Skip to content

update to “Trinity” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

New_and_improvedThis was updated last two Fridays ago.

I put a lot of work into this revision. I’ll do a podcast some time discussing some of the changes and additions. Most changes were to the main entry, rather than to the Supplementary Documents.

I hope that people find it useful.

I owe a special thanks to Brian Leftow, who patiently helped me to avoid some serious misinterpretations of his theory.

I also thank the encyclopedia’s editors, who do such good work on this important resource. I wish it had been around when I was a student!

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Related posts:

Did Jesus have faith in God? – Part 3
podcast 34 – Albrecht vs. Tuggy debate – Was Tertullian a trinitarian? Part 2
podcast 83 - The Spiritual Journey of a Maverick Philosopher
podcast 345 - Is Jesus still a man? - Part 1
Hays on attempts to argue from theism to Trinity
podcast 156 – Dr. J.R. Daniel Kirk on A Man Attested by God – Part 2
Trinity Monotheism Part 8: Bill Fires Back, Part 2
more thoughts on "God," atheism, and panentheism
Is God a Self? Part 5 – Varadaraja V. Raman
"Sabellianism Reconsidered" Considered - Part 1

4 thoughts on “update to “Trinity” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy”

  2. john

    Dale
    I found your new presentation most useful !
    The thing that still strikes me is that Trinitarian philosophers always start with the premise that the Trinity is ‘real’ and then proceed to try and devise the means by which they can ‘shoe -horn’ their theories to fit the facts.
    I still have found no trinitarian theories which ‘fit’ the scriptures!
    I had a look at Rea’s 2003 papers and find that the scriptures he quotes are the same old Trinitarian ‘chestnuts’ which cannot stand scrutiny.!!
    Their arguments feel ‘forced’ and one get’s the feeling that the authors believe that if they produce enough material that they will one day ‘hit the jackpot’.
    Trinitarians have got to do better than this !
    Blessings
    John

Comments are closed.