Goals and notGoals 1 I DO hope to explain something about the doctrine of the socalled Monarchy of the Father 2 I WILL NOT try to convince you its true or even that its a good idea ID: 746543
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "One God, the Father The Neglected Monar..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
One God, the Father
The Neglected Monarchy of the Father and the Analytic Debate about the TrinitySlide2
Goals (and not-Goals)
1) I DO hope to explain something about the doctrine of the so-called “Monarchy of the Father.”
2) I WILL NOT try to convince you it’s true – or even that it’s a good idea.
3) I DO hope to show just how radically the landscape of a debate in philosophical theology can change when we keep one eye on history.
(History matters!)Slide3
Payoff
When we put this neglected doctrine back into view:
(1) the strongest objections to
trinitarianism
lose their force.
[ (2) the main competitor to
trinitarianism
requires modifications that may be fatal, but in any case will put it in a far weaker position. ]Slide4
Strongest Objections to Trinitarianism
1) Wonky metaphysics (or problematic equivocations)
2) Doesn’t do justice to the Biblical presentation of God:
A) “God” and “the Father” seem to name the same person (in NT).
B) God seems to be
a person
(not a “tri-personal being”) (OT & NT).Slide5
Most Influential Alternative:Biblical Unitarianism (BU)
Defended by Dale Tuggy, author of the
SEP
entry on the Trinity.
Biblical Unitarianism (BU) says that:
God just is the Father (as the Bible seems to say).
The “Son of God” is Jesus Christ, a man, but not any sort of divine being.
He came into existence sometime around 5 BC – 1 AD.
For most BU’s, talk about the Holy Spirit is something like talk about “God in action.”
Cons: Clearly not traditional (or popular).
Pros:
(1) Straight-forward; no wonky metaphysics; no equivocating on key terms.
(2) Does justice to Biblical revelation of God as The Father and as
uni
-personal.Slide6
Narrowing Our Focus
I’ll focus on two sets of definitions we might use for “
trinitarianism
” and “
unitarianism
.”
My own
Dale Tuggy’s
The doctrine of the Monarchy shows how these definitions come apart.
Changes the landscape of the debate dramatically.Slide7
My Definitions
(TB) A Trinitarian Theology says that:
(1) There are exactly three divine “persons” or individuals. Nevertheless,
(2) There is exactly one God.
(So, the persons can’t all = the One God).
(Presumably each one bears some important relation to the one God or has a “claim” to being called “God,” but our definition won’t settle how that works.)
(UB) A Unitarian Theology says that:
(1) There is exactly one divine “person” or individual, and
(2) There is exactly one God.
(Presumably these will just be identical, or at least “numerically one,” but again we won’t rule on that point in our definition.)Slide8
Tuggy’s Definitions
(TT) “A
trinitarian
Christian theology says that
(1) there is one God,
(2) which or who in some sense contains or consists of three “persons,” namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
(3) who are equally divine, and
(4) (1)-(3) are eternally the case.”
(UT) “A
unitarian
Christian theology asserts that
(1) there is one God,
(2) who is numerically identical to the one Jesus called “Father,”
(3) and is not numerically identical to anyone else
(4) and (1)-(3) are eternally the case.”Slide9
“Good Enough for Government Work?”
Equivalent
within the scope of some reasonable assumptions
?
Absolutely not.
Starkly
different when we consider things historically.
Mine might be improved. Tuggy’s are just inadequate.
When we look at the debate through a more historical lens:
*** 1) Arguments in favor of BU lose their force against certain models of the Trinity.
[ 2) BU ends up in a very tight spot:
A) It may just end up being incoherent, or
B) It faces a trilemma that may result in
(
i
) collapsing into
Trinitarianism
or
(ii) losing its dialectical advantage against (all or)
almost all
models of the Trinity. ]Slide10
What is the “Monarchy”?
(HINT:
NOT THIS!
)Slide11
The Monarchy (μοναρχία)
μοναρχία
=
μόνος +
ἀρχή
“One source”
A single “First Principle” of everything
The Father is the “One Source” or “First Principle” – not only of creation, but
within the Trinity itself.
This in turn can be disambiguated in a number of ways…Slide12
What Does It Mean?
(1) the Father is the sole source / cause
of the Son and Spirit
.
(2) The Father is (also) somehow the source of
the divine nature itself.
(3) The Father is “the union” or “the principle of unity” within the Trinity (not, say, the divine nature, or the “community” of persons)
(Probably, at a minimum, what the Greek Fathers mean.)
(Something like, end of explanation for unity.)
(4) Strictly speaking, the Father
just is
“the One God.”
(The Son and Spirit share the same nature, but are not
identical
to Him.)Slide13
Some Definitions
“Strong monarchy view”: The proposition that The One God = the Father.
“Monarchical model”: Model of the Trinity with a strong monarchy view.
“Egalitarian” or “symmetrical” model:
Model in which the persons have an “equal claim” to being called “God” (in
any
sense).
Any quality or relation that would be relevant to whether that person can be called “God” (in any sense) is shared by the other two persons equally.
Monarchical models are all non-symmetrical, but there could be non-symmetrical models that are not monarchical.Slide14
Our Definitions are Not Equivalent
In monarchical models, there are exactly three divine persons, and exactly one God, because the one God is just
one of
the divine persons.
These count as Trinitarian on T
B
, and not as Unitarian on U
B
. (Because there are exactly three divine persons; not exactly one).
But they count as Unitarian on U
T
. (Because the relation between the one God and the Father is identity.)
Question: Do some monarchical models
also count as Trinitarian
on T
T
?
(We’ll return to this when we discuss consistency with mainstream analytic models.)Slide15
Two “Million Dollar Questions”
1. Is this
really
Trinitarian? (Maybe it’s “
Subordinationism
!”
😱
)
2. Wouldn’t this rule out almost every analytic model of the Trinity? (which are all symmetrical).
No way to fully do justice to (1) in a short time, but I’ll give reasons to say yes (in any sense important to actual Trinitarians.)
Then I’ll explain how a strong monarchy view is consistent with a much wider range of analytic models than one might expect.Slide16
Modern Eastern Orthodox Theologians on the MonarchySlide17
John Zizioulas (Metropolitan of Pergamum)
Among the Greek Fathers
the unity of God, the one God, and the ontological ‘principle’ or
‘cause
’ of the being and life of God does not consist in the one substance of God but in the
hypostasis
, that is, the person of the Father.
The one God is not the one substance but the Father
… (
Being as Communion
, pp. 40–1)
The one God is the Father
. Substance is something common to all three persons of the Trinity, but it is not ontologically primary until Augustine makes it so. (‘On Being Persons: Towards an Ontology of Personhood’, in
Persons Divine and Human
, ed. Christoph
Schwo
̈bel and Colin
Gunton
, p. 40.)Slide18
Fr. John Behr(Dean, St. Vladimir’s Seminary)
The one God
confessed by Christians in the first article of the creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople
is unambiguously the Father.
“Calling upon God as Father: Augustine and the Legacy of Nicaea,” in
Orthodox Readings of Augustine
, p. 162Slide19
Fr. John Behr(Dean, St. Vladimir’s Seminary)
So how can Christians believe in and worship the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and yet claim that there is only one God, not three? How can one reconcile monotheism with
trinitarian
faith? …
The Father alone is the one true God
. This keeps to the structure of the New Testament language about God, where with only a few exceptions, the world “God” (
theos
) with an article (and so being used, in Greek, as a proper noun) is only applied to the one whom Jesus calls Father, the God spoken of in the scriptures … This same fact is
preserved in all ancient creeds, which begin: “I believe in one God, the Father …”
Such, then, is how the Greek Fathers, following Scripture, maintained that there is but one God, whose Son and Spirit are equally God, in a unity of essence and of existence, without compromising the uniqueness of the one true God…
The Living Pulpit
(April-June, 1999), pp. 22-23Slide20
For the Christian faith there is, unequivocally, but one God, and that is the Father: “There is one God and Father.” For Basil, the one God is not the one divine substance, or a notion of “divinity” which is ascribed to each person of the Trinity, nor is it some kind of unity or communion in which they all exist;
the one God is the Father
. But this “monarchy” of the Father does not undermine the confession of the true divinity of the Son and the Spirit. Jesus Christ is certainly “true God of true God,” as the Nicene Creed puts it, but he is such as the Son of God, the God who is thus the Father. If the term “God” (
theos
) is used of Jesus Christ, not only as a predicate, but also as a proper noun with an article, this is only done on the prior confession of him as “Son of God,” and so as other than “the one God” of whom he is the Son; it is necessary to bear in mind this order of Christian theology, lest it collapse in confusion.
The Nicene Faith II
: pp. 307-308
Fr. John Behr
(Dean, St. Vladimir’s Seminary)Slide21
Now in the Bible, in the creeds, and in the liturgy, it’s very important, really critically important, to note, and to affirm, and to remember, that the one God
, in Whom we believe,
strictly speaking, is not the Holy Trinity. The One God is God the Father
. That
in the Bible, the One God is the Father of Jesus Christ
. He is God Who sends His only-begotten Son into the world. And Jesus Christ is the
Son
of God. And then, of course, in a parallel manner, the Spirit, the Holy Spirit is the
Spirit of
God.
http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/the_holy_trinity
(12:37 to 13:25)
Fr. Thomas
Hopko
(Former Dean, St. Vladimir’s Seminary)Slide22
On the other hand, there is another terrible error, and the other terrible error, usually called Modalism in technical theological terminology, is where people say there is one God Who is the Holy Trinity, There is “He Who Is the Trinity.”
And we Orthodox Christians, following scripture, and the creedal statements, and the liturgical prayers, can never say there is one God who is the Trinity.
There is one God who is the Father.
And this one God who is the Father has with Him eternally, Whom He begets timelessly before all ages, His only-begotten Son — who is also His Logos, his Word, and also his
Chokhmah
, His Sophia, His Wisdom, also His
Eikona
, His Ikon, His Image —
but this Wisdom and Word and Image and Ikon, is divine with the same divinity as God, the One True and Living God…
http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/the_holy_trinity
(15:41 to 16:37)
Fr. Thomas
Hopko
(Former Dean, St. Vladimir’s Seminary)Slide23
surprised? – Don’t Be
(Ever Heard of the Great Schism?)Slide24
Vladimir Lossky on the Filioque
The Greek Fathers always maintained that
the principle of unity
in the Trinity
is the person of the Father
… This is why the East has always opposed the formula of
filioque
which
seems to impair the monarchy of the Father
: either one is forced to destroy the unity by acknowledging two principles of Godhead, or one must ground the unity primarily on the common nature…
The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church
, p. 58Slide25
St. Photios the Great,on The
Mystagogy
of the Holy Spirit
“11. Leaving aside the aforementioned, if one admits of
two causes
in the
thearchic
and
superessential
Triad, where then is the much hymned and God-befitting majesty of the
monarchy
? Will not the godlessness of
polytheism
be riotously introduced? Under the guise of Christianity, will not the superstition of Greek error reassert itself among those who dare to say such things?
ια
ʹ
.
Χωρὶς
δὲ
τῶν
εἰρημένων
,
εἰ
δύο
αἴτια
ἐν
τῇ
θεαρχικῇ
καὶ
ὑπερουσίῳ
Τριάδι
καθορᾶται
,
ποῦ
τὸ
τῆς
μοναρχίας
πολυΰμνητον
καὶ
θεοπρεπὲς
κράτος;
Πῶς
οὐχὶ
τὸ
τῆς
πολυθεΐας
ἄθεοννῦν
ἐπικωμάσει
;
Πῶς
δ’
οὐκ
ἐν
προσχήματι
Χριστιανισμοῦ
ἡδεισιδαιμονία
τῆς
Ἑλληνικῆς
πλάνης
τοῖς
ταῦτα
λέγειν
τολμῶσιν
οὐ
συνεισελάσει
;Slide26
St. Photios the Great,on The
Mystagogy
of the Holy Spirit
12. Again, if
two causes
are imposed upon the
the monarchic Triad
, then according to the same reasoning, why should not a third one emerge? For once the principle without principle and above principle, is cast down from its throne by these impious ones and is cleaved into a duality, the principle will proceed more vehemently to be severed into a trinity, since in the
supersubstantial
inseparable, and simple nature of the divinity, the triad is more manifest than the dyad, and indeed also harmonizes with the
idiomata
.
ιβ
ʹ
.
Πάλιν
εἰ
δύο
αἴτια
τῆς
μοναρχικῆς
Τριάδος
ἐπαναβέβηκε
,
πῶς
οὐχὶ
καὶ
τὸ
τρίτον
τῆς
αὐτῆς
συνανακύψει
γνώμης
προερχόμενον
;
Ἅπαξ
γὰρ
τῆς
ἀνάρχου
καὶ
ὑπεραρχίου
ἀρχῆς
τῆς
οἰκείας
ἕδρας
τοῖς
δυσσεβέσι
περιτραπείσης
καὶ
εἰς
δυάδα
διατμηθείσης
,
νεανικώτερον
καὶ
πρὸςτὴν
Τριάδα
ἡ
κατανομὴ
τῆς
ἀρχῆς
προελεύσεται
,
ἐπεὶ
κἀν
τῇ
ὑπερφυεῖ
καὶ
ἀμερεῖκαὶ
ἑνιαίᾳ
τῆς
Θεότητος
φύσει
τὸ
τριαδικὸν
μᾶλλον
ἢ
τὸ
δυαδικὸν
ἀναφαίνεται
,
οἷα
δὴ
καὶ
τοῖς
ἰδιώμασιν
ἁρμοζόμενον
.Slide27
Pontifical Council forPromoting Christian Unity
The Greek Fathers and the whole Christian Orient speak… of
the “Father's Monarchy,”
and the Western tradition, following St. Augustine, also confesses that the Holy Spirit takes his origin from the Father
principaliter
, that is, as principle (
De
Trinitate
XV, 25, 47, P.L. 42, 1094-1095). In this sense, therefore,
the two traditions recognize that the “monarchy of the Father”
implies that the Father is the sole Trinitarian Cause (
Aitia
) or Principle (
Principium
) of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
… the term
ekporeusis
as distinct from the term "proceed" (
proienai
), can only characterize a relationship of origin to
the principle without principle of the Trinity: the Father.
That is why the Orthodox Orient has always refused the formula to
ek
tou
Patros
kai
tou
Uiou
ekporeuomenon
… and the Catholic Church has refused the addition
kai
tou
Uiou
[and the Son] to the formula
ek
to
[sic]
Patros
ekporeumenon
in the Greek text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol, even in its liturgical use by Latins.Slide28
Pontifical Council forPromoting Christian Unity
The doctrine of
the
Filioque
must be understood and presented by the Catholic Church in such a way that it
cannot appear to contradict the Monarchy of the Father
nor the fact that he is the sole origin (
arche
,
aitia
) of the
ekporeusis
of the Spirit… its purpose was to stress the fact that the Holy Spirit is of the same divine nature as the Son,
without calling in question the one Monarchy of the Father.
https://
www.catholicculture.org
/culture/library/
view.cfm?id
=1176Slide29
Patristics Scholars on “Subordinationism”Slide30
Michel Rene Barnes
…“subordinationism” has become a scare word like “Nestorian” or “Neoplatonist” (or “Papist”), and considerable nuance has to be used — making it, for those of us “in the business” a word we have been trying to avoid and replace. In any case, orthodox Trinitarian theology, pre and post Nicene, has always had some kind of “subordinationism” — whatever that word means — to it. Read Augustine,
de
Trinitate
I-IV (or at least I&IV) and the discussion of “
missio
”.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/patristics-scholar-michel-r-barnes-weighs-in-on-the-intra-complementarian-debate-on-the-trinity/#BGXyF5pLCs0IMyRm.99Slide31
Lewis Ayres
… there are not only two alternatives: The Trinitarian persons are equal or eternal subordination. It is much more interesting than that.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/patristics-scholar-lewis-ayres-weighs-in-on-the-intra-complementarian-debate/#JKTWZPcOO54xKMrd.99Slide32
Patristic Sources on the MonarchySlide33
Gregory of Nyssa, ad Petrum
… the Holy Spirit… has this note of His peculiarity according to hypostasis, being known after the Son and together with the Son, and having subsistence from the Father.
The Son, who through Himself and with Himself reveals the Spirit proceeding from the Father, who alone shines forth only-begotten-
ly
from the unbegotten light… is known by these mentioned signs.
And God over all alone has a certain singular mark of His own hypostasis: being the Father, and hypostasizing from no cause, and by this sign again He is also individually recognized.
τὸ ῎
Αγιον
Πνεῦμα
…
τοῦτο
γνωριστικὸν
ῆς
κατα
̀
τὴν
ὑπόστασιν
ἰδιότητος
σημεῖον
ἔχει
, τὸ
μετα
̀
τὸν
Υἱὸν
καὶ
σὺν
αὐτῷ
γνωρίζεσθαι
καὶ τὸ
ἐκ
τοῦ
Πατρὸς
ὑφεστάναι
.
̔ Ο δὲ
Υἱὸς
ὁ τὸ
ἐκ
τοῦ
Πατρὸς
ἐκπορευόμενον
Πνεῦμα
δι’
ἑαυτου
͂ καὶ μεθ’
ἑαυτου
͂
γνωρίζων
,
μόνος
μονογενῶς
ἐκ
τοῦ
ἀγεννήτου
φωτὸς
ἐκλάμψας
…
ἀλλα
̀
τοῖς
εἰρημένοις
σημείοις
μόνος
γνωρίζεται
.
̔ Ο δὲ
ἐπι
̀
πάντων
Θεὸς
ἐξαίρετόν
τι
γνώρισμα
τῆς
ἑαυτου
͂
ὑποστάσεως
τὸ
Πατὴρ
εἶναι
καὶ
ἐκ
μηδεμιᾶς
αἰτίας
ὑποσ
τῆναι
μόνος
ἔχει
, καὶ διὰ
τούτου
πάλιν
τοῦ
σημείου
καὶ
αὐτὸς
ἰδιαζόντως
ἐπιγινώσκεται
. Slide34
Gregory of Nyssa, ad Petrum
…
the Holy Spirit
… has this note of His peculiarity according to hypostasis, being known after the Son and together with the Son, and having subsistence from the Father.
The Son, who through Himself and with Himself reveals the Spirit proceeding from the Father, who alone shines forth only-begotten-
ly
from the unbegotten light… is known by these mentioned signs.
And God over all alone has a certain singular mark of His own hypostasis: being the Father, and hypostasizing from no cause, and by this sign again He is also individually recognized.
τὸ ῎
Αγιον
Πνεῦμα
…
τοῦτο
γνωριστικὸν
ῆς
κατα
̀
τὴν
ὑπόστασιν
ἰδιότητος
σημεῖον
ἔχει
, τὸ
μετα
̀
τὸν
Υἱὸν
καὶ
σὺν
αὐτῷ
γνωρίζεσθαι
καὶ τὸ
ἐκ
τοῦ
Πατρὸς
ὑφεστάναι
.
̔ Ο δὲ
Υἱὸς
ὁ τὸ
ἐκ
τοῦ
Πατρὸς
ἐκπορευόμενον
Πνεῦμα
δι’
ἑαυτου
͂ καὶ μεθ’
ἑαυτου
͂
γνωρίζων
,
μόνος
μονογενῶς
ἐκ
τοῦ
ἀγεννήτου
φωτὸς
ἐκλάμψας
…
ἀλλα
̀
τοῖς
εἰρημένοις
σημείοις
μόνος
γνωρίζεται
.
̔ Ο δὲ
ἐπι
̀
πάντων
Θεὸς
ἐξαίρετόν
τι
γνώρισμα
τῆς
ἑαυτου
͂
ὑποστάσεως
τὸ
Πατὴρ
εἶναι
καὶ
ἐκ
μηδεμιᾶς
αἰτίας
ὑποσ
τῆναι
μόνος
ἔχει
, καὶ διὰ
τούτου
πάλιν
τοῦ
σημείου
καὶ
αὐτὸς
ἰδιαζόντως
ἐπιγινώσκεται
. Slide35
Gregory of Nyssa, ad Petrum
…
the Holy Spirit
… has this note of His peculiarity according to hypostasis, being known after the Son and together with the Son, and having subsistence from the Father.
The Son
, who through Himself and with Himself reveals the Spirit proceeding from the Father, who alone shines forth only-begotten-
ly
from the unbegotten light… is known by these mentioned signs.
And God over all alone has a certain singular mark of His own hypostasis: being the Father, and hypostasizing from no cause, and by this sign again He is also individually recognized.
τὸ ῎
Αγιον
Πνεῦμα
…
τοῦτο
γνωριστικὸν
ῆς
κατα
̀
τὴν
ὑπόστασιν
ἰδιότητος
σημεῖον
ἔχει
, τὸ
μετα
̀
τὸν
Υἱὸν
καὶ
σὺν
αὐτῷ
γνωρίζεσθαι
καὶ τὸ
ἐκ
τοῦ
Πατρὸς
ὑφεστάναι
.
̔ Ο
δὲ
Υἱὸς
ὁ τὸ
ἐκ
τοῦ
Πατρὸς
ἐκπορευόμενον
Πνεῦμα
δι’
ἑαυτου
͂ καὶ μεθ’
ἑαυτου
͂
γνωρίζων
,
μόνος
μονογενῶς
ἐκ
τοῦ
ἀγεννήτου
φωτὸς
ἐκλάμψας
…
ἀλλα
̀
τοῖς
εἰρημένοις
σημείοις
μόνος
γνωρίζεται
.
̔ Ο δὲ
ἐπι
̀
πάντων
Θεὸς
ἐξαίρετόν
τι
γνώρισμα
τῆς
ἑαυτου
͂
ὑποστάσεως
τὸ
Πατὴρ
εἶναι
καὶ
ἐκ
μηδεμιᾶς
αἰτίας
ὑποσ
τῆναι
μόνος
ἔχει
, καὶ διὰ
τούτου
πάλιν
τοῦ
σημείου
καὶ
αὐτὸς
ἰδιαζόντως
ἐπιγινώσκεται
. Slide36
Gregory of Nyssa, ad Petrum
…
the Holy Spirit
… has this note of His peculiarity according to hypostasis, being known after the Son and together with the Son, and having subsistence from the Father.
The Son
, who through Himself and with Himself reveals the Spirit proceeding from the Father, who alone shines forth only-begotten-
ly
from the unbegotten light… is known by these mentioned signs.
And
God over all
alone has a certain singular mark of His own hypostasis: being the Father, and hypostasizing from no cause, and by this sign again He is also individually recognized.
τὸ ῎
Αγιον
Πνεῦμα
…
τοῦτο
γνωριστικὸν
ῆς
κατα
̀
τὴν
ὑπόστασιν
ἰδιότητος
σημεῖον
ἔχει
, τὸ
μετα
̀
τὸν
Υἱὸν
καὶ
σὺν
αὐτῷ
γνωρίζεσθαι
καὶ τὸ
ἐκ
τοῦ
Πατρὸς
ὑφεστάναι
.
̔ Ο
δὲ
Υἱὸς
ὁ τὸ
ἐκ
τοῦ
Πατρὸς
ἐκπορευόμενον
Πνεῦμα
δι’
ἑαυτου
͂ καὶ μεθ’
ἑαυτου
͂
γνωρίζων
,
μόνος
μονογενῶς
ἐκ
τοῦ
ἀγεννήτου
φωτὸς
ἐκλάμψας
…
ἀλλα
̀
τοῖς
εἰρημένοις
σημείοις
μόνος
γνωρίζεται
.
̔ Ο
δὲ
ἐπι
̀
πάντων
Θεὸς
ἐξαίρετόν
τι
γνώρισμα
τῆς
ἑαυτου
͂
ὑποστάσεως
τὸ
Πατὴρ
εἶναι
καὶ
ἐκ
μηδεμιᾶς
αἰτίας
ὑποσ
τῆναι
μόνος
ἔχει
, καὶ διὰ
τούτου
πάλιν
τοῦ
σημείου
καὶ
αὐτὸς
ἰδιαζόντως
ἐπιγινώσκεται
. Slide37
Gregory of Nyssa, ad Petrum
…
the Holy Spirit
… has this note of His peculiarity according to hypostasis, being known after the Son and together with the Son, and having subsistence from the Father.
The Son
, who through Himself and with Himself reveals the Spirit proceeding from the Father, who alone shines forth only-begotten-
ly
from the unbegotten light… is known by these mentioned signs.
And
God over all
alone has a certain singular mark of His own hypostasis:
being the Father
, and hypostasizing from no cause, and by this sign again He is also individually recognized.
τὸ ῎
Αγιον
Πνεῦμα
…
τοῦτο
γνωριστικὸν
ῆς
κατα
̀
τὴν
ὑπόστασιν
ἰδιότητος
σημεῖον
ἔχει
, τὸ
μετα
̀
τὸν
Υἱὸν
καὶ
σὺν
αὐτῷ
γνωρίζεσθαι
καὶ τὸ
ἐκ
τοῦ
Πατρὸς
ὑφεστάναι
.
̔ Ο
δὲ
Υἱὸς
ὁ τὸ
ἐκ
τοῦ
Πατρὸς
ἐκπορευόμενον
Πνεῦμα
δι’
ἑαυτου
͂ καὶ μεθ’
ἑαυτου
͂
γνωρίζων
,
μόνος
μονογενῶς
ἐκ
τοῦ
ἀγεννήτου
φωτὸς
ἐκλάμψας
…
ἀλλα
̀
τοῖς
εἰρημένοις
σημείοις
μόνος
γνωρίζεται
.
̔ Ο
δὲ
ἐπι
̀
πάντων
Θεὸς
ἐξαίρετόν
τι
γνώρισμα
τῆς
ἑαυτου
͂
ὑποστάσεως
τὸ
Πατὴρ
εἶναι
καὶ
ἐκ
μηδεμιᾶς
αἰτίας
ὑποσ
τῆναι
μόνος
ἔχει
, καὶ διὰ
τούτου
πάλιν
τοῦ
σημείου
καὶ
αὐτὸς
ἰδιαζόντως
ἐπιγινώσκεται
. Slide38
Gregory of Nyssa, ad Petrum
…
the Holy Spirit
… has this note of His peculiarity according to hypostasis,
being known after the Son and together with the Son, and having subsistence from the Father.
The Son
, who through Himself and with Himself reveals the Spirit proceeding from the Father, who alone shines forth only-begotten-
ly
from the unbegotten light… is known by these mentioned signs.
And
God over all
alone has a certain singular mark of His own hypostasis:
being the Father
, and hypostasizing from no cause, and by this sign again He is also individually recognized.
τὸ ῎
Αγιον
Πνεῦμα
…
τοῦτο
γνωριστικὸν
ῆς
κατα
̀
τὴν
ὑπόστασιν
ἰδιότητος
σημεῖον
ἔχει
,
τὸ
μετα
̀
τὸν
Υἱὸν
καὶ
σὺν
αὐτῷ
γνωρίζεσθαι
καὶ τὸ
ἐκ
τοῦ
Πατρὸς
ὑφεστάναι
.
̔ Ο
δὲ
Υἱὸς
ὁ τὸ
ἐκ
τοῦ
Πατρὸς
ἐκπορευόμενον
Πνεῦμα
δι’
ἑαυτου
͂ καὶ μεθ’
ἑαυτου
͂
γνωρίζων
,
μόνος
μονογενῶς
ἐκ
τοῦ
ἀγεννήτου
φωτὸς
ἐκλάμψας
…
ἀλλα
̀
τοῖς
εἰρημένοις
σημείοις
μόνος
γνωρίζεται
.
̔ Ο
δὲ
ἐπι
̀
πάντων
Θεὸς
ἐξαίρετόν
τι
γνώρισμα
τῆς
ἑαυτου
͂
ὑποστάσεως
τὸ
Πατὴρ
εἶναι
καὶ
ἐκ
μηδεμιᾶς
αἰτίας
ὑποσ
τῆναι
μόνος
ἔχει
, καὶ διὰ
τούτου
πάλιν
τοῦ
σημείου
καὶ
αὐτὸς
ἰδιαζόντως
ἐπιγινώσκεται
. Slide39
Gregory of Nyssa, ad Petrum
…
the Holy Spirit
… has this note of His peculiarity according to hypostasis,
being known after the Son and together with the Son, and having subsistence from the Father.
The Son
, who
through Himself and with Himself reveals the Spirit proceeding from the Father, who alone shines forth only-begotten-
ly
from the unbegotten light
… is known by these mentioned signs.
And
God over all
alone has a certain singular mark of His own hypostasis:
being the Father
, and hypostasizing from no cause, and by this sign again He is also individually recognized.
τὸ ῎
Αγιον
Πνεῦμα
…
τοῦτο
γνωριστικὸν
ῆς
κατα
̀
τὴν
ὑπόστασιν
ἰδιότητος
σημεῖον
ἔχει
,
τὸ
μετα
̀
τὸν
Υἱὸν
καὶ
σὺν
αὐτῷ
γνωρίζεσθαι
καὶ τὸ
ἐκ
τοῦ
Πατρὸς
ὑφεστάναι
.
̔ Ο
δὲ
Υἱὸς
ὁ
τὸ
ἐκ
τοῦ
Πατρὸς
ἐκπορευόμενον
Πνεῦμα
δι’
ἑαυτου
͂ καὶ μεθ’
ἑαυτου
͂
γνωρίζων
,
μόνος
μονογενῶς
ἐκ
τοῦ
ἀγεννήτου
φωτὸς
ἐκλάμψας
…
ἀλλα
̀
τοῖς
εἰρημένοις
σημείοις
μόνος
γνωρίζεται
.
̔ Ο
δὲ
ἐπι
̀
πάντων
Θεὸς
ἐξαίρετόν
τι
γνώρισμα
τῆς
ἑαυτου
͂
ὑποστάσεως
τὸ
Πατὴρ
εἶναι
καὶ
ἐκ
μηδεμιᾶς
αἰτίας
ὑποσ
τῆναι
μόνος
ἔχει
, καὶ διὰ
τούτου
πάλιν
τοῦ
σημείου
καὶ
αὐτὸς
ἰδιαζόντως
ἐπιγινώσκεται
. Slide40
… Gregory does not identify “God” as that which is common
, a genus to which various particular beings belong. Rather, Gregory stands
clearly within the monarchical approach of Athanasius, Basil, and Gregory of Nazianzus. It is “the God overall” who is known specifically as “Father”
…
The Nicene Faith II
: p. 420
Fr. John Behr
(Dean, St. Vladimir’s Seminary)Slide41
Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomius
II.5
But let us examine the words that follow [in the creed composed by
Eunomius
]:
“
He is
always and absolutely one, remaining uniformly and unchangeably
the only God
.”
If he is speaking about the Father, we agree with him
, Slide42
Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomius
II.5
But let us examine the words that follow [in the creed composed by
Eunomius
]:
“
He is
always and absolutely one, remaining uniformly and unchangeably
the only God
.”
If he is speaking about the Father, we agree with him
, for the Father is most truly one, alone and always absolutely uniform and unchangeable,
never at any time present or future ceasing to be what He is
. If then such an assertion as this has regard to the Father, let him not contend with the doctrine of godliness, inasmuch as on this point he is in harmony with the Church.
For he who confesses that
the Father is
always and unchangeably the same, being
the one and only God
, holds fast the word of godliness, Slide43
Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomius
II.5
But let us examine the words that follow [in the creed composed by
Eunomius
]:
“
He is
always and absolutely one, remaining uniformly and unchangeably
the only God
.”
If he is speaking about the Father, we agree with him
, for the Father is most truly one, alone and always absolutely uniform and unchangeable,
never at any time present or future ceasing to be what He is
. If then such an assertion as this has regard to the Father, let him not contend with the doctrine of godliness, inasmuch as on this point he is in harmony with the Church.
For he who confesses that
the Father is
always and unchangeably the same, being
the one and only God
, holds fast the word of godliness,
if in the Father he sees the Son, without Whom the Father neither is nor is named
.
But if he is inventing some other God, besides the Father, let him argue alongside the Jews, or alongside those who are called ‘
Hypsistians
,’ [‘Most-High-
ists’
] between whom and the Christians there is this difference: That
they acknowledge that there is a God
(Whom they term ‘the Most High’ or ‘the Almighty.’)
But they do not admit that
He is a Father
. While a Christian — if he believe not in the Father — is no Christian at all.Slide44
The Deposition of Arius, Section 2
(Alexander, Pope of Alexandria, Egypt, in a council of presbyters, including 17 priests and 24 deacons of Alexandria; and 19 priests and 20 deacons of the
Mareotis
. So, 80 total.)
[Arius and 5 other priests, their 6 deacons, and 2 bishops are named, then…]
[T]he novelties they have invented and put forth contrary to the Scriptures are these following:
That God was not always a Father, but there was a time when God was not a Father.Slide45
What’s the Logic here?
1. God is a necessary ( / eternal) being (exists at all times in all possible worlds).
2. It’s analytic (thus, necessarily / eternally true) that: If any X counts as a Father, then there is a (distinct) Y such that Y is the Son (Offspring) of X.
3. So, if Father-hood is
essential
to God, then it’s necessarily ( / eternally) true that there is a Son.
4. Fatherhood
is
essential to God.
(Though
Eunomius
wants to deny this!) So…
5. The Son is also a necessary ( / eternal) being (exists at all times & all worlds.)Slide46
What’s the Logic here?
6. Add: Creatures are (all) contingent and non-eternal. (So if X is a creature, there are worlds and times where X does not exist.)
7. So, the Son of God is not a creature.
8. Add: if X is not divine, X is created.
9. So (by modus Tollens), the Son of God is divine.
Difficult to deny auxiliary premises.
Looks like the only way to consistently maintain Arianism (OR BU!) is actually to
deny
that God is
essentially – or even just eternally
, a Father.Slide47
Tuggy’s Definitions
(TT) “A
trinitarian
Christian theology says that
(1) there is one God,
(2) which or who in some sense contains or consists of three “persons,” namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
(3) who are equally divine, and
(4) (1)-(3) are eternally the case.”
(UT) “A
unitarian
Christian theology asserts that
(1) there is one God,
(2) who is numerically identical to the one Jesus called “Father,”
(3) and is not numerically identical to anyone else
(4) and (1)-(3) are eternally the case.”Slide48
Tuggy’s Definitions
(TT) “A
trinitarian
Christian theology says that
(1) there is one God,
(2) which or who in some sense contains or consists of three “persons,” namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
(3) who are equally divine, and
(4) (1)-(3) are eternally the case.”
(UT) “A
unitarian
Christian theology asserts that
(1) there is one God,
(2) who is numerically identical to the one Jesus called “Father,”
(3) and is not numerically identical to anyone else
(4) and (1)-(3) are eternally the case.
”Slide49
Tuggy’s Definitions
(TT) “A
trinitarian
Christian theology says that
(1) there is one God,
(2) which or who in some sense contains or consists of three “persons,” namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
(3) who are equally divine, and
(4) (1)-(3) are eternally the case.”
(UT) “A
unitarian
Christian theology asserts that
(1) there is one God,
(2) who is numerically identical to the one Jesus called “Father,”
(3) and is not numerically identical to anyone else
(4) and (1)-(3) are eternally the case.
”
Arguably, this actually requires Monarchical
TrinitarianismSlide50
St. Hillary of Poitier, De Trinitate
12.32
For either He was not always a Father (unless there was always also a Son); or if He was always a Father, there was always also a Son; since whatever period of time is denied to the Son, to make His
sonship
non-eternal, just so much the Father lacks of having been always a Father: so that although He was always God, nevertheless He cannot have been also a Father for the same infinity during which He is God.Slide51
St. Gregory Nazianzen (Oration 25
)
Define our piety, by teaching the knowledge of:
One God, unbegotten, the Father
;
and One begotten Lord, his Son,
referred to as “God” when he is mentioned separately
,
but as “Lord” when he is named together with the Father
—
the first on account of the [divine] nature,
the second
on account of the monarchy
.Slide52
St. John of Damascus,Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith
We believe, then, in
One God
, one beginning, having no beginning,
uncreate
,
unbegotten
, imperishable and immortal, everlasting, infinite, uncircumscribed, boundless, of infinite power, simple,
uncompound
, incorporeal, without flux, passionless, unchangeable, unalterable, unseen, the fountain of goodness and justice, the light of the mind, inaccessible; a power known by no measure, measurable only by His own will alone (for all things that He wills He can ), creator of all created things, seen or unseen, of all the maintainer and preserver, for all the provider, master and lord and king over all, with an endless and immortal kingdom: having no contrary, filling all, by nothing encompassed, but rather Himself the
encompasser
and maintainer and original possessor of the universe, occupying all essences intact and extending beyond all things, and being separate from all essence as being super-essential and above all things and absolute God, absolute goodness, and absolute fullness : determining all sovereignties and ranks, being placed above all sovereignty and rank, above essence and life and word and thought: being Himself very light and goodness and life and essence, inasmuch as He does not derive His being from another, that is to say, of those things that exist: but being Himself the fountain of being to all that is, of life to the living, of reason to those that have reason; to all the cause of all good: perceiving all things even before they have become: one essence, one divinity, one power, one will, one energy, one beginning, one authority, one dominion, one sovereignty, made known in three perfect
subsistences
and adored with one adoration, believed in and ministered to by all rational creation, united without confusion and divided without separation (which indeed transcends thought). (We believe) in Father and Son and Holy Spirit
whereinto
also we have been baptized. For so our Lord commanded the Apostles to baptize, saying, Baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit Matthew 18:19Slide53
St. John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith
And again we speak of the three
subsistences
as being in each other, that we may not introduce a crowd and multitude of Gods. Owing to the three
subsistences
, there is no
compoundness
or confusion: while, owing to their having the same essence and dwelling in one another, and being the same in will, and energy, and power, and authority, and movement, so to speak, we
recognise
the indivisibility and the unity of God.
For verily there is one God,
and His word
and Spirit.Slide54
Compatibility with Analytic ModelsSlide55
“Toy” Social Trinitairanism (TST)
God is a set: G
Has three elements: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, represented: f, s, and h.
Thus, G = {
f,s,h
}. I.e., f
G, s
G, and h
G.
In one sense of “God,” there is exactly one God — set G.
In a different sense of “God” (or “divine”), anything that is an element of G “is God” or “is divine.”
Thus, f, s, and h can each be called “God” or “divine.”
Is TST compatible with the proposition that G = f?
Is
irreflexive
?
Slide56
Rea/Brower Constitution Model
“Impure” Relative Identity models.
Allow for the
existence
of classical identity, but says that isn’t the relation we
count
by.
Can say f ≠ s ≠ h, but that all are
relatively identical
to divine nature d, so count as one God.
On R/B’s specific account, the persons are
constituted by
the divine nature.
Can we say f = d? (And the Son and Spirit are constituted by the Father / Divine Nature?)
All three would count as “God” or “divine” in the sense that they are constituted by the Divine Nature / Father (Rea allows for a thing to count as constituting itself)
The Father would be “God” or “divine” in an even more basic way, which could license referring to Him as “the one God” or “the only true God.”
(In fact, a lot of language in Athanasius and others looks like this.)Slide57
Key Factors
Compatibility will likely come down to:
(1) whether key predications are true of both the Father and the One God, and
(2) whether the relation between the Father and the One God is
irreflexive
.
But many models will pass both tests, and many that don’t may do so for reasons that seem inessential.
This also answers our earlier question whether Tuggy’s definitions are
mutually exclusive
(they’re not).Slide58
UnderminingBiblical UnitarianismSlide59
BU Objections & monarchical models
Do monarchical models…
1) Necessarily rely on wonky metaphysics (or problematic equivocations)?
2) Do justice to the Biblical presentation of God?
A) Do “God” and “the Father” name the same person?
B) Is God
a person
(not a “tri-personal being”)?
Arguments BU presents
against
“
Trinitarianism
” are really just arguments
for
a strong monarchy view.
Then Tuggy’s definitions count all monarchical models as “Unitarian” –
even when they include three fully and equally divine persons
.Slide60
Consequences ofMisleading Definitions
Makes it look as though a strong monarchy view just isn’t an option for Trinitarians, when it fact it’s:
(1) strongly supported in the patristic sources we think of as being definitive of the doctrine of the Trinity – the church fathers who authored the Nicene and Constantinopolitan creeds, who presided at the first two ecumenical councils, etc.,
(2) very much a main-stream Eastern Orthodox view, and
(3) is even compatible with a fairly wide range of analytic models of the Trinity (even when they are intended to be symmetrical).Slide61
A Trilemma for BUSlide62
Arius’s Creed (Letter to Alexander)
Historically, Arians cleverly
avoided
defining God as “Father,” (to avoid collapsing into Monarchical
Trinitarianism
).
“We acknowledge
One God
, alone unbegotten, alone everlasting, alone without beginning, alone true, alone having immortality, alone wise, alone good, alone sovereign, judge, governor, and provider of all, unalterable and unchangeable, just and good, God of the Law and the Prophets and the New Testament;
who begat an only-begotten Son before time and the ages
, through whom he made both the ages and all that was made; who begot Him not in appearance, but in reality; and that
he made him [the Son] subsist at his [the Father’s] own will
, unalterable and unchangeable,
the perfect creature of God
…”
Says God “begat.” And now even adds “before the ages.”
But still does not
define
God as “Father.” Leaves the Son’s existence
contingent
.Slide63
The “Trinitarian sandwich” (YUM!)
BU gets “sandwiched” between Monarchical and Egalitarian
Trinitarinism
.
Identify God and the Father
too strongly
, and you’re a Monarchical Trinitarian.
Identify God and the Father
not strongly enough
– why not be an Egalitarian?
But BU wants to:
1)
Maintain
the biblical identification of God and Father, but
2) Not collapse into Monarchical
Trinitarianism
, thus
Maintain that not all the same predications are true of God and the Father. BUT…
3) Unclear why an Egalitarian
Trinitarianism
couldn’t take that treatment onboard, then extend the same treatment to the Son and Spirit.Slide64
ConclusionSlide65
Conclusion
Without keeping “one eye” on history, Tuggy’s definitions may seem reasonable.
Results in a bleak picture for “
Trinitarianism
.”
But when we get the neglected doctrine of the Monarchy back into view:
(1) the strongest objections to
Trinitarianism
lose their force entirely.
[ (2) BU requires modifications that may be fatal; at best put it in a much weaker position. ]
The landscape of this debate in philosophical theology changes drastically.
(History really does make a difference!)Slide66
One God, the Father
The Neglected Monarchy of the Father and the Analytic Debate about the TrinitySlide67