Saturday, November 21, 2020

In Defense of Conciliar Christology, by Timothy Pawl


In Defense of Conciliar Christology: A Philosophical Essay (Oxford Studies In Analytic Theology) Illustrated Edition, - March 10, 2016 by Timothy Pawl
This work presents a historically informed, systematic exposition of the Christology of the first seven Ecumenical Councils of undivided Christendom, from the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD to the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 AD. Assuming the truth of Conciliar Christology for the sake of argument, Timothy Pawl considers whether there are good philosophical arguments that show a contradiction or incoherence in that doctrine. He presents the definitions of important terms in the debate and a helpful metaphysics for understanding the incarnation.
In Defense of Conciliar Christology discusses three types of philosophical objections to Conciliar Christology. Firstly, it highlights the fundamental philosophical problem facing Christologyâhow can one thing be both God and man, when anything deserving to be called "God" must have certain attributes, and yet it seems that nothing that can aptly be called "man" can have those same attributes? It then considers the argument that if the Second Person of the Holy Trinity were immutable or atemporal, as Conciliar Christology requires, then that Person could not become anything, and thus could not become man. Finally, Pawl addresses the objection that if there is a single Christ then there is a single nature or will in Christ. However, if that conditional is true, then Conciliar Christology is false, since it affirms the antecedent of the conditional to be true, but denies the truth of the consequent. Pawl defends Conciliar Christology against these charges, arguing that all three philosophical objections fail to show Conciliar Christology inconsistent or incoherent.


Amazon Link

In Defense of Extended Conciliar Christology: A Philosophical Essay (Oxford Studies in Analytic Theology) Hardcover – March 10, 2019 by Timothy Pawl  (Author)

In Defense of Extended Conciliar Christology: A Philosophical Essay examines the logical consistency and coherence of Extended Conciliar Christology-the Christological doctrine that results from conjoining Conciliar Christology, the Christology of the first seven ecumenical councils of the Christian Church, with five additional theses. These theses are the claims that multiple incarnations are possible; Christ descended into Hell during his three days of death; Christ's human will was free; Christ was impeccable; and that Christ, via his human intellect, knew all things past, present, and future. These five theses, while not found in the first seven ecumenical councils, are common in the Christian theological tradition. The main question Timothy Pawl asks in this book is whether these five theses, when conjoined with Conciliar Christology, imply a contradiction. This study does not undertake to defend the truth of Extended Conciliar Christology. Rather, it shows that the extant philosophical objections to Extended Conciliar Christology fail.


* * * * * * * *


Timothy Pawl, In Defense of Conciliar Christology
https://www.closertotruth.com/contributor/timothy-pawl/profile

BIOGRAPHY

Timothy Pawl is an Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of St. Thomas, in St. Paul, Minnesota.

He works on metaphysics and philosophical theology. In metaphysics his work focuses on truthmaker theory, modality, and free will. In philosophical theology, Pawl has published on transubstantiation, Christology, and divine immutability. His work has appeared inc: The Australasian Journal of Philosophy, Faith and Philosophy, and Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion.

Pawl published a monograph in the Oxford Studies in Analytic Theology series, entitled In Defense of Conciliar Christology: A Philosophical Essay.  In that book, he argues that the philosophical objections to the traditional Christian doctrine of the incarnation fail.


https://www.closertotruth.com/contributor/timothy-pawl/profile


* * * * * * * *


Dr. Timothy Pawl's In Defense of Conciliar Christology
Part 1 - trinities 143, Jun 13, 2016


Roman Catholic theology is officially committed to the teachings of 21 councils. Eastern Orthodox theology accepts only the first seven of these, called “the seven ecumenical councils.” While no Protestant accepts the authority of all 21 Catholic councils, Protestantism has been ambivalent about the first seven – with a few accepting all, many accepting the first four, some eschewing all such in preference for the Bible, and some accepting such teachings only insofar as they are in fact summarizing the teachings of scripture. In this book Dr. Timothy Pawl constructs a philosophical defense of the self-consistency of “conciliar christology,” meaning all that these first seven councils claim about Christ.

In this episode, Dr. Pawl briefly recaps the seven ecumenical councils, and then discusses some crucial definitions in his book: “supposit,” “person,” and “nature.” We then discuss whether or not catholic christology should be understood as God becoming embodied in a human body, or God coming to cooperate and live along with a certain man. Finally, Dr. Pawl explains why he discusses these issues in terms of incompatible predications (terms applied to Christ) rather than incompatible properties (attributes of Christ).

Next week we’ll hear about Dr. Pawl’s proposed solution, and what he thinks of other recent approaches in the literature, such as “kenosis” and “two minds” theories about the incarnation.


Links for this episode:


* * * * * * * *


Dr. Timothy Pawl's In Defense of Conciliar Christology
Part 2 - trinities 144, Jun 20, 2016


Is Jesus both mutable and immutable? In this second interview Dr. Timothy Pawl argues that he is both, once we get straight on the proper definitions of “mutable” and “immutable.” Similarly, he affirms that Jesus was both omniscient and limited in knowledge. In this episode he explains why, in his view, the bishops of the first seven ecumenical councils must have had such definitions in mind.

Dr. Pawl also explains why he doesn’t buy in to recent “kenosis” theories, and why he thinks the “two minds” idea is correct, although it doesn’t go far enough. He also explains his misgivings about what some call “the qua move.” For instance, some say not that Jesus was omniscient and limited in knowledge, but rather that he was omniscient as divine and limited in knowledge as human. Dr. Pawl explains several things those extra phrases might be doing, and why many of them seem unhelpful. Here, he shows what “analytic”means in “analytic theology.”

Finally, we discuss the objection to his view that it is “Nestorian” or nearly so. Dr. Pawl rebuts the charge of Nestorianism and explains why hedges like “or nearly so” are so annoying.

Has Dr. Pawl solved the problem of incompatible predications? Let us know what you think!


* * * * * * * *


https://readingreligion.org/books/defense-conciliar-christology


In Defense of Conciliar Christology
A Philosophical Essay

Date of Review: September 19, 2017

About the Reviewer(s): 
Joshua R. Farris is assistant professor of theology at Houston Baptist University.

About the Author(s)/Editor(s)/Translator(s): 
Timothy Pawl is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of St. Thomas, in St. Paul.

Review

In Defense of Conciliar Christology is an exceptional explanation of conciliar christology (following the first seven ecumenical councils) and a response to the charge of incoherence that has been leveled toward it. Timothy Pawl advances another model of what it means to do analytic theology in what has become an important series, the Oxford Studies in Analytic Theology, edited by Michael C. Rea and Oliver D. Crisp. Like other volumes in the series, Pawl offers the reader a careful and articulate treatment of one doctrinal topic, representing the virtues of analytic philosophy for theology. What stands out about Pawl’s work from the others in the series is his ability to logically parse out the issues with impressive rigor. This is not to say that the other works in the series are not logically rigorous—they in fact are—but rather to say that Pawl’s work stands out as a representative of this virtue. His strength, however, is also his weakness.

Pawl is not concerned so much with advancing some novel constructive option to the christological literature, although a careful analysis of old problems and common solutions often yields several insightful gems worthy of reflection. His aim is more modest than that. He contributes to a set of growing literature on the incoherence charge to what is considered traditional, Chalcedonian, or conciliar christology. Some responses have been to give up traditional/Chalcedonian christology (John Hick’s approach), while others have sought to modify the claims of conciliar christology and offer up alternative models (Thomas Morris, Moreland and Craig, Andrew Loke, to name a few). As Pawl understands the charge of logical incoherence or incompatibility, there appear to be incompatible properties (or as he prefers, “predicates”) ascribed to the same person: Christ. The charge is that predication of properties to Christ end up amounting to Christ’s person instantiating incompatible properties or predicates. In Defense of Conciliar Christology is a response to this common charge.

In this short review, I will note the main ligaments of Pawl’s argument and leave it to the reader to explore its details. Pawl is convinced that the attempts thus far to make good on the charge of incoherence or incompatibility are unsuccessful. This is different than finding the traditional model plausible. Pawl’s argument does not take this additional step. His fundamental strategy is to articulate how it is that the reduplicative strategy (commonly used by traditionalists and Thomists) is able to predicate what are otherwise incompatible properties to two different natures. It is important to note that Pawl understands the framers of conciliar christology to explicitly endorse a concrete nature view, not an abstract nature view (following Oliver Crisp in Divinity and Humanity). In other words, Christ is one person, not two (contra Nestorianism); however, he has two distinct concrete natures. There are several reduplicative strategies that use alternative ways of modifying the claim that Christ can bear two incompatible attributes. Pawl uses a copula strategy (that is, Christ is qua-human passible and Christ is qua-divine impassible [121]), particularly what he calls the substitutional strategy (where the copula has built into it a place for persons with kind natures, construed concretely [145]), which he develops in chapter 7.

The strength of Pawl’s work is quite clear, but there is one drawback to his style of writing and this is arguably his weakness. Pawl is clear that he wants theologians to draw from his work (3). The style of the book, however, is written for technicians in philosophy. While Pawl is at pains to spell out the logic clearly for those not trained in logic, the mathematical precision with which he writes remains unappealing to most systematic theologians. I say this not so much as a critique, but to point out the apparent stylistic differences at work in the philosophical literature compared to the theological literature. In light of this, it is important to point out that Pawl offers one example of how do analytic theology, but it is not the only model of analytic theology on offer. Not every systematic theologian utilizing analytic tools must follow Pawl in his approach to analytic theology or his style of writing.

There is another question that arises upon reading Pawl’s work that remains important for analytic theologians. What is distinct about analytic philosophy of religion as compared with analytic theology? I take it that analytic philosophy of religion is interested in defending religious beliefs or justifying specific religious claims, which is precisely what one finds in Pawl’s book. But beyond mere interpretation of dogmatic symbols (e.g., Chalcedon), what is it that sets apart Pawl’s work as a piece of analytic theology? Some would argue that it is indistinguishable from philosophy of religion.

With all that said, I do hope theologians will pick up In Defense of Conciliar Christology. It is an exceptional defense of conciliar christology that deserves serious consideration. Minimally, those theologians inclined to the traditional conciliar stance must take seriously Pawl’s careful analysis, for it is now a go to resource on conciliar Chalcedonian Christology.


* * * * * * * *


CHRIST AMONG THE DISCIPLINES
CONFERENCE NOTES
 https://www.christamongthedisciplines.com/
by R.E. Slater
November 21, 2020


Please note: I write these notes to myself. They are not intended to be exact transcriptions from the speakers themselves. What I have written are not their words but my own thoughts. - res

Please note: All panelists provided textual statements for comments to attendees. These are not allowed to be publically published as they are intended to form to the moment-in-time not replicable beyond the panel discussions themselves as very specific conversations to one another in the AAR setting


Panelist's Bios:

Richard Cross is the John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, a position he has held since 2007. Between 1993 and 2007 he was fellow in theology at Oriel College in the University of Oxford. He has written extensively on medieval philosophy and theology, with a particular emphasis on Duns Scotus, and on the broader history of Christology and the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Revd Dr James M. Arcadi is an Assistant Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, USA. Prior to this, he was a Postdoctoral Research Fellow on the Analytic Theology for Theological Formation Project at Fuller Theological Seminary and a Research Fellow in the Jewish Philosophical Theology Project at the Herzl Institute. His first book, An Incarnational Model of the Eucharist, was published by Cambridge University Press in 2018 and he is presently co-editing (with Dr JT Turner) the T&T Clark Handbook of Analytic Theology. 

Ben Whittington is a Ph.D. Candidate at the University of Birmingham. His main research is on the Philosophy of Mind, Free Will, and Analytic Theology. He also serves as an Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at the College of DuPage.

After completing his undergraduate degree in both biblical studies and Christian theology at Judson University, Mitch Mallary became a PhD candidate at the University of St Andrews in Scotland. His dissertation seeks to bring Karl Barth’s doctrine of revelation into dialogue with the historical scholarship of N. T. Wright. In the project he ‘zeroes in’ on precisely how and in what manner the two diverge from one another regarding the question of the relationship between history and revelation within the sphere of Christology. Apart from his doctoral studies, Mitch is under contract for a manuscript tentatively titled, Bifocal Vision: Christology for the Church. He has also served as the research assistant for helping bring Professor N. T. Wright’s Gifford Lectures on natural theology to publication with Baylor University Press. Along with Hannah James, Preston Hill, and Shane O’Leary, Mitch is also one of the organizers for this year’s conference who graciously stepped in to write an essay on Dr. Pawl’s book on short notice after a panelist had to withdraw from the event.


Observation by James Arcadi 
see online statement

Observation by Shane O'Leary 
see online statement

Observation by Richard Cross 
see online statement

Observation by D.T. Everhart 
see online statement

Response by Timothy Pawl 
see online statement


at

No comments:

Post a Comment