Relations of relations

If persons are relations of a simple essence,

* How does such a relation become incarnate?

* Does this relation have a relation to the human nature?

* If two (or three) of the persons are relations, then are there relations between the relations?  How does this not entail gnosticism with its endlessly multiplied hypostases?ghd

I suppose one could get around this by saying that the term “relation” takes on a different meaning (albeit with no warning).

About J. B. Aitken

Interests include patristics, the role of the soul in the human person, analytic theology, Reformed Scholasticism, Medievalism, Substance Metaphysics
This entry was posted in Philosophy, theology and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Relations of relations

  1. cal says:

    I’m usually disappointed with Reformed trinitarian theolegoumena because it so heavily depends upon Augustine, who was a disaster. Which Reformed theologians best got away from the Augustinian heritage, or sufficiently repackaged it, in your opinion? With the exception of Torrance.

    Like

    • J. B. Aitken says:

      Though Robert Letham’s book on the Trinity is flawed, he at least sees the problem. Colin Gunton is too much of a Barthian, but he, too, sees the problem with Augustine.

      At the end of the day the best Reformed Trinitarian theology is Torrance.

      Like

Leave a Reply to cal Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s