Trinity-Ekstasis:

A Theology of God the Father and Response to Kevin Giles

By

Phantaz Sunlyk

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ancient Sources/Editions

[AIR] Aristotle: Introductory Readings, Terence Irwin, Gail Fine (eds.), 1996, Hackett Publishing Company

[Ale-LAT] Alexander of Alexandria, Letter to Alexander of Thessalonica

[Amb-CF] Ambrose of Milan, On the Christian Faith

[Aqu-SCG] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentes

[Ar-LAA] Arius, Letter to Alexander of Alexandria

[Ar-LC] Arius, Letter to the Emperor Constantine

[Ar-LEN] Arius, Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia

[Ar-TH] Arius, Thalia

[Ath-AS] Athanasius, Letters to Serapion Concerning the Holy Spirit

[Ath-CG] Athanasius of Alexandria, Contra Gentes

[Ath-DI] Athanasius of Alexandria, De Incarnatione Verbi Dei

[Ath-DS] Athanasius of Alexandria, De Synodis

[Ath-OCA] Athanasius of Alexandria, Orationes contra Arianos

[Aug-DFC] Augustine of Hippo, On the Faith and the Creed

[Aug-DT] Augustine of Hippo, De Trinitate

[Bas-DSS] Basil of Caesarea, De Spiritu Sancto

[Bas-EP] Basil of Caesarea, Select Epistles

[Bon-DQT] Bonaventure, Disputed Questions on the Mystery of the Trinity

[Bon-SJG] Bonaventure, The Soul’s Journey into God

[CCC] Catechism of the Catholic Church, Image, 1997

[CF] The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church, J. Neuner, S.J., J. Dupuis, S.J., Jacques Dupuis (ed.), Alba House, 2001 (seventh revised and enlarged edition)

[Cyr-CL] Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures

[GPTA] Greek Philosophy: Thales to Aristotle, Allen, R. E. (ed.), Free Press, 1991 (third edition, revised and expanded)

[GRPA] Greek and Roman Philosophy after Aristotle, Saunders, Jason L. (ed.), Free Press, 1966

[GrNaz-TO] Gregory Nazianzen, Theological Orations

[GrNys-AE1] Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius

[GrNys-AE2] Gregory of Nyssa, Answer to Eunomius’ Second Book

[GrNys-GC] Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism

[GrNys-LM] Gregory of Nyssa, The Life of Moses

[GrNys-NTG] Gregory of Nyssa, On “Not Three Gods”

[GrNys-OHS] Gregory of Nyssa, On the Holy Spirit

[GrNys-OHT] Gregory of Nyssa, On the Holy Trinity

[GrNys-OSR] Gregory of Nyssa, On the Soul and the Resurrection

[Hil-DT] Hilary of Poitiers, De Trinitate

[JnCro-SC] John of the Cross, The Spiritual Canticle

[JnDam-OF] John Damascene, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith

[JnRuu-MEB] John Ruusbroec, A Mirror of Eternal Blessedness

[JnRuu-SE] John Ruusbroec, The Spiritual Espousals

[Max-CT] Maximus Confessor, Centuries on Theology

[Max-LP] Maximus Confessor, On the Lord’s Prayer

[Max-TEVV] Maximus Confessor, Centuries on Theology, the Divine Economy, and Virtue and Vice

[PHIL] Writings from the Philokalia on Prayer of the Heart, E. Kadloubovsky, G.E.H. Palmer (trs.), Faber and Faber, 1992

[Pla-CW] Plato: Complete Works, Cooper, J. M. (ed.), Hackett, 1997

[Plo-EN] Plotinus: The Enneads, Mackenna, Stephen (tr.), Penguin, 1991

[PR] A Presocratics Reader, McKirahan, R.D. (tr.), Curd, Patricia (ed.), Hackett, 1996

[Ric-DT] Richard of St. Victor, De Trinitate

[Tha-LSAI] Thalassios the Libyan, Centuries on Love, Self Control, and Life in Accordance with the Intellect

[VC2] Vatican Council II: The Basic Sixteen Documents (Constitutions, Decrees, Declarations), Austin Flannery, O.P. (ed.), Dominican Publications, 1996

Secondary Sources

[Ath-PMLA] Athanassiadi, Polymnia, Frede, Michael (eds.), Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity, Oxford University Press, 1999

[Ayr-CO] Ayres, Lewis, Jones, Gareth (eds.), Christian Origins: Theology, Rhetoric and Community, Routledge, 1998

[Bar-PG] Barnes, Michel Rene, The Power of God: Dynamis in Gregory of Nyssa’s Trinitarian Theology, CUA Press, 2001

[Bal-CL] Balthasar, Hans urs von, Cosmic Liturgy: The Universe According to Maximus Confessor, Ignatius, 2003

[Bal-CR] Balthasar, Hans urs von, Credo, Ignatius, 2000

[Bal-GLTA1] Balthasar, Hans urs von, The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics (vol. 1: Seeing the Form), Ignatius, 1998

[Bal-GLTA2] Balthasar, Hans urs von, The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics (vol. 2: Studies in Theological Style: Clerical Styles), Ignatius, 1998

[Bal-GLTA3] Balthasar, Hans urs von, The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics (vol. 3: Studies in Theological Style: Lay Styles), Ignatius, 1986

[Bal-MP] Balthasar, Hans urs von, Mysterium Paschale, Ignatius, 2000

[Bal-OPSC] Balthasar, Hans urs von, The Office of Peter and the Structure of the Church, Ignatius, 1986

[Bal-PR] Balthasar, Hans urs von, Prayer, Ignatius, 1986

[Bal-PT] Balthasar, Hans urs von, Presence and Thought: An Essay on the Religious Philosophy of Gregory of Nyssa, Ignatius, 1995

[Bar-OL] Barnhart, Bruno (ed.), The One Light: Bede Griffiths’ Principle Writings, Templegate, 2001

[Bar-PHC] Barnhart, Bruno, Wong, Joseph (eds.), Purity of Heart and Contemplation: A Monastic Dialogue Between Christian and Asian Traditions, Continuum International, 2001

[Bar-SS] Barnhart, Bruno, Second Simplicity: The Inner Shape of Christianity, Paulist Press, 1999

[Bau-GC] Bauckham, Richard, God Crucified: Monotheism & Christology in the New Testament, Eerdmans, 1998

[Bau-TBR] Bauckham, Richard, The Theology of the Book of Revelation, Cambridge, 1993

[Bee-GE1] Beeck, Frans Jozef van, God Encountered: A Contemporary Catholic Systematic Theology: Volume One: Understanding the Christian Faith (second revised ed.), The Liturgical Press, 1989

[Beh-WN] Behr, John, The Way to Nicaea (Formation of Christian Theology, vol. 1), SVS Press, 2001

[Bob-MT] Bobrinskoy, Boris, The Mystery of the Trinity, SVS Press, 1999

[Bre-ST] Breck, John, Spirit of Truth: The Origins of Johannine Pneumatology, SVS Press, 1991

[Br-INT] Brown, R.E., An Introduction to the New Testament, Doubleday, 1997

[Bub-IT] Buber, Martin, I and Thou, Simon & Schuster, 1970

[Bug-IM] Bugbee, Henry, The Inward Morning: A Philosophical Exploration in Journal Form, University of Georgia Press, 1999

[Bur-AC] Burge, Gary M., The Anointed Community: The Holy Spirit in the Johannine Tradition, Eerdmans, 1987

[Bur-HSEC] Burgess, Stanley M., The Holy Spirit: Eastern Christian Traditions, Hendrickson, 1989

[Ch-EC] Chadwick, Henry, The Early Church, Penguin, 1993 (revised edition)

[Con-IBHS] Congar, Yves, I Believe in the Holy Spirit (3 vols.), Crossroad, 2000

[Cop-HP1] Copleston, Frederick, S.J., A History of Philosophy (Volume I: Greece and Rome), Image, 1946

[Cop-HP2] Copleston, Frederick, S.J., A History of Philosophy (Volume II: Medieval Philosophy), Image, 1950

[Cro-OR] Crouzel, Henri, Origen, T&T Clark, 1989

[Dav-NWL] Davis, Carl Judson, The Name and Way of the Lord: Old Testament Themes, New Testament Christology, Sheffield Academic Press, 1996

[Dav-FSEC] Davis, Leo Donald, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325 – 787): Their History and Theology, The Liturgical Press, 1983

[Dav-TR] Davis, Stephen, Kendall, Daniel, S.J., O’Collins, Gerald, S.J. (eds.), The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity, Oxford University Press, 1999

[Dun-JAS] Dunn, J.D.G., Jesus and the Spirit, Eerdmans, 1975

[Dun-UDNT] Dunn, J.D.G., Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, Trinity Press, 1990 (second edition)

[Fee-GEP] Fee, G.D., God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul, Hendrickson, 1994

[For-TG] Fortman, E.J., The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity, WIPF & Stock, 1999

[Fre-RC] Frend, W.H.C., The Rise of Christianity, Fortress, 1984

[Fur-RHP2] Furley, David (ed.), The Routledge History of Philosophy (volume 2: From Aristotle to Augustine), Routledge, 1997

[Gil-CPTA] Gilson, Etienne, The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, University of Notre Dame Press, 1956

[Gil-TS] Giles, Kevin, The Trinity & Subordination: The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate, InterVarsity Press, 2002

[Gra-GASC] Grant, Robert M., Greek Apologists of the Second Century, Westminster Press, 1988

[Gri-CCT] Grillmeier, Aloys, S.J., Christ in Christian Tradition (volume 1: From the Apostolic age to Chalcedon), John Knox Press, 1965

[Gru-PT] Grube, G.M.A., Plato’s Thought, Beacon Press, 1935

[Had-PSV] Hadot, Pierre, Plotinus or The Simplicity of Vision, University of Chicago Press, 1993

[Han-SCDG] Hanson, R.P.C., The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, T&T Clark, 1988

[Hen-SEC] Hengel, Martin, Studies in Early Christology, T&T Clark, 1995

[Hur-LJC] Hurtado, L.W., Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, Eerdmans, 2003

[Hur-OGOL] Hurtado, L.W., One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (second ed.), T&T Clark, 1998

[Jae-ECGP] Jaeger, Werner, Early Christianity and Greek Paideia, Harvard University Press, 1961

[Kas-GJC] Kasper, Walter, The God of Jesus Christ, Crossroad, 1982

[Kas-JTC] Kasper, Walter, Jesus the Christ, Paulist Press, 1974

[Kel-ECC] Kelly, J.N.D., Early Christian Creeds, Longman, 1972 (third edition)

[Kel-ECD] Kelly, J.N.D., Early Christian Doctrines, Harper & Row, 1978 (revised edition)

[Lac-GFU] LaCugna, Catherine Mowry, God For Us: The Trinity & Christian Life, Harper Collins, 1991

[Los-ILG] Lossky, Vladimir, In the Image and Likeness of God, SVS Press, 1974

[Los-MTEC] Lossky, Vladimir, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, SVS Press, 1998

[Lou-OCMT] Louth, Andrew, The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition: From Plato to Denys, Oxford University Press, 1981

[Lub-CCDM] Lubac, Henri de, Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man, Ignatius, 1988

[Lub-ST] Lubac, Henri de, Scripture in the Tradition, Crossroad, 2000

[Mar-HV] Marcel, Gabriel, Homo Viator: An Introduction to a Metaphysics of Hope, Harper & Row, 1962

[Mar-MB1] Marcel, Gabriel, The Mystery of Being: Volume I: Reflection and Mystery, St. Augustine’s Press, 2001

[Mcg-SGN] McGuckin, John, Saint Gregory of Nazianzus: An Intellectual Biography, SVS Press, 2001

[Mee-TLRT] Meerson, Michael Aksionov, The Trinity of Love in Modern Russian Theology, Franciscan Press, 1998

[Mey-CECT] Meyendorff, John, Christ in Eastern Christian Thought, SVS Press, 1975

[Mey-GPOS] Meyendorff, John, St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality, SVS Press, 1998

[Mol-TK] Moltmann, Jurgen, The Trinity and the Kingdom, Fortress, 1981

[Mon-STHB] Mongrain, Kevin, The Systematic Thought of Hans urs von Balthasar: An Irenaean Retrieval, Crossroad, 2002

[Moo-WH] Mooney, Edward F. (ed.), Wilderness and the Heart: Henry Bugbee’s Philosophy of Place, Presence, and Memory, Georgia University Press, 1999

[New-AFC] Newman, John Henry Cardinal, The Arians of the Fourth Century, WIPF & Stock Publishers, 1871 (third edition)

[New-EAGA] Newman, John Henry Cardinal, An Essay in Aid of A Grammar of Assent, University of Notre Dame Press, 1979

[New-EDCD] Newman, John Henry Cardinal, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, University of Notre Dame Press, 1878 (revised edition)

[Nic-NBM] Nichols, Aidan, No Bloodless Myth: A Guide Through Balthasar’s Dramatics, Catholic University of America Press, 2000

[Nic-WBA] Nichols, Aidan, The Word Has Been Abroad: A Guide Through Balthasar’s Aesthetics, Catholic University of America Press, 1998

[Oco-CH] O’Collins, Gerald, S.J., Christology: A Biblical, Historical and Systematic Study of Jesus, Oxford University Press, 1995

[Oco-TG] O’Collins, Gerald, S.J., The Tripersonal God: Understanding and Interpreting the Trinity, Paulist Press, 1999

[Osb-IL] Osborn, Eric, Irenaeus of Lyons, Cambridge University Press, 2001

[Pel-CCC] Pelikan, Jaroslav, Christianity and Classical Culture, Yale University Press, 1993

[Pel-DCD] Pelikan, Jaroslav, Development of Christian Doctrine: Some Historical Prolegomena, Yale University Press, 1969

[Pel-CT1] Pelikan, Jaroslav, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition, 100 – 600 (The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 1), Univeristy of Chicago Press, 1971

[Pel-CT2] Pelikan, Jaroslav, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom, 600 – 1700 (The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 2), University of Chicago Press, 1974

[Pel-CT3] Pelikan, Jaroslav, The Growth of Medieval Theology, 600 – 1300 (The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 3), University of Chicago Press, 1978

[Pet-ATH] Pettersen, Alvyn, Athanasius, Morehouse Publishing, 1995

[Qua-PAT] Quasten, Johannes, Patrology (4 vols.), Christian Classics, 1995

[Rah-FCF] Rahner, Karl, Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity, Crossroad, 1978

[Rah-TR] Rahner, Karl, The Trinity, Crossroad Herder, 1997

[Rat-SL] Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal, The Spirit of the Liturgy, Ignatius, 2000

[Ric-PLG] Richardson, Neil, Paul’s Language About God, Sheffield Academic Press, 1994

[Rou-BC] Rousseau, Philip, Basil of Caesarea, University of California Press, 1994

[Rub-WJBG] Rubenstein, R.E., When Jesus Became God, Harcourt, 1999

[Rus-TC] Rusch, W.G., The Trinitarian Controversy, Fortress, 1980

[Sch-FLW] Schmemann, Alexander, For the Life of the World, SVS Press, 1973

[Seg-TPH] Segal, Alan F., Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism, Brill Academic Publishers, 2002

[Sok-IP] Sokolowski, Robert, Introduction to Phenomenology, Cambridge University Press, 2000

[Sta-EG1] Staniloae, Dumitru, The Experience of God (Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, vol. 1), Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1994

[Sta-EG2] Staniloae, Dumitru, The Experience of God (Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, vol. 2, The World: Creation and Deification), Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2000

[Ste-PCA] Stead, Christopher, Philosophy in Christian Antiquity, Cambridge University Press, 1994

[Stu-TI] Studer, Basil, Trinity and Incarnation: The Faith of the Early Church, The Liturgical Press, 1993

[Swi-CG] Swinburne, Richard, The Christian God, Oxford University Press, 1994

[Swi-RMA] Swinburne, Richard, Revelation: From Metaphor to Analogy, Oxford University Press, 1992

[Tay-SOS] Taylor, Charles, Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity, Harvard University Press, 1989

[Tay-RHP1] Taylor, C.C.W. (ed.), The Routledge History of Philosophy (vol. 1: From the Beginning to Plato), Routledge, 1997

[Tor-CDG] Torrance, Thomas F., The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being, Three Persons, T&T Clark, 1996

[War-OW] Ware, Kallistos, The Orthodox Way, SVS Press, 2001 (revised edition)

[Wid-FGOA] Widdicombe, Peter, The Fatherhood of God from Origen to Athanasius, Oxford University Press, 2000 (revised edition)

[Wil-AHT] Williams, Rowan, Arius: Heresy & Tradition, Eerdmans, 2001 (revised edition)

[Wit-MFOC] Witherington, Ben, The Many Faces of the Christ: The Christologies of the New Testament and Beyond, Crossroad Herder, 1998

[Won-LCKR] Wong, Joseph H.P., Logos-Symbol in the Christology of Karl Rahner, Las-Roma, 1984

[Wri-JVG] Wright, N.T., Jesus and the Victory of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 2), Fortress, 1996

[Wri-NTPG] Wright, N.T., The New Testament and the People of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 1), Fortress, 1992

[Wri-RSG] Wright, N.T., The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 3), Fortress, 2003

[Wyn-GG] Wynn, Mark, God and Goodness: A natural theological perspective, Routledge, 1999

[Ziz-BC] Zizioulas, John, Being as Communion, SVS Press, 1985

[Ziz-EBC] Zizioulas, John, Eucharist Bishop Church: The Unity of the Church in the Divine Eucharist and the Bishop during the First Three Centuries, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001

I

Introduction

[O]ur great mystery is in danger of being made a thing of little moment.

Gregory of Nazianzus

First Theological Oration, 2

1. It’s time to step out. The author of the present work is indeed identical with the “enigmatic” Phantaz Sunlyk—author of several articles available on Tekton, most of which pertain to the doctrine of the Trinity. My reason for setting aside the pseudonym is this: I have recently participated in rather serious dialogue with others concerning the doctrine of the Trinity. As the present work is a direct consequence thereof, and intended to directly engage issues therein, to continue writing under the pseudonym in a public work of such a nature as this would be perhaps counterproductive. Hence any questions or accusations concerning the present work can be addressed to Phantaz Sunlyk, a Roman Catholic (who is quite capable of getting along with Protestants, and who absolutely adores the Orthodox East) and double-major in Philosophy and Classics at the University of Montana.

2. The above mentioned dialogue began with a friendly series of e-mails from two friends in Australia—Mark Baddeley[1] (lecturer in Church History, Moore Theological College) and Andy Moody[2] (a most endearing layman who, like myself, is wholly captivated by the doctrine of the Trinity), both of whom are members of the Anglican Church. After reading certain of my Trinitarian articles on Tekton, they requested my association concerning the issue of “subordination” in the Trinity, especially with regard to Kevin Giles’[3] recent work on the topic, The Trinity & Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate. The argument concerning the Trinity in Australia can briefly be summarized as follows: Baddeley and Moody (who are representative of the majority position in the Anglican Archdiocese of Sydney) maintain that there is a form of “subordination(ism)” that is coincident with orthodoxy, and Giles (also an Australian Anglican) vehemently denies this—even going so far as to accuse Baddeley and Moody of being “Arians”.

3. Aside from sparse interactions via e-mail with Baddeley and Moody, my chief contribution thus far to their dialogue was to submit to them a recent 120 page monograph on Athanasius which I wrote earlier this year—an extremely overdone “essay” for an independent study in a Religious Studies course at the University of Montana—that was devoted to the theme of fatherhood and sonship in the Trinitarian theology of Athanasius. Portions of this work will be offered in summary form below, and in doing so I trust it will become apparent why such a work is of import for the contemporary debate concerning the Trinity. In this work, I several times criticized Giles’ reading of Athanasius in his above-mentioned work, and offered a rather thorough critique of his understanding of “subordination(ism)” in an 18 page appendix on the topic.

4. It is worth mentioning in passing that my “taking on” Giles had nothing to do with Edgar Foster’s (seeming) use of his (Giles’) work in an attempt to rebut what I had previously written in response to his (Foster’s) analysis of “subordination” in the Trinity. I bought Giles’ work only in light of what my friends in Australia had told me—it was not the beginning of an attempt to “respond” to Foster. Despite our spirited confrontations in the past over the Trinity, Foster (a Jehovah’s Witness) and myself have since settled our personal issues and our present relationship is quite friendly, even though we severely disagree on doctrine and our respective interpretations of historical theology.

5. Returning to the issue at hand, when I was finished with the work on Athanasius, I also sent a copy to Kevin Giles himself. Following this, a number of exchanges via e-mail ensued between Giles, myself, and Baddeley and Moody. Giles’ comments on my work were varied, ranging from praise to insult. He said that my work on Athanasius was excellent, but my assessment of his own (Giles’) position was quite insufficient. (I note in passing that approximately a month’s worth of dialogue with Giles has done little to enlighten, still less remedy my judgement of his Trinitarian theology.) My chief criticisms of Giles may be summarized as follows: 1) Giles’ representation of Athanasius is inaccurate, at times verging on blatant deception; 2) Giles is wrong to deny the monarchy of the Father, i.e., the doctrine that God the Father specifically and alone and only is without a source for his hypostatic existence and is the source and cause of the Son and Spirit such that the relationships between the persons in the immanent Trinity are asymmetrical; 3) Giles’ articulation of the persons as distinct hypostases is inadequate—though it is not in itself heterodox, it is capable of being developed in many directions, most of them bad; 4) Giles’ understanding of the relationship between the immanent and the economic Trinity is woefully inadequate; 5) Giles’ theological categories per “subordination(ism)” are inept because they are far too vague, thus he continually misses the point; and 6) Giles’ interpreting the Trinity in light of political-social categories causes him to, quite often, miss the point.

6. Dialogue with Giles yielded little, if any fruit. Andrew Moody set up a discussion forum, inviting myself, Baddeley, Giles and others to engage in open dialogue—Giles declined the opportunity. In response to his most recent letter to me (May 21, 2004), I informed him that I’m no longer going to respond to him insofar as he continues to evade my questions. The following is, among other things, a thorough critique of certain aspects of his Trinitarian theology. I have taken the liberty of informing Giles that I offer him the opportunity to submit a response on Tekton to the present work. It is my hope that he will recognize this—though my judgement will be rather severe at certain points—as a civil and respectful invitation to fruitful dialogue, and that he will take up my offer to respond publicly, on this very site, to my critique of his theology. This work has been clearly divided into sections and paragraph numbers so as to facilitate such a manner of interaction.

7. Before moving on, I must say that my main concern at present is another monograph, this time on the Trinitarian theology of Irenaeus, thus I won’t be able to develop this work to the extent that I’d like to. Still, I believe that this work will provide a powerful critique of Giles’ Trinitarian theology, alongside his analysis of Athanasius and the Tradition as a whole. While I do not fully agree with Baddeley and Moody, and while I do not fully disagree with Giles, I believe that the position of the former party is preferable to that of the latter, and it is my hope that the present submission will not be without effect in the contemporary debate over the doctrine of the Trinity.

8. In section II, I will provide a summary of Athanasius’ theology, drawing upon the findings in my above-mentioned monograph on his Trinitarian theology. This summary will have a five-fold focus: 1) Athanasius’ hermeneutical principles; 2) Athanasius’ doctrine of sonship; 3) Athanasius’ doctrine of fatherhood; 4) Athanasius’ doctrine of the sense in which the Father and Son are “one”; and 5) Athanasius’ doctrine of the manner in which the immanent Trinity is related to the economic Trinity. In section III, I will briefly illustrate the testimony of orthodoxy concerning certain of the above points (especially the monarchy of the Father and the relationship between the immanent and economic Trinity) as it is found in 1) certain of the Greek fathers of the Nicene era, 2) certain of the Latin fathers of the Nicene era, including Augustine, 3) certain theologians of the middle ages, and 4) Contemporary Trinitarian theology, with a special focus on Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

9. In section IV, I will summarize certain portions of Giles’ above-mentioned work on the Trinity, and highlight what I take to be the positive aspects of Giles’ Trinitarian theology as presented in his book (alongside his e-mails and letters to me, and his 35 page submission to the Sydney Doctrinal Commision). In section V, I will present a threefold critique of Giles’ Trinitarian theology, focusing in the first place on 1) his reading of Athanasius, and 2) his take on the monarchy of the Father; in the second on the problem of vagueness with regard to 1) the distinct manners of subsistence vis-à-vis the divine persons within the immanent Trinity, 2) the relationship between the immanent and the economic Trinity, and 3) his theological categories per “subordination(ism)”; and in the third place I will focus on what I believe to be Giles’ deficiencies as a Trinitarian theologian, scholar and partner in dialogue.

10. The final section of the present work—section VI—will consist of an attempt at a positive contribution to the present debate concerning the doctrine of the Trinity; my own Trinitarian theology. First, I will attempt to address the semantic confusion involved in the categories of “subordination(ism)” in Trinitarian theology. Second, I will offer the basic form of my own doctrine of the Trinity, and then offer a new category for a clearly articulated category concerning the orthodox doctrine of the immanent Trinity, and how it is related to the economic Trinity—onto-economic expressivism. I offer this new theological category as a permanent replacement to prior terms or phrases intended as descriptors of the orthodox understanding of how the immanent Trinity is related to the economic Trinity, and I’m certain that doing Trinitarian theology in light of this category will be profitable for future theology, alongside offering an auspicious proposal for settling the present debate concerning the Trinity (and providing the impetus for a revolution in the assessment of the theological worth of the ante-Nicenes). After applying this theological category to certain passages/narratives in Scripture, listing certain of the benefits that would follow from its being adopted and employed, and applying it to the contemporary debate on the Trinity in Australia, I will struggle to offer a possible perception of how this new theological category/doctrine may be applied to the divine persons as persons, and conclude by emphasizing the fatherhood of the Father as the foundation of Trinitarian theology.

11. The principal aims of this study—which is not simply intended as a critique of Giles’ Trinitarian theology—are four. First, it is my goal to show the internal coherence and definiteness of the Trinitarian theology of the Church, from the Nicene era onward, as regards the immanent Trinity. In passing it should be noted that in pursuing this specific goal, I in no way intend to imply any inadequacy in the Trinitarian theology of the ante-Nicene fathers; though it is unfortunate that I will be overlooking them in this study, time constraints require that I focus my attention on those aspects of Trinitarian theology that are most directly pertinent to the present debate. My second goal is to demonstrate that the relationship between the immanent and economic Trinity, as understood by the Church, is coherent. Third, I hope to clarify the intolerable inadequacy and imprecision concerning “subordination(ism)” and the Trinity present in the historical and theological literature on the topic. It is my belief that when the above two goals have been accomplished, the problem of “subordination(ism)” for the most part takes care of itself. In passing, I note that the word “subordination(ism)” has thus far been surrounded by quotation marks so as to indicate that I am aware of the fact that the word itself is, ultimately, inept and equivocal; furthermore, the “ism” has been placed in parentheses to indicate the fact that I am aware that certain persons distinguish between “subordination” (possibly orthodox) and “subordinationism” (“subordination” that is definitely heretical). From here onward, “subordination” and “subordinationism” will be used interchangeably and without quotation marks, it being understood that I am conscious in of the ambiguity that the word(s) may connote. This ambiguity will be addressed at length and with rigor in section VI. Lastly, with the above goals having been met, it is my hope to demonstrate that Trinitarian theology—as a whole—is emphatically not a helpless contradiction veiled behind a series of impenetrable and mutually exclusive dogmatic claims. A mystery is not a contradiction; a mystery is not something that paralyzes the understanding. Rather, a mystery is a reality which may be perceived, and it is only by perceiving the Trinity as clearly as possible that we may become conscious of the mystery that is actually there.

II

The Form of Fatherhood and Sonship in the Trinitarian Theology of St. Athanasius of Alexandria

God the only Son, who dwells within the Father’s heart . . . has revealed him.

Jn. 1:18

1. The following is a brief summary of the principal claims advanced in a monograph that I completed earlier this year, entitled Theology of Radiance: The Form of Fatherhood and Sonship in the Trinitarian Theology of St. Athanasius of Alexandria: The Doctrine of the Trinity in Christian Antiquity: Volume 1. Though it would be ideal to simply make available the entire study in order to provide more thorough evidence for the claims that I will advance in this section, I will strive to bring forth the most powerful evidence from my more thorough study in order to make my (sometimes controversial) claims as secure as possible. Those wishing for more thorough evidence concerning this or that point may contact me via e-mail, and I will be more than happy to address any questions concerning the integrity of my claims. That said, let us now turn to the Trinitarian theology of Athanasius of Alexandria (ca. 295 – 373 a.d.).

2. In meeting the challenge of Arianism, Athanasius employs a two-fold hermeneutic. First, he insists that a theologian ought not start simply from the Bible, but rather, the theologian’s theology and understanding of Scripture must ever be grounded in Tradition. In drawing attention to this fact I in no way intend to provoke those who affirm the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, nor am I here attempting to subtly advance an incognito argument in favor of the Catholic and Orthodox doctrine of “Scripture and Tradition”—take my word for it, this latter is quite far from my mind at present. Rather, I’m simply stating a fact, and at any rate, I believe that the affirmation of Tradition on this point, the Trinity, and as it is employed by Athanasius in defending the doctrine of the Trinity, is unlikely to arouse any hostility on the part of informed Protestant Christians, who are indeed the vast majority of Tekton’s readership.

3. Athanasius insists that a Christian must be grounded in Tradition, the “succession of teachers” stretching back to the age of the Apostles, and “being taught by them the things of Christ, we both are, and are called Christians.”[4] Though the Arius “feigns to speak of God, introducing Scripture language,”[5] his effort is worthless, for his “heresy is foreign, and not from our fathers.”[6] Athanasius develops the notion of the importance of interpreting Scripture in accordance with the teaching of the fathers with rigor in De Synodis; the first eight chapters deal with nearly nothing else, and he frequently returns to the subject throughout the remainder of the work. Though his theology is saturated in Scripture, he simultaneously encourages his audience to remain “on the foundation of the apostles, and” to “hold fast [to] the traditions of the fathers.”[7] The faith of the Arians “dates not from of old, but now”; the heretics “began their own faith” in contrast to the advice of “the blessed apostle” Paul, who admonished the Christians to “keep the traditions.”[8] One of the principal problems of the Arian hermeneutic is that it fails to take into account “the scope and character of Holy Scripture,”[9] thus the Arians fail to interpret Scripture in “a religious way”[10] according to the “ecclesiastical sense”[11] which the Christian is supposed to use as his point of departure for doing theology. The Arians “force” on Scripture “a misinterpretation, according to their private sense” while missing entirely the “orthodox sense” which is the common property of the Chruch.[12]

4. The second principal component of Athanasius’ hermeneutic is more profound, dealing with what may be called the phenomenology of theological epistemology, or, to put it more simply, the way that language and thought are coordinated with reality in the enterprise of theology. Athanasius is not so much concerned with words as the thought to which words point. For example, when referring to Basil of Ancyra’s party (who held to an orthodox understanding of the Son, while rejecting the term homoousios), Athanasius says that they “must not be treated as enemies”, but rather, “we discuss the matter with them as brothers with brothers, who mean what we mean, and dispute only about the word.”[13] The Arians, on the other hand, incorrectly understand predications of the Son and the Father in either a too literal, or insufficient sense.[14] He returns to this theme again and again throughout the Orations Against the Arians. His objection, in its most basic form, is that the Arians think of God in exactly the wrong way, daring to “conceive material and earthly ideas concerning the Father himself,” as though God were “a parent as man.” He considers this manner of thinking extremely dangerous, and perhaps the principal obstacle to being able to perceive the actual relationship between the Father and the Son. As he goes on to say, “if God be not as man, as he is not, we must not impute to him the attributes of man.”[15] And likewise with regard to the Son, Athanasius asks, “who, on hearing from the framing Wisdom, ‘The Lord created me . . .’ does not at once question the meaning, reflecting how that creative Wisdom can be created?”[16]—the implication being that the Arians take as their point of departure proof-texts, stopping immediately at the letter and failing to take into account the deeper meaning which the subject of the passage requires. Athanasius even goes so far as to imply that the Arians are incapable of thinking of God appropriately; they insist on staying with mundane connotations “as though nothing can be unless they understand it.”[17]

5. On the contrary, the Son is the “genuine Son” of the Father, and “the generation of the Son” must be contemplated in a manner appropriate to the nature of the Son and the Father as divine, “such as may be ascribed to God, and is fit for us to think.”[18] At the bottom of this principle lies a perception. Having taken into account the object itself of contemplation, it follows that such words as “created,” when predicated of the Son, “do not disparage his nature; rather, the nature draws to itself those terms and changes them. For terms are not prior to essences, but essences are first, and terms second.”[19] In consequence, “when persons ask whether the Lord is a creature or a work, it is proper to ask of them this first, whether he is Son and Word and Wisdom,”[20] and since the Son indeed is, all predications of him must be seen as subordinate to this fact.

6. Thus there is a certain hermeneutical prioritizing that Athanasius takes for granted. The Christian begins with God himself—the perception of God as he has received it from the Tradition of the Church, and within the life of the Church. Though Athanasius held to a high doctrine of Scripture, and his thought concerning the Father and the Son is wholly saturated in Scripture, the notion of an individual simply reading the Bible as though he needn’t bother with any outside influences to condition his thought would have been unthinkable to Athanasius. The deposit of Tradition—the doctrine of God as father and the Son as son—serves as the point of departure for thinking about the Father and the Son. It is the given, the first truth, and it is to be assumed and developed and shouldn’t need to be proven.

7. Before moving on it is necessary to draw attention to Athanasius’ critique of Arian hermeneutics mentioned above—namely, that the Arians think about divine matters in too mundane a manner. However, that Athanasius rejected a hermeneutical principle which begins and ends at the mundane does not imply that Athanasius advocated taking predications of the Father and the Son in a less literal sense than the Arians. The case is quite the opposite—only the Trinitarian can affirm the language of Scripture, that God is father and the Son is son of the Father. Indeed, Athanasius’ doctrine of the Father and the Son, though rigorously and thoroughly developed, and being of such a character that it reaches into and controls every aspect of his theology, can be reduced to two relatively simple claims that can be clearly expressed in that simple and blunt manner in which children speak when they wish to say something definite: God the Father is father for reals, and God the Son is son for reals. Athanasius develops the notion of the reality of the Father’s fatherhood and the Son’s sonship with a relentless vigor, nearly to the point of exhausting the reader. It would be no exaggeration to say that the idea had taken complete possession of his mind.

8. Athanasius’ principal means of articulating the sense in which the Father is father and the Son is son is grounded in the Wisdom tradition—a theological motif which readers of Tekton should be more than familiar with. The Wisdom tradition describes the Son with predicates taken from passages in the O.T. wisdom literature (and N.T. passages which quote, allude to, or develop such passages from the O.T.) that describe the Wisdom of God in personal terms, which when applied to the Son indicate that he is intrinsic to God as a property of God. Athanasius’ favored predication for the Son of God from the Wisdom tradition is that of Radiance—a word used in the Wisdom of Solomon to describe the manner in which divine Wisdom is related to God, and which was passed into the permanent heritage of the Church when the author of Hebrews directly alluded to it in describing the Son. This is the point of departure for Athanasius’ defense of the divinity of the Son; this is the cornerstone of Athanasius’ Trinitarian theology.

9. For Athanasius, to speak of the Son as the Radiance of God is not to speak merely metaphorically about the Son of God. Rather, the predication of the Son as son, and the interpretation of this sonship in light of such terms as the Radiance, Word, Power, Image, Expression, etc., of God, is to speak literally of the Son. These are not metaphors; they are word-images. The term word-image is intended to be understood in contrast to the term “metaphor.” Whereas in metaphorical speech the predicate possesses more reality than the subject with regard to the relationship between the subject and the subject’s possession of the predicate (i.e., e.g., Juliet is not really the sun, and the sun itself possesses the properties of “being sun” to a far greater degree than Juliet), when Athanasius speaks of the first person of the Trinity as “Father,” and the second person as “the Son,” he understands such predications to be taken literally such that to speak of a human being as a “father” or “son” is actually a weak metaphor which draws its significance from the divine reality. Thus when Athanasius describes the Son by referring to him as the Wisdom, Image, Radiance, etc., of God, he believes that such terms—properly understood—become transparent to the reality of the Son’s very sonship. These are word-images: words that yield images which not only ‘illustrate,’ but become transparent to the reality that they refer to. Only when this is understood are we able to engage Athanasius’ Trinitarian theology.

10. We may begin, then, with the notion of propriety, by which Athanasius understands the Son simply to be proper to the Father. The Son, says Athanasius, is “the proper offspring of the Father,” and “natural and proper to” God as God.[21] He is “the offspring of the Father’s essence,” and “that which is proper to the Father’s essence.”[22] The number of times wherein Athanasius stresses this fact suggests that had Athanasius the luxury of, e.g., italicized print, it is in phrases such as these where he would have used it. The Son is from the Father, “of whose essence he is [the] proper offspring;”[23] he is “the proper offspring of his substance” and “him who is from him;”[24] the Son is that which God “hath from himself;” indeed, the very “Power of himself.”[25] He is “simply from the Father,” and “a natural offspring from the Father;”[26] the “offspring of the Father’s essence” and therefore “proper to the Father’s essence and one in nature with it,”[27] and he “alone” is “proper to the Father.”[28] Athanasius is so intent on bringing home this point in all of its brute simplicity that he often intentionally employs redundancy, as when he calls the Son the Father’s “own proper and only Son,”[29] or “the own offspring of the Father’s essence.”[30]

11. This notion of propriety is further illuminated in the context of the recurring clusters of word-images that Athanasius constantly employs to articulate the manner of the Son’s sonship. The Son, says Athanasius, is “the Father’s Image and Word eternal, never having not been, but being ever as the eternal Radiance of a Light which is eternal;”[31] the Father’s “Word, and Wisdom, and Radiance,”[32] the “Image and Radiance”[33] and “truly Word and Son of God;”[34] the “proper Word,” “Power,” and “essential Wisdom” of the Father.[35] Athanasius frequently aligns many such predications together as though he understands them to explain one another and lay bare before his audience the very reality of that which he speaks of. For example, in establishing the eternity of the Son, Athanasius draws attention to the fact that the Son is these properties of the Father—

For we see that Reason is ever, and is from him and proper to his essence, whose reason it is, and does not admit a before and after. . . . We understand in like manner that the Son is begotten not from without but from the Father, and while the Father remains whole, the Expression of his subsistence is ever . . . so that he who sees him, sees in him the subsistence too, of which he is the Expression . . .[he is the Father’s] Expression and Light and the Power . . . Reason and Radiance . . . [36]

12. Though all of these word-images taken from the Wisdom tradition were definitely vital to Athanasius’ theology of the Son of God, his favorite such word-image—as mentioned above—is that of Radiance. In De Decretis, when he is attempting to explain to his audience the sense in which the Father and Son are inter-related, Athanasius turns “[a]gain” to “the illustration of the Light and the Radiance.” In this passage, Athanasius develops the notion with a high degree of clarity, and it is worth quoting at length—

For the saints have not said that the Word was related to God as fire kindled from the heat of the sun … for this is an external work and a creature of its author, but they all preach of him as Radiance, thereby to signify his being from the essence, proper and indivisible, and his oneness with the Father. This also will secure his true unchangeableness and immutability … if the Son is Word, Wisdom, Image of the Father, Radiance, he must in all reason be one in essence. . . . [F]or this is proper to a son as regards a father, and in this is shewn that God is truly Father of the Word. Here again, the illustration of light and its radiance is in point. Who will presume to say that the radiance is unlike and foreign to the sun? Rather who, thus considering the radiance relatively to the sun, and the identity of the light, would not say with confidence, “Truly the light and the radiance are one, and the one is manifested in the other, and the radiance is in the sun, so that whoso sees this, sees that also . . .[37]

13. In saying this, Athanasius has said, in kernel form, everything he wishes to say about the sonship of the Son. We see in the above several specific points being drawn from this word-image. Since the Son is the Radiance of the Father, he is therefore not an external work, nor a creation. He is fitting and proper to the Father—from the very essence of the Father, and indivisibly united to him. Furthermore, this word-image gives us an intimation of the fact that the Father is truly a father, and that the Son is truly a son. The word-image is particularly suited for this purpose, for the relationship between sun and its shine expresses the notion of a simultaneous, perpetual, and vital relationship between the source (sun) and its offspring (the sun’s shine). Just as at every moment at which the sun exists, so too does its shine, and just as this generation is continual and ceaseless, so too does the Father stand in relation to the Son. This word-image has yet another especially strong point, being the manner in which the two entail and reveal one-another. We are able to see the sun because of the light which comes forth from it, and we are able to see the light because the sun brings it forth. We perceive the quiddity of each in the other, and we are led from one to the other, and from the other to the one.

14. Our final point concerning the word-image of Radiance is this: though the two entail one another, such that it is impossible to imagine the one without imagining the other, the causation between the two goes only one way. The sun causes the shine, and not the reverse. So too, for Athanasius, the Father is the source of the Son, and not vice-versa.

15. “[W]hereas the Son hath eternally what he hath,” says Athanasius, “yet he hath them from the Father.”[38] The relationship between the Father and the Son is therefore asymmetrical; Athanasius definitely, clearly, and unambiguously affirmed the doctrine of the monarchy of the Father. Thus—

[T]he Father and the Son were not generated from some pre-existing origin, that we may account them brothers, but the Father is the origin of the Son and begat him; and the Father is Father, and not born the Son of any; and the Son is Son, and not brother. Further, if he is called the eternal offspring of the Father, he is rightly so called. . . . [I]f he is Son, as the Father says, and the Scriptures proclaim, and “Son” is nothing else than what is generated from the Father; and what is generated from the Father is his Word, and Wisdom, and Radiance . . .[39]

16. The Father is the origin of the Son and Spirit, and they are not the source of him. “[T]he Father,” writes Athanasius, “has no personal cause, but rather is himself Father of Wisdom.”[40] Again: the relationship between the persons is not symmetrical, but asymmetrical: the Son is dependent upon the Father in a sense in which the Father is not dependent on the Son. Thus when we hear Athanasius say that the Son, “being the Son, is inseparable from the Father, and never was there when he was not,” we must take into account the manner in which he understands these two to be correlated, as is made clear when he goes on to explain that the Son is eternal because “being the Father’s Image and Radiance, he has the Father’s eternity.”[41] Furthermore, “when the Father is called the only God,” even this “has a fit meaning” which “is not said to the denial of the Son,” for the Son “is in that One, and First and Only, as being of that One and Only and First the only Word and Wisdom and Radiance.” The Son is “First” along with the Father because he is “of the First and Only, being whole and full God.”[42] Thus the “of-ness” and “from-ness” of the Son from the Father, far from implying that the Son is a lesser deity, actually entails the opposite, even while maintaining that the Son is really and truly dependent upon the Father.

17. At this point it is worthwhile to consider what import, if any, the homoousios bears on this doctrine, for at first glance, it may appear to some that the “from-ness” and dependence of the Son on the Father might be in tension with the notion that the Father and Son are indeed one substance and equally divine. But contrary to seeing these two affirmations as being antithetical, Athanasius sees the co-essentiality of the Father and Son as being entailed by the one being the source of the other, and he treats this topic at length in De Synodis 38-54. Speaking of those who object to the homoousios, he states that “if their faith was right, and they confessed the Father as truly Father, and believed the Son to be genuine Son, and by nature true Word and Wisdom of the Father, and … understood him to be the proper offspring of the Father’s essence, as the