Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T21:13:53.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Trinity as social and constitutional: a rejoinder to Brian Leftow

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2021

WILLIAM HASKER*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Huntington University, Huntington, IN4750, USA

Abstract

Brian Leftow continues to argue against my use of the constitution relation in explaining the Trinity. I consider his arguments, and have a bit more to say about Leftow's own formulation of trinitarian doctrine.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Hasker, William (2013) Metaphysics and the Tri-Personal God (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasker, William (2021) ‘Constituting the Trinity’, Religious Studies, 57, 523–531.Google Scholar
Leftow, Brian (2009) ‘Anti social trinitarianism’, in McCall, Thomas & Rea, M. C. (eds) Philosophical and theological Essays on the Trinity (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 5288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leftow, Brian (2012) ‘Time travel and the Trinity’, Faith and Philosophy, 29, 313–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leftow, Brian (2018) ‘The Trinity is unconstitutional’, Religious Studies, 54, 359376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leftow, Brian (2021) ‘The Trinity is still unconstitutional’, Religious Studies, 57, 532–552.Google Scholar
Ward, Keith (2015) Christ and the Cosmos: A Reformulation of Trinitarian Doctrine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar