Augustine and the “Persons” of the Holy Trinity (see our Episodes 24,26,27)

Speaker 1 0:00

The Cappadocian Fathers give us the notion of the person the person as we have it today, as distorted as it has become in the Western context, the distinctions within God, the Holy Trinity, on the basis of relation. And his solution was a philosophical one, it was an ingenious one, but it was philosophical and it was intellectual. Philosophical and it was intellectual. And he salvaged something of the individuality, the special individuality of each of the divine hypostases, I should say each of the divine persons, because he didn't accept the term hypostasis in a way that resulted in an essentialism, because God, for Saint Augustine, is understood as divine substance and the three persons of the Holy Trinity are understood as three substances which together make one substance. What distinguishes those three substances one from another is the relation of each one of them to the other two. So the first substance, god the the Father, is from no one. The second substance, god the Son, is from the first substance uniquely. And the third substance, in order for it to be distinguished from the second substance, cannot simply be from the first substance. It must be from the first and second substances so that it has a special individuality of its own. So the Holy Spirit is from the Father and from the Son and must be from the Father and from the Son, otherwise you would have another second substance, a second Son. So this relational view of the Holy Trinity seems to be unaware of the fact that the Cappadocians associated hypostasis with person, because hypostasis used to be a synonym of essence. They took a term which carried the same weight as essence and they applied it to the threeness of God. This was the genius of the Cappadocian contribution they took a term which carried the same ontological weight as essence or substance. Substance confuses the matter, because substantia is a direct translation of ibor, stasis. So essence and hypostasis used to person, detached from usia and identified with person. But what is it that identifies the special individuality of each of the divine hypostases? Well, the Cappadocian fathers, based on biblical principles, said we know that the Lord himself revealed himself as the only begotten Son of God. The fourth gospel reveals the Logos as the only begotten, uniquely then begotten of the Father. This discloses his hypostatic characteristic, the personal characteristic that distinguishes him from the Father and from the Holy Spirit, whereas in the case of the third hypostasis, that of the Holy Spirit, the Lord tells us that he proceeds from the Father. So he is not begotten of the Father. He proceeds from the Father, and this is what the Second Ecumenical Council added to the Creed of the first ecumenical council and specified the special individuality of the Holy Ghost and in one Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who, together with the Father and the Son, is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.

Speaker 1 6:12

So during the debates, st Gregory the theologian addresses the question what do we mean by begotten? What do we mean by proceeding, procession, and what is the difference between them? How should we understand this? Well, rather disappointingly, from an intellectual point of view, st Gregory the theologian refuses to answer that question and he says we don't know. We don't know what it means to be begotten of the Father. I mean, we don't know what it means that an uncreated son is begotten of an uncreated father. We know what it means when it comes to creatures, but what exactly does that mean when it comes to the uncreated God? And we don't know what it means that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, that the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit is produced from the Father by procession and not by generation. This is specified by the Second Ecumenical Council.

The Hypostatic characteristics of each of the divine Hypostases

The “Monarchy” of the Father (see our Episode 18)

The Father “causes” the Hypostases of the Son and Spirit

Speaker 1 7:49

But what we do know St Gregory says is that there is a difference and that these terms are significant in underlining the difference and specifying the hypostatic characteristics of each of the divine hypostases of the Holy Trinity, by virtue of the fact that we know that the Son is begotten, we know that the Father is unbegotten. That is the Father's hypostatic characteristic that he is unbegotten, that he is Father and that he is unbegotten. The hypostatic characteristic of the Son, the Logos, is that he is the Son of God and that he is begotten or generated from the essence of the Father. The hypostatic characteristic of the Holy Spirit is that he is Holy Spirit and proceeds from the Father, comes from the Father by procession and not by generation, by generation. And here we come to the question of the monarchy of the Father. So, as Father John Romanides used to teach us based on Cappadocian teaching, by the way, father John Romanides was very proud of the fact that he himself was a Cappadocian he said look, what you have to understand is that the Father, as the fountain of the Godhead, brings the hypostases of the Son and the Spirit into existence pre-eternally.

The Father gives His essence to the Son and Spirit

Speaker 1 10:11

The Father is the cause of the hypostases of the Son and the Spirit. The Father is the cause of the hypostasis of the Logos and the Father is the cause of the hypostasis of the Spirit. The logos is caused by generation of the father. The spirit is caused of the father by procession and not by generation. So we do not have two sons sons. However, we must also add that the Father communicates his essence, the fullness of his essence, his whole essence, to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. He is not the cause of the essence of the Son or of the essence of the Holy Spirit, because that would mean that he would be the cause of his own essence. He shares his essence, he communicates his own essence, he gives his essence, he makes his essence common to the Son and the Spirit respectively. He is the cause of the existence of the hypostasis of the Logos and the Father is the cause of the existence of the hypostasis of the Spirit, but he is not the cause of their essence, because their essence is the one shared essence of God, the Father, and so they are consubstantial.

“Mode of existence” (Gk. trópos hypárxeos)

“Unbegotten”, “Begotten”, “Proceeding”

Speaker 1 12:12

So, number one, it's very important to understand that the hypostasis is distinguished by its mode of existence, by its tropos iparxios, its mode or manner of existence, how it exists. To quote St Gregory of Nyssa, each hypostasis has its mode of existence. What is the mode of existence of the hypostasis of God the Father? That he is unbegotten? What does that mean? We don't know. What is the mode of existence. What is the mode of existence? What is the distinguishing characteristic of God the Son? It is his mode of existence, which is that he is begotten or that he is from the Father by generation. What is the mode of existence of the Holy Spirit? It is, once again, that he is from the Father by procession and not by generation. His mode of existence, his hypostatic characteristic, is that he proceeds from the Father.

That God is One and Three at once (Gregory the Theologian)

“Godhead” or “Divinity” (Gk. theótês)

Speaker 1 13:40

Now, this might not seem to be of earth-shattering importance at this point, but what it actually does is that it places the mystery of the threeness of God on the same ontological level as the mystery of the oneness of God, that God is one and three, three and one at once. That is why St Gregory the Theologian again says in his Oration on Theology when I speak of God, you must think of one flash of lightning and of three at once. Three in hypostases, three in persons, three in idiomata. He says characteristics and he adds let's not quibble about the terms as long as we mean the same thing One in terms of essence, one divinity or one Godhead. When we say Godhead in the Orthodox tradition, godhead and divinity are acceptable translations for the term Theodos, not Theos but Theodos. There is Theos God, and there is Theodos, divinity or Godhead. And later, about a thousand years later, with the Palamite councils in the 14th century, this term is discussed at some length because Theos, generally speaking, is identified with the essence of God, whereas Theodos, divinity or Godhead, is sometimes identified with the essence of God, but most of the time, according to St Gregory Palmas and the Orthodox tradition, it's identified with the energies of God, the grace of God.

The grace (Gk. cháris, χάρις) - Fr. John Romanides

Catholics and Protestants believe in “created grace”

Speaker 1 16:21

Father, john Romanides used to say your doctrine of the grace of God will inform every aspect of your faith, in all the teachings of the church, in all the teachings of Christianity, at the basis of which is the doctrine of grace. Now, for us Orthodox, grace is God. Grace is God himself, acting, operating, being involved in the life of his creature. But in the West you have the Catholic understanding of grace, protestant understanding of grace. How we understand the assistance of God, how we understand the communication of the will of God to us human beings, chiefly on the Protestant side, that's associated with grace, the grace of God. Bottom line the grace of God, even though it's described as supernatural, is created. God, even though it's described as supernatural, is created. It's understood as created, a created power emanating from God, yes, but not to be identified with God himself. That changes everything.

“Churchianity”: Protestant reaction

Speaker 1 17:54

On the Catholic side, you have what the Protestants call Churchianity. What is Churchianity? Churchianity is where you have a system of hierarchy which is identified firstly as representing God here on earth, the chief representative, the Pope, then the bishops and the priests, and they are vicars, vicarii in place of God. Why Point number two? They are dispensers of the grace of God. That's their role. Through them we receive the grace from God which helps us, helps us to be saved. How do they dispense this grace? Through the sacraments, the mysteries, the sacraments of God, the sacraments of the church. So you have baptism, you have the Eucharist In the Catholic tradition, you have the seven sacraments, and they're all means by which the hierarchy communicates the grace of God to the believer.

Speaker 1 19:48

And then the Protestants come along, a little late, but they come along and they say hold it a minute. We want Christ. Where is Christ? We don't want his representatives, we want to have direct, personal experience of Christ? Didn't he promise us that he would be with us, and so on? What's? What's all this dispensation of grace? We'll go directly to christ. We don't need the mysteries. Thank you very much. We have christ, we have Christ.

Problem: Protestants still have the doctrine of created grace

Speaker 1 20:38

And so they have speeches, sermons, study of the Word of God, the Bible. Problem is, they still have the doctrine of created grace, created grace. So in their noble efforts to form a direct personal relationship with God Himself, with Jesus Christ, they still find that there's a distance between them and Christ. Why? Because grace is not the presence of God himself. It's a created force, a created power, amazing grace, right, wonderful, but where is Christ?

Reaction to absence of God: Pentecostals and charismatics

Speaker 1 21:41

A Protestant friend of mine said look, here's the world and here's God. I said what Well, the world and God, world and God after the fall and then the incarnation, and then afterwards. Is that an exaggeration? So is it surprising that there are groups of Protestants who come along later and say we want to feel God, we want to experience God, the Holy Spirit, and so they start speaking in tongues. And so they start speaking in tongues and most of the other Protestants think that these people are not quite normal, they've lost their minds. But these are people who read things in the Scriptures and say what happened to these phenomena, which we don't seem to have anymore.

Curious but necessary abandonment of theology by Pentecostals and Charismatics

Orthodoxy is about the presence of God

Speaker 1 23:06

Surely we should be experiencing God, but again there's a curious abandonment of theology that has to take place, because your theology doesn't help you. If you want direct personal experience of god, your theology is not going to help you. It's not going to give you the, to describe, much less acquire, what you desire. And so we have what we have pentecostals, the charismatics and so on and so forth. Bottom line orthodoxy is about the presence.

Uncreated grace = God Himself

“Two fundamentally different worlds” (Sophrony the Athonite)

Significance of the hypostasis and gnosiological context of divine revelation

Speaker 1 23:49

God, the uncreated grace of God, is God himself acting, operating, involved in the life of his creature out of his love for mankind, his self-sacrificial love and his extreme humility, which discloses his mode of existence and how his disciples, his true followers, should strive to live if they would be like him so they might be with him eternally. And Saint Sophrony says thanks be to God. We have many things in common with our non-Orthodox Christian brethren and we are truly grateful for that. But we're speaking of two fundamentally different worlds, and this is the challenge how do we convey to our non-Orthodox Christian brethren and before then, by the way, to our non-orthodox christian brethren, and before then, by the way, to our own people, the significance of the hypostasis and the gnossiological context of the revelation of God, the correct biblical interpretation of the revelation of God. I mean it's a bit scary.

“Essentialism” and pantheism

Speaker 1 25:55

What is this essentialism that is out there which, look it has affinities with the pantheism that the West seems to be afraid of pantheism and says we cannot accept the essence energies distinction of Palamas, for example, the essence powers distinction of Athanasius, which is the same thing, or the nature and condescension distinction of St John Chrysostom. We cannot accept these things because we might fall into pantheism, when their essentialism is already a recipe for pantheism. And you find, curiously, that the West has more in common with the pantheism of the Far East than it has with the Christianity of the East. It's not surprising that there's a certain appeal on a visceral level. A certain appeal on a visceral level.

Western safeguard against pantheism: Ontological distance between God and man

“I said, Ye are Gods” (Jn 10.34, Ps 82.6)

Absence of deification in post-Schism western Christianity

Speaker 1 27:20

When a Westerner looks at the philosophies and the religions of the Far East, where everything is God, what is it that preserves you and prevents you from entering a pantheistic view of the scheme of things in Western Christianity? It is that ontological distance which must exist between God and man. The west is compelled to preserve that ontological distance between god and man, between the uncreated and the created why would mean that any form of union or participation in the divine substance would result in being consumed by the divine substance, disappearing into the divine substance. So our individual integrity as human beings would be lost. Therefore, when it comes to such passages, as I said, ye are gods, where the Lord himself responds to those accusing him of making himself equal with God. But doesn't it say in your scriptures I said ye are gods, quoting Psalm 82. 82.

Hypostatic integrity

Essentialism - absence of hypostasis - created grace

Speaker 1 29:20

You cannot find a satisfactory interpretation of that passage in Western Christianity, catholic or Protestant. Why? Because there is no union and communion with God such as one finds in the Orthodox tradition, where Christ is truly, really in us, not metaphorically, not figuratively, not poetically, energetically, but really in us and we are truly and really in him, interpenetrating one another without losing our hypostatic integrity. You cannot have that, you don't have the context for that in the West, because of the essentialism of the West, because of the absence of hypothesis, because of created grace.

Beatific Vision and Pantheism of the Far East

Speaker 1 30:24

Union and communion with God is something which one experiences from a safe distance, one would say a safe ontological distance in Western terminology. So you have, for example, the doctrine of the beatific vision. But the beatific vision is a vision of an impersonal divine substance, and it is a vision which has at its epicenter an ontological distance that preserves the beholder. Otherwise, you'd be swallowed up by the divine substance. Otherwise, you'd be swallowed up by the divine substance and you'd be back in the realm of the pantheism of the Far East, where that's actually the goal of the earthly existence of us human individuals to be merged with the ocean of divinity, to disappear into the ocean of divinity, as a drop of water disappears in the physical ocean, as one's breath disappears in the ocean of the air surrounding us. So what's the danger? Yes, the danger is panthers.

The point of the essence-energies distinction: unmediated access to God

God’s original purpose: to make images of Himself

Athanasius the Great: “On the Incarnation of the Word”

Speaker 1 32:05

You're trying to preserve yourself from pantheism, but in so doing you've missed the point. The point of the essence, energies, distinction is to preserve us from pantheism, but to ensure, to underline, that we do have a direct, personal experience of God and not an experience of some mediated created effect. We have an unmediated, direct, personal access to God. This is the amazing reality, this is the privilege that we have, and why? Because it was God's purpose from the beginning to make us images of himself, true images of the invisible and and uncreated image of God, the Father, which is the divine Logos. Isn't this what St Athanasius the Great was trying to underline so meticulously, so painstakingly, so patiently in his De Incarnatione Verbi on the Incarnation of the Word.