some clarifications: a reply to McManus – part 3
Is my definition of the concept unitarian so wide that it would allow in some famous trinitarians?
Is my definition of the concept unitarian so wide that it would allow in some famous trinitarians?
Is “the doctrine of the Trinity” essential to salvation? To Christianity?
In the New Testament “God” is nearly always the Father. But what follows from that, exactly?
“And the best thing is, we can take these blocks apart!”
In the last post, I introduced the ‘generic view’ of the trinity, namely the claim that Divinity (that which makes the divine persons God/divine) is shared equally by all three persons and so does not belong to any one divine person more than another. In this post, I would like to highlight some of the issues faced by a generic view.
My point of departure is modern day criticism of the generic view such as that of Colin Gunton and John Zizioulas (to name just a few). These authors are not, in my opinion, the most philosophically astute critics, but nevertheless, they do highlight some of the issues relevant for the generic view.
Read More »Derivation vs. Generic Theories – part 6: Issues for the Generic View (JT)
Last time, what I thought I heard from Steve was this (this is my summary):
In sum, the one God is a perfect being, a perfect self, who is the Trinity. He has within himself three parts – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each of these parts fully has the (universal) divine nature, and so, each of the essential divine attributes. Each is a divine self. And these three parts are indistinguishable from one another, or nearly so, though they be numerically distinct.
Steve has now responded twice, here and here. These contain a lot of extraneous material, which I’ll pass by. My question is, what did I get wrong above? Here’s what I hear (bulleted):
Right – “nearly so.”
Because he says this nature is shared, I’m going to infer that it is a universal – something capable of being had by multiple subjects.
Steve, it’s not because you think God has multiple attributes. (Yes, I too reject the classical doctrine of simplicity, though I don’t think God has parts.) Rather, I’m trying to figure out what the relation is, in your view, between God/The Trinity and those three Persons. If it isn’t whole-parts, help me out!
Sure you do Read More »What is the Trinity? A Dialogue with Steve Hays – Part 2
— “Daddy, why do trees branch out?”
— “So you can climb in them, Jimmy.”
Patristic scholars tell us that the doctrine of the trinity was really developed in the 4th century. The question is: what exactly is the ‘development’? If you read many of those scholarly big books on patristic theology, you’ll occasionally come across the idea that there were two major theories of the trinity floating around in the 4th century: the ‘derivation view’ and the ‘generic view’. But what exactly are these two views, and who held them?Read More »Derivation vs. Generic Theories — part 1 (JT)
Can one be a trinitarian without believing in a tripersonal God?
Thanks to the Maverick Philosopher, Dr. William Vallicella, for an excellent, deep post following up on a recent face-to-face conversation we had (which was a follow-up to this). In this and follow-up posts, I want to interact with his discussion. I only get through part of it here. Yes, I affirm that God is a being. As a Christian, I hold that “God” is a… Read More »Dialogue with the Maverick Philosopher: God is a being, not Being itself – part 1
I see trends in this analytic theology literature somewhat towards relative identity theories, and towards “metaphysical madness.”
Deciding to call just one of the three selves in your christology “Jesus” doesn’t fix the fact that your theory has two too many selves.
What does “monarchical trinitarianism” include exactly?
A would-be teacher on trinitarian topics is merely an incoherent tritheist.
Is it true that most ancients lacked the concept of numerical identity?
Discussing trinitarian vs. unitarian Christian theologies with Dr. William Lane Craig.
I thank Fr. Aiden Kimel for reminding me of Richard Bauckham’s chapter on kinds of monotheism. I read it years ago, and thought there was something that was not quite right about it. Kimel says, summarizing Bauckham, Inclusive monotheism declares the God is the highest being within the class of deities to which he belongs. “He is unique,” Bauckham explains, “only in the sense of… Read More »Kimel and Bauckham on monotheism
Does Inspiring Philosophy’s Michael Jones have a Trinity theory?