Response to Engagements

Samuel Wells responds to engagements of his book Constructing an Incarnational Theology by Brian Lugioyo, Ben Quash, Edwin van Driel, and Kirsten Guidero. He identifies five criticisms: (1) He neglects to engage with the classical Chalcedonian categories but insists on coining his own vocabulary; (2) his essence/existence distinction is undernarrated at best and Gnostic, Cartesian, or Nestorian at worst; (3) he is a social trinitarian, and this leads to a problematic account of the cross; (4) he misreads the notion of deification; (5) his for/with binary is overdrawn, and he misses the profound depth of substitutionary action. His unrepentant response explains why, valuable as all these criticisms are, none has persuaded him to change his argument. He notes the very different tone of Jonathan Tran’s response and commends Tran both for his panache and for his grasp of Wells’s true agenda. Wells also responds to two criticisms of his style

Binary opposition · Coining (mint) · GRASP · Power (physics) · Tone (literature) · Biblical Studies and Interpretation · Karl Barth and Christian Theology · Theology and Philosophy of Evil