Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:09:05.439Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The persons of the Trinity are themselves triune: a reply to Mooney

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2021

MICHAEL WILLENBORG Open the ORCID record for MICHAEL WILLENBORG [Opens in a new window]
MICHAEL WILLENBORG*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Baylor University, Waco, Texas 76798, USA
*
e-mail: michaelwillenborg1@baylor.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Justin Mooney (2018) advances what he calls The Problem of Triunity: each divine person is God, God is triune, and yet, each of the divine persons is apparently not triune. In response, I suggest that we ought to accept that each of the divine persons is in fact triune. First, I offer a plausible analysis of the claim that God is triune; second, I show that, given that analysis, there is nothing untoward about embracing the conclusion that each divine person is triune. I suggest that, once we take care to clarify what affirming the triunity of each divine person does and does not commit us to, we will see that we are not thereby committed to anything that contravenes orthodoxy – contrary, perhaps, to initial expectations. Third, I argue that this view sits particularly well with the claim that triunity is essential to divinity, whereas other views falter on this score. After considering and responding to an alternative analysis of triunity, I consider an objection to my analysis based on the salutary nature of communities. Finally, I conclude by noting an important lesson we can glean from the problem of triunity vis-à-vis trinitarian theorizing.

Type
Original Article
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , June 2022 , pp. 456 - 463
Check for updates
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

Craig, William Lane (2019) ‘Is God the Son begotten in His divine nature?’, TheoLogica: An International Journal for Philosophy of Religion and Philosophical Theology, 3, 22–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, William Lane & Moreland, J. P. (2017) Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, 2nd edn (Downers Grove IL: Intervarsity Press).Google Scholar
Hasker, William (2013) Metaphysics and the Tri-Personal God (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louw, J. P. & Nida, Eugene A. (1988) Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York NY: United Bible Societies).Google Scholar
Markosian, Ned (2008) ‘Three problems for Olsen's account of personal identity’, Abstracta, 3, 16–22.Google Scholar
Markosian, Ned (2010) ‘Identifying the problem of personal identity’, in Campbell, J., O'Rourke, M., & Silverstein, H. (eds) Time and Identity (Cambridge MA: MIT Press), 129–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooney, Justin (2018) ‘A new logical problem for the doctrine of the Trinity’, Religious Studies, 54, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooney, Justin (2020) ‘An episodic account of divine personhood’, Religious Studies, first published online 9 January 2020, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034412519000751.Google Scholar
Pawl, Timothy (2020) ‘Conciliar trinitarianism, divine identity claims, and subordination’, TheoLogica: An International Journal for Philosophy of Religion and Philosophical Theology, 4.10.14428/thl.v4i2.23593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stafford, Greg (2000) Jehovah's Witnesses Defended: An Answer to Scholars and Critics, 2nd edn (Huntington Beach CA: Elihu Books).Google Scholar
Tanner, Norman P. (1990) Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press).Google Scholar