DOCSLIB.ORG

The Logical Problem of the Trinity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

THE LOGICAL PROBLEM OF THE TRINITY A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Notre Dame in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Beau Branson Richard Cross, Director Graduate Program in Philosophy Notre Dame, Indiana April, 2014 © 2014 Beau Branson Some Rights Reserved. cbnd Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ You may copy and redistribute this work (but not create, copy or distribute any derivative work) in whole, and with proper attribution to the author, for non-commercial purposes only. For more information, see: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ The Logical Problem of the Trinity Abstract by Beau Branson The doctrine of the Trinity is central to mainstream Christianity. But insofar as it posits “three persons” (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), who are “one God,” it appears as inconsistent as the claim that 1+1+1=1. Much of the literature on “The Logical Problem of the Trinity,” as this has been called, attacks or defends Trinitarianism with little regard to the fourth century theological controversies and the late Hellenistic and early Medieval philosophical background in which it took shape. I argue that this methodol- ogy, which I call “the Puzzle Approach,” produces obviously invalid arguments, and it is unclear how to repair it without collapsing into my preferred method- ology, “the Historical Approach,” which sees history as essential to the debate. I also discuss “mysterianism,” arguing that, successful or not, it has a different goal from the other approaches. I further argue that any solution from the His- torical Approach satisfies the concerns of the Puzzle Approach and mysterianism anyway. I then examine the solution to the Logical Problem of the Trinity found in St. Gregory of Nyssa’s writings, both due to his place in the history of the doctrine, and his clarity in explicating what I call “the metaphysics of synergy.” I recast his solution in standard predicate logic and provide a formal proof of its consistency. I end by considering the possibilities for attacking the broader philosophical context of his defense and conclude that the prospects for doing so are dim. In any case, if there should turn out to be any problem with the doctrine of the Trinity at all, it will not be one of mere logical inconsistency in saying that “These Three are One.” iii Dedication To Kathleen Kaufman, for allowing me to think for myself. I thank you on behalf of all of us. For you touched the lives of so many, and in so many ways, “. the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.” v Contents Page Abstract iii Contents vii Introduction 1 I Defining the Problem 7 1 Definitions 9 1.1 What is the Logical Problem of the Trinity? . 9 1.2 What Would Be a Solution? . 15 1.3 Proposed Solutions . 19 1.3.1 Contemporary Proposed Solutions . 19 Social Trinitarianism (ST) . 19 (“Pure”) Relative Identity Trinitarianism (Pure RI) . 23 “Impure” Relative Identity Trinitarianism (Impure RI) . 25 1.3.2 Classical Trinitarian Heresies . 28 Arianism . 28 (Naïve) Modalism . 33 2 Taxonomy of Possible Solutions 37 2.1 The LPT1 Family . 41 2.2 The Non-PLI (Pure RI) Family . 42 2.3 The Naïve Modalist Family (and Cousins) . 42 2.4 The Equivocation1 Family (Arian) . 44 2.5 The Equivocation2 Family (Social Trinitarian) . 45 2.6 The Non-Classical-Identity-Counting Family . 46 2.7 The LPT2 Family . 47 vii II Methodology 53 3 Methodology 55 3.1 The Puzzle Approach . 57 3.2 The Mysterian Approach . 80 3.3 The Historical Approach . 95 3.3.1 Objection 1: The Puzzler’s Tu Quoque . 95 3.3.2 Objection 2: The Mysterian’s Conundrum . 100 3.3.3 Objection 3: The Anti-Trinitarian’s Challenge . 109 III History 113 4 St. Gregory of Nyssa’s Account of the Trinity 115 4.1 Ad Ablabium: Its Structure and Purpose . 116 4.1.1 One Question, Three Answers . 116 4.1.2 The “Simple-Minded” Argument (SMA) . 118 4.2 The Unity of Nature Argument (UNA) . 123 4.2.1 Ousiai and Hypostases . 126 4.2.2 Gregory’s Semantics of Collective Nouns . 129 4.2.3 Did Gregory Really Believe in the UNA? . 134 Does “Is God” Really Predicate the Divine Nature? . 134 The Real Role of the UNA in Gregory’s Response . 139 4.3 Idiomata ................................151 4.3.1 Basil’s Epistles 214 and 236 . 152 4.3.2 Ad Petrum . 154 4.3.3 How “Peculiar” is an Idioma? . 161 4.3.4 Two Views of the Individuation of Hypostases . 165 4.3.5 Do Idiomata Really Individuate? . 169 4.3.6 Do Idiomata Really Exist? . 171 4.4 The Unity of Action Argument (UAA) . 174 4.4.1 Gregory’s Semantics for “is God” . 174 4.4.2 Gregory’s Metaphysics of Energeiai . 178 4.4.3 Gregory’s Theology of Synergy . 181 4.4.4 The Individuation of Ousiai . 184 The Individuation of Ousiai in Ad Xenodorum . 185 The Individuation of Ousiai in Ad Eustathium . 186 4.4.5 Conclusion . 189 IV Logic 195 5 Formalizing Gregory’s Account 197 Metaphysics, Theology, and Semantics . 198 5.1 Gregory’s Metaphysics . 200 5.1.1 Possible Object Types . 201 viii 5.1.2 Possible Relations Between Tokens of the Object Types . 202 5.1.3 Relations Possible for the Objects . 205 5.1.4 Identity Conditions for the Types of Objects . 207 5.2 Gregory’s Theology . 211 5.2.1 Postulated Token Objects . 211 5.2.2 Relations Posited Between the Token Objects . 223 5.2.3 Individuation of the Token Objects . 231 5.3 Gregory’s Semantics . 243 5.3.1 Gregory’s Semantics for S4 through S6 . 243 5.3.2 Gregory’s Semantics for S1 through S3 . 244 5.3.3 Gregory’s Semantics for S7 . 246 5.4 A Model for PGNT-F . 252 5.5 What is Essential? – GNT “Lite” . 258 5.5.1 MP-GNT-Lite . 258 5.5.2 GNTF-Lite . 260 V Evaluation 263 6 Defending Gregory’s Account 265 6.1 The Formal Adequacy of Gregory’s Account . 266 6.2 Semantic Objections . 273 6.3 Metaphysical Objections . 287 6.4 Theological Objections . 291 6.5 Final Conclusion . 307 Appendices 313 Appendix A: Appendix of Proofs 313 A.1 Ohomoousion ..............................315 A.2 NE*E . 316 A.3 E*Lemma ................................317 A.4 EUnique ................................318 A.5 Σ*8 ..................................320 A.6 P7GNT-EQ ...............................322 A.7 φGNTα 6j= α=t i for any t i such that t i 6= α . 323 Appendix B: Summary of GNTF 325 Bibliography 337 ix Acknowledgments I would like most especially to acknowledge my advisor, Richard Cross. Despite a bachelor’s in Classics and a strong interest in patristics, I originally came to Notre Dame thinking I would focus only on logic and contemporary analytic metaphysics. I knew that there was a lot of very serious philosophical thought going on in many of the church fathers, and I felt that it deserved careful attention from philosophers and that it was mostly obscured in bad (when even existent) English translations. But I couldn’t imagine how to bring them into conversation with current analytic philosophy and never thought I would be the man for that job in any case. That is, until reading Richard’s careful analysis of Gregory of Nyssa’s theory of universals several years ago showed me an example of how one might give the church fathers exactly the kind of careful philosophical analysis I felt they deserved. It was his work that originally inspired me to do my dissertation on the Trinity and to take it in the historical direction I’ve taken it in. It was only after I had already begun the dissertation that fate would bring him to Notre Dame and allow me to finish it under his direction. Even when critical, his advice and feedback along the way has been consistently helpful and encouraging, both of which qualities are absolutely essential when slogging through the difficult work of one’s dissertation. The dissertation was originally begun under Mike Rea, and although he was ultimately unable to be on my committee, I owe him a great deal of gratitude for his feedback during the initial stages of the dissertation. Much of the material that has ultimately made it in was originally written while he was director, and a great deal more was ultimately not incorporated into the final version. I thank him for his monumental efforts in reading through and commenting on this massive amount of material and for consistently forcing me to state my positions and arguments more clearly and precisely and to answer certain questions I had not considered. I really would not have had anything interesting to say about methodology at all were it not for him challenging me to clarify and distill my views on that issue. Finally, I thank him for ultimately being gracious enough to allow me to change advisors to Richard after he came to Notre Dame and it seemed to make more sense. I’m also extremely thankful to Fritz Warfield for taking Mike’s place as a reader at my defense at the last minute, when scheduling problems made it difficult for Mike, who was on leave. Peter van Inwagen was the main reason I wanted to come to Notre Dame in the first place.
Recommended publications
  • Durham E-Theses

    Durham E-Theses

    Durham E-Theses The Christology of nestorius and the chalcedonian settlement Fletcher, Stanley P. How to cite: Fletcher, Stanley P. (1972) The Christology of nestorius and the chalcedonian settlement, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/9976/ 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 THE REVEREND STANLEY P. FLETCHER, B.A. THE CHRISTOLOGY OP NESTORIUS AND THE CHALCEDONIAN SETTLEMENT A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN THE UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without his prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. THE GHRISTOLOGY OF NESTORIUS AND THE CHALCEDONIAN SETTLEMENT - ABSTRACT The assessment of Nestorius1 Christology begins with a consideration of his indebtedness to Paul of Samosata, Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia.
  • "Breaking Ground" a Look at the Impact of the Cappadocian Fathers on the Establishment of the Doctrine of the Holy

    "Breaking Ground" a Look at the Impact of the Cappadocian Fathers on the Establishment of the Doctrine of the Holy

    Verbum Volume 7 Issue 1 Article 11 December 2009 "Breaking Ground" A look at the Impact of the Cappadocian Fathers on the Establishment of the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit During the Transition Between the Council of Nigeria (325) and the Council of Constantinople (381). Frederick J. Flo St. John Fisher College Follow this and additional works at: https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/verbum Part of the Religion Commons How has open access to Fisher Digital Publications benefited ou?y Recommended Citation Flo, Frederick J. (2009) ""Breaking Ground" A look at the Impact of the Cappadocian Fathers on the Establishment of the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit During the Transition Between the Council of Nigeria (325) and the Council of Constantinople (381).," Verbum: Vol. 7 : Iss. 1 , Article 11. Available at: https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/verbum/vol7/iss1/11 This document is posted at https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/verbum/vol7/iss1/11 and is brought to you for free and open access by Fisher Digital Publications at St. John Fisher College. For more information, please contact [email protected]. "Breaking Ground" A look at the Impact of the Cappadocian Fathers on the Establishment of the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit During the Transition Between the Council of Nigeria (325) and the Council of Constantinople (381). Abstract In lieu of an abstract, below is the essay's first paragraph. "At the center of Christian dogma lies the worship of the Holy Trinity. Naturally, with every central focus comes controversy. Throughout history, the interpretation of the Trinity has created a tremendous amount of debate.
  • Chapter 1 the Trinity in the Theology of Jürgen Moltmann

    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’.................................................................
  • Johann Gerhard, the Socinians, and Modern Rejections of Substitutionary Atonement Jack D

    Johann Gerhard, the Socinians, and Modern Rejections of Substitutionary Atonement Jack D

    CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Volume 82:1–2 January/April 2018 Table of Contents Is Law Intrinsic to God’s Essence? David P. Scaer ................................................................................................... 3 Johann Gerhard, the Socinians, and Modern Rejections of Substitutionary Atonement Jack D. Kilcrease ............................................................................................. 19 Luther on Vocation and Baptism: A Correction to Charismatic and Situational Ways of Discerning God’s Call Benjamin T. G. Mayes ................................................................................... 45 Paradise Regained: Placing Nicholas Hopman’s Lex Aeterna Back in Luther’s Frame Nathan Rinne .................................................................................................. 65 The Theology of the Cross and the Lutheran Confessions Andrew J. Preus .............................................................................................. 83 The Catholic Paul: Allegory and Perspicuity in Irenaeus’s Reading of Scripture James G. Bushur ........................................................................................... 105 God Is My Strength and My Song: History and Practice of Old Testament Canticles Andrew Gerike .............................................................................................. 127 2 Concordia Theological Quarterly 82 (2018) Research Notes ...........................................................................................................
  • Getting Back to Idolatry Critique: Kingdom, Kin-Dom, and the Triune

    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.
  • The Trinitarian Ecclesiology of Thomas F. Torrance

    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.
  • The Importance of Athanasius and the Views of His Character

    The Importance of Athanasius and the Views of His Character

    The Importance of Athanasius and the Views of His Character J. Steven Davis Submitted to Dr. Jerry Sutton School of Divinity Liberty University September 19, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I: Research Proposal Abstract .............................................................................................................................11 Background ......................................................................................................................11 Limitations ........................................................................................................................18 Method of Research .........................................................................................................19 Thesis Statement ..............................................................................................................21 Outline ...............................................................................................................................21 Bibliography .....................................................................................................................27 Chapter II: Background of Athanasius An Influential Figure .......................................................................................................33 Early Life ..........................................................................................................................33 Arian Conflict ...................................................................................................................36
  • 1 Trinity, Filioque and Semantic Ascent Christians Believe That The

    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.
  • Liberty and Religion, the First Century of the British And

    Liberty and Religion, the First Century of the British And

    LIBERTYAND THE FIRST CENTURY OF THE BRITISH & FOREIGN UNITARIAN ASSOCIATION BY SYDNEY HERBERT MELLONE 'c, M.A., D.%. Secretary of the Associatiow THE LINDSEY PRESS www.unitarian.org.uWdocs 5 ESSEX STREET, STRAND, >LONDON, W.C. 2 1925 CONTENTS CHAPTER I PAGE ENGLANDIN 1825 . i CHAPTER I1 MOVEMENTSBEFORE 1825 . CHAPTER I11 FOUNDATIONAND CONSTITUTION. CHAPTER IV WORKAMID ANXIETY. C CHAPTER V WIDENINGSYMPATHIES AND HOPES CHAPTER V1 ORGANISEDWORK TO 1890 . CHAPTER V11 ORGANISEDWORK . EXTENDED, 1890-rgoz CHAPTER V111 THE NEW CENTURY,1902-1925 CHAPTER IX RELIGIOUSCONDITIONS IN 1925 Printed in Great Britain by ELSOM& CO. LTD., BULL PREFACE This book dealing with the first century of the British and Foreign Unitarian Association, has been prepared by authority of the Executive Committee of the Association. It is based on an exhaustive study of the successive Annual Reports of the Asso- ciation since its foundation in 1825, and of other relevant documents. The author wishes to make cordial acknowledgement of the assistance given by the Rev. W. G. Tarrant, B.A., member of the Exe- cutive Committee since 1887, and the Rev. W. Copeland Bowie, D.D., Secretary from 1892 to 1921, who have read the whole of the proofs and made many valuable suggestions which have been embodied in the book. S. H, MELLONE. ENGLAND IN 1825 HE condition of England during the first T quarter of the nineteenth century, re- garded from the outside, gave little ground for any hopeful view of the coming years. Neither the political nor the economic order was adapted to the changes which were taking place under the eyes of men.
  • The Role of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Theology of Stanley J

    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.
  • Monarchy-Louvain 4

    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.
  • Palamism in the Twentieth Century

    Palamism in the Twentieth Century

    Palamism in the Twentieth Century An Examination of the Essence/Energies Distinction in Vladimir Lossky, Kallistos Ware and Dumitru Staniloae Jonas Eklund Supervisor Professor Gösta Hallonsten This Master’s Thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the MA degree at MF Norwegian School of Theology, 2017, autumn, in collaboration with the Newman Institute, Uppsala, Sweden AVH5010: Master's Thesis (60 ECTS) Master of Theology 43 726 words ABSTRACT This Master’s thesis will explicate, analyse and discuss the Orthodox doctrine of the essence/energies distinction in three prominent 20th century theologians, namely, Vladimir Lossky, Kallistos Ware and Dumitru Staniloae. This is urgent because of the central position this doctrine occupies in contemporary Orthodoxy, together with the lack of precision one usually encounters when references are made to this distinction. Methodologically, it will proceed by a careful reading of primary sources in order to explicate and clarify, in each theologian, the most important lines of thought concerning the essence/energies distinction. It will also explicate details which may affect, elucidate, or even put into question, these major lines of thought. As secondary sources, other Orthodox theologians as well as Greek Church fathers will be consulted. Lossky and Staniloae, respectively, present rather clear visions about the relationship between God’s essence and energies. As it turns out their positions are quite far from each other and, at some points, even incommensurable. Ware, on the other hand, affirms traditional and contemporary formulations, yet without providing any clear definition of his own opinion. As regards God’s energies towards creation, the opinions of the three theologians are pretty close; but regarding God’s eternal energies, their differences become apparent.