Dr. Thomas F. Torrance and
Dr./Fr. John Zizioulas are two of the most important Trinitarian theologians
of the late 20th and early 21st centuries (a period recognized by many as one
which has seen a significant increase of interest in the doctrine of the
Trinity). I have read a number of the works produced by both men; and came to
realize, quite early, that though there are some common elements in their
Trinitarian thought, there are also some very important differences.
A couple of days ago, I
came across an excellent article/paper by Nikolaos Asproulis in the online
journal, Participatio (link),
which focuses on one of those differences—the monarchy of God the Father. The
following is the abstract of Asproulis' contribution:
The
disagreements between T. F. Torrance (1913-2007) and John Zizioulas (1931-)
regarding the reading of the patristic (especially Cappadocian) doctrine of the
monarchy of the Father bear implications for fundamental issues of theological
method which require careful study. In the present article, questions regarding
the transcendent and immanent Trinity, historical revelation as a starting
point of Christian theology and the interpretation of the Cappadocian Fathers
will be discussed in connection with a critical comparison of the way these two
eminent theologians, who belong to different traditions (Torrance, Reformed;
Zizioulas, Eastern Orthodox), interpret the monarchy of the Father as the most
fundamental issue of Trinitarian theology. (Page 162.)
As noted in the above
abstract, "the
reading of the patristic (especially Cappadocian) doctrine of the monarchy of
the Father bear implications for fundamental issues of theological method which
require careful study" [I would certainly add Athanasius to the
Cappadocians.] Asproulis goes on to demonstrate that Torrance's patristic
interpretations bear some significant differences from those of Zizioulas,
especially concerning the monarchy of God the Father. [Interestingly enough,
Keith W. Goad's readings, as found in is doctoral dissertation, Trinitarian Grammars, are quite similar
to those of Torrance—who he cites a number of times—for a link to the
dissertation, and some of my musings, see THIS
THREAD.]
Torrance
places a heavy emphasis on the being/substance/essence (Gr. ousia) of
God; and as Asproulis points
out, he has a, "preoccupation with the term homoousian"(p. 164). But, Zizioulas' focus
is quite different; note the following from Asproulis:
Since the beginning of his career Zizioulas has focused on the
importance of the concept of personhood both as a conceptual tool for
the conceptualization of the doctrine of the Trinity and as the very soteriological
reality of Christian faith, the fulfillment of theosis. As he puts
it, “the concept of person with its absolute and ontological content was born
historically from the endeavor of the Church to give ontological expression to
its faith in the Triune God.” (Page 166.)
A bit later in the article, we read:
Torrance is known for his robust critique of the “Cappadocian
settlement,” which identified the monarchy exclusively with the person of the
Father and introduces causal relations within the Holy Trinity: the
Cappadocians “sought to preserve the oneness of God by insisting that God the
Father, who is himself without generation or origination, is the one Principle
or Origin and Cause of the Son and the Spirit.” (Page 172.)
This is followed by:
According to Torrance, the introduction of such a hierarchical and
subordinationist structure, following from the priority of the person of the
Father as the “cause” of the Godhead and the one principle of Trinitarian
unity, constitutes the main thrust of the Cappadocian teaching. (Ibid.)
Torrance's rejection of the “Cappadocian settlement”—in contrast
to Zizioulas' emphatic acceptance—establishes the wide difference between their
respective understandings of the monarchy of God.
Personally, I side with Zizioulas on this "most fundamental issue of
Trinitarian theology", and would be interested in hearing from
others as to which side they take.
Grace and peace,
David
