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

30 infinity as a transformative concept in science and theologysect. 103, p. 38, 17–21). Thinking in notions always presupposes limitations in thinking(Mühlenberg 1966, pp. 102–4). Having proven the infinity of God on the basesof commonplace metaphysical assumptions of the Greek tradition, Gregory can claimthat the whole logical deduction of Eunomius can no longer be maintained.However, this whole argument would have remained unsatisfactory if Gregory hadnot been able to show directly that the divinity of the Son could be proven directlyby applying the infinity of God in an argument. In fact, he used infinity to prove thecompatibility of the and the of Christ by relating it to the conceptof time and eternity.First of all, he argued that time is created and belongs for this reason to the mundanerealm, as Plato already stated. 66 As created time, it can be measured, and its limitscan be determined in terms of beginning and ending. Thus, there is a mundane orderof time. All this is not the case with eternity. It cannot be measured, and it cannothave a beginning and end; therefore, eternity has no order (Gregory of Nyssa 1960b,sect. 363, p. 134, 13–17). Eunomius made the mistake in his arguing – a categorymistake in modern terminology – of holding that the of the Son must havea beginning in time, with the consequence that the Son would be created (Gregoryof Nyssa 1960b, p. 226, 7–8). That process applies mundane time to God’s eternity.As a consequence, Gregory claims that the of the Son cannot be understoodin terms of a mundane time-causal relationship. On the contrary, as a form ofinfinity that is conceived as having no extension in time, eternity leads toward aninterpretation of the as a timeless eternal act that has no extension in time(Gregory of Nyssa 1960b, sect. 32, p. 226, 14–18). Therefore, the Son can be thoughtof as not being created and can uphold his divinity, combining the and the.To sum up the results of Gregory’s considerations, one can say that he argued forGod’s actual infinity from the standpoint of traditional Greek metaphysical claims aboutthe nature of the divine. Furthermore, he used this argument to substantiate the divinenature of Christ. In addition, actual infinity cannot be grasped by human rationality.Hence, infinity was firmly introduced into theology as one of the major traits of God,but it was at the expense of its complete rational accessibility.Gregory went a step further and asked in what way infinity can be conceived (Gregoryof Nyssa 1960b, sect. 103, p. 39, 2sq; Mühlenberg 1966, p. 103). He concluded that thehuman mind () is not able to comprehend the infinity of God (Gregory of Nyssa1960b, sect. 103, p. 38, 17–21; Mühlenberg 1966, p. 102).However, he did not mean that there is no relation between the infinity of God andhuman beings. The of humans is striving for God’s infinity, not the . In thissense, Gregory stresses the infinite way of the ascending soul to the infinite God. 67Furthermore, this way is combined with the struggle for virtue (). 68To sum up, Gregory opened a number of new horizons (theological, spiritual, ethical,and intellectual) in his theology of infinity:66 Plato, Timaeus 52a–53a.67 “ ”(Mühlenberg 1966, p. 159; Gregory of Nyssa 1960b, p. 247, 7–18).68 “The only destination of virtue is infinity” [ ] (Mühlenberg 1966,p. 160; Karfíková 2001, pp. 47–81).