from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
- n. The monotheistic Christian doctrine that defines God as three divine persons or hypostases (Greek — plural: ὑποστάσεις hypostáseis, singular: ὑπόστασις hypóstasis): the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit.
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English
- n. The doctrine of the Trinity; the doctrine that there are three distinct persons in the Godhead.
from The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia
- n. The doctrine of the Trinitarians. See Trinity, 3.
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
- n. Christian doctrine stressing belief in the Trinity
Sorry, no etymologies found.
The Progressives' unitarianism in opposing economic injustice has broadened in our day into a trinitarianism that focuses on concerns of race, class and gender, producing a host of studies treating the Founders' "sexism," "homophobia" and "racism."
And he was the one attacking a prevailing opinion (trinitarianism) or lack of opinion (on how planets work).
So mere creedal indifference towards unitarianism OR trinitarianism is itself a sign of unitarianism.
Of course, late-antique Greek trinitarianism denied that the Logos could be part of creation, while modern enlightenment unitarianism has either denied that the Logos exists or denied that it can be divine.
Thus, van Inwagen has not demonstrated the consistency of (this version of) trinitarianism, and just as disturbingly, his theory doesn't rule out polytheism, as it doesn't deny that there are non-identical divine beings.
Latin trinitarianism starts with the oneness of God and tries to show how God is three, while social trinitarianism starts with the way in which God is three and tries to show how God is nonetheless one.
“Latin trinitarianism” is just what would have been thought of as the creedal teaching about the Three for most of Christian history, or at least a prominent strand of it, another being mysterianism, which is often thought compatible with it.
Merricks insightfully remarks that some views advertised as “social trinitarianism” make it “sound equivalent to the thesis the the Doctrine of the Trinity is true but modalism is false” (Merricks 2006, 306).
Van Inwagen neither endorses this trinitarianism, nor presumes to pronounce it orthodox, and he admits that it does little to reduce the mysteriousness of the Trinity.
Davis's theory may be best understood not as a blend of social and Latin trinitarianism, but rather as a blend of social trinitarianism and mysterianism.