Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Divine love is the same relational property as divine sel... — Carmelics
    Home/Trinity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Divine love does not imply further Persons beyond those already implied by divine self-knowing.

    Divine love is the same relational property as divine self-knowing.

    Trinity
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Trinity

    Related

    Divine love does not imply further Persons beyond those already implied by divin...

    Similar

    Divine love does not imply further Persons beyond those already implie...85%The Persons can love, while God (the divine nature) cannot.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Trinity
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    79%
    The divine nature implies the existence of three relational qua-object...79%
    It is inconceivable that a divine Person should flourish without lovin...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: trinity
    View source passageHide passage
    Divine love doesn’t imply further Persons because it’s the same relational property as divine self-knowing. God-as-knower isn’t numerically the same as God-as-known because of the essential asymmetry of the knowing relation (ibid.). Divine love, Koons says, is a kind of charity of friendship; thus, lover and beloved can’t be numerically identical. So if the Father loves the Son, this implies that they are numerically distinct (non-identical). It also implies that they are really distinct and not really the same. In specifying what he means by real distinctness Koons writes,

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective