   
Dogmatic
Development Three:
Marius
Victorinus and Consubstantiality The Co-Equality of Father and Son
(Circa
281/291-370 A.D.)
“(3)
The doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father.
“This
was affirmed against Arianism at Nicaea, where the concept—if not as yet the
actual term—homoousios [a philosophically defined term that was borrowed from
the Enneads of the pagan philosopher Plotinus] (...) as applied to the
eternal Son was amply vindicated. As Athanasius taught, in jealous regard
for the divineness of the Christian incarnation and redemption, there was an
absolute likeness between the Father and the Son, and also a co-inherence or
mutual immanence (...) of their Persons [Jn 17:21]” (Fulton, Trinity,
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, p. 459).
“It
is interesting to note that the principal term for substance in the writings of
Aristotle is ousia, a word which in earlier Greek writers means “property”
in the legal sense of the word, that which is owned. (This sense is
familiar in English in the old-fashioned expression “a man of substance.”)
The word ousia also occurs in philosophical writings before Aristotle as
a synonym for the Greek word physis [nature], a term which can mean
either the origin of a thing, its natural constitution or structure, the stuff
of which things are made, or a natural kind or species. The Latin word substantia,
from which the English term [substance] is derived, is a literal translation of
the Greek word hypostasis [usually translated person in the New
Testament] (“standing under”). This term acquired its philosophical
connotations in later Greek and occurs principally in controversies among early
Christian theologians about the real nature of Christ....” (Substance and
Attribute, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, p. 36).
“Thus,
what the Greeks call nature [physis or physica, i.e. physics or
natural philosophy. See Catherine Osborne, Rethinking Early Greek
Philosophy: Hippolytus of Rome and the Presocratics, Cornell
University Press, 1987, pp. 29, 387] , Victorinus calls substance [substantia],
and what the Greeks call hypostasis, Victorinus calls existence.
Apparently a substance has individuality by the character of its action, and so
action is self-revelatory. The term consubstantial is used by Victorinus
to safeguard the divine equality. But even substantia although the common
name for Father, Son and Spirit, may be used as a synonym for existentia
[existence], for in Victorinus the common names are also the predominant names
of each of the Three. Indeed, he tries to show that each divine Person is
the Three, rather than following the more usual way of arguing that all Three
are one or even that one God is in three Persons” (Clark, Marius Victorinus:
Theological Treatises on the Trinity, p. 42).
“The
use to which Victorinus put the word substantia as referring primarily to
the pure “To Be [i.e. pure Act transcending every form, the potentiality of
the being—the One]” of God necessitated his use of a new word existentia
to refer to esse [i.e. to be, a being actualized—the Many or the Father, the
Son and the Holy Spirit revealed] that is determined by a form. Of course,
substantia is not understood by him in the Aristotelian sense of what is
opposed to accidents and qualities. Substance for him means a concrete
being, and this seems to be one of his Plotinian reminiscences (Enn(eads),
6.1.3; 12.8; ch. adv. Ar. I 30). This may be the individual
substance later used by Boethius to define person. For Victorinus,
however, this substantia was pure esse (cf. Adv. Ar. II
4,23), and therefore designated the commonness of the Three Persons. It is
thus used to designate Esse improperly, but the word Esse is used
as the proper name of the Father” (Clark, Marius Victorinus: Theological
Treatises on the Trinity, p. 41).
“In
view of the above, Victorinus found it necessary to make use of existentia
to indicate what stands outside the commonness. Hence, existentia
means “to be” [the Many] with form or determination and is used to
distinguish each of the Three: one substance [the One] and three
existences [the Many]. And so when he is speaking strictly of his own
Trinitarian doctrine, Victorinus has bypassed hypostasis and persona
(used freely by Hilary of Poitiers [bishop of Poitiers ca. 315-367 A.D.]),
perhaps to keep his doctrine distinguished from the Plotinian triad and perhaps
because the Sabellians conceived God as triprosopos (of three [non-distinct]
persons). It is not quite certain that Victorinus is the first to use subsistentia.
He generally uses “subsistence” to denote the individual indicated by
existentia; thus, subsistentia is properly used of the Son because it
designates Esse cum forma (“To Be” with Form)” (Clark, Marius
Victorinus: Theological Treatises on the Trinity, pp. 41-42).
The
Nicaean Council (325 A.D.)
“At
Nicaea (A.D. 325) the Council Fathers had expressed in the language of reason
[philosophy] what Scripture said of the Son’s equality [homoousion in
Greek Neoplatonic Philosophy and consubstantialitas in Latin Neoplatonic
Philosophy and consubstantial in English] with the Father and, his status as
true Son really begotten by the Father in the way in which spirits beget.
That the Son is consubstantial [although they had no philosophic construct for
the concept] with the Father was declared at the Council of Nicaea. It
does not follow that this statement was clearly understood. There was no
ready-made philosophy to clarify it. The word homoousion appears in
the Enneads of Plotinus [a third century Chaldean Philosopher], but there
it refers to the Intelligible Triad [the Many], not to the One. Victorinus
translated the Greek word homoousion [homoousion is a philosophic
construct and as such is not found in the New Testament] used at Nicaea into the
Latin word consubstantialitas. The word homoousion was used
to express the relations of the Father and the Son within the Godhead in order
to exclude the Arian heresy, which denied the divinity of the Son. Arius
[ca. 250-336], a Libyan by birth and ordained at Alexandria, championed a
subordinationist [hierarchical] teaching which was condemned, first at
Alexandria, then at Nicaea. Arianism held that the Son of God was not
eternal but created by the Father from nothing as an instrument for the creation
of the world; although a changeable creature, the Son was dignified with the
title of Son because of his righteousness. The Arians divided into three
groups: the Anomoeans (dissimilar) spoke of the Son as unlike the
Father; the Homoeans (similar) spoke of the Son as like the Father in all
things according to the Scriptures; the semi-Arians or Homoiousians (of
similar substance [with the Father]) thought that similarity rather than
consubstantiality left more room for distinctions in the Godhead”
(Clark, Marius Victorinus: Theological Treatises on the Trinity, pp.
10-11).
In
a footnote the author adds: “Three Greek roots underlie the terminology,
ancient and modern, concerned with the Son’s relationship with the Father. (1)
homo, same; (2) homoi- (or homeo-), similar; (3) ousia,
being (as a noun) [in the Greek New Testament ousia is used either as a
masculine, feminine or neuter present participle of the verb eimi but not
as a noun] or substance. The first root plus the third yields homoousios-homoousion,
signifying identity in substance [with the consequence that the gods are
co-eternal and co-equal]. The second root plus the third yields homoiousios-homoiousion
or homoeousios-homoeousion, signifying similarity in substance [with the
consequence that one God is subordinate to another—in divine hierarchical
fashion]. These terms apply either to the Son himself or to a doctrinal
position concerning him in relation to the Father. The theologians and
their followers who espouse these terms with their theological implications are
called Homoousians, those holding identity in substance [Athanasius
of Alexandria and his supporters], or Homoiousians (Homoeousians), those
holding similarity in substance [Arius of Alexandria and his
supporters]. Furthermore, the ousia element can be left out, yielding Homoeans
(Homoians). Those who hold total dissimilarity in substance are called
Anomoians, a word formed by combining a negative prefix with homo”
(Clark, Marius Victorinus: Theological Treatises on the Trinity, p.
10).
The
Syncretistic Nature of the Nicaean and Athanasian Creeds
“The
trinitarian doctrine of the Christians was neither an outright adoption of the
philosophic triads popular among the Middle and Neoplatonists, nor was it any
mere adaptation of triadic thought. At the moment of the Nicene
formulation the acceptance of the Christian dogma of the Trinity meant a
rejection of the philosophic triads as they were understood. Arius did not
rise to this rejection. The statements he offered were reasonable [that
is, they conformed completely with recognized and accepted Neoplatonic
principles of logic] but were contrary to the mystery revealed in Scripture
[actually, contrary to the Chaldean mysteries]. Victorinus found nothing
ready at hand within his philosophical milieu that did not require some good,
hard, creative interpretation on his part. When he tried to interpret, he
turned to the tradition of Neoplatonism, where many of the best insights in
Platonism, Aristotelianism and Stoicism had come together. In some
Neoplatonic source he found a reconciliation of Plotinus and Numenius, and it
was Numenius who had influenced the ‘Chaldaean Oracles’ “
(Clark, Marius Victorinus: Theological Treatises on the Trinity, pp.
17-18).
The
Nicaean Creed Violated an Absolute Principle of Neoplatonism
“...in
quarrels concerning the nature of the Trinity—which set Arius and his
supporters, who believed that the Son was a creation of the Father, against
orthodox [Catholic] Christians, such as St. Athanasius [of Alexandria, Egypt]
and the Cappadocians [of Asia Minor], who accepted the consubstantiality of the
persons—it seems that the question posed is completely alien to
philosophy. Generation and procession, words used by the Christians to
designate relations between the Son or Spirit and the Father, by no means retain
the precise meaning that they have for Plato and the Platonists. This
meaning, if preserved, would imply a doctrine such as Arianism since one of the
absolute principles of Neo-Platonism is that the reality that proceeds is
inferior to the reality from which it proceeds. But belief in the divinity
of Jesus Christ contradicts this principle and prescribes a dogma that no longer
has the slightest affiliation with philosophical speculation” (Brehier, The
History of Philosophy: The Hellenistic and Roman Age, pp. 245-246).
Relating
the Three Dogmatic Developments to the Trinitarian Formulation:
(3)
The Consubstantiality of the Son
“There
are then (as the statement may run) three Persons (Hypostases) or real
distinctions in the unity of the divine Nature or Substance, which is
Love. The Persons are co-equal, inasmuch as in each of them the
divine Nature is one and undivided, and by each the collective divine attributes
are shared. As a ‘person’ in Trinitarian usage is more than a mere
aspect of being, being a real ground of experience and function, each
divine Person, while less than a separate individuality, possesses His own
hypostatic character or characteristic property (...).”
(1)
The Philosophic Logos
of the Greeks
“The
hypostatic characters of the Persons may be viewed from an internal and an
external standpoint, i.e. with reference to the inner constitution of the
Godhead or to the Godhead as related to the cosmos or world of manifestation.
“
(2)
The Philosophic Eternal Generation of the Logos
“Viewed
ab intra, the hypostatic character of the Father is ingeneration (...), of
the Son; filiation, of the Spirit procession; wherefore, ‘the Father is of
none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the
Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.’
[Westminster Confession, ii,3]. Viewed ab extra (for Love functions
externally as well as internally, is centrifugal as well as centripetal [Cf. S.A.
McDowall, Evolution and the Doctrine of the Trinity, Cambridge, 1918, p.
53 f.], the hypostatic character of the Father is made manifest in creation,
whereby a world is provided for beings who should be capable of experiencing
fellowship with the divine Love; the hypostatic character of the Son in
redemption, whereby the alienating power of sin is overcome; and the hypostatic
character of the Spirit in sanctification, whereby human nature is quickened and
renewed and shaped to the divine likeness. Yet, while this is said, as
there is no separation in the unity of the Godhead, so the one God is manifested
in the threefold work of creation, redemption, and sanctification; moreover,
each of the Persons as sharing the divine attributes is active in the threefold
work, if with varying stress of function. Verily the doctrine of the
Trinity exit in mysterium” (Fulton, Trinity, Encyclopedia
of Religion and Ethics, pp. 459-460).
Dogmatic
Development Four:
Basil
of Caesarea Cappadocia Gregory of Nyssa Cappadocia Gregory
of Nazianzus Cappadocia
(Circa
330-395 A.D.)
“(4)
The doctrine of eternal distinctions within the divine Nature, according
to the formula of ‘three Hypostases [persons in the philosophic, not the
natural or legal sense] in one Ousia or Substance’ (...).
“To
the Cappadocian theologians (Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa) we
owe the final settlement, for which this formula stands, of the dogmatic
terminology. In distinguishing between hypostasis and ousia,
the former denoting a real principle of distinction [but not a being with
personality] within the divine Nature and the latter the divine Substance or
Nature (ousis) itself, they sought to lift the orthodox doctrine out of
the Sabellian modalism which recognized no distinction in reality between the
Father and the Son, so impairing the significance of the historical Christ, and
at the same time to vindicate it against the opposite error of heathen
polytheism (tritheism) [the belief in three indistinguishable Gods in the
Godhead], of which it was so often accused. Moreover, the Cappadocians
gave to the third member of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, the definite place and
character which He now possesses in Eastern orthodoxy, as being also a
Hypostasis in the Godhead, consubstantial with the Father, and proceeding from
the Father through the Son” (Fulton, Trinity, Encyclopedia of
Religion and Ethics, p. 459).
Concerning
the error of linking a plurality of Gods in the Godhead with heathen polytheism,
remember what we have already studied. It is not polytheistic to believe
in more than one God in the Godhead. Notice again:
“The
notion of unity has appeared in Chapter IV, where I discussed some theoretical
implications of Aristotle’s theology. It remains to consider how this
notion was actually treated by the early Christian writers and their pagan
contemporaries; and this for two reasons; first, because unity was considered to
be an important property, or even the distinctive property, of the godhead; and
secondly, because discussions of God’s ‘substance’ were increasingly
influenced by the claim that one substance was common to the three divine
persons.
“Christians
of course discovered the notion of unity in the Bible; the Old Testament claims
that God is one; the New Testament endorses this claim, but also lays down that
there is only one Lord Christ, and refers to the unity of the Christian
fellowship in the Holy Spirit. There is no need to review this biblical
material, which is no doubt familiar; in particular, the emergence of monotheism
in Israelite and other religions has been thoroughly investigated. But it
is perhaps worth noting that there seem to be in principle two ways in which a
monotheistic belief can replace an earlier polytheism. Polytheism rarely
implies a strictly equal society of gods; some divinities will normally be
greater and more powerful than others. Thus it is possible for one divine
being to take the lead so decisively that the others are degraded to the status
of attendant spirits, or of mere manifestations or powers of the supreme
god. He then is ‘the one God’ in the sense of the only being who can
rightfully claim this dignity” (Stead, Divine Substance, pp. 180-181).
Relating
the Four Dogmatic Developments to the Trinitarian Formulation:
(4)
The Philosophic Eternal Distinctions of Pater, Logos and Pneuma in the
Trinitarian Formulation
“There
are then (as the statement may run) three Persons (Hypostases) or real
distinctions in the unity of the divine Nature or Substance [ousia],
which is Love.”
(3)
The Philosophic Consubstantiality of the Logos in the Trinitarian
Formulation
“The
Persons are co-equal, inasmuch as in each of them the divine Nature is one and
undivided, and by each the collective divine attributes are shared. As a
‘person’ in Trinitarian usage is more than a mere aspect of being, being a
real ground of experience and function, each divine Person, while less than a
separate individuality, possesses His own hypostatic character or characteristic
property (...).”
(1)
The Logos of Greek Philosophy in the Trinitarian Formulation
“The
hypostatic characters of the Persons may be viewed from an internal and an
external standpoint, i.e. with reference to the inner constitution of the
Godhead or to the Godhead as related to the cosmos or world of manifestation.
“
(2)
The Philosophic Eternal Generation of the Logos in the Trinitarian
Formulation
“Viewed
ab intra, the hypostatic character of the Father is ingeneration (...),
of the Son filiation, of the Spirit procession; wherefore, ‘the Father is of
none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the
Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.’ [Westminster
Confession, ii,3]. Viewed ab extra (for Love functions
externally as well as internally, is centrifugal as well as centripetal [Cf. S.A.
McDowall, Evolution and the Doctrine of the Trinity, Cambridge, 1918, p.
53 f.], the hypostatic character of the Father is made manifest in creation,
whereby a world is provided for beings who should be capable of experiencing
fellowship with the divine Love; the hypostatic character of the Son in
redemption, whereby the alienating power of sin is overcome; and the hypostatic
character of the Spirit in sanctification, whereby human nature is quickened and
renewed and shaped to the divine likeness. Yet, while this is said, as
there is no separation in the unity of the Godhead, so the one God is manifested
in the threefold work of creation, redemption, and sanctification; moreover,
each of the Persons as sharing the divine attributes is active in the threefold
work, if with varying stress of function. Verily the doctrine of the
Trinity exit in mysterium” (Trinity,
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, pp. 459-460).
Dogmatic
Development Five: St.
Augustine of Hippo (Circa 354-430 A.D.)
“(5)
The doctrine of the double procession from the Father and the Son (the
filioque clause, added to the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed on canonically
indefensible grounds)
“—a
doctrine which represents the difference between Western orthodoxy and Eastern
(with its view of procession as from the Father alone, the unitary source of
deity); which was conceived, in the interests of the divine unity, as
counteractive of the subordinationism contained in the Eastern formulas; and
which under Augustine’s influence found its way into the Athanasian Creed.
Curiously enough, the Athanasian Creed (so called) thus differs theologically
from the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed in its original Eastern form on a
point on which Athanasius’s own sympathies would have lain with the Eastern
symbol. The Greek (Athanasian) theology found the divine unity, in the
Father, the one fountainhead of Son and the Spirit as subordinate to the
Father. The Roman (Augustinian) theology found the divine unity in the
divine Nature or Substance, with the result that, as the distinctions between
the three Hypostases or Persons became weakened under the doctrine of the
co-inherence, so attractive to the non-metaphysical Westerns, there remained
no proper foothold—so to speak—for the doctrine of subordination”
(Trinity, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, p. 459).
Relating
the Five Dogmatic Developments to the Trinitarian Formulation:
(4)
The Philosophic Eternal Distinctions of Pater, Logos and Pneuma in the
Trinitarian Formulation
“There
are then (as the statement may run) three Persons (Hypostases) or real
distinctions in the unity of the divine Nature or Substance [ousia],
which is Love.”
(3)
The Philosophic Consubstantiality of the Logos in the Trinitarian
Formulation
“The
Persons are co-equal, inasmuch as in each of them the divine Nature is one and
undivided, and by each the collective divine attributes are shared. As a
‘person’ in Trinitarian usage is more than a mere aspect of being, being a
real ground of experience and function, each divine Person, while less than a
separate individuality, possesses His own hypostatic character or
characteristic property (...).”
(1)
The Logos of Greek Philosophy in the Trinitarian Formulation
“The
hypostatic characters of the Persons may be viewed from an internal and an
external standpoint, i.e. with reference to the inner constitution of the
Godhead or to the Godhead as related to the cosmos or world of manifestation.”
(2)
The Philosophic Eternal Generation of the Logos in the Trinitarian
Formulation
“Viewed
ab intra, the hypostatic character of the Father is ingeneration (...),
of the Son; filiation, of the Spirit procession; wherefore, ‘the Father is
of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the
Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.’ [Westminster
Confession, ii, 3].”
(5)
The Philosophic Double Procession in the Trinitarian Formulation
“Viewed
ab intra, the hypostatic character of the Father is ingeneration (...),
of the Son; filiation, of the Spirit procession; wherefore, ‘the Father is
of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the
Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.’ [Westminster
Confession, ii, 3].”
Viewed
ab extra (for Love functions externally as well as internally,
is centrifugal as well as centripetal [Cf. S.A. McDowall, Evolution and the
Doctrine of the Trinity, Cambridge, 1918, p. 53 f.], the hypostatic
character of the Father is made manifest in creation, whereby a world is
provided for beings who should be capable of experiencing fellowship with the
divine Love; the hypostatic character of the Son in redemption, whereby the
alienating power of sin is overcome; and the hypostatic character of the
Spirit in sanctification, whereby human nature is quickened and renewed and
shaped to the divine likeness. Yet, while this is said, as there is no
separation in the unity of the Godhead, so the one God is manifested in the
threefold work of creation, redemption, and sanctification; moreover, each of
the Persons as sharing the divine attributes is active in the threefold work,
if with varying stress of function. Verily the doctrine of the
Trinity exit in mysterium” (W. Fulton, Trinity,
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, pp. 459-460).
The
Chaldean Mystery of the One and the Many
“What
lends a special character to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is its
close association with the distinctive Christian view of divine
incarnation. In other religions [”...we meet with the trinitarian
group of Brahma, Siva, and Visnu; and in Egyptian religion with the
trinitarian group of Osiris, Isis, and Horus, constituting a divine family,
like the Father, Mother, and Son in mediaeval Christian pictures” (W.
Fulton, Trinity, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, p. 458)] and
religious philosophies [”...the Neo-Platonic view of the Supreme or Ultimate
Reality, which was suggested by Plato in the Timaeus; e.g., in the
philosophy of Plotinus the primary or original Realities (...) [Enn(eads),
v.1, cited by C. C. J. Webb, God and Personality (Gifford Lectures),
London, 1918, p. 43] are triadically represented as the Good or (in numerical
symbol) the One, the Intelligence or the One-Many, and the World-Soul or
the One and Many. The religious Trinity associated, if somewhat
loosely, with Comte’s [the father of modern Sociology—modern humanism]
philosophy might also be cited here: the cultus of humanity as the Great
Being, of space as the Great Medium, and of the earth as the Great Fetish
[Comte’s view of the Chaldean Many].”
While
the philosophical connection of Trinitarianism with ancient Greece is openly
acknowledged by both historical and theological authors, the true origin of
that philosophy has been grossly overlooked and ignored. Few have been
honest or thorough enough in their research to trace this so-called “Western
philosophy” back to its original roots in the ancient Near East.
However, sufficient historical evidence can be found in reference libraries to
show that the highly acclaimed philosophers of ancient Greece acquired their
ideas of the nature of God and the Universe from the Magi of Persia, who in
turn received these teachings from the Chaldeans. This Chaldean
connection is clearly revealed in a study of the life of the famous Greek
philosopher Plato.
The
Canaanite Ancestry of Plato
In
2189 B.C., Arcadius and Emathius, white sons of Canaan, began to move their
peoples into Greece under the leadership of Eber, father of the Hebrews.
Emathius settled his people in the region of Emathia in Macedonia. He is
the father of the Hamathites (Gen 10:18). According to Trogus, early
Macedonia was made up of many different tribes. Their names were Emathia,
Paeonia and Pelasgoi (Trogus, VII,1). By 1707 B.C., the
sons of Emathia had migrated south from Macedonia and had settled in the
Argolis of Peloponnese, where they became known as Achaeans. The
Achaeans settled with the Pelasgoi and Ionians in Attica, founding Athens
under Cecrops in 1556 B.C. Herodotus states that the Pelasgoi were
also the ancestors of the Aeolians (Herodotus 12, 231). As the
Achaeans, Ionians and Pelasgoi freely mixed or co-habited the same regions,
they are undoubtedly peoples of the same ancestor, Emathius. In the 1100’s
the Dorians [Midianites from Spain and Italy] forced the Ionians to migrate
into what became Achaia Peloponnese.
“Now
these Ionians, during the time that they dwelt in the Peloponnese and
inhabited the land now called Achaea [which was before the arrival of Danaus
and Xuthus in the Peloponnese], were called, according to the Greek account,
Aegialean Pelasgi, or ‘Pelasgi of the Sea-shore’; but afterwards, from Ion
the son of Xuthus, they were called Ionians [western philosophy began with
these Ionians in the sixth century B.C. This beginning corresponds with
the arrival of the Persians and the Magi]” (Herodotus, 231).
|
