Recent Articles
“Where Literalistic Reading Fears to Tread - Logical Consistency Between Some Prepositions in the
New Testament and the Divine Persons’ Being Consubstantial: Response to Steven Nemes,” Philosophia Christi 26.1 (2024) 25-45.
In “Early High Christology and Contemporary Pro-Nicene Theology,” Steven Nemes raises a dilemma. Either one may affirm what the New Testament teaches about the Word “through” whom all things were created, or one may affirm that the Father and Son are consubstantial (as the Nicene creed teaches), but not both. I show that Nemes’s argument begs the question and that Nemes fails to represent how pro-Nicene theologians interpreted such prepositions (e.g., “through”) in the New Testament. Contrary to what Nemes contends, there is no inconsistency in believing what John 1:3 teaches and that the divine persons are consubstantial.
“Discovery of the Sixth Ecumenical Council’s Trinitarian Theology: Historical, Ecclesial, and Theological Implications,” Journal of Analytic Theology 10 (2022) 332-362.
For decades now some Christian theologians, and some philosophers of religion, have labored at distinguishing Social Trinitarianism and non-Social Trinitarianism. Many have revised their models of the Trinity in light of counter-arguments or counter-evidence. For Christian theologians, or philosophers of religion, what counts as a good counter-argument or counter-evidence may (but need not) depend on respected theological authorities. Recently, some focus has been paid to what is called Conciliar Trinitarianism, which is the name for whatever is endorsed by, or rejected by, the first seven ecumenical councils regarding the Trinity. For those who respect these ecumenical councils as authoritative (to some extent), it would be useful to get a clearer understanding of Conciliar Trinitarianism in order to assist in evaluating contemporary models of the Trinity. In what follows I argue that the Sixth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople III, in 680-681ce) made important contributions, and clarifications (for the contemporary reader), to Conciliar Trinitarianism. Surprisingly, there is no secondary literature regarding these contributions. So, the historical evidence given in this article is evidence that almost nobody has been aware of - apart from the editors of the critical edition of the Acts of Constantinople III. After having made the historical case, I discuss the implications of Constantinople III for (i) our understanding of the place of the Pseudo-Athanasian creed in Trinitarian speculation, (ii) standard narratives about the division between Greek and Latin Trinitarian theology, and (iii) contemporary models of the Trinity.
Articles
Special Issue on Conciliar Trinitarianism. "Introduction," TheoLogica Vol. 2, No. 2 (2020). Edited by Beau Branson, Joseph Jedwab, and Scott M. Williams.
“Horrendous-Difference Disabilities, Resurrected Saints, and the Beatific Vision: A Theodicy,” Religions 9, 52 (2018), 1-13.
“Unity of Action in a Latin Social Model of the Trinity,” Faith and Philosophy 34.3 (2017), 321-346.
“Indexicals and the Trinity: Two Non-Social Models,” Journal of Analytic Theology 1 (2013), 74-94.
Book Chapters
“Why There Wasn’t, and How There Can Be, a Latin Social Trinity,” in Claiming God: Essays in Honor of Marilyn McCord Adams. Edited by Christine Helmer and Shannon Craigo-Snell. Pickwick: Eugene, OR, 2022: 153-174.
“The Flying Man by Ibn Sina (Avicenna),” in Philosophy Illustrated. Edited by Helen De Cruz. Oxford University Press, 2021: 139-142.
“Disability, Ableism, and Anti-Ableism in Medieval Latin Philosophy and Theology,” in The Edinburgh Critical History of Middle Ages and Renaissance Philosophy. Edited by Andrew LaZella and Richard A. Lee, Jr.. Edinburgh University Press, 2020: 37-57.
“Personhood, Ethics, and Disability: A Comparison of Byzantine, Boethian, and Modern Concepts of Personhood,” in Disability in Medieval Christian Philosophy and Theology. Edited by Scott M. Williams. Routledge, 2020: 80-108.
“Gregory of Nyssa, Conciliar Trinitarianism, and the Latin (Or Conciliar) Social Trinity:
Response to William Hasker,” Faith and Philosophy 38.4 (2021) 514-439.
The disagreement between William Hasker and myself includes discussion of Gregory of Nyssa’s Trinitarian theology, the relevance of Conciliar Trinitarianism for evaluating models of the Trinity, and the defensibility of my Latin Social model of the Trinity. I respond to Hasker’s recent objections regarding all three areas. I contest Hasker’s interpretation of Gregory and argue that Gregory is indeed a “one-power” theorist. I make historical connections between Gregory’s Trinitarian theology and Pope Agatho’s “onepower” statements that were endorsed by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681ce); and I make explicit the Sixth Ecumenical Council’s interest in the general issue of how “ousia” and “hypostasis” pertain to the Trinity and the Incarnation. Lastly, I defend and develop the Latin Social model in response to Hasker’s five objections. In light of my findings in the Sixth Council, I retire the name “Latin Social Trinity” for my model and replace it with a name more apt for my model, that is, the “Conciliar Social Trinity.”
“In Defense of a Latin Social Trinity: A Response to William Hasker,” Faith and Philosophy 37.1 (2020), 96-117.
In “Unity of Action in a Latin Social Model of the Trinity,” I objected to William Hasker’s Social Model of the Trinity (among others) on the grounds that it does not secure the necessary agreement between the divine persons. Further, I developed a Latin Social model of the Trinity. Hasker has responded by defending his Social Model and by raising seven objections against my Latin Social Model. Here I raise a new objection against Hasker on the grounds that it is inconsistent with Conciliar Trinitarianism, and I respond to the seven objections and in so doing further develop the Latin Social Model.
“Henry of Ghent on Real Relations and the Trinity: The Case for Numerical Sameness without Identity,” Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie Médiévales 79.1 (2012), 109-148
“Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Henry of Ghent, and John Duns Scotus: On the Theology of the Father’s Intellectual Generation of the Word,” Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie Médiévales 77.1 (2010), 35-81.
“God’s Knowledge of Individual Material Creatures According to Thomas Aquinas,” in Medieval Skepticism and the Claim to Metaphysical Knowledge v. 6. Edited by Gyula Klima and Alexander Hall Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2012. First published in Proceedings of the Society for Medieval Logic and Metaphysics 6 (2006), 108-120.
“Introduction. The Intersection: Disability in Medieval Christian Philosophy and Theology,” in Disability in Medieval Christian Philosophy and Theology. Edited by Scott M. Williams. Routledge, 2020: 1-21.
“When Personhood Goes Wrong in Ethics and Philosophical Theology: Disability, Ableism,
and (Modern) Personhood,” in The Lost Sheep in Philosophy of Religion: New Perspectives on Disability, Gender, Race, and Animals. Edited by Blake Hereth and
Kevin Timpe. Routledge, 2020: 264-290.
“Persons in Patristic and Medieval Christian Theology,” in Persons: A History. Edited by Antonia Lolordo. Oxford University Press, 2019: 52-84.
“John Duns Scotus,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Epistemology of Theology. Edited by William Abraham and Fred Aquino. Oxford University Press, 2017: 421-433.