DOCSLIB.ORG

Divine Simplicity: a New Defense

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Divine Simplicity: a New Defense Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 9 Issue 4 Article 6 10-1-1992 Divine Simplicity: A New Defense William F. Vallicella Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Vallicella, William F. (1992) "Divine Simplicity: A New Defense," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 9 : Iss. 4 , Article 6. DOI: 10.5840/faithphil19929441 Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol9/iss4/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. DIVINE SIMPLICITY: A NEW DEFENSE William F. Vallicella The doctrine of divine simplicity, according to which God is devoid of phys­ ical or metaphysical complexity, is widely believed to be incoherent. I argue that although two prominent recent attempts to defend it fail, it can be de­ fended against the charge of obvious incoherence. The defense rests on the isolation and rejection of a crucial assumption, namely, that no property is an individual. I argue that there is nothing in our ordinary concepts of prop­ erty and individual to warrant the assumption, and that once the assumption is rejected, the way is clear to viewing the divine attributes as self-exempli­ fying properties whose self-exemplification entails their identity with an in­ dividual. Among the entailments of the classical theistic doctrine of divine simplicity as found in Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas are such baffling claims as that God is identical with each of his essential properties; that these properties are identical with each other; and that there is no distinction in God between essence and existence. If true, the simplicity doctrine promises the theist considerable advantages: a possible way around the Euthyphro Paradox,' an explanation of why God is a necessary being,2 and a premise for a short non-modal ontological argument.3 But not only does the doctrine promise these advantages, it also seems to be an inescapable logical consequence of the central theistic idea that, necessarily, God is the creator and sustainer of everything distinct from himself. This has been rigorously and persuasively argued by Brian Leftow. 4 The argument in outline is that since God cannot create his own nature, and since everything distinct from God is existentially dependent on God, God is identical with his nature. Unfortunately, however, the simplicity doctrine will strike many philoso­ phers as it does Quentin Smith, who writes that "this doctrine is plainly self-contradictory, and its hold on some people's minds testifies to the pre­ dominance of faith over intellectual coherence in some Christian circles."5 And indeed it does seem self-contradictory to say that God, an individual, is identical with his essential properties, since this seems to imply that God is a property and hence not an individual.6 And so the simplicity doctrine seems to issue in the absurdity that God both is and is not an individual. It also seems to entail that God both has and does not have a plurality of properties.7 FAITH AND PHILOSOPHY 508 Vol. 9 No. 4 October 1992 All rights reserved. DIVINE SIMPLICITY 509 For if God by definition is omniscient, omnipotent, etc., then he has a plu­ rality of properties; but if these properties are identical with one another, then he does not have a plurality of properties, but exactly one property. One might even argue that if this one property is simplicity, then God cannot possess the property of existence. Hence if God is simple, he does not exist, and if he exists, he is not simple!8 Although Leftow has shown that what he calls the Identity Thesis (the core of the simplicity doctrine) can be derived from the claim that, necessarily, God creates everything distinct from himself, he leaves largely undiscussed the question of the logical coherence of the Identity Thesis itself.9 If this thesis is inconsistent, no argument in its support can be sound. What is needed, then, is a direct assault on the consistency question. My aim here is accordingly modest: not to argue for the truth of the doc­ trine, but to argue for its consistency. Even more modestly, perhaps, my aim is to show, contra Smith, Plantinga, and a host of others, that it is not obvi­ ously inconsistent or otherwise repugnant to the intellect. But before advanc­ ing to the positive task, we do well to examine a couple of extant approaches both of which in my judgment fail. 1. The Approach of Stump and Kretzmann According to Stump and Kretzmann, the names of the divine attributes ... are all identical in reference but different in sense, referring in various ways to the one actual entity which is God himself or designating various mani­ festations of it. [Which is it? Different ways of referring to one thing, or reference to different things?] 'Perfect power' and 'perfect knowledge' are precise analogues for 'the morning star' and 'the evening star': non-synony­ mous expressions designating quite distinct manifestations of one and the same thing ... .'Perfect power is identical with perfect knowledge' does not entail that power is identical with knowledge any more than the fact that the summit of a mountain's east slope is identical with the summit of its west slope entails the identity of the slopes. 10 This passage is confusing, employing as it does two distinct analogies that are dubious in themselves and not obviously compatible with each other. The Fregean analogy compares identity of properties with identity of individuals: the implication is that just as there is no problem in understanding how the morning star can be identical with the evening star once we distinguish the sense and reference of the relevant expressions, so also there is no problem in understanding how perfect power can be identical with perfect knowledge: you just distinguish the senses of these terms from each other and from their common referent. The senses are distinct, but the referent, God, is one and the same. Presumably, the senses of "perfect power" and "perfect knowledge" are the properties perfect power and perfect knowledge, respectively, which, we are told, are different manifestations of God. In Fregean jargon, they are 510 Faith and Philosophy different Darstellungsweisen, modes of presentation, of one and the same thing. But this implies that the two divine attributes in question are not identical, but as distinct as the senses of "morning star" and "evening star." The point is that the Fregean gambit requires the distinctness of senses in order to account for the informativeness of the identity claim; and so if the attributes in question are senses, they must be really distinct. If, on the other hand, the attributes are not senses but identical with each other and with God, then we need to be told what the distinct senses of "perfect power" and "perfect knowledge" are. If no answer is forthcoming, the Fregean analogy collapses. It wiIl not help to say that omniscience and omnipotence differ as concepts ("in the mind") but are identical as properties ("outside the mind"), for even if this is true, it has not been explained how the properties can be identical with one another and with God. The problem is one of metaphysics, not of philosophy of language. The problem is to explain how God can be identical with his properties, not to explain how informative identity statements like "God is omniscience" and "Omniscience is omnipotence" are possible. Frege's Sinn/Bedeutung distinction may help us with the latter problem; but it seems unavailing when applied to the former. Whereas the Fregean analogy suggests that perfect power and perfect knowledge are distinct as distinct modes of presentation of one and the same thing = God, the slope/summit analogy suggests something quite different, namely, that the attributes are identical. This is of course more in line with what is needed. What the analogy is intended to suggest is that even if F-ness and G-ness are distinct, perfect F-ness and perfect G-ness can be identical, just as the slopes are distinct shy of the summit, but identical at the summit. But this analogy, although a neat representation of the identity of perfect power and perfect knowledge assuming the coherence of this identity, does nothing to show the coherence or refute the charge of incoherence. One might as well try to prove the consistency of the doctrine of the Trinity by producing a can of "Three-in-One" oil. II The intellect has exigencies of which the picture-loving imagination knows nothing. 2. Mann s Approach It is one thing to say that God is identical with each of his properties; quite another to say that he is identical with each of his property-instances. Mann's way, derived from Aquinas, is the latter.12 Accordingly, God is identical, not with omniscience, but with his (instantiation of) omniscience. And similarly with the other attributes. If we take this tack, we avoid the consequence that God is a property with al\ its supposedly absurd implications. Mann has recently conceded to T. V. Morrisl3 that the property instance view faces a damaging objection: if God is (identically) an instance of a DIVINE SIMPLICITY 511 property P, then God is dependent on P to be what he is, namely, an instance of P. The divine aseity is thus compromised. As Mann puts it, It looks as though a simplicist is confronted with a dilemma.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Absolute Identity and the Trinity
    Absolute Identity and the Trinity Chris Tweedt Trinititarians are charged with (at least) two contradictions. First, the Father is God and the Son is God, so it seems to follow that the Father is the Son. Trinitarians affirm the premises but deny the conclusion, which seems contradictory. Second, the Father is a god, the Son is a god, and the Holy Spirit is a god, but the Father isn't the Son, the Father isn't the Holy Spirit, and the Son isn't the Holy Spirit. This seems to entail that there are three gods. Again, Trinitarians affirm the premises but deny the conclusion. There are two main views of the Trinity that are designed to (among other things) avoid these alleged contradictions. These views, however, have problems. In this paper, I present a resolution to these alleged contradictions that a Trinitarian proponent of divine simplicity can endorse without succumbing to the problems of the two main current views. What is surprising about the view I'll propose is that it is helped by divine simplicity. This is surprising because many current Trinitarian views either reject divine simplicity or find it a difficult doctrine to maintain. In section 1, I'll better describe the alleged contradictions the Trinitarian needs to dispel and the way in which the Trinitarian needs to dispel these alleged contradic- tions. In section 2, I'll give the two main ways to dispel these alleged contradictions and give the problems with these views. In sections 3{5, I'll propose and defend a view that dispels the alleged contradictions.
    [Show full text]
  • An Anselmian Approach to Divine Simplicity
    Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 37 Issue 3 Article 3 7-1-2020 An Anselmian Approach to Divine Simplicity Katherin A. Rogers Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Rogers, Katherin A. (2020) "An Anselmian Approach to Divine Simplicity," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 37 : Iss. 3 , Article 3. DOI: 10.37977/faithphil.2020.37.3.3 Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol37/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. applyparastyle "fig//caption/p[1]" parastyle "FigCapt" applyparastyle "fig" parastyle "Figure" AQ1–AQ5 AN ANSELMIAN APPROACH TO DIVINE SIMPLICITY Katherin A. Rogers The doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS) is an important aspect of the clas- sical theism of philosophers like Augustine, Anselm, and Thomas Aquinas. Recently the doctrine has been defended in a Thomist mode using the intrin- sic/extrinsic distinction. I argue that this approach entails problems which can be avoided by taking Anselm’s more Neoplatonic line. This does involve AQ6 accepting some controversial claims: for example, that time is isotemporal and that God inevitably does the best. The most difficult problem involves trying to reconcile created libertarian free will with the Anselmian DDS. But for those attracted to DDS the Anselmian approach is worth considering.
    [Show full text]
  • St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas on the Mind, Body, and Life After Death
    The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Williams Honors College, Honors Research The Dr. Gary B. and Pamela S. Williams Honors Projects College Spring 2020 St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas on the Mind, Body, and Life After Death Christopher Choma [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/honors_research_projects Part of the Christianity Commons, Epistemology Commons, European History Commons, History of Philosophy Commons, History of Religion Commons, Metaphysics Commons, Philosophy of Mind Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Recommended Citation Choma, Christopher, "St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas on the Mind, Body, and Life After Death" (2020). Williams Honors College, Honors Research Projects. 1048. https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/honors_research_projects/1048 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by The Dr. Gary B. and Pamela S. Williams Honors College at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The University of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Williams Honors College, Honors Research Projects by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. 1 St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas on the Mind, Body, and Life After Death By: Christopher Choma Sponsored by: Dr. Joseph Li Vecchi Readers: Dr. Howard Ducharme Dr. Nathan Blackerby 2 Table of Contents Introduction p. 4 Section One: Three General Views of Human Nature p.
    [Show full text]
  • Why the One Cannot Have Parts: Plotinus on Divine Simplicity
    Why the One Cannot Have Parts 1 Why the One Cannot Have Parts: Plotinus on Divine Simplicity, Ontological Independence, and Perfect Being Theology By Caleb Murray Cohoe This is an Author's Original/Accepted Manuscript of an article whose final and definitive form, the Version of Record appears in: Philosophical Quarterly (Published By Oxford University Press): Volume 67, Issue 269, 1 OctoBer 2017, Pages 751–771: https://doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqx008 Abstract: I use Plotinus to present aBsolute divine simplicity as the consequence of principles aBout metaphysical and explanatory priority to which most theists are already committed. I employ Phil Corkum’s account of ontological independence as independent status to present a new interpretation of Plotinus on the dependence of everything on the One. On this reading, if something else (whether an internal part or something external) makes you what you are, then you are ontologically dependent on it. I show that this account supports Plotinus’s claim that any entity with parts cannot Be fully independent. In particular, I lay out Plotinus’s case for thinking that even a divine self-understanding intellect cannot Be fully independent. I then argue that a weaker version of simplicity is not enough for the theist since priority monism meets the conditions of a moderate version of ontological independence just as well as a transcendent But complex ultimate Being. Keywords: aseity, simplicity, ontological dependence, perfect Being, monism, Platonism 1. Introduction This paper draws on the works of Plotinus to present absolute divine simplicity as the natural consequence of principles aBout metaphysical and explanatory priority to which the theist (and the perfect Being theologian in particular) is already committed.
    [Show full text]
  • Omnipotence As a Perfection of God
    Yulia Gorbatova OMNIPOTENCE AS A PERFECTION OF GOD BASIC RESEARCH PROGRAM WORKING PAPERS SERIES: HUMANITIES WP BRP 09/HUM/2012 This Working Paper is an output of a research project implemented at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE). Any opinions or claims contained in this Working Paper do not necessarily reflect the views of HSE. SERIES: HUMANITIES Yulia V. Gorbatova1 2 OMNIPOTENCE AS A PERFECTION OF GOD This article deals with the concept of omnipotence, which is very important for contemporary analytic philosophy of religion. Within the analytic tradition it is usual to show an apparent tension between God’s omnipotence and other divine attributes. In response, some authors have proposed their own ideas on how the classical problems of omnipotence can be solved in terms of possible worlds theory. In this paper we consider the approaches developed by Geach, Adams and Plantinga. While admitting that each of them has made a significant contribution to the refinement of the concept of omnipotence, we point out a number of important challenges that these authors were not able to overcome. JEL Classification: Z Keywords: God, omnipotence, Adams worlds, possible worlds, semantics, Leibniz, Plantinga. 1 National Research University Higher School of Economics. Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Ontology, Logics and Theory of Knowledge: Senior Lecturer; E-mail: [email protected] 2 This study comprises research findings from the “Logical and Ontological Foundations of Modern Analytic Theology”, research grant No 11-01-0172, carried out within The National Research University Higher School of Economics’ Academic Fund Program in 2012/2013. A number of analytic philosophers (including Plantinga) believe that the exclusive nature of God is determined by His specific attributes of omnipotence, omnibenevolence and omniscience.
    [Show full text]
  • ABSTRACT on Science and Atheism: Whether Atheistic Belief Is
    ABSTRACT On Science and Atheism: Whether Atheistic Belief is Scientifically Motivated Charles L. Jester Director: Gerald Cleaver, Ph.D. The intent of this paper is to explore the motivation behind the rejection of theistic religious faiths by modern atheist scientists, and whether it is justified to claim that this rejection is scientifically motivated. First, a brief background of the development of the contemporary schism between faith and science is given, noting in particular changes in belief amongst the scientific community. Next, an exposition on the motivations for scientists’ convictions concerning God is laid out, followed by an address to the question of whether atheistic scientists reject all properties of God, or only certain of them. Based on analyses of personal statements, statistical data on beliefs, and developments in twentieth-century physics and mathematics, it is concluded that modern scientists who reject theism are not overwhelmingly motivated by science, and that they in fact do not reject all ideas of God. APPROVED BY DIRECTOR OF HONORS THESIS: _____________________________________________________ Dr. Gerald B. Cleaver, Department of Physics APPROVED BY THE HONORS PROGRAM: _____________________________________________________ Dr. Andrew Wisely, Director DATE: ___________________________ ON SCIENCE AND ATHEISM: WHETHER ATHEISTIC BELIEF IS SCIENTIFICALLY MOTIVATED A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Baylor University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Honors Program By Charles L. Jester Waco, Texas
    [Show full text]
  • Omnibenevolence, Omnipotence, and Evil
    Omnibenevolence, omnipotence, and evil Last time, we discussed Anselm’s conception of God as that being which has every property that it is better to have than not to have; and from this, we argued that God must have, at least, three properties. omniscient omnipotent omnibenevolent Last time we focused on problems which result from omnipotence alone; today we’ll focus on problems which result from the combination of omnipotence with omnibenevolence. (Later in the course we’ll return to problems involving omniscience.) One of the oldest, and most important, arguments against the existence of God tries to show that the idea that God is all-powerful and all-good contradicts a very obvious fact about the world: the fact that it contains evil. The reading for today is a powerful version of that argument, which is due to the Australian 20th century philosopher John Mackie. What we need to understand, first, is why Mackie thinks that these three claims are contradictory. The three claims are: God is omnipotent. God is wholly good. Some evil exists. Now, it is certainly not obvious that these three claims are contradictory. Mackie thinks that we can show them to be contradictory with the help of two further premises: If something is wholly good, it always eliminates as much evil as it can. If something is omnipotent, it can do anything. God is omnipotent. If something is wholly good, it always eliminates as much evil as it can. God is wholly good. If something is omnipotent, it can do anything. Some evil exists. Now our question is: why does Mackie think that these five claims are contradictory? To answer this, we can begin by thinking about the claims that God is omnipotent and that God is wholly good.
    [Show full text]
  • Divine Omnipotence in Descartes' Philosophy
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 6-2014 Divine Omnipotence In Descartes' Philosophy Alfredo Rodriguez Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/274 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] DIVINE OMNIPOTENCE IN DESCARTES’ PHILOSOPHY BY ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ A master's thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Liberal Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, The City University of New York 2014 © 2014 Alfredo Rodriguez All Rights Reserved ii This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Liberal Studies in satisfaction of the requirement for the degree of Master of Arts. Professor Douglas Lackey Date Thesis Adviser Professor Matthew K. Gold Date Executive Officer THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iii Abstract Divine Omnipotence in Descartes’ Philosophy by Alfredo Rodriguez Adviser: Professor Douglas Lackey The present thesis explores various aspects of Rene Descartes’ doctrine of divine omnipotence within the context of his overall philosophy and with reference to his medieval heritage. This thesis shows that, contrary to his multiple and explicit statements that God’s power cannot be limited in any way, Descartes took a more nuanced position on divine omnipotence that incorporated aspects of the widely accepted medieval position that God’s goodness is a constraint on his power.
    [Show full text]
  • Healing Theologies in Christian Science and Secret Revelation of John: a Critical Conversation in Practical Theology
    HEALING THEOLOGIES IN CHRISTIAN SCIENCE AND SECRET REVELATION OF JOHN: A CRITICAL CONVERSATION IN PRACTICAL THEOLOGY by SHIRLEY THOMAS PAULSON A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF THEOLOGY AND RELIGION School of Philosophy, Theology and Religion College of Arts and Law University of Birmingham June 2017 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. Dedicated to my mother, in appreciation for her instilling in me an unwavering love for God and for humanity and generations to come ABSTRACT This thesis asks what might be revealed from a Practical Theology conversation between historical texts and contemporary Christian Science experience about healing theologies and practices. Certain enduring theological ideas (God’s goodness and omnipotence, the deceptiveness and impotence of evil, and a correlation between healing and salvation) explain these Christian healing practices. I investigate such ideas and practices using a Practical Theology methodology that accommodates an epistemological contrast and enables meaningful analysis of the ideas. This ‘critical conversation’ between the Secret Revelation of John, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, and myself as an autoethnographic ‘text,’ draws out comparisons and contrasting ideas of Christian healing.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief Introduction to Divine Simplicity
    1 A Brief Introduction to Divine Simplicity [Notes adapted from Brian Davies, Philosophy of Religion: A Guide and Anthology, pp. 533-8] 1. What is divine simplicity? The claim that God is simple is an ancient one. It is endorsed by several of the early Christian fathers. It is defended by a variety of medieval Jewish, Christian and Islamic thinkers and also by many contemporary philosophers and theologians. But what might it mean to say that God is simple? A famous account of divine simplicity comes in St. Augustine’s The City of God. Here Augustine says: There is then one sole Good, which is simple, and therefore unchangeable; and that is God. By this Good all good things were created; but they are not simple, and for that reason they are changeable. … The reason why a nature is called simple is that it cannot lose any attribute it possesses, that there is no difference between what it is and what it has, as there is, for example, between a vessel and the liquid it contains, a body and its colour, the atmosphere and its light or heat, the soul and its wisdom. None of these is what it contains; the vessel is not the liquid, nor the body the colour, nor the atmosphere the light or heat; nor is the soul the same as its wisdom. (The City of God, XI, 10). Augustine shows us that when philosophers say that God is ‘simple’ they are saying two things: i) God is unchanging (immutable) ii) God does not possess different properties or attributes God’s essence and attributes are one and the same.
    [Show full text]
  • Is New Testament Theology Still Having an Identity Crisis? a Review of Five Recent Contributions
    religions Review Is New Testament Theology Still Having an Identity Crisis? A Review of Five Recent Contributions Joshua Strahan Bible Department, Lipscomb University, Nashville, TN 37204, USA; [email protected] Abstract: This article reviews five recent contributions to the field of New Testament theology. More accurately, three NT theologies will be examined alongside two biblical theologies, given that some regard NT theology as inherently deficient apart from OT theology. These five works are notable not only for their diversity of methodology but also their diversity of cultural perspective—one book by a Finn (Timo Eskola’s A Narrative Theology of the New Testament), one by two Germans (Reinhard Feldmeier’s and Hermann Spieckermann’s God of the Living: A Biblical Theology), one by a Canadian (Thomas R. Hatina’s New Testament Theology and its Quest for Relevance: Ancient Texts and Modern Readers), one by an American (Craig L. Blomberg’s A New Testament Theology), and one by a native Briton (John Goldingay’s Biblical Theology). Along the way, this review article will consider how these works navigate the tricky and contested terrain of NT (or biblical) theology, particularly vis-à-vis matters of history, canon, synthesis and diversity, and contemporary relevance. Keywords: biblical theology; theological interpretation; historical criticism; narrative theology; history of religions; canon; dialectical Citation: Strahan, Joshua. 2021. Is 1. Introduction New Testament Theology Still Having an Identity Crisis? A Review The aim of the present article is to review recent contributions to the field of New of Five Recent Contributions. Testament theology (NTT). For an excellent introduction to the history of NTT from its Religions 12: 636.
    [Show full text]
  • Pui Him Ip Magdalene College October 2017
    THE EMERGENCE OF DIVINE SIMPLICITY IN PATRISTIC TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY ORIGEN AND THE DISTINCTIVE SHAPE OF THE ANTE-NICENE STATUS QUAESTIONIS Pui Him Ip Magdalene College October 2017 This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy For Natasha ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS No intellectual project could come to its fruition without the help of others. First and foremost, I owe a debt of gratitude to my supervisor Rowan Williams, for seeing the potential in the project in the first place, and for showing me that it is possible to pursue scholarship that combines philosophical rigour, historical sensitivity, and theological humility. During the last three years, Rowan’s guidance has gifted me a truly theological, and not merely academic, experience. I am deeply humbled by the fact that Rowan always looks out for the theological treasures in my writings, allowing me to see the light shining through my often muddled thoughts. Moreover, Rowan has managed to perform the miracle of encouraging me to pursue tangential but important problems arising from my doctoral research while preventing my dissertation to go off the rails. For these reasons, I am eternally grateful to have you as my supervisor and theological mentor. A special note of thanks must go to Christian Hengstermann and Isidoros Katsos who organised our regular and intensive Origen reading seminars during the 2016-17 academic year. This seminar was the laboratory in which I worked out most of the arguments in this dissertation. Without our heated debates, I would not be able to develop my own hermeneutical lens through which I understand Origen’s theology.
    [Show full text]