{"id":15,"date":"2006-06-28T21:57:28","date_gmt":"2006-06-28T21:57:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/?p=15"},"modified":"2020-05-24T21:46:14","modified_gmt":"2020-05-25T02:46:14","slug":"diagram-shield-of-faith","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/diagram-shield-of-faith\/","title":{"rendered":"Ye Olde Trinity Diagram: The Shield of Faith"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"\/<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

How many times have you seen one of these offered as an explanation or illustration of the doctrine of the Trinity?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There’s a good article about these here<\/a><\/strong>, complete with some links to real medieval examples. Basically, this sort of Shield of Faith (Latin: scutum fidei<\/em>) diagram seems to have originated in the high middle ages, with the intention of illustrating the doctrine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In general, I love diagrams and visual aids when it comes to philosophy and theology. But rather than getting you nodding, though, I think this diagram ought to get you scratching your head. We should ask: what does it mean?<\/strong> How, that is, are we to read this chart?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We naturally assume that “is” (est<\/em>) means the same thing all around. What then, does it mean in the negative parts, e.g. where it says that the Father “is not” the Son. Presumably, one has noticed that some things are true of the Father, that are not true of the Son, and vice versa. By the distinctness of discernibles then, the chart is implying that Father and Son are not <\/em>numerically one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So far, so good. These three claims of the outer ring seem plausible. Now we turn to the positive parts. (“The Son is God.” etc.) Doh! Does anyone see a problem here?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sorry to bore the philosophers and logicians out there, but permit me spell it out. Identity is by definition a transitive and asymmetric relation. So these two claims<\/p>\n\n\n\n