What do the ECF say about the trinity?

[themuzicman]

This thread is for evangelical and orthodox Christians only.

I'm interested in what ECFs touched on the trinity, and what they had to say about it. More specifically, I've been unhappy with the use of the term "three persons", and I'm looking for the basis and reasoning for using that term.

Anyone?

Michael

[Kenny]

While I do know a little about the historical development of the doctrine of the Trinity, there are others here who could do you better on that, so I think, unless none of them pipe up, that I’ll leave that to them. However, I am curious what you find as dissatisfying with the “three persons” language. Given that Scripture does seem to present the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as entering into distinctive personal relationships with one another (e.g. the Father begets the Son and loves the Son; the Son is begotten and reciprocates love back to the Father) that seem to involve each having distinctive centers of consciousness, I think the term ‘three persons’ (i.e. three relational centers) is entirely appropriate.

Of course, one thing that is problematic with the term ‘person’ is not the term itself, but some of the Western individualistic notions that we tend to read into that term. If we understand the term ‘person’ to mean ‘an autonomous self-contained individual,’ then that meaning will not do for the Trinity. But, that has to do with our own Western philosophical hang-ups more than it does with the term ‘person’ itself. Rather than jettisoning the term ‘person’ from our Trinitarian language in order to accommodate our culture, I think we should use our traditional Trinitarian language to correct the philosophical misconceptions of our culture. A person is focal point of interpersonal relationships. What marks us out as persons is not some self-contained autonomy, but our relational capacities. The more self-contained we are, in fact, the less personal we are. The more we are integrated into community with one another and with God, the more personal we become.

In Christ,
Kenny

[AcousticJS]

I've literally just started looking into this sort of thing, largely 'cos I've read a few posts from people around here who deny the deity of Christ and I want to find out what the Scriptures say.

So far, I've focussed in on John 1:1. What is interesting about this verse is that the Greek for the phrase translated "the Word was with God" apparently means "the Word was facing God". The Greek word translated "with" is "pros". I'm told by books and from a couple of different places that this shows the Word and God (whom I would see as the Son and the Father) in active communicative relationship with one another. This has really been firing my heart the last couple of days!

For the Word and God to be in relationship, there must be some kind of distinction between the two, though they are not separate beings since the Word is God (though it's not quite true that God is the Word).

Whether you want to describe this as the Godhead having multiple centres of consciousness, or having multiple persons, but one essence. I'm not too fussy about the exact term used to reflect the reality that the members of the Trinity are in relationship with one another.

Sorry, I'm kind of rambling now, so I'll stop.

Blessings in Him,
Jon

PS. Sorry if this wasn't too relevant. I've just realised what 'ECF' stood for. I haven't a clue what the Early Church Father's thought about this...

[themuzicman]

Of course, one thing that is problematic with the term ‘person’ is not the term itself, but some of the Western individualistic notions that we tend to read into that term. If we understand the term ‘person’ to mean ‘an autonomous self-contained individual,’ then that meaning will not do for the Trinity. But, that has to do with our own Western philosophical hang-ups more than it does with the term ‘person’ itself. Rather than jettisoning the term ‘person’ from our Trinitarian language in order to accommodate our culture, I think we should use our traditional Trinitarian language to correct the philosophical misconceptions of our culture. A person is focal point of interpersonal relationships. What marks us out as persons is not some self-contained autonomy, but our relational capacities. The more self-contained we are, in fact, the less personal we are. The more we are integrated into community with one another and with God, the more personal we become.

In Christ,
Kenny

That's probably the source of my irritation. I have a pet peeve about expressing concepts and ideas in terms that communicate accurately in the present cultural and sematic setting. The use of 'persons' has opened up trinitarians to the charge of tri-theism, because the language we use has changed.

I would agree with your assessment of the situation. I had hoped to find a more current term that relates the triune nature in today's context.

I've started using "wills", noting that a perfect God with three wills would always be in harmony, but would be seen as able to interrelate and communicate with one another.

I draw the analogy to human beings, who have a sin nature, a spirit or conscience, and a mind, off of which compete (because we are fallen) for the will and have separate voices, even though we are only one being.

But I don't find that term entirely satisfactory, either. I had hoped to get some insight from the ECFs, as I also think returning to the fundamentals is a great way to gain understanding.

Michael

Michael

[nomad]

i forgot about this last night. if you want, i'll dig out my 'dictionary of early christian beliefs' and post some relevant passages. incidentally, it's a great resource in general, you can look up any christian 'buzzword' and it gives you a list of quotes corresponding to it. i don't know if it's biased or not (i.e. if it leaves some things out) but at least everything in there is actually in an ECF. i have found it useful anyways, and it's pretty cheap ($20-25 for like a 500 page hardcover). i think david bercot is the editor.

[themuzicman]

Cool, nomad. Thanks. I'll look that one up!

[NonTrinitarian]

Michael,
I'm not considered "orthodox" and thus not sure if you want my input. I will leave if you want but to me the ECF spoke of Christ as a "god" separate from "God". Not that they believed in TWO gods but they believed in one true God and then one who reflects His authority. I'll bow out if you want to leave this thread strictly to "orthodox".

[themuzicman]

That was the intent of the opening line of the thread.

[Kenny]

That's probably the source of my irritation. I have a pet peeve about expressing concepts and ideas in terms that communicate accurately in the present cultural and sematic setting.

There’s always a fine line that theologians have to walk between expressing Biblical truth in culturally relevant terms for the sake of communication, but also expressing those truths in such a way that challenges the unbiblical aspects of a culture’s ideas in the very use of the culture's own terms. That’s never easy. In the case of the Trinity, though, I think it is good to hold on to the term ‘three persons’ since we are talking about three distinctive centers of consciousness, emotional and mental life within God, and even in our culture, the term ‘three persons’ communicates that idea well. On the other hand, by invoking the term ‘persons’ in our doctrine of the Trinity, we can also use the doctrine of the Trinity to challenge false ideas in our culture concerning what a person really is. By drawing attention to the fact that the doctrine of the Trinity provides us with a relational view of personhood, we can challenge our the false ideas of what it means to be a person that flow out of our radical Western individualism.

Finally, I would also note that the term ‘three persons’ may communicate Trinitarian doctrine to our emerging culture better than you think. In our post modern context, our culture has already begun to wake up to the fragmentation of the Self that Western individualism ultimately leads to and it is correcting for that by moving back toward a more communal and relational view of personhood.

The use of 'persons' has opened up trinitarians to the charge of tri-theism, because the language we use has changed.

True, but there is always a fine line to be walked in Trinitarian theology between tri-theism and modalism – and usually moving away from language that opens one to the charge of tri-theism just opens one to the charge of modalism and vice-versa.

I would agree with your assessment of the situation. I had hoped to find a more current term that relates the triune nature in today's context.

Well, like I said, I think the best thing to do is develop a Trinitarian doctrine of what it means to be a person and then challenge our culture with that. I suspect that such a challenge would be well received among many in our post-modern culture as an answer to the fragmentation of the Self they have landed in via Western individualism.

But, if you think it’s best to change the language, then I would suggest ‘three focal points of interpersonal relationships’ or something along those lines. Then you could develop that in terms of how God relates to Himself in terms of three distinct relational centers, and then, by extension, how our personal relationship with God terminates on, not just one, but three relational foci – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

I've started using "wills", noting that a perfect God with three wills would always be in harmony, but would be seen as able to interrelate and communicate with one another.

I draw the analogy to human beings, who have a sin nature, a spirit or conscience, and a mind, off of which compete (because we are fallen) for the will and have separate voices, even though we are only one being.

I suppose the problem that I have with this is that it skates too close to modalism for me (even though I realize that’s not your intention and that you too probably see the same danger). I also have a problem with it because it presents an overly tri-chotomist view of the human person, and I am much more holistic in terms of my anthropology, but that may not be a problem for you, depending on your theological perspective.

But I don't find that term entirely satisfactory, either. I had hoped to get some insight from the ECFs, as I also think returning to the fundamentals is a great way to gain understanding.

Well, from my own readings of the ECFs and sources on early church theology, the key idea behind the term ‘hypostaseis’ (which we translate as ‘persons’) was the notion of inter-subjective relationships occurring with in God’s being. Of course, the difficulty with such formulations, as you have pointed out, is the danger of ti-theism. The ECF way of avoiding tri-theism was through the notion of “circumencesion’ or ‘perichoreisis’ (not sure I spelled either of those right). The idea was that the persons of the Trinity were ‘wrapped around’ one another in such a way that the activities of any one is always radically intertwined with the activities of the others. Furthermore, the subjective of identity of each person of the Trinity is formed strictly in terms of the relational distinctions that each bears to the others, such that there is a radical inter-relational dependance between them.

That’s the best I can do from memory. Anything further would require me to look things up. But, I’m on spring break from seminary, darn it!, I don’t want to be doing academic theology right now!

A good book, though, would be The Trinity edited by Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall SJ and Gerald O’ Collins SJ (Oxford, 1999).

In Christ,
Kenny

[nomad]

as promised, though i didn't find as much as i expected:

"Christians know God and His Logos. They also know what type of oneness the Son has with the Father and what type of communion the Father has with the Son. Furthermore, they know what the Spirit is, and what the unity is of these three: the Spirit, the Son, and the Father. They also know what their distinction is in unity." - Athenagoras, c.175

"We acknowledge a God, and Son (His Logos), and a Holy Spirit. These are united in essence - the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Now, the Son is the Intelligence, Reason, and Wisdom of the Father. And the Spirit is an emanation, as light from fire." - Athenagoras again

interesting because later on, irenaeus claims that the Spirit is Wisdom, and because Wisdom created the world, the Spirit was always with him. there were disagreements even then of course.

"The universal Father is one. The universal Word is one. And the Holy Spirit is one." - Clement of Alexandria, c.195

here's a good one... long...

"This heresy [Monarchianism] supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in only one God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also One were not All, in that All are of One, by unity of substance. In this manner, the mystery of the 'economy' is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the Three: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, this is not in condition, but in degree. It is not in substance; but in form. It is not in power, but in aspect. Yes, they are of one substance, one condition, and one power - for as He is one God from whom these degrees, forms, and aspects are reckoned under the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. How they are susceptible of number with division will be shown... The simple... who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the 'economy', on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the only true God. They do not understand that, althought He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own 'economy' ... How does it come to pass that God is thought to suffer division and severance in the Son and in the HOly SPirit, who have the second and the third places assigned to them, and who are so closesly joined with the Father in His substance? Do you really suppose that those, who are naturally members of the Father's own substance, pledges of His love, instruments of His might... are the overthrow and destruction thereof? You are not right in thinking so." Tertullian, c.213

"If, then, the Word was with God and was also God, what follows? Would one say that I speak of two Gods? I will not indeed speak of two Gods, butof one. I speak of two Persons, however, and of a third Economy - the grace of the Holy Spirit. For the Father indeed is one, but there are two Persons, because there is also the Son. ANd then there is the third, the Holy SPirit. The Father decrees, the Word executes, and the Son is manifested, through whom the Father is believed on. The Economy of harmony is led back to one God. For God is one. It is the Father who commands, and the Son who obeys, and the Holy Spirit who gives understanding. The Father is above all, the Son is through all, and the Holy Spirit is in all. " - Hippolytus, c. 205

"'Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.' By this, He showed that whoever omits any one of these three, fails in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through the Trinity that the Father is glorified. For the Father willed, the Son did, and the Spirit manifested." - Hippolytus again, early reference to that verse.

"Let everyone, then, who cares for truth not be concerned about words and language. For in every nation there prevails a different usage of speech. Rather, let him direct his attention to the meaning conveyed by the words (rather than to the nature of the words that convey the meaning), especially in matters of such importance and difficulty. ... The "substance" of the Trinity that is the beginning and cause of all things... is altogether incorporeal." - Origen, c. 225

more tomorrow... tired of typing for tonight. all mistakes are mine (and there probably are some, i was typing fast)...

[themuzicman]

Thank you, nomad. I appreciate your efforts. I like how Tertullian puts it.

Michael

[Fideist345]

This thread is for evangelical and orthodox Christians only.

I'm neither, so I won't comment on any response. But I do want to offer that the very best exposition I know of is Jarislov Pelikan's series. Most of the questions anyone might have are answered in volume 1 (Catholic), but there's some really good stuff in the other volumes. A lot of libraries carry 'em. I bought my own set from Amazon years ago.

[nomad]

ok, a few more. btw, 'economy' in the above = oikonomia gr.

"In the 'Economy' itself, the Father willed that the Son should be regarded as being on earth, and the Father Himself as being in heaven. Actually, however, He is everywhere present.' - Tertullian, c213

"If there are three Persons (gr. hypostases), this does not mean that they are divided. There are three whether they like it or not. Otherwise, let them get rid of the Trinity altogether.' - dionysius of alexandria, c.262, as quoted by athanasius, an unusually frank admission of absolute confusion if you ask me :)

"It would be just to dispute against those who destroy the Monarchy by dividing and rending it... into three powers and distinct substances (gr. hypostases) and deities... In a certain manner, these men declare three Gods, in that they divide the Holy Unity into three different substances, absolutely separated from one another. For it is essential that the Divine Word should be united to the God of all, and that the Holy Spirit should abide and dwell in God. Therefore, the Divine Trinity should be reduced and gathered into one, into a certain Head - that is, into the Omnipotent God of all. For the doctrine of the foolish Marcion, which cuts and divides the Monarchy into three elements, is certainly of the devil. It is not of Christ's true disciples... for these indeed correctly know that the Trinity is declared in the divine Scripture. However, the doctrine that there are three Gods I find neither taught in the Old nor the New Testament." - Dionysius of Rome (c. 265), as quoted by Athanasius. this one also seems frank about laying out what we know, both that the Trinity and the Unity are facts not debatable, and admitting that they seem in conflict but does not necessarily present a solution.

the above two come with the comment that there was some confusion because eastern (alexandria) and western (rome) both used hypostases, but to mean different things - substance in the east, and persons in the west.

most of the rest are just declarations of the trinity, not much about its underlying philosophy so to speak. there are some other sections referenced.