Substance and Person in Tertullian and Augustine

The doctrine of the Trinity has been a focal point of Christian thinking throughout Church history. While the term “Trinity” does not appear in the biblical text, it is still a vital Christian doctrine. The doctrine, however, has not come without controversy. Various understandings of the doctrine have been presented throughout Church history. Tertullian (ca. 160-220 AD) and Augustine (354-430 AD) represent two of the foremost theologians to discuss the issue. Tertullian was one of the first to thoroughly examine the doctrine. He coined the terms “substance” and “person” in his discussion of the doctrine. These terms would come to have a lasting impact on Christian theology. The council of Nicaea would show this commitment to Tertullian’s distinctions. Augustine also reflects his debt to Tertullian’s ingenuity yet makes significant moves to further develop the doctrine. Each of the theologians wrote in a particular context challenging the heretics of their day. They used biblical argumentation and their own philosophical commitments to present their understanding of the doctrine. This paper examines Tertullian’s use of the terms and then compares and contrasts them with Augustine’s use

The paradox of ineffability

Saying that x is ineffable seems to be paradoxical – either I cannot say anything about x, not even that it is ineffable – or I can say that it is ineffable, but then I can say something and it is not ineffable. In this article, I discuss Alston’s version of the paradox and a solution proposed by Hick which employs the concept of formal and substantial predicates. I reject Hick’s proposal and develop a different account based on some passages from Pseudo-Dionysius’ Mystica Theologia. ‘God is ineffable’ is a metalinguistic statement concerning propositions about God: not all propositions about God are expressible in a human language

The Pada-Yatra of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu

The word pada-yatra literally means to walk on foot. In early India people used to travel by chariot, horseback, elephant, bullock-cart, or palanquin. But saintly persons, having renounced such worldly comforts, would travel by foot. Their main concern was to teach the glories of God to the conditioned living entities and thereby deliver them from their miserable materialistic lives. Walking was the best means of contacting the common people and accomplishing that goal. When Lord Chaitanya took sannyas - the renounced order of life - He travelled throughout India on foot. First He went from Bengal to Jagannatha Puri in Orissa and then He toured South India on foot of course. At that South India was seriously influenced by impersonalism, and the people in general had deviated from the path of devotion to the Lord. Love of God is the source of real happiness, and when one abandons that loving relationship with God, he suffers. Lord Chaitanya wanted to deliver the conditioned souls plunged in the absolute misery of that impersonalism. In order to reinstate them as devotees of the Lord, Sri Chaitanya went personally to South India. Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is none other than the Supreme Personality of God-head who appeared as a devotee to teach the science of devotion - the only means of deliverance from material bondage. When the Lord performs any ac-tion, its effects are wonderful; similarly, when He directs His devotees to do anything, their result will also be wonderful. Lord Chaitanya's deliverance of South India stands as a proof that He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead in the guise of a devotee. ..

Relations in the Trinitarian Reality: Two approaches

The Greek model of the Trinity, based on the Theological Orations of Gregory of Nazianzus, treats the Trinitarian relations as connections between the Father and the two other persons: the Son and the Holy Spirit. The two relations have to be heteronymous, and have to be interpreted from the extreme realistic position. The Latin Trinitarian model, based on Boethius’ De Trinitate, treats relations as three subsistent persons. The relations have to be unidirectional: from the Father to the Son, and from both of them to the Holy Spirit. Both models are adequate and effective, but incompatible. One of the consequences of this incompatibility is the problem of filioque: the introduction of an additional relation of procession into the Greek model as well as the exclusion of this relation from the Latin model result in the inadequacy of the models. From the point of view of the complementability of a model, the Greek model allows introduction of new elements, while the Latin model does not. The soteriological consequences are such that the Greek model welcomes a human person to establish a unique relation with the person of the Father, which leads to the theosis of a creature. The Latin model requires the saving relation to be established with the whole Trinity, and theosis is not supported

Complexity, Consonance, and the Concept of God

Complexity theory has much explanatory power in the scientific community today. The author finds that its bottom-up methodology and some of its concepts can facilitate new understandings of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity

Inherence and Denomination in the Trinity

The present paper describes an ”ontological square’ mapping possible ways of combining the domains and converse domains of the relations of inherence and denomination. In the context of expounding and extending medieval appropriations of elements drawn from Aristotle’s Categories for theological purposes, the paper uses this square to examine different ways of defining Substance-terms and Accident-terms by reference to inherence and denomination within the constraints imposed by the doctrine of the Trinity. These different approaches are related to particular texts of thinkers including Bonaventure and Gilbert of Poitiers

The divine sympathy: an essay on kenotic Christology

Not availabl