Qua-objects, as introduced by Fine, are constituted by an object under a restriction to certain properties, but divine persons are not the divine nature restricted—they are fully divine, making the qua-object model categorically inapplicable.

?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.

Categorically inapplicable(as used in logical and theoretical arguments): Completely unable to be applied or used because it's fundamentally the wrong type of tool for the job, rather than just not working well.
Divine persons(as used in philosophy of religion): In theology and philosophy of religion, the individual members of the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) in Christian theology, each considered as a distinct person.
Fine(the philosopher whose work is being discussed): Kit Fine is a contemporary philosopher who specializes in logic and metaphysics; he's known for carefully distinguishing different types of necessity.
Qua-objects(Fine (1982)): In Fine's theory, entities formed by a basic object taken under a specific description, where the basic object qualifies as the only proper part of each incarnation (e.g., John qua philosopher, John qua husband)

Based on where you are in your exploration