Abstract
In Peri Archōn 4.4.1, Origen argues against a form of ‘Arianism’ ante litteram. Previous scholarship has suggested that the view targeted by Origen could be a form of Basilidean system. In ...this paper, I make a fresh attempt to identify the polemical context of this passage. I first identify a more reliable control for delimiting the possible targets using Origen’s classification of heresies reported in Pamphilus’ Apology and Book 32 of the Commentary on John. Synthesis of the two reports suggests that Origen is unlikely to have targeted Basilides’ teachings in Peri Archōn 4.4.1. I then analyse two further pieces of evidence to substantiate an alternative identification: psilanthropism or monarchianism. Where Origen explicitly rejects ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν (or variants), one finds these two positions as the immediate polemical context. Further, analysis of Peri Archōn 1.2.1–4 reveals that, as in Peri Archōn 4.4.1, these positions are placed alongside Valentinian emanationism as the twin polemical targets of Origen’s Christology. This fresh identification opens up a new perspective for reassessing the development of the fourth-century ‘Arian’ controversy prospectively, that is, through the lens of the third-century polemical landscape.
Origen is the first Christian who proposed a systematically Trinitarian theology of love. This has largely escaped the attention of theologians and remains underexplored. One notable consequence is ...that this has severely limited our appreciation of Origen as a significant interlocutor for contemporary theology since the Trinity as love is arguably the most significant theme that shaped the development of modern Trinitarian theology in the twentieth century. This essay addresses this lacuna by offering a reconstruction of Origen’s Trinitarian theology of love. What will emerge is a grammar of love that sets out the meaning of the term with reference to all three divine hypostaseis, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Furthermore, Origen’s Trinitarian understanding of love is bound up with his vision of human deification understood as incorporation into the Triune fellowship of love. At the heart of Origen’s approach is a crucial distinction from 1 John: the Father as he agapē (1 John 4:8) and the Son as he agapē ek tou theou (1 John 4:7). This distinction captures Origen’s understanding of the Father‐Son relation and emerges from close attention to the Johannine language of sonship as ek tou theou. This central observation urges a reassessment of subordinationism as a characterisation of Origen’s Trinitarian thought. I argue that it is more appropriate instead to speak of Origen’s Johannine theology of sonship.
The paper presents a program to construct a non-relativistic relational Bohmian theory, that is, a theory of
N
moving point-like particles that dispenses with space and time as fundamental background ...structures. The relational program proposed is based on the best-matching framework originally developed by Julian Barbour. In particular, the paper focuses on the conceptual problems that arise when trying to implement such a program. It is argued that pursuing a relational strategy in the Bohmian context leads to a more parsimonious ontology than that of standard Bohmian mechanics without betraying the original motivations for adopting a primitive ontology approach to quantum physics. It is also shown how a relational Bohmian approach might clarify the issue of the timelessness of the dynamics resulting from the quantization of a classical relational system of particles.
This article reconsiders the relationship between divine simplicity and trinitarian theology based on historical and systematic grounds. I first show that in its early emergence, simplicity was not ...understood as posing intuitive incompatibilities with the development of trinitarian language. This provides good reason to question the assumption that incompatibility of this kind exists between simplicity and Trinity. I then argue that simplicity deeply enriches the doxological dimension of trinitarian theology. Divine simplicity forces us into the habit of questioning our understanding of the Trinity based on concepts that we are familiar with. As a result, it magnifies our sense of the Trinity's ‘super‐abundant richness’. I conclude that trinitarian theology will lose a great deal of its doxological potential if we give up the doctrine of divine simplicity.
Patristic ressourcement is a style of twentieth‐century theology that attempts to retrieve and re‐appropriate the classical sources of theology in the patristic period for the present. Its goal is ...thus always beyond a mere curiosity in historical reality. Its historical engagement is rather driven by the desire to make classical theology ‘alive’ in the present. Such a goal raises a serious question about the nature of historical scholarship carried out in this style of theology: what kind of historical understanding is presupposed by the theologians working in this style? Two recent books have documented the nature of patristic engagement found in two theologians who arguably worked within this style: T. F. Torrance (1913–2007) and Georges Florovsky (1893–1979). This review essay highlights the salient features in these books that provide substantial insights on the question of historical understanding in patristic ressourcement. Because each book carries out a distinct method to understand this style of patristic scholarship, I shall also offer some comments on the merits and limitations of each approach for studying and evaluating the nature of historical understanding in patristic ressourcement.
Patristic ressourcement is a style of twentieth‐century theology that attempts to retrieve and re‐appropriate the classical sources of theology in the patristic period for the present. Its goal is ...thus always beyond a mere curiosity in historical reality. Its historical engagement is rather driven by the desire to make classical theology ‘alive’ in the present. Such a goal raises a serious question about the nature of historical scholarship carried out in this style of theology: what kind of historical understanding is presupposed by the theologians working in this style? Two recent books have documented the nature of patristic engagement found in two theologians who arguably worked within this style: T. F. Torrance (1913–2007) and Georges Florovsky (1893–1979). This review essay highlights the salient features in these books that provide substantial insights on the question of historical understanding in patristic ressourcement. Because each book carries out a distinct method to understand this style of patristic scholarship, I shall also offer some comments on the merits and limitations of each approach for studying and evaluating the nature of historical understanding in patristic ressourcement.
The paper presents a program to construct a non-relativistic relational Bohmian theory, that is, a theory of \(N\) moving point-like particles that dispenses with space and time as fundamental ...background structures. The relational program proposed is based on the best-matching framework originally developed by Julian Barbour. In particular, the paper focuses on the conceptual problems that arise when trying to implement such a program. It is argued that pursuing a relational strategy in the Bohmian context leads to a more parsimonious ontology than that of standard Bohmian mechanics without betraying the original motivations for adopting a primitive ontology approach to quantum physics. It is also shown how a relational Bohmian approach might clarify the issue of the timelessness of the dynamics resulting from the quantization of a classical relational system of particles.
This study traces the first steps of how divine simplicity entered into Christian Trinitarian discourse. It is the burden of this thesis to demonstrate that divine simplicity emerged in the ...ante-Nicene period with a distinctive status quaestionis concerning (a) the meaning of the doctrine, and (b) its function in reflections on the Father-Son relation. The first part argues that simplicity emerged in the ante-Nicene period with two possible trajectories of interpretation, anticipated by Plato’s Republic and Phaedo respectively. In the apologists, divine simplicity emerged as a purely metaphysical doctrine. However, a richer interpretation of the doctrine is also available in ante-Nicene theology, as exemplified in Origen’s understanding of divine simplicity as a metaphysical-ethical synthesis, meaning that (a) God’s nature is perfectly incorruptible, and (b) God’s character is perfectly free from contradictions. The second part argues that divine simplicity acquired a role in ante-Nicene reflections on the Father-Son relation within two significant ante-Nicene contexts: (a) polemic against Valentinian emanation (prolatio/probolē) and (b) polemic against Monarchianism. The genius of Origen is to utilise divine simplicity for avoiding the Monarchian identification between the Father and Son on the one hand, and the Valentinian separation between the Father and Son on the other. Consequently, we find the surprising conclusion that divine simplicity serves as a principle of differentiation as well as unity between the Father and Son. This thesis raises new questions for both modern theologians and patristic specialists. For modern theologians, the ante-Nicene developments suggest the Son’s generation as a fruitful site for further analysis on the relation between divine simplicity and Trinitarian theology. For patristic specialists, ante-Nicene developments highlight the need to account for the transition from the ante-Nicene to the post-Nicene status quaestionis: how did divine simplicity change from being attributed to the Father (ante-Nicene) to being attributed to the divine essence (post-Nicene)?
PDF
