神能对谁说话呢?

Q2 Arts and Humanities
TheoLogica Pub Date : 2022-05-08 DOI:10.14428/thl.v6i2.63573
Derek S King
{"title":"神能对谁说话呢?","authors":"Derek S King","doi":"10.14428/thl.v6i2.63573","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The analytic philosopher or theologian is faced with two important tasks when giving an account of Trinity: demonstrate logical coherence and remain faithful to the doctrine as received from the Christian tradition. A good analytic doctrine of the Trinity does both well. This paper examines one modern attempt of this: William Hasker’s pro-Social account. It argues that, despite much good in Hasker’s account, he fails to reckon with difficult passages in the theologian he claims as his greatest ally: Gregory of Nyssa. This paper argues that at least one passage in Gregory is incompatible with Hasker’s pro-Social account.","PeriodicalId":52326,"journal":{"name":"TheoLogica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"To whom can God speak?\",\"authors\":\"Derek S King\",\"doi\":\"10.14428/thl.v6i2.63573\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The analytic philosopher or theologian is faced with two important tasks when giving an account of Trinity: demonstrate logical coherence and remain faithful to the doctrine as received from the Christian tradition. A good analytic doctrine of the Trinity does both well. This paper examines one modern attempt of this: William Hasker’s pro-Social account. It argues that, despite much good in Hasker’s account, he fails to reckon with difficult passages in the theologian he claims as his greatest ally: Gregory of Nyssa. This paper argues that at least one passage in Gregory is incompatible with Hasker’s pro-Social account.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52326,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"TheoLogica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"TheoLogica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v6i2.63573\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"TheoLogica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v6i2.63573","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

分析哲学家或神学家在解释三位一体时面临着两个重要的任务:证明逻辑上的一致性,并忠实于从基督教传统中得到的教义。一个好的三位一体分析教义在这两方面都做得很好。本文考察了一个现代的尝试:威廉·哈斯克的亲社会理论。它认为,尽管哈斯克的叙述有很多优点,但他没有考虑到他声称是他最伟大盟友的神学家:尼萨的格列高利(Gregory of Nyssa)的困难段落。本文认为,《格列高利》中至少有一段与哈斯克的亲社会论不相容。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
To whom can God speak?
The analytic philosopher or theologian is faced with two important tasks when giving an account of Trinity: demonstrate logical coherence and remain faithful to the doctrine as received from the Christian tradition. A good analytic doctrine of the Trinity does both well. This paper examines one modern attempt of this: William Hasker’s pro-Social account. It argues that, despite much good in Hasker’s account, he fails to reckon with difficult passages in the theologian he claims as his greatest ally: Gregory of Nyssa. This paper argues that at least one passage in Gregory is incompatible with Hasker’s pro-Social account.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
TheoLogica
TheoLogica Arts and Humanities-Religious Studies
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信