Response to Keith Ward, Christ and the Cosmos

Philosophia Christi 18 (2):297-305 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Keith Ward understands the Trinity as “one conscious being” and the divine “persons” as three necessary modes of divine action. But he does not give a good reason for supposing that there must be just three modes of divine action. I argue that by contrast all the theories of the Trinity developed from the Nicene Creed by patristic and medieval writers, are “social” theories, or “three persons” theories. I defend my a priori argument for the justification of a social theory—that three persons are the necessary minimum for the realization of perfect love, and the necessary maximum for this.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,758

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Responses to Essays on Christ and the Cosmos.Keith Ward - 2016 - Philosophia Christi 18 (2):387-391.
Comments on Keith Ward’s Christ and the Cosmos.Stephen T. Davis - 2016 - Philosophia Christi 18 (2):307-312.
Christological Perichoresis.Ioanna Sahinidou - 2014 - Open Journal of Philosophy 4 (4):552-559.
Christ and the Cosmos. [REVIEW]J. F. Bonnefoy - 1966 - Philosophical Studies (Dublin) 15:315-315.
Where has God gone?Keith Ward - 2003 - The Philosophers' Magazine 22:19-20.
Booknotes.Keith Ward - 1976 - Philosophy 51:121.

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-11-10

Downloads
39 (#418,276)

6 months
8 (#407,549)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references