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 Social trinitarians like Cornelius Plantinga and Richard Swinburne ground trinitarian relations in mutual love and will, not ontological derivation.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If trinitarian relations depend on divine will, God could have chosen not to be trinitarian, making the Trinity contingent, not essential.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Three separate centers of will risk tritheism by treating persons as genuinely distinct agents rather than one substance with three modes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Social trinitarianism struggles to explain divine simplicity and unity in a way that ontological frameworks naturally accommodate.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Mutual love and will better preserve divine freedom than ontological derivation, which implies necessary relations.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Social trinitarianism avoids the explanatory gap between abstract substance metaphysics and biblical portraits of relational persons.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Personal relations grounded in will align trinitarian theology with how humans understand love, making it coherent rather than mystical.
?
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.