# The Trinity in Aristotelian terms



## Claudiu (Jun 27, 2012)

I recently read the essay "On "Not Three Gods' - Again: Can a Primary-Secondary substance reading of ousia and hypostasis avoid tritheism?"

Throughout the essay, the author, Nathan Jacobs, defines the Trinity in terms of Aristotelian language (using primary and secondary substances). In this way, he says that the Godhead can be understood as a secondary substance, while the persons in the Trinity as primary substance ("this line of analogy for the Godhead exists throughout the Cappadocian fathers: the substance (_ousia_) in the Godhead is akin to secondary substance, which constitutes the common nature of the three particulars (_hypostases_), Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." p. 335). Moreover, he cites historical examples from the Cappadocian Fathers using this terminology in describing the Trinity.

I am aware that in the East, the Fathers were more at ease in starting with the Three-ness of God (as opposed to the West starting with the One-ness), but is this way of describing the Trinity problematic? The author counters the Tritheism charge by appealing to the _perichoresis_ of God since God is not in space as we are, but is rather a spirit.


----------



## Claudiu (Jul 2, 2012)




----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 3, 2012)

Not too many bites, Claudiu.

I think the topic is a bit abstruse for those without a strong philosophical bent.

For all our efforts to speak of God according to both the extent and limitation of revelation, we do what we can with the vocabulary we have. I think the biggest mistake would be to assert that some philosopher or another, particularly a pre-Christian pagan, had derived the ideal expressions by which the mind contemplates God, albeit informed by the Hebrew material of divinity.

It would be nearly as mistaken to conceive the concept of Trinity as a kind of rational conclusion of just such a fortuitous combination of preexisting thought-forms and religious developments. But this should not sound like I'm dismissive of the above author's efforts. I'm not qualified to judge them, and your description sounds like one philosopher's attempt at a defense of truth, by means of ancient (not necessarily outmoded) categories.

There is bound to be (in my view) a tendency in nearly everyone's thinking to fall off to the right or left, to unitarianism or tritheism; the reason being, Trinity is a point of exquisite balance in Christian theology. The important things are: to make one's statements of understanding and reconciliation, answer the charges/threats of known heresy as best one can; and close by affirming the cardinal tenets, both affirmations and denials, of orthodoxy, in spite of the weakness of his efforts to lend his defense to them.

In the end, I recommend emailing someone like a Systematic or Historical Theology seminary prof or well-regarded Reformed author for his thoughts. Try Robert Letham (just a suggestion).


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 3, 2012)

This author does what many people do wanting to solve some “perceived” problem in theology. Someone says “the traditional understanding is wrong because it doesn’t make sense to us.” And then the Christian says “your right, let me try to fix that for you.” But this is wrong and denies divine condescension in revelation. We cannot rip the heavens open and Use Aristotle to “figure” God out. He accommodates to our creaturely finitude in taking on human concepts that analogically describe what He is like to us. 

With that said I think the main problem with this paper is that it, In my humble opinion, contradicts the Athanasian Creed, which nowhere that I can see treats the Godhead as a secondary substance. It relates the persons of the Trinity as equal in importance to the essence of the Godhead. The Nicene “distinction” between God being one in essence and three in persons is a logical distinction to help us mere creatures grasp something of God. It is not a univocal understanding of God as He is in Himself. But it is only an analogical distinction in God’s revelation of Himself to us. That is why the Creeds are better for grasping these things than mere philosophy.

That is, there is no primary/secondary relation of any kind within the Godhead. God is what He is. It is the theologians studying scripture that should tell us these things not Aristotle’s philosophy.


----------



## Philip (Jul 3, 2012)

I would say that the Cappadocian, Augustinian, and hypostasis/ousia ways of describing the trinity are each helpful and problematic in equal measure.


----------



## Claudiu (Jul 3, 2012)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Not too many bites, Claudiu.
> 
> I think the topic is a bit abstruse for those without a strong philosophical bent.
> 
> *For all our efforts to speak of God according to both the extent and limitation of revelation, we do what we can with the vocabulary we have.*





jwright82 said:


> The Nicene “distinction” between God being one in essence and three in persons is a logical distinction to help us mere creatures grasp something of God. *It is not a univocal understanding of God as He is in Himself. But it is only an analogical distinction in God’s revelation of Himself to us.* That is why the Creeds are better for grasping these things than mere philosophy.
> 
> That is, there is no primary/secondary relation of any kind within the Godhead. God is what He is. It is the theologians studying scripture that should tell us these things not Aristotle’s philosophy.



I think what you guys are bringing up is what I've been thinking. That is, the Cappadocian Fathers were responding to differing conceptions of the Trinity. And in answering to these conceptions, they used the language and vocabular available to them. I'm not saying that the Fathers were correct in doing so, but I do understand that they were trying to respond in a way that their opponents could understand them in, using a common language. 

Ultimately, I do think that we have to keep in mind what you say James. The way we talk about God is through analogy, and that means that we are not speaking of Him as He actually is in Himself.


----------



## Claudiu (Jul 3, 2012)

Philip said:


> I would say that the Cappadocian, Augustinian, and hypostasis/ousia ways of describing the trinity are each helpful and problematic in equal measure.



Could you say a little more on some of the problems that arise in describing the Trinity in these various ways?


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 3, 2012)

Claudiu said:


> Philip said:
> 
> 
> > I would say that the Cappadocian, Augustinian, and hypostasis/ousia ways of describing the trinity are each helpful and problematic in equal measure.
> ...



I don't what Philip exactly had in mind but substance metaphysics was abandoned in western thinking around the time of Kant. New and better categories were invented to describe things.


----------



## Philip (Jul 3, 2012)

Claudiu said:


> Could you say a little more on some of the problems that arise in describing the Trinity in these various ways?



Augustine
Pro: He gives a good understanding of _filioque_ and the economic trinity
Con: He tends to emphasize oneness a bit too much

Cappadocians
Pro: Great emphasis on personhood of the Trinity and focus on how each is absolutely essential to God . . .
Con: . . . almost to the point of tritheism

Hypostasis/ousia
Pro: logical and good drawing of distinctions
Con: distinctions are often so subtle as to leave the layman confused, a problem which worsens across language barriers.



jwright82 said:


> substance metaphysics was abandoned in western thinking around the time of Kant. New and better categories were invented to describe things.



New, yes. Better, not necessarily.


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 3, 2012)

Philip said:


> New, yes. Better, not necessarily.



Yeah I rethought that after I wrote it.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jul 4, 2012)

I disagree with the mid-20th century strain of thinking that says that Augustine leans toward the one, the Cappadocians toward the three. Frankly, they're practically identical in their core commitments, and the the confusion comes from later readers misinterpreting the purpose and scope of their analogies. Also, this means that I'm highly skeptical of the author's application of high-grade Aristotelianism to the Cappadocians.

Recommended reading:

The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God by R. P. C. Hanson

Nicaea and its Legacy by Lewis Ayres

Augustine and the Trinity by Lewis Ayres

The Power of God: A Study of Gregory of Nyssa's Trinitarian Theology by Michel Barnes


----------



## Philip (Jul 4, 2012)

CharlieJ said:


> I disagree with the mid-20th century strain of thinking that says that Augustine leans toward the one, the Cappadocians toward the three.



I agree that both ways of describing the Trinity are committed to the same things, but that doesn't keep me from admitting that differences in approach and emphasis exist. It's not as if Augustine and the Cappadocians are saying the exact same thing or have the exact same emphasis. The Cappadocians _do_, in fact, lean toward talking more about the three, given their language of perichoresis, whereas Augustine's language of procession and logical order does seem to lean in the direction of oneness. All of these authors are orthodox and all are right to a large degree because their theologies are complementary.


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 5, 2012)

I was also thinking that another problem with this paper was that it collapsed the economic Trinity into the ontological Trinity. The begotteness of the Son and the procession of the Spirit are aspects of the economic Trinity but have their basis in some way in the ontological Trinity. But still they seem more proper to me to be aspects of the economic Trinity. He doesn’t even mention this distinction.


----------



## Claudiu (Jul 5, 2012)

James, I was thinking the same thing.


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 5, 2012)

Claudiu said:


> James, I was thinking the same thing.



Great minds think alike .


----------



## Philip (Jul 5, 2012)

jwright82 said:


> He doesn’t even mention this distinction.



I would say rightly: God is who He reveals Himself to be. God is not anything other than what He reveals Himself to be.


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 5, 2012)

Philip said:


> I would say rightly: God is who He reveals Himself to be. God is not anything other than what He reveals Himself to be.



Right but I still think that this distinction is essential to understanding God's revelation.


----------



## Philip (Jul 5, 2012)

jwright82 said:


> Right but I still think that this distinction is essential to understanding God's revelation.



But we can't think of God as some sort of Kantian _Ding an sich_. The Christian view is that God is who He has said that He is---we can't talk about the economic Trinity without talking about the ontological trinity. This is why, for instance, Augustine's discussion of the Trinity in _De Trinitate_ is both economic and ontological. He makes no such distinction.


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 5, 2012)

Philip said:


> But we can't think of God as some sort of Kantian Ding an sich. The Christian view is that God is who He has said that He is---we can't talk about the economic Trinity without talking about the ontological trinity. This is why, for instance, Augustine's discussion of the Trinity in De Trinitate is both economic and ontological. He makes no such distinction.



Your right but a dinstiction doesn't mean a seperation.


----------



## Unoriginalname (Jul 5, 2012)

Time out, what do the terms economic trinity and ontological trinity mean? I think I know but it is hard to eavesdrop when you guys keep using words I do not know.


----------



## Philip (Jul 5, 2012)

Unoriginalname said:


> economic trinity



This is the way in which the Trinity interacts. So, for instance, the Son reveals the Father by the Spirit. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Etc.



Unoriginalname said:


> ontological trinity



"There are three persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost;[20] and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory." (WSC Q6)


----------



## Unoriginalname (Jul 5, 2012)

Thank you Philip


----------



## bookslover (Jul 6, 2012)

CharlieJ said:


> I disagree with the mid-20th century strain of thinking that says that Augustine leans toward the one, the Cappadocians toward the three. Frankly, they're practically identical in their core commitments, and the the confusion comes from later readers misinterpreting the purpose and scope of their analogies. Also, this means that I'm highly skeptical of the author's application of high-grade Aristotelianism to the Cappadocians.
> 
> Recommended reading:
> 
> ...



Another suggestion: _The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being, Three Persons_ by Thomas F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996).


----------



## py3ak (Jul 6, 2012)

Philip said:


> Unoriginalname said:
> 
> 
> > economic trinity
> ...



Some people also use the terminology of "economic" vs. "immanent". I am not sure that everyone draws the distinction in quite the same way. Some appear to distinguish economic vs. ontological along the lines of _ad extra_ vs. _ad intra_. In that case, _economic_ would refer to God's interaction with the world, and _ontological_ would include generation and procession. I'm not saying that Philip is wrong - just that you can't assume that every author draws the distinction along those same lines.


----------

