Tag: Trinity

Posted on

The Faithfulness of East and West: Post-Nicaea Rejection of Onto-Theology Part 2

The Eastern Theological Trajectory

The Cappadocians

The writings of the Cappadocian Father St. Gregory of Nyssa illustrate the Eastern theological trajectory.  In the mid-Fourth century, Gregory confronted a Neo-Arian theologian named Eunomius.1  Beyond holding that the Son could not be homoousios with the Father because being “generated” and “not generated” would make God compounded of two realities and not simple,2 Eunomius also asserted an extremely crass version of onto-theology.3  According to Eunomius, God was as knowable as any other being and therefore easily intellectually dissected, a point which he based his early criticism of Nicene doctrine upon.4  This was also backed up with a strongly univocal conception of language.5

In response, Gregory noted that Eunomius was engaged in a category confusion. Being ingenerate and generate was not a property of the divine substance, but rather the persons within the common substance of divinity.6  The divine substance and the divine persons were two distinct, yet related realities.  The personal relations within God spoke of the “howness” of God and were knowable from the common actions of the persons of the Trinity in the economy of salvation. 

Nevertheless, contrary to the claims of Eunomius, the “whatness” of God in the form of the divine substance was unknowable, in this life or even the next.7  Hence, it was not part of the system of being, and it was not therefore subject to Eunomius’s logic chopping.  In keeping with this view of the divine essence, Gregory of Nyssa composed a mystical text entitled The Life of Moses. 

In this work, Moses’ ascension into the darkness of Sinai in Exodus 21 becomes a metaphor for Christian existence.  Spiritual progress means an ever-increasing movement into the luminous darkness of the divine life.8  In this, Gregory rejects the notion that the soul is capable of ever spiritually beholding the divine essence, and therefore categorically denies what Western theologians have typically called the “beatific vision” (visio beatifica).9

Continue reading “The Faithfulness of East and West: Post-Nicaea Rejection of Onto-Theology Part 2”
Posted on

Post-Nicaea Rejection of Onto-Theology: Part I

The Council of Nicaea repudiated the ontotheological trajectory of the Ante-Nicene tradition. There are a number of theories about the origins and aims of the Arian heresy.1 But perhaps the most cogent way of reading it is simply as the Subordinationist heresy taken to its logical conclusion. Origen, and others within the Ante-Nicene tradition, thought more in terms of the Hellenistic concept of being and degrees of being. As a result, Greek philosophy supplanted the biblical paradigm of creator/creature and then removed God from the system of being. The Greek paradigm also deemphasized the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Without the strict division of creator/creature, Hellenized Ante-Nicene theologians fit the Second Person of the Trinity into a continuum of degrees of being, with the Father at the top and nothingness at the bottom.  

Arianism and Its Rejection

Based on indirect evidence regarding the nature of the Arian heresy, it can be said that much to his credit Arius recognized the importance of the biblical distinction between creator/creature more seriously than his Origenist predecessors in the Church of Alexandria.2  Nevertheless, like Origen, Arius saw the second person of the Trinity as part of the hierarchy of being.  If God as creator is outside the hierarchy of being (in that he is ingenerate), then it logically followed that as generated Christ must be part of the hierarchy of being.  Consequently, Arius reasoned that Christ must be on the creaturely side of the creator/creature division.3  

Continue reading “Post-Nicaea Rejection of Onto-Theology: Part I”
Posted on

Christ’s Offices and the Foundational Nature of Substitutionary Atonement

Christ’s work of atonement and reconciliation is threefold because His offices of king, priest, and prophet are threefold.  In his work Christus Victor, Swedish Lutheran theologian Gustaf Aulén famously outlined three major atonement motifs: Conquest, Substitution, and Moral Influence.1 The conquest, or Christus Victor, motif deals with Christ’s conquest of demonic forces (sin, death, and the Devil).2 The substitution motif deals with Christ’s payment for sins (whatever form that may take) in the place of fallen humanity.3 Finally, moral influence theories of the atonement deal with Christ being a good example or making a transformative existential gesture to humanity.4 

Throughout the history of Christian thought, theologians have often chosen one motif and excluded the others. Therefore, we should recognize that all three motifs have a valid basis in the New Testament. Moreover, each motif corresponds to an office of Christ: as king, Christ wages the Father’s apocalyptic war; as priest, Christ atones for sin; as prophet, Christ reveals the testament of the gospel to humanity, and gives humanity the Spirit. The Spirit, in turn, helps believers follow the moral example of faith and self-sacrificial love Jesus revealed on the cross.

Continue reading “Christ’s Offices and the Foundational Nature of Substitutionary Atonement”
Posted on

Gender Wars and the Threat of Subordinationalism

In the second century, biblical teaching about the Trinity very quickly degenerated into the heresy of Subordinationism. The Subordinationist heresy held that the Son and the Spirit are inferior to the Father. Ante-Nicene Fathers held this view partially due to their over reliance on contemporary Platonic metaphysics. Middle Platonists believed that held that any act of self-communication entailed tragic degeneracy. In Middle Platonism, the world of sense was an inferior copy of the forms in the eternal divine mind. Not surprisingly, Christians influenced by Middle Platonism began claiming the Son was an inferior copy of the Father.  

Confusing the Economic and Immanent Trinity

Catherine LaCugna suggests that the failure of Ante-Nicene theologians to make a clear distinction between the economic and immanent Trinity might also have contributed to the rise of Subordinationism.1  For those unfamiliar, the “immanent Trinity” refers to God in himself apart from his missions of creation and redemption. The “economic Trinity” refers to the Trinity as God acts in time in order to redeem humanity in the economy of salvation.2 In the immanent Trinity, all persons are co-equal and co-eternal. There is no subordination whatsoever. Each person fully and co-equally embodies the divine substance (Jn. 1:1, Philip. 2:6, Heb. 1:2-3). 

Nevertheless, in time, the Son and the Spirit voluntarily take on missions to accomplish the Father’s bidding. Jesus speaks throughout the Gospels of his obedience to the Father and his subordination to the Father (Lk. 22:42, Jn. 4:34, 8:29, 14:31). In time, the Son and the Father also send the Spirit (Lk 24:49, Jn. 14:16).3  

Continue reading “Gender Wars and the Threat of Subordinationalism”
Posted on

The Triune God, the Person of Christ, and Inerrancy

In contrast to the Enlightenment’s subject-object dualism, Scripture teaches that all reality is rooted in the triune God, who unites subjectivity and objectivity in His personal existence. On the one hand, God is omniscient and therefore possesses an absolutely objective knowledge of Himself and all His creatures. At the same time, God’s knowledge of Himself and His creation comes in and through His personal and subjective existence as eternally actualized in the persons of the Trinity. God therefore knows what He knows absolutely objectively, but from the analogical “perspective” of the individual persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Moreover, God’s knowledge, particularly of Himself, is relational in that it is actualized through the perichoretic mutual indwelling of the persons within one another. Although the persons of the Trinity know one another through mutual indwelling, they do not lose their personal and distinct subjectivity as persons.

Beyond the life of the Trinity, one can see the unity of objectivity and subjectivity in the incarnation. Here the universal and absolutely objective God takes into Himself a particular subjective human existence in time. Again, the subjective and objective are not antithetical to one another but perichoretically indwell one another through the communicatio idiomatum of the incarnation. Just as the persons of the Trinity perichoretically know and dwell in one another without abrogating their distinct personal realities, the two natures communicate their properties to one another without obliterating their distinctness as divine and human.

Therefore, the man Jesus participates in the fullness of divine glory (genus majestaticum, Col 2:9) and even the archetypal theology of God’s eternal self-knowledge (theologia archetypa, Col 2:3).[1] Likewise, in and through His unity with the human nature the person of the Son in His absolute objectivity and omniscience participates in the historical situatedness and particularity of the human nature. As a result of the communicatio idiomatum in Christ, creatures in their subjectivity, finitude, and historical situatedness are given access to the full objectivity of God’s reality and truth.

The form taken by Scripture as the inspired Word of God thus comes into focus. As we have already seen, in moving the scriptural authors to write, the Holy Spirit incorporated (one might say by enhypostasis) the individuality of each scriptural author and his particular situation in time and space into the composition of the divinely inspired books. In the incarnation the human nature of Christ possesses its own individual characteristics while at the same time lacking its own center of identity (anhypostasis). Rather, Christ’s humanity is incorporated into and possesses its center of identity in the eternal person of the Word (enhypostasis). By analogy, the individual characteristics of each scriptural author are not negated by the revelation of the Holy Scriptures but are incorporated into the act of inspiration and composition. Nevertheless, since the words of the Bible are the very words of God, the written words of the scriptural authors find their ultimate center of identity not in the personality, intentionality, and circumstances of the individual author but rather in the hypostasis of God’s revelation.

Hence, as a byproduct of God’s trinitarian and incarnational agency the Bible gives the Word of God in and through a variety of creaturely witnesses. Indeed, in the Bible there is a “cloud of witnesses” (Heb 12:1). Like the Trinity and the incarnation, Scripture witnesses to a single harmonious truth manifested in and through difference. The Bible is absolutely objective and inerrant. It witnesses to what genuinely occurred in time and space, but it does so from the perspective of the individual authors in their individual communities and historical situations, thus conveying to its readers a symphony or even a polyphony of truth.[2]

[1] Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics 1:252; Preus, Theology of Post-Reformation Lutheranism 1:170–72.

[2] See Hans Urs von Balthasar, Truth Is Symphonic: Aspects of Christian Pluralism, trans. Graham Harrison (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987).

From Jack D. Kilcrease, Holy Scripture, Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics, Gifford A. Grobien, ed. (Fort Wayne, IN: The Luther Academy, 2020), 143-145.