Basil 'the Great' - an early critic of neo-modalism

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