Being With God: Trinity, Apophaticism, and Divine-Human Communion
“This carefully researched, cogently argued book undertakes a comparative exploration of two twentieth century orthodox theologians: Vladimir Lossky and John Zizioulas. While their emphases and conclusions differ, both authors endeavor to counteract the 'western' rationalism sneaking into contemporary orthodoxy by appealing to the doctrine oftheosis. . . . By far the most beautifully written sections ofBeing with Godare those concerned with Zizioulas's Eucharistic theology which, for Papanikolaou, counters with Losskian dangers of individualism, impersonalism, and substantialism.” —Modern Theology   “The book compares the Trinitarian theologies of Vladimir Lossky and John Zizioulas with a view to illustrating how each author conceives of the communion between God and humanity. Both authors affirm the reality of the divine-human communion, yet there are profound differences in the way Lossky and Zizioulas envisage and explain such communion.” —Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies“In this book, Aristotle Papanikolaou compares the Trinitarian theologies of Vladimir Lossky and John Zizioulas, two of the foremost Orthodox minds of the twentieth century. He argues that while both men take the reality of divine-human communion as the starting point for their reflection about God, they wind up constructing dissimilar, even mutually incompatible, theologies.” —Anglican Theological Review“The result is a helpful comparative analysis that shows how common affirmations within the theological task can lead to very different outcomes: Lossky with his prominent apophaticism and Zizioulas with his Eucharistic ecclesiology. . . .Being with Godshows that substantial diversity exists within contemporary Orthodox theology . . . Papanikolaou shows himself to be a careful reader of Lossky and Zizioulas.” —International Journal of Systematic Theology“This book is a tour de force of conversational theology. The author offers a beautiful exercise in a 'hermeneutics of charity,' because, for him, critical engagement with the two theologians under discussion does not amount to deconstruction but to a fruitful and truthful encounter, which takes the 'struggle' of conversation seriously.” —The Journal of Religion