What do you think?
Rate this book
Systematic Theology #1
Systematic Theology
Marked by a creative blend of philosophical, historical, anthropological, and exegetical analysis, this volume focuses on the Christian doctrine of God, offering original material on the concept of truth, the nature of revelation, language about God, the nature of the Trinity, and the public aspect of theology.
486 pages, Hardcover
First published October 18, 1991
12 people are currently reading
197 people want to read
About the author
Wolfhart Pannenberg
150 books41 followersWolfhart Pannenberg, born in Stettin, Germany (now Szczecin, Poland), was a German Christian theologian. His emphasis on history as revelation, centred on the Resurrection of Christ, has proved important in stimulating debate in both Protestant and Catholic theology, as well as with non-Christian thinkers.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
June 18, 2014
Some important sections. Largely eclipsed by his student Robert W. Jenson. Outstanding remarks on the Vincentian canon, the spirituality of God, and Gregory Palamas.
Evaluation: Hard to recommend to most students and pastors. WP is certainly not an evangelical, and while he affirms creedal conclusions, he perhaps surrenders to much to historical criticism. Further, even when he is right, as in his discussion of God as ruach, he mutes these victories by reverting back to German idealism. If you want to pursue studies down this road, I would suggest Jenson as an alternative.
Gives the standard arguments against liberal Protestantism (See Feuerbach) and shows Barth’s own limitations. Pannenberg has since been surpassed by his student Robert Jenson on the identity of God (i.e., the Guy that got us out of Egypt and raised Jesus from the dead).
Natural theology: does a good job in carrying the discussion back to pre-Christ Roman theorists, all of which highlights the various strands of natural theology. I have no problem with a natural theology of sorts, provided we understand that the term is by no means universally understood as meaning the same thing (of course, which sort of defeats the purpose of modern natural theologies). Pannenberg points out that older divines, both Protestant and Catholic, saw natural theology as meaning “in accord with the nature of God” and the God-world relation (81). Now it means in accord with the nature of the world.
Natural knowledge of God: He is not entirely clear. WP hovers around Romans 1:20 and suggests something like “infinity” as the natural knowledge of God. He develops this thought more in Metaphysik und Gottesgedank.
Revelation: WP tries to steer between the Barthian claim that God reveals himself as revelation and other claims. Eventually settles on the claim that revelation is the announcement and event of the future in the first coming of Jesus. I have no problem with that–I think there is some truth to it; I just don’t see how that is more plausible than some of the views WP criticizes as “implausible.”
The God of Jesus and the Trinity: The Spirit is the presence of mediation between the Kyrios and God the Father. WP notes the very close similarity (yet not identity) of pneuma and Kyrios (drawing heavily on 1 Cor. 15:45 and 2 Cor. 3:17):
The Kyrios is the risen and exalted Jesus whose return the community awaits. The Spirit is the form and power of his presence and of the relation of believers to him (I: 269)
Interestingly, WP notes that early Christian reflection on the Trinity (though they didn’t call it that) was not dissimilar from late Jewish reflection on God’s transcendence and immanence (277).
Pace the Cappadocians:
Basil distinguished between the fact that the deity is without oriign and the fact that the Father is unbegotten in distinction from the Son, who is begotten, but he did not go so far as Athanasius, who applied the relational conditioning of personal distinction, as mutual conditioning, to the Father as well, so that the Father can be thought of as unbegotten only in relation to the Son. The idea of the Father as the source and origin of deity so fused the the person of the Father and the substance of the Godhead that the divine substance is originally proper to the Father alone, being recieved from him by the Son and Spirit. In distinction from Athanasius this means a relapse into subordinationism, since the idea of mutual defining of the distinctiveness of the persons does not lead to the thought of an equally mutual ontological constitution, of which it can be said that strictly they are constitutive only for the personhood of the Son and the Spirit if the Father is the source and origin of deity (280).
Distinction and Unity of the Persons: The Son is posited as a self-distinction from the Father (310-311). Fine, but I don’t see how this is different from Athanasius. And then, one wonders how stable is Athanasius’s argument.
On another note, WP advances the argument that the self-distinction of the Son is not merely in his being begotten, but in his “handing over the kingdom to the Father.” This doesn’t solve all of the problems but it is a superior move in that it roots the Trinitarian movement in eschatology.
WP raises a point I’ve always wondered: can we honestly speak of mutual self-distinction of the three persons if no distinction is made between subject and object in God (320 n. 184)?
“The monarchy of the Father is not the presupposition but the result of the common operations” (325).
~Attributes: in the context of how to relate the unity to the plurality. Notes that things are different only when external.
~Palamas: much to commend his project; quite beautiful, really, when we see the energies as the power-glory and the kingdom of God. Something like that should be retained, whatever critiques may follow. However,
“how is it possible to ditinguish from God’s essence the light that radiates from it and yet at the same time to view them as inseparably linked, so t hat the qualities which are said to be God’s on the basis of energies radiating from him are really God himself? The opponents of Palamas rightly argued that we either have (relating to God) qualities that are not independent but belong to the divine essence or we have a distinct sphere which involves positing a further divine hypostasis alongside Father, Son, and Spirit” (361-362).
Further,
“How can one speak of uncreated works of God? Is this idea not self-contradictory? Not to be created is to be essentially one, as in the case of the Trinitarian persons. But if there is not to be this unity, and with it a fourth in God alongside the three persons, we must posit a distinction between the effects and the cause” (362 n. 55).
Is there a connection between Dionysius’s construction of the qualities via delimitation and elevation and the critique of Feuerbach that we are projecting our views onto God (363 n. 58; cf. Barth CD II/1, 339).
What does the Bible call God?
When Paul calls God pneuma does he mean it in the sense of Middle Platonism's understanding of God as nous?
But what is ruach? "Ruach is decribed as a mysteriously invisible natural force which declares itself in the movement of the wind" (373). "The breath of Yahweh is a creative life force." Very seldom does this relate to what we call "spirit," the thinking consciousness. Ties it in with Psalm 139:7 as the field of God's activity.
Capitalizes on these insights into Trinitarianism. There was always the difficulty of seeing the divine essence--Spirit--as a subject alongside the three persons. WP, while not going into great detail, suggests his models gets beyond this impasse (386).
Hebrew view of truth: not merely self-identity and correspondence, but that process of events at their end in which the essence of things is revealed: the end-time event invovles also the judgment of the world, the disclosure and true character of things (387).
WP does say that the three persons are the one subject of divine action (388). This means he cannot be accused, pace Letham, of Social Trinitarianism. I think it is easier to follow Jenson's reading of the Cappadocians via the essence as the divine life.
The future of the world is the mode of time that stands closest to God's eternity...The goal of the world and its history is nearer to God than its commencement (390).
Evaluation: Hard to recommend to most students and pastors. WP is certainly not an evangelical, and while he affirms creedal conclusions, he perhaps surrenders to much to historical criticism. Further, even when he is right, as in his discussion of God as ruach, he mutes these victories by reverting back to German idealism. If you want to pursue studies down this road, I would suggest Jenson as an alternative.
Gives the standard arguments against liberal Protestantism (See Feuerbach) and shows Barth’s own limitations. Pannenberg has since been surpassed by his student Robert Jenson on the identity of God (i.e., the Guy that got us out of Egypt and raised Jesus from the dead).
Natural theology: does a good job in carrying the discussion back to pre-Christ Roman theorists, all of which highlights the various strands of natural theology. I have no problem with a natural theology of sorts, provided we understand that the term is by no means universally understood as meaning the same thing (of course, which sort of defeats the purpose of modern natural theologies). Pannenberg points out that older divines, both Protestant and Catholic, saw natural theology as meaning “in accord with the nature of God” and the God-world relation (81). Now it means in accord with the nature of the world.
Natural knowledge of God: He is not entirely clear. WP hovers around Romans 1:20 and suggests something like “infinity” as the natural knowledge of God. He develops this thought more in Metaphysik und Gottesgedank.
Revelation: WP tries to steer between the Barthian claim that God reveals himself as revelation and other claims. Eventually settles on the claim that revelation is the announcement and event of the future in the first coming of Jesus. I have no problem with that–I think there is some truth to it; I just don’t see how that is more plausible than some of the views WP criticizes as “implausible.”
The God of Jesus and the Trinity: The Spirit is the presence of mediation between the Kyrios and God the Father. WP notes the very close similarity (yet not identity) of pneuma and Kyrios (drawing heavily on 1 Cor. 15:45 and 2 Cor. 3:17):
The Kyrios is the risen and exalted Jesus whose return the community awaits. The Spirit is the form and power of his presence and of the relation of believers to him (I: 269)
Interestingly, WP notes that early Christian reflection on the Trinity (though they didn’t call it that) was not dissimilar from late Jewish reflection on God’s transcendence and immanence (277).
Pace the Cappadocians:
Basil distinguished between the fact that the deity is without oriign and the fact that the Father is unbegotten in distinction from the Son, who is begotten, but he did not go so far as Athanasius, who applied the relational conditioning of personal distinction, as mutual conditioning, to the Father as well, so that the Father can be thought of as unbegotten only in relation to the Son. The idea of the Father as the source and origin of deity so fused the the person of the Father and the substance of the Godhead that the divine substance is originally proper to the Father alone, being recieved from him by the Son and Spirit. In distinction from Athanasius this means a relapse into subordinationism, since the idea of mutual defining of the distinctiveness of the persons does not lead to the thought of an equally mutual ontological constitution, of which it can be said that strictly they are constitutive only for the personhood of the Son and the Spirit if the Father is the source and origin of deity (280).
Distinction and Unity of the Persons: The Son is posited as a self-distinction from the Father (310-311). Fine, but I don’t see how this is different from Athanasius. And then, one wonders how stable is Athanasius’s argument.
On another note, WP advances the argument that the self-distinction of the Son is not merely in his being begotten, but in his “handing over the kingdom to the Father.” This doesn’t solve all of the problems but it is a superior move in that it roots the Trinitarian movement in eschatology.
WP raises a point I’ve always wondered: can we honestly speak of mutual self-distinction of the three persons if no distinction is made between subject and object in God (320 n. 184)?
“The monarchy of the Father is not the presupposition but the result of the common operations” (325).
~Attributes: in the context of how to relate the unity to the plurality. Notes that things are different only when external.
~Palamas: much to commend his project; quite beautiful, really, when we see the energies as the power-glory and the kingdom of God. Something like that should be retained, whatever critiques may follow. However,
“how is it possible to ditinguish from God’s essence the light that radiates from it and yet at the same time to view them as inseparably linked, so t hat the qualities which are said to be God’s on the basis of energies radiating from him are really God himself? The opponents of Palamas rightly argued that we either have (relating to God) qualities that are not independent but belong to the divine essence or we have a distinct sphere which involves positing a further divine hypostasis alongside Father, Son, and Spirit” (361-362).
Further,
“How can one speak of uncreated works of God? Is this idea not self-contradictory? Not to be created is to be essentially one, as in the case of the Trinitarian persons. But if there is not to be this unity, and with it a fourth in God alongside the three persons, we must posit a distinction between the effects and the cause” (362 n. 55).
Is there a connection between Dionysius’s construction of the qualities via delimitation and elevation and the critique of Feuerbach that we are projecting our views onto God (363 n. 58; cf. Barth CD II/1, 339).
What does the Bible call God?
When Paul calls God pneuma does he mean it in the sense of Middle Platonism's understanding of God as nous?
But what is ruach? "Ruach is decribed as a mysteriously invisible natural force which declares itself in the movement of the wind" (373). "The breath of Yahweh is a creative life force." Very seldom does this relate to what we call "spirit," the thinking consciousness. Ties it in with Psalm 139:7 as the field of God's activity.
Capitalizes on these insights into Trinitarianism. There was always the difficulty of seeing the divine essence--Spirit--as a subject alongside the three persons. WP, while not going into great detail, suggests his models gets beyond this impasse (386).
Hebrew view of truth: not merely self-identity and correspondence, but that process of events at their end in which the essence of things is revealed: the end-time event invovles also the judgment of the world, the disclosure and true character of things (387).
WP does say that the three persons are the one subject of divine action (388). This means he cannot be accused, pace Letham, of Social Trinitarianism. I think it is easier to follow Jenson's reading of the Cappadocians via the essence as the divine life.
The future of the world is the mode of time that stands closest to God's eternity...The goal of the world and its history is nearer to God than its commencement (390).
May 10, 2025
A work of stunning erudition and clarity. If the remaining volumes maintain the standard of this first one, this should be the standard Protestant systematic theology comparable to Aquinas’ Summa for Catholics. The breadth of learning and broad philosophical and theological interaction in this theology is truly remarkable.
Tightly argued and not at all convoluted or opaque. Although some difficult philosophical and theological ideas are expounded, it is always with careful language. One would say that of the German systematicians, Pannenberg has the most clarity of thought. Compared to reading Barth or Balthasar, Pannenberg is a delight. One recognizes the many years of thought and sharpening of thinking that went into this theology. Ideas are very carefully expressed with only the necessary words, but not in an overly terse way that makes it difficult to follow the ideas. A certain level of background is assumed, but the writing is consistently well organized and understandable.
To this end, the translation is wonderful. Truly an excellent translation from the standpoint of clear, flowing English that doesn’t read like Germanized English. The German typographical convention of using smaller type for extended arguments that provide additional background is perfectly executed here. The logical structure is so transparent in contrast to the often rambling style of Barthian excursions. When one encounters these smaller type arguments, they are small, self-contained excursions that provide additional background or detail to the argument, and at the end, the main argument picks up right where it was. The circle is always closed. The extensive use of footnoting adds a third layer of hierarchy to the argument. All done with consistency and attention to the overall argument. This work was not thrown together like so many works of theology. The attention to clarity of argument and careful writing is a master class of exposition.
It is not an introduction to systematic theology, although it is a complete education. It is rather a scholarly examination of the truth from a Christian perspective. While the perspective is no doubt Christian, it does not take the approach of Barth’s Church Dogmatics, which takes theology as internal to the church. This theology reaches for universal truth that contends in the public space. Pannenberg disallows any subjective ground of faith as the basis for theology while not denying its necessity. He subjects the truth to rigorous philosophical analysis and traces ideas through their historical development. He sees theology as a purely historical enterprise, one that can only be done embedded in history. In this vein, he traced many theological concepts from the church fathers through contemporary thought.
It is a wonderful guide through the philosophy of God and metaphysics. He interacts with all the major metaphysicians, beginning with Plato, Aristotle, and Kant, with special attention to Hegel and also Spinoza and many other philosophers. The first half of this volume is heavily philosophical. It engages the philosophy of God. He examines and takes apart the historic proofs of God’s existence. A visual metaphor for what he does is explode the concept in space, rotate it, examine it from different angles and then reassemble correctly. In this process, he elucidates the truths and flaws embedded in them. He settles on the cosmological ‘proof’ as the most useful, but finds philosophical value in examining all of them.
Theologically, he spends considerable attention on Aquinas, recognizing his groundbreaking work. There is extensive interaction with the Church Fathers, especially Augustine. Considerable attention is given to Schleiermacher. Rather unexpected from an English and North American perspective where he is rarely engaged. Schleiermacher can be considered the father of modern systematic theology, so even though for the most part Pannenberg disagrees with his conclusions, he recognizes his insight and value in his methodology. Barth, of course, plays a role, but not a dominant one. Luther is brought to bear on occasion, but Calvin very sparingly. Tillich gets a very minor place (as this reviewer would expect after reading Tillich’s ST). Virtually every major and many, many minor writers are brought into the conversation.
The breadth and depth of learning and the organizing of these thoughts into a coherent whole is unmatched. Normally interacting with so many authors, it becomes a spaghetti of unconnected details. Pannenberg has a remarkable ability to coherently and clearly trace these ideas through many writers while never losing the thread, not ever. A marvel of organization that could only result in decades of familiarity and clarification of these ideas. This work was not assembled quickly in a year or thrown together hastily. It is truly the product of decades of work and it shows.
Unparalleled.
Very Highly Recommended.
Tightly argued and not at all convoluted or opaque. Although some difficult philosophical and theological ideas are expounded, it is always with careful language. One would say that of the German systematicians, Pannenberg has the most clarity of thought. Compared to reading Barth or Balthasar, Pannenberg is a delight. One recognizes the many years of thought and sharpening of thinking that went into this theology. Ideas are very carefully expressed with only the necessary words, but not in an overly terse way that makes it difficult to follow the ideas. A certain level of background is assumed, but the writing is consistently well organized and understandable.
To this end, the translation is wonderful. Truly an excellent translation from the standpoint of clear, flowing English that doesn’t read like Germanized English. The German typographical convention of using smaller type for extended arguments that provide additional background is perfectly executed here. The logical structure is so transparent in contrast to the often rambling style of Barthian excursions. When one encounters these smaller type arguments, they are small, self-contained excursions that provide additional background or detail to the argument, and at the end, the main argument picks up right where it was. The circle is always closed. The extensive use of footnoting adds a third layer of hierarchy to the argument. All done with consistency and attention to the overall argument. This work was not thrown together like so many works of theology. The attention to clarity of argument and careful writing is a master class of exposition.
It is not an introduction to systematic theology, although it is a complete education. It is rather a scholarly examination of the truth from a Christian perspective. While the perspective is no doubt Christian, it does not take the approach of Barth’s Church Dogmatics, which takes theology as internal to the church. This theology reaches for universal truth that contends in the public space. Pannenberg disallows any subjective ground of faith as the basis for theology while not denying its necessity. He subjects the truth to rigorous philosophical analysis and traces ideas through their historical development. He sees theology as a purely historical enterprise, one that can only be done embedded in history. In this vein, he traced many theological concepts from the church fathers through contemporary thought.
It is a wonderful guide through the philosophy of God and metaphysics. He interacts with all the major metaphysicians, beginning with Plato, Aristotle, and Kant, with special attention to Hegel and also Spinoza and many other philosophers. The first half of this volume is heavily philosophical. It engages the philosophy of God. He examines and takes apart the historic proofs of God’s existence. A visual metaphor for what he does is explode the concept in space, rotate it, examine it from different angles and then reassemble correctly. In this process, he elucidates the truths and flaws embedded in them. He settles on the cosmological ‘proof’ as the most useful, but finds philosophical value in examining all of them.
Theologically, he spends considerable attention on Aquinas, recognizing his groundbreaking work. There is extensive interaction with the Church Fathers, especially Augustine. Considerable attention is given to Schleiermacher. Rather unexpected from an English and North American perspective where he is rarely engaged. Schleiermacher can be considered the father of modern systematic theology, so even though for the most part Pannenberg disagrees with his conclusions, he recognizes his insight and value in his methodology. Barth, of course, plays a role, but not a dominant one. Luther is brought to bear on occasion, but Calvin very sparingly. Tillich gets a very minor place (as this reviewer would expect after reading Tillich’s ST). Virtually every major and many, many minor writers are brought into the conversation.
The breadth and depth of learning and the organizing of these thoughts into a coherent whole is unmatched. Normally interacting with so many authors, it becomes a spaghetti of unconnected details. Pannenberg has a remarkable ability to coherently and clearly trace these ideas through many writers while never losing the thread, not ever. A marvel of organization that could only result in decades of familiarity and clarification of these ideas. This work was not assembled quickly in a year or thrown together hastily. It is truly the product of decades of work and it shows.
Unparalleled.
Very Highly Recommended.
September 23, 2022
I just finished "SystematicTheology--Volume 1," by Wolfhart "P-Bergy" Pannenberg, 1991.
I hope this is a good translation from German otherwise it will be a slog. His previous books were a slog. And let's not pass up how cool the name "Wolfhart" is ("P-Bergy" is all me).
Pannenberg is much deeper than my various highlights and remarks. His work is never Introduction level and often I have to reread sections to really experiencethe theological atomic-elbow P-Bergy is dishing out. But here I go with a few comments.
Ch.1-4; painful prolegomena:
The theme or method he begins with is (as I see and explain it) grounded in knowing God by His revelation, the pinnacle of revelation is Jesus Christ, known by scripture, formed into the doctrine passed down to us "believed by all people for all times." So Christian Doctrine is the theme of systematic theology.
The concept of God makes an interesting point we construct a general category of God based on one instance. Otherwise this was a painful chapter dealing with natural theology.
Followed by philosophy of religion and revelation. Pannenberg states that in scripture there is no single definitive term to describe "revelation" but a complex variety of ideas. The main ideas are present disclosure and future disclosure.
Revelation is getting into the good stuff while the rest of the prolegomena is just painful. Listen to Pannenberg:
"Christ alone as the revelatory of God is directly God's word. The Bible and Church proclamation are God's word indirectly and derivatively," p 235.
257 pp out of 448 pp were unfortunately dedicated to Pannenberg's prolegomena.
Ch. 5; the Trinity:
I've been a bit tough on P-Bergy thus far. But his Trinity chapter is very good, pulling from scripture and the tradition, East and West, while pulling at both the unity and distinction of persons of God and holding that tension and appreciating it. Unlike many writings on the Trinity he brings Rabbinic theology into the light if for only a bit when dealing with Wisdom and LOGOS, for instance. He grounds his doctrine of the Trinity in Jesus' concrete relation with The Father. Good to see such a Christocentric focus. Further P-Bergy hitting the Trinity before the attribute of God is a wink and a nod at the Eastern Orthodox--"Let me tell you about these three and how they are one"--over the common Western approach--"Let me tell you about this One; wait! He is three."
Ch. 6; Unity and attributes of God:
The Trinity is able to be appreciated in history but the Unity of God awaits the eschaton (last things/to finish line). I thought that was interesting but it really appears true.
P-Bergy grounds all the attributes of God in Gods love and I could not agree more. Many theologians want to hyphenate that God is holy-love but that's not necessary with a proper view of love (see 1 Cor 13) (looking at you Oden and Aulen); a proper view of the love of God needs no modifiers.
But can I be real? I wanted to like Pannenberg. He grounds all theology in the love of God; whats not to love about that? I have tried over the years. I slogged through "Jesus: God and Man" wanting to really take to P-Bergy. I didn't. And I shall not, at present, continue to Volumes 2 and 3 of his ST. It is because he is so black and white. But that comment deserves some clarification because I have received heat over that statement of "black and white."
Moltmann writes in color (German like Pannenberg). With the exception of "The Theology of Hope" everything Moltmann touches is an explosion of glitter and unicorns. See His "The Coming of God," and "The Crucified God." His writing isn't like he's trying to tell you how to rebuild a Chevy 350 or how to properly grease a tractor.
Pinnock is similar. Check out "Flame of Love." He writes in color. His books are the equivalent of a theological love note written by an 12 year old boy enamored with the new girl in class. He had passion and it was infectious. Who is passionate about fixing vacuum cleaners?
Brunner (again, German, so it wasnt the translator) wrote colorfully. Check out his Dogmatics and his passion for who truly is the Word of God. Brunner is a colorful theological circus-come-to-town. His circus was a celebration, and not of the finer points of gapping spark plugs.
And then...
And then you have Tillich, Barth, and Pannenberg (and many others) who write theological repair manuals. Not wrong. Not uncreative. Definitely not simplistic or shallow. Just black and white. The theological equivalent of how to change out the belt on your dryer.
I just made enemies. So be it. I said what I said. I shall continue on with C.S. Lewis and then Roger Olson, and David Bentley Hart with my Cabernet Sauvignon.
#WolfhartPannenberg #Pannenberg #SystematicTheology #Dogmatics #TheologicalMethod #GermanTheologians
I hope this is a good translation from German otherwise it will be a slog. His previous books were a slog. And let's not pass up how cool the name "Wolfhart" is ("P-Bergy" is all me).
Pannenberg is much deeper than my various highlights and remarks. His work is never Introduction level and often I have to reread sections to really experiencethe theological atomic-elbow P-Bergy is dishing out. But here I go with a few comments.
Ch.1-4; painful prolegomena:
The theme or method he begins with is (as I see and explain it) grounded in knowing God by His revelation, the pinnacle of revelation is Jesus Christ, known by scripture, formed into the doctrine passed down to us "believed by all people for all times." So Christian Doctrine is the theme of systematic theology.
The concept of God makes an interesting point we construct a general category of God based on one instance. Otherwise this was a painful chapter dealing with natural theology.
Followed by philosophy of religion and revelation. Pannenberg states that in scripture there is no single definitive term to describe "revelation" but a complex variety of ideas. The main ideas are present disclosure and future disclosure.
Revelation is getting into the good stuff while the rest of the prolegomena is just painful. Listen to Pannenberg:
"Christ alone as the revelatory of God is directly God's word. The Bible and Church proclamation are God's word indirectly and derivatively," p 235.
257 pp out of 448 pp were unfortunately dedicated to Pannenberg's prolegomena.
Ch. 5; the Trinity:
I've been a bit tough on P-Bergy thus far. But his Trinity chapter is very good, pulling from scripture and the tradition, East and West, while pulling at both the unity and distinction of persons of God and holding that tension and appreciating it. Unlike many writings on the Trinity he brings Rabbinic theology into the light if for only a bit when dealing with Wisdom and LOGOS, for instance. He grounds his doctrine of the Trinity in Jesus' concrete relation with The Father. Good to see such a Christocentric focus. Further P-Bergy hitting the Trinity before the attribute of God is a wink and a nod at the Eastern Orthodox--"Let me tell you about these three and how they are one"--over the common Western approach--"Let me tell you about this One; wait! He is three."
Ch. 6; Unity and attributes of God:
The Trinity is able to be appreciated in history but the Unity of God awaits the eschaton (last things/to finish line). I thought that was interesting but it really appears true.
P-Bergy grounds all the attributes of God in Gods love and I could not agree more. Many theologians want to hyphenate that God is holy-love but that's not necessary with a proper view of love (see 1 Cor 13) (looking at you Oden and Aulen); a proper view of the love of God needs no modifiers.
But can I be real? I wanted to like Pannenberg. He grounds all theology in the love of God; whats not to love about that? I have tried over the years. I slogged through "Jesus: God and Man" wanting to really take to P-Bergy. I didn't. And I shall not, at present, continue to Volumes 2 and 3 of his ST. It is because he is so black and white. But that comment deserves some clarification because I have received heat over that statement of "black and white."
Moltmann writes in color (German like Pannenberg). With the exception of "The Theology of Hope" everything Moltmann touches is an explosion of glitter and unicorns. See His "The Coming of God," and "The Crucified God." His writing isn't like he's trying to tell you how to rebuild a Chevy 350 or how to properly grease a tractor.
Pinnock is similar. Check out "Flame of Love." He writes in color. His books are the equivalent of a theological love note written by an 12 year old boy enamored with the new girl in class. He had passion and it was infectious. Who is passionate about fixing vacuum cleaners?
Brunner (again, German, so it wasnt the translator) wrote colorfully. Check out his Dogmatics and his passion for who truly is the Word of God. Brunner is a colorful theological circus-come-to-town. His circus was a celebration, and not of the finer points of gapping spark plugs.
And then...
And then you have Tillich, Barth, and Pannenberg (and many others) who write theological repair manuals. Not wrong. Not uncreative. Definitely not simplistic or shallow. Just black and white. The theological equivalent of how to change out the belt on your dryer.
I just made enemies. So be it. I said what I said. I shall continue on with C.S. Lewis and then Roger Olson, and David Bentley Hart with my Cabernet Sauvignon.
#WolfhartPannenberg #Pannenberg #SystematicTheology #Dogmatics #TheologicalMethod #GermanTheologians
April 16, 2014
In this book Pannenberg offers his views on Theological Method and the Doctrine of God. About twenty years ago I read this on my own while in school. It baffled me so much that a friend and I asked to treat a professor to Lunch to talk about it. And so I have sat with this book, and that conversation in the back (often quite far back) of my mind whenever I think about these, or related things.
The first impression the reader gets is the encyclopedic brilliance of Pannenberg. His presentation is in dialogue with, well, it seems almost every classic supporter or critic of Christianity. And this is an important aspect of what he has to say about Theological Method. He cannot see us retreating from the world into a fideistic ghetto, and cannot see us "solving" all the problems about theological method before getting to "real" theology. Instead, he sees "The Truth of Christian Doctrine as the Theme of Systematic Theology" (the title of the First Chapter). As a theme, it is something that is continually argued, using whatever arguments are available - and those arguments and methods will vary according to the topic. It is not something that can be assumed in theological work like his. It is not something that can be established by ANY authority. It is, instead, something to which we must constantly return.
As much as I want to laud this - I agree that we cannot escape the truth question, and so it must be always before our eyes, so to speak - in practice this can be overwhelming or even confusing to the reader who is not as well read as Pannenberg. And I fit into that category - both twenty years ago and now. That said, in rereading this, I recognize that some of my eclectic interest into significant figures for the Church has been influenced by this work. And yet many of the names in the footnotes are, unfortunately, still only names to me.
But by reading these past figures, I can now better see how Pannenberg often cuts to the heart of their concerns, and has can even take "traditional" thinking on its head. One example would be putting the immanent Trinity as the eschatological goal of economic Trinity.
But here is where I have been scratching my head for twenty years - admittedly not continuously. Pannenberg spends great time and effort talking about the concept of "God" and his reality, before even getting to the concept of Revelation, or what God it is that we Christians actually care about.
Then I was bewildered at this, since I had felt the freedom of abandoning Greek metaphysical thinking and hearing the Bible fresh. I didn't really know or care much about Aristotle/Aquinas' unmoved mover and first cause. But the God that came to us in Jesus Christ and raised him from the dead? Hearing of that one made me trust him. It made me believe that metaphysics wasn't just a bunch of garbage.
Now I can see some of the logic of this. He wants to show that the concepts and language he is using have a reality to the world - not just to us Christians. And yet this discussion still bogs down to me, and I am a rather sympathetic reader. I certainly can't imagine a person excited about Dawkins as plodding through this, and to be honest, this is a part of the way many of us think today - even when we do not want to.
It seems as if Pannenberg argues from the General to the Specific... I wonder if the other direction would be more productive. How much meaning do the trinitarian relations have until the mission Jesus and his Deity is discussed? I almost see him making room for this to come later, but question, well, his system in this regard. Pannenberg's defense, as I understand it, is his regard to be Trinitarian in everything - his goal was to have the most fully trinitarian theology, and so these concepts must be developed before they can be applied to the specific loci...
And so I am not convinced by his System, and yet find his concepts interesting enough to keep reading. Perhaps by the end he will convince me.
The first impression the reader gets is the encyclopedic brilliance of Pannenberg. His presentation is in dialogue with, well, it seems almost every classic supporter or critic of Christianity. And this is an important aspect of what he has to say about Theological Method. He cannot see us retreating from the world into a fideistic ghetto, and cannot see us "solving" all the problems about theological method before getting to "real" theology. Instead, he sees "The Truth of Christian Doctrine as the Theme of Systematic Theology" (the title of the First Chapter). As a theme, it is something that is continually argued, using whatever arguments are available - and those arguments and methods will vary according to the topic. It is not something that can be assumed in theological work like his. It is not something that can be established by ANY authority. It is, instead, something to which we must constantly return.
As much as I want to laud this - I agree that we cannot escape the truth question, and so it must be always before our eyes, so to speak - in practice this can be overwhelming or even confusing to the reader who is not as well read as Pannenberg. And I fit into that category - both twenty years ago and now. That said, in rereading this, I recognize that some of my eclectic interest into significant figures for the Church has been influenced by this work. And yet many of the names in the footnotes are, unfortunately, still only names to me.
But by reading these past figures, I can now better see how Pannenberg often cuts to the heart of their concerns, and has can even take "traditional" thinking on its head. One example would be putting the immanent Trinity as the eschatological goal of economic Trinity.
But here is where I have been scratching my head for twenty years - admittedly not continuously. Pannenberg spends great time and effort talking about the concept of "God" and his reality, before even getting to the concept of Revelation, or what God it is that we Christians actually care about.
Then I was bewildered at this, since I had felt the freedom of abandoning Greek metaphysical thinking and hearing the Bible fresh. I didn't really know or care much about Aristotle/Aquinas' unmoved mover and first cause. But the God that came to us in Jesus Christ and raised him from the dead? Hearing of that one made me trust him. It made me believe that metaphysics wasn't just a bunch of garbage.
Now I can see some of the logic of this. He wants to show that the concepts and language he is using have a reality to the world - not just to us Christians. And yet this discussion still bogs down to me, and I am a rather sympathetic reader. I certainly can't imagine a person excited about Dawkins as plodding through this, and to be honest, this is a part of the way many of us think today - even when we do not want to.
It seems as if Pannenberg argues from the General to the Specific... I wonder if the other direction would be more productive. How much meaning do the trinitarian relations have until the mission Jesus and his Deity is discussed? I almost see him making room for this to come later, but question, well, his system in this regard. Pannenberg's defense, as I understand it, is his regard to be Trinitarian in everything - his goal was to have the most fully trinitarian theology, and so these concepts must be developed before they can be applied to the specific loci...
And so I am not convinced by his System, and yet find his concepts interesting enough to keep reading. Perhaps by the end he will convince me.
Read
July 27, 2011One feels hard pushed to say something intellegent and insightful after reading Pannenberg. But I'm not sure I can do that. Like many has said before me, he is a heavy read and this book is proof of a very dense scholarship. I can't get away from the feeling that if someone says that Pannenberg argues that Descarte's view on this was, then I will agree.
At some point I will read vol. 2 and 3 of his systematic theology as well and I do hope that they we be a little more in medias res. One thing that makes it so hard to get through this book is that Pannenberg writes about 80 pages (I think) about why systematic has such long prolegomenas before he even gets in to his own prolegomena. I'm not sure that is necessary.
It is really in the end that I find that the interesting stuff comes. His writing on the Trinity is very enlightening and he seems to mix an Augustinian view of the Spirit as the bond of love between the Father and the Son with a more Cappadocian view of having the three persons as starting point and then end up with something that sounds orthodox. I'm looking forward to see how this is applied to anthropology.
At some point I will read vol. 2 and 3 of his systematic theology as well and I do hope that they we be a little more in medias res. One thing that makes it so hard to get through this book is that Pannenberg writes about 80 pages (I think) about why systematic has such long prolegomenas before he even gets in to his own prolegomena. I'm not sure that is necessary.
It is really in the end that I find that the interesting stuff comes. His writing on the Trinity is very enlightening and he seems to mix an Augustinian view of the Spirit as the bond of love between the Father and the Son with a more Cappadocian view of having the three persons as starting point and then end up with something that sounds orthodox. I'm looking forward to see how this is applied to anthropology.
October 7, 2016
A giant in theology. A very interesting read. A book I return to again and again.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews