White’s goal in this chapter is to highlight the “fundamental intellectual and historical continuity between the New Testament revelation of the apostolic age and the subsequent doctrinal definitions of the Catholic Church” (110). Here are my summary points to consider:
(1) There were 2 basic conceptual models in early Trinitarian theology prior to Council of Nicaea:
1. The “monological” model
Emphasis on the internal life of God. Envisages God as the transcendent Creator “who creates all things in his Reason [Logos] and His Spirit” (668). The Logos and the Spirit of God are depicted as truly distinct, eternally pre-existent principles of God’s internal identity, manifest in the world by the revelation of Christ: “Their distinction arises primarily from their role in God’s inner life, not from their role in revelation or the divine economy” (114). This model is evident in early Christian apologists like Justin Martyr (100-165), who emphasized Christ as the pre-existent Logos – to defend Christianity against: (1) Graeco-Roman polytheism: Being attacked as a novel superstitious religion, Justin put forward Christianity as the “true philosophy” and “rational religion” against their polytheism & (2) Jews: Being attacked as heretical, Justin put forward Christianity as the fulfillment of Hebrews Scriptures.
2. The “economic Trinitarianism” model
Emphasis on the exterior life of God. Emphasis on revelations of the persons of the Son and the Spirit in the economy. The Son and the Spirit are distinguished clearly from the Father as personal agents who are God, but who are also described in their divine agency principally in reference to their economic state (114). This model is evident in Irenaeus (130-202), who was combatting early forms of Gnosticism that denied the inspiration of the Hebrew prophets & the created goodness of the material world. To combat Gnosticism, Irenaeus focused on (1) the unity of the Old & New Testaments; (2) the Incarnation – which affirms the goodness of the material body & physical world. In his theology, we can note that Irenaeus presented “the Father, Son, and Spirit as distinct personal subjects manifested by their activity in the economy of creation and redemption” (ibid).
(2) The heresies that resulted from taking these models to extremes.
1. Modalism
If the “monological” model was taken to an extreme, it renders obscure the real distinction of the Trinitarian person and can result in the heresy of modalism (e.g., Sabellius). Modalism wrongly claims that oneness of God requires a non-distinction of persons (125). Tertullian noted that modalism logically leads to a “Patripassianist” idea – the Father suffers on the Cross. Also, the divine economy just becomes an “outward show” since God has not truly revealed His inner life to us.
2. Subordinationism
If the “economic Trinitarian” model was taken to an extreme, it renders obscure the truth of Christian monotheism: that the three persons are equally and identically the one God and can result in the heresy of economic subordinationism (e.g. Origen). Subordination wrongly claims that a distinction of persons requires the distinction of beings in God, or at least a gradation in perfections (125).
3. Arianism
In a similar way to Justin’s “monological” model & the modalism of Sabellius, Arius (+336) thinks of the unbegotten God above all in unipersonal terms. Yet, Arius states that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are truly distinct persons (against Sabellius’ modalism + for Irenaeus’ “economic Trinitarianism” and Origen’s subordinationism). Against Justin’s monological model and Irenaeus’ “economic Trinitarianism” model, Arius denies the divinity of the Son and the Spirit. And Against Origen, Arius denies the eternal generation of the Son, whom he sees as a creature. Arius’ position was compelling because he was seen to avoid both modalism & subordinationism by maintaining the scriptural affirmation of a distinction of persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and a concept of biblical monotheism (vs. Origen’s subordinationism that attributed a duality of substance to God).
(3) The Solution at the Council of Nicaea (325)
The key part of the creedal confession at Nicaea:
“We believe in one God, the Father all powerful, maker of all things, both seen and unseen. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-Begotten, begotten from the Father, that is, from the substance [οὐσίας, ousias] of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial [ὁμοούσιον, homoousion] with the Father, through whom all things came to be, both those in heaven and those on earth.”
From this, we can note the following key points:
1: A real distinction of persons in God = the doctrine of “derived equality”
The Son is distinct form the Father (as eternally derived from the Father – “begotten from the Father”), yet this distinction does not imply any inequality between the persons (they are equal insofar as they both partake equally of the unique being and essence of God – “from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God”). The Father
2: An eternal procession of the Son
There is an eternal procession or going forth of the Son from the Father (“begotten, not made”), while also suggesting that this procession takes place within the godhead itself and therefore is distinct from the creation. The Son is the eternally begotten one who, though proceeding from the Father, is himself uncreated. Moreover, it is “through [him]” that “all things were made.” In this way, the Council interprets scriptural references to the Son’s being begotten as references to an eternal intra-divine process wholly distinct from creation” (129).
3: The uniqueness of the divine being (ousia)
The Son is “consubstantial [ὁμοούσιον, homoousion] with the Father.” In Greek philosophical parlance, the word ousia can indicate both (1) an individual being and (2) a common nature. Here, it seems to indicate both. The Son is one with the Father in both (1) being and (2) nature. There are no gradations of perfection in God (contrary to Origen). The Son is truly God.
The solution of Nicaea
The distinction of persons in the godhead does NOT imply any distinction of being or substance. This was the one unique error all 3 heresies (modalists, subordinationists, Arians) held in common: “a distinction of persons necessarily entails a multiplicity of substances” (128).
- For created persons: Distinctions of persons = distinction of substances (i.e., Peter, James, and John are distinct persons and so also distinct individual beings or substances).
- For divine persons: Distinction of persons = NO distinction of substances (i.e., Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons and are also one in both being and nature – they share the same substance).
Athanasius of Alexandria (293-373)
After Nicaea, Athanasius was the first major theologian to grapple with intellectual difficulties that were raised from the creedal formula of Nicaea, such as: (1) How can there be eternal procession in God that does not imply creation? (2) How can the Son proceed from the Father, while being one in being with the Father?
Main accomplishment from Athanasius’s thought = Purifies and unites the “monological” model and “economic Trinitarian” models:
- Purified “monological” model through psychology analogy: Just as the logos of a thinker is in the thinker and of the same substance as the one from whom it proceeds, so too the Logos of the Father is one in being with the Father. In these examples of immaterial generation, substance is not multiplied (whereas it is for material generation). Yet this intra-divine procession in God actually terminates in the production of the Son as a truly a distinct subject, who contains within himself the plenitude of the divine being. So the procession of the Son is an immaterial generation according to nature. Therefore, He is both Logos and Son.
- Purified “economic Trinitarian” model through homoousios: Because the Son is one in being (homoousios) with the Father, Athanasius draws the logical conclusion that they must have the same will and power – and therefore unity of action. This leads to the classical principle in Trinitarian theology that all actions of the Trinity ad extra, that is, outside of God, like in creation and redemption, is conducted equally and in one same operation by all 3 persons. As a result, Athanasius can clearly distinguish the eternal mystery of the Trinity ad intra from the manifestation of the Trinity ad extra.
Conclusion: There is a fundamental intellectual and historical continuity between the New Testament revelation of the apostolic age and the subsequent doctrinal definitions of the Catholic Church. For White, “Thomism is a form of thinking that develops not adjacent to or over and against patristic understanding of the Trinity, but in profound intellectual continuity with the deepest impulses of pro-Nicene Trinitarian speculation, itself a reflection on the inner meaning of the New Testament” (111).
Prodigal Catholic 