"God's Only Begotten Son": A Reply to R. T. Mullins

R. T. Mullins objects, as do a number of contemporary evangelical theologians, to the doctrine of “processions in God.” In my recent book on the Trinity I affirmed and defended this doctrine. Mullins has provided a lengthy critique of my defense, and this is my reply. The reply comprises four main e...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:  
Bibliographische Detailangaben
1. VerfasserIn: Hasker, William 1935- (VerfasserIn)
Medienart: Elektronisch Aufsatz
Sprache:Englisch
Verfügbarkeit prüfen: HBZ Gateway
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Veröffentlicht: University of Innsbruck in cooperation with the John Hick Centre for Philosophy of Religion at the University of Birmingham [2017]
In: European journal for philosophy of religion
Jahr: 2017, Band: 9, Heft: 4, Seiten: 217-237
normierte Schlagwort(-folgen):B Trinitätslehre
RelBib Classification:NBC Gotteslehre
Online Zugang: Volltext (doi)
Volltext (teilw. kostenfrei)
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:R. T. Mullins objects, as do a number of contemporary evangelical theologians, to the doctrine of “processions in God.” In my recent book on the Trinity I affirmed and defended this doctrine. Mullins has provided a lengthy critique of my defense, and this is my reply. The reply comprises four main elements. First, there is a brief summary of the doctrine of processions. This is followed by a consideration of the three principal objections to the doctrine developed by Mullins. Next, there is a discussion of the difficulties for the doctrine of the Trinity if the doctrine of processions is rejected. Finally, I provide a positive account of the coherence and evidential support for the doctrine of processions.
Enthält:Enthalten in: European journal for philosophy of religion
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.24204/ejpr.v9i4.1942