Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Aquinas holds that in God, relation and essence are identical, so the Son's real relation of origin to the Father is not separable from what the Son is.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Relations logically require relata (distinct entities). Identifying the relation with the Son's essence seems to conflate the relational property with one of its terms.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Even if real in God, relations appear conceptually distinct from essence: we can understand what 'Son-ness' is without immediately understanding paternity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
This identity claim makes divine simplicity do explanatory work that may exceed its philosophical justification, risking obscurantism over clarity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
God is pure actuality (actus purus) with no composition, so any real distinction between essence and relations would introduce potentiality.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Relations of origin (generation, procession) constitute the hypostatic identities of Father, Son, and Spirit, not accidental features added to them.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If relations were separable from essence, the Son could exist without being related to the Father, making Trinitarian procession contingent rather than necessary.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.