1. trinities - Derivation vs. Generic Theories – part 5: The Generic View (JT)
    May 12, 2008 @ 2:21 am

    […] I mentioned in the first post, the generic view claims that Divinity belongs equally to the three persons, similar to how three […]

  2. JT Paasch
    April 18, 2008 @ 10:04 am

    Ah, good points. Yeah, Godhead definitely used to mean Divinity. I just meant ‘the three divine persons’.

    As for classical theists, yes, I should clarify what I mean. I’m thinking of those who defend the idea that there is just one Divinity among the three divine persons. I don’t mean that there’s one deity property which is instantiated three times (just as there might be one humanity property that’s instantiated three times in Peter, Mary, and Aunt Hortense). I mean something more like there’s numerically one deity trope or one deity-constituent (whatever it might be) which is (somehow) shared by three persons.

    I’m contrasting this ‘classical theism’ view with, say, social trinitarianism, where each divine person has their own deity trope/instantiation (so we get three of them).

    Chief advocates of this ‘classical theism’ view are Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas — and I’d place Gregory of Nyssa in there too, and probably Athanasius.

    Many of these cats probably aren’t property realists about Divinity. They’d rather say deity is a trope, not a property (for the reasons I mentioned in my recent comment about universals and deity). And some are probably nominalists about properties in general (e.g., Aquinas). But what they all do affirm is that Divinity is numerically one and thus shared by all three persons.

  3. Dale
    April 17, 2008 @ 2:38 pm

    Hi JT,

    Nice post. I only have two nitpicky comments. One, who are these “classical theists”? I take it, these would just be theists who are property realists.

    Re: the English term “Godhead” – I think it did, or originally did mean what you mean by “Divinity”. I guess though, people have for a while been using it like you to here, as a term just referring to the group of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – a plural referring term which is neutral about how they’re related to one another.

  4. trinities - Derivation vs. Generic Theories — part 2: Arianism and the Trinity (JT)
    April 13, 2008 @ 8:24 pm

    […] my last post, I gave some basic definitions for the ‘derivation view’ and the ‘generic […]