Time Travel and the Trinity - Brian Leftow's Latin Trinity

In this video I explain Professor Brian Leftow's model of the Trinity, which attempts to show that what the doctrine of the Trinity claims is possible.
If you want to read more about Brian's view, here is a link to his paper 'A Latin Trinity' - place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/...
Note: In Brian's paper the dancer is female, and a Rockette. Unfortunately the software I use to create these videos only had a male dancer that was fit for purpose. Slightly annoying! So if you know the paper well then think of Jim as Jane instead!

[@cliveaw1206]

Very clear! Keep it coming.

[@justitiapak9803]

Another well made, clear, and insightful video. Subscribed.

[@justinhenry5772]

Interesting

[@alexwarstler9000]

This just sounds like modalism.

[@coreykeplinger3391]

This sounds like modalism. A man being a Father, a husband and a brother. I like this analogy best: The Sun, Sun-light and the heat. The light and heat cannot exist without the Sun. Without the light and heat; the light being Jesus, God cannot be a Father. You cannot look upon the Sun, but you can see it emits light and feel the heat it radiates. These 3 are interrelated. In the egg 🥚 analogy all three parts depend on each other to be an egg, so that falls short.

[@tylerthebeliever9080]

With the sun analogy, wouldn't the problem be the nature of God then? God does not rely on other being/person to exist so if X and Y rely on Z to exist then X and Y are both not God

[@coreykeplinger3391]

@@tylerthebeliever9080 No. Not if there's only one God. The light and heat are not the SUN. I see your point though. But let me illustrate it further. A circle is God a square is Jesus and a triangle is Holy Spirit. There's only one circle but 3 shape s.

[@coreykeplinger3391]

@@tylerthebeliever9080 Also, the doctrine of the Trinity is that Christ was not a man exalted to God status but was God humbling himself to human status. That's in Philippians.

[@tylerthebeliever9080]

@@coreykeplinger3391
First of all, the analogy doesn't make sense. Secondly, if that does make sense, it is still modalism because there's one circle (God) but 3 shapes (modes). Unless you're saying that 3 different shape makes or produces the circle then that would be partialism. Either way you'll fall into a heresy

[@tylerthebeliever9080]

@@coreykeplinger3391
Philippians wrote by Paul, so why should a Christ believer believe in Paul who hadn't even met Jesus?
Even if that statement is true (in Philippians 2), you have God's nature problem; immortality:
- God is immortal
- Jesus died, he's not immortal
- Jesus is not God

[@TroutBoneless]

(Shatner Voice) What does god need with a time machine?

[@Loehengrin]

That's modalism, Patrick!

[@thinkingillustrated5281]

Perhaps ... but if you read Brian's paper, which is linked in the description, you'll see that he contends that it isn't. He also argues that his model isn't modalistic in another paper called 'Modes without Modalism' - philpapers.org/rec/LEFMWM

[@thebiblerefutesheretics2054]

Social Trinitarianism is Tritheism

[@joop6463]

haha lol indeed, its modalism with all modes enabled at the same time but its definitely not trinitarianism

[@chaosinorder9685]

@@thinkingillustrated5281 the first model doesn’t work that one does entail Modalism because it is literally the same person just dressed differently and with a different color hair.
The second model however DOES work because it’s 3 distinct Lego robots made of the same Lego pieces.

[@joop6463]

no patrick this is 1 person in 3 "past and future versions" this is just modalism with all the modes enabled at the same. trinitarianism means 3 persons in 1 God. and in order to have distinct persons jesus has to know the propostitions:
'i am jesus' and 'i am not the father nor the holy spirit' and the father and holy spirit know their own propositions
and this analogy does not meet that requirement, the only thing that meets the requirement is that they are 3 distinct centers of consiousness in 1 God/being
and if jesus is eternally begotten by the father how can the father be begotten by himself?
in other words this is a heresy PATRICK!

[@chaosinorder9685]

The first analogy doesn’t work because it’s the same person from three different periods of time. The father is not the son the son is not the spirit, etc. The first analogy is better fitting for Modalism.
But the second analogy is much better.