Thomistic Simplicity and Distinguishing the Immanent and Economic Trinities
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v6i2.68223Abstract
I argue that there is a discrepancy between the Thomistic doctrine of divine simplicity and affirming the immanent-economic distinctions in the Trinity. Since God is an absolutely simple essence whose essence it is to exist, and since the simple God exists as pure act—lacking all potential—there exist no real distinctions in God, such as physical or metaphysical parts, and there exist no divisions in the life of God, who exists in atemporal eternity. Per the immanent-economic distinctions in the Trinity, the Son is submissive to the will of the Father in the latter but not the former. This appears to be a distinction in the life of the Triune God, which is not acceptable per divine simplicity. After examining the Trinity doctrine and christology of Thomas along with possible solutions to the problem proposed, I conclude that said solutions fail to eliminate the discrepancy between Thomas’s account of simplicity and the immanent-economic distinctions in the life of the Trinity.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Andrew Hollingsworth
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.