In my recent post over at Trinities.org I mentioned what I take to be a stream of Latin trinitarian theology that doesn't satisfy what some have labeled "Latin Trinitarianism" [= LT]. Brian Leftow takes Aquinas to be a good representative of LT, and I think he is right. On LT the following are identity statements.
1. The Father is God.
2. The Son is God.
3. The Holy Spirit is God.
And of course, for those who interpret (1)-(3) as identity statements they must find a way to block the transitivity of identity such that e.g., 'The Father is the Son' turns out false.
What needs further nuance is where other scholastic Latin theologians stand. As I see it, Richard of St. Victor is decidedly not an LTer, but his position should be described as constitutional Latin trinitarianism [= CLT]. Hence, we might re-label LT as "NCLT" for non-constitutional Latin trinitarianism. I take an essential mark of the CLT position to be that (1)-(3) are not identity statements but predications. So, (1)-(3) are true and there is no transitivity of identity problem because (1)-(3) aren't identity statements.
In my own sorting through of these issues, I came to Richard of St. Victor's On the Trinity with lots of Henry of Ghent in my mind because Henry cites Richard's On the Trinity in key passages. In my D.Phil. thesis I discuss Henry's being a CLTer. So, I'll save the meat for that. Suffice it to say I plan to research this alternative Latin trinitarianism (and how it is and is not like social trinitarianism) in the years to come. I'll say a bit more about this in my follow-up post at trinities.org. I should also mention that this alternative Latin trinitarianism is a predecessor to Brower and Rea's material constitution model.
1. The Father is God.
2. The Son is God.
3. The Holy Spirit is God.
And of course, for those who interpret (1)-(3) as identity statements they must find a way to block the transitivity of identity such that e.g., 'The Father is the Son' turns out false.
What needs further nuance is where other scholastic Latin theologians stand. As I see it, Richard of St. Victor is decidedly not an LTer, but his position should be described as constitutional Latin trinitarianism [= CLT]. Hence, we might re-label LT as "NCLT" for non-constitutional Latin trinitarianism. I take an essential mark of the CLT position to be that (1)-(3) are not identity statements but predications. So, (1)-(3) are true and there is no transitivity of identity problem because (1)-(3) aren't identity statements.
In my own sorting through of these issues, I came to Richard of St. Victor's On the Trinity with lots of Henry of Ghent in my mind because Henry cites Richard's On the Trinity in key passages. In my D.Phil. thesis I discuss Henry's being a CLTer. So, I'll save the meat for that. Suffice it to say I plan to research this alternative Latin trinitarianism (and how it is and is not like social trinitarianism) in the years to come. I'll say a bit more about this in my follow-up post at trinities.org. I should also mention that this alternative Latin trinitarianism is a predecessor to Brower and Rea's material constitution model.
No comments:
Post a Comment