Comments on: Guest post: JT Paasch on constitution trinitarianism http://trinities.org/blog/archives/145 theories about the father, son, and holy spirit Tue, 07 Sep 2010 19:40:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: JT Paasch http://trinities.org/blog/archives/145/comment-page-1#comment-48341 JT Paasch Sat, 21 Jul 2007 09:29:04 +0000 http://trinities.org/blog/archives/145#comment-48341 <p>Joseph, I'm interested in all 3 questions, actually, but for the moment, I'm mostly interested in number 1 and something similar to 3: </p> <p>4. Why does tradition reject the view that the divine essence, deity, acts as the substratum for each divine person. </p> <p>As for 1, I'm curious why the tradition eventually rejected the view that there's something (be it the essence, a personal property, a person, whatever) <em>underlying</em> the persons at all. Why should they not want to say something 'underlies' the persons?</p> <p>As for 4, suppose that the tradition did allow there to be something 'underlying' the persons. Why would tradition refuse to accept that the <em>divine essence</em> could play this role? </p> Joseph, I’m interested in all 3 questions, actually, but for the moment, I’m mostly interested in number 1 and something similar to 3:

4. Why does tradition reject the view that the divine essence, deity, acts as the substratum for each divine person.

As for 1, I’m curious why the tradition eventually rejected the view that there’s something (be it the essence, a personal property, a person, whatever) underlying the persons at all. Why should they not want to say something ‘underlies’ the persons?

As for 4, suppose that the tradition did allow there to be something ‘underlying’ the persons. Why would tradition refuse to accept that the divine essence could play this role?

]]> By: Dale http://trinities.org/blog/archives/145/comment-page-1#comment-47934 Dale Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:53:47 +0000 http://trinities.org/blog/archives/145#comment-47934 Guys - I'm by no means closing this discussion thread - just wanted to say that I'm going ahead with my next post so that we can get through with Brower and Rea, and I think some of this may best be revisited when we get around to discussion Richard Cross's work. So I'll link back to it then, but again, by all means continue if you have more to say now. And - thanks for joining in! Guys – I’m by no means closing this discussion thread – just wanted to say that I’m going ahead with my next post so that we can get through with Brower and Rea, and I think some of this may best be revisited when we get around to discussion Richard Cross’s work. So I’ll link back to it then, but again, by all means continue if you have more to say now. And – thanks for joining in!

]]> By: Joseph Jedwab http://trinities.org/blog/archives/145/comment-page-1#comment-47316 Joseph Jedwab Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:29:00 +0000 http://trinities.org/blog/archives/145#comment-47316 JT: Let me try to get clear on this. What's the question? Is it one of these? 1. Why does tradition reject the view that the same stuff or substratum underlies each divine person? 2. Why does tradition reject the view that the same suppositum underlies each divine person? 3. Why does tradition reject the view that the divine nature, deity, (be it a substance, universal, or trope) acts as matter for each divine person? JT: Let me try to get clear on this. What’s the question? Is it one of these?
1. Why does tradition reject the view that the same stuff or substratum underlies each divine person?
2. Why does tradition reject the view that the same suppositum underlies each divine person?
3. Why does tradition reject the view that the divine nature, deity, (be it a substance, universal, or trope) acts as matter for each divine person?

]]> By: JT Paasch http://trinities.org/blog/archives/145/comment-page-1#comment-47188 JT Paasch Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:48:17 +0000 http://trinities.org/blog/archives/145#comment-47188 One of the main questions B&R raise for me is this: why has the classical tradition generally rejected the view that the divine essence is the substrate of the divine persons? Why is the substrate view so undesirable? Anybody have any ideas? I'm really trying to get this, but can't seem to put my finger on it. One of the main questions B&R raise for me is this: why has the classical tradition generally rejected the view that the divine essence is the substrate of the divine persons? Why is the substrate view so undesirable?

Anybody have any ideas? I’m really trying to get this, but can’t seem to put my finger on it.

]]>