#john behr

[gothchrist]

Fr. John Behr, The Mystery of Christ: Life in Death

[oddinthetruth]

Seeing “God is the Trinity” Under Every pro-Nicene Rock

The teachings of the 4th century pro-Nicene Greeks are certainly not at odds with affirmations that “God is the Trinity.” They clearly teach, for example, that there is one principle and source of creation that acts inseparably to create. We would say this is God the Trinity.

But do they explicitly teach that “God is the Trinity” or that “the one God is the Trinity?” There is disagreement about this question.

In “Response to Ayres: The Legacies of Nicaea, East and West,” John Behr argues they do not. In this brief article, he, among other things, shows why some might read the pro-Nicenes this way. He gives a specific example from Naziazen to show how Lewis Ayres reads Gregory incorrectly.

I’ll quote him at length.

For instance, Ayres quotes a passage from an oration of Gregory Nazianzen as follows:

‘A perfect Trinity consisting of three perfects, we must abandon the concept of a monad for the sake of plenitude, and go beyond a dyad (for God is beyond the duality of matter and form which constitutes material things), and we must define God as a Trinity for the sake of completeness.’

This is certainly a difficult passage to translate, and it can be done in various ways. But the passage does not include the word “God” in the original Greek, nor does it have us “defining” God (as if Gregory would have had such audacity), and certainly not “as a Trinity.” In the year before Ayre’s book appeared, the first English translation of this oration was published, which renders the passage (given here more fully...) as follows:

‘They are one in their separation and separate in their conjunction, even if this is a paradoxical statement; revered no less for their mutual relationship than when they are though of and taken individually; a perfect Trinity of three perfect entities; a monad taking its impetus from its superabundance, a dyad transcended (that is, it goes beyond the form and matter of which bodies consist), a triad defined by its perfection since it is the first to transcend the synthesis of duality in order that the Godhead might not be constricted or diffused without limit, for constriction bespeaks an absence of generosity; diffusion, an absence of order. the one is thoroughly Judaic; the other, Greek and polytheistic.’

The use of the passive, ‘is defined,’ is vital, reflecting Gregory’s theological approach more generally, that of contemplating the revelation of God in Christ by the Spirit, rather than subjecting the being of God to our limited human activity of thinking and defining, and certainly not ‘defining God as Trinity.’ Gregory was and still is regarded as one of the greatest rhetoricians--word-smiths--of the fourth century; he uses his words with care. If we are to begin to hear what he has to say, then we must pay utmost attention to how he uses his words, rather than simply hearing our own voice projected onto him.

He goes on to say, “There is, then, a very real sense in which our distinct ecclesial traditions have given us different ears to hear the texts of antiquity differently.”

He pushes the point further:

Whether God as Trinity originates in the West with Augustine or not, certainly now it characterizes the language of Western theological discourse and, because of its familiarity, becomes an unexamined presupposition in the activity of reading others.

This is a serious charge. He knows that it is.

If there is harsh criticism in my words, it reflects the challenge that Ayres’s book raises and, thereby, confirms its significance.

Behr thinks (and argues) that the stakes are high historically and theologically when “God is the Trinity” is incorrectly found under every pro-Nicene rock (my hyperbolic phrase). He makes his case for this in the above referenced article. I also think it is important for dealing with our Unitarian friends.

With respect to our question, do the pro-Nicenes explicitly teach that “God is the Trinity,” I hope we can all agree, at least, that if it is the case that Ayres is seeing things that aren’t there, we might be too.

I’ll let John Behr have the final word:

...to understand a discourse we must listen to its own idiom, with its own nodal points, rather than seeking out what we think are analogues to the idioms of our own discourse. We cannot presume that our terms and phrases (e.g., triune God) are adequate to describe what the fourth-century writers are talking about.

[oddinthetruth]

Monarchy of the Father Part 1 - The Language

In an earlier article, I bemoan the fact that too many evangelicals have never heard of the Monarchy of the Father (MOF). This is a bizarre state of affairs given the fact that MOF is virtually ubiquitous among the pro-Nicenes of the 4th century.

What I didn’t do in that article, however, is explain what MOF is actually supposed to be. In the next two articles, I’ll sketch out MOF as I currently understand it.

Part 1 will explore MOF as a way of talking about the Trinity. By this I simply mean that I will introduce the language deployed by many of the pro-Nicenes to speak of Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and God.

Part 2 will explore MOF as a way of understanding the Trinity. My intent will be to unpack the logic of MOF--a logic that secures for us an orthodox Trinitarian model of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

In both articles, my primary influences are the works of Athanasius, the Cappadocians, John Behr, Beau Branson, Christopher Beeley, and Richard Cross. All have been crucial partners in my search for an orthodox model of the Trinity that makes sense of Scripture and the 4th century.

I’ve also had some very helpful interactions with Skylar McManus, John Sobert Sylvest, David Mahfood, Robert Dryer, and a number of others on Theology Twitter.

These articles are meant to be a primer or introduction to MOF. I hope they might be particularly helpful for those struggling with a Trinitarianism that, among other things, seems disconnected from Scripture.

The Scriptural Disconnect

It’s no secret that conventional language used to speak about the Trinity is quite different from the language found in Scripture.

God is triune: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The church believes, adores, and worships the one simple divine essence, which exists three times over, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, inseparably united in life and in action, one in everything save in their relations of origin.[1]

...the Trinity is God. God is God in this way: God’s way of being God is to be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit simultaneously from all eternity, perfectly complete in a triune fellowship of love.[2]

The central dogma of Christian theology [is] that the one God exists in three Persons and one substance, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God is one, yet self-differentiated; the God who reveals Himself to mankind is one God equally in three distinct modes of existence, yet remains one through all eternity.[3]

All of these ways of speaking are meant to affirm that the “one God” is the Trinity. Or put another way, the “one God” is a tri-personal God--one God in three persons.

Now, it’s certainly the case that there are those who understand this tri-personal God language quite well. Generally, this would be a person who is well read on the doctrine of the Trinity and its development.

Such a person typically swims in the waters of two highly respected Latins, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. He or she speaks the language of “three distinct modes of existence.” He or she can parse out this tri-personal God language and its affirmations within assorted Biblical, historical, logical, theological, and philosophical models.

Scripture, on the other hand, does not “speak of the one God as self-differentiated into three.”[4] It does not make these assorted tri-personal God articulations--”God is the Trinity,” or “He is the Trinity,” or “three persons and one essence.” It does not *call* the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit together the “one God.”[5]

The problem, and this is from personal experience, is that this language can be a stumbling block for the uninitiated--even more so when they are trying to make sense of this language with a Bible in their laps or listening to the average sermon.

Aware of this problem, it is common practice to attempt to simplify this language and teach something like, God is “three who’s and one what.”

Does this help? Considering the number of personal pronouns that show up, I’m not so sure. Let me demonstrate--He, God the Trinity, is three He’s (three persons) and a “what.” That’s four he’s and a what!

A legitimate question, when teaching or catechizing the uninitiated or confused, is whether this language is the best place to start. The answer repeatedly seems to be, “Yes.” Why?

There exists a deeply embedded assumption that this tri-personal “one God in three persons” language is the only player in town (the Latin waters have a strong current). This assumption has even pervaded the way many read the Trinitarian MOF language of the 4th century.[6] 

Given this assumption, it appears there are no other options for speaking about the Holy Trinity. This language is all we have and the best we have.

Yet, if we read outside of our Latin-influenced tradition and engage with Greek-influenced traditions (such as the Eastern Cappadocian Fathers), we encounter an utterly different kind of Trinitarian language--the Monarchy of the Father.

MOF Trinitarianism Language

MOF Trinitarian language has at least three ground floor affirmations:

The “one God” is the Father.

The Father, the “one God,” is the cause, source, and principle of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and thus the Trinity itself (thus the term, “Monarchy”).

The Son and the Holy Spirit are homoousios or consubstantial with the “one God” the Father. In other words, the Son and Spirit exemplify the “one God’s” divinity.

With respect to point one, notice that in MOF language the “one God” is not the Trinity. The “one God” is not a referent to the tri-personal God who exists in three persons. The “one God” is the Father.

In fact, identifying the Father as the “one God” is crucial to the logic of MOF Trinitarian language. We will see that in Part 2.

With respect to points two and three, the Father is seen as the cause, source, and principle of the Son and Spirit (and thus the Trinity) because of how each relate to him. In other words, to properly grasp who they are, we must know how they relate to the “one God.”

These points are specifically highlighted in the Trinitarian MOF language of the Cappadocian, Gregory of Nazianzus.

...when he gives a summary statement of his own doctrinal position he chooses to emphasize not the triune equality, as we might expect (though this is indicated), still less the unity or consubstantiality of the three persons...Gregory conspicuously anchors the identity of each figure—and the divine life altogether—in the unique role of God the Father as source and cause of the Trinity. Although it may seem striking to modern interpreters, he defines the faith in the biblical and traditional pattern of referring to God primarily as ‘‘the Father,’’ just as the creed of Nicaea had done.[7]

This language and its three basic affirmations is a language that is “firmly rooted...in the Bible.”[8] It takes its cues directly from the Scripture.

The New Testament, for example, speaks exclusively of the Father as the “one God.”

1 Corinthians 8:6a (NET) — 6a yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we live...

Ephesians 4:6 (NET) — 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

1 Timothy 2:5a (NET) — 5 For there is one God and one intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus... [Christ is the intermediary between the “one God,” who is the Father, and humanity]

The Bible also repeatedly speaks in terms of how the Son of God and the Holy Spirit relate to God (the Father).

Hebrews 1:3a (ESV) — 3a He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature

Colossians 1:15(ESV) — 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

Philippians 2:5–6 (ESV) — 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God [the Father], did not count equality with God [the Father] a thing to be grasped,

John 5:26 (ESV) — 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.

John 17:3 (ESV) — 3 And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God [the Father], and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

John 14:16 (ESV) — 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,

John 15:26 (ESV) — 26 But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.

Also taking its cues from Scripture, the Nicene-Constantinople Creed of 381 codifies this Biblical Trinitarian MOF language. Below is a sampling of this ecumenical Creed.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;

And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.

Notice here, like with Scripture, that the Father is the “one God.” Notice, too, that the Son and Spirit are spoken of in terms of their relation to this “one God.”

It is also striking that the word “Trinity” and the tri-personal “God in three persons” language is not present. This is significant because it is this Creed that is affirmed by all of orthodox Christianity as the baseline for Trinitarianism.

Conclusion

So my goal has been to provide a primer or introduction to Trinitarian MOF language as I understand it. I hope I’ve succeeded. My intent is not to persuade. I just want to provide some options to those who might desperately need them.

This language, no doubt, raises some questions. What does it mean that the Son and Spirit are “caused?” Is Jesus God? Is he subordinate to the Father? Is the Holy Spirit God? Does MOF language work with the normative “one God in three persons” language? Etc.

For now, I’ll leave you with John Behr describing the Trinitarian MOF language of another Cappadocian Father, Gregory of Nyssa:

Gregory does not identify “God” as that which is common, a genus to which various particular beings belong; nor does he speak of the one God as three. Rather, “the God overall” is known specifically as “Father,” and the characteristic marks of the Son and the Spirit relate directly to him...[9]

Stay tuned for Part 2.

[1] Stephen R. Holmes. The Quest for the Trinity: The Doctrine of God in Scripture, History and Modernity (Kindle Locations 1462-1463). Kindle Edition.

[2] Sanders, Fred. The Deep Things of God: How the Trinity Changes Everything (p. 62). Crossway. Kindle Edition.

[3] F.L. Cross, ed., 3rd ed. rev. E.A. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 1641.

[4] Behr, John. The Nicene Faith (p. 5). Crestwood, NY, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.

[5] It doesn't preclude such language either.

[6] In The Quest for the Trinity, Stephen Holmes summarizes 4th century Trinitarianism in seven points. HIs third point assumes that the tri-personal God affirmation is a basic feature of 4th century Trinitarianism: “There are three divine hypostases that are instantiations of the [one] divine nature: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

[7] Beeley, Christopher. Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity and the Knowledge of God (p. 204). Oxford University Press.

[8] Ibid. p. 209.

[9] Behr, John. One God Father Almighty (p. 328). Modern Theology 34:3, July 2018.

[ascentofzion-blog]

Postmodern eschatological Lord

It is sometimes said that for antiquity truth is what is, for enlightened modernity it is what was, and for postmodernity it is that which will have been. The historicizing approach of modernity places the truth of Jesus firmly in the past–how he was born and what he did and said–and subjects his truth to our criteria of historicity, which are ultimately no more than a matter of what we find plausible (as evidenced by the “Jesus Seminar”). For antiquity, on the other hand, the truth of Christ is eternal, or better, timeless: the crucified and risen Lord is the one of whom scripture has always spoken. Yet, as the disciples come to recognize him, as the subject of scripture and in the breaking of bread, he disappears from their sight (Lk 24.31). The Christ of the Christian faith, revealed concretely in and through the apostolic proclamation of the crucified and risen Lord in accordance with scripture, is an eschatological figure, the Coming One. Hence the importance of the other half of Kierkegaard’s observation, that while we understand retrospectively, we nevertheless live into the future. As we leave behind modernity’s fascination with the past, it is possible that we are once again in a position to recognize the eschatological Lord.

The Mystery of Christ. Life in Death, Fr. John Behr, p. 17-18

[bonewoodandstone]

“It is a mistake to look back to a lost golden age of theological or ecclesial purity – whether in the apostolic times as narrated in the book of Acts, or the early Church, as recorded by Eusebius, or the age of the Fathers or the Church Councils, or the Empire of Byzantium. Christians are strangers in this world – in any society of this world. As the Second Century Letter to Diognetus writes, concerning Christians: ‘They dwell in their own fatherlands, but as if sojourners in them; they share all things as citizens, and suffer all things as strangers. Every foreign country is their fatherland, and every fatherland is a foreign country.’ And this is inevitably so: our citizenship is in heaven, as the Apostle Paul puts it, and it’s from there that we wait for our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ (Phil 3.20). It is a mistake to look for this as something realized in the past, and since lost…”

Fr John Behr, “What is Orthodox About Orthodox Christianity?”

[onbehalfofall]

According to the Scriptures

According to the Scriptures

In the Nicene Creed, recited by the faithful at every divine liturgy, the Church confesses that Jesus Christ was crucified and rose again “according to the Scriptures.” This language is taken directly from St. Paul in 1 Cor. 15:4, and is thereafter a common expression among the apostolic fathers.

Most of us today–somewhat naturally–take this to mean that Christ was crucified and rose again in…

View On WordPress

[orthodoxheart-blog]

Part 1 of an excellent talk given by Fr. Behr at the OCA Diocese of the South conference this year. It will change the way you understand death.