Durham E-Theses Man's creation and salvation according to George V. Florovsky Kunkel, Christoph Georg Friedrich How to cite: Kunkel, Christoph Georg Friedrich (1982) Man's creation and salvation according to George V. Florovsky, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/7682/ 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 CHRISTOPH KUNKEL Man!s Creation and Salvation according to George V. Florovsky The task of the thesis is to systematize the doctrine of the creation and the salvation of man as presented in the essays of one of the most important Orthodox theologians: George V. Florovsky (1893 - 1979). The doctrine of creation is the presupposition for Florovsky's whole theology, for it lays down the basics . and foundations of all other doctrines. Creation implies (first of all) the categories of space and time for created beings in distinction with the divine mode of existence. These two different modes of existence imply, on the one hand, the reality of creaturely freedom and its consequences (the Fall, sin, evil and freedom of choice), and on the other, the divine freedom to create, which for Florovsky necessitates the distinction in God between the divine being and the divine energies. While the first part of the doctrine of creation is concerned with the distinguishing principle between God and man, i.e. 'nature', the second part deals with the personal aspect of this relationship, which is the doctrine of theosis. The doctrine of the salvation of man is constructed in the same way as the doctrine of creation, i.e. according to the distinction between nature and person. Thus, Christology is concerned with the healing of human nature, which is ultimately the abolition of mortality. Ecclesiology is the doctrine concerning the salvation of the human person. Being the body of Christ, the church is the realm for this salvation, for it is the church which offers the divine means of salvation, the sacraments of baptism and the eucharist. In conclusion, a critical assessment of Florovsky's doctrine considers his fundamental distinction between nature and person from a Lutheran perspective. Man's Creation and Salvation according to George V. Florovsky Christoph Georg Priedrich Kiinkel submitted for the degree of Master of Arts to the University of Durham Faculty of Divinity 1 January 1982 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. No material contained in the thesis has previously been submitted for a degree in this or any other university. 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. - 5 - Table of Contents Preface 6 Chapter 1: The Doctrine of Creation A The Rejection of the Greek Cosmology 10 B Creation is Contingent 14 1. Two basic statements i4 2. The world might not have existed at all - Anthropology l^J 2.1. Mutability - Immutability 14 2.2. The world has a beginning, yet no end 20 2.3. Time and. eternity: two different modes of existence 21 2.4. Creaturely Freedom 22 2.4.1. The real freedom 23 2.4.2. The freedom of choice 21) 2.4.2.1. The Pall 24 2.4.2.2. The problem of evil ' 25 2.4.2.3- Freedom of choice - the disfigured freedom 35 2.4.2.3-1- Peccatum originale and nature J>6 2.4.2.3.2. Sin and person 37 2.5. The world is contingent - conclusions 40 3. God could not have created at all - the doctrine of God 4l 3.1. God is free - the distinction between nature and energy ... 41 3.2. The divine energies 48 3.3. God is the free Creator - conclusions 50 C The Doctrine of Theosis 51 1. Synergy between man and God 51 2. Man's ascetic achievements 55 3. Union of God and Man: theosis 58 4. Conclusions £>4 D Cur deus homo? 68 E The Doctrine of Creation - conclusion 70 - 4 - Chapter II: The Salvation of Man A The Salvation of Human Nature - Christology Jk 1. God's response to the misery of man 74 2. God became man 77 3. The passion and death of Christ 82 4. Christ, the redeemer - soteriology 86 4.1. The three redeeming works of Christ 86 4.2, The abolition of human death 89 4.2.1. The doctrine of human death 89 4.2.1.1. The definition of death .* 90 4.2.1.2. Human nature as 6omposition of soul and body 91 4.2.1.3. Man's death 93 4.2.2. Christ's descent into Hell 95 5. Conclusions 98 B The salvation of the Christian person - Ecclesiology 100 1. The problem 100 2. The church as the realm for salvation 101 3. History as the framework for the possibility of the salvation of the human person 107 4. The sacraments as the divine means for the salvation 108 4.1. What is a sacrament? 109 4.-i2. The sacrament of baptism 109 4.3- The sacrament of the eucharist 113 4.4. Christ, the one sacrament 115 5. Conclusions 116 C The Christian Hope - conclusions 117 - 5 - Chapter III: A Critical Assessment of Florovsky's Doctrine 1. The construction of Florovsky's doctrine of man 120 2. The importance of the distinction between 'nature' and 'person' in Florovsky's doctrine 122 3. The distinction between the divine nature (being) and the divine energies (act) 124 3.1. The unknowability of God's being - a criticism of apophatic theology 126 J.2. Freedom of God and certainty of faith 129 3-3- Conclusions 133 4. The distinction between the human nature (being) and the the human person (act) 133 4.1. The necessity for the distinction 133 4.2. Grace and sin, and the distinction between nature and person .135 4.3. Conclusions 137 5. The distinction between 'nature' and 'person' - An Ecumenical task 138 Notes 141 Bibliography 180 - 6 - Preface The ultimate reason for the existence of this study originates in several talks about Orthodoxy with Father George Dragas and a rather controversial systematic seminar about Florovsky's essay 'The Resurrection of Life'. Due to these discussions I became interested in Orthodox theology and - encouraged by Father Dragas - decided to give some of my time to a more detailed study of this theology, which seems to be rather unknown in the West. Father George Florovsky is commonly regarded as one of the greatest contemporary Orthodox Theologians and I decided to work on his theology, concentrating on his doctrine about man, because most of his important theological works have been published in English. Before discussing Florovsky's theology I want to give a brief biography of this Orthodox theologian. Born on the 28.8.1893 as the fourth and youngest child to the Orthodox priest V. A. Florovsky and his wife C. Georgievny, Georges Vasilievich Florovsky was an Assistant Professor at the University of Odessa for philosophy from 1919-1920. Because of the Civil War he left Russia in January 1920 and became a member of the Russian Academia Collegium in Prague (1921), where he lectured in philosophy of law until 1926. From 1926-1948 he held the Chair for Patristics in the Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris. It was from the very beginning of this time that Florovsky got involved in the ecumenical movement, being one of the leading Orthodox theologians at several meetings of the World Council of Churches. In 1948 Florovsky went to the USA to become Professor of Theology in St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary in New York City and held this post until 1955* being simultaneously Adjunct Professor for History and Theology of Eastern Orthodoxy at the Union Theological Seminary. From 1956 until 1964 Florovsky held the Chair of Eastern Church History at Harvard University and finally taught Slavic Studies at Princeton University as Professor Emeritus until he died on the 11.9.1979 in Princeton, New Jersey. Being an Orthodox Priest since 1932, Florovsky always tried to combine his wide ranging academic skills with his personal faith, which is obvious if one reads some of his sermons as well as his essays. Being more a historian than a systematic theologian, he is regarded as a conservative Orthodox theologian, who asked for a return 'back to the Fathers'. Though he never really clarified in a systematic way what he wanted theology to be he asked for a "neopatristic synthesis""'", which attempts to combine - 7 - the theology of the theologians of the Orthodox tradition with contemporary questions, although the patristic theology had to have its clear preeminence over modern attempts. This becomes clear if one reads only some of Florovsky's essays.