This article aims to provide an explication of the doctrine of the Incarnation. A ‘Transformational Model’ of the doctrine is formulated within the metaphysical and ontological framework of Jonathan Lowe (i.e. his Non-Cartesian Substance Dualism and Four-Category Ontology). Formulating this model within this specific framework will enable the doctrine of the Incarnation to be explicated in a clear and consistent manner, and the oft-raised objections against it can be answered.
{"title":"A Transformational Incarnation","authors":"J. Sijuwade","doi":"10.14428/thl.v7i1.64663","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v7i1.64663","url":null,"abstract":"This article aims to provide an explication of the doctrine of the Incarnation. A ‘Transformational Model’ of the doctrine is formulated within the metaphysical and ontological framework of Jonathan Lowe (i.e. his Non-Cartesian Substance Dualism and Four-Category Ontology). Formulating this model within this specific framework will enable the doctrine of the Incarnation to be explicated in a clear and consistent manner, and the oft-raised objections against it can be answered.","PeriodicalId":52326,"journal":{"name":"TheoLogica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73850982","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Some philosophers have claimed that the concept of omnipotence is implicitly inapplicable to anything. The well-known “stone problem” is an argument to that effect: whether or not a being can create a stone too heavy for him to lift, there is something that he can’t do, and so he is not omnipotent. Some philosophers have replied that no action that falls under a contradiction lies within the scope of omnipotence. This reply employs what I call the contradiction approach. Many philosophers reject the contradiction approach, arguing that there are closely related problems that it cannot solve. In this paper I argue that, duly extended and modified, the contradiction can solve many such problems and is much more resilient than many philosophers think. However, the approach is not itself omnipotent and ultimately must give to a more metaphysical approach in order to salvage the possibility of omnipotence.
{"title":"The Contradiction Approach to solving Problems about Omnipotence","authors":"M. Wreen","doi":"10.14428/thl.v6i2.52533","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v6i2.52533","url":null,"abstract":"Some philosophers have claimed that the concept of omnipotence is implicitly inapplicable to anything. The well-known “stone problem” is an argument to that effect: whether or not a being can create a stone too heavy for him to lift, there is something that he can’t do, and so he is not omnipotent. Some philosophers have replied that no action that falls under a contradiction lies within the scope of omnipotence. This reply employs what I call the contradiction approach. Many philosophers reject the contradiction approach, arguing that there are closely related problems that it cannot solve. In this paper I argue that, duly extended and modified, the contradiction can solve many such problems and is much more resilient than many philosophers think. However, the approach is not itself omnipotent and ultimately must give to a more metaphysical approach in order to salvage the possibility of omnipotence.","PeriodicalId":52326,"journal":{"name":"TheoLogica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72509255","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The core of a Trinitarian model is the internal layout of intra-Trinitarian relations. Depending on different metaphysical interpretations of the nature of the relations, various patristic authors have produced different and oftentimes incompatible Trinitarian models, and, consequently, conflicting expositions of the doctrine of the Trinity. To elucidate the differences in their Trinitarian theologies, I demonstrate the divergence in their understanding of the divine relations using the contemporary philosophical taxonomy of relations. I analyze the models of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzen, and Boethius, and their attempted synthesis by Thomas Aquinas. Each of the patristic Trinitarian models, despite being fully orthodox, uses completely different types of relations, which makes them incompatible. One of the results of this incompatibility is the problem of the filioque, which cannot be resolved without addressing the metaphysics of relations.
{"title":"What Exactly Are the Intra-Trinitarian Relations?","authors":"P. Butakov","doi":"10.14428/thl.v6i2.63563","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v6i2.63563","url":null,"abstract":"The core of a Trinitarian model is the internal layout of intra-Trinitarian relations. Depending on different metaphysical interpretations of the nature of the relations, various patristic authors have produced different and oftentimes incompatible Trinitarian models, and, consequently, conflicting expositions of the doctrine of the Trinity. To elucidate the differences in their Trinitarian theologies, I demonstrate the divergence in their understanding of the divine relations using the contemporary philosophical taxonomy of relations. I analyze the models of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzen, and Boethius, and their attempted synthesis by Thomas Aquinas. Each of the patristic Trinitarian models, despite being fully orthodox, uses completely different types of relations, which makes them incompatible. One of the results of this incompatibility is the problem of the filioque, which cannot be resolved without addressing the metaphysics of relations.","PeriodicalId":52326,"journal":{"name":"TheoLogica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81004734","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Dean Zimmerman is an open theist. However, he has constructed an argument to the effect that, if simple foreknowledge (foreknowledge without middle knowledge) did exist, this knowledge would be providentially useful to God. I show that his argument fails: if simple foreknowledge did exist, it would be providentially useless.
{"title":"Et Tu, Zimmerman?","authors":"W. Hasker","doi":"10.14428/thl.v7i2.66783","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v7i2.66783","url":null,"abstract":"Dean Zimmerman is an open theist. However, he has constructed an argument to the effect that, if simple foreknowledge (foreknowledge without middle knowledge) did exist, this knowledge would be providentially useful to God. I show that his argument fails: if simple foreknowledge did exist, it would be providentially useless.","PeriodicalId":52326,"journal":{"name":"TheoLogica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76605793","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the context of current discussions on the problem of divine hiddenness in the field of analytic philosophy and beyond, I propose the concept of “threefold Hidden God.” In our times divine hiddenness becomes, so to speak, a divine attribute replacing other characteristics traditionally ascribed to God. Hiddenness, however, is not only an attribute of God understood from the so-called de deo uno perspective. It is possible to think about this attribute also in the Trinitarian context. According to my proposal God can be understood as hidden in three ways: in the laws of nature, in history, and in relationships with humans. This concept of “threefold hidden God” is a reference to the old proposal, originating from Augustine, to seek the traces of the Triune God who is present in man. The search for “threefold hidden God” seems to be more appropriate for our times and seems to be a promising proposal for an even deeper Trinitarian renewal of the analytic tradition.
{"title":"Threefold Hidden God","authors":"M. Hołda","doi":"10.14428/thl.v6i2.63903","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v6i2.63903","url":null,"abstract":"In the context of current discussions on the problem of divine hiddenness in the field of analytic philosophy and beyond, I propose the concept of “threefold Hidden God.” In our times divine hiddenness becomes, so to speak, a divine attribute replacing other characteristics traditionally ascribed to God. Hiddenness, however, is not only an attribute of God understood from the so-called de deo uno perspective. It is possible to think about this attribute also in the Trinitarian context. According to my proposal God can be understood as hidden in three ways: in the laws of nature, in history, and in relationships with humans. This concept of “threefold hidden God” is a reference to the old proposal, originating from Augustine, to seek the traces of the Triune God who is present in man. The search for “threefold hidden God” seems to be more appropriate for our times and seems to be a promising proposal for an even deeper Trinitarian renewal of the analytic tradition.","PeriodicalId":52326,"journal":{"name":"TheoLogica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89844938","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Some analytical philosophers of religion characterize the persons of the Trinity using a notion of person borrowed from modern philosophy. It is the Cartesian one of the person as a center of consciousness. Herbert McCabe is a theologian who opposed this thesis because he asserts that God is not a person. Nor are the persons of the Trinity persons in that typically modern sense. This leads McCabe to prefer the Thomistic conception of the Trinity, and to propose a form of “mysterianism.”
{"title":"McCabe on the Persons of the Trinity","authors":"R. Pouivet","doi":"10.14428/thl.v6i2.66233","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v6i2.66233","url":null,"abstract":"Some analytical philosophers of religion characterize the persons of the Trinity using a notion of person borrowed from modern philosophy. It is the Cartesian one of the person as a center of consciousness. Herbert McCabe is a theologian who opposed this thesis because he asserts that God is not a person. Nor are the persons of the Trinity persons in that typically modern sense. This leads McCabe to prefer the Thomistic conception of the Trinity, and to propose a form of “mysterianism.”","PeriodicalId":52326,"journal":{"name":"TheoLogica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83531386","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In his De Trinitate (c.1170) Richard of St Victor gives one of the more intriguing examples of trinitarian philosophical theology. Beginning with our common beliefs about and experiences of love, he argues for the existence of three, and only three, divine persons (call this The Argument). This essay explores several points of interaction between The Argument and current discussions in analytic theology of the Trinity. In part one I briefly survey Richard’s views on three topics of interest to philosophical trinitarians, namely, the distinction of divine persons, his model of the Trinity, and intra-trinitarian love. In part two I look at some work in these areas by analytic thinkers. My intention here is to apply some elements of The Argument and to show how its appeal may go beyond that of social trinitarians. I propose that Richard’s argument cannot receive unqualified adoption by social trinitarians and, alternatively, is more appealing to non-social trinitarians than has thus far been recognized.
{"title":"Richard of St. Victor’s Argument from Love and Contemporary Analytic Theology of the Trinity","authors":"D. Bray","doi":"10.14428/thl.v6i2.63913","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v6i2.63913","url":null,"abstract":"In his De Trinitate (c.1170) Richard of St Victor gives one of the more intriguing examples of trinitarian philosophical theology. Beginning with our common beliefs about and experiences of love, he argues for the existence of three, and only three, divine persons (call this The Argument). This essay explores several points of interaction between The Argument and current discussions in analytic theology of the Trinity. In part one I briefly survey Richard’s views on three topics of interest to philosophical trinitarians, namely, the distinction of divine persons, his model of the Trinity, and intra-trinitarian love. In part two I look at some work in these areas by analytic thinkers. My intention here is to apply some elements of The Argument and to show how its appeal may go beyond that of social trinitarians. I propose that Richard’s argument cannot receive unqualified adoption by social trinitarians and, alternatively, is more appealing to non-social trinitarians than has thus far been recognized. \u0000 ","PeriodicalId":52326,"journal":{"name":"TheoLogica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74867049","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The analytic philosopher or theologian is faced with two important tasks when giving an account of Trinity: demonstrate logical coherence and remain faithful to the doctrine as received from the Christian tradition. A good analytic doctrine of the Trinity does both well. This paper examines one modern attempt of this: William Hasker’s pro-Social account. It argues that, despite much good in Hasker’s account, he fails to reckon with difficult passages in the theologian he claims as his greatest ally: Gregory of Nyssa. This paper argues that at least one passage in Gregory is incompatible with Hasker’s pro-Social account.
分析哲学家或神学家在解释三位一体时面临着两个重要的任务:证明逻辑上的一致性，并忠实于从基督教传统中得到的教义。一个好的三位一体分析教义在这两方面都做得很好。本文考察了一个现代的尝试:威廉·哈斯克的亲社会理论。它认为，尽管哈斯克的叙述有很多优点，但他没有考虑到他声称是他最伟大盟友的神学家:尼萨的格列高利(Gregory of Nyssa)的困难段落。本文认为，《格列高利》中至少有一段与哈斯克的亲社会论不相容。
{"title":"To whom can God speak?","authors":"Derek S King","doi":"10.14428/thl.v6i2.63573","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v6i2.63573","url":null,"abstract":"The analytic philosopher or theologian is faced with two important tasks when giving an account of Trinity: demonstrate logical coherence and remain faithful to the doctrine as received from the Christian tradition. A good analytic doctrine of the Trinity does both well. This paper examines one modern attempt of this: William Hasker’s pro-Social account. It argues that, despite much good in Hasker’s account, he fails to reckon with difficult passages in the theologian he claims as his greatest ally: Gregory of Nyssa. This paper argues that at least one passage in Gregory is incompatible with Hasker’s pro-Social account.","PeriodicalId":52326,"journal":{"name":"TheoLogica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91342378","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
N. T. Wright’s important recent discussion of Natural Theology seeks to redefine traditional Natural Theology on Biblical grounds. I show that Wright’s discussion neglects Biblical passages (e.g., Acts 14:14–17 and Romans 1–2) which imply that God has left ‘witnesses’ (Acts 14:17) in the natural order, and which contradict Wright’s claim that people cannot start with the natural world apart from Christ and infer that God exists. Contrary to Wright, some contemporary versions of the arguments of Natural Theology do not entail ‘classical theism’ as Wright understood it but increase the plausibility of miracles and the Jesus of the Gospels.
{"title":"A critical engagement with N.T. Wright on Natural Theology","authors":"A. Loke","doi":"10.14428/thl.v6i2.64263","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v6i2.64263","url":null,"abstract":"N. T. Wright’s important recent discussion of Natural Theology seeks to redefine traditional Natural Theology on Biblical grounds. I show that Wright’s discussion neglects Biblical passages (e.g., Acts 14:14–17 and Romans 1–2) which imply that God has left ‘witnesses’ (Acts 14:17) in the natural order, and which contradict Wright’s claim that people cannot start with the natural world apart from Christ and infer that God exists. Contrary to Wright, some contemporary versions of the arguments of Natural Theology do not entail ‘classical theism’ as Wright understood it but increase the plausibility of miracles and the Jesus of the Gospels.","PeriodicalId":52326,"journal":{"name":"TheoLogica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90278665","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Over the past decade, a growing number of theologians and philosophers from a variety of sub disciplines have expressed an interest in the possibilities of a “science-engaged theology.” The specific projects that fall under this somewhat broad conceptual umbrella are rather diverse, but at its most basic, science-engaged theology is a form of inquiry that is deeply engaged with one or more of the sciences in the service of articulating, defending, or critiquing existing theological and philosophical frameworks. Some operating in this fertile domain even seek to construct entirely new theological (and occasionally, scientific) categories in light of the generative insights born from a robust interaction between the sciences and theology.
{"title":"Restoring Human Nature","authors":"Kutter Callaway, Oliver D. Crisp","doi":"10.14428/thl.v6i1.65573","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v6i1.65573","url":null,"abstract":"Over the past decade, a growing number of theologians and philosophers from a variety of sub disciplines have expressed an interest in the possibilities of a “science-engaged theology.” The specific projects that fall under this somewhat broad conceptual umbrella are rather diverse, but at its most basic, science-engaged theology is a form of inquiry that is deeply engaged with one or more of the sciences in the service of articulating, defending, or critiquing existing theological and philosophical frameworks. Some operating in this fertile domain even seek to construct entirely new theological (and occasionally, scientific) categories in light of the generative insights born from a robust interaction between the sciences and theology.","PeriodicalId":52326,"journal":{"name":"TheoLogica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88143006","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：