Supremely Simple Trinity and Contemporary “Natural Theology”
Bonaventure Beyond Jenson and Plotinus
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21637165 |
|---|---|
| Authors | S Mark Heim (0000-0002-2809-0234, First United Methodist Church, corresponding author), Clifton Stringer (First United Methodist Church) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Volume | 32 |
| Issue | 3-4 |
| Pages | 247-265 |
| Publication date | 2023-08-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Pro Ecclesia A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1063-8512 • E-ISSN: 2631-8334 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/10638512221139756 |
| OpenAlex | W4311061470 |
| Language | EN |
In this article I voice and defend Bonaventure's argument from divine simplicity to the Trinity from two versions of its negation, one Christian (Robert Jenson) and one subordinationist/Platonist (Plotinus). I point out that Bonaventure's supremely simple Trinitarianism has internal purchase on the Plotinian system: he makes available arguments that should pull subordinationist Christians/Platonists in the direction of his own view. Moreover, I observe that Bonaventure's metaphysical arguments in favor of the Trinity—exactly those that have purchase on Plotinian systems—would be available, however surprisingly, within contemporary “natural theology.”
Epistemology · Linguistics · Metaphysics · Negation · Simplicity · Theology · History · Karl Barth and Christian Theology · Medieval Philosophy and Theology · Philosophy · Theology and Philosophy of Evil
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |