{"title":"教义发展是什么意思?","authors":"N. Russell","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780199644643.003.0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter, the first to address ‘the larger questions’, discusses the philosophical and theological context in which Palamas worked. The East made a distinction between the ‘outer wisdom’ of the pagan Greek philosophers and the ‘inner wisdom’ of the Church Fathers. Palamas rejected the parity of the two wisdoms espoused by Barlaam, who argued that ‘truth is one’, but did not repudiate philosophy as such. All parties to the controversy, however, gave priority to the Church Fathers, taking as their chief authority Dionysius the Areopagite. The correct exegesis of Dionysius became central to the debate. Methodological issues that were discussed explicitly include the relationship between dogmatic and mystical theology, and between theology and contemplation, and the correct explication (anaptyxis) of Christological dogma. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the different ways in which theological decisions were made authoritative in the East and in the West.","PeriodicalId":195211,"journal":{"name":"Gregory Palamas and the Making of Palamism in the Modern Age","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What does doctrinal development mean?\",\"authors\":\"N. Russell\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/OSO/9780199644643.003.0005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter, the first to address ‘the larger questions’, discusses the philosophical and theological context in which Palamas worked. The East made a distinction between the ‘outer wisdom’ of the pagan Greek philosophers and the ‘inner wisdom’ of the Church Fathers. Palamas rejected the parity of the two wisdoms espoused by Barlaam, who argued that ‘truth is one’, but did not repudiate philosophy as such. All parties to the controversy, however, gave priority to the Church Fathers, taking as their chief authority Dionysius the Areopagite. The correct exegesis of Dionysius became central to the debate. Methodological issues that were discussed explicitly include the relationship between dogmatic and mystical theology, and between theology and contemplation, and the correct explication (anaptyxis) of Christological dogma. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the different ways in which theological decisions were made authoritative in the East and in the West.\",\"PeriodicalId\":195211,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gregory Palamas and the Making of Palamism in the Modern Age\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-03-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gregory Palamas and the Making of Palamism in the Modern Age\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780199644643.003.0005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gregory Palamas and the Making of Palamism in the Modern Age","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780199644643.003.0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
This chapter, the first to address ‘the larger questions’, discusses the philosophical and theological context in which Palamas worked. The East made a distinction between the ‘outer wisdom’ of the pagan Greek philosophers and the ‘inner wisdom’ of the Church Fathers. Palamas rejected the parity of the two wisdoms espoused by Barlaam, who argued that ‘truth is one’, but did not repudiate philosophy as such. All parties to the controversy, however, gave priority to the Church Fathers, taking as their chief authority Dionysius the Areopagite. The correct exegesis of Dionysius became central to the debate. Methodological issues that were discussed explicitly include the relationship between dogmatic and mystical theology, and between theology and contemplation, and the correct explication (anaptyxis) of Christological dogma. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the different ways in which theological decisions were made authoritative in the East and in the West.