A critical analysis of David Coffey`s and Colin E. Gunton´s treatment of Augustine´s mutual-love theory
MetadataShow full item record
Both the Catholic theologian David Coffey and the late Protestant theologian Colin E. Gunton treat Augustine’s Trinitarian theology in their work. One major common point of their treatment is the theory of the Holy Spirit as the mutual-love between the Father and the Son which Augustine developed. I look upon the two theologians’ treatment of Augustine’s theory and claim that the difference in their interpretation is shaped by their use and balance of the four sources of theology: scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. I support my claim through four main chapters organized by the four sources. Coffey uses scripture more freely while Gunton is stricter in discussing Augustine foundation of the theory in scripture. Both Coffey and Gunton reflects their respective traditions where Coffey put emphasis on Augustine as Western tradition, while Gunton is overall critical to Augustinian theology. Both theologians uses the terms ‘immanent’ and ‘economic’ Trinity. Coffey’s view is emphasizes the ‘immanent’ and shows a blurring use of the terms. Gunton is stresses distinction between the terms, but is careful in going farther than allowed by the economy. As for religious experience Coffey and Gunton are different in their use and emphasis on the Holy Spirit and experience. Gunton stresses the Spirit as active both in eschatology and in Christian community. Coffey are more concerned with the Holy Spirit as love between the Father and the Son. Through these four main chapters: scripture, tradition, reason and experience, I thereby show how Coffey’s and Gunton’s different weight in the sources shape how they interpret Augustine’s pneumatological theory.
Masteroppgave i religion- Universitetet i Agder 2009