In
my threads on the Monarchy of God the Father (LINK), I have pointed out a
number of 'problems' with the traditional Latin/Western view of the Trinity
(i.e. the Trinity/divine essence is the 'one God', not God the Father);
problems which include what boils down to a sophisticated form of
neo-modalism—notwithstanding the repeated denials of modalism in its original
form by those who have embraced this traditional Latin/Western view of the
Trinity.
I
have also noted that it was Augustine who formulated the foundational theology
of what became the traditional Latin/Western view of the Trinity; concerning
Augustine's view, one patristic scholar wrote:
We can see that Augustine only gets beyond Modalism by the mere assertion
that he does not wish to be a modalist, and the aid of ingenious distinctions
between different ideas. (Adolf Harnack, History of Dogma, 1958 Eng. ed., 4.
131.)
But,
one does not have to wait until the 19th century for a critical assessment of the
traditional Latin/Western view of the Trinity, for a staunch, 4th century
defender of both the monarchy of God the Father and Nicene Trinitarianism
penned the following:
The
distinction
between οὐσία
and ὑπόστασις
is
the
same
as
that between
the
general
and
the
particular
;
as,
for instance,
between
the
animal
and
the
particular
man.
Wherefore,
in
the
case
of the Godhead,
we
confess
one
essence
or substance so
as not
to
give
a
variant
definition
of
existence,
but
we
confess
a particular
hypostasis, in
order
that
our
conception of
Father, Son
and
Holy
Spirit
may
be
without
confusion
and
clear.
If
we
have
no
distinct
perception
of the
separate
characteristics,
namely,
fatherhood,
sonship, and
sanctification, but form our conception
of
God
from
the
general idea of existence,
we
cannot
possibly
give a
sound
account
of
our
faith.
We
must,
therefore,
confess
the
faith
by
adding the
particular
to
the
common.
The Godhead
is
common;
the
fatherhood
particular.
We must therefore combine the two and say, "I believe in God the Father." The like course must be pursued in the confession of the Son; we must combine the particular with the common and say "I believe in God the Son," so in the case of the Holy Ghost we must make our utterance conform to the appellation and say "in God the Holy Ghost." Hence it results that there is a satisfactory
preservation
of the
unity by
the
confession
of the
one
Godhead,
while
in
the
distinction
of
the
individual properties
regarded
in
each
there
is
the
confession
of the
peculiar
properties of the
Persons.
On
the
other
hand
those
who
identify
essence
or substance and
hypostasis
are
compelled
to
confess
only
three Persons, and, in their hesitation to speak of three hypostases, are convicted of failure to avoid the error of Sabellius, for even Sabellius himself, who in many places
confuses the
conception,
yet,
by
asserting
that the
same
hypostasis
changed
its
form
to
meet
the
needs
of the
moment,
does endeavour to distinguish the persons. (Basil, Letter 236, in The Nicene
and Post-Nicene Fathers - Second Series, Volume VIII, Basil, p.
278.)
As
in our own day, one can discern that the term "person" (πρόσωπον) was
being used in different senses in the 4th century, such that Basil (and a
number of other Greek/Eastern Church Fathers) felt the need to clear up the
semantic confusion by using a much stronger term (ὑπόστασις) for the
"particular" distinction/s concerning the Father, Son and Holy
Spirit, using this term in conjunction with a "general" (i.e.
generic) understanding of the term essence/substance (οὐσία).
Before
ending this post, I would like to provide a quote from a current Eastern
Orthodox scholar, whose assessment of Basil's theology of God sounds almost
identical to my own:
For
the Christian faith there is, unequivocally, but one God, and that is the
Father: "There is one God the Father." For Basil, the one God is not
the one divine substance, or a notion of "divinity" which is ascribed
to each person of the Trinity, nor is it some kind of unity or communion in
which they all exist; the one God is the Father. But this "monarchy"
of the Father does not undermine the confession of the true divinity of the Son
and the Spirit. Jesus Christ is certainly "true God from true God,"
as the Nicene Creed puts it, but he is such as the Son of God, the God
who is thus the Father. If the term "God" (Θεός) is used of Jesus
Christ, not only as a predicate, but also as a proper noun with an article (ὁ Θεός), this is only done on the prior confession of him as "Son of God,
and so as other than "the one God" of whom he is the Son; it is
necessary to bear in mind this order of Christian theology, lest it collapse in
confusion." (John Behr, The Formation of Christian Theology - Volume 2:
The Nicene Faith - Part 2, pp. 307, 308.)
Amen
brother Behr, amen. Now, if only the heirs of Augustine would lend an objective
ear...
Grace
and peace,
David