Justin Mooney (2018) advances what he calls The Problem of Triunity: each divine person is God, God is triune, and yet, each of the divine persons is apparently not triune. In response, I suggest that we ought to accept that each of the divine persons is in fact triune. First, I offer a plausible analysis of the claim that God is triune; second, I show that, given that analysis, there is nothing untoward about embracing the conclusion that each divine person is triune. I suggest that, once we take care to clarify what affirming the triunity of each divine person does and does not commit us to, we will see that we are not thereby committed to anything that contravenes orthodoxy – contrary, perhaps, to initial expectations. Third, I argue that this view sits particularly well with the claim that triunity is essential to divinity, whereas other views falter on this score. After considering and responding to an alternative analysis of triunity, I consider an objection to my analysis based on the salutary nature of communities. Finally, I conclude by noting an important lesson we can glean from the problem of triunity vis-à-vis trinitarian theorizing.

贾斯汀·穆尼 (Justin Mooney) (2018) 提出了他所谓的三位一体问题：每个神圣的位格都是上帝，上帝是三位一体的，然而，每个神圣的位格显然都不是三位一体的。作为回应，我建议我们应该接受每个神圣的位格实际上是三位一体的。首先，我对上帝是三位一体的说法进行了合理的分析；其次，我表明，鉴于这种分析，接受每个神圣位格都是三位一体的结论并没有什么不妥。我建议，一旦我们注意澄清确认每个神圣位格的三位一体所做和不承诺我们做什么，我们将看到我们不会因此而承诺任何违反正统观念的事情——也许与最初的期望相反。第三，我认为这种观点特别符合三位一体对神性至关重要的主张，而其他观点在这方面摇摆不定。在考虑并回应对三位一体的另一种分析之后，我基于社区的有益性质考虑反对我的分析。最后，我最后指出一个重要的教训，我们可以从三位一体论与三位一体论的问题中汲取教训。