Your edits are noted. The reason I do not consider Barth and Torrance to be JS's is because they so closely mirror the pre-Augustinian, orthodox Patristics, Athanasius and Gregary Naziansen in particular. They are but reformers in that regard.
Okay, that makes sense as I continue to plumb the depths of your perspectives on such things.
You don't realize how meticulously I've spent years accessing the Patristics while divesting bias of my own and all modernity. And without the Patristics, I wouldn't have been able to cataphatically and apophatically know what to regard and disregard while looking for the ONE thing they missed that spurred my 17 years of reconciliatory (not adversarial) efforts.
This included maintaining every tenet and sub-tenet they ever addressed, avoiding every anathema, and arduously adhering to definitions and usage of words while having the foundations of my heart and mind shaped by their annointed and inspired contributions on their own level as Fathers of the Faith.
The only distinction is Uni-Hypostaticism (and the necessary accompanying ancillaries) that reconciles every paradox and prematurely-declared mystery so that we may know Him, the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom He hath sent.
I do presume there to be one truth. I rather doubt that you are the first to discover it.
Of course not, though there's always a qualitative "more"ness. The Easterns have known it in a very high-context and ontological manner for the duration of the Church's existence, even though the true constitution of God was mistaken for three hypostases because ALL historical "competing" formulaics (including the anathemas) began post-procession/post-creation while presuming to account for procession/s and creation.
I've just prayerfully represented it in a Western-type exegetical and apologetics format that bypasses (and reconciles) all the Latin deviations and Neoplatonist influences going forward into Protestantism while the Reformers were concerned with issues of faith versus works, etc. rather than a Theology Proper that DID have a correct Christological formulaic. (And the two-fold hypostatic qualitative Logos/Pneuma procession and co-processed inherent hypostasis LOOK and FUNCTION like three perichoretic hypostases in sempiternity, so there was no immediately-apparent need to address such a thing that would invite undoing the entirety of the Ecumenical Councils to start over with no continuity.)
As long as someone understands that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit do not have eternal individuated sentient centers of volitional consciousness relative to the alleged three hypostases, then I don't fuss about much. The problem is that a huge majority of moderns, gradually through the centuries, have adopted a vague and presumptuous concept of a multi-souled Trinity that indicates functional Tritheism in what I can only describe as Triadism; wherein the alleged hypostases are much more discrete than merely distinct. (And I think your HS-perichoretic innovation is directly aimed at that very anomaly in modern thought to provide missing interpenetration of true unity.)
No such adaptations are necessary with the Uni-Hypostatic Trinity, which also accounts for the omitted creation of heavenly sempiternity while resolving all paradoxes and unveiling assumed mystery that is just the precipice of doctrine-bound understanding. I stand on the shoulders of the Patristics rather than kicking them in the shins or teeth. Without their early work, we wouldn't have much; as they were the vessels for establishing the depth and truth of the Gospel.
And having just perused a handful of recent titles on modern Trinity doctrine developments (while looking to order Barth's 14-volume set for $149.99), I'd say there are still the same ongoing problems that have historically plagued the Orthodox formulaic (especially the Latin/Western corruptions) and unfortunate conceptualizations of it that are potentially dangerously non-salvific (I was lost for 28 years for this very reason, which has been the impetus for my search and study since my belated salvation).
If you would read Barth, you would soon discover that he spends much time (hundreds of pages sometimes) meticulously setting forth the position of his opposition, with great integrity so as to not misrepresent the other view/s, before presenting his case.
Fair enough, though I've never indicated otherwise.
Many, many, many misrepresentations of Barth have been set forth in quoting sections where he is NOT setting forth his belief but that of his opponent. Yes, Barth is a dialectic theologian and not a systematic theologian. In that regard, he was more wordy than systematic theologians.
Again, fair enough for the first sentence. But such theological dialecticism is easily influenced by Hermeticistic subtleties, so I'll await reading further while remaining neutral with appropriate healthy skepticism. Though in the end, no multi-hypostatic formulaic (and the inevitable unaccounted-for economy of a created heavenly sempiternity) will convince me of foundational truth. I've never read anything from which I didn't glean truth and be sharpened.
(Now let's see how quickly you can bastardize his dialectics).
Not a necessary statement, but I suppose you feel it's justified.
I just don't know how much time I can justify for reading such a voluminous work, even when it arrives and is on the shelf. Is there not a concise representational summary of his work that isn't a bastardization? I could at least read such a summary first to determine my pace in reading the Dogmatics. (I can cover some other very valid theological ground with 7000 pages of reading, ya know?)
atrol:
