Craig/Moreland: Trojice (zhodnocení modelů 1)

Zhodnocení modelů - Anti-sociální trinitarianismus
Craig/Moreland příliš pozornosti "latinskému" tj. "anti-sociálnímu" trinitarianismu nevěnují. Výklad a kritika je zaměřena především na teorii Tomáše Akvinského, která je podle nich (1) nekonzistentní s Tomášovým pojetím boží jednoduchosti. (2) neudržitelná i nezávisle na doktríně Boží jednoduchosti.

Ad (1)
"Thomas's doctrine of the Trinity is doubtless inconsistent with his doctrine of divine simplicity. Intuitively, it seems obvious that a being that is absolutely without composition and transcends all distinctions cannot have real relations subsisting within it, much less be three distinct persons." (s. 586)

Ad (2)
"On no reasonable understanding of person can a person be equated with a relation. Relations do not cause things, know truths or love people in the way the Bible says God does." (s. 586)

"Suppose the anti-social trinitarian insists that in God's case the subsistent relations within God really do constitute distinct persons in a sufficiently robust sense. Then two problems present themselves. First, there arises an infinite regress of persons in the Godhead. If God as understood really is distinct person called the Son, then the Son, like the Father, must also understand himself and love himself. There are thereby generated two further persons of the Godhead, who in turn can also consider themselves as intentional obejcts of their knowledge and will, thereby generating further persons ad infinitum. We wind up with a fractal-like infinite series of Trinities within Trinities in the godhead. ... Second, one person does not exist in another person. On Aquinas's view the Son or Word remains in the Father. ... It is true that the classic doctrine involves a perichoresis (circumcessio) or mutual indwelling of the three persons in one another ... But this may be understood in terms of complete harmony of will and action, of mutual love, and full knowledge of one another ... beyond that it remains obscure ..." (s. 587)

Diskuse je samozřejmě podrobnější, zde cituji pouhé jádro.