Brian Leftow has replied to the objections I raised against his trinitarian views in “A Leftovian Trinity?.” I explain why I don’t find his replies persuasive, and add some additional points based on his recent response.

An overview of the recent debate on the Trinity in the analytic philosophy of religion. I move from putting forward the Logical Problem of the Trinity (LPT) according to R.Cartwright and M.Rea. I then define two useful notions in order to evaluate the interpretive force of the mainstream approaches to answer LPT; i.e. , be X a concept, I define maximally robust reading of X and sufficiently robust reading of X. In the subsequent section, I offer an expository analysis of (...) Latin Trinitarianism, Social Trinitarianism and Material Constitution Trinitarianism in line with such concepts. I finally advance some reasons why neither of these properly work. My main argument is that every traditional phrasing of the doctrine of the Trinity asks Christians to hold maximally robust reading both of the onefoldness of God and the threefoldness of Divine Persons. Now, while Latin Trinitarianism, Social Trinitarianism and Material Constitution Trinitarianism provide maximally robust account of God's onefoldness, they can't give a maximally robust account for Persons' threefoldness. (shrink)

The theorizing about the doctrine of the Trinity by contemporary analytic philosophers of religion has recently been imbued with an air of enthusiastic excitement and self-confidence. My intuition is that there’s room for saying something more in support to the embarrassment and puzzlement traditionally related to the predication of God’s onefoldness and threefoldness. My purpose is to deliver a general argument for (weak) trinitarian skepticism. My view is that the argument provides substantive reasons in support to the common sense intuition (...) that either God’s onefoldness and threefoldness aren’t actually compatible or God’s onefoldness and threefoldness aren’t robustly construed. (shrink)