Torrance, Thomas F. The Ground and Grammar of Theology. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 1980.
Man, the Priest of Creation
Herman Weyl: “since all things, bodies in motion and space and time, are ultimately defined by reference to light, light occupies a metaphysical place in the universe” (Torrance 3-4).
Thesis: space and time are the bearers of all rational order in the universe (6). These set the boundary markers for us and represent the way “we know things in accordance with their natures” (8). These things impress themselves upon our minds. Theology works the same way, though we do not always know a thing in one field by the same rational mode in another.
The Being of God in His Acts
Science is moving beyond the old structures of determinism and mechanism towards an “open-structured order” (12). Instead of either a flat mechanism (modernity) or Neo-Platonic emanations, we see the universe as a hierarchy of levels, “a stratified structure, so that our science takes the form of an ascending hierarchy of relations of thought that are open upward in a deeper and deeper dimension of depth” (13). This is a huge point that Torrance expounds elsewhere in his works on the Trinity. I wish he would have given examples.
Emerging from the Cultural Spirit
Thesis of chapter: examine the move from a dualist to a unitary outlook on the universe (15). Torrance’s enemy in this chapter is the “old mechanistic system, or a closed continuum of cause and effect, characterized throughout by a hard determinism” (18). This is at odds with a kataphatic view of reality, where the very structures of reality impress themselves upon our minds. The closed continuum view, by contrast, rules out possibilities before the very investigation.
The first dualism was from the Greeks, that of the sharp contrast of “rectilinear motion in terrestrial mechanics and circular motion in celestial mechanics” (21). This points to a deeper dualism between “the empirical and the theoretical, the physical and the spiritual, the temporal and the eternal, the mortal and divine.”
Newton never fully broke with these dualisms. He identified absolute time and space with the mind of God, thus positing an eternal, inertial frame. Kant took this absolute time and space from the mind of God to the mind of the human knower (26).
But if Einstein is correct that there is a unity of form and being, the theoretical and empirical factors in knowledge, then we can no longer follow Kant (30). If there is indeed a unity of form and being, structure and substance, then we can be confident that “reality discloses of itself” (31). The same unity, we will see, also obtains in theology.
Response: I like this. It echoes my thoughts. I do wonder, however, if Torrance overcooked the evidence.
Nicene Theological Geometry (my phrase)
Nicea rejects the Greek dualisms in knowledge. As Torrance says, “If Jesus Christ is in his own being what he is as God’s revealing word and saving act towards us…then through Christ and in one Spirit we are given access to God…(40). The enousion energia are the internal relations of God (cf. Athanasius, Discourse on the Arians, II.14.2). The anchor of homoousion allows us to see “the meditation of knowledge of God in his intrinsic reality and intelligibility” (40).
Creation and Science
Thesis: We know the intrinsic structures of the universe “in such a way that its basic design becomes disclosed” (45). When we seek to know both God and the world in such a way that they force the structures on our minds, we have “what Cyril of Alexandria (or maybe Clement of Alexandria) called dogmatike epistime, ‘dogmatic science’” (50). We know God and the world in the way that “our minds fall under the power of what we hear and find there.” Professor Torrance helpfully outlines what he means:
 There is a rational unity of the universe. If God created all things, then we cannot posit a hard and fast dichotomy in the universe.
 There is a contingent rationality or intelligibility of the universe (53). Indeed, we might not be able to posit eternal forms in creation. (For all his recent lapses in theology, William Lane Craig at least saw this clearly in his rejection of Platonism.) Space and time now have a relation to God, a created relation. This means we must reject the Aristotelian notion of space as a container and the Newtonian view of time as absolute.
 The freedom of the universe is a contingent freedom.
Torrance suggests that Athanasian theology and non-Aristotelian, indeed anti-Aristotelian, science meet in the person of John Philoponus. Philoponus was condemned as a monophysite because nature, according to Western readings, was interpreted in an Aristotelian way. Philoponus, working with relational views of space and time, saw nature as more akin to “reality,” which led him to say there was only one reality of the Logos–no schizoid Christ (61).
Theological summary of the book: “Since the act and Word of God we meet in Jesus Christ are eternally inherent in the Being of God, and since none other than the very Being of God himself is mediated to us through the incarnation of his love in Act and Word in Jesus Christ, God’s Being is revealed to be his Being in his Act and Word” (67).
The Transformation of Natural Theology
We hold to a natural theology, but not one of simply identifying various causes. Rather with Athanasius’s De Gentes we “let our minds tune in to the rational order that pervades the universe…a way of communing with the regulative and providential activity of God in the rational order of the universe” (76). When this work is paired with Athanasius’s more popular De Incarnatione we see a field of “God/man/world or God/world/man interconnections.” This allows the structure of reality to “throw light upon the whole manifold of connections with which we are concerned in the knowledge of God in his interaction with creation” (77).
Unity of Form and Being
This unity finds an analogue in the Word/Act and Being of God. The unity of form and being is the “indivisibility of the intelligible and the ontological” (96). The patristic analogue is the inherent of logos and act in being. This means that objects “must be known and understood objectively in their distinctive modes of being and modes of self-disclosure.” As a result, these “things” will impress upon us objective forms of thought “correlated with the ultimate openness of being and its semantic reference beyond itself” (97).
Conclusion and Grammar of Theology
 There is a Trinitarian character in our knowing that corresponds to the trinity of relations in God himself. “We grasp things in our though, and hold them in our thought, only if we can grasp them in their internal relations” (149-150). We take our cue from Athanasius’s concepts of enousios logos and enousios energeia.
[1.1] If the Logos is inherent into the being of God, then we have access to divine intelligibility. We are able to access intrinsic structures.
[1.2] If God’s energeia or act inheres in his being, and that Act is Jesus in the Incarnation, then we know God “in his activity in disclosing himself to us” (152). A created analogue is our relation and knowing to the dynamic structure of the universe (as opposed to a medieval model of final causes).
 Our first and basic level of this experience is in worship, “in which we encounter the revealing God.” The next level is the theological level where we meet up with the so-called Economic Trinity. This throws us upon a “higher theological and scientific level,” the internal relations of God. While we know the economic reality first, it is the ontological reality that grounds our knowing. This is true episteme dogmatike.
Like all of Torrance’s books, this one is exciting, explosive, and probably underdeveloped in key areas. I think the problem is that Torrance likely memorized many of Athanasius’s passages in the original Greek and instead of translating them from memory, I think he is summarizing the Greek into English from memory. I went back and checked some of these in Contra Arianos. The idea is close enough, but not word-for-word.