Responding to the claim that West begins with Essence, East with persons

[RamistThomist]

In a nutshell how would you respond to the claim often asserted by Eastern Orthodox (though similarly asserted by 19th c. Thomists) that Western doctrines of God begin with the unity of the essence and then move to the persons, whereas the East begins wtih the three persons and then moves to the unity.

I've read a fair amount of Patristic theology and I see both eastern and western fathers beginning in both, so to speak. Admittedly, if one contrasts Thomas Aquinas with Gregory Palamas, the Western/Eastern divide seems pretty marked. I am currently responding to an Orthodox apologist on this point. My line of response is something along the following:

1). It's historically iffy, as Eastern Orthodox theologian David B. Hart routinely notes (much to the ire of EO theologians!).
2) Ultimately, it really doesn't matter as long as you don't exalt one at the expense of the other. In that case, start where you will.
3) So what?

 

[Poimen]

It seems to me that there is some merit in following the 'chronology' of scripture when we focus on the oneness of God and then move to the tri-unity of God. This helps us to avoid all polytheistic conceptions of the Trinity and, more importantly, grounds our understanding of God not just in theology but also in redemptive history. Otherwise the doctrine of the Trinity can become too cerebral.

Besides which, as your third objection implies, what is the demonstrable superiority of the Eastern approach over the Western?

 

[py3ak]

In addition to the very good points you've raised, you might be able to add:

4) You have to start somewhere, just as a matter of human limitation. This is true in any treatment of it, even the Bible's; which leads to the question
5) Where did revelation start?

None of that means, of course, that if the context in which you are arguing (say, under Islamic rule) or the text you are treating leads you to speak first of the persons and then clarify that there is only one essence that this is at all wrong. It's just to demonstrate that using that sort of reasoning to say that Augustine or Lombard or Calvin therefore necessarily got something wrong is simply a non sequitur and a cheap shot.