Holy Trinity: Reply to Sean Luke

 I read ​Sean Luke’s paper a year ago, in this latest volume of the Theologica Journal, on the Holy Trinity. My initial thoughts were on my YouTube community post. I will also posted them here. There is an unargued philosophical bias against those like myself who deny simplicity as numerical identity. I see relations/modes can individuate but very thinly given simplicity as numerical identity. In fact, Trinitarian divine cognition and knowledge seems to contradict divine simplicity as numerical identity. The divine persons of the Trinity seem to have distinct self-knowledge, de re beliefs or mental tokens, perhaps better characterized as a first-person perspective, that is unaccounted for by Thomistic simplicity. Baddorf is footnoted but very little engagement with him, Gregory Fowler or Paul M Gould. Substantial priority (e.g. Fowler, Inman, Gould) would have overcome objections against taking the whole substance as the fundamental ground of its parts, properties or powers. As for what makes a property divine, it is the relation it has to the property bearer that gives the property its existence and identity. John Duns Scotus would identify the mode of infinity as the defining feature of divinity for the numerically distinct divine properties (e.g. Smith, Williams). Just some quick thoughts. But a great paper in the right direction 😎