God’s Eternal Yes!: An Exposition and Development of Lonergan’s Psychological Analogy of the Trinity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents an overview of Lonergan’s psychological analogy of the Trinity with some proposed clarifications and developments. By way of presentation, it introduces the readers to Lonergan’s early psychological analogy in his Triune God: Systematics in the context of contemporary theological reflection on the Trinity. Two developments are then presented, the first, following Robert Doran, is to develop the analogy as a proceeding Word of affirmation or God’s eternal Yes. Several examples are presented to show the provocative nature of this proposed development including the Church’s relationship with the Jews, Mariology, and Barth’s Christology. Second, I explore an interpretation proposed by Doran in order to reconcile the earlier analogy with Lonergan’s later analogy in light of Ignatian spiritual theology, therefore retaining the fittingness of both analogies. Finally, I propose a qualification of Doran’s fecund solution.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it