Is Theophilus' trinitarianism sound?

[Mr. Bultitude]

I could make my own diagnosis, but why do that when I can pick the brains of people smarter, wiser, and better studied than I?

Theophilus of Antioch is noted as having the first extant mention of the Greek word for trinity in his writings.

Here it is:

[God's creations on the first three days--light, sky, and vegetation--] are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man.

John Kaye, called an "eminent authority" by the translator, says this about Theophilus' trinitarianism:

It is not very easy to discover wherein the correspondence between the types and anti-types consists; one thing, however, is certain; that according to the notions of Theophilus, God, His Word, and His wisdom constitute a Trinity; and it should seem a Trinity of persons: for man whom he afterwards adds is a person.

This part sounds modalist:

You will say, then, to me: “You said that God ought not to be contained in a place, and how do you now say that He walked in Paradise?” Hear what I say. The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest; but His Word, through whom He made all things, being His power and His wisdom, assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam. For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice. But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son? Not as the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse [with women], but as truth expounds, the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought. But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered, the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason. And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,” showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, “The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence.” The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place.

Is he faithfully/orthodoxically trinitarian? I realize there were many controversies over the course of the following centuries that helped shape the doctrine, but on its face, what diagnosis would you give his exposition?

 

[RamistThomist]

I could make my own diagnosis, but why do that when I can pick the brains of people smarter, wiser, and better studied than I?

Theophilus of Antioch is noted as having the first extant mention of the Greek word for trinity in his writings.

Here it is:

[God's creations on the first three days--light, sky, and vegetation--] are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man.

At first it doesn't sound bad. Likening aspects of God or divine action to the sun is common in patristics. However, "typing" the Word/Spirit with sky/vegetation is a bit strained.

It is not very easy to discover wherein the correspondence between the types and anti-types consists; one thing, however, is certain; that according to the notions of Theophilus, God, His Word, and His wisdom constitute a Trinity; and it should seem a Trinity of persons: for man whom he afterwards adds is a person.

Agreed. It's better to see it as dead-ending than necessarily heretical

This part sounds modalist:

You will say, then, to me: “You said that God ought not to be contained in a place, and how do you now say that He walked in Paradise?” Hear what I say. The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest; but His Word, through whom He made all things, being His power and His wisdom, assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam. For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice. But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son? Not as the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse [with women], but as truth expounds, the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought. But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered, the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason. And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,” showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, “The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence.” The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place.

Is he faithfully/orthodoxically trinitarian? I realize there were many controversies over the course of the following centuries that helped shape the doctrine, but on its face, what diagnosis would you give his exposition?

Most of the earlier fathers would sound modalist. Justin Martyr is far so. The problem they had to face--and never really overcame--is that the Father is utterly simple, meaning beyond conceptions. The Son, though, is not. The Son refracts the Father's simplicity. Further, and later with Justin, there is the logos enthiatos and the logos prosphorikos. The Former is what we would call the Second Person of the Trinity. No problem there. The latter is also the second person of the Trinity, but only so as relativ to creation. Now we are getting to some big problems.

It's not a full blown modalism, like we see in Oneness Pentecostals. Theophilus and Justin (and I keep referring back to Justin because he is so clear, if wrong, on this issue) did not think God put on a Jesus mask, but neither could they fully differentiate the persons in God.