In Defense of Conciliar Christology e-bog
875,33 DKK
(inkl. moms 1094,16 DKK)
This work presents a historically informed, systematic exposition of the Christology of the first seven Ecumenical Councils of undivided Christendom, from the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD to the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 AD. Assuming the truth of Conciliar Christology for the sake of argument, Timothy Pawl considers whether there are good philosophical arguments that show a contradic...
E-bog
875,33 DKK
Forlag
OUP Oxford
Udgivet
10 marts 2016
Længde
288 sider
Genrer
HPJ
Sprog
English
Format
epub
Beskyttelse
LCP
ISBN
9780191078484
This work presents a historically informed, systematic exposition of the Christology of the first seven Ecumenical Councils of undivided Christendom, from the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD to the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 AD. Assuming the truth of Conciliar Christology for the sake of argument, Timothy Pawl considers whether there are good philosophical arguments that show a contradiction or incoherence in that doctrine. He presents the definitions ofimportant terms in the debate and a helpful metaphysics for understanding the incarnation. In Defense of Conciliar Christology discusses three types of philosophical objections to Conciliar Christology. Firstly, it highlights the fundamental philosophical problem facing Christologyhow can one thing be both God and man, when anything deserving to be called "e;God"e; must have certain attributes, and yet it seems that nothing that can aptly be called "e;man"e; can have those same attributes? It then considers the argument that if the Second Person of the Holy Trinity wereimmutable or atemporal, as Conciliar Christology requires, then that Person could not become anything, and thus could not become man. Finally, Pawl addresses the objection that if there is a single Christ then there is a single nature or will in Christ. However, if that conditional is true, then Conciliar Christologyis false, since it affirms the antecedent of the conditional to be true, but denies the truth of the consequent. Pawl defends Conciliar Christology against these charges, arguing that all three philosophical objections fail to show Conciliar Christology inconsistent or incoherent.