Abstract
This essay is a defense of one version of the so-called Social Theory of the Trinity (ST), a version that emphasizes the notion of perichoresis. It offers an a priori argument in favor of ST, and defends the theory against four criticisms that have recently been raised against it by Professor Brian Leftow: (1) that ST amounts to tritheism; (2) that on ST there is no way to answer the question, “How many Gods are compatible with monotheism?”; (3) that ST raises the specter of inequality among the persons; and (4) that co-mingled divine minds cannot be distinct.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Brian Leftow, “Anti Social Trinitarianism,” in Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, S.J., and Gerald O’Collins, S.J. (eds.) The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity ( Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999 ), pp. 203–249.
Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, trans. D. W Robertson, Jr. ( Indianapolis, Indiana: Bobbs-Merrill, 1958 ), p. 10.
This despite the fact—as Joseph T. Lienhard has demonstrated—that the phrase “three hypostases in one ousia” is rare in the writings of the Cappadocians. See his “Ousia and Hypostasis: The Cappadocian Settlement and the Theology of ‘One Hypostasis”’ in The Trinity (see footnote 1 ), pp. 99–121.
Although Sarah Coakley convincingly disassociates Gregory of Nyssa from ST, or at least from the way ST has been understood by contemporary analytic philosophers. See her “‘Persons’ in the ‘Social’ Doctrine of the Trinity,” in The Trinity (see footnote 1), pp. 123–144.
Leftow, p. 204.
See, for example, Yves Congar, I Believe in the Holy Spirit, I (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1983); Michel Rene Barnes, “Rereading Augustine’s Theology of the Trinity,” and Sarah Coakley, “‘Persons’ in the ‘Social’ Doctrine of the Trinity,” both in The Trinity (see footnote 1).
See Richard Swinburne, The Christian God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), pp. 170–191; Cornelius Plantinga, “Social Trinity and Tritheism,” in Ronald J. Feenstra and Cornelius Plantinga (eds.), Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), pp. 21–47; Edward Wierenga, “Trinity and Polytheism,” Faith and Philosophy (forthcoming).
Kelly James Clark, “Trinity or Tritheism,” Religious Studies, Vol. 32, No. 4 (December, 1996), pp. 463–476; Leftow, “Anti Social Trinitarianism.”
Augustine, On The Trinity (Grand Rapids. MI: Eerdmans. 1956), book 9.
Richard of St. Victor, de Trinitate (NY: Paulist Press, 1979), III, 1–25. Perhaps Richard’s real concern—placed, as he was, in a monastic setting—was not that there could not be any sharing in love with two alone, but rather that that sharing would or could be selfish, to the exclusion of others, like the “particular friendships” monks were eager to avoid.
Richard Swinburne, The Christian God ( Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994 ), pp. 177–180.
For an argument somewhat similar to mine, see C. J. F. Williams, “Neither Confounding the Persons Nor Dividing the Substance,” in Alan Padgett (ed.), Reason and the Christian Religion ( New York: Oxford University Press, 1994 ).
I develop a version of this proof much more briefly and tentatively in Stephen T. Davis, “A Somewhat Playful Proof of the Social Trinity in Five Easy Steps,” Philosophia Christi, Series 2, Vol. 1, No. 2 (1999), pp. 103–106.
Arthur Lovejoy, The Great Chain of Being (Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press, 1936 ).
The argument, as it stands, is far from formally valid, but could easily be made so with the addition of a few sub-premises and with the use of standard predicate calculus plus modal operators.
As Gregotry of Nyssa himself said. Cited in Controversies; Rev. ed. ( London: SPCK, 1989 ).
This point is made by David Brown in his Charles Taliaferro, A Companion to the Philosophy 1997), p. 528.
Leftow, p. 232; cf. Also p. 208.
Leftow, p. 221.
Leftow, p. 233.
Leftow, p. 239.
Leftow, p. 241.
Leftow, p. 225
I note here, but do not discuss, a fifth criticism that Leftow raises against ST, viz., that it raises the possibility of conflict among the Persons. I will not reply to this objection because Leftow admits that it does not apply to versions of ST that stress perichoresis.
Leftow, p. 238.
This despite the fact that modalism endangers several important theological points: Christ’s full humanity, the loving relationships among the Persons, and the salvific role of Christ as mediator.
I would like to thank Sarah Coakley, Christine Helmer, Brian Leftow, Gerald O’Collins, Susan Peppers-Bates, and Dale Tuggy for their very helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Davis, S.T. (2003). Perichoretic Monotheism: A Defense of a Social Theory of the Trinity. In: Stewart, M.Y. (eds) The Trinity. Studies in Philosophy and Religion, vol 24. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0393-2_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0393-2_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-6475-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-0393-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive