material divisions of the work. Contemplating God (hereafter CG) is divided into three parts. From an overview, in Part 1, Carter defines Trinitarian classical theism. Part 2, he shows us the biblical roots of Trinitarian classical theism, revealing the transcendent Creator, the sovereign Lord of history, who alone is the One True God deserving and demanding of our worship. And in part 3, we see Trinitarian classical theism in history, observing the importance of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo for a full-scale recovery of classical trinitarian theism, concluding with an evaluation of the major trends in the doctrine of God in contemporary theism. Judging from my underlining marks throughout the book (and there are many), I would say part 3 is my favorite section, followed closely by part 1, and part 2. My plan is to survey through the story line of the work, commenting on aspects I found helpful in each part (3 parts) and at times also ruminating about the subject matter. The reader will notice that I do not offer a critical portion in my review. That is not to say Carter’s work is flawless, as no one’s work is. Rather, time will tell if Carter’s goal of ressourcement is successful. If not, then critical engagement will be necessary.
~ Part 1 ~
Carter begins the first chapter by setting up a foil between classical theism and relational theism (a general term that affirms a changing view of God who is affected by the world). The contrast is outlined, and Carter lays out how the emergence of Modernity led to a parting of ways from the 1500-year-long traditional view of the classical God. Relational theism, which Carter also references as “theistic personalism” and “theistic mutualism,” terms coined by other modern critics of relational theism, deviates from classical theism in that it gives interpretive control to the anthropomorphic depictions of God in Scripture. Modern theology sees that the classical doctrines of simplicity, immutability, impassibility, and eternality (i.e., God is outside of time) need to be put out to pasture. But Carter demonstrates that the modern relational view of God is “merely a reversion of pagan mythology” from before the time of Abraham. And he even terms the resurgence of Trinitarian studies (of the social type) in the last half century “pagan trinitarianism.”
Initially, I snickered a bit when reading Carter’s comments. While I obviously noted the gaping differences between classical theology and relational theology, “pagan” was not a label I had yet used; rather, I affirmed that such views were greatly in error. With that said, in this case, I think the logical conclusion is warranted. Now, we do not want to make a habit of labeling others who differ theologically “pagans” by making statements such as, “Because so and so holds to this view, if carried out to its logical conclusion, then so and so is a heretic.” However, in this context, we have an elephant in the room that needs to be noticed. Why is that? Because we are not engaging in an intramural debate over who are the “everyone” Jesus is referring to in John 3:16. Rather, we are at a metaphysical impasse. The Christian tradition has a divine grammar that has allowed us to speak coherently, cogently, and precisely about an incomprehensible God. Yes, it is a paradox. Modern theology does not thrive in a paradoxical environment, a lasting imprint from the Enlightenment. Carter strongly and successfully argues the modern project has severed that metaphysical connection with the Great Tradition. It operates under Modern presuppositions (without questioning whether it should) that do not delineate a clear distinction of kind between God and creatures. And thus, the logical conclusion is ultimately pantheism, polytheism, or, as noted above, “pagan trinitarianism.” If the God of the Bible is merely different from his creation by degree and not kind, then he is a part of creation, thus he is not the One, True, and Triune God, who alone is worthy of praise and adoration.
What then is the presupposition of the Great Tradition? Trinitarian classical theism. Carter writes, it “is both the presupposition and the result of responsible exegesis. . . . It developed over centuries from the exegesis of Holy Scripture and the contemplation of the results of that exegesis by the leading theologians of the Christian tradition.” The Great Tradition arrived at that conclusion because it was guided by two distinct features, referred to as the skopos, revealed in Scripture that we must not deviate from: Christ is both human and divine, and Scripture is ultimately a product of a single divine mind. With those two rules guiding our interpretation of Scripture, we can engage in spiritually enriching exegesis, thus hearing the Word of God spoken through the Spirit of God, which brings the Word to life in every generation, advancing one, clear, and consistent message that alone has the power to reach the ends of the earth and save a people from every tribe, tongue, and nation.
While much was said above, I end with a few brief comments on part 1. In the last half of it, Carter sets out 25 theses that define Trinitarian classical theism (hereafter TCT). Each thesis statement precisely defines an element of TCT, followed by a brief explanation consisting of historical-theological engagement, which has a confessional feel. Carter’s plan in defining TCT in this manner is very instructive, showing doctrinal clarity and fidelity, strongly influenced by Scripture, with a deeply rooted connection in the historic tradition of the Christian faith. The clincher for me was in how Carter concluded his 25 theses. And I will cite his last thesis statement in full. He writes: “The purpose of theology is neither to dissolve nor to explain the mysteries of the faith; rather, the purpose of theology is to define what the church believes, teaches, and confesses about these mysteries to enable contemplation and worship of God while avoiding heresy.” The Classical doctrines are not for the purpose of engaging in lofty, speculative pedantry; rather, as Carter concludes, it is for the purpose of growing in wisdom and knowledge of our God. While the relational strand of theology claims the classical God lacks relationality, properly defined and articulated, Carter shows us that classical theology is to enrich divine-human relationality—it is doxological!
~ Part 2 ~
While I think Carter has argued his case well, he advances his argument further. Here is the question he sets out to answer: Do the classical metaphysical presuppositions comport with the God revealed in Scripture? Modern theology sees that the classical doctrines of immutability and impassibility contradict with the nature of God revealed in Scripture. Carter addresses this objection through an exegetical engagement of Isaiah 40–48, with the express aim of demonstrating “that trinitarian classical theism and an important section of a central biblical book are not merely compatible but are actually mutually illuminating.” A trinitarian classical metaphysical framework applied in Isaiah 40–48 “will enable us to perceive a depth of meaning in the text that otherwise is obscure, namely the doctrine of God as the transcendent Creator and sovereign Lord of history, who alone is worthy to be worshiped.”
Before beginning his detailed exposition, Carter shows how a historical-critical approach, with an emphasis on the individual writer and the cultural and historical context, maligns the skopos of the text because the interpreter must reduce the meaning of the biblical text to what the human writer was able to conceive. And this has been exploited in the ever-increasing interest in Ancient Near Eastern studies (also in the historical Jesus project), in that the polemical writings in the ANE culture have become the primary context, thus the delimiting framework, for interpreting the Old Testament. That is not to say there are not scholars engaged in that area of scholarship who are not classical theists at heart (a great example, who Carter references often, is OT scholar John N. Oswalt)
Carter is not dismissing cultural and historical context for proper interpretation (Nor is he dismissing the resources of Second Temple Judaism; just those who operate according to an anti-supernatural framework); rather, he is giving greater emphasis to the two rules of interpretation noted above, which means that the interpreter must look beneath the superficial to see the supernatural (i.e., the spiritual context). The modern project sees Scripture as a human artifact. And it reads, studies, and determines its authenticity as it would any other man-made religious and/or historical text. What is the grave error in doing so? Recall Carter’s unashamedly blunt observation regarding modern Protestantism. If the modern presupposition of Scripture is that it is just like any other historical or religious text, what are the implications about the Author of the text? The God of the Bible is like the “so-called gods” of the ANE culture, the Ancient Greco-Roman culture, and the Modern culture, which can all be summed up as mythological culture.
The Creator-creature distinction (i.e., the transcendent distinction of the One, True God of the Bible) is dissolved in the “acids of modernity.” The logical conclusion has been reached, but few are willing to point out the elephant in the room, which Carter has clearly identified. The Great Tradition viewed Scripture as revelation. And therefore, it must be read, studied, interpreted, and applied as such. And that is what Carter sets out to do in Isaiah 40–48.
Carter presents a compelling treatment of Isaiah 40–48, identifying Isaiah’s polemical approach that sets out to correct the erroneous denigration of Yahweh as like the other gods. Isaiah and all the biblical writers understood that the other “gods” were powerful spiritual entities—but nevertheless, they are still mere creatures. Isaiah delineates the key distinctions between the One, True God and the idols, contrasting Yahweh, as Creator and Sovereign Lord from the creaturely gods of the nations. Carter shows that Isaiah can only do so through articulating a view of God, which we see aligns with a Trinitarian classical view of God. If we follow the presuppositions of modern theology, then Isaiah has no platform on which to stand and make such distinct claims about God to correct and redirect his audience to that God who alone can comfort, guide, and protect. The detailed exegesis Carter provides on Isaiah 40–48 is rich, so I leave it for the reader to discover those insights for himself.
The view of God presented in Isaiah has staggering implications that result in metaphysical conclusions and doctrines: The God of the Bible is the transcendent Creator, sovereign Lord of history, who alone is worthy and deserving of all praise and glory. If we treat the Bible as a religious text among texts, then we cannot affirm what the Bible teaches about God. The interpreter is confined to neutrality, unable to have the higher ground and assert that the God of the Bible is the One, True God.
~ Part 3 ~
In part 3, Carter takes the three themes from Isaiah—transcendence, sovereignty, and the doxological uniqueness of God—and shows that the pro-Nicene culture was deeply and profoundly Isaianic, both structurally and materially—thus inherently biblical. Carter does this by observing the tradition spanning from Moses and Isaiah to the NT apostles, and then on into the fourth century fathers, “all of them participating in one extended conversation based on certain shared convictions.” The key observation is consistency, unity, and fidelity. And while modern theology looks to the Arian controversy as an example of a turbulent time of competing metaphysics, the controversy was primarily exegetical. In fact, the “heretics” unflinchingly affirmed the simplicity of God. With that said, Modern theology asserts the fathers were subsumed by the surrounding culture, but, as Carter points out, the heretics were the ones possessed by the spirit of the age, in that their conclusions made Christ a creature with divine attributes, which is tantamount to mythological regress.
Carter’s observation leads us into the epistemological concept deployed most acutely in Basil, becoming a method of contemplating Scripture that maintains the distinction between what the fathers referred to as theologia and ekonomia or in modern language immanent and economic Trinity. And this epistemological tool is the concept of epinoia (I discovered epinoia through my reading of Basil many months ago, but Carter’s exposition of it was one of my favorite parts of the book). It allowed the fathers to “develop genuine knowledge about God through analysis of concepts about the essence (theology) on the basis of his actions in history (economy).” This was not a Christian invention; rather, Basil appropriated it from Greek philosophy, and attuned it to Christian theology. Epinoia enabled the theologian to conceptualize terms said of God where we can grasp something of his incomprehensible essence through creaturely concepts, without reducing the divine essence to these concepts. For example, the titles Christ gives himself in Scripture, door, bread, vine, and light, to communicate true statements about God, which, in following the skopos of Scripture, we can also claim that these designations are true of all the persons of the Godhead. While none of these terms fully capture the essence of God, what we can assume is that no term can define God’s essence. Basil’s opponents were making univocal errors, stating that when God is referred to as ungenerate that means the divine essence is ungenerate. And this error led to many denying Christ as truly divine because of the relational term (of origin) generate applied to Christ. Eunomius, the main opponent in Basil’s time, asserted that ungenerate is the divine essence; therefore, because Christ was called generate, Eunomius could did not affirm he had the same ontological status as the Father. Eunomius is an example of what not to do through epinoia. As creatures applying epinoia, we can lead our hearts and minds up the ladder of knowledge to God. And while it will always remain higher than we can reach, what we do grasp is real and true. It is a powerful spiritually enriching tool for the believer.
Central to the Arian controversy and ultimately the precise formulation of the Christian doctrine of God is the avoidance of or lapse into mythology. God has revealed himself as Father, Son, and Spirit. To express and preserve Trinitarian monotheism, the fathers adopted precise terminology (i.e., homoousian) to denote the unique, uncreated essence shared between all three of the divine persons. If the fathers did not make that profound move, the implications would have been deleterious for Christianity—a plummet into mythology. Critical to this move, Carter notes, is the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. In fact, ex nihilo is vitally important to uphold God as the transcendent Creator, to which Carter devotes an entire chapter.
I think Carter has successfully brought all the pieces together. Isaiah and the Great Tradition are talking about the same God. The Nicene doctrine of God is not only consistent with biblical teaching, but it also enriches the believer’s union to and vision of God drawing out the main thrust and witness of Scripture like a diamond set before a black felt cloth. It sees and treats Scripture as revelation, which is what the believer needs to be transformed into Christ-likeness and to guide him as he endures through the torrential seas of the world.
Creatio ex nihilo. Carter writes, the “Christian doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is the key metaphysical doctrine generated by the biblical doctrine of creation; it is the key to recovering a trinitarian classical view of God.” Why is that? It is fundamental to upholding the transcendence of God. If the material world has existed alongside God, then he is not the Creator he is just a craftsman. Creatio ex nihilo is the strict affirmation that God created from himself. Unfortunately, there is a common misconception that the term means God created out of nothing, which is illogical. There is a nuance to the term that many overlook but also defenders of ex nihilo have failed to cogently articulate. Carter properly defines ex nihilo, which falls in line with the Great Tradition, stating it “is the belief that the eternal Triune God brought all that is into existence by his Word out of no preexisting material at the beginning of creaturely time.” What does that mean? God creates from, by, and through himself. Properly nuancing ex nihilo in this manner dispels the illogical misconception and objections to ex nihilo that are often found in the contemporary critical literature.
Carter then traces out this theme as found in key figures from the apostolic fathers, medievals, the Reformers, and modern witnesses, making his case that ex nihilo though not explicitly stated, nevertheless, is an implied presupposition in Scripture, which we find agreement throughout the Christian tradition. Genesis 1 is a polemical account of the creation story, intended as a corrective to the ANE myths of the day. ANE myths teach that violence and struggle with chaos is the narrative, which modern theology takes it as parameter setting for our interpretation of Genesis 1. What are the implications? Isaiah has no legs to stand on. Carter writes, “If you deny that Genesis 1 implies creatio ex nihilo, you are saying that the text is indifferent about whether matter is eternal or was brought into existence by the Word of God.”
Nevertheless, we have a challenge before us regarding creatio ex nihilo: We do not have a biblical passage that explicitly says God created the world from nothing. How are we to demonstrate that ex nihilo is a biblical teaching? Carter begins his argument by briefly looking at the various go-to passages to support the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo (Gen 1; Ps 33:6–7; 90:2; John 1:1–3; Acts 14:15; Rom 4:16; Heb 11:3, and Rev 4:11) and then offers four criticisms of the historical-critical approach. As stated, many modern biblical scholars assert that creatio ex nihilo is not in found Scripture; rather, Genesis 1 is interpreted as another entry in the lineup of Mesopotamian myths from the sixth or fifth century, none of which depict a concept of the world coming into existence from nothing, but rather asserting God fashioned preexisting matter into a new shape, thus ruling out the theory of creatio ex nihilo. All the passages reviewed have a unifying theme that say something about God and the material world: God is eternal, and the world did not exist until God brought it into being through an act of his will.
First, Carter asks: “Would denying creatio ex nihilo as the meaning of Genesis 1 make it contradict the other texts surveyed here?” Yes and no. No, from a technical level. Yes, if we do not deduce creatio ex nihilo from the plain sense (i.e., what it says) of Genesis 1. Carter claims that we can affirm from Genesis 1 and Hebrews 11:3 that nothing exists except what God created. However, we would contradict Genesis 1 if the “invisible things” (of Hebrews 11:3) were not made by God, thus contradicting Genesis 1. Could we, however, suppose that these passages are talking about God working with preexistent matter? Carter says no; importantly, we must ask if that were the case, how come the Great Tradition never arrived at that conclusion? And this leads to Carter’s next critical point.
Second, “denying that Genesis 1 teaches creatio ex nihilo is incompatible with the Great Tradition.” As observed above, mainstream Christian theology has affirmed Holy Scripture teaches the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. So, we must not look at why it did; rather, why is historical-criticism challenging it?
Third, a mythological reading is obviously a product of its time. Enlightenment thought birthed the historical-critical movement, which, at its metaphysical core, is a materialist ideology. And the paradigm-shifting view of Darwinism saw the universe not as a machine but a self-existent organism, which imbibed evolutionary metaphysics. And therefore, the corollary was a pantheistic view of the world and God, whereby the cosmos and God exist side-by-side, as the mythological Mesopotamian stories depict. Therefore, Genesis becomes refashioned according to the “prejudices of the age.” The result is a lapse into paganism, in that the creation not the Creator becomes the object of worship (Rom 1:25).
Fourth, Carter asserts that a mythological reading undermines the doctrine of God in the rest of Scripture and the orthodox tradition because it diminishes God’s transcendence. In the academy, biblical scholars have felt the pressure to conform the Genesis 1 account to an evolutionary view of origins, thus making Scripture fit the current context and the modern presuppositions that are driving it.
Carter concludes that a mythological reading of Genesis 1 inadequately accounts for the doctrine of God we find in Scripture and the Trinitarian classical God taught and preached in the Great Tradition for almost the last two millennia. A mythological reading of the text distorts and obscures the Scriptural revelation of the Trinitarian doctrine of God, who is “unique, powerful, and transcendent.” And it “opens the door to nature-worship, pantheism, and polytheism.” Carter’s logical conclusions are valid: a critical-historical presupposition leads to pagan trinitarianism.
Conclusion
What is the way forward to recover the Trinitarian classical view of God? By applying the Great Tradition’s exegetical method—a contemplative approach, prayerful attention to the text so that we hear what God is saying to us today through the text. This approach begins with the premise that God is the true Author; thus, the text is inspired. And therefore, a literal sense of the passage must be determined. A literal sense (Carter fleshes this out in his previous work, Interpreting Scripture) is more accurately the plain sense of the passage, which we determine through contemplation of the canonical context. Because God is the primary author, we do not locate or isolate each passage to the human author’s context; rather, we extend our investigation to all of Scripture, with the assumption that Scripture will not contradict itself. And what do we see? The God of the Bible, who Moses, Isaiah, and the Apostles wrote about, is the God of the Great Tradition, the God that we worship. Modern theology needs to be corrected. And this only comes by way of “ressourcement—that is, the recovery of the treasures from the past that can enrich our witness and common life in the present and the future.” Contemplating God is Craig Carter’s clarion call to Christians to look back, so we can move forward.
~Romans 11:36
_________________________
[1] For those who are suspicious of the concept of Christian Platonism, see the critique written by Daniel Treier and Carter’s response.
Comments