Skip to content

Search Results for: Branson on the Monarchy of the Father

philosopher William Vallicella

podcast 83 – The Spiritual Journey of a Maverick Philosopher

Dr. William Vallicella discusses his relation to the Roman Catholic faith of his youth, his idea of what philosophy is all about, the concept of God, the utility of meditation, blogging, and his views on faith and reason.

the concept of a triune God an anachronism in the first three centuries

After what has been said in the foregoing pages, we are prepared to re-assert, in conclusion, that the modern doctrine of the Trinity is not found in any document or relic belonging to the church of the first three centuries. Letters, art, usage, theology, worship, creed, hymn, chant, doxology, ascription, commemorative rite, and festive observances, so far as any remains, or any record of them… Read More »the concept of a triune God an anachronism in the first three centuries

the fate of “social” trinitarianism in late 17th c. England (Dale)

sherlockAs pretty well summarized here by unitarian Theophilus Lindsey.

In the year 1694 began the great contest concerning the Trinity, betwixt two celebrated doctors of the church, Sherlock and South; each of them reputed and reputing himself orthodox, and each of them espoused by learned and powerful partisans.

Dr. Sherlock expressly asserted, that the three persons in the Trinity are three distinct, infinite Minds or Spirits, and three individual Substances. Dr. South held only one infinite eternal Mind or Spirit, with three Somethings that were not three distinct Minds of Substances, but three modes, faculties, attributes, relations, relative properties, subsistances, as there were variously denominated. Dr. Sherlock was accused, and with great justice, if words have any meaning, of polytheism, or holding three Gods. Dr. South, on the other hand, came under the imputation of explaining away the Trinity, and falling into the Sabellian or Unitarian system: and accordingly some of the Socinians took advantage of the Doctor’s explication of the doctrine of the church, and declared in their writings, that the should not be backward to give their approbation to the Liturgy and the Articles, if that was the kind of Trinity which the language therein used was intended to inculcated.

The university of Oxford, to whom Sherlock was obnoxious on account of his political principles, declared forRead More »the fate of “social” trinitarianism in late 17th c. England (Dale)

A formulation of Leibniz’s Law / the Indiscernibility of Identicals

In discussing the Trinity or Incarnation, I often have an exchange which goes like this:

  • someone: Jesus is God.
  • me: You mean, Jesus is God himself?
  • someone: Yeah.
  • me: Don’t you think something is true of Jesus, that isn’t true of God, and vice-versa?
  • someone: Yes. e.g. God sent his Son. Jesus didn’t. God is a Trinity. Jesus is not a Trinity.
  • me: Right. Then in your view, Jesus is not God.
  • someone: But he is.
  • me: So, you think he is, and he ain’t?!
  • someone: [silent puzzlement]

In this post, I want to explain the part in italics. First: a point of clarification. The second and third lines are important. When many say “Jesus is God” they just mean that in some sense or other Jesus is “divine.” (This could mean a lot of things, depending on one’s assumed metaphysics.) But this sort of person (line 3) understands Jesus to be “divine” in the sense of just being one and the same as God – that Jesus is God himself – one person, so just one (period).

In the italicized line, I’m applying  something called Leibniz’s Law, or the Indiscernibility of Identicals. I sometimes put this roughly as, some x and some y can be numerically identical only if whatever is true of one is true of the other. That’s a sloppy way to put it.

In logic, a more precise way of stating it (used e.g. by Richard Cartwright) is:

(x)(y)(z) ( x= y only if (z is a property of x if and only if z is a property of y))

Literally: for any three things whatever, the first is identical to the second only if the third is a property of the first just in case the third is a property of the second.

The basic intuition is that things are as they are, and not some other way. So if x just is (is numerically the same as) y, then it can’t be that x and y qualitatively differ. This seems undeniable.

There are a few problems, though, with the above formula, which any person trained in philosophy may spot. Read More »A formulation of Leibniz’s Law / the Indiscernibility of Identicals

“Incarnation” @ the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Dale)

brilliant

Kudos to the team at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, for

  1. their recent radical re-design, done by Josh D. May. Notable improvements include a nice print-friendly page feature, and the entries sorted by topic. Here are the Philosophy of Religion ones.
  2. their new entry “Incarnation”, by University of Wisconsin Madison PhD David Werther, who teaches in their division of Continuing Studies. He does an excellent job of keeping it simple; it’s a brief and clear introduction to the Incarnation as treated by analytic philosophers, and is by design pretty ahistorical.

Missing in #2 are references to, if not summaries of, Tom Senor’s work, particularly his criticisms of the Stump/Leftow property-borrowing approach, and of the hoary qua-move. Maybe a couple of references to Hick would be appropriate as well, e.g. his criticism of two-minds theories. Positively, maybe a reference to van Inwagen on relative identity. But on the whole, I thought it was well done – congrats to David. And I hope we see more philosophical theology in the IEP.

One quick reflection:Read More »“Incarnation” @ the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Dale)

Prothero on Christianity, Jesus, and the Trinity

Stephen Prothero, of Boston University, is the rare professor who is to a household name and face. He’s been on all sorts of media, and is an able spokesman for the cause of religious literacy. Preach it! His latest book, God is Not One, is possibly the best introduction to a variety of religious traditions for the general reader. It’s well-written, informative, humorous, apt at… Read More »Prothero on Christianity, Jesus, and the Trinity

Smith on Rea and Murray on philosophical theology

Here: Logic Matters: Philosophy of Religion 3: The Trinity Philosopher/blogger/Analysis editor Peter Smith of Cambridge discusses his reading of this book by Rea and Murray, which I’ve been looking forward to seeing. He’s, um, not terribly sympathetic, and tends towards a harsh and dismissive tone. But, he does (I assume, accurately) summarize their conclusions, and their main lines of argument. So the reviews are at… Read More »Smith on Rea and Murray on philosophical theology

update to “Trinity” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

This 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… Read More »update to “Trinity” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The Maverick Philosopher: Are the divine persons parts of the triune God?

I missed an excellent post by our friend the Maverick Philosopher back in January: …if the proper parts of a cat can be feline in the very same sense in which the cat is feline, without themselves being cats, then we have an analogy that renders intelligible the claim that the Persons of the Trinity are divine without being Gods.  The picture is this:  God or the… Read More »The Maverick Philosopher: Are the divine persons parts of the triune God?

John Hick - philosopher

Is the doctrine of the Incarnation prior to & the source of trinitarian doctrine? – Part 2

An interesting and much more recent statement from John Hick, along the lines of my last post. …Since then [around 1993] the focus of much theological discussion has moved from christology to the doctrine of the Trinity. This is partly because theology always does go the rounds of the traditional topics – creation, sin, incarnation, atone­ment, Trinity, church, heaven and hell – and after a… Read More »Is the doctrine of the Incarnation prior to & the source of trinitarian doctrine? – Part 2

Is the doctrine of the Incarnation prior to & the source of Trinitarian doctrine? – Part 1

I was reading famous philosopher of religion John Hick‘s contribution to the 1982 book The Concept of Monotheism in Islam & Christianity, and ran across an interesting idea. Let me put it in context. If you know anything about Hick, you can guess that in his chapter he’s is ultimately trying to promote his unique theory of religious pluralism. Here’s the connection he sees between… Read More »Is the doctrine of the Incarnation prior to & the source of Trinitarian doctrine? – Part 1