Andrew Radde-Gallwitz
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- January 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199574117
- eISBN:
- 9780191722110
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199574117.001.0001
- Subject:
- Religion, Early Christian Studies, Theology
Divine simplicity is the idea that, as the ultimate principle of the universe, God must be a non‐composite unity not made up of parts or diverse attributes. The idea was appropriated by early ...
More
Divine simplicity is the idea that, as the ultimate principle of the universe, God must be a non‐composite unity not made up of parts or diverse attributes. The idea was appropriated by early Christian theologians from non‐Christian philosophy and played a pivotal role in the development of Christian thought. Andrew Radde‐Gallwitz charts the progress of the idea of divine simplicity from the second through the fourth centuries, with particular attention to Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nyssa, two of the most subtle writers on this topic, both instrumental in the construction of the Trinitarian doctrine proclaimed as orthodox at the Council of Constantinople in 381. He demonstrates that divine simplicity was not a philosophical appendage awkwardly attached to the early Christian doctrine of God, but a notion that enabled Christians to articulate the consistency of God as portrayed in their scriptures. Basil and Gregory offered a unique construal of simplicity in responding to their principal doctrinal opponent, Eunomius of Cyzicus. Challenging accepted interpretations of Cappadocian brothers and the standard account of divine simplicity in recent philosophical literature, Radde‐Gallwitz argues that Basil and Gregory's achievement in transforming ideas inherited from the non‐Christian philosophy of their time has an ongoing relevance for Christian theological epistemology today.Less
Divine simplicity is the idea that, as the ultimate principle of the universe, God must be a non‐composite unity not made up of parts or diverse attributes. The idea was appropriated by early Christian theologians from non‐Christian philosophy and played a pivotal role in the development of Christian thought. Andrew Radde‐Gallwitz charts the progress of the idea of divine simplicity from the second through the fourth centuries, with particular attention to Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nyssa, two of the most subtle writers on this topic, both instrumental in the construction of the Trinitarian doctrine proclaimed as orthodox at the Council of Constantinople in 381. He demonstrates that divine simplicity was not a philosophical appendage awkwardly attached to the early Christian doctrine of God, but a notion that enabled Christians to articulate the consistency of God as portrayed in their scriptures. Basil and Gregory offered a unique construal of simplicity in responding to their principal doctrinal opponent, Eunomius of Cyzicus. Challenging accepted interpretations of Cappadocian brothers and the standard account of divine simplicity in recent philosophical literature, Radde‐Gallwitz argues that Basil and Gregory's achievement in transforming ideas inherited from the non‐Christian philosophy of their time has an ongoing relevance for Christian theological epistemology today.
Andrew Radde‐Gallwitz
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- January 2010
- ISBN:
- 9780199574117
- eISBN:
- 9780191722110
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199574117.003.0002
- Subject:
- Religion, Early Christian Studies, Theology
Chapter 1 focuses on the role divine simplicity played in the debates surrounding Marcion of Sinope, the second‐century theologian who distinguished the God of the Old Testament from the God of the ...
More
Chapter 1 focuses on the role divine simplicity played in the debates surrounding Marcion of Sinope, the second‐century theologian who distinguished the God of the Old Testament from the God of the New. After reviewing the responses to Marcion offered by Tertullian and Irenaeus of Lyons, particular attention is given to Ptolemaeus Gnosticus (Ptolemy), who like the others sought to avoid attributing contradictory motives to God. Ptolemy achieved this by distinguishing between a first God, who is simple and uninvolved with creation, and a second God, who is complex and involved with matter and the created order. The chapter engages a commonplace modern objection to divine simplicity, that the idea is incompatible with the biblical portrayal of God as active in the world. It notes that ancient theologians like Ptolemy had resources for responding to this that are no longer available. Ptolemy could distinguish a first God and second, active God. Most importantly, however, Ptolemy and the modern objector agree that simplicity is inconsistent with activity. It is left to subsequent chapters to demonstrate how Basil and Gregory reject this assumption without falling into contradiction.Less
Chapter 1 focuses on the role divine simplicity played in the debates surrounding Marcion of Sinope, the second‐century theologian who distinguished the God of the Old Testament from the God of the New. After reviewing the responses to Marcion offered by Tertullian and Irenaeus of Lyons, particular attention is given to Ptolemaeus Gnosticus (Ptolemy), who like the others sought to avoid attributing contradictory motives to God. Ptolemy achieved this by distinguishing between a first God, who is simple and uninvolved with creation, and a second God, who is complex and involved with matter and the created order. The chapter engages a commonplace modern objection to divine simplicity, that the idea is incompatible with the biblical portrayal of God as active in the world. It notes that ancient theologians like Ptolemy had resources for responding to this that are no longer available. Ptolemy could distinguish a first God and second, active God. Most importantly, however, Ptolemy and the modern objector agree that simplicity is inconsistent with activity. It is left to subsequent chapters to demonstrate how Basil and Gregory reject this assumption without falling into contradiction.
