Skip to content

Search Results for: De Trinitate

MMM unleashed @ trinities

augustinespec1.jpg

Blame a lot of MMM on this guy – the Hip’ster.

I feel some need to explain and justify what is going on here, as I have divided loyalties.

On the one hand, the stated purpose of the blog is to make recent research on trinitarian theories available to the wider public, in relatively brief, understandable, jargon free form.

On the other hand, this blog’s most faithful readers and commenters are specialists in medieval philosophy & theology, or in recent analytic philosophy of religion, and they can really get into dialogging in the way that PhDs (and to-be-PhDs) in these fields do – which is to say – highly abstract, jargon filled, argument-heavy discourse, that only a scholar can love. Being a scholar, of course, I love it, and have no desire to stem their exploration of historic trinitarian theories. They are all, in various ways, doing cutting edge work, and I learn a lot by listening in, and by joining in. And I know that other philosophy profs appreciate these discussions as well.

My solution? Have it both ways. 🙂 I just want to try to build a bridge for non-academic readers, to help them, maybe, be able to get something out of this recent Medieval Metaphysical Mayhem (MMM). So I’m going to try to give some relevant background information.

Here goes: Read More »MMM unleashed @ trinities

three somewhats?

10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity – #5 “Persons” – Part 1

In standard formulations of trinitarian theology nowadays, one says that there is (only) one God “in three Persons.” But what does this mean? We can ask about how these “Persons” relate individually or collectively to the one God. How exactly are they “in” him? But more fundamentally, what is meant by “Person” here? Some trinitarians will tell you that the answer is, basically: nothing. The… Read More »10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity – #5 “Persons” – Part 1

Richard of St. Victor 6 – Supreme Love Only Among Equals, Again (Scott)

Hey bro. I'm JR Ewing. (Forget Dynasty, Dallas - the best kind of city -is awesome.) Just because you don't love me doesn't mean I don't love you.
Hey bro. I'm JR Ewing. (Forget Dynasty, Dallas - the best kind of city -is awesome.) Just because you don't love me doesn't mean I don't love you.

In De Trinitate Book 3.7 Richard summarizes some of what comes beforehand. We have learned that supreme goodness requires supreme love (i.e. supreme love is a necessary condition for supreme goodness), and that supreme love requires more than one person. If supreme love were only self-love, then the total state of affairs “one divine person has self-love” is not as perfect a state of affairs as another total state of affairs, namely “two persons have self-love, and each loves the other person.” Thus,

If there is supreme love, then there is a plurality of persons.

Likewise, Henry infers from what he takes to be the nature of supreme love to entail the equality of the persons in question.

If there is supreme love, then there is an equality of persons.

Below I try to explain  just what all this means.

Read More »Richard of St. Victor 6 – Supreme Love Only Among Equals, Again (Scott)

Richard of St. Victor 11 – Response to the Argument From Love Thus Far (Scott)

Does love have enough gas to get us there? Stay Tuned.
Does love have enough gas to get us there? Stay Tuned.

In three of the last four posts (Rick St. Vick 6, 7, 9, 10) I surveyed some of Richard of St. Victor’s arguments for why there must be at least three divine persons. (We’ve yet to see an argument for there aren’t more than three persons.) Here I’d like to respond to these, and to one  JT’s responses too.Read More »Richard of St. Victor 11 – Response to the Argument From Love Thus Far (Scott)

“trinitas” in Tertullian’s On Modesty (De Pudicitia)

The Greek trias, translatable as “triad” or (I think misleadingly) “Trinity,” had been used a few decades before. But the first known use of the Latin trinitas is by Tertullian, and we assume that he coined this Latin term. Actually, we have to talk of earliest uses, because it appears in two works, Against Praxeas and On Modesty, which are probably late works, and we don’t really know… Read More »“trinitas” in Tertullian’s On Modesty (De Pudicitia)

HoG: Intellectual Production of the Word (Scott)

laptop_desk_moving_model.jpg

“My god Spock! Is this the apex of human intellectual production?” “No Captain, look within, do you smell that?”

I apologize for the delay in posting. I have been busy with, among other things, my own work.

In the previous post, I enumerated 40 lines of premises and conclusions that generally summarizes Henry’s philosophical psychology of the Trinity. There are one or two things that ought to be clarified.

I have posted some responses to Dale’s post in the Comments section of his post.

I would like to elaborate on two issues in this post.

1. Why must the divine intellect be perfectly actual? (pace Dale’s 2nd objection)
2. Why must the divine intellect have two powers, an operative power and a productive power?

In regards to 1, Henry generally follows Anselm’s perfect being theology program. In this program, when we attribute some property to God we should follow the rule: ‘whatever it is simply better to have than not have we should attribute to God’. This property that it is simply better to have than not to have in medieval speak is called a ‘pure perfection’. A pure perfection is some property that it is simply better to have than not to have it. A pure perfection is some property x that is not considered as a pure perfection with regard to some species-nature. It is not a question of whether ‘it is better for my fish Nigel to be a Ninja or not’, but whether it is simply better to be a Ninja or not. A comparison to some species is not at issue here. For example, if it is better to be wise than not be wise, we should say that God is wise. If it is better to be loving than not to be loving, we should say that God is loving. If it is better to be stupid than not stupid, we should attribute ‘being stupid’ to God. But, our intuitions lead us to think that being wise and being just are simply better to have than not to have; yet being stupid is something we wouldn’t attribute to God because it is actually better to not be stupid, than to be stupid.
Read More »HoG: Intellectual Production of the Word (Scott)

On an alleged counterexample to Leibniz’s Law – Part 2 (Dale)

(click for image credit)

In his comment on my previous post, Brandon points out that he doesn’t assert the case described there to be a counterexample. Rather, he was wondering why it isn’t a counterexample; he was probing to see my response.

Fair enough. I’ve left the title of the post as is just for continuity with part 1.

The case Brandon described, was an omniscient God, who is both subject and object of knowledge of himself. God as knower is subject of knowledge but not object. But God as object is what is known, and not the subject of knowledge. So, don’t we here have something which is and isn’t intrinsically some way (being self-knowing) at a time? If so, the principle is false.

My response is that there Read More »On an alleged counterexample to Leibniz’s Law – Part 2 (Dale)

Don’t believe everything you hear in BBC documentaries

In a recent BBC documentary, Story of the Jews, we are told: Born a Jew, like his saviour, was Paul who, within a few years of Jesus’ death began the process of liberating Christianity from the claims of Jewish ritual.  Christianity was either universal or it was nothing.  So Paul aggressively de-Judaizes the Christian message and there was no surer way of doing that than… Read More »Don’t believe everything you hear in BBC documentaries

Scott Williams’s new paper: Henry of Ghent on Real Relations and the Trinity

Congratulations to Scott Williams, trinities contributor and newly minted Oxford University PhD in Theology,  on his forthcoming paper:  ‘Henry of Ghent on Real Relations and the Trinity: The Case for Numerical Sameness Without Identity’, in: Recherches de ThĂ©ologie et Philosophie MĂ©diĂ©vales 79.1 (2012), will be published. Here is his abstract: I argue that there is a hitherto unrecognized connection between Henry of Ghent’s general theory of real relations… Read More »Scott Williams’s new paper: Henry of Ghent on Real Relations and the Trinity

Rufinus’s corruption of Origen’s On First Principles – Part 2

In this follow-up post, three factors that make Rufinus’ corruption of Origen’s On First Principles all the more egregious. First, after recklessly changing anything he doesn’t like in translating Origen’s book, absurdly claiming that anything Origen says that doesn’t comport with the (then) new Nicene orthodoxy must have been changed by heretics, and lyingly (or idiotically) claiming to have filled things in only with Origen’s other words or ideas… Read More »Rufinus’s corruption of Origen’s On First Principles – Part 2

podcast 114 – the recycled creed (342-359)

This “Fourth Creed” was offered as a non-controversial, “big tent,” ecumenical summary of faith. And surprisingly, given its initial reception, its language ended up being re-used several times after, as catholics struggled to replace the language of Nicea with something more widely acceptable.

Necessarily so?

It ain’t necessarily so It ain’t necessarily so The t’ings dat yo’ li’ble To read in de Bible, It ain’t necessarily so In God as Biblical Character and as Divine Reality, the Maverick makes the curious distinction between a Biblical character, and the external reality corresponding to the character. The two philosophers [Aquinas and Spinoza] are clearly referring to the same Biblical character when they… Read More »Necessarily so?

no, Jesus is not a fictional character

Christmas time! So time to sell magazines (etc.) with sensational, poorly reasoned articles which attempt to be bold and provocative. It’s as predictable as the rising sun. No book is evidence, right? Right. Else we’d be able to prove the reality of Batman by citing a comic book. [Facepalm] This argument kills with 8th-graders. But any adults should be unimpressed. I’ll wager that any adult can think… Read More »no, Jesus is not a fictional character

Word and Spirit: the “Everlasting Arms” of God

This is a guest post by Mr. Mario Stratta, a frequent commenter on this blog. He works in electronic engineering in Italy, and blogs on theological topics as “Miguel de Servet” at beliefnet. – Dale In the OT we find an obscure reference to the “eternal arms” of God: “The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath [you] are [his] eternal arms …” (Deut 33:27)… Read More »Word and Spirit: the “Everlasting Arms” of God

Culture Warrior or Kingdom Warrior?

“But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire.”