Perichoresis

Status
Not open for further replies.

chbrooking

Puritan Board Junior
Is perichoresis a doctrine with proof-text style support, or is it derived by good and necessary consequence from other doctrines in theology proper?

Would someone be so kind as to lay out either the textual basis or the logical development of the doctrine?

I understand what it means, and at least some implications of the doctrine. I'm simply trying to discover the foundations of the doctrine.

Can you help me out?

---------- Post added at 10:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 PM ----------

Oops, should have done a search first. Found a previous thread:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f87/perichoresis-24064/

---------- Post added at 10:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 PM ----------

Anyone interested might look into Lane Tipton's The function of perichoresis and the divine incomprehensibility WTJ 64 no 2 Fall 2002, p 289-306.

---------- Post added at 11:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:52 PM ----------

As good as the previous post on the topic is, I'd love a more thorough treatment of how the doctrine is arrived at. The texts offered are relevant, but hardly conclusive without a little 'fleshing out'. Care to flesh them out for me, offer more, or lay out a logical case?

Thanks
 
Textual support might be derived from John 17:21 (or it could be interpreted in a mediatorial sense), so I would suggest that 1 Corinthians 2:10,11 as a nearer road. When you postulate the distinctness of the persons, but reflect on the fact that mind and will are natural attributes, a mutual possession in the unity of the essence seems strongly indicated. I haven't found a more extensive treatment than George Bull's, Defensio Fidei nicaenae. (If you type 640 in the page box it should get you to the start of the discussion.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top