Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:23:05.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social Trinitarianism and the tripartite God

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 September 2018

DANIEL SPENCER
DANIEL SPENCER*
Affiliation:
St Mary's College, The School of Divinity, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife, KY16 9JU, UK
*
e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, I consider the most prominent contemporary attempts to reconcile Social Trinitarianism (ST) with monotheism, arguing that within ST, only mereological (part/whole) accounts can ultimately preserve monotheism. A corollary of this is that every other condition (or set of conditions) adduced in defense of a monotheistic ST really entails tritheism, that is, until a part/whole condition is deployed. Such models, I contend, fail necessarily insofar as they attempt to solve a puzzle that is wholly quantitative in nature with purely qualitative considerations. I conclude by remarking that the Social Trinity model propounded by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland succeeds where the others fail, though this model is itself by no means impervious to weighty objections.

Type
Articles from the 2018 Postgraduate Essay Prize
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 55 , Issue 2 , June 2019 , pp. 189 - 198
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ayres, Lewis (2004) Nicaea and its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (New York: Oxford).Google Scholar
Boethius (2004) De Trinitate, Kenyon, Erik C. (tr.).Google Scholar
Craig, William Lane (2009) ‘Toward a tenable Social Trinitarianism’, in McCall, T. & Rea, M. (eds) Philosophical and Theological Essays on the Trinity (New York: Oxford), 89–99.Google Scholar
Davis, Stephen T. (2006) Christian Philosophical Theology (New York: Oxford).Google Scholar
Forrest, Peter (1998) ‘Divine fission: a new way of moderating Social Trinitarianism’, Religious Studies, 34, 281–297.Google Scholar
Gregory of Nyssa (1893) ‘On “not three gods”’, in Schaff, P. & Wace, H. (eds) Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Wilson, H. A. (tr.) (Buffalo: Christian Literature Publishing Co.).Google Scholar
Hasker, William (2013) Metaphysics and the Tri-Personal God (New York: Oxford).Google Scholar
Holmes, Stephen R. (2014) ‘Response to Thomas H. McCall’, in Sexton, J. S. (ed.) Two Views on the Doctrine of the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), 138–143.Google Scholar
Leftow, Brian (2009) ‘Anti Social Trinitarianism’, in McCall, T. & Rea, M. (eds) Philosophical and Theological Essays on the Trinity (New York: Oxford), 52–88.Google Scholar
McCall, Thomas & Rea, Michael (eds) (2009) Philosophical and Theological Essays on the Trinity (New York: Oxford).Google Scholar
Mosser, Carl (2009) ‘Fully Social trinitarianism’, in McCall, T. & Rea, M. (eds) Philosophical and Theological Essays on the Trinity (New York: Oxford), 131–150.Google Scholar
Plantinga, Cornelius (1989) ‘Social Trinity and tritheism’, in Feenstra, R. J. & Plantinga, C. Jr. (eds) Trinity, Incarnation and Atonement (Notre Dame: Notre Dame).Google Scholar
Swinburne, Richard (2009) ‘The Trinity’, in McCall, T. & Rea, M. (eds) Philosophical and Theological Essays on the Trinity (New York: Oxford), 19–37.Google Scholar
Tuggy, Dale (2016) ‘Trinity’, in Zalta, E. N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Palo Alto: Stanford).Google Scholar
Yandell, Keith (2009) ‘How many times does three go into one?’, in McCall, T. & Rea, M. (eds) Philosophical and Theological Essays on the Trinity (New York: Oxford), 151–168.Google Scholar