The Trinity in the Eastern Christian Tradition

[lovemuffin]

Purpose of this thread

There have been a lot of threads about trinity, several of which are ongoing, so you might ask why another one? My opinion is that the trinitarian doctrine is often poorly understood, and in part that's due to the way its normally presented, abstracted away from both the writings of the patristic authors who formulated it, as well as the specific history that led them to do so.

So my goal is not so much to prove the trinitarian doctrine is "correct" or to debate it, as to try to provide a reasonably good outline of that history and those views, because I haven't been able to find a single sufficient source for this online. For that reason, this is in the Christian theology DIR rather than a debate forum. That said, while I'm not looking for a debate corrections are welcome and I'm happy to try to clarify or answer questions as far as I'm able.

I'm not really particularly qualified for this task, but in attempting it I'm drawing heavily on Vladimir Lossky's The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, as well as some of the patristic sources directly: Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, John of Damascus, and Maximus Confessor in particular, as well as the Bible, for which I'm using the ESV and the Nestle-Aland 28th edition for the Greek. Lossky's book is highly recommended if you want something better than this post.

Outline

This post is long, and I can't link to subsections, so instead I will break it up into multiple posts, like this:

1. Background
   • The mystical and apophatic character of eastern theology
   • The ambiguity of the New Testament
2. The Trinity
   • Essence and Person
   • Generation and Procession
   • Perichoresis
   • Balancing antinomy
3. Christology and Soteriology
   • The principle of "assumption"
   • Two natures and two wills
   • Without change, confusion, separation, or division
4. A Brief History of the Creed
   • Subordinationism and Adoptionism
   • Arianism
   • The Macedonians
   • Nestorians, Monophysites and monothelites
5. An Outline of the New Testament Texts
   • The Divinity of Christ
     • Passages suggesting divinity
     • Passages emphasizing unity with the Father
     • Passages suggesting division or separation
     • The "only-begotten" Son
     • Prayers addressed to Christ
   • The Tetragrammaton and its translation

(cont...)

 

[lovemuffin]

1. Background

The mystical and apophatic character of eastern theology

From the orthodox perspective, the first mistake that's usually made when people start thinking or talking about the trinity is that they view it entirely in terms of logical categories, and attempt to understand in a purely logical way. The problem is that the trinitarian doctrine as it was conceived by the church fathers is explicitly antinomic. It entails an apparent logical paradox, and this is the case quite intentionally.

Patristic theology is mystical and apophatic. That is, the most fundamental thing that they believed could be said about God is that He is absolutely beyond all perception and knowledge, and is unknowable by means of human sense and reason. God is beyond every conception of Him, and while any particular concept may be useful by analogy or in pointing towards a revelation or experience of the Divine, nevertheless all concepts were imperfect. Gregory of Nyssa, in his work "The Life of Moses", understands this unknowability of God symbolically in the ascent of Moses into the darkness of a cloud at the top of the mountain, in which he spoke to God (Exodus 24). They also referred to the many biblical passages about the "invisibility" of God, which represents his incomprehensibility. John Damascene writes:

"God, then, is infinite and incomprehensible, and all that is comprehensible about Him is His infinity and incomprehensibility. All that we can say cataphatically concerning God does not show forth his nature but the things that relate to his nature... God does not belong to the class of existing things: not that He has no existence, but that He is above all existing things, even above existence itself. For if all forms of knowledge have to do with what exists, assuredly that which is above knowledge must certainly also be above essence..." -- De fide orthodoxa​

This apophatic emphasis absolutely must be taken into account to understand then the eastern concept of the trinity. In historical context, their concern was not so much to define in a comprehensive fashion what God is, a task they considered to be impossible, but rather to speak about conceptions about God that they thought were wrong in particular ways. In other words, to say what God is not, and thus to "put a fence up around the mystery", as it is sometimes said in eastern orthodoxy.

The ambiguity of the New Testament

One thing that is clear is that the theology of the first few Christian centuries was very fluid and diverse. There are a lot of competing and conflicting views, from Tertullian to Origen to Sabellius and others. It's not really much different in the 21st century in this regard. Despite the claims of an objectively certain interpretation of the New Testament, both then and now, it's clear that there's never been universal agreement, and I think any careful survey of the texts will make it clear why that is so. The relation between Jesus and the Father, the meaning of "begotten" in relation to the dichotomy between "Creator" and "Creature", the order and equality of the Son who is in the Father and the Father in him, and yet the Father is greater, even the meaning of the implicit distinction between the words "Son" and "Father", none of these are resolved by the scriptures themselves in a systematic way.

I am not aware of any of the patristic authors dealing with the question of this ambiguity directly, but I think, in the development of the trinitarian doctrine and the apophatic character of its theology, its impact is felt implicitly. One way of understanding the trinitarian doctrine that may be helpful is that it attempts to entirely embrace that ambiguity and tension, and in so doing preclude the possibility of making some passages more important than others, or of drawing logical deductions from some passages which contradict others. This can be seen in the orthodox response to the various views the Church anathematized, discussed in the second section

 

[lovemuffin]

2. The Trinity

Essence and Person

The simplest version of the trinitarian doctrine which you've probably read is this: "Three persons in one essence". In order to understand what was meant, however, we have to grasp what was understood by "essence", "person", and even to what extent the numerical quantities "one" and "three" were thought to apply. We also must pay attention to the background assumptions about the unknowability of God.

The Greek words in question here are οὐσία and ὑπόστασις. Ousia and Hypostasis. Essence and Person.

The first difficulty is that in patristic greek usage, these words are very closely synonymous. The usage of hypostasis as "person" is itself derived from the trinitarian conception, since that conception refers to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as hypostases, and those were considered to have a "personal" nature.This personality was sometimes expressed by using the greek πρόσοπον (face; appearance) for hypostasis.

In Aristotle, οὐσία refers to something like existence or subsistence, sometimes in a particular way (this man) and sometimes the universal, such as human nature in general, or the category "animal".

About the trinitarian theologians, Theodoret of Cyrus (5th century) writes:

"For profane wisdom there is no difference between ousia and hypostasis. For ousia means that which is, and hypostasis that which subsists. But according to the teaching of the fathers, there is between ousia and hypostasis the same difference as between common and particular"​

In other words, in employing two near synonyms for existence, they were not specifying in any particular way what the divine nature is, but only clarifying the relation between that which "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" have in common, and that in which they are distinct. Both the unity and distinction are insisted upon because the biblical account itself seems to insist upon them, as we'll touch on later.

If interpreted in terms of substances or entities this formulation is explicitly paradoxical. There cannot be both three and one existences at the same time. On this topic Gregory of Nazianzen, perhaps the single most important trinitarian theologian, simply denies that "Father" and "Son" can be understood in this way:

"Father is not the name of an essence [ουσιας]; it rather indicates the relation which the Father has toward the Son or the Son toward the Father..." (Oratio Theologica XXIX, 16)​

and Maximus Confessor denies that "essence" can be given its full logical implication:

"God is not an essence, understood as either general or particular, even if he is principle [as in the cause of creation]... he is a principle of being who is creative of essence and beyond essence, a ground who is creative of power but beyond power, the active and eternal condition of every act, and to speak briefly, the Creator of every essence..." (Chapters on Knowledge, I.4)​

The formulation "beyond essence", or even "beyond existence (being)" is important in its reflection of the absolute transcendence of the Divine, which limits the sorts of logical deductions which can be validly drawn from the formulation "three hypostases in one essence".

It is because of this apophatic and paradoxical emphasis that they could emphasize the unity of God. It is as if they employ certain conceptual categories in full awareness of their imperfection as analogies. An interesting modern analogy can be drawn to the so-called wave/particle duality in quantum mechanics. By analogy, the trinitarian fathers are insisting on something like an electron being both wave and particle, but in reality they are saying it is beyond both "wave" and "particle" as concepts (replacing "electron" with God, "wave" with unity of essence, and "particle" with multiplicity of persons in the analogy).

The paradox draws out the insufficiency of the rational categories employed. God is neither three, nor one, properly speaking. The distinction between the "wave-like" and "particle-like" properties is not a matter of the electron being two different things, although in trinitarian theology even the category of "property" must be understood as insufficient.

Generation and Procession

Besides the distinction between "three" and "one", there are three primary distinctions that the trinitarian doctrine accepted between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The Father is the source, the unbegotten and creative principle as Maximus refers to it. The "source and origin of all Divinity" as the sixth council of Toledo put it (638 C.E.)

The Father generates the Son. As per the new testament phrase "only begotten" (μονογενες).

The Spirit proceeds from the Father (and is sent by the Son).

Here again, they church fathers declined to say how this worked, but thought that they were merely encompassing the biblical tradition, which refers to the only begotten Son and the Spirit which descends:

"The very fact of being unbegotten, or begotten, or proceeding, has given the name of Father to the first, of the Son to the second, and to the third, the Holy Spirit, that the distinction of the three hypostases may be preserved in the one nature and dignity of the Godhead." -- Gregory Nazianzen, In sancta lumina​

Again, emphasizing the mystical and apophatic nature of the trinitarian doctrine, Gregory asserts that the distinctions cannot be taken to rise to the level of separation, and yet they do admit of a certain "order", even if that order does not violate the principle of their equality and identity. The Father is uniquely the uncreated source of all divinity and being. In this sense then they understand the saying of Jesus that "The Father is greater than I".

Perichoresis: Dwelling Within One Another

"Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?” (John 14:8-10)​

The term περιχώρησις, literally "rotation", is used to represent this idea of the Son in the Father and the Father in the Son, but it is also a sort of mystical principle of experience more generally in the ancient Christian tradition, and one that touches on several ideas we will develop below.

The mutual indwelling of the persons of the trinity within each other emphasizes also the unity of the Divine. Symeon the New Theologian, in one of his hymns, writes about the experience of unity of the divine that "it is as if you light a flame from another flame. It is the whole flame that you receive".

The wholeness and indivisibility of the Divine is such that the whole of God, Father, Son, and Holy spirit is in some way present in each of the persons. The council of Ephesus adopted the title Theotokos (God-bearer) for Mary, Jesus' mother as a way of affirming that in him "all the fullness of Deity dwelt bodily" (Col. 2:9), against the teaching of Nestorius, who did not believe that the Logos could be born. In other words, the title Theotokos is originally about affirming in a strong way both the divinity of Jesus as well as the perichoresis of the trinity. "They have their being in each other", is how John of Damascus put it.

Balancing Antinomy

Much of the rationale for all these considerations will be made clearer in discussing the history and scriptural basis of the trinitarian doctrine, but to conclude this overview of the doctrine itself, I quote from Lossky:

"In expounding the dogma of the Trinity, western thought most frequently took as its starting point the one nature, and thence passed to consideration of the three persons, while the Greeks followed the opposite course--from the three persons to the one nature. St Basil preferred the latter way, which in comformity to the Holy Scripture and to the baptismal formula which names the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, starts from the concrete.

Nevertheless, the two ways were both equally legitimate so long as the first did not attribute to the essence a supremacy over the persons, nor the second to the persons a supremacy over the common nature. In fact, as we have seen, the Fathers made use of two synonyms (οὐσία and ὑπόστασις) to establish the distinction between nature and persons, without putting the emphasis on either.

The nature is inconceivable apart from the persons or as anterior to them, even in the logical order. If the balance of this antinomy between nature and persons, absolutely different and absolutely identical at the same time, is upset, there will be the one case a tendency towards a Sabellian unitarianism, or else towards tritheism..." (The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p.56-57)​

 

[lovemuffin]

3. Christology

Historically, the nature of the trinity was addressed by different ecumenical councils than the Christological questions about the nature (human or divine) and will of Christ, but they need to be considered together because, along with the scriptural questions, the church fathers were also concerned with how theology and Christology related to the understanding of salvation.

The principle of Assumption

In Christian tradition, there have been several ways in which the soteriological value of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection have been understood. They are not necessarily in conflict, but they are distinct. Among many modern Christians, the juridical view has tended to be dominant. This is the view that emphasizes the idea of the crucifixion as a sacrificial atonement for sin, salvation being realized by those who believe. "Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29). "To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." (Acts 10:43)

Without in anyway denying this, there is alongside it another facet to salvation which is emphasized in a principle stated by Gregory Nazianzen:

"If anyone has put his trust in Him as a Man without a human mind, he is really bereft of mind, and quite unworthy of salvation. For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved." -- Letters on the Apollinarian Controversy​

The "assumption" Gregory refers to is that God assumes (takes on) human nature and becomes fully human, in order to deify that human nature and unite it with God:

"The Logos became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14).

"For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh" (Romans 8:2)

"Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people." (Heb 2:14-17)

"His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. (2 Peter 1:3-4)​

The "law" of sin and death which Paul refers to in Romans is not merely a question of guilt which must be forgiven, according to the analogy to a court and judgement, but refers to the very corruption of human nature which the church fathers understood to have occured, symbolized in the fall of Adam. God becomes a man not just in order to satisfy a need for justice, but in order to transform that nature by taking it on and deifying, so that we might become "partakers (koinonoi, communicants) of the divine nature", as 2 Peter says.

It is clear that the fullness of both Jesus' divinity and humanity is crucial to this soteriological principle , and it was with the preservation of this principle in mind that the Christological affirmations of the councils were made.

Two Natures and Two Wills

With this in mind, the actual Christological doctrines are almost entirely explained. They are that in Christ there are two natures, both the human and the Divine, and also two wills, in the same categories. As with the proper understanding of the relation between "persons" and "essence" in the trinity, the apophatic character of this union of two wills and two natures is emphasized

Without change, confusion, division, or separation

In other words, the council of Chalcedon does not say, or even pretend to understand how it is that in Christ there are two natures, but it emphasizes how it is not, through these four negations. And again the motivation is essentially to put a fence around a mystery while attempting to do justice both to the entire body of scripture, the unknowability of God, and the incarnation as a means by which not only sin is forgiven, but human nature is perfected and united with God.

 

[lovemuffin]

4. A Brief History of the Creed

Or, more specifically, a brief account of the specific theological views rejected by the church in the development of the trinitarian doctrine. This is not complete, but it covers what I think are the most important questions to that development.

Taking into account the apophatic approach, the emphasis on embracing the apparent ambiguity of scripture, and the preservation of the soteriological understanding of the early church, it is possible to see each question arising as a sort-of failure of logic (from the perspective of orthodoxy) in attempting to derive too much from one principle or one stream of Christian thought at the expense of the others. This "one at the expense of another" principle is important because each view rejected by the church in the development of the trinity can claim at least some scriptural support.

Subordinationism and Adoptionism

These are beliefs concerned with the divinity of Jesus. Subordinationism is the view that the Son and Spirit are subordinate to the Father in being and power, following passages like in John: "the father is greater than I am". Adoptionism suggested that Jesus was born a normal human, but was deified (adopted) as the Son of God at his baptism. "You are my Son. Today I have begotten you" (Psalm 2:7; Acts 13:33)

Subordinationism in various forms was espoused by many early church leaders in what is called the "pre-Nicene" or "ante-Nicene" period, including Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Tertullian and Irenaeus. It was rejected in part by the council of Nicea in 325, although not fully by the Trinitarian doctrine. In essence, what is accepted is that there is an order of a kind. The Father begets the Son and not the other way around. The Father is the "source and origin of all Divinity". And yet, the error that the creed finds with subordinationism is that it takes this order to imply inequality or division.

Arianism

Arius was a late 3rd century Christian priest in Alexandria, and it was his views on the nature of Jesus that led directly to the first ecumenical council at Nicea in 325 and the initial formation of the trinitarian doctrine, focused on the relation between Father and Son. Arius taught that Jesus was not God, but was a lesser divine being created by God who has not existed forever. Arius' teaching, and the way in which it was repudiated at Nicea, depends primarily on two scriptural ideas:

a)The meaning of "begotten". Jesus is the "only-begotten" Son of God, according to John's gospel. Arius understood begotten to mean created in the same way that the universe, or mankind, was created. Thus, he could not be God.

b) That the Father is greater than the Son, again following the verse from John.

From the orthodox standpoint, Arius' doctrine is problematic for a variety of reasons. It destroys the unity of monotheism, since Jesus is also said to be Divine but not God. It contradicts other scriptural affirmations, such as that "The Father and I are one". And it violates the principle that Christians, in Christ, participate in the divine nature and that salvation entails the assumption by the divine nature of all that his human. While Arius attempts to make logical sense of "only-begotten", he neglects other passages, such as that in Jesus "all the fullness of Deity dwelt bodily".

In its answer, the Nicene formulation does not ignore the phrase "only begotten", and the trinitarian conception does not ultimately ignore that "the Father is greater than I", as we've said.

Rather, finding a difference between the words "begotten", "made", and "created" in the greek scriptures, the Nicene creed affirms that the Son is "begotten" but not "made". This is based in part on the Septuagint Greek version of Genesis using ποιέω (make) rather than γεννάω (beget) in Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning, God made (ποιέω) the heavens and the earth". It is because of this that the Creed says that the Father "made" the heavens and the earth, but that the Son was "begotten, not made".

The Macedonians

Also called the Pneumatomachi or "Spirit-fighters", the Macedonians were a sect led by Macedonius who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. The sect and it's views came into conflict with the orthodox position during the second half of the 4th century, leading to the first council of Constaninople in 381.

The question of the divinity of Jesus and the relationship between him and the Father arose first, and was problematic mainly in there being too much apparently conflicting scriptural evidence. The question of the divinity of the Holy Spirit was almost an afterthought in Nicea, with writers like Basil the great affirming the divine nature of the Spirit, but not calling the Spirit "God". Unlike with the question of Jesus, the new testament scriptures offered less direct guidance, but the macedonians interpreted the sending of the spirit in John, that "he will not speak on his own authority", as evidence that the Spirit is not Divine

Gregory of Nazianzen was again the most significant voice arguing against them. He asserts that in the biblical description of the Spirit, it's divinity is seen, if not stated outright:

"Look at the facts: Christ is born, the Spirit is his forerunner; Christ is baptized, the Spirit bears him witness; Christ is tempted, the Spirit leads him up; Christ performs miracles, the Spirit accompanies him; Christ ascends, the Spirit fills his place. Is there any significant function belonging to God, which the Spirit does not perform?

He is called “Spirit of God,” “Spirit of Christ,” “Mind of Christ,” “Spirit of the Lord,” and “Lord” absolutely; “Spirit of Adoption,” “of Truth,” “of Freedom” “Spirit of Wisdom,” “Understanding,” “Counsel,” “Might,” “Knowledge,” “True Religion” and of “The Fear of God.” The Spirit indeed effects all these things, filling the universe with his being, sustaining the universe. His being “fills the world,” his power is beyond the world’s capacity to contain it. It is his nature, not his given function to be good, to be righteous and to be in command." (Oration 31)​

Just as importantly, he argues that if the Spirit is not God, then human nature cannot be unified with the Divine, as per the principle of salvation. Since Paul wrote that we are temples of the Holy Spirit, and that this represents that unification in Christ, to deny the divinity of the Spirit would be to deny the possibility of divine union:

"Why do you grudge me a complete regeneration? Why do you make me, who am the Temple of the Holy Spirit as of God, the habitation of a creature?" (Oration 34.11)

"If he has the same rank as I have [a creature], how can he make me God, how can he link me with deity?" (31.4)​

Nestorians, Monophysites and Monothelites

Following the councils of Nicea (325) and the first in Constantinople (381), the central dogma of the Trinity has been set, as we've described it. The councils of Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451) and the third council of Constantinople (680) dealt with the two central questions of Christology which we mentioned above: the relation and union between the human and Divine nature and will in Christ.

The controversies that arose at this time were not about the divinity of Christ, on which point the various parties were agreed, but about how it is that Jesus can be both human and divine. Physis and Thelema are the greek words for nature and will, respectively. Monophysites posited that in Christ there was truly only one nature, a sort of blend of the Divine and human. Monothelites postied that in Christ there was only one will. The church rejected these views in a nuanced way, but also rejected Nestorius' teaching which made the the divine and human natures of Christ too separate. Again the balance of antinomy and the "fence around the mystery" was seen as important to orthodox doctrine.

Nestorius' view, similar to adoptionism, was that in order for Jesus to be "fully human", there must be a real separation between the divine Logos or Son of God, and the human person Jesus. They must be two persons, although they (for a time) inhabited the one body. For this reason, he rejected the title "Theotokos" (God-bearer) for Mary, suggesting that she be called Christotokos, Christ-bearer.

On the other hand, the monophysites held that the idea of two natures existing in one person to be logically impossible. Different monophysite schools had slightly different ways of resolving this problem, but in effect they all end up emphasizing the Divine over the human. Either the human nature is "dissolved like a drop of honey in the sea" of the Divine, or the body was seen as human but the soul and mind as entirely divine.

In rejecting both resolutions to the apparent difficulty of two natures, the church affirmed the union of the two natures and the two wills in an apophatic way, as said above: "without change, confusion, separation, or division". This is not so much an answer in an intellectual sense as an attempt to preserve both the humanity and divinity of Jesus as portrayed in scripture, as well as to preserve the principle of salvation by the divine assumption of human nature.

 

[lovemuffin]

5. An Outline of the New Testament Texts

This is more or less an appendix intended to support the assertion that the text is ambiguous on some of these points, but also to provide the background for the conclusions the ecumenical councils reached.

The Divinity of Christ

Suggesting Divinity: John 1:1, 1:14, 5:18, 8:58, 10:30, 14:10, 20:26-29, Phil 2:6, Col 1:15-20, Heb 1

Plus arguably all the synoptic passages about judgement and forgiveness of sin in Christ: Matt 9:4, 12:25, 22:18, Luke 5:17-26, 7:36-50, given the understanding that only God can forgive sins and that it is God who judges.

Suggesting Unity between Father and Son especially: John 1:1, 5:18, 8:58, 10:30, 14:10

Suggesting distinction or separation: 3:35, 5:26-27, 10:29, 13:16, John 14:28 , Mark 13:32, 1 Cor 8:5-6, Heb 10:7-9

"Only-begotten": John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, 1 John 4:9

Prayer addressed to Christ: 1 Cor 1:2, Acts 7:59, Romans 10:13, 1 Cor 16:21 (maranatha; see also notes on the Tetragrammaton)

The Tetragrammaton and its translation in the New Testament

There is an entirely separate class of arguments for the assertion that the early church considered Jesus divine in at least some way, based upon the movement that was occuring in Judaism, and which is reflected in the Christian scriptures, to replace the hebrew tetragrammaton, the name of God, with adonai in hebrew, kyrios in greek, and maran in aramaic, all meaning and translated into english as "lord". This change is reflected in the Christian scriptures, which quote the Septuagint greek translation of the old testament texts using kyrios for the name of God, as well as in the "marana tha!" of 1 Corinthians. In light of that practice, the repeated reference to Jesus as lord, especially in formulas like 1 Cor 8:5-6 ("For us there is one God, the Father...and one Lord, Jesus Christ") suggest an allusion to the name of God, although demonstrating that is too much for this post.

However, it's worth noting that while whether or not Jesus was divine in any way is a topic of controversy, at least at the time of the councils, it was never in question. What was in question was what it meant for him to be divine, especially in light of a monotheistic premise and the apparently conflicting scriptural accounts.

 

[Brickjectivity]

One way of understanding the trinitarian doctrine that may be helpful is that it attempts to entirely embrace that ambiguity and tension, and in so doing preclude the possibility of making some passages more important than others and in so doing drawing logical deductions from them so as to preclude the truth of the others.

That seems like an interesting point worthy of consideration.

 

[lovemuffin]

That seems like a sentence that needs to be rewritten

 

[Windwalker]

Thank you for this nice summation of the formation and history of the Trinity doctrine. I'd like to process some thoughts about it I may share later, but I'd be interested if you could expand on what Sabellius' views were, if those can truly be known outside of what was said he claimed. Perhaps contrast that with Tertullian and where and how his views were similar or dissimilar with the later views.

Also, it is understandable in saying how the Trinity formulation is resolved apophatically, but like anything that is described it becomes cataphatic in nature. The issue with positive statements is that in the minds of those who rely on logic and reason it becomes a definition, and that leads to either rejecting it based on reason for its inherent contradictions, or accepted on "faith", which is taken in the sense of bypassing, or leaping past reason into a sort of acceptance of it for that sake of belief itself. Neither of which understand the nature of the apophatic approach which does not reject the paradox through atheism, or ignore it through a leap of faith, but rather it negates the cataphatic understanding as the sole means of knowledge and understanding. To the mystic, the mystery is preserved in the nature unknowing, which allows for modes of discussion which are inherently contradictory to exist comfortably within that space.

The whole problem with making these Church doctrines which are then taught to the laity, is that they cannot be understood or held in that space without the mystical experience. It makes one wonder the value of teaching it outside mystical communities? Certainly, it creates a quite 'trite' view of God to mistake these literally as three entities in concert together in a divine console. I made a meager attempt to explain some of my thoughts to this in another thread I think I might be able to expand on better now after reading some of your material above. http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/evolutionary-panenthiesm.155334/

 

[lovemuffin]

The whole problem with making these Church doctrines which are then taught to the laity, is that they cannot be understood or held in that space without the mystical experience. It makes one wonder the value of teaching it outside mystical communities?

I absolutely agree that in practice the doctrine of the Trinity tends to become this reified cataphatic structure which is either entirely dispensed with or just accepted as a poorly understood dogma without much meaning. I have known many Christians who belonged to denominations which held orthodox views about the Trinity but for whom it really didn't mean anything at all. In fact, that describes me for many years. And of course others end up rejecting it based on the seeming incomprehensibility of it as a cataphatic explanation.

In a lot of ways I think this problem is exacerbated by a huge distance in the culture. Among the Greek church fathers "theology" always began with mystical experience and in attempting to discuss God in a metaphysical way they were also always trying to capture something of their own experience, which they saw as modeled after Jesus' participation in the trinity. That's why the divinity of Christ is so important to Gregory Nazienzen's view of salvation. In other words, for them the Trinity wasn't really intended as a theoretical (in the modern sense) framework reserved for explaining the internal nature of God, but a pattern or symbol of the mystical goal of Christian life, to participate in that same trinitarian mystery, to participate in the divine nature through Christ, so as to be able to say also that "My father and I are one."

I agree with you that the flavor of it is much more panentheistic than the culture of some modern western Christian denominations.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Some truly talented Bible students should be here discussing this with you. Some really smart people ought to be here contributing, and it saddens me that they are not here. They are out there isolated from other people and tied up by the limitations placed upon them by the enslavers of Christian people. They are out there being forced to comply to a very limited, contrived set of creeds and they feel alone. Someone is being told that there are limits and obstructions, but those limits and obstructions don't really exist.