One God, the Father

Q2 Arts and Humanities TheoLogica Pub Date : 2022-07-28 DOI:10.14428/thl.v6i2.67603
B. Branson
{"title":"One God, the Father","authors":"B. Branson","doi":"10.14428/thl.v6i2.67603","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The doctrine of “the Monarchy of the Father” is affirmed by nearly all patristic authors at the source of the doctrine of the Trinity and its canonical, creedal formulation(s). Yet, while still discussed by theologians, the doctrine has been (almost) completely ignored in analytic theology. I argue that the doctrine, though ancient, suggests a fresh approach within the contemporary debate, and reveals a fatal flaw in one of the strongest contemporary arguments against Trinitarianism. Briefly, whereas Social Trinitarianism identifies God with all of the divine persons (taken together) and Relative Identity Trinitarianism identifies God with each of the divine persons (taken individually), what I will call “Monarchical Trinitarianism” identifies God with one of the divine persons (the Father), without rejecting the full divinity of the Son and Spirit. According to Dale Tuggy, all orthodox formulations of the doctrine of the Trinity, by definition, identify God with the Trinity, rather than the Father, whereas the New Testament does the reverse. I argue Tuggy's argument counts equally in favor of Monarchical Trinitarianism, but siphons off that support, counting it as support only for Unitarianism via his definitions, which are undermined by a close reading of both patristic and modern Trinitarian theologians.","PeriodicalId":52326,"journal":{"name":"TheoLogica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"TheoLogica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v6i2.67603","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The doctrine of “the Monarchy of the Father” is affirmed by nearly all patristic authors at the source of the doctrine of the Trinity and its canonical, creedal formulation(s). Yet, while still discussed by theologians, the doctrine has been (almost) completely ignored in analytic theology. I argue that the doctrine, though ancient, suggests a fresh approach within the contemporary debate, and reveals a fatal flaw in one of the strongest contemporary arguments against Trinitarianism. Briefly, whereas Social Trinitarianism identifies God with all of the divine persons (taken together) and Relative Identity Trinitarianism identifies God with each of the divine persons (taken individually), what I will call “Monarchical Trinitarianism” identifies God with one of the divine persons (the Father), without rejecting the full divinity of the Son and Spirit. According to Dale Tuggy, all orthodox formulations of the doctrine of the Trinity, by definition, identify God with the Trinity, rather than the Father, whereas the New Testament does the reverse. I argue Tuggy's argument counts equally in favor of Monarchical Trinitarianism, but siphons off that support, counting it as support only for Unitarianism via his definitions, which are undermined by a close reading of both patristic and modern Trinitarian theologians.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
只有一位神,就是父
学说的“君主的父亲”是肯定的几乎所有教父的作者在教义的来源三位一体及其规范,信条的公式(s)。然而,尽管神学家们仍在讨论这个教义,但它在分析神学中(几乎)完全被忽略了。我认为,这个教义虽然古老,但在当代的辩论中提出了一种新的方法,并揭示了当代反对三位一体论的最强有力的论点之一的致命缺陷。简而言之,社会三位一体论认为上帝是所有的神性位格(合在一起),相对身份三位一体论认为上帝是每个神性位格(单独),我称之为“君主三位一体论”,认为上帝是神性位格之一(圣父),但不否认圣子和圣灵的完全神性。根据Dale Tuggy的说法,所有三位一体教义的正统表述,根据定义,都将上帝等同于三位一体,而不是圣父,而新约则相反。我认为,Tuggy的观点同样支持君主三位一体论,但却抽走了这种支持,通过他的定义,把它算作对一神论的支持,他的定义被教父和现代三位一体神学家的仔细阅读所破坏。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
TheoLogica
TheoLogica Arts and Humanities-Religious Studies
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Scholastic Hylomorphism and Dean Zimmerman O felix culpa! Presentism, Timelessness, and Evil A Divine Alternative to Zimmerman’s Emergent Dualism What the Experience of Transience Tells Us About the Afterlife
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1