The incoherence of the Trinity | A reading from Trinity and Incarnation: A Post-Catholic Theology
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 06. 2024
- ABSTRACT: The doctrine of the Trinity asserts that there is in God something that is one (the ousia/οὐσία) and something that is three (the hypostaseis/ὑποστάσεις). But how does the one relate to the three? In this video, reading from ch. 3 of my book, Trinity and Incarnation: A Post-Catholic Theology (Cascade 2023), I argue that there is no way of interpreting the relation between the οὐσία and the ὑποστάσεις that is coherent and theologically acceptable.
You can buy a copy of my book Trinity and Incarnation: A Post-Catholic Theology here:
a.co/d/025Bd4rU
Dr. Steven Nemes has a BA in Philosophy from Arizona State University with a minor in Religious Studies (2013), and an MDiv and PhD in Theology from Fuller Theological Seminary (2016, 2021). The author of a number of articles, chapters, and books on diverse subjects in theology and philosophy, he teaches Latin at North Phoenix Preparatory Academy in Phoenix, Arizona. - Zábava
In short:
- You cannot say the ousia is prior to the hypostaseis, because this gives the Father a cause or explanation.
- You cannot say the ousia is a fourth thing alongside the three hypostaseis, because there is no longer one God but four things.
- You cannot say that the ousia simply is the hypostaseis, because one thing cannot be three things. Either there are three Gods, or each hypostasis becomes a part of the one God.
- You cannot say that the ousia is posterior to the hypostaseis, because this turns the one God into a group of persons that are not individually God.
But the ousia has to be either prior to the hypostaseis, or a fourth thing alongside them, or simply is them, or is posterior to them. There is no other option.
Because none of these possibilities are acceptable, the doctrine of the Trinity is incoherent.
Thank you proving this footnote, it made me want to watch the whole video.
Thank you so much for this video, Dr Nemes! Is there any social media platform where I can contact you and probably text chat on certain topics regarding the catholic fundamental doctrines and notions? I am a Unitarian and interested in the philosophical framework.
Thank you for your comment.
You can send me an email through my website: stevennemes.com
19:50 is bars and really culminates everything prior. Great statements! Do you think this could also be worded, given that indeed "God" cannot be said to be each individual person AND the whole of all three without equivocation, that in order for the language set forth by Catholic tradition to be true, that it must be understood in terms of parts (partialism) or modes (sebelianism), or some combination of both? And since these are obviously rejected historically, it clearly supports the claim of incoherence.
Thank you for your comment!
I think you are right.
i pray the Lord brings you to the truth and grants you repentance so that you start worshiping the correct God. PRAISE THE ONE AND ONLY TRIUNE GOD. PRAISE THE FATHER PRAISE THE SON AND PRAISE THE HOLY SPIRIT. Peace be with you🙏🏽
Hey Dr. Nemes! I plan to watch this video later (so apologies if you brought this up), but I had a question: Is there any reason to believe that the author of Hebrews would've understood a distinction between Hypostaseis and Ousias (since he calls Jesus the "exact representation" or copy, of the Father's Hypostaseis in Hebrews 1:3), or is this a philosophical distinction that developed overtime? I'm not familiar enough with the Philosophical framework that the Apostles were likely using. Thanks!
Ousia and hypostasis were more or less synonymous terms, one being of platonic and the other of stoic provenance, until the trinitarian controversies of the fourth century. They are even treated as synonyms in the anathema attached to the creed emitted at Nicaea in 325 CE.
@@drstevennemesinteresting! What would you say are some good historical references for these distinctions?
@@HG-ow9jn
There was a paper published in Heythrop Journal that discussed it at length, but I can’t recall what it’s titled.
You can check Basil Studer’s book, or Kelly’s Early Christian Doctrines, etc.
Does David Bentley Hart believe in the doctrine of the trinity?
I should think so, yes, since he is an Orthodox theologian. Admittedly, I haven’t read much DBH on this topic.
@@drstevennemes Thanks, Steven. Me neither, though I am hoping to read his forthcoming book.
I enjoyed his recent Christology lectures, which can be found on his substack. I actually thought of your book, Dr. Nemes, several times while listening to them-of this part where you problematize trinitarian language, and of your section on Incarnation. I’m not sure I have the chops to give a response to your book’s argument(s), but it feels like Hart is illuminating the path ahead-for me, at least.
@@marcschneiderr I wish the audio recordings of his recent lectures were better. I’ll have to wait for a print version to come out.