This article constitutes a brief reply to Timothy Pawl's clear and insightful article on Conciliar Trinitarianism (defined as the Trinitarian theology of the Ecumenical Councils from Nicaea I to Nicaea II). The two basic arguments of that article (regarding the relationship between divine persons and divine nature and the debate over possible subordinationism) are celebrated rather than challenged. I instead offer three short comments. The first concerns the limited nature of the conciliar texts for the articulation of highly developed Trinitarian theology, and thus the question of methodology as it applies to Conciliar Trinitarianism. The second comment argues that the question of strict identity in the Godhead can be extended beyond the relationship of divine person and divine nature to the question of divine nature and divine power, will, and energy. The third comment argues that Pawl gives undue weight to a line from Cyril of Alexandria for a discussion of the Holy Spirt's mode of origination, and not enough weight to the clause related to the Holy Spirit articulated at the First Council of Constantinople, which recurs in one way or another at each of the subsequent Ecumenical Councils, up to and including Nicaea II. These three comments serve more as a supplement than a challenge to Pawl's original article, providing three further avenues for scholarly deliberation on the matter of Conciliar Trinitarianism.
{"title":"Defining and Supplementing Conciliar Trinitarianism","authors":"A. Torrance","doi":"10.14428/thl.v4i2.55393","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v4i2.55393","url":null,"abstract":"This article constitutes a brief reply to Timothy Pawl's clear and insightful article on Conciliar Trinitarianism (defined as the Trinitarian theology of the Ecumenical Councils from Nicaea I to Nicaea II). The two basic arguments of that article (regarding the relationship between divine persons and divine nature and the debate over possible subordinationism) are celebrated rather than challenged. I instead offer three short comments. The first concerns the limited nature of the conciliar texts for the articulation of highly developed Trinitarian theology, and thus the question of methodology as it applies to Conciliar Trinitarianism. The second comment argues that the question of strict identity in the Godhead can be extended beyond the relationship of divine person and divine nature to the question of divine nature and divine power, will, and energy. The third comment argues that Pawl gives undue weight to a line from Cyril of Alexandria for a discussion of the Holy Spirt's mode of origination, and not enough weight to the clause related to the Holy Spirit articulated at the First Council of Constantinople, which recurs in one way or another at each of the subsequent Ecumenical Councils, up to and including Nicaea II. These three comments serve more as a supplement than a challenge to Pawl's original article, providing three further avenues for scholarly deliberation on the matter of Conciliar Trinitarianism.","PeriodicalId":52326,"journal":{"name":"TheoLogica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85076425","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 article analyzes the history of the term perichoresis in the space of time embraced by the first seven ecumenical councils. After the Christological debut of the terminology in the fourth century in the work of Gregory of Nazianzus to indicate the dynamism of the relationship of the two natures of Christ in the hypostatic union, the text shows how this theological transition was the basis of the development in Maximus the Confessor. In the seventh century he applied the theological gain of Gregory of Nazianzus to divinization, making explicit the Christological foundation of Christian salvation. The journey ends in the 8th century with John Damascene, who applies perichoresis to both Christology and divinization, as already seen before him, but extends the terminology to the Trinitarian dimension, thus sealing the parable of theological thought. This makes it possible to recognize a true theological grammar which, consistently with Timothy Pawl's studies, reveals the architectural value of a Conciliar Trinitarianism, as a Trinitarian epistemology based on a Trinitarian anthropology, in turn rooted in a Trinitarian ontology. Abstract: L'articolo analizza la storia del termine perichoresis nello spazio di tempo abbracciato dai primi sette concili ecumenici. Dopo l'esordio cristologico nel IV secolo della terminologia nell'opera di Gregorio di Nazianzo per indicare la dinamicità del rapporto delle due nature del Cristo nell'unione ipostatica, si mostra come questo passo teologico sarà la base dello sviluppo in Massimo il Confessore. Questi nel VII seccolo applicherà il guadagno teologico del Nazianzeno alla divinizzazione, esplicitando il fondamento cristologico della salvezza cristiana. Il percorso si conclude nell'VIII secolo con Giovanni Damasceno, il quale applica perichoresis sia alla cristologia, sia alla divinizzazione, come già prima di lui, ma estende la terminologia anche alla dimensione trinitaria, sigillando così la parabola del pensiero teologico. Ciò permette di riconoscere una vera e propria grammatica teologica che, coerentemente con gli studi di Timothy Pawl, rivela il valore architettonico di un Conciliar Trinitarianism, come epistemologia trinitaria che si fonda su un'antropologia trinitaria, a sua volta radicata in una ontologia trinitaria.
本文分析了“包涵性”一词在前七次大公会议中所包含的时间空间中的历史。公元四世纪，在格列高利的著作中，这个术语首次出现在基督论中，以表明基督的两种本质之间的动态关系，这篇文章展示了这种神学转变是如何成为《忏悔者马克西姆斯》发展的基础。在七世纪，他将纳齐安祖的格列高利的神学成果应用于神化，明确了基督教救赎的基督论基础。这段旅程在8世纪结束，约翰·大马士革，他在基督论和神化上都应用了包皮隐说，就像他之前看到的，但将术语扩展到三位一体的维度，从而密封了神学思想的寓言。这使我们有可能认识到一个真正的神学语法，它与Timothy Pawl的研究一致，揭示了大公会议三位一体论的建筑价值，作为基于三位一体人类学的三位一体认识论，反过来植根于三位一体的本体论。摘要:关节分析的目的是确定关节包膜运动的时间和速度，以确定关节包膜运动的时间和速度。在意大利，意大利人对基督教的信仰是虔诚的，意大利人对基督教的信仰是虔诚的，意大利人对基督教的信仰是虔诚的，意大利人对基督教的信仰是虔诚的，意大利人是虔诚的。问题七:科学应用领域:科学技术领域:科学技术领域:科学技术领域:科学技术领域:科学技术领域:科学技术领域:科学技术领域:科学技术领域:科学技术领域:科学技术领域Il percorso si结论nell'VIII secolo on Giovanni damasasceno, Il quale applied perichoresis sia alla cristologia, sia alla divinizazione, come gigioprima di lui, ma estende la terminologia andalla dimensionontritriia, sigillando così la parabola del pensiero tecologia。Ciò permette di riconoscere una vera propria grammatica teologicalche, coerentemente congli studi di Timothy Pawl, rivela il valvalore architettonico di unconciliar三位一体，come epistemologia trinitaria che si fonda su ununanthropologia trinitaria, a sua volta radicata in una ontology trinitaria。
{"title":"La perichoresis e la grammatica teologica dei primi sette Concili ecumenici","authors":"G. Maspero","doi":"10.14428/thl.v4i2.22183","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v4i2.22183","url":null,"abstract":"The article analyzes the history of the term perichoresis in the space of time embraced by the first seven ecumenical councils. After the Christological debut of the terminology in the fourth century in the work of Gregory of Nazianzus to indicate the dynamism of the relationship of the two natures of Christ in the hypostatic union, the text shows how this theological transition was the basis of the development in Maximus the Confessor. In the seventh century he applied the theological gain of Gregory of Nazianzus to divinization, making explicit the Christological foundation of Christian salvation. The journey ends in the 8th century with John Damascene, who applies perichoresis to both Christology and divinization, as already seen before him, but extends the terminology to the Trinitarian dimension, thus sealing the parable of theological thought. This makes it possible to recognize a true theological grammar which, consistently with Timothy Pawl's studies, reveals the architectural value of a Conciliar Trinitarianism, as a Trinitarian epistemology based on a Trinitarian anthropology, in turn rooted in a Trinitarian ontology. \u0000Abstract: L'articolo analizza la storia del termine perichoresis nello spazio di tempo abbracciato dai primi sette concili ecumenici. Dopo l'esordio cristologico nel IV secolo della terminologia nell'opera di Gregorio di Nazianzo per indicare la dinamicità del rapporto delle due nature del Cristo nell'unione ipostatica, si mostra come questo passo teologico sarà la base dello sviluppo in Massimo il Confessore. Questi nel VII seccolo applicherà il guadagno teologico del Nazianzeno alla divinizzazione, esplicitando il fondamento cristologico della salvezza cristiana. Il percorso si conclude nell'VIII secolo con Giovanni Damasceno, il quale applica perichoresis sia alla cristologia, sia alla divinizzazione, come già prima di lui, ma estende la terminologia anche alla dimensione trinitaria, sigillando così la parabola del pensiero teologico. Ciò permette di riconoscere una vera e propria grammatica teologica che, coerentemente con gli studi di Timothy Pawl, rivela il valore architettonico di un Conciliar Trinitarianism, come epistemologia trinitaria che si fonda su un'antropologia trinitaria, a sua volta radicata in una ontologia trinitaria. ","PeriodicalId":52326,"journal":{"name":"TheoLogica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87777214","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}
A traditional view is that Christians have always believed that the one God is three Persons in one essence or being. Orthodox analytic theologian Beau Branson has recently argued that this is untrue, as earlier “fathers” taught that the one God just is the Father. He argues that this sensible Eastern view was misunderstood by Western sources, which is how the idea of the one God as tripersonal entered into mainstream Christian theologies. While I agree with Branson that in about the first three Christian centuries the teaching was that the one God just is the Father, I argue that his account about when and how the idea of a triune God comes in is mistaken, because we can see this new idea of a tripersonal God appearing in both Eastern and Western sources around the time of the council at Constantinople in 381, the surviving statement of which is the earliest “official” creed which assumes and implies that the one God is the Trinity, the tripersonal God.
{"title":"When and How in the History of Theology Did the Triune God Replace the Father as the Only True God?","authors":"Dale Tuggy","doi":"10.14428/thl.v4i2.23773","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v4i2.23773","url":null,"abstract":"A traditional view is that Christians have always believed that the one God is three Persons in one essence or being. Orthodox analytic theologian Beau Branson has recently argued that this is untrue, as earlier “fathers” taught that the one God just is the Father. He argues that this sensible Eastern view was misunderstood by Western sources, which is how the idea of the one God as tripersonal entered into mainstream Christian theologies. While I agree with Branson that in about the first three Christian centuries the teaching was that the one God just is the Father, I argue that his account about when and how the idea of a triune God comes in is mistaken, because we can see this new idea of a tripersonal God appearing in both Eastern and Western sources around the time of the council at Constantinople in 381, the surviving statement of which is the earliest “official” creed which assumes and implies that the one God is the Trinity, the tripersonal God.","PeriodicalId":52326,"journal":{"name":"TheoLogica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83480017","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 modern resurgence of orthodoxy in Anglican circles takes as its cardinal tenet the eternal coinherence of three persons in the one Godhead, equal in substance, rank and power. This is assumed to be the doctrine of the Nicene Council of 325, and the putative heresy that denies it is known by the term subordinationism. Although the ample lexicon of Greek heresiology supplies no clear antecedent for this term, the charge of subordinationism is thought to imperil any claim to be teaching in the catholic tradition, even if the teacher is Barth or Rahner. The confidence with which these accusations are levelled, however, seems to be in an inverse ratio to the accuser’s knowledge of history, for neither in New Testament scholarship nor at the cutting edge of the modern study of patristics will one find much evidence that subordinationism is even an anomaly, let alone an aberration from the biblical or conciliar norm. It is only in modern theology, not in the writings of empirical historians, that the Gorgon’s head of Arius is held up to those who question the strict equality of persons. At the same time, we must not forget that the systematician’s reading of Nicaea was until recently also that of the historian. No doubt the reason is partly that until the last half–century every historian was also a confessional theologian; but there is also a certain truth in the older approach so long as some pains are taken to define “subordination”.
{"title":"Is Subordinationism a Heresy?","authors":"M. Edwards","doi":"10.14428/thl.v4i2.23803","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v4i2.23803","url":null,"abstract":"The modern resurgence of orthodoxy in Anglican circles takes as its cardinal tenet the eternal coinherence of three persons in the one Godhead, equal in substance, rank and power. This is assumed to be the doctrine of the Nicene Council of 325, and the putative heresy that denies it is known by the term subordinationism. Although the ample lexicon of Greek heresiology supplies no clear antecedent for this term, the charge of subordinationism is thought to imperil any claim to be teaching in the catholic tradition, even if the teacher is Barth or Rahner. The confidence with which these accusations are levelled, however, seems to be in an inverse ratio to the accuser’s knowledge of history, for neither in New Testament scholarship nor at the cutting edge of the modern study of patristics will one find much evidence that subordinationism is even an anomaly, let alone an aberration from the biblical or conciliar norm. It is only in modern theology, not in the writings of empirical historians, that the Gorgon’s head of Arius is held up to those who question the strict equality of persons. At the same time, we must not forget that the systematician’s reading of Nicaea was until recently also that of the historian. No doubt the reason is partly that until the last half–century every historian was also a confessional theologian; but there is also a certain truth in the older approach so long as some pains are taken to define “subordination”.","PeriodicalId":52326,"journal":{"name":"TheoLogica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90661517","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}
This paper employs recent developments in the theory of truthmakers to offer a novel solution to the most discussed philosophical challenge presented by the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. According to the view developed, the Father, Son, and Spirit each serve as the only substantial constituent of equally minimal truthmakers for claims about God. Because they do, there is a clear and robust sense in which each is a substance that “is” God as much as anything is, while the three remain distinct from each other. The view is shown to hold certain prima facie advantages over rival extant approaches.
{"title":"Truthmaker Trinitarianism","authors":"Ryan Byerly","doi":"10.14428/thl.v3i2.14693","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v3i2.14693","url":null,"abstract":"This paper employs recent developments in the theory of truthmakers to offer a novel solution to the most discussed philosophical challenge presented by the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. According to the view developed, the Father, Son, and Spirit each serve as the only substantial constituent of equally minimal truthmakers for claims about God. Because they do, there is a clear and robust sense in which each is a substance that “is” God as much as anything is, while the three remain distinct from each other. The view is shown to hold certain prima facie advantages over rival extant approaches.","PeriodicalId":52326,"journal":{"name":"TheoLogica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72796943","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}
Emily Paul has recently argued that Brian Leftow’s account of why the import of God’s becoming Incarnate is not temporal but modal fails. She argues that Leftow’s required modal variation is not satisfied. That is, we do not have the required variation across logical space concerning the Incarnation. Paul examines her argument on two possible worlds theories: theistic ersatzism and (what I call) Lewisian theism. She thinks that both possible worlds theories face difficulties. I argue that Paul fails to provide a compelling argument against Leftow because, firstly, her defence of one her premises fails, and, secondly, she misjudges what is required for some of Leftow’s claims to be true. I also argue that some of the problematic consequences that Paul raises for theistic ersatzism and Lewisian theism either are not problematic or can be avoided.
{"title":"On Emily Paul on Brian Leftow","authors":"Matthew James Collier","doi":"10.14428/thl.v3i2.20543","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v3i2.20543","url":null,"abstract":"Emily Paul has recently argued that Brian Leftow’s account of why the import of God’s becoming Incarnate is not temporal but modal fails. She argues that Leftow’s required modal variation is not satisfied. That is, we do not have the required variation across logical space concerning the Incarnation. Paul examines her argument on two possible worlds theories: theistic ersatzism and (what I call) Lewisian theism. She thinks that both possible worlds theories face difficulties. I argue that Paul fails to provide a compelling argument against Leftow because, firstly, her defence of one her premises fails, and, secondly, she misjudges what is required for some of Leftow’s claims to be true. I also argue that some of the problematic consequences that Paul raises for theistic ersatzism and Lewisian theism either are not problematic or can be avoided.","PeriodicalId":52326,"journal":{"name":"TheoLogica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88438344","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 principle of organic unities is a metaphysical claim regarding the nature of moral value. It states that the value of the whole is not equal to the summation of its parts. Even though this principle has a major impact on moral theory, it has been neglected in the consideration of the problem of God and evil. I claim that the theist can utilize the principle of organic unities to undermine the problem of evil. First, I explain the principle of organic unities and how it affects one’s understanding of moral value. Next, I explicate the two major historical versions of the problem of evil: the logical argument from evil and the evidential argument from evil. Lastly, I argue that the principle of organic unities demonstrates that God may logically co-exist with evil and that the atheologian lacks rational warrant appealing to gratuitous evil against God’s existence. As a result, both problems fail.
{"title":"Organic Unities","authors":"Graham Floyd","doi":"10.14428/thl.v3i1.15243","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v3i1.15243","url":null,"abstract":"The principle of organic unities is a metaphysical claim regarding the nature of moral value. It states that the value of the whole is not equal to the summation of its parts. Even though this principle has a major impact on moral theory, it has been neglected in the consideration of the problem of God and evil. I claim that the theist can utilize the principle of organic unities to undermine the problem of evil. First, I explain the principle of organic unities and how it affects one’s understanding of moral value. Next, I explicate the two major historical versions of the problem of evil: the logical argument from evil and the evidential argument from evil. Lastly, I argue that the principle of organic unities demonstrates that God may logically co-exist with evil and that the atheologian lacks rational warrant appealing to gratuitous evil against God’s existence. As a result, both problems fail.","PeriodicalId":52326,"journal":{"name":"TheoLogica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88233911","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}
For as long as the Christian church has been working out its understanding of the second person of the Trinity, it has employed analytic philosophical reflection to sharpen theological comprehension. In recent times, there has been a rekindled appreciation for the employment of analytic reflection in the service of theology. Analytic theology has established itself as a way of doing theology that employs analytic philosophical analysis in the project of faith in divinely revealed truths seeking understanding. In this issue, the fresh insights of analytic theology are applied to a theme most central to Christian theology—the Son of God.
{"title":"Editorial: The Son of God","authors":"Matthew Owen, Fred R. Sanders","doi":"10.14428/THL.V3I1.18423","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14428/THL.V3I1.18423","url":null,"abstract":"For as long as the Christian church has been working out its understanding of the second person of the Trinity, it has employed analytic philosophical reflection to sharpen theological comprehension. In recent times, there has been a rekindled appreciation for the employment of analytic reflection in the service of theology. Analytic theology has established itself as a way of doing theology that employs analytic philosophical analysis in the project of faith in divinely revealed truths seeking understanding. In this issue, the fresh insights of analytic theology are applied to a theme most central to Christian theology—the Son of God.","PeriodicalId":52326,"journal":{"name":"TheoLogica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90236841","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}
Classical Trinitarians claim that Jesus—the Son of God—is truly God and that there is only one God and the Father is God, the Spirit is God, and the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct. However, if the identity statement that ‘the Son is God’ is understood in the sense of numerical identity, logical incoherence seems immanent. Yet, if the identity statement is understood according to an ‘is’ of predication then it lacks accuracy and permits polytheism. Therefore, we argue that there is another sense of ‘is’ needed in trinitarian discourse that will allow the Christian to avoid logical incoherence while still fully affirming all that is meant to be affirmed in the confession ‘Jesus is God.’ We suggest a sense of ‘is’ that meets this need.
{"title":"The Son of God and Trinitarian Identity Statements","authors":"Matthew Owen, J. Dunne","doi":"10.14428/THL.V2I3.18413","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14428/THL.V2I3.18413","url":null,"abstract":"Classical Trinitarians claim that Jesus—the Son of God—is truly God and that there is only one God and the Father is God, the Spirit is God, and the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct. However, if the identity statement that ‘the Son is God’ is understood in the sense of numerical identity, logical incoherence seems immanent. Yet, if the identity statement is understood according to an ‘is’ of predication then it lacks accuracy and permits polytheism. Therefore, we argue that there is another sense of ‘is’ needed in trinitarian discourse that will allow the Christian to avoid logical incoherence while still fully affirming all that is meant to be affirmed in the confession ‘Jesus is God.’ We suggest a sense of ‘is’ that meets this need.","PeriodicalId":52326,"journal":{"name":"TheoLogica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79147285","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 recent literature on whether there would have been an incarnation if there had been no fall, Thomas Aquinas is often cited as arguing for a negative answer on the grounds that it is more fitting. Little attention, however, has been given to what fittingness amounts to for Thomas, or what relation this has to the primarily biblical reasons he gives for denying an incarnation without the fall. In this paper, I argue that the fittingness derives primarily from what kinds of conclusions can be drawn from the biblical text – fitting conclusions are those that, though short of necessary truths, nevertheless ought to be preferred over all of the possible alternatives because they best cohere with the nature of the scriptural canon. The answer to whether an incarnation would have occurred, for Thomas, is an example of one such biblical conclusion. I then place Thomas’ arguments in conversation with contemporary advocates in favor of an ‘Incarnation Anyway’ and show that their strategy of argumentation is actually accommodated by Thomas’ position, leaving it safe from criticism.
{"title":"On Thomas Aquinas's Rejection of an 'Incarnation Anyway'","authors":"Fellipe do Vale","doi":"10.14428/THL.V2I3.15373","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14428/THL.V2I3.15373","url":null,"abstract":"In the recent literature on whether there would have been an incarnation if there had been no fall, Thomas Aquinas is often cited as arguing for a negative answer on the grounds that it is more fitting. Little attention, however, has been given to what fittingness amounts to for Thomas, or what relation this has to the primarily biblical reasons he gives for denying an incarnation without the fall. In this paper, I argue that the fittingness derives primarily from what kinds of conclusions can be drawn from the biblical text – fitting conclusions are those that, though short of necessary truths, nevertheless ought to be preferred over all of the possible alternatives because they best cohere with the nature of the scriptural canon. The answer to whether an incarnation would have occurred, for Thomas, is an example of one such biblical conclusion. I then place Thomas’ arguments in conversation with contemporary advocates in favor of an ‘Incarnation Anyway’ and show that their strategy of argumentation is actually accommodated by Thomas’ position, leaving it safe from criticism.","PeriodicalId":52326,"journal":{"name":"TheoLogica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80275367","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：