Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-qfg88 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T23:00:48.900Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two Trinities: reply to Hasker

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2010

BRIAN LEFTOW
BRIAN LEFTOW*
Affiliation:
Oriel College, Oxford OX1 4EW
*
e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

William Hasker replies to my arguments against Social Trinitarianism, offers some criticism of my own view, and begins a sketch of another account of the Trinity. I reply with some defence of my own theory and some questions about his.

Type
Articles
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 46 , Issue 4 , December 2010 , pp. 441 - 447
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

Notes

1. Hasker, William‘Objections to Social Trinitarianism’, Religious Studies, 46 (2010), 421–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar. All in-text page references are to this paper.

2. Leftow, Brian‘A Latin Trinity’, Faith and Philosophy, 21 (2004), 304–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 314.

3. My thanks here to Joseph Jedwab.

4. Wes Morriston, So‘Omnipotence and necessary moral perfection: are they compatible?’, Religious Studies, 37 (2001), 143–160Google Scholar.

5. William Hasker, personal communication.

6. William Hasker, personal communication.

7. Moreland and Craig call the subjects parts of God; William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 591. It's not clear whether they would infer from this that they are parts of the divine soul.

8. Cornelius Plantinga, Jr.‘Social Trinity and Tritheism’, in Ronald J. Feenstra and Cornelius Plantinga, Jr.(eds) Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement: Philosophical and Theological Essays (Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), 34. Plantinga adds that in classical Arianism these natures were graded, i.e. having one was better than having another.

9. Or ‘are divine,’ if ‘Trinity’ is just a collective term for a plurality.

10. C. J. F. Williams ‘Not by confounding the persons nor dividing the substance’, in Alan F. Padgett (ed.) Reason and the Christian Religion: Essays in Honour of Richard Swinburne (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 242.

11. My thanks to Joseph Jedwab for helpful comments.