Theory and praxis : John Zizioulas and Andrew Louth compared
This thesis is a critical study of John Zizioulas’ use of the inner Trinitarian relations as a model and ontological foundation for ecclesial praxis. It compares Zizioulas to Andrew Louth, who, based on his understanding of the Incarnation as recapitulating creation, begins in the economy. The purpo...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Others |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Enskilda Högskolan Stockholm, Teologiska högskolan Stockholm
2020
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:ths:diva-1121 |
id |
ndltd-UPSALLA1-oai-DiVA.org-ths-1121 |
---|---|
record_format |
oai_dc |
spelling |
ndltd-UPSALLA1-oai-DiVA.org-ths-11212020-09-22T05:26:08ZTheory and praxis : John Zizioulas and Andrew Louth comparedengPoysti, PontusEnskilda Högskolan Stockholm, Teologiska högskolan Stockholm2020Religious StudiesReligionsvetenskapThis thesis is a critical study of John Zizioulas’ use of the inner Trinitarian relations as a model and ontological foundation for ecclesial praxis. It compares Zizioulas to Andrew Louth, who, based on his understanding of the Incarnation as recapitulating creation, begins in the economy. The purpose is to explicate how the two approaches could affect the role of theology in the realization of praxis. Zizioulas is criticized in his attempt to create a holistic structure, as it implies that his reading of the fathers and his understanding of praxis must be congruous with his Trinitarian logic. Louth, on the other hand, differentiates between God and creation, which enables him to describe how we can transcend ourselves by relating to God, without the risk of confusing revelation or our experience of Him with His essence, which is beyond words. The ontological difference between God and creation means, in Louth’s implicit criticism of Zizioulas, that the task of the theologian is to enable communication about what the shared experience of God could mean in a particular time and place – to which there could be a diversity of ideas – not to dictate principles from an idea of totality, or a realm that transcends existence as we know it. It also implies that encountering God in and through creation, enables communication with the world and other fields of study. Student thesisinfo:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesistexthttp://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:ths:diva-1121application/pdfinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
collection |
NDLTD |
language |
English |
format |
Others
|
sources |
NDLTD |
topic |
Religious Studies Religionsvetenskap |
spellingShingle |
Religious Studies Religionsvetenskap Poysti, Pontus Theory and praxis : John Zizioulas and Andrew Louth compared |
description |
This thesis is a critical study of John Zizioulas’ use of the inner Trinitarian relations as a model and ontological foundation for ecclesial praxis. It compares Zizioulas to Andrew Louth, who, based on his understanding of the Incarnation as recapitulating creation, begins in the economy. The purpose is to explicate how the two approaches could affect the role of theology in the realization of praxis. Zizioulas is criticized in his attempt to create a holistic structure, as it implies that his reading of the fathers and his understanding of praxis must be congruous with his Trinitarian logic. Louth, on the other hand, differentiates between God and creation, which enables him to describe how we can transcend ourselves by relating to God, without the risk of confusing revelation or our experience of Him with His essence, which is beyond words. The ontological difference between God and creation means, in Louth’s implicit criticism of Zizioulas, that the task of the theologian is to enable communication about what the shared experience of God could mean in a particular time and place – to which there could be a diversity of ideas – not to dictate principles from an idea of totality, or a realm that transcends existence as we know it. It also implies that encountering God in and through creation, enables communication with the world and other fields of study. |
author |
Poysti, Pontus |
author_facet |
Poysti, Pontus |
author_sort |
Poysti, Pontus |
title |
Theory and praxis : John Zizioulas and Andrew Louth compared |
title_short |
Theory and praxis : John Zizioulas and Andrew Louth compared |
title_full |
Theory and praxis : John Zizioulas and Andrew Louth compared |
title_fullStr |
Theory and praxis : John Zizioulas and Andrew Louth compared |
title_full_unstemmed |
Theory and praxis : John Zizioulas and Andrew Louth compared |
title_sort |
theory and praxis : john zizioulas and andrew louth compared |
publisher |
Enskilda Högskolan Stockholm, Teologiska högskolan Stockholm |
publishDate |
2020 |
url |
http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:ths:diva-1121 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT poystipontus theoryandpraxisjohnzizioulasandandrewlouthcompared |
_version_ |
1719340236184485888 |