Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-hn9fh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-31T18:25:53.794Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The philosophy of filioque

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 May 2018

NIKK EFFINGHAM
NIKK EFFINGHAM*
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
*
e-mail: nikk.effingham@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article offers a model of the Trinity dealing with various objections to the filioque clause. I deal with three worries: the problem of double procession; the problem of the Father's omnipotence; worries about the Spirit's subordination. The model has two main commitments: (i) relations like proceeding, begetting, generation, etc. are causal relations; (ii) each Divine Person is caused by the other two Divine Persons. The model also allows for the Father's elevation over and above the Spirit and the Son. I end by discussing some problems for this revisionary scheme.1

Information

Type
Original Article
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 54 , Special Issue 3: Metaphysics of the Trinity: New Directions , September 2018 , pp. 297 - 312
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Arntzenius, F. (2006) ‘Time travel: double your fun’, Philosophy Compass, 1, 599–616.Google Scholar
Baber, H. (2008) ‘Trinity, Filioque and semantic ascent’, Sophia, 47, 149–160.Google Scholar
Beeley, C. (2007) ‘Divine causality and the Monarchy of God the Father in Gregory of Nazianzus’, The Harvard Theological Review, 100, 199–214.Google Scholar
Berto, F. (2013) ‘Impossible worlds’, in E. Zaltha (ed.) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2013 Edition), <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/impossible-worlds/>..>Google Scholar
Bigelow, J. (2001) ‘Time travel fiction’, in Preyer, G. & Siebelt, F. (eds) Reality and Humean Supervenience: Essays on the Philosophy of David Lewis (Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.), 57–89.Google Scholar
Bjerring, J. (2014) ‘On counterpossibles’, Philosophical Studies, 168, 327–353.Google Scholar
Boff, L. (1988) Trinity and Society (Tunbridge Wells: Burns and Oates).Google Scholar
Brogaard, B. & Salerno, J. (2013) ‘Remarks on counterpossibles’, Synthese, 190, 639–660.Google Scholar
Dowe, P. (2000) ‘The case for time travel’, Philosophy, 75, 441–451.Google Scholar
Dwyer, L. (1975) ‘Time travel and changing the past’, Philosophical Studies, 27, 341–350.Google Scholar
Effingham, N. (2015) ‘Multiple location and Christian philosophical theology’, Faith and Philosophy, 32, 25–44.Google Scholar
Effingham, N. (MS) ‘The philosophy of time travel’.Google Scholar
Effingham, N. & Melia, J. (2007) ‘Endurantism and timeless worlds’, Analysis, 67, 140–147.Google Scholar
Giles, K. (2012) The Eternal Generation of the Son: Maintaining Orthodoxy in Trinitarian Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press).Google Scholar
Gilmore, C. (2007). ‘Time travel, coinciding objects, and persistence’, Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, 3, 177–198.Google Scholar
Hasker, W. (2013) Metaphysics and the Tri-Personal God (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Hopkins, J. & Richardson, H. (2000) Complete Philosophical and Theological Treatises of Anselm of Canterbury (Minneapolis: The Arthur J. Banning Press).Google Scholar
Jago, M. (2014) The Impossible (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Kment, B. (2006a) ‘Counterfactuals and explanation’, Mind, 115, 261–309.Google Scholar
Kment, B. (2006b) ‘Counterfactuals and the analysis of necessity’, Philosophical Perspectives, 20, 237–302.Google Scholar
Leftow, B. (2004) ‘A Latin Trinity’, Faith and Philosophy, 21, 304–33.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1973) Counterfactuals (Oxford: Blackwell).Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1976) ‘The paradoxes of time travel’, American Philosophical Quarterly, 13, 145–152.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1986) ‘Counterfactual dependence and time's arrow, and postscripts to “Counterfactual dependence and time's arrow”’, in Lewis, D. (ed.) Philosophical Papers, II (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 52–66.Google Scholar
Meijering, E. (1975) God Being History: Studies in Patristic Philosophy (Oxford: North-Holland Publishing Company).Google Scholar
Miller, K. (2006) ‘Travelling in time: how to wholly exist in two places at the same time’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 36, 309–334.Google Scholar
Nolan, D. (1997) ‘Impossible worlds: a modest approach’, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 38, 535–572.Google Scholar
Nolan, D. (2013) ‘Impossible worlds’, Philosophy Compass, 8, 360–372.Google Scholar
Pearce, K. (2016) ‘Counteressential conditionals’, Thought, 5, 73–81.Google Scholar
Pearce, K. (2017) ‘Counterpossible dependence and the efficacy of the divine will’, Faith and Philosophy, 34, 3–16.Google Scholar
Pickup, M. (2015) ‘Real presence in the Eucharist and time travel’, Religious Studies, 51, 379–389.Google Scholar
Schaffer, J. (2016) ‘Grounding in the image of causation’, Philosophical Studies, 173, 49–100.Google Scholar
Sider, T. (2002) ‘Time travel, coincidences and counterfactuals’, Philosophical Studies, 110, 115–138.Google Scholar
Siecienski, A. (2010) The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Vander Laan, D. (1997) ‘The ontology of impossible worlds’, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 38, 597–620.Google Scholar
Vander Laan, D. (2004) ‘Counterpossibles and similarity’, in Jackson, F. & Priest, G. (eds) Lewisian Themes: The Philosophy of David K. Lewis (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 258–275.Google Scholar
Wilson, A. (forthcoming) ‘Metaphysical causation’, Noûs.Google Scholar
Zizioulas, J. (1985) Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church (Crestwood NY: St. Vladimir's Seminar Press).Google Scholar