The staunchest defender of the faith in the church’s struggle with Arianism and the imperial power which supported the heretics for a long time was Athanasius, whose name was mentioned in connection with the Council of Nicaea. After the death of Alexander in 328, Athanasius became the patriarch of Alexandria. But as the result of his steadfast allegiance to the Nicene decision, he was subjected to one persecution after another. He had to flee from his episcopal see no less than five times, and he spent a total of nearly 20 years in exile. When he died in 373, the Arian controversy was still in progress, but as a result of his contributions, the way was prepared for the final victory of the Nicene theology at the Council of Constantinople, 381.
Among the writings of Athanasius our particular attention is called to the following: Oratio contra Gentes and Oratio de incarnatione Verbi (written about 318), and his magnum opus, Orationes contra Arianos (written about 335—or, according to another theory, in 356 and thereafter). Athanasius’ Epistolae are also significant as theological documents, above all his letter to Serapion.
Unlike the older Alexandrian theologians (Clement, Origen), Athanasius did not insert the Christian faith into a closed, philosophical system. On the contrary, he rejected the resources of philosophy in the de of Christian doctrine; the Bible was his sole source. For him, as for Clement, the rule of faith and the content of Scripture were identical. Tradition, according to Athanasius, is authoritative only if it is in agreement with Scripture. As he made clear in his Easter letter of 367, the New Testament canon is definitive. From what has been said, it is clear that Athanasius worked with a consistent Biblical principle. At the same time, he insisted that the Bible should not be interpreted legalistically; it must rather be understood in the light of its own center, which is Christ and the salvation wrought by Him. Athanasius’ conception of the Bible reminds us of the words of Luther: “What proclaims Christ is God’s Word.”
In the fight against Arianism, Athanasius developed the church’s doctrine of the Trinity and the Logos. Some of his major arguments went as follows: (1) If Arius was right in saying that Christ is just a created being, and not of the same substance as the Father, salvation would not be possible. For God alone can save, and He has come down to our level in order to raise us up to His. (2) Arius’ teachings involve the worship of creation or faith in more than one god.
As the first argument makes clear, Athanasius was concerned about combining the doctrine of the Trinity with the salvation wrought by Christ, which is the center of all theology as he saw it. Because of this, he continued to point out that the Arian heresy did not simply touch upon isolated points of doctrine; it rather subverted the entire Christian faith. The atomistic or doctrinaire style which often characterized theological polemics in Athanasius’ time is not to be found in his writings.
We must not conclude, however—in analogy with modern thought—that the Logos doctrine was of significance to Athanasius only in its relation to the concept of salvation. In his estimation this doctrine was quite simply one of the fundamentals of the Christian faith, and therefore it was the elementary insistence of truth itself which prompted Athanasius to defend the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity against Arianism. The second argument listed above indicates this.
Like Irenaeus, Athanasius described a distinct order of salvation, beginning with the creation and pointing forward to the fulfillment. This ordo salutis provided the background for his polemic against Arius, just as Irenaeus developed his polemic against the Gnostics on a corresponding train of thought.
Salvation and creation belong together, as Athanasius saw it. It was the almighty Creator Himself who carried out the work of salvation, so that the fallen creation might be restored to its original destiny. This implies that God’s purpose with creation is being realized and that a new creation is coming into being. This refers, in a special way, to man. Man was created “in God’s image,” but as a result of the incursion of sin, he fell away from God and was given over to death and corruption. Salvation was achieved when God’s Son, the Logos, personally involved Himself in humanity and thereby restored man to his likeness to God. “This could not have happened, however, if death and corruption had not been destroyed. Therefore, as a matter of course, He assumed to Himself a mortal body, so that death might be destroyed in Him, and so that man, created in God’s image, might be renewed. He who came in the Father’s image was alone equal to this task.” (Oratio de incarnatitone Verbi, 13, 8–9)
The primary meaning of the salvatory work of Christ is to be found in this, that the curse of sin and death has been taken away. This was done when the Logos, who is God’s own Son, took upon Himself the conditions of human existence, bore man’s sins, and subjected Himself to death. It was thus that these powers were overcome, for in view of the fact that Christ is of the essence of God, they were unable to conquer Him. He freed Himself from the bonds of sin and death, and in so doing He also freed all human nature from these powers. It was for this purpose that God’s Son became man. If the Logos had not really become man, He could not have freed man, He could not have overcome the power of sin and death which held human nature in thrall.
In the second place, the salvatory work of Christ implies that man, who has been freed from the power of sin and death through the Atonement, can be renewed and deified. The same Christ who conquered death has sent His Spirit, through whom He re-creates man and enables man to share in the divine life which was lost to him through the Fall. Man thus comes to possess immortality and to live again as he did originally—in the image of God. This deification of man is the goal of salvation. The stronger emphasis on this aspect of salvation, rather than on the forgiveness of sin, was typical of the Fathers of the early church. It can be said, however, that Athanasius, more than the others, also stressed the need of forgiveness; he recognized that sin brought guilt and that the atoning work of Christ was a sacrifice for sin. But above all, salvation is associated with immortality. Sin and death, after all, go together. If sin had not brought death, said Athanasius, it could have been overcome quite easily by repentance. But in view of the fact that sin did result in mortality, salvation could be won only if death were overcome. And thus, since the power of sin has been overcome, the work of the Holy Spirit is to give life to man and to make man like God. This is possible only if Christ is actually of the same essence as God. Because He is God Himself, He first deified His own human nature, and as a result of this, He can do the same for those who believe in Him and who share, by faith, in His death and resurrection.
In the light of this, the message of salvation as taught by Arius, who said that the Logos was a created being and not as God Himself, had to be repudiated. “The truth reveals that the Logos is not one of the created things; He is, rather, their Creator. For He has taken upon Himself the created, human body of man, in order that He, likewise a Creator, could renew this body and deify it in Himself, so that man, on the strength of his identity with Christ, might enter the kingdom of heaven. But man, who is a part of creation, could never become like God if the Son were not truly God …. Likewise, man would not have been freed from sin and damnation if the Logos had not taken upon Himself our natural, human flesh. Neither could man have become Godlike if the Word which became flesh had not come from the Father—if He had not been His own true Word.” (Orationes contra Arianos, II, 70)
Athanasius also emphasized another facet of Christ’s work of redemption: Christ, he said, came to reveal that He is God’s Son, who reigns over all creation; in so doing, He restored the true worship of God, which man in his ignorance and blindness had forgotten. In one passage Athanasius summarized the work of Christ in the following manner: “The incarnate Savior revealed His goodness to us in two ways: by the fact that He took away the sting of death and renewed us, and by the fact that He, who is in Himself hidden and invisible, revealed Himself through His work so that we might know Him as the Father’s Logos, the Ruler and King of the entire universe.” (Oratio de incarnatione Verbi, 16)
Christ’s work was a manifestation of His power, a demonstration of the fact that He is the Lord of all things, while idols and demons are as nothing. The idea that Christ restored the true worship of God by revealing Himself as the true God was (as already noted) also one of the major arguments employed in the struggle with Arianism. Arius introduced a pagan type of worship, complete with faith in several gods and the worship of creation rather than the Creator. This resulted from his denial of the divinity of Christ and from the claim that the Logos is a created being.
In his doctrine of the Trinity, which was directed particularly against Arianism, Athanasius strongly emphasized the claim that the Son is of the same substance as the Father. This conviction was not simply elicited from the key word of the Nicene decision, homoousios, itself; Athanasius felt free to accept other terms too, including the otherwise suspicious word homoios. Athanasius’ belief that the Son is consubstantial with the Father was rather based on the facts themselves. The Logos is not a part of creation; it rather shares in the same divinity as the Father Himself. Athanasius also overcame the earlier subordinationist point of view. The Logos is not another God, and does not stand lower than the Father, as a spiritual being which emanated from the Father. The Father and the Son comprise one Deity. The Father is the one who defines Himself and generates; the Son is the one who is thus generated. The Father is, in Himself, the divine essence; the Son is God in external activity, as He appears in God’s work. “The Son is not another God …. For if He is also something other, even to the point that He was generated, He is nevertheless the same as God; He and the Father are one through the unique nature which they share in common, and through the identity of the one divinity.” (Orationes contra Arianos, III, 4)
Athanasius did not speak about “Persons” in the Godhead; he rather articulated the relationship between the Father and the Son in a different way. He held to the Father-Son concept, or spoke of the difference between them as being conditioned by God’s activity. The Father is the source, the Son is God in His external activity. Then there is also the Holy Spirit, who carries out God’s work in the individual. Athanasius taught that the Holy Spirit, too, is “of the same substance.” He is a part of the same divine essence and is not a created spirit. Man becomes Godlike through the work of the Spirit. Renewal would not be a genuine act of salvation if the Holy Spirit were not of God’s own essence. The external activity of the Triune God is not divided; that is to say that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all work together. It was in his letter to Serapion that Athanasius first developed the thought that the Holy Spirit is of the same essence as the Father and the Son. This was one of his greatest and most independent contributions to theology.
The Three Cappadocians
Even though Athanasius’ presentation of Nicene orthodoxy was fundamental to its subsequent development, his formulations were not strictly adhered to in the church-sanctioned doctrine of the Trinity. For this, ideas were also derived from (among others) Origen and Tertullian—for example, the teaching of the three Persons in the Godhead. But Athanasius’ convictions in this matter were not forgotten. Those who carried on his work, and who did more than anyone else to give the doctrine of the Trinity its final form, were the so-called “Three Cappadocians.”
Basil the Great (d. 379, archbishop of Caesarea) was the chief architect of the so-called proto-Nicene theology, which finally conquered Arianism. His younger brother, Gregory of Nyssa (d. about 394), developed the same orthodox point of view in a rather more speculative manner, and Gregory of Nazianzus (d. about 390) interpreted this in a rhetorical way in his Orationes.
It was largely due to the influence of the three Cappadocians that the Nicene theology finally won out as the true mediating position between Arianism and modalism. Furthermore, the basis of future developments in Eastern theology was prepared at this time. The three Cappadocians were more specifically “Eastern” in their theology than was Athanasius. This is to be seen, for example, in the fact that they interpreted Athanasius in the spirit of Origen, as well as in the fact that they associated the Nicene orthodoxy with ideas from the older Alexandrian school of thought.
While Athanasius strongly emphasized the idea of the “one substance” and proceeded from that point in his description of the Trinity, the Cappadocians proceeded from the idea of the “three distinct Persons” and developed a terminology which was descriptive of both unity and trinity. In so doing, they accepted the earlier Greek theology which conceived of the three Persons as different levels in the Divine Being (Origen).
It was at this time that a precise distinction was made between the two concepts expressed in the Greek words ουσια and υποστασις. The first of these was used to denote the indivisible nature of the divine essence, while the latter was placed in juxtaposition with the word προσωποv (person). Basil illustrated this distinction in the following way: The concept “man” refers to that which is common to all men. But individual men, such as Paul or John, possess distinctive characteristics which mark them off from other individuals. Both Paul and John exist independently, but they also have something in common: they are men; they belong in the general category of “man.” So while they share a common essence (ουσια), they are also individual persons with an independent existence (υποστασις). The hypostasis is, therefore, the special form of existence, the unique characteristics, whereby that which is held in common is given concrete expression. It is that which exists in the individual and not in anyone else.
When the hypostasis concept is employed in the doctrine of the Trinity, it is thereby indicated that the three Persons possess their own peculiar qualities and attributes, whereby they distinguish themselves from one another and appear each in His own special form of existence. At the same time, they all share in the one divine essence. This presentation of the doctrine of the Trinity is usually summarized in the words, “one essence, three Persons.”
When asked what it is that distinguishes the three hypostases, the Cappadocians answered by referring to the relationship which exists between them. The Father is αγεvvητος (not generated); the Son is generated of the Father; the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (Gregory of Nazianzus, Orationes, 25, 16). That which characterizes the Persons in relation to one another was also described with reference to the divine activity: the Father is the source (ατιος), the Son is the one who carries out the work (δημιουργος), and the Spirit is the one who brings it to completion (τελειοποιος). (Gregory of Nazianzus, Orationes, 28, 1)
The point at which the Cappadocians went beyond Athanasius had to do, in particular, with the distinction between ousia and hypostasis. In drawing this distinction, the Cappadocians sought (with the aid of philosophical terminology) to describe what it is that characterizes the divine nature and the three Persons in and of themselves, independent of the Trinity’s external activity. The only result of this was a number of formal distinctions, which, in the light of the Christian faith, appear to be necessary consequences. What these men were trying to do here was to elucidate that which goes beyond the limits of human knowledge, and which, therefore, cannot be more clearly expounded.
Augustine’s Doctrine of the Trinity; the Athanasian Creed
As far as Eastern theology is concerned, the Cappadocians brought the doctrine of the Trinity to a certain degree of completeness. A corresponding development also took place in the West, partly as a result of the influence of Eastern theology. Above all, it was Augustine who shaped the Western position on this matter, particularly in his book De Trinitate. Augustine’s theology provided the basis for the Trinitarian position found in the Athanasian Creed, the last of the three Ecumenical Creeds.
The three Cappadocians emphasized the three hypostases in particular, and their major problem was therefore associated with the unity of the divine essence. This was characteristic of the Eastern point of view, with its more static, abstract concept of God. The problem, of course, was this: How could the entire divine essence be found in three distinct existences? This problem gave rise to the old subordinationist theology, and the Cappadocian contribution was precisely this, that they arrived at the “one substance” position (as did Athanasius and the Nicene Creed) at the same time that they also strongly proclaimed the distinction between the three Persons.
Augustine, who represented the Western point of view, developed his Trinitarian position on the basis of the one divine essence. What he sought to make clear was that the divine unity is so constituted that it includes the three Persons, and that the “threeness” of God is implicit in this unity. He described the triunity as an internally necessary relationship between the three facets of the one divine essence. This, to Augustine, was an unfathomable mystery, which man in this life can never completely comprehend, much less describe in conceptual terms.
But Augustine did employ analogies drawn from human relationships in an effort to demonstrate a comparable relationship of three things within one and the same entity. Certain human phenomena, particularly the structure of the soul of man, were used to symbolize (though very imperfectly) the inner-Trinitarian reality. Thus Augustine said, for example, that love implies a relationship between the one who loves and the object of love. This suggests a relationship between the three following: the one who loves (amans), that which is loved (quod amatur), and love itself (amor). A corresponding relationship is to be found in the Godhead between Father, Son, and Spirit. What is peculiar about this relationship is the fact that both subject and object are present within the same indivisible essence. The Father generates the Son, the Father loves the Son, etc. According to Augustine, there is an analogy to this in man’s spiritual life. The very act of observation involves three elements which are necessarily related to one another: there is the object observed (res), the sight itself (visio), and the attentiveness of the will (intentio voluntatis). The same relationship is said to exist between thought, intellect, and will in the act of knowing. Thought content is present, in some way, in the soul; this, in turn, is considered and given form by one’s intellectual ability, which directs itself to the object by the power of the will (memoria—interna visio—voluntas). The life of the soul in its entirety includes a corresponding “threeness”: memory, intelligence, and will. And here we can see the same oneness between subject and object that Augustine found within the inner-Trinitarian relationships. The soul is aware of itself, has knowledge of itself, and loves itself; in other words, the object of its activity is found, in part, within itself. It is, simultaneously, both subject and object in self-conscious and Self-loving acts.
Augustine did not say that these analogies are perfect—that they clear up all of the mysteries associated with the Trinitarian concept. To a large extent, his presentation was developed in the form of speculations about the inner-Trinitarian reality. Thus it was that a new stage of development came into being which went beyond the “economy” concept of the Trinity which provided the original form of the doctrine of the “three in one.” Augustine strongly emphasized the oneness of the Divine Being and attempted to show that the threeness was implicit in the oneness and vice versa. This fundamental conviction is also found in the Athanasian Creed, which is actually based on the theology of Augustine, even though it was, by degrees, invested with the authority of Athanasius. This creed is a hymnlike statement, and it was probably drawn up sometime during the fifth or sixth centuries, conceivably by a disciple of Augustine. It is a good summary of the doctrine of the Trinity as this was enunciated by the early church. The historical development of Christian dogma as it has been sketched out up to this point provides the background for this creed, which in brief and concise sentences summarizes the position the church reached during the Trinitarian and Christological controversies.This Symbolum quicunque (as it is called, after its opening words) presents, in its first section, an interpretation of the doctrine of the Trinity: “And the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance.” The distinction between the Persons is stressed in part: “For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.” And so is the unity of the divine essence: “But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one: the glow equal, the majesty coeternal.” All three Persons share in the divine essence and its qualities: “uncreated”—“incomprehensible”—“eternal.” And yet there are not three uncreated, incomprehensible, and eternal beings; neither are there three Gods; there is only one God. Each Person must be recognized as God and Lord, but this does not mean that there are three Gods or three Lords.
The following formula describes the relationship which exists between the Persons: the Father is not made, not created, not born of anyone; the Son is begotten of the Father alone; the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
The last part of this creed deals with Christology.
Among the writings of Athanasius our particular attention is called to the following: Oratio contra Gentes and Oratio de incarnatione Verbi (written about 318), and his magnum opus, Orationes contra Arianos (written about 335—or, according to another theory, in 356 and thereafter). Athanasius’ Epistolae are also significant as theological documents, above all his letter to Serapion.
Unlike the older Alexandrian theologians (Clement, Origen), Athanasius did not insert the Christian faith into a closed, philosophical system. On the contrary, he rejected the resources of philosophy in the de of Christian doctrine; the Bible was his sole source. For him, as for Clement, the rule of faith and the content of Scripture were identical. Tradition, according to Athanasius, is authoritative only if it is in agreement with Scripture. As he made clear in his Easter letter of 367, the New Testament canon is definitive. From what has been said, it is clear that Athanasius worked with a consistent Biblical principle. At the same time, he insisted that the Bible should not be interpreted legalistically; it must rather be understood in the light of its own center, which is Christ and the salvation wrought by Him. Athanasius’ conception of the Bible reminds us of the words of Luther: “What proclaims Christ is God’s Word.”
In the fight against Arianism, Athanasius developed the church’s doctrine of the Trinity and the Logos. Some of his major arguments went as follows: (1) If Arius was right in saying that Christ is just a created being, and not of the same substance as the Father, salvation would not be possible. For God alone can save, and He has come down to our level in order to raise us up to His. (2) Arius’ teachings involve the worship of creation or faith in more than one god.
As the first argument makes clear, Athanasius was concerned about combining the doctrine of the Trinity with the salvation wrought by Christ, which is the center of all theology as he saw it. Because of this, he continued to point out that the Arian heresy did not simply touch upon isolated points of doctrine; it rather subverted the entire Christian faith. The atomistic or doctrinaire style which often characterized theological polemics in Athanasius’ time is not to be found in his writings.
We must not conclude, however—in analogy with modern thought—that the Logos doctrine was of significance to Athanasius only in its relation to the concept of salvation. In his estimation this doctrine was quite simply one of the fundamentals of the Christian faith, and therefore it was the elementary insistence of truth itself which prompted Athanasius to defend the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity against Arianism. The second argument listed above indicates this.
Like Irenaeus, Athanasius described a distinct order of salvation, beginning with the creation and pointing forward to the fulfillment. This ordo salutis provided the background for his polemic against Arius, just as Irenaeus developed his polemic against the Gnostics on a corresponding train of thought.
Salvation and creation belong together, as Athanasius saw it. It was the almighty Creator Himself who carried out the work of salvation, so that the fallen creation might be restored to its original destiny. This implies that God’s purpose with creation is being realized and that a new creation is coming into being. This refers, in a special way, to man. Man was created “in God’s image,” but as a result of the incursion of sin, he fell away from God and was given over to death and corruption. Salvation was achieved when God’s Son, the Logos, personally involved Himself in humanity and thereby restored man to his likeness to God. “This could not have happened, however, if death and corruption had not been destroyed. Therefore, as a matter of course, He assumed to Himself a mortal body, so that death might be destroyed in Him, and so that man, created in God’s image, might be renewed. He who came in the Father’s image was alone equal to this task.” (Oratio de incarnatitone Verbi, 13, 8–9)
The primary meaning of the salvatory work of Christ is to be found in this, that the curse of sin and death has been taken away. This was done when the Logos, who is God’s own Son, took upon Himself the conditions of human existence, bore man’s sins, and subjected Himself to death. It was thus that these powers were overcome, for in view of the fact that Christ is of the essence of God, they were unable to conquer Him. He freed Himself from the bonds of sin and death, and in so doing He also freed all human nature from these powers. It was for this purpose that God’s Son became man. If the Logos had not really become man, He could not have freed man, He could not have overcome the power of sin and death which held human nature in thrall.
In the second place, the salvatory work of Christ implies that man, who has been freed from the power of sin and death through the Atonement, can be renewed and deified. The same Christ who conquered death has sent His Spirit, through whom He re-creates man and enables man to share in the divine life which was lost to him through the Fall. Man thus comes to possess immortality and to live again as he did originally—in the image of God. This deification of man is the goal of salvation. The stronger emphasis on this aspect of salvation, rather than on the forgiveness of sin, was typical of the Fathers of the early church. It can be said, however, that Athanasius, more than the others, also stressed the need of forgiveness; he recognized that sin brought guilt and that the atoning work of Christ was a sacrifice for sin. But above all, salvation is associated with immortality. Sin and death, after all, go together. If sin had not brought death, said Athanasius, it could have been overcome quite easily by repentance. But in view of the fact that sin did result in mortality, salvation could be won only if death were overcome. And thus, since the power of sin has been overcome, the work of the Holy Spirit is to give life to man and to make man like God. This is possible only if Christ is actually of the same essence as God. Because He is God Himself, He first deified His own human nature, and as a result of this, He can do the same for those who believe in Him and who share, by faith, in His death and resurrection.
In the light of this, the message of salvation as taught by Arius, who said that the Logos was a created being and not as God Himself, had to be repudiated. “The truth reveals that the Logos is not one of the created things; He is, rather, their Creator. For He has taken upon Himself the created, human body of man, in order that He, likewise a Creator, could renew this body and deify it in Himself, so that man, on the strength of his identity with Christ, might enter the kingdom of heaven. But man, who is a part of creation, could never become like God if the Son were not truly God …. Likewise, man would not have been freed from sin and damnation if the Logos had not taken upon Himself our natural, human flesh. Neither could man have become Godlike if the Word which became flesh had not come from the Father—if He had not been His own true Word.” (Orationes contra Arianos, II, 70)
Athanasius also emphasized another facet of Christ’s work of redemption: Christ, he said, came to reveal that He is God’s Son, who reigns over all creation; in so doing, He restored the true worship of God, which man in his ignorance and blindness had forgotten. In one passage Athanasius summarized the work of Christ in the following manner: “The incarnate Savior revealed His goodness to us in two ways: by the fact that He took away the sting of death and renewed us, and by the fact that He, who is in Himself hidden and invisible, revealed Himself through His work so that we might know Him as the Father’s Logos, the Ruler and King of the entire universe.” (Oratio de incarnatione Verbi, 16)
Christ’s work was a manifestation of His power, a demonstration of the fact that He is the Lord of all things, while idols and demons are as nothing. The idea that Christ restored the true worship of God by revealing Himself as the true God was (as already noted) also one of the major arguments employed in the struggle with Arianism. Arius introduced a pagan type of worship, complete with faith in several gods and the worship of creation rather than the Creator. This resulted from his denial of the divinity of Christ and from the claim that the Logos is a created being.
In his doctrine of the Trinity, which was directed particularly against Arianism, Athanasius strongly emphasized the claim that the Son is of the same substance as the Father. This conviction was not simply elicited from the key word of the Nicene decision, homoousios, itself; Athanasius felt free to accept other terms too, including the otherwise suspicious word homoios. Athanasius’ belief that the Son is consubstantial with the Father was rather based on the facts themselves. The Logos is not a part of creation; it rather shares in the same divinity as the Father Himself. Athanasius also overcame the earlier subordinationist point of view. The Logos is not another God, and does not stand lower than the Father, as a spiritual being which emanated from the Father. The Father and the Son comprise one Deity. The Father is the one who defines Himself and generates; the Son is the one who is thus generated. The Father is, in Himself, the divine essence; the Son is God in external activity, as He appears in God’s work. “The Son is not another God …. For if He is also something other, even to the point that He was generated, He is nevertheless the same as God; He and the Father are one through the unique nature which they share in common, and through the identity of the one divinity.” (Orationes contra Arianos, III, 4)
Athanasius did not speak about “Persons” in the Godhead; he rather articulated the relationship between the Father and the Son in a different way. He held to the Father-Son concept, or spoke of the difference between them as being conditioned by God’s activity. The Father is the source, the Son is God in His external activity. Then there is also the Holy Spirit, who carries out God’s work in the individual. Athanasius taught that the Holy Spirit, too, is “of the same substance.” He is a part of the same divine essence and is not a created spirit. Man becomes Godlike through the work of the Spirit. Renewal would not be a genuine act of salvation if the Holy Spirit were not of God’s own essence. The external activity of the Triune God is not divided; that is to say that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all work together. It was in his letter to Serapion that Athanasius first developed the thought that the Holy Spirit is of the same essence as the Father and the Son. This was one of his greatest and most independent contributions to theology.
The Three Cappadocians
Even though Athanasius’ presentation of Nicene orthodoxy was fundamental to its subsequent development, his formulations were not strictly adhered to in the church-sanctioned doctrine of the Trinity. For this, ideas were also derived from (among others) Origen and Tertullian—for example, the teaching of the three Persons in the Godhead. But Athanasius’ convictions in this matter were not forgotten. Those who carried on his work, and who did more than anyone else to give the doctrine of the Trinity its final form, were the so-called “Three Cappadocians.”
Basil the Great (d. 379, archbishop of Caesarea) was the chief architect of the so-called proto-Nicene theology, which finally conquered Arianism. His younger brother, Gregory of Nyssa (d. about 394), developed the same orthodox point of view in a rather more speculative manner, and Gregory of Nazianzus (d. about 390) interpreted this in a rhetorical way in his Orationes.
It was largely due to the influence of the three Cappadocians that the Nicene theology finally won out as the true mediating position between Arianism and modalism. Furthermore, the basis of future developments in Eastern theology was prepared at this time. The three Cappadocians were more specifically “Eastern” in their theology than was Athanasius. This is to be seen, for example, in the fact that they interpreted Athanasius in the spirit of Origen, as well as in the fact that they associated the Nicene orthodoxy with ideas from the older Alexandrian school of thought.
While Athanasius strongly emphasized the idea of the “one substance” and proceeded from that point in his description of the Trinity, the Cappadocians proceeded from the idea of the “three distinct Persons” and developed a terminology which was descriptive of both unity and trinity. In so doing, they accepted the earlier Greek theology which conceived of the three Persons as different levels in the Divine Being (Origen).
It was at this time that a precise distinction was made between the two concepts expressed in the Greek words ουσια and υποστασις. The first of these was used to denote the indivisible nature of the divine essence, while the latter was placed in juxtaposition with the word προσωποv (person). Basil illustrated this distinction in the following way: The concept “man” refers to that which is common to all men. But individual men, such as Paul or John, possess distinctive characteristics which mark them off from other individuals. Both Paul and John exist independently, but they also have something in common: they are men; they belong in the general category of “man.” So while they share a common essence (ουσια), they are also individual persons with an independent existence (υποστασις). The hypostasis is, therefore, the special form of existence, the unique characteristics, whereby that which is held in common is given concrete expression. It is that which exists in the individual and not in anyone else.
When the hypostasis concept is employed in the doctrine of the Trinity, it is thereby indicated that the three Persons possess their own peculiar qualities and attributes, whereby they distinguish themselves from one another and appear each in His own special form of existence. At the same time, they all share in the one divine essence. This presentation of the doctrine of the Trinity is usually summarized in the words, “one essence, three Persons.”
When asked what it is that distinguishes the three hypostases, the Cappadocians answered by referring to the relationship which exists between them. The Father is αγεvvητος (not generated); the Son is generated of the Father; the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (Gregory of Nazianzus, Orationes, 25, 16). That which characterizes the Persons in relation to one another was also described with reference to the divine activity: the Father is the source (ατιος), the Son is the one who carries out the work (δημιουργος), and the Spirit is the one who brings it to completion (τελειοποιος). (Gregory of Nazianzus, Orationes, 28, 1)
The point at which the Cappadocians went beyond Athanasius had to do, in particular, with the distinction between ousia and hypostasis. In drawing this distinction, the Cappadocians sought (with the aid of philosophical terminology) to describe what it is that characterizes the divine nature and the three Persons in and of themselves, independent of the Trinity’s external activity. The only result of this was a number of formal distinctions, which, in the light of the Christian faith, appear to be necessary consequences. What these men were trying to do here was to elucidate that which goes beyond the limits of human knowledge, and which, therefore, cannot be more clearly expounded.
Augustine’s Doctrine of the Trinity; the Athanasian Creed
As far as Eastern theology is concerned, the Cappadocians brought the doctrine of the Trinity to a certain degree of completeness. A corresponding development also took place in the West, partly as a result of the influence of Eastern theology. Above all, it was Augustine who shaped the Western position on this matter, particularly in his book De Trinitate. Augustine’s theology provided the basis for the Trinitarian position found in the Athanasian Creed, the last of the three Ecumenical Creeds.
The three Cappadocians emphasized the three hypostases in particular, and their major problem was therefore associated with the unity of the divine essence. This was characteristic of the Eastern point of view, with its more static, abstract concept of God. The problem, of course, was this: How could the entire divine essence be found in three distinct existences? This problem gave rise to the old subordinationist theology, and the Cappadocian contribution was precisely this, that they arrived at the “one substance” position (as did Athanasius and the Nicene Creed) at the same time that they also strongly proclaimed the distinction between the three Persons.
Augustine, who represented the Western point of view, developed his Trinitarian position on the basis of the one divine essence. What he sought to make clear was that the divine unity is so constituted that it includes the three Persons, and that the “threeness” of God is implicit in this unity. He described the triunity as an internally necessary relationship between the three facets of the one divine essence. This, to Augustine, was an unfathomable mystery, which man in this life can never completely comprehend, much less describe in conceptual terms.
But Augustine did employ analogies drawn from human relationships in an effort to demonstrate a comparable relationship of three things within one and the same entity. Certain human phenomena, particularly the structure of the soul of man, were used to symbolize (though very imperfectly) the inner-Trinitarian reality. Thus Augustine said, for example, that love implies a relationship between the one who loves and the object of love. This suggests a relationship between the three following: the one who loves (amans), that which is loved (quod amatur), and love itself (amor). A corresponding relationship is to be found in the Godhead between Father, Son, and Spirit. What is peculiar about this relationship is the fact that both subject and object are present within the same indivisible essence. The Father generates the Son, the Father loves the Son, etc. According to Augustine, there is an analogy to this in man’s spiritual life. The very act of observation involves three elements which are necessarily related to one another: there is the object observed (res), the sight itself (visio), and the attentiveness of the will (intentio voluntatis). The same relationship is said to exist between thought, intellect, and will in the act of knowing. Thought content is present, in some way, in the soul; this, in turn, is considered and given form by one’s intellectual ability, which directs itself to the object by the power of the will (memoria—interna visio—voluntas). The life of the soul in its entirety includes a corresponding “threeness”: memory, intelligence, and will. And here we can see the same oneness between subject and object that Augustine found within the inner-Trinitarian relationships. The soul is aware of itself, has knowledge of itself, and loves itself; in other words, the object of its activity is found, in part, within itself. It is, simultaneously, both subject and object in self-conscious and Self-loving acts.
Augustine did not say that these analogies are perfect—that they clear up all of the mysteries associated with the Trinitarian concept. To a large extent, his presentation was developed in the form of speculations about the inner-Trinitarian reality. Thus it was that a new stage of development came into being which went beyond the “economy” concept of the Trinity which provided the original form of the doctrine of the “three in one.” Augustine strongly emphasized the oneness of the Divine Being and attempted to show that the threeness was implicit in the oneness and vice versa. This fundamental conviction is also found in the Athanasian Creed, which is actually based on the theology of Augustine, even though it was, by degrees, invested with the authority of Athanasius. This creed is a hymnlike statement, and it was probably drawn up sometime during the fifth or sixth centuries, conceivably by a disciple of Augustine. It is a good summary of the doctrine of the Trinity as this was enunciated by the early church. The historical development of Christian dogma as it has been sketched out up to this point provides the background for this creed, which in brief and concise sentences summarizes the position the church reached during the Trinitarian and Christological controversies.This Symbolum quicunque (as it is called, after its opening words) presents, in its first section, an interpretation of the doctrine of the Trinity: “And the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance.” The distinction between the Persons is stressed in part: “For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.” And so is the unity of the divine essence: “But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one: the glow equal, the majesty coeternal.” All three Persons share in the divine essence and its qualities: “uncreated”—“incomprehensible”—“eternal.” And yet there are not three uncreated, incomprehensible, and eternal beings; neither are there three Gods; there is only one God. Each Person must be recognized as God and Lord, but this does not mean that there are three Gods or three Lords.
The following formula describes the relationship which exists between the Persons: the Father is not made, not created, not born of anyone; the Son is begotten of the Father alone; the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
The last part of this creed deals with Christology.
No comments:
Post a Comment