Discerning the Boundary between Trinitarianism and Tritheism.

摘要

The objective of this dissertation is to delineate trinitarianism from tritheism in the current analytical philosophical context by relating historical instances of tritheism---namely, those of John Philoponus, Roscelin of Compiegne, and Gilbert of Poitiers---to contemporary examples of social trinitarianism---namely, those of David Paulsen, Richard Swinburne, and Stephen Davis. Concerning the historical tritheists, Philoponus sought to associate the person of the Son with a single theanthropic nature in Christ, against the Chalcedonian distinction of natures. He imagined that the Father and Spirit, as distinct divine persons, have particular natures due to their ontic equality with the Son. Roscelin conjectured that the divine persons are discrete divine substances, lest the Father and Spirit became incarnate with Christ, and that the divine essence is an abstraction. Gilbert was accused of dividing divinity (or the divine essence) from Deity (or God), such that the Father, Son, and Spirit have tropes of divinity. Each was charged with dividing the essence from the persons and, thereby, undermining the oneness of God.;Concerning the contemporary social trinitarians, Paulsen's theory is anti-trinitarian in that the divine persons are considered discrete beings rather than indiscrete individuals. What is more, Godhead is regarded a voluntary community. Swinburne posits, in contrast, that the Father, Son, and Spirit are discrete beings who inevitably and eternally cause one another. Divine threeness is not voluntary but necessary. Still, each divine member of Swinburne's "Collective" possesses his own trope of divinity. The Father, Son, and Spirit exemplify, not the single-same essence, but the same type of essence. Despite their causal relations, the divine persons are individuated by tropes of the divine attributes, constituting a trio of gods. Yet, whereas Paulsen and Swinburne explicitly maintain that the divine persons are discrete beings, Davis advances a version of quasi-generic trinitarianism which respects divine transcendence and mystery. The persons are like a community, but not literally discrete beings in moral union. He invokes perichoresis as the mysterious mechanism which ensures divine oneness given the robust interpretation of divine threeness ascribed to social trinitarianism.