Recap and segue to reading text

Speaker 1 0:00

So we introduced ourselves to the terminology of the analogies, but we didn't go much beyond that. Let me recap what we said last time and use it as a segue to reading the text together. But in addition to the rather more famous, better known Trinity of Love, which has come through to us in that unfortunate icon which, after so many years of controversy, just entered, entered easily into the iconography of the Orthodox Church, so that it has managed to confuse many of us, let me just say a word about that icon, if I may. We can see straight away that the icon is based on the filioque. Well, maybe you don't see that if you're not trained or aware of these things, but you can see it instinctively. You can see that it is a two-person icon rather than a three-person icon because, whichever way you cut it, a dove hovering above the older man and then Christ is not a person. But you know, there is an equally, if not even more, important problem with that icon, and that is something that we alluded to earlier. With Christ seated next to an almost identical man, but one with gray hair, what you have is two separate beings, and that is a huge problem. As I've said before, even without that we have difficulty grasping the fact that the Holy Trinity is one being. The Holy Trinity is triune. The Holy Trinity is triune. So, yes, one, in essence three hypostases, but those three hypostases are not three separate gods. Remember, we took a look already at St Gregory of Nyssa, who gave us that treatise, that there are not three gods. So three gods, three separate beings? No, our God, god the Father, god the Son and God the Holy Spirit, are one God, one being. This is precisely why it is one of the greatest mysteries of all, because it doesn't make any sense. It could not be the product of the human mind, this doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the triune God. All right, so having discussed the Trinity of love and the problems therewith, we now come to the Trinities of Mind.

1st Trinity of Mind: Mind, Knowledge, Love

2nd Trinity of Mind: Memory, Understanding, Willing

Speaker 1 3:39

Saint Augustine happens to use two Trinities of Mind. Augustine happens to use two trinities of mind. The first is to be found in book nine of his day trinitate on the trinity, and the second is to be found in book 10 of his day trinitate, his day trinitate. So the first trinity of mind in book nine, section four, is one where you have the mind men's, the mind's knowledge of itself. Notitia is knowledge. This is the word, that St Augustine calls this a triad that is inseparable though distinct. So what he's saying is that it's one thing, but we can discern three aspects of that. One thing, it's a unipersonal analogy, it's a reflexive analogy, and he speaks of mutual co-inherence. The above interpenetrates may be found in going here's in the other two. So all are in all. Here we've got a relationship affirmed mind, the mind's knowledge of itself and the mind's love of itself. But this relationship is not reciprocal between persons, as we said, it is reflexive within one person. So let's move on now to the second trinity of mind, to familiarize ourselves with the terminology there.

Memory (memoria)

Speaker 1 6:05

In Book 10, section 17 of the De Trinitate on the Trinity, in this case you have the mind remembering itself itself, understanding itself and willing itself. These are aspects, again, of the mind. You have memoria sui, the memory of itself, the understanding, intelligentsia and voluntas. So understanding intelligentsia, voluntas will. And we said that memory means more than what we mean today, as it really signifies self-awareness, not just thinking of things past. A memoria for Augustine contains everything he has experienced or can imagine. Indeed, the whole universe is embraced by his memory. And here I'm quoting pretty much again Father Andrew Louth from his book the Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition. Page 142 is where the relevant passages that I just quoted are to be found. But let's take a look at what Saint Augustine himself says about memoria In book 10 of his Confessions, book 10, section 8 to be precise.

Speaker 1 7:55

Great is the power of memory, exceedingly great, oh my God. A spreading limitless room within me who can reach its uttermost depth? Yet it is a faculty of my soul and belongs to my nature. In fact, I cannot totally grasp all that I am. Thus. The mind is not large enough to contain itself. But how can it not contain itself? How can there be any of itself that is not in itself? And as this question struck me, I was overcome with wonder and almost with stupor.

Soliloquy

Speaker 1 8:50

Well, this is a very useful representative text of Saint Augustine. It contains what the West consistently admires of him. It contains what the East has never really embraced. So what am I referring to? Very briefly, it was St Augustine who introduced two literature. Strange as it may seem, even as I say that I can't believe it, surely someone in the ancient world did this before Saint Augustine. But the soliloquy talking to oneself, this is something which is attributed to Saint Augustine, and here you have an example of it.

Speaker 1 9:43

In fact, the very first lines of his confessions consist of a prayer where Saint Augustine starts debating with himself. Here is a sample of what I mean. Grant me, lord, to know and understand, which is first to call on thee or to praise thee, and again to know thee or to call on thee. For who can call on thee not knowing thee? For he that knoweth thee not may call on thee as other than thou art. Or is it rather that we call on thee, that we may know thee? And a little further on he says and how shall I call upon my God, my God and Lord, since when I call for him, I shall be calling him to myself? And what room is there within me? Whether, whither my God can come into me, whither can God come into me? God who made heaven and earth? Is there indeed, o Lord, my God, aught in me that can contain thee? Do then heaven and earth which thou hast made and wherein thou hast made me contain thee, or because nothing which exists could exist without thee. Doth therefore whatever exists contain thee, since then I too exist. Why do I seek that thou shouldest enter into me who were not wert thou not in me, the opening prayer of Saint Augustine's Confessions, translated by E B Pusey.

Speaker 1 11:35

In the Orthodox tradition, we're not encouraged to pray in this introspective way. We have a dialogue. Yes, we speak to God, we tell God our pain, our express, our suffering, our concerns, what we are asking for, yes, and so on and so forth. But remember, all the time we're speaking of the mind, we're speaking of the mens, as we've said before, different aspects of the mens, and he's going to utilize these different aspects to give us a better understanding of the mystery of the Holy Trinity, of the mystery of the Holy Trinity and, in particular, he's going to move towards a better solution vis-a-vis the distinctive characteristic of the Holy Spirit what makes the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit and not a second Son of God. So, following the analysis of Metropolitan Callistos, where let's make a couple of observations here regarding the analogies of mind, and this is before again we get to read the texts in question Metropolitan Callistos' immediate reaction on reading this part of Augustine's De Trinitate is to say that these analogies from the mind have very little scriptural basis.

Speaker 1 13:24

These analogies from the mind have very little scriptural basis. The Trinity is not here being related to the great events of salvation, the history of salvation, the saving work of Christ. Why does St Augustine not take moments like the Annunciation, or the Baptism of the Lord in the Jordan, or the Transfiguration, pentecost? Why does he not do that? It would appear that Augustine considers this analysis more fruitful. Well, at any rate, he's not doing that. Here is he? So the second point and this one is quite obvious, and that this is further away from the capodosian understanding of the trinity, then was his analogy of mutual love.

God as Nous, Logos, Pneuma (in Nazianzen and Palamas)

Irenaeus of Lyons: two hands of God

Reading of 1st passage, Comm. on Ps. 134.3-4 (Ps. 135.3)

Speaker 1 14:28

And perhaps we mentioned and if we didn't, I'll mention it anyway, there is, in saint gregory the theologian, a reference to the trinity as nous, the sun as logos and the spirit as benevolent. And of course he does do that. However, I would point out a couple of things about that, and this is something which I mentioned in the notes, the scolia of my edition of St Gregory Palamas, because St Gregory Palamas picks up on this and he does something similar based on Gregory the Theologian. Well, firstly, gregory the Theologian, it's true, identifies the Father as nous, but he doesn't say anything more. He doesn't go into any more detail, neither for the Father as nous, nor the Son as logos or the Spirit as benevima. In fact I'm reminded of Zeta-Ireneus of Leon In his treatise against the heresies. He talks about the two hands of God and he says the one the logos, the other the spirit. But he doesn't actually say that the father is the nous. He describes the father as a charioteer, his hands being the logos and the spirit, which is not a satisfactory trinitarian analogy. When you think of the proclamation, the teachings of the first ecumenical council, that seems to be somewhat lacking. But it is a reference to an aspect of the divine economy. We can come back to that in due course. But now that's what we can say about augustine, that although there's something to be said about the identification of the noose with the father, the other terminology that St Augustine uses is not scriptural. So let's begin with page 17. It's Augustine.

Speaker 1 17:04

On the Psalms, section 5, 134, verses 3 to 6. The translation is taken from Documents in Early Christian Thought edited by Maurice Wiles and Mark Santer, cambridge University Press. What reason am I to give you for praising him? Because the Lord is good, psalm 135.3. In one brief word, the praises of the Lord, our God, are set forth.

Speaker 1 17:40

The Lord is good, but good not in the way that the things that he has made are good. Indeed, god made all things very good. Not only good, but also very good, See Genesis 1.31. Heaven and earth and all that is in them. He made them good and he made them very good. If all these things that he made are good, what is he who made them like? Although he made them good, and he who made them is much better than the things he made, yet no better word can be found to describe him than the Lord is good, good, that is, in the sense of that real good from which all other goods are derived. He it was who made all things good, but the good which he is was made by no one. He is good in virtue of his own goodness, not by participation in any other goodness. He is good in virtue of the goodness which he himself is, not through cleaving to some other good, but for me it is good to cleave to God, psalm 73, 28. He needed no one to make him good, but other things needed him to make them good. Do you wish to hear how uniquely good he is? It was the Lord, when asked, who said no one is good but God alone, mark 10, 18.

Commentary on 1st passage, Comm. on Ps. 134.3-4 (Ps. 135.3)

Platonic Forms: the Good & the Beautiful

Participation in the Absolute Good

Speaker 1 19:38

So notice that Saint Augustine is beginning with the concept of good, and this is quite in keeping also with his Platonic background, and there's no question about it. The psalm says taste and see that the Lord is good, or diagathos, and diagathon in Platonic theology is identified with the highest level of existence. In Plato, there are the forms, the patterns upon which or according to which the furniture of the universe, everything is made, everything is fashioned after, and Plato identifies two of them. Everything is made, everything is fashioned after, and Plato identifies two of them, the good and the beautiful, as even higher than the others. Now, what I'm saying there is just background to what I really want to point out here in this paragraph, that Saint Augustine is establishing that there is an absolute good, an absolute good by which all the other relative goods a good man or a good tree or whatever you see that is good, is good by virtue of the degree to which that thing participates in the ultimate, the absolute good.

The Personal God of Christianity

Speaker 1 21:26

Notice that, significantly, in moving away from Platonism, augustine turned to a personal God, whereas the forms, the ultimate, the good and the beautiful of Plato, the God of Plato is in person. So augustine has turned to the christian god, the god of christian tradition, the god of holy scripture, and in so doing he's now using the personal pronoun he. He is good in virtue of his own goodness, not by participation in any other goodness. That's what we just said, that Plato would say. Well, this or that is good to the degree that it participates in the ultimate good, and the ultimate good is goodness itself, absolute good. All right, so moving on where he says do you wish to hear how uniquely good he is? It was the lord, when asked, who said no one is good but god alone. These are important passages to someone who spent 10 years, quote-unquote, benefiting from Platonism. It was Platonism that saved. Curiously, it was Platonism that saved Augustine from Manichaeism.

Reading of 2nd passage, Comm. on Ps. 134.3-4 (Ps. 135.3)

Speaker 1 23:12

Okay, let's continue. The uniqueness of his goodness is something that I am reluctant to pass over quickly, but I'm incapable of praising fitly. If I move on rapidly, I am afraid I shall appear ungrateful, but if I do undertake to expound it, I am afraid of becoming exhausted by the vast burden of the Lord's praises. Even so, brothers, accept my praise of him, unfit though I am to utter it, so that, even if his praises be not fully unfolded, the zeal of him who utters them may at least be accepted. May God himself approve my intention and pardon my failure.

Commentary on 2nd passage, Comm. on Ps. 134.3-4 (Ps. 135.3)

Speaker 1 24:09

I am filled with ineffable delight when I hear the Lord is good. I consider and survey all that I see outside me. It all comes from him and since these things please me, I turn to him, from whom they come, and so understand that the Lord is good. Or again, when I travel inwards, so far as I can, towards him, I find that he is both deeper and higher than I can reach. The goodness of the Lord is such that he has no need of these things to make him good. In a word, I do not praise these things apart from him, but him I find to be perfect without them, untouched by want or change. Nowhere does he look for any good which may increase him, nowhere does he fear any evil that may diminish him. So once again, he's establishing the absolute goodness of God, of God and his perfection. The perfection of God is not derived from any other thing, it is perfection itself, whereas all other things derive their perfection from the ultimate perfection, which is gone.

Absolute and relative Good

Speaker 1 25:52

Then he goes on to say look, the sky is good, the Sun is good, the moon is good, the stars are good. Okay, different uses of good right, all of which are relatives, and the absolute good is again where he says good sky, good angel, good man. But when I turn to God, I can think of nothing better to call him than simply good. The Lord Jesus. Christ himself spoke of good man, but he also said no one is good but God alone, going back to Mark 10, 18, which he quoted earlier. So God is good in himself. How good is that good from which all goods are derived. Okay, this can be a little tiresome, but St Augustine does this, does this, and sometimes I wonder this kind of speculative analysis, as brilliant as it is, I'm amazed at how the west, this is what they love, this is what they admire.

Similarity of “Being”

Speaker 1 27:10

Saint augustine is going to talk about the analogy of being. I'm just going to say a few things about this text because I really want to get to the next text, which is where the analogies are to be found. But this is important background for Augustine. So the things that he made, he says three lines down from the top of page 19. So the things that he made do have being and so can, after all, be compared with him. Now, this is a philosophical point, but it becomes the theology of the West. The things that he made do have being, and they have being again because Augustine is influenced by that platonic line of thinking. What is the platonic line of thinking? Well, just as we have goodness to the degree to which we participate in God's goodness, we have being to the degree by which we participate in God's being. So the things that he made do have been, and so can, after all, be compared with him.

The created–uncreated distinction

Speaker 1 28:46

What's the problem with that? Well, from the Orthodox perspective, there is a big problem, and that problem is called the created-uncreated distinction. So, according to the Orthodox view of the scheme of things, god alone is uncreated. Everything else is created, that is to say, it has been brought into existence out of nothing, by God. Of course. What that means is that there is no similarity between the created and the uncreated. Why? Because the uncreated, as having no beginning as well as no end, is totally other and radically unlike any created thing which has a beginning and actually has an end, created things you may say.

Speaker 1 30:08

Well, hold on a minute. What about our souls, which continue to exist after death? And so on, right, anything created that continues to exist continues to exist only by the will of God. If it were not the will of God for that thing to continue to exist, it would cease to exist. In other words, it would return to its nothingness. In other words, it would return to its nothingness why? Because that is characteristic, that is fundamental property of that which is created out of nothing that it can return to nothing. So it's not God's will that we return to nothing, it's God's will that we return to nothing. It's God's will that we continue to exist. But if we continue to exist, we continue to exist by the grace and will of God, because we ourselves do not have the innate power to continue to exist. In other words, our soul and body is not by nature immortal, doesn't have that power of immortality by nature.

Speaker 1 31:40

And of course, here by nature. And of course here we are touching on a point that distinguishes the christian view of the scheme of things radically from what we have around us today, certainly in the far eastern religions, certainly in those elements that come from the far eastern religions through the new age movement, whatever it may be, so on and so forth, which tell us that we are divine by nature, that we are immortal by nature. All you have to do is discover who or, more accurately, what you are, that you have that divine spark. You have that force, that power, that universal force, universal power which is characteristic of the divine, the all. However it's described. It's described in many and various ways, but the basic point is that we are immortal. The highest part in us is immortal and indeed divine and indeed uncreated.

Speaker 1 33:06

Well, there are strong similarities with the platonist tradition here, and that's a subject for debate as well. Where did the platonists get this from? Where did Pythagoras get his theories from? And so on. Anyway, that's not the Christian context, these are not Christian presuppositions. So when Saint Augustine is saying the things that he made do have being and so can, after all, be compared with him, what he's trying to get to is to say, since God created everything, the image of God is imprinted on all created things.

The analogy of Being & and the Image of God

Speaker 1 34:06

If you want to understand God, if you want a deeper knowledge of God, you must look at his creation. By studying his creation, by learning about the world, the cosmos and more specifically, about ourselves, you will learn more about the creator. There's a logic there, right, it's a compelling logic. It does make sense, but it's not Christian sense. It's not in keeping with the revelation of the God, of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob. Why? Because in the Orthodox tradition, orthodox tradition, we do not have never accepted the analogia entis, what the latins call the analogy of being. Here we're speaking of forms of existence. The highest form of being is that of god. And then you have the forms of existence other than God, which are the things that God made, and how do they reflect? To what degree do they reflect? To what degree are they images of the maker? So St Augustine is going to go on and talk about God as a being itself, and then everything else has being again, as we said, to the degree according to which it participates in the supreme being, and so on, so forth.

Difference between Augustine and the Platonists

“I Am”: God as Being vs Personal

Speaker 1 36:05

And I guess the difference is I mean radical difference between augustine and the platonists is number one, that he is moved, as I mentioned before, to a personal God. I am, and he mentions that. Yet the words I am, who am, echye asher, echye Egoi mi oon. I am that I am. And you shall say to the children of Israel he who is has sent me to you. Or on Yahweh, yahweh has sent me to you, exodus 3, 14. Sound as if he alone has been. He did not say the Lord, god the Almighty, the Merciful, the Just, though if he had done so, he would certainly have been speaking the truth. There's a little bit of speculation here. Again, that's peculiar. Here again that's peculiar. His answer excludes everything that could be predicated of god or said about him, and says that being itself is what he is called. Being itself is what he has got.

No “hypostasis” in Western theology

Speaker 1 37:39

Now, the interesting thing here is that Augustine is focusing on being, when the traditional interpretation focuses on the personal aspect of the one who is revealing himself I am. But this is what we're coming to, because all of our studies about the hypostasis and what I describe as a gaping hole in Western theology there is no hypostasis. And here Saint Augustine is looking at the revelation of I am and he's thinking being. Well, that's true, but who is? Being A personal God, and to some degree much too limited in my opinion. It's not that he's totally unaware of this, but he skirts around it and then focuses again on being. Oron still carries with it the personal, because O-on, with Omega, is he who is I, am he who is Egoi mi. O-on is a brilliant, brilliant translation.

ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν (Exod. 3.14)

Appeal

Speaker 1 39:24

The Septuagint, 300 years BC, made by the inspired rabbis of Alexandria. They knew Hebrew, anyway, they translated it that way. Here the emphasis is on essence being so. Augustine is not saying that. He's not focusing on the ego sum eroi me, so he goes on to speak about immutable being and so on and so forth. What we're going to have to do is pause here at the end of this paragraph. Until next time, please subscribe to our channel and share with your friends. Click on the join button below our video and become a friend or reader of the Mount Tabor Academy. Support our drive to introduce the theology and spiritual life of the Mount Tabor Academy. Support our drive to introduce the theology and spiritual life of the Orthodox Church to the wider community.