Heller M, Woodin W.H. (eds.) Infinity. New research frontiers (CUP, 2011)(ISBN 1107003873)(O)(327s)_MAml_

28 infinity as a transformative concept in science and theologyHowever, it was not until Gregory of Nyssa that Christian theologians started tothink about God in terms of infinity in a theologically elaborated way as actual infinity.As in the case of St. Augustine, the infinity of God in Gregory’s theology was a matterof rational, theological argument, rather than the result of a transformative religiousexperience, as in Plotinus’s philosophy. Gregory claimed the infinity of God 62 inthe Christological and Trinitarian debates of the late Arian heresies with Eunomius(?–395) (Vaggione 2000). In the Christological debate, Gregory wanted to make surethat Christ is not a creature, but rather he partakes in God’s essence, and so he isdesignated as homoousios (). For this argument, he needed to presupposeGod’s infinity. 63In order to follow his train of thought, we need to understand the basic claims ofhis Arian opponent. As a Christian in the Greek metaphysical tradition, Eunomius’spoint of view is driven by two major religious concerns. First, his particular theologicalconcern is to maintain the idea of the absolute unity and sovereignty of God. Thinkingof this unity in the context of his Greek tradition, it meant that one conceived of God’s as his immortality (). This stress on God’s unity and sovereignty alsoincludes his self-sufficiency () (Mühlenberg 1966, pp. 96–98). In contrastto the as the of God, the of the Son is . Thus, the of God and that of the Son are distinct from one another, in contradiction to theorthodox tradition. Given these presuppositions – the of the Son is –it necessarily entails that the Son must be subordinate to the Father, given that it musthave an origin, and thus the Son cannot be divine. As a result, the Son is a creature,and there was a time when the Son had not existed.Secondly, as an Arian Christian dissociating from the Greek tradition, he wants tomake sure that the creation is finite and limited in space and time. Arguing along thelines of Aristotle (inferring from the result to the cause), he claims that Christ as themediating of creation must be finite in power (), because the creationis finite. This inference also means that the Son cannot be grounded in the of the Father. Hence, the Son is a finite creature. To sum up, one can say that boththeological concerns, the unity and sovereignty of God and the finitude of the creationin connection with his Greek habit of reasoning, necessarily led Eunomius to the Arianheresy and the destruction of the Trinity. To defend the doctrine of Trinity and thetraditional Christological teaching of Christ’s essential unity with the Father, Gregoryhad to find conclusive arguments. He found them in the idea of God’s infinity. Howdid he argue?Gregory’s major concern was to secure the divinity of the Son, based on the compatibilityof the and the of the Son. This compatibility wasimpossible with regard to the theological axioms of Eunomius, because they werelogically consistent in themselves. Therefore, Gregory had to change the underlying62 The texts of the controversy between Gregory of Nyssa and Eunomius are available in the Werner Jaegeredition. The theological arguments for the infinity of God are elaborated in Gregory of Nyssa (1960a, 1960b).The text about the infinite spiritual ascension to God in Gregor’s De vita Moysis is available in Gregory ofNyssa (1964).63 For relevant secondary literature on the issue of infinity in Gregory of Nyssa, see Hennessy (1963), Mühlenberg(1966), Balás (1966), Ferguson (1973), Brightman (1973), Duclow (1974), Wilson-Kästner (1978), De Smet(1980), Sweeney (1992b), and Karfíková(2001).