Discovery of the Sixth Ecumenical Council’s Trinitarian Theology

S. Williams
{"title":"Discovery of the Sixth Ecumenical Council’s Trinitarian Theology","authors":"S. Williams","doi":"10.12978/jat.2022-10.180219220818","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For decades now some Christian theologians, and some philosophers of religion, have labored at distinguishing Social Trinitarianism and non-Social Trinitarianism. Many have revised their models of the Trinity in light of counter-arguments or counter-evidence. For Christian theologians, or philosophers of religion, what counts as a good counter-argument or counter-evidence may (but need not) depend on respected theological authorities. Recently, some focus has been paid to what is called Conciliar Trinitarianism, which is the name for whatever is endorsed by, or rejected by, the first seven ecumenical councils regarding the Trinity. For those who respect these ecumenical councils as authoritative (to some extent), it would be useful to get a clearer understanding of Conciliar Trinitarianism in order to assist in evaluating contemporary models of the Trinity. In what follows I argue that the Sixth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople III, in 680-681ce) made important contributions, and clarifications (for the contemporary reader), to Conciliar Trinitarianism. Surprisingly, there is no secondary literature regarding these contributions. So, the historical evidence given in this article is evidence that almost nobody has been aware of - apart from the editors of the critical edition of the Acts of Constantinople III. After having made the historical case, I discuss the implications of Constantinople III for (i) our understanding of the place of the Pseudo-Athanasian creed in Trinitarian speculation, (ii) standard narratives about the division between Greek and Latin Trinitarian theology, and (iii) contemporary models of the Trinity.","PeriodicalId":14947,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Analytic Theology","volume":"2016 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Analytic Theology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12978/jat.2022-10.180219220818","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

For decades now some Christian theologians, and some philosophers of religion, have labored at distinguishing Social Trinitarianism and non-Social Trinitarianism. Many have revised their models of the Trinity in light of counter-arguments or counter-evidence. For Christian theologians, or philosophers of religion, what counts as a good counter-argument or counter-evidence may (but need not) depend on respected theological authorities. Recently, some focus has been paid to what is called Conciliar Trinitarianism, which is the name for whatever is endorsed by, or rejected by, the first seven ecumenical councils regarding the Trinity. For those who respect these ecumenical councils as authoritative (to some extent), it would be useful to get a clearer understanding of Conciliar Trinitarianism in order to assist in evaluating contemporary models of the Trinity. In what follows I argue that the Sixth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople III, in 680-681ce) made important contributions, and clarifications (for the contemporary reader), to Conciliar Trinitarianism. Surprisingly, there is no secondary literature regarding these contributions. So, the historical evidence given in this article is evidence that almost nobody has been aware of - apart from the editors of the critical edition of the Acts of Constantinople III. After having made the historical case, I discuss the implications of Constantinople III for (i) our understanding of the place of the Pseudo-Athanasian creed in Trinitarian speculation, (ii) standard narratives about the division between Greek and Latin Trinitarian theology, and (iii) contemporary models of the Trinity.
第六次大公会议三位一体神学的发现
几十年来,一些基督教神学家和一些宗教哲学家一直在努力区分社会三位一体论和非社会三位一体论。许多人根据反论点或反证据修改了他们的三位一体模型。对于基督教神学家或宗教哲学家来说,一个好的反论证或反证据可能(但不一定)取决于受人尊敬的神学权威。最近,人们开始关注所谓的大公会议三位一体论,它指的是关于三位一体的前七次大公会议所赞同或反对的观点。对于那些尊重这些大公会议的权威(在某种程度上)的人来说,更清楚地了解大公会议的三位一体论,以帮助评估三位一体的当代模式,将是有用的。在接下来的文章中,我认为第六次大公会议(君士坦丁堡三世,公元680-681年)对大公会议三位一体论做出了重要贡献,并澄清了(对当代读者来说)。令人惊讶的是,没有关于这些贡献的二手文献。所以,这篇文章中给出的历史证据是几乎没有人意识到的证据,除了《君士坦丁堡三世行传》批判版的编辑。在做了历史案例之后,我讨论君士坦丁堡III的含义(I)我们对伪亚他那西亚信条在三位一体论推测中的地位的理解,(ii)关于希腊和拉丁三位一体神学之间分裂的标准叙述,以及(III)三位一体的当代模式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信