Comments on: Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism? (pt 2)

By: Ryan Mullins

Ryan Mullins — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 17:52:05 +0000

Fair enough. If this is the case, then certain contemporary theologians should not say that ancient and moderns have a different understanding of ‘person.’ They should instead phrase the issue as you have.

It seems that this understanding of ‘person’ clearly would differentiate the divine persons. What should differentiate the divine persons if it is not the fact that we have three thinking things with free will? It cannot be a ‘relation’ that differentiates the persons because relations are things that persons stand in. The category of ‘relation’ is a leach on ‘person.’ Persons are more basic than relations.

By the way, I also acknowledge that various theologians throughout history have held that there is only one will amongst the divine persons. I don’t understand why they make this claim, nor do I think it is a good claim. I merely acknowledge that they do make such a claim.

By: Steve Duby

Steve Duby — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 21:12:37 +0000

Ryan,

The question is not whether thinking, willing, and the like indicate personality. The difference between older and newer takes on the specific configurations of these indicators seems secondary to me. The issue is whether it is appropriate, as some now do, to speak of three different sets of faculties (to put it crudely) so that these faculties become things which can be used to differentiate, e.g., the Father and the Son.

By: Ryan Mullins

Ryan Mullins — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 12:39:09 +0000

Please excuse my ignorance, but what is the difference between the modern notion of a person and the patristic, medieval, reformed, and scholastic understanding?

Contemporary Social Trinitarians say a person is a center of consciousness with free will. Boethius and John of Damascus say a person is a thinking thing with free will. Richard of St. Victor says a person is a thinking thing with free will. James Arminius says a person is a thinking thing with free will. Other properties might be added as well like understanding, power, and so on. What is the difference that I am missing?

Say there is some difference that I have not caught. Why should that matter? Could it not be the case that we have a better understanding of personhood today? Why think that this alleged modern view of persons is deficient compared to the older accounts?

By: Steve Duby

Steve Duby — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 12:52:43 +0000

I would agree that the book would benefit from a closer analysis of what is meant by ‘person’ in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. Working with a revised notion of ‘person’ in trinitarianism is, I think, a problem in a lot of contemporary writing on the doctrine.

By: Noah

Noah — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:00:21 +0000

I know this post is a little old but McCall’s book interests me.

You mention his second disderata being, “2) regard the persons as ‘persons in a robust sense’, persons who are such substantially in line with ‘the more normal use of the term.’” My question is whether McCall interacts with the historical use of the term ‘persons’ in relation to the trinity? He seems to be defining ‘person’ in modern notions rather than taking a patristic, medieval, reformed, and protestant scholastic understandings of ‘person.’ (see Richard Muller, ‘Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms,’ p 226-227

By: Brettongarcia

Brettongarcia — Wed, 04 May 2011 16:37:30 +0000

Social trinitarianism (in my first impression) seems to find the unifying element of the three persons, in “love,” and in a social relationship or bond between the three. This seems to invite the notion too, that human social communities thus can participate, at least analagously, in the same kind of bond that unites the three persons. When they also “love” and work together. And perhaps love God too.

This would put the emphasis on … 1) love and 2) social community.

Any Habermas influence here, therefore?

By: Nostradamus: The Complete Prophecies of Michel Nostradamus | Nostradamus Future Predictions

Wed, 04 May 2011 13:09:11 +0000

[...] For more on this read: http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/2011/05/02/which-trinity-whose-monotheism-pt-2/ On this subject see: [...]