DOCSLIB.ORG

Durham E-Theses

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Durham E-Theses Durham E-Theses A Trinitarian Christology of the Fourth Word from the Cross The Commmunicatio Idiomatum, the Modal Distinction, and the Forsakenness of Christ BRAND, THOMAS How to cite: BRAND, THOMAS (2020) A Trinitarian Christology of the Fourth Word from the Cross The Commmunicatio Idiomatum, the Modal Distinction, and the Forsakenness of Christ , Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/13636/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 A Trinitarian Christology of the Fourth Word from the Cross The Commmunicatio Idiomatum, the Modal Distinction, and the Forsakenness of Christ Thomas Brand Department of Theology and Religion Durham University Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2020 1 A Trinitarian Christology of the Fourth Word from the Cross The Commmunicatio Idiomatum, the Modal Distinction, and the Forsakenness of Christ Thomas Brand Abstract The fourth word from the cross, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ is the focus of this work. I exegete the fourth word in the context of the crucifixion narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark and define έγκατέλιπές (forsaken) as left undefended. I describe the Christological doctrine of the communication of idioms and survey its application to the fourth word in Patristic, Scholastic, and Reformed writing, and wider literature up to the nineteenth century. I then argue for a modal distinction between person and nature in the Trinity with a focus on the theology of Thomas Aquinas. The Trinitarian and Christological explorations enable me to construct the following argument to which this thesis is a response. If Christ is forsaken by the Father, through the communication of idioms, God the Son is forsaken. The person of the Son is modally distinct from the divine nature. Therefore, the divine nature is forsaken at the fourth word. In my threefold response to the above argument I argue first that persons experience in and according to natures, and that persons, not natures, relate because divine persons are subsistent relations. Secondly, I argue that the mutual indwelling of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in perichoresis continues unbroken at the fourth word. Thirdly, that according to the unity of the works of God ad extra, the Triune persons are united in will at the fourth word. My argument is chiefly built on arguments from Cyril of Alexandria, Bonaventure, and Aquinas. I defend my thesis in light of the Reformed doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement, against charges of Nestorianism, and against a counterargument from Social Trinitarianisms. My thesis aims to uphold historic orthodoxy in opposition to contemporary trends towards divine passibility. 2 Declaration This thesis is the product of my own work and does not include work that has been presented in any form for a degree at this or any other university. All quotation from, and references to, the work of persons other than myself have been properly acknowledged throughout. Statement of Copyright The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without the author’s prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. 3 Acknowledgements My gorgeous wife Natalie (already Doctor Brand) has been an incredible support, encouragement, and inspiration through my research; and our three daughters Georgiana, Beatrice, and Arabella have been so patient with me. Thank you, my four lovely girls, I love you so much. I am extremely grateful to Lewis Ayres, my supervisor, for guiding my thinking, expanding my horizons, and restraining my desire for philosophical precision in the face of the overwhelming mystery of God. I am also grateful to my dear friends who have encouraged and challenged my thinking and writing in reading through the manuscript. Mark, your challenging suggestions have always stretched my mind. Zhyvov Dmytro Mykhailovich, thanks for the awesome study days and conversations. Edward, your clarity of thought about the truth of Scripture and your grammatical care has improved this work. Andrzej, thank you for your engaging suggestions. I am thankful for my brilliant parents David and Angela. My father has been a constant encouragement and my mother read the manuscript four times and picked up many errors. My doctoral studies would not have been possible without the generous financial support of the Evangelical Fellowship of Congregational Churches. Thank you. I also want to thank the dear saints at Binfield Heath Chapel for their patience with me when I started my doctorate. During my research I listened to the complete works of Johann Sebastian Bach. I close my acknowledgements as Bach closed his manuscripts. Soli Deo Gloria. 4 For Natalie 5 Table of Contents Abstract 2 Declaration 3 Acknowledgements 4 Introduction 10 Focus 10 Scope and Method 12 Interpretation of Scripture 13 Provenance and Context of the Study 18 Outline of the Work 21 I. What is the Significance of Christology for the Fourth Word? 23 1. What is the Meaning of έγκατέλιπές? An Exegesis of the Fourth Word 23 The Seven Words from the Cross 24 The Darkness and the Loud Voice 26 The Relation of the Fourth Word to Psalm 22 29 The Covenantal Aspect of the Fourth Word 32 The Fourth Word is not Mentioned in the Remainder of the New Testament 35 What is the Meaning of έγκατέλιπές? 36 2. Communicatio Idiomatum and Historical Interpretation of the Fourth Word 40 Hypostatic Union 41 Communicatio Idiomatum 43 What is the Historical and Theological Connection Between the Hypostatic Union and the Communicatio Idiomatum? 47 A Survey of Interpretations of the Fourth Word with Reference to Trinitarian Theology and the Communicatio Idiomatum 53 6 Reflections on the Survey and the Development of the Communicatio Idiomatum 121 II. How can the Fourth Word be Understood with Reference to the Communicatio Idiomatum and the Modal Distinction Between Person and Nature in the Trinity? 125 3. The Communicatio Idiomatum, Perichoresis, and the Cross of Christ 125 Development of the Doctrine of Perichoresis 126 Scriptural Teaching 127 Definition 128 An Argument against Moltmann for the Continuation of Perichoresis at the Fourth Word 131 4. The Theological Trend Towards Divine Passibility 137 Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel 137 An Historical Passibilist Thread 143 A Paradigm Shift 144 5. What are the Distinctions between Persons and Nature in the Trinity? 146 What is the Divine Nature? 149 What is a Divine Person? 156 Divine Persons and Divine Simplicity 165 Subsistent Relations 167 The Distinction between Divine Persons and the Divine Nature 171 Patristic Origins: οὐσία and ὑποστάσις 172 A Modal Distinction Between Nature and Person in the Trinity: Scholastic Description in Aquinas and Turretin 176 The Modal Distinction in Trinitarian Theology and the Hypostatic Union: are the Distinctions Between Christ’s Person and his Natures Real or Modal? 182 Implications of the Modal Distinction between Persons and Nature 183 7 6. Trinity, Communicatio Idiomatum, and the Fourth Word 189 Cyril of Alexandria and the Assymetrical Predication of Attributes in the Communicatio Idiomatum 190 Bonaventure and the Manner of Predication in the Commicatio Idiomatum 193 Aquinas and Subsistent Relations 195 Positive Statement of the Central Thesis 199 Redoublement in Theological Language: Further Aspects of the Proposed Solution to the Problem of the Modal Distinctions and the Communication of Idioms 211 III. Responding to Further Objections 216 7. Does the Central Thesis that Persons Experience in Natures Entail Nestorianism? 216 Defending Against Nestorianism: The Communicatio Idiomatum and the Forsakenness of Christ 218 8. Penal Substitutionary Atonement and the Fourth Word 222 Historical Development of the Doctrine of the Atonement before the Reformation 223 The Centralisation of the Doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement in the Reformed Tradition 224 The Meaning of έγκατέλιπές, Penal Substitution, and the Theological Context of the Fourth Word 228 Theological Language, the Fourth Word, and Divine Impassibility 229 9. Social Trinitarianisms and Three Self Theories of the Trinity 234 An Overview of Social Trinitarianism 234 An Objection to my Central Thesis from Social Trinitarianism 237 Is the Methodology of Social Trinitarianism Orthodox? 239 Social Trinitarianism and Three Self Theories of the Trinity 243 A Response to the Social Trinitarian Counterargument 246 8 Conclusions 250 Summary of findings 250 Theological Method I: The Inseparability of the Person and Work of Christ 251 Theological Method II: Why Christology Must be Trinitarian 251 The significance of the central thesis for Contemporary Theology 252 Bibliography 254 9 Introduction Focus Ό Θεός μου ό Θεός μου, είς τί έγκατέλιπές με;1 The fourth word, spoken by the dying Lord Jesus Christ from the cross in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark presents a profound mystery. The question that dominates this work is, what is meant by the fourth word in the context of Trinitarian theology and Christology? My interpretation of the fourth word is grounded in exegesis of the crucifixion narrative in Mark’s Gospel, with a focus on defining έγκατέλιπές in Mark 15:34. I offer an interpretation that accounts for the way that the fourth word is spoken by God the Son incarnate to God the Father: a Trinitarian interpretation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Eph 5:1-2 A. Second-Personal Life with Jesus Christ, Rev. 3:14-22
    Bible Doctrines (T/G/B ) Theology June 25, 2017 Eschatology Thanatology Ecclesiology Matthew 22:36-40; 2 Pet 1:2-4; 1 Cor 13:1-7; Eph 5:1-2 Israelology Dispensationalism Doxology A. Second-personal life with Jesus Christ, Rev. 3:14-22. Hodology Soteriology - 8 principles on life with Christ and the problem of a closed heart. Hamartiology Natural Law Anthropology B. Through the Bible, Rom 11:1-16: The hardening of Israel. Angelology - 5 reasons God is not through with Israel. Pneumatology Christology Paterology C. Hermeneutics: Natural Law 32, Rom 2:14. Natural Law and America’s Trinitarianism Cosmology founding fathers. Theology Proper - 6 principles on natural law and the American experiment. Bibliology Natural Theology Foundations/Reality 7 Hermeneutics 33 D. Bible doctrine: the Glory of God 35 (John 1:14; 12:23-24; 13:31-32; 17:1; -Natural Law-31 1 Cor 1:27-31). 6 Science 51 5 Language 155 - 6 principles on the glory of God. 4 Epistemology 32 Existence 50 History 50 3 Metaphysics 32 Trans. 50 2 Reality - Logic, 32 http://www.fbcweb.org/sermons.html - Truth, 32 1 Realism – 32 Historical overview of Christology on how “the Word BECAME flesh/sarx.” 1. Rejection of Ebionism (denial of Jesus’s divinity), a Jewish heresy (contra 1 John 2:2). 2. Rejection of Docetism (denial of Jesus’s human nature), contra 1 Jn 4:3; 2 John 4:7. 3. Ignatius (d. 170) defends Incarnation against Docetism with “Communicatio idiomatum.” 4. Justin Martyr the apologist (d. 165) defends transcendence of the Logos using Stoic concepts.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 the Trinity in the Theology of Jürgen Moltmann
    Our Cries in His Cry: Suffering and The Crucified God By Mick Stringer A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Theology The University of Notre Dame Australia, Fremantle, Western Australia 2002 Contents Abstract................................................................................................................ iii Declaration of Authorship ................................................................................... iv Acknowledgements.............................................................................................. v Introduction.......................................................................................................... 1 1 Moltmann in Context: Biographical and Methodological Issues................... 9 Biographical Issues ..................................................................................... 10 Contextual Issues ........................................................................................ 13 Theological Method .................................................................................... 15 2 The Trinity and The Crucified God................................................................ 23 The Tradition............................................................................................... 25 Divine Suffering.......................................................................................... 29 The Rise of a ‘New Orthodoxy’.................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Truth of Divine Impassibility: a New Look at an Old Argument Jeffrey G Silcock
    198 Jeffrey G Silcock The truth of divine impassibility: a new look at an old argument Jeffrey G Silcock Jeff is head of the History and Systematic Theology Department at ALC and serves as chair of the LCA’s Commission on Theology and Inter-Church Relations. Introduction From his Nazi prison cell in 1944, Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote to his friend Eberhard Bethge that ‘only the suffering God can help’.1 Just after the war, the Japanese Lutheran theologian Kazoh Kitamori published his ground-breaking book, Theology of the pain of God,2 based around Jeremiah 31:20, where he developed a similar theology of the cross: the pain of God heals our pain. In the suffering of Christ, God himself suffers. In 1973 Jürgen Moltmann came out with his classic, The crucified God, where he takes this further and develops a critical theology of the cross. He holds that a ‘theology after Auschwitz’ has to revise completely the traditional doctrine of God that teaches divine impassibility. Moltmann at the outset reflects on his own experience: ‘Shattered and broken, the survivors of my generation were then returning from camps and hospitals to the lecture room. A theology which did not speak of God in the sight of the one who was abandoned and crucified would have had nothing to say to us then’.3 The old teaching of classical theism that God is beyond suffering died in the death camps of WWII and was no longer tenable. Moltmann wrote his book, which had an enormous impact in its day, with the conviction that only if God is not detached from human suffering, but willingly enters into it with compassion, is there any hope for the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Getting Back to Idolatry Critique: Kingdom, Kin-Dom, and the Triune
    86 87 Getting Back to Idolatry Critique: Kingdom, Critical theory’s concept of ideology is helpful, but when it flattens the idolatry critique by identifying idolatry as ideology, and thus making them synonymous, Kin-dom, and the Triune Gift Economy ideology ultimately replaces idolatry.4 I suspect that ideology here passes for dif- fering positions within sheer immanence, and therefore unable to produce a “rival David Horstkoetter universality” to global capitalism.5 Therefore I worry that the political future will be a facade of sheer immanence dictating action read as competing ideologies— philosophical positions without roots—under the universal market.6 Ideology is thus made subject to the market’s antibodies, resulting in the market commodi- Liberation theology has largely ceased to develop critiques of idolatry, espe- fying ideology. The charge of idolatry, however, is rooted in transcendence (and cially in the United States. I will argue that the critique is still viable in Christian immanence), which is at the very least a rival universality to global capitalism; the theology and promising for the future of liberation theology, by way of reformu- critique of idolatry assumes divine transcendence and that the incarnational, con- lating Ada María Isasi-Díaz’s framework of kin-dom within the triune economy. structive project of divine salvation is the map for concrete, historical work, both Ultimately this will mean reconsidering our understanding of and commitment to constructive and critical. This is why, when ideology is the primary, hermeneutical divinity and each other—in a word, faith.1 category, I find it rather thin, unconvincing, and unable to go as far as theology.7 The idea to move liberation theology from theology to other disciplines Also, although sociological work is necessary, I am not sure that it is primary for drives discussion in liberation theology circles, especially in the US, as we talk realizing divine work in history.
    [Show full text]
  • The Trinitarian Ecclesiology of Thomas F. Torrance
    The Trinitarian Ecclesiology of Thomas F. Torrance Kate Helen Dugdale Submitted to fulfil the requirements for a Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Otago, November 2016. 1 2 ABSTRACT This thesis argues that rather than focusing on the Church as an institution, social grouping, or volunteer society, the study of ecclesiology must begin with a robust investigation of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Utilising the work of Thomas F. Torrance, it proposes that the Church is to be understood as an empirical community in space and time that is primarily shaped by the perichoretic communion of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, revealed by the economic work of the Son and the Spirit. The Church’s historical existence is thus subordinate to the Church’s relation to the Triune God, which is why the doctrine of the Trinity is assigned a regulative influence in Torrance’s work. This does not exclude the essential nature of other doctrines, but gives pre-eminence to the doctrine of the Trinity as the foundational article for ecclesiology. The methodology of this thesis is one of constructive analysis, involving a critical and constructive appreciation of Torrance’s work, and then exploring how further dialogue with Torrance’s work can be fruitfully undertaken. Part A (Chapters 1-5) focuses on the theological architectonics of Torrance’s ecclesiology, emphasising that the doctrine of the Trinity has precedence over ecclesiology. While the doctrine of the Church is the immediate object of our consideration, we cannot begin by considering the Church as a spatiotemporal institution, but rather must look ‘through the Church’ to find its dimension of depth, which is the Holy Trinity.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Trinity, Filioque and Semantic Ascent Christians Believe That The
    Trinity, Filioque and Semantic Ascent1 Christians believe that the Persons of the Trinity are distinct but in every respect equal. We believe also that the Son and Holy Spirit proceed from the Father. It is difficult to reconcile claims about the Father’s role as the progenitor of Trinitarian Persons with commitment to the equality of the persons, a problem that is especially acute for Social Trinitarians. I propose a metatheological account of the doctrine of the Trinity that facilitates the reconciliation of these two claims. On the proposed account, “Father” is systematically ambiguous. Within economic contexts, those which characterize God’s relation to the world, “Father” refers to the First Person of the Trinity; within theological contexts, which purport to describe intra-Trinitarian relations, it refers to the Trinity in toto-- thus in holding that the Son and Holy Spirit proceed from the Father we affirm that the Trinity is the source and unifying principle of Trinitarian Persons. While this account solves a nagging problem for Social Trinitarians it is theologically minimalist to the extent that it is compatible with both Social Trinitarianism and Latin Trinitarianism, and with heterodox Modalist and Tri-theist doctrines as well. Its only theological cost is incompatibility with the Filioque Clause, the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son—and arguably that may be a benefit. 1. Problem: the equality of Persons and asymmetry of processions In addition to the usual logical worries about apparent violations of transitivity of identity, the doctrine of the Trinity poses theological problems because it commits us to holding that there are asymmetrical quasi-causal relations amongst the Persons: the Father “begets” the Son and “spirates” the Holy Spirit.
    [Show full text]
  • 3. Unification Christology
    Volume XXI - (2020) Unification Christology THEODORE SHIMMYO • Shimmyo, Theodore T. Journal of Unification Studies Vol. 21, 2020 - Pages 51-76 In the history of Christianity theology, there has been a conflict between two types of Christology: "high" and "low" Christology. High Christology, which is orthodox Christology, holds that Christ, as the divine Logos "consubstantial" (homoousios) with God the Father, is actually God who assumes a human nature added as a "nature in the person" (physis enhypostatos) of none other than the divine Logos after the incarnation.[1] Christ, then, is not a human being in the same sense that we are human beings. By contrast, low Christology, which is liberal Christology, believes that Christ is a real man with a real human nature who assumes only some or no divinity. Now, according to Unification Christology in Exposition of the Divine Principle, Jesus is "a man who has completed the purpose of creation."[2] This certainly gives the impression as if Unification Christology were a low Christology. In actuality, however, Unification Christology is far from being a low Christology, as it recognizes his full divinity unlike low Christology which does not. Unification Christology firmly believes that Jesus as a man possesses "the same divine nature as God," by completing "the purpose of creation" at the individual level, i.e., by becoming "a person of perfect individual character" who is "perfect as God is perfect"[3] and who is in "inseparable oneness with" God, assuming "a divine value, comparable to God."[4] If Unification Christology is thus not a low Christology, it is obviously not a high Christology, either.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Theology of Stanley J
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by St Andrews Research Repository THE ROLE OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY IN THE THEOLOGY OF STANLEY J. GRENZ Jason S. Sexton A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of St Andrews 2012 Full metadata for this item is available in St Andrews Research Repository at: http://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/ Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10023/3025 This item is protected by original copyright This item is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence University of St. Andrews St. Mary’s College The Role of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Theology of Stanley J. Grenz A thesis submitted by Jason S. Sexton To the Faculty of Divinity In candidacy for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy St. Andrews, Scotland March 2012 Thesis Declaration I, Jason Scott Sexton, hereby certify that this thesis, which is approximately 80,000 words in length, has been written by me, that it is the record of work carried out by me and that it has not been submitted in any previous application for a higher degree. I was admitted as a research student in September, 2008 and as a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology in May, 2009; the higher study for which this is a record was carried out in the University of St Andrews between 2008 and 2011. Date ____________ Signature of candidate _________________________ I hereby certify that the candidate has fulfilled the conditions of the Resolution and Regulations appropriate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology in the University of St Andrews and that the candidate is qualified to submit this thesis in application for that degree.
    [Show full text]
  • Monarchy-Louvain 4
    The Neglected Doctrine of the Monarchy of the Father, and Its Implications for the Analytic Debate about the Trinity I. INTRODUCTION Whether or not Trinitarianism is defensible (logically, metaphysically, biblically, or what have you) depends not only on whether some particular account of the Trinity is defensible in that sense, but also on which particular accounts of the Trinity count as Trinitarian. After all, Arianism and Modalism are both accounts of the Trinity, but neither counts as Trinitarian. This is why defenses of Arianism or Modalism would not count as defenses of Trinitarianism, and conversely why one way to criticize accounts of the Trinity is to say that they are forms of Arianism or Modalism. But this raises the question, if not just any account of the Trinity (however defensible) would count as Trinitarian, which accounts do count as Trinitarian, so that a defense of one of them would count as a defense of Trinitarianism? Much recent analytic theology has been concerned with devising (hopefully defensible) accounts of the Trinity, but comparatively little attention has been given to this question of what it takes for an account of the Trinity to count as Trinitarian. Indeed, to my knowledge, only Dale Tuggy has given an explicit definition of Trinitarian (versus Unitarian) theology. But Tuggy’s definitions are not given as a mere formality. He puts them to quite substantive use in his evaluations of both contemporary and historical sources, and they turn out to be essential to what is probably his most important criticism of Trinitarian theology. In this paper, I will offer my own definitions of Trinitarian and Unitarian theology, contrast them with Tuggy’s, and (of course) argue for the superiority of my own definitions to Tuggy’s.
    [Show full text]
  • Nestorius and Cyril: 5Th Century Christological Division and Recent Progress in Reconciliation
    Nestorius and Cyril: 5th Century Christological Division and Recent Progress in Reconciliation Ben Green Department of Theology and Religious Studies Villanova University I. Introduction The 5th century controversy of Bishop Nestorius of Constantinople and Bishop Cyril of Alexandria centered on the Person of Jesus Christ: To what extent is he human? To what extent divine? And to what extent and how are his humanity and divinity united? The controversy takes shape on two fronts: (1) the Christological debate, primarily because of the potential implications for soteriology (whether a certain conception of Christ can be considered an efficacious Savior); and (2) the persons involved, because each is venerated by his later adherents and thus an integral part of the ongoing debate. This fact, that the controversy continues to be worked out though it is more than 1500 years old, owes its significance to the ecumenical movement which emerged in the 20th century. This particular Christological problem has been at the center of much dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Ancient Churches of the East. And, as we will see, an examination of the ecumenical dialogue will provide us with fresh insights by which to reevaluate the initial controversy itself. II. Setting the Scene First, let us review the basic outline of events as they unfolded. Cyril (c. 378-444) succeeded his uncle Theophilus as Bishop of Alexandria in 412, after having begun his ecclesiastical career nine years earlier as Lector of the church of Alexandria. In contrast, Nestorius (d. ca. 451) was a monk in the Antioch area who was called upon to preach publicly in Antioch.1 Known as a powerful speaker, and receiving the recommendation of John of Antioch, in 428 Nestorius was appointed Bishop of Constantinople by Emperor Theodosius II.
    [Show full text]
  • This Thesis Has Been Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for a Postgraduate Degree (E.G
    This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. PERSON, PERSONHOOD AND THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST: CHRISTOCENTRIC ANTHROPOLOGY AND ETHICS IN THOMAS F. TORRANCE BY HAKBONG KIM A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY NEW COLLEGE, SCHOOL OF DIVINITY THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH 2019 LAY SUMMARY In the utilisation of wide-ranging theological, philosophical and scientific epistemologies, Torrance deals with and develops horizontal and practical considerations and implications through his Christocentric anthropology and ethics. Although the numerous studies on Torrance have revealed little about the practical implications and foci in Torrance’s theology, he nevertheless profoundly articulates his thoughts about human existence as persons in relation, the onto-relationality of trinitarian personhood as the ontological foundation of the human person and personhood, and the humanity of Christ as the key to personalisation or humanisation and its resulting new moral life, order and relations.
    [Show full text]
  • Do Not Cite Without Express Permission of the Author PRINCETON
    PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY NOVA LINGUA DEI: THE PROBLEM OF CHALCEDONIAN METAPHYSICS AND THE PROMISE OF THE GENUS TAPEINOTICON IN LUTHER’S LATER THEOLOGY IN FULFILLMENT OF THE PH.D. QUALIFYING EXAMINATION IN THE HISTORY OF DOCTRINE DAVID W. CONGDON JANUARY 12, 2011 Do not cite without express permission of the author Congdon 1 INTRODUCTION Scholars have long noted that Luther makes a decisive contribution to the debate over divine impassibility. That he speaks of God’s suffering and death is well-attested in the literature. The question is the precise nature of this provocative language. It is widely acknowledged that Luther’s theology exhibits a radicalization of the communicatio idiomatum: the properties of divinity and humanity are not merely communicated to the one person, but they are also shared, at least in some respect, between the natures. In one direction (from divine to human), the result is the genus maiestaticum (“genus of majesty”), employed by Lutherans within the eucharistic debates as the basis for Christ’s bodily ubiquity. This paper will instead focus on the communication in the other direction (human to divine), known as the genus tapeinoticon (“genus of humility”; from the Greek, ταπεινωσις).1 While scholars such as Paul Althaus and Marc Lienhard have mentioned this concept with respect to Luther’s christology,2 the notion of a genus tapeinoticon remains controversial and raises a number of complicated questions regarding the relation of Luther to the orthodox tradition associated with the Council of Chalcedon. There is a continual danger of reading the modern acceptance of divine passibility 1 “The phrase genus tapeinoticum .
    [Show full text]