Eternal Subrodination and St. Augustine

ETERNAL SUBORDINATION AND AUGUSTINE: A HISTORICALTHEOLOGICAL ENGAGEMENT A thesis submitted to South Asia Institute of Advanced Christian Studies in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree Master of Theology in Theology & Ethics by Augastin T Registration # 1931 January 2021 This thesis entitled ETERNAL SUBORDINATION AND AUGUSTINE: A HISTORICALTHEOLOGICAL ENGAGEMENT Written by AUGASTIN T Submitted in partial fulfilment for the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF THEOLOGY with specialization in THEOLOGY and ETHICS Has been read and approved by the undersigned appointed for the purpose by the South Asia Institute of Advanced Christian Studies Amrit Joshua Paul Mentor External Examiner John Daniel, Ph. D. Academic Dean January 2021 ii DECLARATION I hereby declare that: 1. This thesis has been my own work in its entirety, and that I myself have done the work of which it is a record under the guidance of a supervisor 2. No part of this thesis has been submitted to any other educational institution in any previous application for any degree. 3. All quotations of four lines or less have been denoted by quotation marks, quotations of more than four lines have been indebted, and the sources of information in both cases have been specifically acknowledged. Place: Bangalore Date: January 04, 2021 Augastin T iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I humbly bow before The Holy Trinity – God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit – who granted me to a deeper understanding of Himself throughout this research. I am thankful to my mentor, Mr. Amrit Joshua Paul, who gave me much needed guidance, encouragement and theological insights throughout the thesis journey. I thank all the professors of the Theology Department at SAIACS: Dr. Varughese John (HoD), Dr. Nigel Ajay Kumar (2019-2020), Dr. Chonpongmeren Jamir, and Mr. Stavan N. John. I am also thankful to Dr. Roji George, Dr. Ashish Chrispal, Dr. Ian W. Payne and Dr. Christopher Hankock who have challenged and enhanced my theological thinking. I am grateful to my fellow students from 2019-2021 who enriched my learning and growth through meaningful conversations both in and outside the classroom. I am thankful to all the Library Staff at SAIACS. My sincere thanks to Mr. Jason George who edited this work. I joyfully remember all my well-wishers who prayed, encouraged, and supported my studies at SAIACS. I am thankful to my wife Padmavathi and my daughters Charis Miracle and Shekinah Praise who gave me much needed support and space. iv ABSTRACT The goal of this research is to explore deeper the nature and functions of the divine persons of the Godhead. How do the divine persons relate among themselves? A key doctrine that sheds light on intra-trinitarian life and has been much debated in the modern church is the doctrine of Eternal Subordination of the Son. The proponents, keeping the ideas of the supremacy of the Father and the subordination of the Son as the focal point, say that Son is eternally subordinate to the Father in role/function and relations. However, they continue, this position in no way makes the Son subordinate ontologically. The opponents say that the Son is temporarily subordinate to the Father in his incarnate state and after his resurrection, the Son resumes his equal position with the Father. The real debate starts from the fact that both proponents and opponents of eternal subordination appeal to Augustine for their arguments. Where does Augustine belong? This becomes the research problem. To evaluate the validity of Augustine’s trinitarian theology being claimed by both sides of the subordination debate, this research brings Augustine’s trinitarianism in conversation with the debate. First, the research traces the trajectory of subordination in selected theologians from the ante-Nicene, Nicene, and post-Nicene periods of church history. The Arian ontological subordination is highlighted and subordinationist notion in orthodox (pro-Nicene) doctrines – eternal generation and monarchy of the Father – are also identified. Then, the research provides an Augustinian framework concerning the ontological subordination of his time. Some problems surrounding the debate and Augustin’s trinitarian thought is identified in terms of the difference of contexts between Augustine and modern debate and ambiguity in the use of the term ‘equal’ and ‘equality.’ The research proposes the Eternal Relational Volitional Submission model to see Augustine’s place in the debate. The argument is executed in two stages. The first stage attempts to establish the notion that in our talk of God an asymmetry and kind of inequality can be ascribed to divine persons. Thus, equality of the Son and obedience of the Son are theologically compatible. In the second stage, an attempt is made to demonstrate that Augustine saw the Son’s economic obedience to be grounded in his eternal relationship with the Father. The research makes recommendations to the content and structure of Systematic theology in terms of having a robust ‘Paterology.’ Then, implications are drawn to personal and corporate Christian worship and prayer. Applications are drawn to Christian formation in terms of having the mutual love, value, and respect for one another among the believers and having the right use of authority in church and family. v TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 ETERNAL SUBORDINATION DEBATE AND AUGUSTINE ..................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................ 1 1.3 Elaboration of the Problem ......................................................................................... 1 1.3.1 Eternal Subordination Debate .............................................................................. 1 1.3.2 Leading Voices of the Debate .............................................................................. 2 1.3.3 Appeal to Augustine ............................................................................................ 3 1.4 Importance of the Problem .......................................................................................... 5 1.5 Taxonomy.................................................................................................................... 6 1.6 Definitions ................................................................................................................... 7 1.6.1 Subordinationism ................................................................................................. 7 1.6.2 Subordination ....................................................................................................... 7 1.6.3 Eternal Subordination .......................................................................................... 7 1.6.4 Anti-Eternal Subordination .................................................................................. 8 1.7 Scope and Limitations ................................................................................................. 8 1.8 Previous Research ....................................................................................................... 8 1.9 Method of Research .................................................................................................... 9 1.9.1 2 Why Augustine and Subordination Debate? ........................................................ 9 1.10 Research Question ................................................................................................. 10 1.11 Chapter Outline...................................................................................................... 10 HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS OF THE DEBATE ........................................................ 11 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 11 2.2 The Philosophical Basis of Subordination Tendencies ............................................. 12 2.2.1 Logos and Hierarchical Structure of Reality of Greek philosophy – Platonism, Neo-Platonism and Stoicism ............................................................................................ 12 2.2.2 Gnosticism and Hellenistic Judaism .................................................................. 13 vi 2.3 Subordination Tendencies in Select Early Church Fathers ....................................... 13 2.3.1 Ante-Nicene Controversies on the Nature of Divine Persons ........................... 13 2.3.1.1 Apologists and Logos Christology.............................................................. 13 2.3.1.2 Irenaeus ...................................................................................................... 14 2.3.1.3 Tertullian .................................................................................................... 14 2.3.1.4 Origen ......................................................................................................... 15 2.3.2 Nicene Period: Homoousios and Subordination ................................................ 16 2.3.2.1 Arianism and Other Subordinationists ....................................................... 16 2.3.2.2 The Creed of Nicaea and Homoousios ....................................................... 18 2.3.2.3 Athanasius and beginning of Pro-Nicene Theology ................................... 19 2.3.2.4 The Semi-Arians or the Anti-Nicene ........................................................... 20 2.3.3 2.3.3.1 The Defense of Homoousios and Equality of Persons Against Eunomians 22 2.3.3.2 Monarchy of the Father .............................................................................. 23 2.3.3.3 Subordination Notions in Credal Texts ...................................................... 26 2.3.4 2.4 Post-Nicene Period............................................................................................. 27 Assessment ................................................................................................................ 28 2.4.1 Orthodox and Ontological Subordinationism .................................................... 28 2.4.2 Augustine and the Subordination Debate .......................................................... 29 2.5 3 Cappadocian Fathers and Pro-Nicene Trinitarian Theology ............................. 21 Conclusion................................................................................................................. 29 AUGUSTINE’S DOCTRINE OF TRINITY AND SUBORDINATION ....................... 30 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 30 3.2 Augustine and his world ............................................................................................ 31 3.2.1 Biographical Sketch ........................................................................................... 31 3.2.2 Philosophical and Theological Influences ......................................................... 31 3.2.3 Augustine and Nicene Trinitarianism ................................................................ 32 3.2.4 East/Greek/Cappadocian Fathers Vs West/Latin/Augustine ............................. 33 3.2.5 Augustine’s Theological Context ...................................................................... 34 3.3 Augustine and Subordination .................................................................................... 35 3.3.1 Augustine’s Framework Concerning Subordinationism .................................... 35 vii 3.3.1.1 Categories of Substance, Accidents and Relations in Trinity and Subordination................................................................................................................ 35 3.3.1.2 Rules Christ’s Subordination Texts and Augustine’s Trinitarian Hermeneutical 37 3.3.1.3 Indivisible Operation .................................................................................. 38 3.3.1.4 Irreversible Order of Relations of Origin................................................... 39 3.3.1.5 Epistemic Work of Incarnation ................................................................... 40 3.3.2 4 Subordinationist Theological Aspects ............................................................... 41 3.3.2.1 The Doctrine of the Eternal Generation ..................................................... 41 3.3.2.2 Old Testament’s Theophanies and Subordination...................................... 44 3.3.2.3 Sending of the Son and Subordination ....................................................... 45 3.4 Assessment ................................................................................................................ 47 3.5 Conclusion................................................................................................................. 47 AUGUSTINIAN TRINITY AND CONTEMPORARY ETERNAL SUBORDINATION DEBATE .................................................................................................................................. 48 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 48 4.2 Eternal Subordination in Contemporary Theology ................................................... 48 4.2.1 Arguments for Eternal Subordination ................................................................ 49 4.2.2 The Argument Against Eternal Subordination .................................................. 49 4.3 Augustine and Eternal Subordination ....................................................................... 50 4.3.1 The Distinction of Divine Persons Based on Eternal Relations of Origin Implies the Relation of Authority-Submission or Eternal Subordination in Godhead ................. 51 4.3.1.1 Summary of Argument ................................................................................ 51 4.3.1.2 Argument Expounded ................................................................................. 51 4.3.2 Augustine’s Perspective of the Categories of Substance and Relations Implies Relational Subordination and Ontological Equality ........................................................ 53 4.3.2.1 Summary of Argument ................................................................................ 53 4.3.2.2 Argument Expounded ................................................................................. 54 4.3.3 Economic Mission of Son Shows Eternal Obedience of the Son to the Father . 56 4.3.3.1 Summary of Argument ................................................................................ 56 4.3.3.2 Argument Expounded ................................................................................. 56 viii 4.3.4 The Humility of the Son in Economic Trinity Reveals the ‘Humble God’ of Immanent Trinity ............................................................................................................. 59 4.3.4.1 Summary of the Argument .......................................................................... 59 4.3.4.2 Argument Expounded ................................................................................. 60 4.3.5 4.4 Summary ............................................................................................................ 62 Way forward .............................................................................................................. 63 4.4.1 4.4.1.1 Differences in Contexts ............................................................................... 63 4.4.1.2 Nature of Augustine’s Trinitarianism ......................................................... 64 4.4.1.3 Theological Nature of Contemporary Debate ............................................ 64 4.4.1.4 Semantic and Theological Concerns of Terms ........................................... 65 4.4.1.5 Nature of Doctrine of Trinity ...................................................................... 66 4.4.2 Eternal-Relational-Volitional Submission: A Proposal ..................................... 67 4.4.3 Substantiating the Model ................................................................................... 68 4.4.4 Evaluation of the Model..................................................................................... 71 4.4.4.1 Pro-Nicene Standard .................................................................................. 72 4.4.4.2 Augustinian’s Framework for Subordination ............................................. 72 4.4.5 4.5 5 Challenges Involved in the Debate .................................................................... 63 Features of the Model ........................................................................................ 73 Conclusion................................................................................................................. 74 IMPLICATIONS ............................................................................................................. 74 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 74 5.2 Implications to Theology .......................................................................................... 75 5.2.1 The Difficulty of Language and Mind ............................................................... 75 5.2.2 Forgotten Father in the Methodology of the Doctrine of God ........................... 75 5.2.3 The Content of the Theology of the Father ........................................................ 75 5.2.4 The Starting Point of Trinitarian Theology ....................................................... 76 5.2.5 Church Traditions and Trinity ........................................................................... 76 5.2.6 Father in Worship and Contemplation ............................................................... 77 5.2.7 Christian Discipleship and Trinity ..................................................................... 78 ix 5.3 Unity Among Believers ............................................................................... 78 5.2.7.2 Love, Authority, and Humility .................................................................... 78 5.2.7.3 Relationship Between the Genders ............................................................. 78 5.2.7.4 Equality and Casteism ................................................................................ 79 5.2.7.5 Embracing Differences ............................................................................... 79 5.2.7.6 Obedience to the Will of the Father............................................................ 79 Trinity, Polemic, and Apologetics............................................................................. 80 5.3.1 Islam, Unitarians, and Jehovah’s Witnesses ...................................................... 80 5.3.2 Indian Theology, Unitarian, and Impersonal God ............................................. 80 5.4 6 5.2.7.1 Conclusion................................................................................................................. 81 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 81 x 1 1.1 ETERNAL SUBORDINATION DEBATE AND AUGUSTINE Introduction This research brings Augustine in dialogue with the Eternal Subordination debate.1 This chapter attempts to show the research problem, the importance of the problem, and the method of research in a clear way. It highlights some previous research done on the given topic and lays out the investigation’s scope and limitations. It also shows the structure and outline of this work. 1.2 Statement of the Problem Both the proponents and the opponents of the idea of Eternal Subordination of the Son appeal to Augustine’s trinitarianism. Answering the question, ‘Does Augustine’s doctrine of Trinity affirms or reject the idea of Eternal Subordination of the Son to the Father?’ is the main focus of this research. 1.3 Elaboration of the Problem How did Augustine view the nature of the relations of the persons in the Trinity? Does Augustine’s trinitarian thought suggest eternal subordination of the Son to the Father? Yet in other words, the question of whether Augustine saw an asymmetry of relations among the divine persons that corresponds to Son’s eternal submission to Father demands an answer. The question of where Augustine can be located in the Eternal Subordination debate is the main concern. Both Eternal Subordination and anti-Eternal Subordination appeal to Augustine’s conception of the Trinity. A historical-theological engagement with this subject may help us to locate Augustine to take an informed position. The focussed outcome of the research is to shed some new light about the divine persons and a disciple’s relationship with the Triune God in worship and prayer. 1.3.1 Eternal Subordination Debate On the issue of whether the relation of authority and submission exist eternally among the persons of the Godhead, evangelical theologians are divided into two groups2 – those who There are different subgroups under eternal subordination such as ‘Eternal Functional Subordination’ (EFS), ‘Eternal Relational Authority Submission’ (ERAS), ‘Eternal Submission of Son’ (ESS). In this research all of them are identified as Eternal Subordination. Here on words Eternal Subordination will be noticed as ES. The opponents of Eternal Subordination are identified as anti-ES. See ‘Definition.’ 2 Millard J. Erickson, Who’s Tampering with the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate (Kregel Academic, 2009), 153. 1 1 affirm it3 and those who don’t.4 This debate, though very popular in contemporary theology, has its roots in the patristic period. The Eastern Church maintained the supremacy monarchy of the Father. The EFS, ERAS, ESS are the newer version of it, but among the Western Evangelicals. The Eastern and Western churches’ nuanced understanding of the authority of the Father in Trinity can be traced in ante-Nicene, Nicene and post-Nicene theological literature. 1.3.2 Leading Voices of the Debate Bruce Ware, Wayne Grudem, and Robert Letham5 are among leading voices for the ES view which states that the relations of authority and submission exist eternally among divine persons of the Trinity. The names/titles of the divine persons are eternal and so also the relations among them as the Father and the Son.6 Therefore, the order – Father, Son, Spirit – is not arbitrary7 and hence, irreversible. Thus, “the ultimate object of our honor, glory, praise and worship is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who himself alone is overall.”8 For Ware and Grudem, the biblical texts that convey the idea of sending/being, and choosing are key.9 If the eternal subordination is not granted, there will be no distinction among the divine persons and that will support the idea that it is not the Son, but anyone could have incarnated.10 Lethem, contrary to Ware and Grudem, does not want to bring in terms such as hierarchy or subordinate but sees a taxis/order or orderliness/organization among the divine persons.11 Letham emphasizes that the Son’s obedience or submission is a matter of eternity and this does not mean ontological subordinationism or inferiority of the Son. 3 Erickson lists Charles Hodge, Augustus Strong, Louis Berkhof, George Knight, Bruce Ware, Wayne Grudem, Peter Schemm, John Dahms and J. Scott Horrell. Erickson, Who’s Tampering with the Trinity?, 27-51 4 Erickson lists Benjamin B. Warfield, Loraine Boettner, J. Oliver Buswell Jr., Paul King Jewett, Gilbert Bilezikian, Stanley Grenz and Kevin Giles. Who’s Tampering with the Trinity? 55-79. 5 All three are contributors to One God in Three Persons: Unity of Essence, Distinctions of Persons, Implications for life – a complementarian camp’s monograph. 6 Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Pub. House, 1994), 250. 7 Bruce A. Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2005), 72. 8 Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 154. 9 Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 72, Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Pub. House, 1994), 250. 10 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 250. 11 Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship (Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing Co, 2004), 49–50. 2 Millard Erickson,12 Kevin Giles,13 and Thomas McCall14 are leading theologians from the anti-ES side who think that the relations of authority and submission do not exist eternally among the divine persons of Trinity, yet they agree both among themselves and with Monarchical theologians that the Son is subordinate to the Father in the incarnation. Erickson argues that the anti-ES or Equivalent-Authority15 view is biblically, historically, philosophically and theologically more sound than the ES or Gradational-Authority view.16 His main argument along with Giles17, is this: it is contradictory to have the idea of ontological equality of the divine persons and the idea of eternal functional supremacy of the Father over the Son and the Spirit, at the same time.18 The Son’s divinity, majesty, and authority speak of him “in the form of God,” and all the texts that speak of his dependence on and obedience to the Father or of his frailty, speak of him “in the form of a servant,” in his temporal state as the incarnate Son.”19 McCall says that the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father would entail the denial of homoousion.20 1.3.3 Appeal to Augustine Arguments and counterarguments are periodically exchanged between these two groups. Augustine’s texts from On the Trinity 1.7,14,18,19, 22, 23; 4.27, 29 are interpreted by Giles, Ware, Grudem, and Letham to prove their view. Of the theologians21 who appeal to Augustine to support their respective views, Bruce Ware, Michael Ovey, Kyle Claunch, and John Starke are from the Monarchical side. John Starke summarizes both sides’ use of Augustin. To establish the eternal order of authority and Erickson, Who’s Tampering with the Trinity? Kevin Giles, Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006); Kevin Giles, The Rise and Fall of the Complementarian Doctrine of the Trinity (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2017); Kevin Giles, The Trinity & Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God & the Contemporary Gender Debate (InterVarsity Press, 2002). 14 Thomas McCall, Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism? Philosophical and Systematic Theologians on the Metaphysics of Trinitarian Theology (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2010); Thomas McCall and Michael Rea, Philosophical and Theological Essays on the Trinity (OUP Oxford, 2009). 15 Erickson calls the Complementarian view as Gradational-Authority view and Egalitarian view as EquivalentAuthority view 16 Erickson, Who’s Tampering with the Trinity? 17 Giles, The Trinity & Subordinationism, 17. 18 Erickson, Who’s Tampering with the Trinity?, 257. 19 Giles, Jesus and the Father, 190. 20 McCall, Which Trinity, 179. 21 Kyle Claunch “God is the Head of the Christ,” in One God in Three Persons: Unity of Essence, Distinction of Persons, Implications for Life (Crossway, 2015), 65-94; James Paul Krueger, “God the Father in the Western Tradition: Bringing Augustine and Bonaventure into Conversation with Modern Theology” (PhD diss., School of Theology and Religious Studies of The Catholic University of America, 2014); Loraine Boettner (Loraine Boettner, Studies in Theology (P & R Publishing, 1947); Alister E. McGrath, Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought (Oxford; Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishers, 1998): John Norman Davidson Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. (London: A & C Black, 1985), 272. 12 13 3 submission, complementarians take the support of Augustine’s explanation of the Father’s sending of the Son. On the other hand, egalitarian to say that Augustine’s doctrine of eternal generation and inseparable operations among the persons don’t allow such interpretation.22 Grudem quotes De Trinitate (hereafter DT) 4.27 to say that Augustine “affirms an order of authority and submission in the persons of the Trinity.”23 Letham reads Augustine in DT 15.29 and affirms that for Augustine the Son’s generation is eternal, and the Father “who is the beginning of the whole divinity.24 Ware argues that Augustine believed the sending of the Son is not an economic operation, but an eternal action. Thus, Ware argues that Augustine rejects the egalitarian claims that the Son’s subordination happened only in the Son’s incarnation.25 Theologians such as Erickson, Keith Johnson, and Kevin Giles from the egalitarian side are notable ones. For Erickson26 and Giles,27 Augustine’s Trinity eliminates eternal subordination which is, for him, anti-Nicene and ante-Nicene. Giles notes Augustine’s first hermeneutical rule: “all texts that speak of the Son’s divinity, majesty, and authority speak of him “in the form of God,” and all the texts that speak of his dependence on and obedience to the Father or of his frailty, speak of him “in the form of a servant,” in his temporal state as the incarnate Son.”28 Keith Johnson thinks complementarians misread Augustine. They, Ware and Gruden, do not believe in the eternal generation and the divine members having one will and thus compelled to read Augustine’s explanations of ‘sending’ texts and indivisible works with the lens of ‘personal properties’ and come to their desired conclusions.29 This research would further investigate other important issues surrounding the debate. The ideas such as the doctrine of eternal generation, the concept of the inseparable operation of divine persons, the idea that the Father is the Fonts Trinitatis – the fountain or source of the Trinity, the concept that the Father is the principium of the other members of Trinity, the idea that the difference between the Son’s operations in the ‘form of God’ and in the form of the servant are interpreted and used by theologians of this debate. Further, we explore the John Starke, “Augustine and His Interpreters,” in One God in Three Persons: Unity of Essence, Distinction of Persons, Implications for Life (Crossway, 2015), 156. 23 Starke, “Augustine and His Interpreters,” 157. 24 Robert Letham, “Eternal Generation in the Church Fathers,” in One God in Three Persons: Unity of Essence, Distinction of Persons, Implications for Life (Crossway, 2015), 117. 25 Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 81. 26 Erickson, Who’s Tampering with the Trinity, 249. 27 Claunch “God is the Head of the Christ,” 83. 28 Giles, Jesus and the Father, 190. 29 Keith Johnson, “Trinitarian Agency and the Eternal Subordination of the Son: An Augustinian Perspective, Themelios 36, no. 1 (2011):7-25. 22 4 following question are addressed: How the modern-day evangelicals’ ‘subordination’ differs from the historical heresy ‘subordinationism’? Is it possible to hold the idea of Son’s eternal functional subordination without falling into Arianism and tritheism? Is it possible for the Equivalent-Authority view to avoid modalism/Sabellianism and Patripassianism? 1.4 Importance of the Problem The purpose of the work, at the outset, is to know God more personally and to gain knowledge that leads to doxology. It is hoped that this study will help me to know the nature of our Triune God more fully and to come out of the confusion around the ‘Unity of Godhead and ‘God as three persons or community.’ The findings of the investigation will enable researcher to clear his doubts and in return, the researcher will be better equipped to teach believers and ministry trainees the Bible with more clarity. The finding will equip the researcher to be aware of trinitarian heresy which could be found in subtle form even among the Evangelicals. Moreover, the researcher would be able to defend the orthodox Trinitarian theology against its counterparts such as Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons and Islam.30 Moreover, the researcher’s curiosity to know about Augustine and his theology, the doctrine of Trinity with the special interest in the nature and function of the first-person of the Trinity – God the Father, are the foundation stones for this investigation. E. C. Kim says, “Western theology, as a whole, emphasizes two divine persons: Evangelicals have focused chiefly on Christ the Son, his divine person, atonement and resurrection while Pentecostals and Charismatics have emphasized largely the Spirit as the sovereign source of renewal, power, and spiritual gifts and fruits.”31 The difference between the Eastern and Western Churches’ emphasis on the Monarchy of the Father has always fascinated the researcher. Given the fact, in India, the Eastern Church tradition is older than the Western tradition, yet the impact of the form and theology of it on Indian Christian Theology and praxis is limited. The finding of this investigation will enable the researcher to be a bridge between both church traditions on Trinitarian theology. 30 One of the major issues today in the church is the function, value, and role of women in marriage, family, and church ministry. The complementarian and egalitarian debate is about the question of women’s role in home and Church. Theologians and churchmen from both sides attempt to draw principles in this regard from inner trinitarian life. Entering to this issue is beyond the scope and limit of this work. 31 E. C. Kim, “The Necessity of Rediscovering Patrology: Why is the Father Forgotten?” Asia Journal of Theology 19, no. 1 (2005): 22. 5 1.5 Taxonomy It is evident from the review of literature that there are two schools of thought concerning the relative authority of divine persons, namely monarchical and equivalent-authority views. The idea of relations of origin based on the doctrine of eternal generation is crucial to this debate. Augustine believed in the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. Yet, on both sides, some theologians believe and some others reject the doctrine. In my opinion, based on the motives of the discussion we can classify them into three groups. The first group who engage in the theological dialogue, do it as a theological discipline to study the nature and function of divine persons of Trinity and less expectation on any implication to human relationship. The second group engages this trinitarian discussion with the implication it could provide insight to the issue of biblical men and womanhood. The third group involved in this debate to see the connection of Augustine’s trinitarian theology with the ES. A summary of the groups is provided in the table below. 2 sides of the Theologian Debate Eternal Michael Ovey subordination Model of Eternal Trinity Generation Eternal Affirms Implication/Motive Trinitarianism and Augustine’s voice to Subordination the debate Bruce Ware Eternal Affirms Trinitarian Theology, Relation of from 2016 Complementarian, Authority- Grounds function and Submission role of women on intra-trinitarian life. Robert Letham Eternal Affirms Trinitarian Theology, - Augustine’s voice in Submission John Starke Eternal Submission the debate, Complementarian Anti-ES Kevin Giles Affirms Trinitarian Theology, Egalitarian, does not see intra-trinitarian life as the ground for function and role of 6 women on intratrinitarian life Millard Erickson Rejects Trinitarian Theology Keith H. Johnson Affirms Augustine’s voice in the debate 1.6 Definitions 1.6.1 Subordinationism The term ‘subordinationism’ stands for Arian heretical view that makes the Son less in his nature/being, deity, power and glory than the Father. It says, according to Global Dictionary of Theology, “Son was created, mediating figure through whom the one God made the world, and so was different being than the Father.”32 1.6.2 Subordination The term subordination is used to mean different concepts with qualifications. 1) Economic subordination: This tells that the Son is subordinate to the Father in his incarnate state. 2) Ontological subordination: This is another term to mean Arian heresy that notes Son is subordinate in his being to the Father. 3) Filial or Trinitarian subordination: This is used to convey the causological notion that the Son is from the Father eternally. 4) Relational subordination: This is used to convey the notion that the Son in his eternal relationship with the Father submits willingly eternally to the will of the Father. Except for ‘ontological subordination’ all the other concepts of subordination do not correspond to the Arian notion of subordinationism. 1.6.3 Eternal Subordination ‘Eternal Subordination’ is a view that sees a relation of authority and submission in the eternal relationship of the divine persons of the Trinity. In other words, the Son and the Spirit are subordinate/submissive to the authority of Father eternally.33 In general, it is called the monarchical trinitarian view. There are different subgroups under eternal subordination teaching with the nuanced difference in concepts and terminology. Eternal Functional Robert Letham, “Trinity, Triune God,” in Global Dictionary of Theology, ed. William A. Dyrness and VeliMatti Kärkkäinen (Bangalore: Omega Book World, 2019), 903. 33 Erickson, Who’s Tampering with Trinity? 17. 32 7 Subordination (EFS),34 Eternal Relational Authority Submission (ERAS),35 Eternal Submission of the Son (ESS).36 In this research, they are all identified as Eternal Subordination (ES) as it is generally called. The opponents of Eternal Subordination are identified as anti-ES. 1.6.4 Anti-Eternal Subordination This term is used to negate ES. This view says that there is no relation of authority and submission among the divine persons. There is no notion of subordination in the eternal Trinity. “A temporary functional subordination of the Son and the Holy Spirit to the Father has been established for the purpose of carrying out a particular mission. But when that mission is completed, the three persons’ full quality of authority will resume.”37 At times this view is called the ‘egalitarian trinitarian’ and ‘equal authority’ view. 1.7 Scope and Limitations In theological circles, beneath the ES debate, lies contentious anthropological issues like gender equality and the role of men and women in marriage, society, and church.38 As important as they are, nonetheless, these motives are not under the scope of this thesis. But that could be a possible area of research in the future. What Augustine’s trinitarian theology has to offer to the ES debate would be the main focus. Exegetical work will not be undertaken through original biblical languages or Western ancient theological languages such as Greek, Latin and German as the researcher is not trained in them. This research attempts to study Augustine’s On the Trinity39 and texts that will deal with subordination. 1.8 Previous Research Keith Johnson evaluates the validity of bringing Augustine into the contemporary ES debate.40 Though he takes the anti-ES side, he thinks both the proponents and opponents of ES misread Augustine.41 Since he is convinced of the Pro-Nicene reading of Augustine, the validity of his approach to Augustine will also be analysed. 34 The Son is subordinate in his role/function to the Father. Wayne Grudem takes this view. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical doctrine (Hyderabad: Good Shepherd Books, 2003), 245-256). 35 Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 21. 36 Letham refrains himself from using the term subordination as it may be viewed as same as subordinationism. Thus, he prefers submission. Letham, The Holy Trinity, 377-406, 489-496. 37 Erickson, Who’s Tampering with the Trinity, 18. “Subordinationism,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1984), 1058. 38 Letham, The Holy Trinity, 493. 39 DT 1.7,8; 2.8,9; 4.27-29; to point out few. 40 Johnson, “Trinitarian Agency,” 7-25. 41 Johnson, “Trinitarian Agency,” 7-25. 8 James Paul Krueger in his dissertation reasons that social Trinitarians diminished the monarchical aspect of God the Father. Though Augustine did not use the term ‘monarchy’ he developed the notion that the Father is the sole principal of the godhead.42 Krueger concludes, “the strong sense of God the Father as source as articulated by Augustine … actually protects the equality of the persons while also indicating unity and order in the Godhead.”43 Though this work does not speak to the ES debate, nevertheless, it becomes the point of departure for this thesis. P. V. Joseph44 says Augustine’s trinitarian doctrine – the Father’s sending of the Son – helps to create a theological framework of mission Dei to India. He sees the relational and community life in immanent Trinity helps Indian theologians to have a theological framework for our mission activities to love and give equal value to the oppressed. Yet, this is not an implication of eternal subordination debate. More can be done in Indian in this regard. 1.9 Method of Research 1.9.1 Why Augustine and Subordination Debate? The research adopts a historical-theological approach. This is an approach to look at how the given theological subject or/and theologian is/are dealt in the past and present time. The nature of the topic demands this theologian-centric approach and the key theologian is critiqued by other theologians’ works. Augustine’s theology of Trinity will be critically analysed in light of the ES debate. In this study, Augustine’s trinitarianism will be read with the perspective of ‘Pro-Nicene’ reading which is popularized by Lewis Ayres45 and constantly used by Michel Barnes46 and Keith Johnson.47 Ayres wants to provide a new method of reading Augustine that will keep Augustine away from the shadow of Neo-Platonic influenced reading.48 The pro-Nicene sees the inseparable operation but not losing the distinction among divine persons. According to James Paul Krueger, “God the Father in the Western Tradition: Bringing Augustine and Bonaventure into Conversation with Modern Theology” (doctoral dissertation, School of Theology and Religious Studies of The Catholic University of America, 2014), i. 43 Krueger, God the Father in the Western Tradition, i. 44 P. V. Joseph, An Indian Trinitarian Theology of Missio Dei: Insights from St. Augustine and Brahmabandhab Upadhyay (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2019). 45 Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (Oxford University Press, 2006); Lewis Ayres, Augustine and the Trinity (Cambridge University Press, 2010). 46 Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall SJ, and Gerald O’Collins SJ, The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity (OUP Oxford, 2002). 47 Johnson, “Trinitarian Agency,” 7-25. 48 Lewis Ayres, Augustine and the Trinity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 7. 42 9 Johnson, ante-Nicene are the ones who see the Father, Son, and Spirit as beings, and the Father is ontologically superior to the rest of the members of the Godhead. He says, “the inseparable action of the divine persons represents one of the fundamental elements of Augustine’s trinitarian grammar.”49 Analytical tools such as exegetical, philosophical along historical-theological models will be employed. By the exegetical method, it is meant that the interpretation of the Bible passages of the theologians will be evaluated by biblical scholars and other theologians’ interpretations. To evaluate the alternatives or the validity of the arguments, common Aristotelian logical tools would be used (such as the law of non-contradiction and other logical fallacies). During the actual writing of this work, based on the course investigation and the demand for it, the needed methods would be adapted or the present methods would be modified. 1.10 Research Question The central question of this research is, ‘Does Augustine’s trinitarianism support the idea of Eternal Subordination?’ To answer this question, one needs to answer the related following sub-questions: What is the religious, social, and theological background of Augustine and Augustine’s world? What are Augustine’s responses to his world’s Trinitarian debates? What are contemporary scholars saying about Augustine’s Trinitarian theology and what are the ways by which Augustine is being read? What are the implications that can be drawn from the critical exploration of Augustine’s contribution to the Trinitarian debate to a theology of God the Father, Son, and Spirit? 1.11 Chapter Outline This research is divided into six chapters including the introduction and the conclusion. The first chapter attempts to answer the following questions: What is the Trinitarian debate about ES view all about, and why is Augustine important to this debate? Chapters two explores the subordinationist trajectory in the ante-Nicene and Nicene periods. It covers the background debates that happened before Augustine. Chapter three gives close look at Augustine’s trinitarianism and his responses to subordinationism. Chapter four brings Augustine into the discussion with contemporary debate on eternal subordination. It proposes a trinitarian model based on Augustine's trinitarianism to resolve the tension between the sides. The fifth chapter 49 Keith E. Johnson, Rethinking Religious Pluralism: An Augustinian Assessment (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, Press, 2011), 53. 10 draws out implications from the critical exploration of Augustine’s contribution to the Trinitarian debate to a theology of God the Father, Son, and Spirit and principles to spiritual formation. 2 2.1 HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS OF THE DEBATE Introduction While the philosophical schools were striving to understand the relationship between the true reality and the external world (Ultimate Reality and cosmos), theologians of the patristic period tried to unpack the relationship between God the Father and the Son. Throughout the patristic thought on Trinity and Christology, few concepts such as Logos theology, Monarchianism, Monotheism, Tritheism, Arianism, Semi-Arianism, Modalism, and Subordinationism would arise repeatedly. These concepts were mixed sets of orthodox and heretical tendencies. The subordinationist tendencies are predominant and important to our discussion in this chapter. This chapter attempts to trace the trajectory of the subordination of the Son in the patristic thought. Beneath theological ideas of the patristic era, there was the epistemological undercurrent that shaped theological thinking. This chapter covers from Post-Nicene period to the Council of Nicaea. However, this chapter does not outline all the Christological and Trinitarian discussions but, rather focuses on the Son’s subordination trajectory of the debates. This chapter highlights the philosophical schools that influenced the patristic father’s writings on the Trinity with subordination tendency namely, Platonism, Neo-Platonism, Stoicism, and Gnosticism and the subordination discussion from patristic theology. At the end of the chapter, the material covered is assessed. Each camp accuses the other guilty of misreading the text. It is not possible to read historical discussions with full neutrality. Moreover, the purpose of this chapter is not to defend one view over the other. It is an attempt to see how the different kinds of subordination were discussed in patristic theology. 11 2.2 The Philosophical Basis of Subordination Tendencies The pre-Nicene thinkers and theologians used the available philosophical categories to communicate and interpret the biblical deposit.50 Platonism of their time maintained the notion of one single reality and all other divine beings are subordinate gods. This is reflected in their thought about the relationships of the three persons of the Trinity. The subordination of Logos, secondary gods, or intermediate demiurges to the one ultimate being was very much prevalent in the metaphysical thoughts of Greek philosophy. One can see some subordinationist tendencies also in pro-Nicene theologians from the Ante-Nicene period, such as the apologists and the Logos theologians. This is very much visible in Arianism and other similar schools. The theologians who subordinated the Son ontologically used these metaphysical categories deliberately. 2.2.1 Logos and Hierarchical Structure of Reality of Greek philosophy – Platonism, NeoPlatonism and Stoicism In Greek philosophy, the idea of logos as a principle, reason, or/and the mind of god is used to solve the problem of god’s transcendence and his relation to the world. It is not the immaterial God who relates directly with his creation, rather the subordinate being(s) do(es). The Ultimate reality and mediate beings are not ontologically the same.51 Plato looked at the supreme Good/One/real Being as the sole true reality which is only in the world of Forms. But the changing or ‘becoming’ material world is made out of pre-existent material in the pattern of the world of Forms (unchanging/Being) by the ‘World-soul’ a Demiurge. Stoics had the idea of oikonomia for the action of God – the divine rule of the world. The administration of the world can be performed by sending his subordinates or agents. Neoplatonism sees the transcendent One emanates the Intelligence/Nous – lower in order, subordinated emanation and in return, that will produce the soul which is completely separated from the One and thus, the soul is in the chain of the body waiting to be delivered.52 Plotinus conceived the “reality as a vast hierarchical structure with grads descending from what is beyond being to what falls below being.”53 50 Franz Dunzl, A Brief History of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Early Church (London: T& T Clark Ltd, 2007), 135. 51 Simon Blackburn, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (Oxford: OUP, 2016); Alan Cairns, Dictionary of Theological Terms (Bangalore: Omega Book World, 2019). 52 Blackburn, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, 279. 53 J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. (London: A & C Black, 1985), 21. 12 This results in the way theologians looked at the nature of Christ. This paved the way to the ‘image theology’ of logos and placing incarnated Christ who entered the material world in second in order in the hierarchy of descending in power and being.54 2.2.2 Gnosticism and Hellenistic Judaism Gnosticism is a very straight forward subordinationist framework. It separates the being at the top from the other aeons down the line – the gulf between Supreme Transcendent Being and subordinate god(s).55 Gnosticism elevated the Ultimate God above the creator God who is inferior to Ultimate God. Later the OT God was identified with the ‘inferior’ creator God. Gnostics said that the spiritual element of man has to be freed from the material world. It posited a need for a redeemer. Thus, “they pictured a mediator or mediators descending the successive aeons or heavens to help it to achieve this.”56 Hellenistic Judaism came to the fore to solve pluralistic tendencies of the revelation of God in the Old Testament.57 Philo, a Hellenistic Jew, to gain converts to Judaism, used the neoPlatonic categories of Logos to present the apparent plurality of deities of OT into a monotheistic form. God, in platonic terms, a complete transcendent one and has no connections to creation whatsoever. To relate to the creature, there was a hierarchy of divine beings/gods. 2.3 Subordination Tendencies in Select Early Church Fathers Since it is a historical-theological investigation, the research attempts to maintain the chronological order of the debate as much as possible. 2.3.1 Ante-Nicene Controversies on the Nature of Divine Persons Two major trends that attempted to solve the tension of rigorous monotheism and emerging theological consensus of the deity of the Son (and the Spirit) namely, Logos theology and Monarchianism. Both views could not escape the subordinationist tendencies. This will be evident in the following discussion. 2.3.1.1 Apologists and Logos Christology The goal of apologists was to safeguard the unity of God. With the help of Philo, they looked at “Christ as Father’s thought expressed in creation and revelation.”58 But Christ was not 54 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 17. Blackburn, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, 152. 56 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 26. 57 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 7. 58 Letham, The Holy Trinity, 89. 55 13 given a personal identity. The idea of source and derivation from the source lies underneath the Logos theology. Kärkkäinen thinks that Logos theology’s liability is “subordinationism: that which is derived from the “source” (Son from the Father) is lower than the source.”59 Ebionism came with a strong subordinationist motive. The Gospel of Ebionites starts from the time of Jesus’ baptism. They believed, based on Psalm 2:7 and baptism narratives of the gospels “that the divine sonship of Jesus begins precisely” from his day of baptism.60 2.3.1.2 Irenaeus As it is seen, Gnostic thinking tended to keep anything connected to the material world as a lesser being. So, they applied the same with incarnated Christ. Irenaeus, against Gnostics, identifies Jesus who lived and died with Christ, the Son of God. With the help of Isaiah 53:8, Irenaeus establishes that the relation between the Father and the Son is of generation. He also points out the ineffability of the generation. He says that the Son and the Spirit are two hands of God (the Father): “Now God shall be glorified in His handiwork, fitting it to be conformable to, and modelled after, His own Son. For by the hands of the Father, that is, by the Son and the Holy Spirit.”61 It establishes that the Son and the Spirit are with the Father eternally. On the other hand, it also can be read as a seeming subordination of the Son and the Spirit to the Father as they are portrayed as mere agents of the Father in the creation.62 The Father is still considered the Godhead63 and the Son and the Spirit were looked at as agents of creation. Nevertheless, by seeing the hands of God as something that is with God eternally, causal subordination is maintained, and subordination of being avoided. 2.3.1.3 Tertullian Tertullian developed his trinitarian theology in responding Praxis.64 He introduced terminologies Trinitas and persona and avoiding modalism “by demonstrating the real personal distinctions in the Trinity.”65 He says, “For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: My Father is 59 Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Christian Understandings of the Trinity: The Historical Trajectory (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2017), 28. 60 Dunzl, A Brief History of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Early Church, 7–8. 61 Against Heresies 5.6.1. The Church Fathers: The Complete Ante-Nicene & Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers Collection, ed. Philip Schaff (London: Catholic Way Publishing, 2014), Kindle. (Here onwards Nicene Collection) 62 Letham, The Holy Trinity, 94. 63 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 105–6. 64 It is not clear whether he was a real person. 65 Letham, The Holy Trinity, 101. 14 greater than I.”66 For Tertullian Trinity is “flowing down from the Father.”67 The Son is like river and the Father is like fountain. As fountain and river, the Father and the Son are indivisible.68 The first is the Father and second and third respectively to the Son and the Spirit.69 Tertullian sees the threeness of God, Father, Son and Spirit, in the economy of salvation. Though he admits that they are not three in status, being, substance, or power but they are three in gradation.70 Tertullian thinks that before the time of Creation, there was reason with the Father and in the time of Creation, the Father created the world by sending the reason as Word.71 For Letham “this sounds, and probably is, subordinationist”72 as the Word gets the person status only from the Creation. However, for Tertullian, according to Letham, these all happen in the Godhead concerning origin where there is no inferiority in status or being of the persons.73 For him, the difference of persons is the distinction or distribution and not division or separation. This helps to keep the “articulated ordering” and the unity of the divine persons.74 2.3.1.4 Origen As Tertullian was to the West, Origen was the Logos theologian for the East.75 Against the trait of Logos theologian, he was more concerned with the distinction of the persons than the unity in God – which was the trait of Monarchians.76 Theologians who deal with the distinction of persons, as most Logos theologians do, tend to subordinate one or more persons of the Trinity. McGrath notes, “Origen insists that the Logos must be regarded as subordinate to the Father. Although both the Logos and the Father are co-eternal, the Logos is subordinate to the Father.”77 For this, he “is frequently labelled as subordinationist.”78 66 Against Praxeas 9. Nicene Collection. Against Praxeas 8. 68 Against Praxeas 8. Nicene Collection. 69 Against Praxeas 7-8. 70 Dunzl, A Brief History of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Early Church, 32. 71 Tertullian, Praxeas 5. Nicene Collection. 72 Letham, The Holy Trinity, 99. 73 Letham, The Holy Trinity, 101. 74 Dunzl, A Brief History of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Early Church, 33. 75 Dunzl, A Brief History of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Early Church, 35. 76 Dunzl, A Brief History of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Early Church, 35. 77 Alister E. McGrath, Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1998), 47. 78 Letham, The Holy Trinity, 105. 67 15 Origen in his Commentary on the Gospel of John notes s that the Father with ho theos (with definite article) and Son with theos (without an article). So, the Father is “autotheos, very God, God in the proper sense” … and that makes Son as “deuteros theos (a second or secondary God).”79 Origen notes that the Son is the Father’s agent and generated being, so he says that we should not pray to any generated being even to Christ.80 The Son is not true God, but the image of the true God.81 Here the subordinationist tendency is obvious. Because, based on Neo-Platonism and major philosophical schools, the image or a copy is less than of the original it stands for.82 Origen’s doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son by the Father is most noteworthy. Unlike other Logos theologians, he did not see any starting point in the time for Logos. Origen looks at begetting as eternal and everlasting and it cannot be an event in time. Because as long as the Father is so also the Son.83 Nevertheless, “God the Logos appears lesser by comparison with God the Father, subordinate to him.”84 2.3.2 Nicene Period: Homoousios and Subordination There was a tendency in the middle of the fourth-century to “entertain the notion of varying degrees of deity.”85 Here we can see the emergence of Neo-Nicene or Pro-Nicene who rescued the ontological equality of divine persons from subordinationist groups such as Arians and Eusebians. 2.3.2.1 Arianism and Other Subordinationists Novatian, a third-century theologian, says, “in receiving, then sanctification from the Father, He is inferior to the Father. Now, consequently, He who is inferior to the Father is not the Father, but the Son; for had He been the Father, He would have given, and not received, sanctification.”86 Yet the most radical subordinationist categories come from the schools of Monarchianism. In dynamic Monarchianism, the Father dynamically was present in Jesus that made Jesus not God but above other human beings. In modalistic Monarchianism or Sabellianism, the three persons Trinity are not distinct subsistence, but mere ‘mode’ or 79 Walter Kasper, The God of Jesus Christ (New York: Crossroad, 1984), 144–45. Origen, Contra Celsus, 5.39 as quoted by Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 132. 81 Origen, De. Eccl. Theo. 3.19. Nicene Collection. 82 Dunzl, A Brief History of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Early Church, 76. 83 Origen, Principles I 2.2, Nicene Collection. 84 Dunzl, A Brief History of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Early Church, 38. 85 Letham, The Holy Trinity, 126. 86 Concerning the Trinity 27, Nicene Collection. 80 16 ‘names’ or ‘manifestations’ of same God at different times. In both views, the Son is subordinated to the level of not being a deity. Eusebius says that the Son exists before all ages, and yet not co-eternal with the Father. the Father alone is αγεννητος, “the Father is prior to and pre-exits the Son.” 87 In line with Origen, Eusebius continues that there is a gulf of difference between the unoriginated – the Father and the originated – the Son. Kelly thinks that Eusebius followed Origen’s subordinationism88 as Origen conceived that the Son is not true God as God the Father is, but the image of true God.89 The most common name which is identified with subordinationism is Arius. Arianism denies Christ’s divine status and considers him as supreme among God’s creatures.90 The crux of Arianism is this: the “Supreme Being was God the Father, not the triune God. The Son, by contrast, was a being created by the will and power of the Father. Hence he was not ‘without beginning.’”91 Alexander of Alexandria writes about Arian that “these men who say that there was a time when the Son of God was not; and that He who was not before, came into existence afterwards…”92 Arius’s view can be summarized as follows: (1) God is solitary, the Father unique. (2) The Son had origin ex nihilo (out of nothing). There was a time when he did not exist. He was created, existing by the will of God. (3) God made a person (Word, Spirit, Son) when he wanted to create. In short, God created through an intermediary. (4) The Word has a changeable nature, and he remains good by exercising his free will only as long as he chooses. (5) The ousia (substances or beings) of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are divided and differ from one another. The Father is the Son’s origin and the Son’s God.93 87 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 226. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 226. 89 Origen, De Eccl theol. 2.23. Nicene Collection. 90 McGrath, Historical Theology, 450. 91 Sinclair B. Ferguson, David F. Wright, and James I. Packer, eds., New Dictionary of Theology (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2008), 42. 92 Alexander, Epistles on the Arian Heresy and the Deposition of Arius 1.2, Nicene Collection. 93 Letham, The Holy Trinity, 111–12. 88 17 Arius continued to see, given the three hypostases, the subordination of the Son and the Spirit in Matt. 28:18. For him, the sequence, Father – Son – Spirit is not random, but connotes that the “hypostasis of the Father has a higher rank and greater glory than that of the Son.”94 Gnostic ideas have permeated Arianism. Arians did not want a God who can suffer, which is very much connected with the material and cosmos and if God suffers (as Christ did) he cannot be a true being.95 On doing trinitarian theology or Logos Christology, both Origen and Arius have superficial similarities between them. But Arius moves further to the idea of ontological subordinationism. 2.3.2.2 The Creed of Nicaea and Homoousios From the Council of Nicaea, the theological debates on the relations between the Father and the Son took a new turn. Before Nicaea, the term Homoousios was not welcomed much, but after being used in Nicene Creed, it became an instant solution to the damage caused by Arius to the status of Christ and his relationship with the Father. It is Athanasius after Alexander of Alexandria who responded to the Arian charges against the status of Jesus with God the Father. By the council of Nicaea, we have more nuanced Logos theology that attempts Christology and trinitarian theology. The Nicene Creed reads about the nature of the Son as follows: We believe … in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, begotten as onlybegotten of the Father, that is of the substance (ousia) of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came into existence, both things in heaven and things on earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate and became man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and the dead:96 The major Arians’ claims were addressed here. Jesus is not just God but a ‘true God of true God.’ He was not made as Arius said, but he was “begotten.’ The major gain is, the Son is ‘consubstantial with the Father.’ That the Son is of the ‘same essence/substance’ of the Father. This broke all the Arian's subordinationist notions. 94 Dunzl, A Brief History of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Early Church, 76. Letham, The Holy Trinity, 113. 96 Letham, The Holy Trinity, 115–16. 95 18 2.3.2.3 Athanasius and beginning of Pro-Nicene Theology Athanasius’ contribution to the fourth-century debate concerning the relationship of the Son to the Father is of immanence important.97 Because, we learn about Arius’ and Arians’ teaching from the writing of Athanasius as he wanted to respond to Arius’ teaching on the deity relation of the Son to the Father. Letham notes, “Athanasius strenuously supports the Council of Nicaea and defends its use of homoousios in this connection” and sees Athanasius summing up the nature of the Son: the divine essence (being) of the Word is united by nature to this own Father. Whatever is in the Father is in the Son. Since the Father is not a creature, neither is the Son. The will of the Father and the will of the Son are one since they are indivisible. The Son is an exact seal of the Father. The triad is one and indivisible, without degrees; there is no first, second, or third God.98 In his writings, Athanasius emphatically notes the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. He continues that the Son is not a creature to be subordinate, but he is (alone) of being of the Father and whatever the Father has, the Son has, thus, the Son is inseparable from the Father.99 Athanasius develops the idea of the consubstantiality of the Son to the Father in connection with the idea of eternal generation. Since the Son is eternally begotten, there is no beginning of the Son. He sees the importance of analogical language to talk about God. The eternal generation of the Son should not be understood in human terms as it is ineffable and eternal. Since the generation of the Son is eternal, the Father being a father is eternal. Therefore, the Father and the Son relationship is eternal. Here Athanasius was very careful to avoid the sense of subordination of the Son to the Father. He reasons that though there seems to be a derivative subordinationist notion in an eternal generation, in reality, that is not the case. It is like water from the well to the river, though the well and the river are two objects, the water is the same. So, he does not see subordination but a distinction of persons and indivisible essence.100 Athanasius’s concept of the Son as holos theou helps him to be clear about his thoughts on the relation between the Father and the Son. This also establishes the Son equal to the Father 97 Letham, The Holy Trinity, 133. Letham, The Holy Trinity, 134. 99 Athanasius, Serapon 2.5 as quoted by Letham, The Holy Trinity, 134). 100 Athanasius, Statement of Faith 2. Nicene Collection. 98 19 against Arians’ notion that the Son is a secondary God or subordinated. Athanasius notes, “And this is what is said, 'Who being in the form of God [Philippians 2: 6],' and 'the Father in Me.' Nor is this form of the Godhead partial merely, but the fullness of the Father's Godhead is the Being of the Son, and the Son is whole God.”101 All that the Father is the Son is except being the Father. This takes away the subordinationist notion that the Son is a part of God or less than the Father.102 Athanasius succeeds to avoid subordination in his notion of indivisible persons.103 Athanasius insisted on the indivisibleness of the persons (Father, Son, and Spirit). About the monad and triad of God, he writes, “'Thus then we extend the Monad indivisibly into the Triad, and conversely gather together the Triad without diminution into the Monad.'”104 He continues that the persons are “united without confusion… distinguished without separation.”105 The modern theologians could see the traces of the doctrine of perichoresis/mutual indwelling/coinherent of the persons here. Athanasius developed it based on the Johannine sayings of Jesus about his relationship with the Father. On the one hand, he sees the Father as the arche of the Son and the Father as the fountain from where the river flows; on the other hand, he also sees the mutual indwelling of the Son in the Father and the Father in the Son, he was able to say that the Son and the Spirit are associated with the origin. If Athanasius had meant what Letham says he had, then, it becomes a challenge to Cappadocian fathers (except Gregory of Nazianzus) who believed in the monarchy of the Father. Even in Athanasius’ ‘principle of relationality’ – as the Father cannot be the Father without the Son, thus, the Son is always with the Father, still liable of subordination as the Father obviously have more than the Son.106 We will direct our discussion there in the later part of this chapter. 2.3.2.4 The Semi-Arians or the Anti-Nicene Through and after the council of Nicaea and because of Emperor Constantine’s influence, the theological controversies around the nature of the Son and his relation with God and the controversies around the subordination of the Son to the Father came to a halt for some time.107 Between the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople, semi-Arians brought back the 101 Athanasius, Dialogue Against the Arians, 3.6. Nicene Collection. Letham, The Holy Trinity, 138. 103 Letham, The Holy Trinity, 139. 104 Athanasius, Defence of Dionysius 17, The Complete Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene Collection of Early Church Fathers, Kindle. 105 Athanasius, On Luke 10:22, Nicene Collection. 106 Kärkkäinen, Christian Understanding of Trinity, 39. 107 Dunzl, A Brief History of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Early Church, 59. 102 20 Arian teachings. In what follows, a few Semi-Arian perspectives will be dealt with along with the Cappadocian Father’s response to them. The First group of Semi-Arian is Miahypostatic theologians. Marcellus of Ancyra and others stood for the idea “God is one hypostasis in one ousia” and for the conviction “any idea of subordination of the Son to the Father”108 should be avoided. The three are names only. This view fails to recognize the distinction between the persons and falls under Sabellianism. The second group of Semi-Arian is Homoiousians. “According to the Homoiousians, the Son is like the Father, with divinity and personal distinction.”109 Homoiousianism rejects the ‘unscriptural’ term ‘homoousion’. Therefore “Cyril [of Jerusalem] taught that He was ‘like the Father in all things’, sharing His divinity, but as a distinct hypostasis from all eternity.”110 Since Son is of another ousia, though similar to of the Father, the Father and the Son are not to be thought identical.111 In this view, the subordination is stressed in the idea that there is one ultimate principle (arche), but there are three persons.112 With political support, this view dominated in the middle of the fourth century. The third group of Semi-Arian is Homoian Arians. Homoian Arians taught that Christ is simply like Father in power or activity. They looked at the differences between the Father and the Son as much as they looked for ‘likeness.’ Because of the ideas such as Jesus’ limitations, his worship to the Father, his creation (generation) not out of the Father’s nature but out of the Father’s will make him subordinate to the Father. As the Spirit worships the Son, the Spirit is subordinate to the Son. They considered the Father as supreme and incomparable. Being biblists, they questioned the credibility of the concepts homoousios and ousia as both the terms were not found in the Bible.113 2.3.3 Cappadocian Fathers and Pro-Nicene Trinitarian Theology The Cappadocian Fathers “played a pivotal role in establishing the full divinity of the Holy Spirit”114 and furthering the understanding of the nature of the Father. They are the voice of the East. They, on the one hand, denied the ontological subordination among the divine persons, and on the other hand, developed the idea ‘priority/pre-eminence/monarchy of the 108 Letham, The Holy Trinity, 122. Letham, The Holy Trinity, 124. 110 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 249–50. 111 Kelly, Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 250. 112 Letham, The Holy Trinity, 125. 113 Letham, The Holy Trinity, 125–26. 114 McGrath, Historical Theology, 65. 109 21 Father.’ Because the Father is seen as the fountainhead of the Trinity, as the ‘Fatherhood’ precedes the ‘Sonship’ and the Spirit proceeds from the Father.115 2.3.3.1 The Defense of Homoousios and Equality of Persons Against Eunomians The idea ‘One ousia, three hypostases’ became ‘Cappadocian settlement.’ For them the works of Trinity are indivisible as one person’s work is participated by the other two. Nevertheless, the origination of every work belongs to the Father, He proceeds it through the Son and the Spirit perfects it.116 Basil of Caesarea, along with other Cappadocian fathers, challenged Anomoeans in Against Eunomius. Anomoeanism was a heresy that portraited the Son ontologically inferior to the Father. It re-presented the ‘fundamental Christian dogma’ in “Neo-Platonic metaphysical categories of three hierarchical ordered, mutually exclusive ousiai.”117 For Anomoeans, the Son is unlike the Father. Eunomians thought that “the Son, who is generated, differs from the Father in both hypostasis and substance. He is inferior and is not from eternity.”118 Eunomians’ use of Platonic philosophy and gnostic ideas are worth considering. In line with Arius, they reasoned that a being associated with generation cannot be a supreme being. Therefore, the Son who was begotten by the Father is unlike the Father. As creation has a beginning, the same way generation also has a beginning. The Son is neither homoousios nor homoiousios with the Father, but as a creature, he is subordinate to the Father who is different in essence and unbegotten. Basil was the first one to differentiate hypostasis from the ousia that he used hypostasis to say that God is three.119 He continued Athanasius’ idea of the inseparableness of the Son and the Spirit from the Father. Through this, he maintained the consubstantiality of Godhead and avoided subordinationist tendencies. Whereas Eunomians said the supreme ousia is ‘ingenerate,’ and the Father generates second ousia/Son and he is unlike the ‘ingenerate’ ousia. The second ousia brought in the third ousia/Spirit and because of his creating action, he is relatively divine.120 Because of the origin of their subsistence, the Spirit is subordinate to the Son and the Son to the Father. Cappadocians thought that the plurality of the deities does not make one to ‘under number’ the Son and the Holy Spirit, they are to be numbered 115 McGrath, Historical Theology, 66. Letham, The Holy Trinity, 157. 117 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 249. 118 Letham, The Holy Trinity, 123. 119 Basil of Caesarea, On the Holy Spirit, 1.3-4. Nicene Collection. 120 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 249. 116 22 with the Father. In On the Holy Spirit Basil notes that the Son and the Spirit cannot be counted second to the Father.121 Gregory of Nyssa differentiates hypostasis from ousia and the relation of hypostases is that they – “the three are distinct but inseparable in equality, unity and indissoluble communion.”122 Since the three are inseparable, their works are inseparable as well. They are “eternally distinct, but mutually indwelling.”123 Gregory of Nazianzus sees the Father as ‘being ingenerate’ which “conveys the idea of “not being begotten” or “not deriving from any other source.”124 2.3.3.2 Monarchy of the Father Cappadocian Fathers’ idea of the monarchy of the Father is predominantly used in the ES debate. Though they see causal subordination, they speak loudly that that subordination is not the ontological one but of relational one. Basil does not see any ontological subordination in giving the Father the place of ‘source’ and the notion ‘ultimate principle.’ Gregory of Nyssa, stresses “the oneness of the Son with the Father. It is preferable, he argues, to speak in a term such as “Father,” rather than in terms like “Ingenerate.”125 Because the term ‘Son’ gives more identity of being with the Father than the term ‘generate.’126 By generation of the Son, the divine nature is not divided, as it happens in materialistic understanding. So, the notion ‘generation’ does not make the Son lesser or subordinate deity to the Father. Gregory divides the passages of the Son into two: ones that talk about the eternal Son – the only begotten, and ones that talk about the Son as the firstborn of all creation – the Incarnation.127 Gregory of Nyssa looks at the Father as the first cause and fountainhead but balances it with the idea of mutual indwelling of three and avoids subordination among the three and preserves the unity of God. The idea the Father is the cause does not refer to the essence of God but shows the difference in the manner of existence.128 He looks at the Father as the fountain of power and the Son as the power of the Father. The ‘clear order’ does not make any one of the three superior or inferior to the other two.129 He emphasizes the phrases that 121 Basil of Caesarea, On the Holy Spirit, 17.43. Nicene Collection. Letham, The Holy Trinity, 154. 123 Letham, The Holy Trinity, 155. 124 McGrath, Historical Theology, 67. 125 Letham, The Holy Trinity, 153. 126 Letham, The Holy Trinity, 153. 127 Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomians 2.8,10. Nicene Collection. 128 Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: Second Series (Buffalo: Christian Literature Company, 1904), 333–36. 129 Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius 1.34-36, 42; 2.2. Nicene Collection. 122 23 are common to Nicene and Constantinople creed ‘light from light’ and ‘true God from true God,’ says that they establish the idea that the Son is all that the Father is except being that the Father.130 Here he advocates “to the personal distinctions of the three and to identity of being.”131 On the other hand, Gregory Nazianzus suggests that the idea Father as the source of the divine essence, in one sense, subordinates the Son and the Spirit. Thus, he maintains that the monarchy is not limited to one person.132 Gregory balances the ideas of ‘monarchy of all’ and ‘generation’ of the Son and ‘emission' of the Spirit from the Father by saying that the essence of God is not divided into three as hypostases have a distinction.133 He suggests there is no subordination in the idea of hypostases’ relational natures such as generation and emission. Because the distinction of the Father and the Son is ‘outside the essence.’ According to Gregory, the generation and procession are the properties of hypostases and not of the essence. Moreover, he suggests that the effect of the eternal cause is eternal. “Therefore, in respect of Cause They are not unoriginate; but it is evident that the Cause is not necessarily prior to its effects, for the sun is not prior to its light. And yet They are in some sense unoriginate, in respect of time.”134 Zizioulas thinks that Cappadocian fathers have brought better clarity to the problem of modalism, tritheism and subordinationism of the 4th century Trinitarian debates by keeping the Father as the source of the divine essence. Moreover, Cappadocian fathers’ idea of ‘ontology of personhood’ brought a balance to one nature and three persons.135 The Cappadocians idea, according to Zizioulas that “[t]he being and life of God does not consist in the one substance of God… but in the hypostasis, that is, the person of the Father. The One God is not the one substance but the Father, who is the "cause" both of the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit.”136 130 Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius 3.4. Nicene Collection. Letham, The Holy Trinity, 156. 132 Gregory Nazianzen, Orations 29.2, Kindle. 133 Gregory Nazianzen, Orations 29.2, Kindle. 134 Gregory Nazianzen, Orations 29.III, Kindle. 135 John D. Zizioulas, “The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity: The Significance of the Cappadocian Contribution,” in Trinitarian Theology Today: Essays on Divine Being and Act, ed. Christoph Schwöbel (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1995), 44-60. 136 John D. Zizioulas, Being in Communion (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's, 1993), pp. 40—41. 131 24 Few do not agree with his interpretation of Cappadocians and Zizioulas’ emphasis on the monarchy of the Father as it makes the Son and the Spirit subordinate to the Father.137 Meyendorff, an eastern voice, suggests that the monarchy of the Father is to be maintained. For him, this subordinationism is biblical and orthodox. He says, “By accepting Nicaea, the Cappadocian Fathers eliminated the ontological subordinationism of Origen and Arius, but they preserved indeed, together with their understanding of hypostatic life, a Biblical and Orthodox subordinationism, maintaining the personal identity of the Father as the ultimate origin of all divine being and action”138 Letham observes it well that Nazianzus “by placing the properties in the realm of the relations of persons,” removes all connotations of ontological subordination.139 The greatness of the Father is not in nature/being/hypostasis of the Father but in the origination of the three. Gregory says, I should like to call the Father the greater, because from him flows both the Equality and the Being of the Equals (this will be granted on all hands), but I am afraid to use the word Origin, lest I should make Him the Origin of Inferiors, and thus insult Him by precedencies of honour… For in the Consubstantial Persons there is nothing greater or less in point of Substance.140 The Eastern theologian Vladimir Lossky, like Basil and Gregory of Nyssa, retains the monarchy of the Father and notes that it does not make the Father superior to the Son ontologically: The Father is called the cause of the Persons of the Son and the Holy Spirit… This unique cause is not prior to his effects… He is not superior to his effects… We have to confess not only the unity of the One Nature in the Three, but also the unity of the Three Persons of the one identical nature. By defending the Personal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone, Orthodoxy makes a profession of faith in the "Simple Trinity," wherein the 137 Stanley J. Grenz, Rediscovering the Triune God: The Trinity in Contemporary Theology (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2004), 143–45. 138 John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes (New York: Fordham University Press, 1983), 183. 139 Letham, The Holy Trinity, 160. 140 Gregory Nazianzen, Orations 40.XLIII, Nicene Collection. 25 relations of origin denote the absolute diversity of the Three, while also indicating their unity.141 2.3.3.3 Subordination Notions in Credal Texts Hilary responded to Arian influence in the west. Hilary and Athanasius recorded the credal statements produced by councils that set the stage for the council at Constantinople. They contain very clear subordination notions. Athanasius in De Synodis records the Macrostich creed proposed by Eastern bishops.142 The anathema is on those who say, “Christ is not God.”143 The commentary for the fourth anathema notes, “For we acknowledge, that though He be subordinate to His Father and God, yet, being before ages begotten of God, He is God perfect according to nature and true, and not the first man and then God, but first God and then becoming man for us, and never having been deprived of being.”144 The theological affirmations that are seen through the creedal statement, anathemas and the commentaries are the forerunner of the Nicene Trinitarian theology. In De Synodis Athanasius further notes a council took place at Sirmium which was directed against Photinus.145 The 18th anathema reads: Whosoever, hearing that the Father is Lord and the Son Lord and the Father and Son Lord, for there is Lord from Lord, says there are two Gods, be he anathema. For we do not place the Son in the Father’s Order, but as subordinate to the Father; for He did not descend upon Sodom without the Father’s will, nor did He rain from Himself, but from the Lord, that is, the Father authorising it. Nor is He of Himself set down on the right hand, but He hears the Father saying, Sit Thou on My right hand’ (Ps. cx. 1).146 141 Vladimir Lossky, "The Procession of the Holy Spirit in the Orthodox Triadology," The Eastern Churches Quarterly 7 (1948): 45. 142 Michael J. Ovey, “True Sonship – Where Dignity and Submission Meet,” in One God in Three Persons: Unity of Essence, Distinction of Persons, Implications for Life (Crossway, 2015), 135. 143 Ovey, “True Sonship,” 135. 144 Athanasius, De Synodis 26, Nicene Collection. 145 Athanasius, De Synodis 26, The Complete Ante-Nicene & Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers Collection, (p. 31127). 146 Athanasius, De Synodis 26, Nicene Collection. 26 The ES camp will use these texts to concrete their theological point and the opponents will say that these texts were directed to address Arian doctrine.147 Both orthodoxy and Arian view upheld the unity of God, nevertheless, the Arian camp emphatical on the ideas of Son’s createdness and his inferiority in being to the Father. Athanasius further developed the doctrine of the eternal generation following Origen and constantly defended the Son’s deity and upheld the unity of God against Arian thought which made the Son as created being, best of all creation yet ontologically inferior to the Father. The above-quoted texts seem, on one hand, to defend the unity of God and the deity of the Son. On the other hand, in showing the distinction between the Father and the Son, they subordinate the Son to the Father in relation. Hilary maintains distinction among the divine persons, divinity of Christ and oneness of God: One is not superior to the other on account of the kind of His substance, but one is subject to the other because born of the other. The Father is greater because He is Father, the Son is not the less because He is Son. The difference is one of the meaning of a name and not of a nature.148 Now Hilary comments on this that the subordination of the Son that comes from filial love does not lessen the essence, does not make the Son inferior or creation. He is still God of God. “But the subordination of filial love is not a diminution of the essence, nor does pious duty cause a degeneration of nature.”149 2.3.4 Post-Nicene Period As a result of councils at Nicaea and Constantinople, the consensus to which church fathers arrived was that the Father and the Son are of the same or one substance.150 As Kasper notes they “determined that God is from eternity the Father of a Son who is of the same substance as himself.”151 They believed that among the Godhead the Father is the source, origin (the Greeks) and ‘principle’ (the Latins) and the work of the creation and salvation is the function of the entire Trinity.152 We can know the invisible Father only through the Son, the Son who incarnated. Millard J. Erickson, Who’s Tampering with the Trinity? 147-153; Michael J. Ovey, “True Sonship,” 127-154. However, Erickson thinks that Athanasius was not clear on whether he defends ‘subordination’ only in Christ’s incarnation. 148 Hilary, De Synodis 64, Nicene Collection. 149 Hilary, De Synodis 51, Nicene Collection. 150 Kasper, The God of Jesus Christ, 146. 151 Kasper, The God of Jesus Christ, 146. 152 Kasper, The God of Jesus Christ, 146. 147 27 2.4 Assessment The doctrine of the Trinity is not much changed since the Nicene-Constantinopolitan settlement.153 Throughout the patristic period, we could witness the proposition to be true. Based on the survey on the idea of subordinationism in Christological and Trinitarian theological discussions of the patristic era, the following assessments may be made. 2.4.1 Orthodox and Ontological Subordinationism Subordination, in one way or another, is acknowledged by different schools of Trinitarian theologians. All believe in the economic subordination of the Son in the incarnation. Opponents of ES think that apart from economic subordination all other forms of subordination have to be rejected because they either are connected with ontological subordination154 or will lead to ontological subordination.155 It is noticed that theologians, both pre and post-Nicene, when on the one hand upheld the equality of being of the divine persons and rejected the ontological subordination of Arius, on the other hand, used subordinationist terms to explore the relations between the three subsistence of Godhead. Few later theologians would call it ‘orthodox’ or ‘moderate’ subordinationism. Arius's version is real subordinationism. One of the major challenges to patristic theologians was the question of how to negotiate the ideas of traditional belief of ‘monotheism’ and the gradual formation of the idea of ‘deity of Son and Spirit.’ The idea of subordinationism was considered as a solution to the problem of ‘tritheism’ and ‘modalism.’156 We need to keep in mind that the deity of the Son of God was not taken as ‘given’ in patristic theology as it is in Scripture. Rather, only after a long journey of debate and contemplation, Son’s deity was accepted in theology. When it is looked at from the present, most of the subordination tendencies found in early church fathers’ writings are not ontological subordination, but rather a result of the attempts of the fathers to keep/maintain monotheism and Christology intact. Till the time the Trinitarian debate of the patristic period reaches its culmination (at least to a tentative/final form), early church fathers before the Cappadocian fathers had the intention to be faithful to the oneness of God and deity of the Son. 153 Stephen R. Holmes, Quest for the Trinity: The Doctrine of God in Scripture, History and Modernity (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2012), XV. 154 Giles, The Trinity & Subordinationism, 60-85. 155 R. T. Mullins, “Trinity, Subordination, and Heresy: A Reply to Mark Edwards,” An International Journal for Philosophy of Religion and Philosophical Theology (Published Online First: February 10, 2020), https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v4i2.52323. 156 Kärkkäinen, Christian Understandings of the Trinity, 33. 28 It is obvious to see subordinationist tendencies in early theologians' thoughts concerning nature. The motive behind them was not to show the Son is somehow ontologically inferior to the Father but to show the ‘continuity of nature’ in the Father/Son relationship.157 2.4.2 Augustine and the Subordination Debate Though we will study Augustine fully in the following chapters, we will briefly note some of his contributions to the debate. Augustine looks at the “Father [as] the source (principium) of the entire Godhead.”158 McGrath thinks that Augustine rejects subordinationism and emphasizes the eternal equality of all three persons in the Trinity. He continues that for Augustine, “Although the Son and Spirit may appear to be posterior to the Father, this judgment only applies to their role within the process of salvation.”159 The concept of the procession of the Spirit both from the Father and the Son is unique to Augustine. However, he also says, “God the Father is the one from whom the Word is born, and from whom the Spirit principally proceeds.”160 2.5 Conclusion One of the main outcomes of this chapter is the realization that core issues in the Subordination of the Son are different in the Early Church and the contemporary evangelical debate. For the Early Church, it revolved around the whole issue of the Son’s nature – whether Jesus was divine, and his relation with God the Father – whether they are identical, is there a distinction, etc. On the other hand, in the contemporary context, that is not the issue as none of the theologians from both the camps of the debate believe in the ontological subordination of the Son to the Father. Therefore, the present debate is all about authority and submission among the eternal and ontologically equal divine person of Trinity. On the other hand, we cannot deny the plurality of voice on how the subordinationist terms are used both in Nicene orthodoxy and anti-Nicene theology. Moreover, in the contemporary context, the epistemological foundations are also different from that of the Early Church. Contemporary theologians of the debate of ‘eternal subordination of the Son’ appeal to Augustine. Augustine is a Western theologian. Thus, it is imperative to discuss the thought world of Augustine and the epistemological basis and shifts in his thought. That is the task of the following chapter. 157 Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy, 236. Kasper, The God of Jesus Christ, 146. 159 McGrath, Historical Theology, 67. 160 McGrath, Historical Theology, 71. 158 29 3 3.1 AUGUSTINE’S DOCTRINE OF TRINITY AND SUBORDINATION Introduction In the previous chapter, it is noted that there were subordinationist tendencies in the writings of ante-Nicene and Nicene theologians. However, those discussions took place with the concern to uphold the deity of Jesus Christ and monotheism together. Origen and Arian’s ontological subordination of the Son was countered by Athanasius with Nicene orthodoxy. 30 Chronologically and theologically, it is the right time to bring Augustine’s trinitarianism into the discussion. Augustine’s doctrine of the Trinity is very influential in the Western church. As Athanasius and Cappadocian Fathers were to the Eastern/Greek Church, it was Augustine, along with Hilary and Ambrose, to the Western/Latin Church for the cause of Nicene orthodoxy and Nicene trinitarian theology. Augustine’s De Trinitate is his major work, but not the only or final work on the Trinity. However, the scope of this chapter is to look at Augustine’s doctrine of Trinity concerning subordination. Thus, this chapter looks at Augustine’s framework concerning subordination. By the nature of the historical study, this chapter does not look at Augustine’s trinitarianism in the contemporary context, rather it attempts to see it in Augustine’s own theological and ecclesiological context. Before that, mentioning his background is due here. 3.2 Augustine and his world 3.2.1 Biographical Sketch Augustine was born on 13th November, 354 at Thagaste. He had his schooling at Thagaste and Madaura. In 370, he moved to Carthage for higher studies. There he took a concubine. In 372, his son Adeodatus was born. Augustine became a Manichee and continued teaching rhetoric at Carthage. In 380 he moved to Rome and taught there and became an official orator in Milan in 384. There he read Platonic books and Paul’s epistles. He converted to Christianity in 386 and retired to Cassiciacum. In 387, Augustine was baptized in Milan and he returned to Africa and established a monastery at Thagaste. In 391, Augustine was ordained as a priest and in 395 became coadjutor bishop and in 396 became the bishop of Hippo. Till 426 he continued the work and named Heraclius to succeed him as bishop. In 429, Vandals entered Africa and sieged Hippo and Augustine died in 430.161 3.2.2 Philosophical and Theological Influences Augustine adopts and adapts Greek philosophical categories to communicate the Christian doctrine and to critique Platonism.162 Augustine noted that Christianity was one step away from Platonism (at least at the time of conversion and initial period) and then he extensively used Neoplatonism wherever he found it useful and he critiqued it when it did not correspond to Scripture. Chadwick notes that Augustine “was the most acute of Christian Platonists” and 161 Mary T. Clark, Augustine (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1996), x–xi. Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo: A Biography (London: Father and Father, 1967). Gerald Boner, St. Augustine of Hippo: Life and Controversies (Norwich: Canterbury Press, 1986). 162 Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy, 364-383. 31 did much to lay the foundations for the synthesis between Christianity and classical theism stemming from Plato and Aristotle and Plotinus”163 In the West, the Greek thoughts were introduced through Cicero’s writings in Latin. Because of this influence, Victorinus, Hilary and Ambrose had already articulated Christian convictions in Neoplatonic categories. Augustine had learned the Nicene tradition from the Latin pro-Nicene theologians such as Tertullian, Novatian, Hilary, and Victorinus. 164 Augustine must have read Greek theologians as well. Hill says, “it seems certain that Augustine had read the relevant writings of Gregory Nazianzen and Didymus the Blind, possibly also of Basil the Great and Epiphanius of Salamis.”165 Augustine may not have geographically and historically witnessed what happened in the East, yet his stay in Rome and Milan positioned him well to know the Greek philosophical and theological thoughts.166 Rowan Williams thinks Augustine’s contact with Homoian Arians in Millan is the trigger to his Trinitarian thinking.167 Plotinus and Porphyry were great influence both in the West and the East as they wrote in Greek from Rome. Their works were translated, along with Aristotle’s work, by Victorinus in Latin. Besides this, Cicero brought Plato’s in Latin. This became Augustine’s philosophical context.168 3.2.3 Augustine and Nicene Trinitarianism Letham and Ayres rightly observe that Augustinian Trinity is pro-Nicene169 and corresponds to the Cappadocian settlement.170 Augustine wrote On the Trinity in response to anti-Nicene arguments, particularly the Homoeans. One of the objectives of Augustine, Clark notes, is that he “wished to demonstrate to critics of the Nicene creed that the divinity and co-equality of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are rooted in scripture.”171 163 Henry Chadwick, Augustine: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 4. The Latin theology that aligns with pro-Nicene theology. 165 Augustine, The Trinity, trans. Edmund Hill, (New York: New City Press, 1991). Kindle Edition. Here after, whenever Augustine’s writings are quoted from Hill’s translation it will be cited as “DT. 1.1” = “De Trinitate Book 1. Verse 1.” 166 Letham, The Holy Trinity, 184. 167 Rowan Williams, On Augustine (Oxford: Bloomsbury, 2016), 845. 168 Chadwick, Augustine, 97. 169 This study adopts Ayres’ definition of pro-Nicene theology. It is “1. A clear version of the person and nature distinction, entailing the principle that whatever is predicated of the divine nature is predicated of the three persons equally and understood to be one (this distinction may or may not be articulated via a consistent technical terminology); 2. Clear expression that the eternal generation of the Son occurs within the unitary and incomprehensible divine being; 3. Clear expression of the doctrine that the persons work inseparably.” Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy, 236. 170 Letham, The Holy Trinity, 186. 171 Mary T. Clark, “De Trintate,” in The Cambridge Companion to Augustine, ed. Eleonore Stump and Norman kretzmann (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 91. 164 32 Ayres thinks Augustine’s trinitarian thinking is “one of the clearest examples of the fundamentally pro-Nicene Trinitarianism.”172 Augustine’s idea of the inseparable action of the divine person is the echo of Nicene’s consubstantiation. This, Ayres argues, is also the Latin pro-Nicene trinitarianism that Hilary and Ambrose conceived and advanced.173 Augustine’s argument “that the generation of the Word by the Father does not imply subordination because the generation and its product are subject to the rules of God’s immaterial and ineffable nature” is pro-Nicene and Augustine employed the same argument for pneumatology as well.174 Augustine’s Trinity in a nutshell echoes Nicene trinitarian tradition: the Father is God and the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God; that there are not three Gods, but that the Trinity is One God; that the persons are not diverse in nature but are of the same substance…; that the Father is always the Father and the son always the Son and the Holy Spirit always the Holy Spirit… [we must believe] that Trinity is one God. Not the Father, Son and Spirit are identical… But Father is Father, the Son is Son and the Holy Spirit is Holy Spirit, and this Trinity is one God, as it is written ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God.175 Consubstantiality, the distinction of the persons, and the Monarchy of the Father that brings unity in Trinity are the main areas of Nicene trinitarian thought. Augustine may not have acknowledged the Nicene Creed in full length, but he did quote a few lines. He notes, “It was not however this same three (their teaching continues) that was born of the virgin Mary, crucified and buried under Pontius Pilate, rose again on the third day and ascended into heaven, but the Son alone.”176 3.2.4 East/Greek/Cappadocian Fathers Vs West/Latin/Augustine It is commonly said that the starting point for the Eastern model of Trinity, based on the Cappadocian fathers, is the threeness/divine persons and the starting point of the Western model of Trinity is, based on Augustine’s theology, the oneness of God/essence.177 This 172 Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy, 365. Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy, 369. 174 Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy, 372. 175 F. et symb 9.20 as quoted in Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy. 176 DT. 1.7 177 J. Zizioulas, “The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity: The Significance of the Cappadocian Contribution,” in C. Schwöbel, ed., Trinitarian Theology Today: Essays on Divine Being and Act (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1995), 46; C. M. LaCugna, God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991), 10, 214. 173 33 generalized way of reading is problematic in modern trinitarian theology. This reading gives a wrong impression that Augustine's doctrine of Trinity is a complete departure from proNicene and Greek trinitarian thought. Augustinian Trinitarian theologians178 see this as a misreading of Augustine and think the ‘de Regnon’s paradigm’179 is the main cause of it. This paradigm was started fourteen centuries after Augustine.180 Kristin Hennessy notes that not only is Augustine misread, but de Regnon also. She thinks that the crux of de Regnon was to laud Augustine’s trinitarian position as a better way to talk about Trinity. And de Regnon’s use of East/Greek and West/Latin does not stand for Cappadocian Fathers and Augustine’s trinitarian doctrines respectively. In de Regnon’s view, the view of Greek stands for the view of both Greek and Latin theologians of the 4th century and the view of Latin stands for the view of later Western scholastic theologians.181 This research takes the position that though Augustine’s trinitarian doctrine does not match with Cappadocian Father’ entirely, nevertheless, his trinitarian thought is as much pro-Nicene as that of the Cappadocian Fathers. 3.2.5 Augustine’s Theological Context It is vital to know who the original audience of Augustine were. Augustine defended the Nicene theology against many heretical groups. Arians of his day (mainly Eunomians), Manichaeans, Donatists, and Pelagians are notables. Though Augustine had different groups to address in his lifetime, his major works and thoughts on Trinity targeted the Arians of the fourth-century.182 Augustine’s doctrine of the Trinity was mainly developed in polemical and ecclesiastical contexts.183 It is seen by modern theologians that his later day texts contain mature trinitarian theology than earlier texts and De Trinitate is one among them.184 178 Ayres, Barnes, and Johnson. A reading that de Regnon said the Eastern church kept the divine persons and Western church kept the one essence/nature as the starting point of to talk about God. 180 Michel R. Barnes, “De Regnon Reconsidered,” Augustinian Studies 26 (1995): 51. 181 Kristin Hennessy, “An Answer to de Regnon’s Accusers: Why we should Not Speak of “His” Paradigm,” in Harvard Theological Review 100, 2007), 179-197. 182 Augustine’s anti-Arian writings are following: see Michel Barnes’ entries, “Debate with Maximinus An Arian bishop,” “Against Maximinus An Arian” and “Against Arian Sermon” in Augustine through the Ages, 3133, 549-550, 772-773. Ayres, Augustine and the Trinity, 143-144. 183 Augustine wrote for both Catholic and to non-Catholics. He also preached doctrinal sermons in his church and to fellow presbyters and bishops. 184 Lewis Ayres and Barnes are notables. 179 34 Augustine’s anti-Arian writings are most neglected in the study of Augustine’s trinitarianism.185 Michael Ovey says, Augustine “faced Arianism in its later phases, when its arguments had been developed and honed.”186 Augustine had to take the stand against latter Arians who used the idea of Son’s eternal subordination to establish the ontological inferiority of the Son and the idea that Son is different ousia from the Father, as the Father neither shares the eternal subordination nature with the Son nor the same ousia.187 Chadwick sees this to be the reason why Augustine wanted to write De Trinitate.188 3.3 Augustine and Subordination The main concern of Augustine’s debate with Arians is whether the Son is less in being, status, glory and power than the Father. Augustine’s answer to this question is negative. There were few theological locations in Nicene trinitarianism where the anti-Nicene theologians, particularly, in Augustine’s day, the Arians saw and made the Son to be less than the Father in being. The doctrine of eternal generation, Old Testament’s theophanies, and the sending of the Son with Jesus’ state of humiliation are vital ones concerning subordination. Augustine engages with these doctrines and navigates them towards Nicene trinitarian theology by five key elements of his doctrine of Trinity. They are, namely, the substance/relations categories, hermeneutic rules to read apparent subordinationists biblical texts, indivisible operation, irreversible order of (relations of origin and agency) and epistemic work of incarnation. First, the five elements of Augustine’s framework to handle the subordinationist thrust will be discussed. And then, it is demonstrated how Augustine applies the framework in three theological aspects, namely, eternal generation, Old Testament theophanies and sending of the Son. 3.3.1 Augustine’s Framework Concerning Subordinationism 3.3.1.1 Categories of Substance, Accidents and Relations in Trinity and Subordination The first element of Augustine’s framework to deal with the subordination of the Son is the categories of substance and relations. In Augustine’s day, Arians besides quoting the Son’s William A. Sumruld, Augustine and the Arians: The Bishop of Hippo’s Encounters with Ulfilan Arianism (Selinsgrove: Susquehanna University Press, 1994), 10, http://archive.org/details/augustineariansb0000sumr. 186 Michael J. Ovey, Your Will Be Done: Exploring Eternal Subordination, Divine Monarchy and Divine Humility (Latimer Trust, 2016), 70. 187 Ovey, Your Will Be Done, 70. 188 Chadwick, Augustine, 95. 185 35 subordinationist biblical passages contented that the Son’s state of being begotten begs for a change in his essence. Thus, he is less than the Father. Augustine in his Book 5 of De Trinitate, deals with the Arian allegation and Augustine notes their logic in DT. 5.4. Augustine applauds the Arian’s thought that there cannot be change or modification in the essence/substance of God. But he does not agree with their inference that the Son is a different substance from the Father and not equal to the Father in essence, as the Father’s nature is unbegotten and Son’s nature is begotten. Either the Father and the Son are of different substance or Father has an attribute that the Son does not have, and thus, he is inferior to the Father. This dilemma, Kelly thinks, comes from the Aristotelian scheme of categories: if the persons are accidents, then they are not equal – ontological subordination is the result; on the other hand, if the persons are substance – then there are three Gods. 189 Augustine says, Augustine identifies two ways by which Scripture talks about God, namely, things that are said about God’s substance and verses that talk about God relatively – about the persons and their relations with each other. 190 Augustine says, concerning unchangeability and accidents, that “not all things said of God are directly predicated of God’s substance,” but it has to be kept against John 10:30 where Jesus says, ‘I and the Father are one.’191 Therefore, what cannot fit under the talk of God substance-wise, should be understood relation-wise. Hence, the entire range of Scripture that speaks about the Son’s relationship with the Father through the eternal generation and the Son’s mission, should be considered relatively and not accidentally (DT. 5. 4-6, 9, 10, 12, 14-17). By this, Augustine established that the Son is not ontologically inferior to the Father as his opponents claimed, but coequal (in essence) with the Father. For Augustine, based on the ‘substance’ category, the apparent subordinationist notion in the doctrine of eternal generation and the Son being sent, does not allow the inference that the Son is inferior to the Father in being/essence. 189 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 275. DT. 5.6 191 Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy, 376. 190 36 3.3.1.2 Christ’s Subordination Texts and Augustine’s Trinitarian Hermeneutical Rules The second element of Augustine’s framework to deal with the subordination of the Son was his hermeneutical rules. Augustine did not agree with the Arian practice of quoting passages that show the Son less than the Father as proof texts for the Son’s inferiority in being.192 Augustine attempts to find a meaningful answer to the question “in what manner Son is less than the Father and (less) than himself.”193 In DT. Books 1 and 2, based on Phil. 2:5-11, Augustine demonstrates two hermeneutical rules to understand ‘the subordinationist passages.’ The first rule can be phrased as ‘form of God’ and ‘form of servant’ rule, and the second can be phrased as ‘from the Father’ rule. The first rule deals with the two groups of texts: a group of texts that talk about the Son as equal to the Father and the other group of texts seems to say that the Son is less than the Father. According to Augustine, the first group of texts shows the Son in the ‘form of God’ and the second group of texts shows the Son in his ‘form of servant.’ However, some texts do not fit into this classification or will be difficult to bring under one of these groups. These passages show the Son as neither equal nor less. Instead, they seem to emphasis the relationship between Father and the Son. According to Augustine’s second rule, these texts show that the Son is ‘from the Father.’194 Gioia reads Augustine that “these scriptural passages do not insinuate inferiority, nor subordination, but rather a ‘direction’, so to speak: the Son is equal to the Father and yet he is ‘from the Father,’ he is God, but God from the God.’ ”195 Thus, for Augustine, the Son is spoken of in three ways in Scripture: 1) Form of God – equal to the Father, 2) Form of the Servant – less than the Father, 3) as Son – Son is from the Father. Therefore, the Son is not less than the Father. But according to the ‘form of servant,’ he is less than himself. Augustine sums up, “that the Son is equal to the Father and that the Father is greater than the Son. The one is to be understood in virtue of the form of God, the other in virtue of the form of a servant, without any confusion.”196 192 1 Cor. 1:24; Lk. 18:19; Jn. 5:19, (in Tractate 23), 5: 30; 6:38; 14:28; 1 Cor. 15:28. From the heading of the verse DT. 1.14, “On the Holy Trinity.” Augustin: On the Holy Trinity, Doctrinal Treatises, Moral Treatises (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers). Ed. Philip Schaff. Trans. Arthur West Haddan Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995), 3:24. 194 Dealt under heading ‘Eternal Generation.’ 195 Luigi Gioia, The Theological Epistemology of Augustine’s De Trinitate (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 121. 196 DT. 1.14 193 37 3.3.1.3 Indivisible Operation The third element of Augustine’s framework to deal with the subordination of the Son is the doctrine of indivisible operation of the Trinity. By this doctrine, he can maintain the unity of God and the apparent different roles and works done by divine persons in creation and redemption. This helps Augustine to escape from hitting either of two extremes – making the ‘visible’ Son and Spirit as lesser gods since they are agents of the invisible Father in economic trinitarian activities or the ‘confused Trinity’ where every person does every trinitarian act without any activity predicated or appropriated to one of the persons. That will lead to ideas such as Patripassianism197 and cannot explain the biblical witnesses (Mt. 3:1317; Jn. 14:26; 15:26) where, all three persons are seen at a given time. For Augustine, the doctrine of indivisible operation is the foundational expression of divine unity.198 Kelly sees that Augustine emphasizes the oneness of the divine nature. Augustine’s conception of God as simple and indivisible becomes his background on which he expounds Trinitarian orthodoxy from the Scripture. Augustine makes divine nature as a starting point. And that divine nature is simple, immutable, and Trinity.199 The properties that belong to one nature should be called in the singular, e.g., increate, infinite; but not in the plural as increates, infinites. Trinity’s operation is inseparable as Trinity possesses a single will. Though, according to Augustine, every action is the action of one essence, in which all persons are involved in every particular action, yet, all the operations can be appropriated to one person. Augustine's doctrine of divine simplicity, consubstantiality, and appropriation are supporting pillars of the doctrine of indivisible operation. The doctrine of simplicity helps to explain the relations between the three persons and one substance. Ayres notes that the simplicity of God the Father is the simplicity of the Son. The Son is light from the light, essence from essence. He is not just a relation, but he is the essence and he is!200 For Augustine, the essence is not something as the fourth entity behind the persons, but the essence is Trinity.201 This stand from the ‘passion of the Father’ that tells that Father along with Jesus on the cross suffered and died. By way of extension, it would be understood that the Father was born through the virgin birth of Mary. For Augustine, this is superimposing the indivisible operation of Trinity. He sees that it was not the Father, but the Son who died on the cross. Though Augustine did not use this term, the idea certainly is present in his writings. 198 Barnes, “Rereading Augustin’s Theology of Trinity,” 154. 199 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 273. 200 Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy, 372–78. 201 Ep. 120, 3. As quoted by Ayres, Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy, 373. 197 38 It also becomes a solution for the ‘separate trinity’ where operations of persons seem to be separated as in the Son’s birth, death, and resurrection.202 Augustine constructs a formula that the inseparability should not be pushed “to the extent of contradicting creed” which will lead to Patripassianism.203 Nevertheless, about the birth and the suffering of the Son, Augustine thinks it can be said that the Father was born of Mary and suffered.204 Augustine’s idea of inseparable operations is delineated by ideas that will be called by future theologians as the doctrine of perichoresis and appropriation.205 Through these categories, Augustine’s trinitarian thought upholds, on the one hand, the divine simplicity, and on the other hand, maintains a relational distinction without falling into Arian subordinationism. In the same line with ‘divine simplicity,’ the idea of consubstantiality sheds more on the relations of the persons. Augustine says that the Son is of the same essence as the Father (DT. 1.9). That is the main theme behind the idea of the indivisibility of persons and their works. If any operation is identified in a way that there is no place for another person, it will make the other two persons of another substance. Thus, Augustine was careful to emphasize the consubstantiality of the persons. None is greater or less in being/essence just because of any particular activity as all operations are the inseparable operation of the Trinity. 3.3.1.4 Irreversible Order of Relations of Origin The fourth element of Augustin’s framework concerning the idea of subordination of the Son is the concept of irreversible order of relations of origin. The next section of this chapter will visit this idea in-depth. Augustine’s idea of the principium of the Father and his reading of the Son as ‘from the Father’ show that Augustine saw ad-intra as the ground for ad-extra.206 Augustine depicts the Father as the Principium and thus maintains the logical ordering of the persons while affirming the equality of the persons. Ayres writes, “There is indeed a certain order in the Trinity (like Michel and I would point to Augustine’s (DT 4) as an exemplary text in this regard): Son and Spirit reveal and lead us to the Father.”207 202 Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy, 373. Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy, 374. 204 DT. 1.7 205 Augustine had not used these terms, but he certainly used these ideas. 206 Johnson, “What would Augustine say,” 30. ad-extra notes the activities of Trinity in creation and redemption. This can be noted as economic Trinity. The term ad-intra notes intra-trinitarian actions. This can be noted as immanent Trinity. 207 Michael F. Bird, “Patristic Scholar Lewis Ayres Weighs in on the Intra Complementarian Debate,” in https://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/patristics-scholar-lewis-ayres-weighs-in-on-the-intracomplementarian-debate/ (accessed on 7-11-20). 203 39 In DT. 2.2 Augustine shows an irreversible order in Godhead and, in a sense, the priority of the Father: We do, after all, call the Son God from God, but the Father we simply call God, not from God. Thus it is clear that the Son has another from whom he is and whose Son he is, while the Father does not have a Son from whom he is, but only whose Father he is. Every son gets being what he is from his father, and is his father’s son; while no father gets being what he is from his son, though he is his son’s father.208 Thus, one cannot ignore the order and mutuality in the Trinity, and for Augustine, it does not make one person greater or less than the other in being as they have one substance. Holmes notes, “there is an order, a taxis,…showing begets seeing, not seeing showing; the Father begets the Son, not vice versa.”209 3.3.1.5 Epistemic Work of Incarnation The fifth element of Augustine’s framework concerning the idea of subordination of the Son is the epistemological value that incarnation carries. Augustine’s logic is this: if the Son is different from or of similar substance to the Father, then the Son has revealed nothing about the invisible God. Because, if the persons are fully different from what they are economic, then what we know about the persons through revelation is not true and trustworthy. The Son, in taking the form of a servant in the incarnation, did not stop to be in the form of God and “one was not turned and changed into the other”210 (DT. 1.14). According to Augustine, we know God through the missions of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Here Augustine anticipated Rahner’s rule: “Immanent Trinity is Economic Trinity and Economic Trinity is Immanent Trinity.”211 Augustine notes in DT. 4.29, And just as being born means for the Son his being from the Father, so his being sent means his being known to be from him. And just as for the Holy 208 DT. 2.2 Holmes, Quest for the Trinity, 134. 210 Ayres, Augustine and the Trinity, 146. 211 Karl Rahner, The Trinity (New York: Crossroad Pub, 1997), 22. 209 40 Spirit his being the gift of God means his proceeding from the Father, so his being sent means his being known to proceed from him.212 Claunch rightly notes that “The immanent Trinity is the ontological ground for the outworking of God’s purposes in the economy of redemption.”213 The Son is from the Father and therefore, he is sent by the Father: “The fact that he is “sent” makes known the fact that he is eternally “from” the Father.”214 However, Augustine sees a continuity between the Son’s eternal generation (ad-intra) and his mission in creation, redemption, and provision (ad-extra). Johnson rightly notes, “Augustine assumes that significant continuity exists between God’s inner life and God’s actions in creation and redemption.”215 3.3.2 Subordinationist Theological Aspects Having laid out the fundamental elements of Augustine’s framework concerning subordination of the Son, the research moves to apply them in some theological locations such us eternal generation, divine agency, and theophanies of the Old Testament in Augustine’s theology. 3.3.2.1 The Doctrine of the Eternal Generation As it is noted earlier, by showing the Father’s attribute of being unbegotten, Arian argued that the Father is God and has an attribute that the Son does not have. Thus, they inferred that Son is not of the same substance as the Father. The Son becomes of different substance and inferior in being to the Father. Nicene orthodoxy and ecumenical creeds216 affirm the doctrine of ‘Father begetting the Son’217 and Augustine affirmed the doctrine as well.218 It is the heart of Augustine’s theology.219 Ayres notes, “the language of the Son being generated from the Father’s substance will persist throughout Augustine’s career.”220 The purpose of this doctrine for Augustine is to affirm the ontological equality of the Son to the Father against the Arian 212 Augustine, On the Trinity, Trans. Hill, Kindle. Claunch, “God is the Head of Christ,” 84. 214 Claunch, “God is the Head of Christ,” 85. 215 Keith E. Johnson, “What Would Augustine Say to Evangelicals Who Reject the Eternal Generation of the Son?” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 16, no. 2 (2012), 30. 216 Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (AD 381) reads, “We believe…in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, the Only-begotten by his Father before all ages.” 217 Though Augustine prefers the term ‘begetting’ in the context of Father and Son relations, he used the term ‘generation’ to mean begetting of the Son (DT. 15.47). 218 DT. 1.7; 2.4, 9; 4.29; 7.3; 15.29, 45-48; On the Creed 8, On the Gospel of John 48.6; 24.7. 219 Ayres, Augustine and the Trinity, 85–86, 180. 220 Ayres, Augustine and the Trinity, 85. 213 41 notion of subordinationism.221 Through eternal generation, Augustine sheds more light on the ideas of eternal relations of origin, the principium of the Father, and the eternal trinitarian order by which the operational order of divine persons in creation, redemption, and provision, has to be understood. Augustine writes that “the Son according to nature was born of the very substance of the Father, the only one so born, subsisting as that which the Father is, God of God, light of light.”222 He further notes that eternal generation does not entitle the Son to be less of the Father: “Wherefore the only-begotten Son of God was neither made by the Father…not begotten instantaneously…nor unequal with the Father, that is to say, in anything less than He.”223 Augustine does not see the eternal generation as something (that) happened in time so that Arians can claim Son’s createdness. Rather Augustine sees eternal generation as timeless and eternal as “Father bestows being on the Son without any beginning in time”224 (DT. 15.47). Augustine writes in DT 2.3 which includes many elements of Augustine’s framework. work of Father and Son is indivisible, and yet the Son’s working is from the Father just as he himself is from the Father; and the way in which the Son sees the Father is simply by being the Son… thus showing that the working of the Father and of the Son is equal and indivisible, and yet the Son’s working comes from the Father. That is why the Son cannot do anything of himself except what he sees the Father doing…. This then is the rule which governs many scriptural texts, intended to show not that one person is less than the other, but only that one is from the other. Yet some people have extracted from it the sense that the Son is less than the Father…we should apply this other rule, which tells us not that the Son is less than the Father, but that he is Keith E. Johnson rightly points out the elements of Augustine’s account of eternal generation. For Augustine, the eternal generation of the Son is incorporeal (DT. 1.1), and eternal (DT. 15.47). It is the ground of the equality of nature (DT. 15.47). “Son is begotten not by the will of the Father but rather of the substance of the Father” (DT. 15.38) The nature of light has the explanatory power for eternal generation that flow of water from a rock (DT. 4.27). Augustine claims the incomprehensibleness of the doctrine. Johnson, “What Would Augustine Say,” 26-43; Johnson, “Trinitarian Agency,” 7-25. 222 On Faith and the Creed 4.6. NPNF1, 3:324. 223 On Faith and the Creed 4.5. NPNF1, 3:323. 224 Augustine, The Trinity (I/5) 2nd Edition (Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century) (The Works of Saint Augustine). New City Press. Kindle Edition. (Here onward: Augustine, DT, Trans. Hill, Kindle.) 221 42 from the Father. This does not imply any dearth of equality, but only his birth in eternity.225 Augustine’s trinitarian second hermeneutic rule which deals with the passages that neither “speak of the Son as “less” than the Father nor “equal” to the Father, but rather indicate that the Son is “from” the Father”226 will rule out the claim the Son is less in being to the Father. Based on this rule, one needs to understand that “not that one person is less than the other, but only that one is from the other”227 By this rule, Augustine read John 5:19 and 26 that the Son is not less in being but is from the Father eternally.228 Ayres rightly notes, that Augustine by the notion ‘from the Father’ does not mean Son is ontologically subordinate to the Father, but “reveals the manner in which the sending of the Son and Spirit, and their work in the created order, is founded in their manner of procession from the Father.”229 As noted earlier, by depicting Father as the Principium Augustine maintains the logical ordering of the persons and affirms the equality of the persons. He sees the priority of the Father among the Godhead. He says, “the source (principium) of all godhead, or if you prefer it, of all deity is the Father”230 Ayres and Barnes note that though Augustine uses the Deus to point to the Son and the Spirit, he primarily uses it to point to God the Father, especially in the context of prayer. “This usage corresponds with Augustine’s insistence on the principium of the Father within the trinitarian relations and generation.”231 Ayres continues, “Father’s monarchia, his status as principium and fons232, is central to Augustine’s Trinitarian theology.” Since the Father is the principium233 of the whole divinity, the Son and the Spirit find their beginning in the Father relationally and the Father is from none. This is the one area where the notion of subordination is perceived in our language, but not in the being of God. Ayres notes, the Father as principium to be kept in ‘fruitful tension’ It 225 DT. 2.3 (Emphasis is added) Johnson, “What would Augustine say,” 29. 227 DT. 2.3 228 “Jesus gave them this answer: “very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.” John 5:19 (NIV). “For as the Father has life has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.” John 5:26 (NIV). 229 Ayres, Augustine and the Trinity, 177. 230 DT. 4.29 231 Lewis Ayres and Michal Barnes, “God,” in Augustine Through the Ages, 384. 232 Ayres, Augustine and the Trinity, 248. 233 This Latin word can mean origin, source and first principle. Hill thinks that Augustine could have used this term in to mean what apologists meant by monarchy – Oneness and unity and to mean the Father. (See, Hill’s introduction to DT 5.12). 226 43 should uphold the idea that the Son and the Spirit share the divine fulness with the Father and the idea that the Father’s activities are carried by the interrelated persons.234 Augustine shows an irreversible order in the Godhead, and in a sense, the priority of the Father and unity of the Trinity. Dunham rightly notes, “for Augustine, relations of origin indicate the logical ordering of the persons based on the revelation of the order in the divine economy described in Scripture. Furthermore, their origin from the Father confirms the eternal equality of substance of the persons, without denying their individual identity.”235 With this understanding and in the light of his trinitarian reading of Rom. 11:36, Augustine connects the doctrine of inseparable operations and the causal sequence of Trinity “in which the Father, through the Son and Spirit, acts to create, maintain and then redeem an intelligible order.”236 However, for Augustine, this does not make the Son less in being than the Father. Augustine sees the indivisible works of Trinity in the order of ‘from the Father, through the Son and in the Spirit.237 Augustine takes the terms ‘from whom,’ ‘through whom,’ and ‘in whom’ to refer to a distinct person and used this idea “to describe how the three persons work inseparably in creation.”238 3.3.2.2 Old Testament’s Theophanies and Subordination Arians of Augustine’s day attributed immutability and invisibility only to the Father and the OT theophanies to the Son and in that sense, the Son is the visible God.239 “As a result (Son) is not God in exactly the same sense as the Father is God.”240 Augustine did not agree with the idea that the Old Testament theophanies were attributed to the Son (reasoning that the Son ultimately takes the form of flesh in incarnation), in doing so, he was seen, in some sense, less than the unseen Father.241 234 Ayres, Augustine and the Trinity, 249. Scott A. Dunham, The Trinity and Creation in Augustine: An Ecological Analysis (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2008), 12. 236 Ayres, Augustine and the Trinity, 59. 237 Augustine, De Quantitate Animae 31.77 (CSEL. 89. 225-6) as quoted by Ayres, Augustine and the Trinity, 54. 238 Ayres, Augustine and the Trinity, 54. 239 It was the influence of 2nd and 3rd century logos theology. 240 Gioia, The Theological Epistemology, 28. 241 DT.1.10-11; 2.12-35. 235 44 Augustine argues that it is not only the Father who is invisible242 but the triune God is invisible.243 Because for Augustine, the incarnation is the first visible mission of the Son as “the apostle says, When the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, made of woman (Gal 4:4).”244 Augustine shows that all divine persons are transcendent245 and it's not the Son who manifested to the OT fathers but all persons of the Godhead/Trinity. For Augustine, the Old Testament theophanies do not make any of the divine persons less transcendent than the other two “even when they may be appropriated to one or other person.”246 Because they “are invariably examples of God using created mediation to communicate with human senses.”247 Augustine substantiates this thought in Book II of DT and Hill rightly captures Augustine’s intention, stating: “the custom of seeing the Son distinctly manifested in the Old Testament had been largely responsible for involving the “economic” theologians in subordinationism… therefore, Augustine will assiduously go over all the texts employed by these predecessors, and reinterpret them.”248 3.3.2.3 Sending of the Son and Subordination The ‘sending the Son’ is another theological location where many subordination discussions take place. There is an apparent subordinationist notion as the Son was sent by the Father. However, Augustine sensed that this could be mistaken to mean the Son’s ontological subordination. Augustine says that Son is sent not because Father is greater and the Son is less. Son is equal and co-eternal with the Father.249 Then according to the essence, there is no question of whether or not the sender-Father is superior to the one who is sent. The Son is sent, it is because he is from the Father and not because he is less than the Father in essence. Though the Son is sent, and the Father sends, still they are equal in essence. There is no gradation of essence between the divine persons, but eternal irreversible order of relations of Father and Son; the begetter and the begotten. 242 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen. 1 Tim. 1:17 (NIV). …who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen. 1 Tim. 6:16 (NIV). 243 DT. 2.14 244 DT. 2.12 245 In East this privilege is ascribed only to the Father. Williams, “De Trinitate,” in Augustine thorough the Ages: An Encyclopaedia, ed Allan D. Fitzgerald, O.S.A. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eardmans, 1999), 847. 246 Rowan Williams, “De Trinitate,” in Augustine thorough the Ages: An Encyclopaedia, ed Allan D. Fitzgerald, O.S.A. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eardmans, 1999), 847. 247 Williams, “De Trinitate,” 847. 248 Hill’s comment, Augustine, The Trinity, Trans. Hill, Kindle. 249 Augustine, DT 4.27, Trans. Hill, Kindle. 45 Moreover, the question of why the Son needs to be sent needs fair attention. Augustine says that Son is sent because of the interior order of Trinity. Whatever is done outwardly, is done in the order of the invisible nature of Godhead.250 Ayres notes that this reflects the intertrinitarian life and the legitimacy of an order: “The visible life and ministry of the Incarnate Word is thus founded in the ‘interior ordering’ of the Trinity.”251 Ayres notes that the sending of the Son does not imply that the one who is sent is subordinate but it is intrinsic to his generation from the Father.252 The question of when the Son is sent is under much debate. Few think that the sending of the Son, the incarnation of the Word, and birth of Jesus are one and the same.253 Augustine says that “Son is not just said to have been sent because the Word became flesh, but that he was sent in order for the Word to become flesh.”254 Augustine continues that it was not the man in the flesh who was sent but the eternal Word was sent to become a man.255 For Augustine, the mission of the Son precedes the incarnation of the Son. Hill rightly captures this in saying this: “While the incarnation is, in fact, identical with the mission of the Son as realized, the mission is at least logically prior to the incarnation.”256 On the other hand, Augustine did not consider the incarnation as the sole work/role of the Son, otherwise, he will contradict his teaching of the indivisible operation of Trinity. Though Augustine sees the incarnation as the operation of the Son, he also sees it through the indivisible operation of Trinity.257 Augustine, on the one hand, does not want to contradict the Nicene Creed which reads it was the Son who incarnated. On other hand, he wants to avoid a Patripassianism reading.258 Therefore, he says, “The Son indeed and not the Father was born of the Virgin Mary; but this very birth of the Son, not of the Father, was the work of the Father and the Son. The Father indeed suffered not, but the Son, yet the suffering of the Son was the work of the Father and the Son.”259 250 DT. 2.9 (CCSL 50.91-92) as quoted by Ayres in Augustine and the Trinity, 183. Ayres, Augustine and the Trinity, 183. 252 Ayres, 183. 253 Johnson, “Trinitarian Agency,” 13. 254 DT. 4.27 255 DT. 4.27 256 Hill, Notes 83 book IV in Augustine, The Trinity. 257 Augustine, Ep. 11.2 as quoted by Holmes, Quest for the Trinity: The Doctrine of God in Scripture, History and Modernity, 132. 258 Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy, 374. 259 Augustine, Sermon 52.8. As quoted by Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy, 374. 251 46 For Augustine what seems to be accidents are not of substance but belong to the relational category. The terms ‘sent’ and ‘being sent’ connotes ‘Father as the beginning.’ But in substance wise, God sent God, but relatively the Father sends the Son as based on their particular properties.260 So that the relational distinction is not confounded and unity in substance is maintained. 3.4 Assessment It is noted that the thrust of Augustine’s trinitarianism is to tame Arian understanding of ontological subordination of the Son. His teachings, following Nicene and post Nicene theologians on eternal Sonship (eternal generation), intra-trinitarian taxis, sending of the Son, principium of the Father, and categories of substance and relations are not without subordinationist notions. However, he was consistent in rejecting all the apparent subordinationist notions to be of ontological subordination. He did not mention them as orthodox or moderate subordination in terms of later terminologies such as filial and causological subordination. 3.5 Conclusion This chapter discussed Augustine’s doctrine of the Trinity with special reference to the idea of eternal subordination concerning the themes of eternal generation, the ‘apparently’ subordinationist biblical passages, the idea of OT theophanies, the missions of the Son and the Spirit, and the idea of the substance and accidents. Augustine saw these locations were used by subordinationists to prove that the Son is less than the Father in being, power, status, and glory. Thus, he maintains the equality of the subsistence of the persons of the Son with the Father as he is ‘God from God and Light from Light.’ Modern Augustinian Trinitarian theologians, on the one side of the debate, argue that Augustine’s idea of eternal generation and Son’s agency do not mean the Son is inferior in being and they firmly affirm the idea of the order of authority and submission is grounded in the irreversible order in intra-trinitarian life. However, theologians question the compatibility of affirming equality in substance and in-equality in relation. Evaluating both sides is the subject of the next chapter. 260 Letham, The Holy Trinity, 191–92. 47 4 AUGUSTINIAN TRINITY AND CONTEMPORARY ETERNAL SUBORDINATION DEBATE 4.1 Introduction This chapter attempts to bring Augustine’s trinitarian theology in conversation with Eternal Subordination. ES debate revolves around two theological aspects: eternal generation and the sending/mission of the Son. Both sides of the ES debate will be analyzed through the Augustinian framework concerning subordination which was dealt with in the previous chapter. 4.2 Eternal Subordination in Contemporary Theology Eternal subordination debate has taken considerable space in doing the trinitarian theology in the last thirty years. Here, the key arguments for and against the ES are given. 48 4.2.1 Arguments for Eternal Subordination ES claims that there is a subordination of persons of the Trinity in terms of subsistence and operation.261 This subordination does not imply the inferiority and superiority of any person.262 It claims that the early church maintained ontological equality of the persons and affirmed the unique place to the Father.263 However, the priority is not of essence (Arian subordinationism) but of relationship.264 Thus, ES maintains a difference between orthodox subordination and heretical subordinationism. ES reasons that the ideas of eternal generation, the monarchy of the Father, and sending of the Son hint at the eternal subordination of the Son. These ideas should be seen with the understanding that the economic Trinity is immanent Trinity. ES says that Son’s submission in economic Trinity is grounded in intra-trinitarian life. They also see it as analogous to the human father-son relationship.265 ES affirms that the relation of authority-submission constitutes the distinction among the persons. If not so, they opine, there is no difference and no Trinity.266 ES says that their position is supported by Scripture and tradition. Augustine is one among other figures from tradition. 4.2.2 The Argument Against Eternal Subordination Anti-ES says that the position of the ES is against the tradition of the church. It says that Son is eternally co-equal to the Father in being, authority and glory; he was obedient and subordinate to the Father only in his incarnate state. The Father’s commanding and the Son’s obeying (to be sent) refer to the earthly ministry of the Son (and the Spirit) and should not be taken to mean eternal relations.267 The only way to distinguish the persons is to appeal to relations of origin: Father is unbegotten, Son is begotten and Spirit proceeds from the Father (and the Son). The distinction of trinitarian persons does not include subordination and authority.268 Eternal generation, and not submission, is the trinitarian distinction affirmed by the Catholic Church. 261 Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), 1:445. Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:460-461. 263 Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 79. 264 Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 79. 265 Erickson, Who’s Tampering with the Trinity, 53-54. 266 Erickson, Who’s Tampering with the Trinity, 53. 267 Erickson, Who’s Tampering with the Trinity, 81. 268 Keith Yandel, “Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem: Relations of Authority and Submission among the Persons of God head,” YouTube video, 2:32:16, August 2, 2013, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySFrG3mOp5o&t=5240s. 262 49 Anti-ES points out some of the theological problems as a result of ES's position. They contend that the role or functional subordination leads to ontological subordinationism.269 If the Son is eternally submissive to the Father, he is also necessarily submissive.270 Anti-ES allege that ES replaces the idea of ‘eternal generation’ with ‘eternal submission.’271 Eternal generation is not like the human act of generation from which one being is produced by another. Therefore, the Father is not greater either ontologically or in rank or authority than the Son.272 Anti-ES critics state that ES divides the substance into three and this will challenge divine simplicity. God is not composed of parts, so, to say that one divine person submitting to another, is a contradiction. 4.3 Augustine and Eternal Subordination Chronologically, Augustine is separated by centuries from the current debate. But he is brought into the debate by modern theologians. Augustine is appealed to by both parties of the debate. To see the legitimacy of this, Augustine’s trinitarianism, with special attention to the idea of the subordination of the Son to the Father, was analysed. Based on the analysis done in the previous chapter, it is said that Augustine’s trinitarianism does not allow the idea that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father in being, glory and authority. However, the ES theologians who appeal to Augustine seem to suggest that their arguments can be developed and supported by Augustine’s trinitarianism without contradicting any of his tenets. There are, at least, three ways by which Augustine can be brought to the ES trinitarian discussion. One way of doing this is by looking at contemporary theologians of both sides of the debate who directly appealed to Augustine. Secondly, by bringing theologians who do not have a direct connection to the modern debate yet advocated for orthodox subordination273 and claimed to see the same in Augustine’s trinitarianism. Another way is to bring contemporary arguments for/against ES and evaluating in the light of Augustine’s trinitarian theology. Theologians Kevin Giles, Millard J. Erickson and Keith Johnson argue that Augustine’s approach rejects eternal functional subordination. However, for Bruce Ware, John Strake, 269 Giles, The Trinity & Subordinationism, 84. Jonathan J. Routley, Eternal Submission: A Biblical and Theological Examination (Eugene: WIPF & STOCK, 2020), ch.2, Kindle. 271 Erickson, Who’s Tampering with the Trinity, 81. 272 Routley, Eternal Submission. 273 William G. T. Shedd, “Introductory Essay,” 4. 270 50 Michael Ovey, Letham, and Claunch, Augustine can be taken to support the idea of eternal functional subordination or submission. Many arguments are put forth for and against ES. However, the scope of this chapter is to analyze only four areas where Augustine’s trinitarianism is used, namely his understanding of the eternal generation, substance and relational categories, sending of the Son, and the epistemic function of incarnation. Augustine’s understanding of these areas is discussed in chapter 3. 4.3.1 The Distinction of Divine Persons Based on Eternal Relations of Origin Implies the Relation of Authority-Submission or Eternal Subordination in Godhead 4.3.1.1 Summary of Argument ES claims that Augustine could see an eternal order of subsistence in Godhead that is grounded in the idea of eternal relations of origin274 and principium of the Father manifested in a relation of authority and submission. Anti-ES thinks that this inference is problematic, as this would mean that eternal generation has to be understood in a literal sense and eternal submission should replace the eternal generation. 4.3.1.2 Argument Expounded It is noted in the previous chapter that an irreversible order in immanent Trinity is one of the aspects of Augustinian framework concerning subordination. Augustine time and again notes that it was the Son who is from the Father and not the other way around and it was Son who was sent and not the other way around. Based on this premise, for Augustine, ES argues that the distinction of persons is formed by the inherent authority and submission of the relations.275 Augustine’s idea of eternal generation is infused with this dynamic.276 Starke notes that Augustine sees the eternal generation as the ground for an irreversible order of operation between the Father and the Son. Father in his non-competitive authority initiates and Son receives the initiation with submission.277 This relational asymmetry makes the distinction between the persons because the undifferentiated equality does not make the distinction between persons.278 Otherwise, they are not Father and the Son, but “ ‘three friends,’ who were relationally symmetrical to each other and who were not relationally 274 Father is unbegotten, Son is begotten and Spirit is breathed or proceeds. Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 79-80. 276 Strake, “Augustine and His Interpreters,” 156. 277 Strake, “Augustine and His Interpreters,” 156. 278 The 1999 Sydney Anglican Diocesan Doctrine Commission Report, 44. (Giles, The Trinity & Subordinationism, 136. 275 51 different from each other”279 Thus, the difference in the functions and roles of the divine persons are the indicators of the notion of authority-submission. The roles are based on the appropriation of the Father/Son relationship and the eternal order of trinitarian actions ‘from the Father, through the Son and in the Spirit.’280 Anti-ES argue back that Augustine did not see Son’s subordination in the distinction of the persons.281 To see a subordination in the eternal generation is to read back the human categories in divine relations and seeing the begetting of the Son literally.282 Goligher points to eternal generation and procession, or spiration, as the distinguishing features of the persons in the Godhead. Eternal generation, and not submission.283 Goligher and Johnson point out the fact that some proponents of ES do not see the doctrine of the eternal generation biblically warranted and by virtue of it they need to have something in this place to avoid modalism, thus, bringing eternal submission.284 It is true that Grudem and Ware did not affirm this doctrine. It is to be noted that there are theologian anti-ES also do not believe in the idea of eternal generation.285 Moreover, ES theologians who did not believe in the eternal generation began to affirm it.286 But Erickson, an anti-ES theologian, rejects the doctrine saying that this doctrine does not have any biblical warrant and it brings an element of causation and subordination in the Godhead.287 Thus, the critique of Goligher and Johnson on ES comes is a critique on anti-ES theologians who do not affirm the eternal generation. Johnson suggests Augustine did not speculate the analogy between Son’s eternal Sonship and his economic obedience to the Father.288 Claunch says though Augustine did not speculate it,289 his understanding of the idea that intra-trinitarian taxis of ad intra is the ground for ad 279 Ovey, Your Will Be Done, 71. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 251. (Italics is original) 281 Giles, Jesus and the Father, 191. 282 Routley, Eternal Submission, cha 2. 283 Liam Goligher, “A Letter to Professors Grudem and Ware.” Housewife Theologian (blog), Mortification of Spin, June 20, 2016, http://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/housewife-theologian/a-letter-to-professorsgrudem-and-ware. (as quoted by Routley in Eternal Submission). 284 Goligher, “A Letter to Professors Grudem and Ware,” Johnson, “Trinitarian Agency,” 285 Strake, “Augustine and His Interpreters,” 168-169. 286 Grudem and Ware started to affirm the idea of eternal generation from 2016. See Giles, The Rise and Fall of the Complementarian Doctrine of Trinity, Ch. 2, Kindle. 287 Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995), 309–10. 288 Keith E. Johnson, “Trinitarian Agency,” 24-25. 289 Claunch, “God is the Head of Christ,” 90-91. 280 52 extra (as Johnson himself admits that Augustine believes this) gives “tool290 for thinking about how the authority and submission between Father and Son in the incarnate state might find ontological correspondence in the immanent Trinity.”291 Anti-ES rejects the idea of the principium of the Father for the same reason Erickson rejects the idea of eternal generation. Anti- ES rejects Augustine’s principium of the Father saying that the idea that the Father as source divinity in Godhead makes the Son and Spirit dependent and destroys the equality of the divine persons.292 Giles says that the monarchy of the Father is an error293 from the Cappadocian Fathers and it is rectified in the Athanasian Creed.294 However, this is not the case if Augustine’s trinitarian thought is looked at as a whole. Augustine affirms the principium of the Father to maintain the unity of the persons based on the relations of origin. Since the Father is the beginning of the whole divinity, the Son and the Spirit find their beginning in the Father relationally and the Father is from none. This is the intra-trinitarian life of three co-substantial persons. Augustine notes, “Father is the beginning (principium) of the whole divinity, or if it is better so expressed, deity.”295 For Augustine, this is both biblical and Nicene orthodoxy. For Augustine, the conception of Father’s monarchy or Principium becomes the basis by which the divine unity of three persons is maintained. Father is the beginning (principium) of the whole divinity, yet the begetter and begotten, sender and the sent – both are one (DT. 4.28-29). 4.3.2 Augustine’s Perspective of the Categories of Substance and Relations Implies Relational Subordination and Ontological Equality 4.3.2.1 Summary of Argument ES argues that Augustine sees the subordination to the Father according to the category of relation and the Son is homoousios according to the category of substance.296 Divine Giles sees Augustine’s methodology of doing theology: Augustine believed that there are questions that scripture does not give answer to. To answer these questions, three things are to be kept in mind: 1) consider where scripture points, 2) draw from tradition, and 3) use good reasoning. 291 Claunch, “God is the Head of Christ,” 90. 292 Loraine Boettner, Studies in Theology (Pennsylvania: P & R publishing, 1964), 122. 293 Giles takes Torrance’s help. For Torrance, the term ‘Father’ is used in two senses in NT and early church: Father as Godhead – source and person of the Father – Cappadocians merged the both. 294 Giles sees the Athanasius creed, where the Father is not given priority, he is not source or monarchy of the Trinity, no subordination of being, divine persons are identified with the relations of origin, no hierarchical ordering as none is before or after the other, no eternal subordination as they are co-eternal and co-equal. Son is inferior only in his manhood. Giles, Jesus and Father,158. 295 DT. 4.29 NPNF, 3:85 296 See 3.3.1.1 290 53 operations done in one category should not be taken to mean operations done in another. Anti-ES crosses the categories and confuses properties of relation/person and properties of the substance. On the other hand, anti-ES argue that if the Son is relationally and eternally subordinate then he is necessarily and essentially subordinate. This will make the Son hetroousios not homoousios. Let us see it in detail. 4.3.2.2 Argument Expounded It is noted in the last chapter that Augustine distinguished between the categories of substance and relations. By this Augustine brought in the compatibility of Son’s eternal generation and his equality with the Father. ES argues for a relation of authority-submission based on Augustine’s understanding of categories of substance and relations.297 Ovey infers that Augustine does not see any change or succession in relations but was ready to see subordination in the relationship of persons but not in substance.298 Anti-ES sees this line of reasoning to be problematic. They argue that if ‘Son is relationally or functionally subordinate to the Father’ then that will make the Son subordinate eternally. They think that if the Son is subordinate in all possible worlds, then the Son is necessarily subordinate; if the Son is necessarily subordinate, then the Son is essentially subordinate; if the Son is essentially subordinate but the Father is not, then the Son and Father are not homoousios, but hetroousios. Thus, ES entails ontological subordinationism.299 This line of reasoning resamples Arian’s pattern of argument against the Son being begotten – the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father. So, he has an attribute the Father does not have. Therefore, the Son is not homoousios. 300 ES says this line of reasoning needs to be rejected for the same reason the reasoning of Arians against relations of origin to be rejected. Ware, in responding to ‘hetroousios’ critique, says that based on their line of reasoning, Athanasius and Nicene creed also should be rejected. Ware argues that according to Athanasius and Nicene creed the Son has a property called ‘begotten’ which is not the property of the Father.301 For ES this is an example for crossing the categories by which we 297 Ovey, Your Will Be Done, 39-100. Ovey, Your Will Be Done, 74. 299 Erickson, Who’s Tampering with Trinity, 172; Thomas H. McCall, Which Trinity, 175. 300 Arian’s claim in Augustine’s time: All attributes of God are essential to him, but being begotten is not the attribute of the Father and has an attribute that the Son does not have – being begotten Therefore Son does not have an attribute of God that is essential to him. Since Son has an attribute that the Father does not have, and since Father is truly God, that makes Son to possess a non-divine attribute and he cannot be God. 301 Ware, “Does Affirming an Eternal Authority-Submission Relationship in the Trinity Entail a Denial of Homoousios?” in One God in Three Persons: Unity of Essence, Distinction of Persons, Implications for Life (Crossway: Wheaton, 2015), 241-242. 298 54 talk about God. For them, according to Augustine, the categories of substance and relations/persons cannot be crossed.302 Therefore, for ES, the Son is equal in respect to his being as he is of the same substance of the Father and subordinate to the Father in the category of relations as he is from the Father and not from himself. ES says anti-ES theologians are mistaken to refer to Son’s personal property as an essential attribute of God. There is a distinction between these two.303 Ware says McCall confuses the adjective ‘essential’ with the noun ‘essence.’ The Son has all ‘essential properties’ of essence/nature of God. That makes the Son homoousios. But the ‘person-specific’ properties that are essential to the persons are not identical.304 Ware says, if the person-specific properties are not there we will not be able to have a basis to distinguish the persons.305 Therefore, Ware claims it was not problematic for Augustine to hold the ideas simultaneously that, on the one hand, the Son is homoousios with the Father, and on the other hand, the Son is carrying out the will of the Father as eternal Son.306 Obedience does not mean inferiority of being/nature; they are two different things.307 For Augustine, Son can be obedient without compromising his equality with the Father.308 ES argues that the paradox – divine simplicity and Multiple Wills should be understood in the light of Augustine’s understanding of the categories of substance and relations. Anti-ES argues that the obedience of the Son to the Father would demand two wills. Johnson says for Augustine, inseparable operation means that the divine persons have one will.309 Giles agrees and says that Augustine did not see the divine persons as divided in their work or being.310 According to Augustine Father and Son have one will and they are one in their attributes.311 Therefore, we cannot read in Augustine the Son obeying and the Father commanding or the Son is subject to the will of Father.312 Though Augustine did not see the persons as divided in their work, he certainly saw the necessity of seeing the divine actions ascribed to one of the divine persons based on the eternal trinitarian order. 302 That is the theme of 2020 book of Eternal Submission Routley. Ovey, Your Will Be Done, 72. 304 Ware, “Denial of Homoousios,” 245-246. 305 Ware, “Denial of Homoousios,” 243. 306 Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 80. 307 Ovey, Your Will Be Done, 73. 308 Ovey, Your Will Be Done, 74. 309 Johnson, “Trinitarian Agency, 1. 310 Giles, Jesus and the Father, 192. 311 Giles gives reference (DT. 2.9; 5.9,12). 312 Giles, Jesus and the Father, 191. 303 55 That is why Starke reasons that the will of the Son works as one will with the will of the Father. The will of the Son is of the/from the Father. Thus, obedience does not demand two wills in Trinity.313 Starke says when Aquinas faced the same question and he answered that there is one same will – the Son’s will is from the another – the Father! Because of the order of authority and submission, Son was able to say that he did not seek his own will but the will of the Father as his own that is received from the Father.314 For Claunch, every essential attribute of God can be viewed through three prisms – from the Father, through the Son, and by the Holy Spirit. He notes each attribute – like ‘one will’ – “is predicated of the one divine essence and exists according to the eternal trinitarian taxis that is basic to the divine essence: Father, Son, Holy Spirit.”315 4.3.3 Economic Mission of Son Shows Eternal Obedience of the Son to the Father 4.3.3.1 Summary of Argument The crux of the argument for eternal submission of the Son is in the answer to the question of why the Son and not the Father or Spirit sent for the economic mission. Augustine thinks it cannot be the other way around. For Augustine, sending precedes the incarnation of the Word. The Son submits to the initiation of the Father. Since the sending precedes actual incarnation, the coming of the Son reveals immanent Trinity and the eternal nature of the Son. Anti-ES says that Augustine’s idea of indivisible operation does entail the ES’s conclusion. The Son’s mission should not be considered as an operation done solely by the Son rather it should be considered as the operation of Trinity. 4.3.3.2 Argument Expounded As noted in chapter 3, sending texts for Augustine, implies the relations of origin of the persons. Augustine also mentioned that it should not be taken to mean the Son is less than the Father. However, ES thinks that eternal obedience can be inferred that Son’s obedience in the incarnate state has something to reveal about his eternal nature. ES does not say that the Son is not sent because he was less in being or second in rank in his deity as Augustine’s opponents thought.316 In his being/deity he is equal with God. He was sent, according to the relations, it is appropriate for the Son given his subsistence as Son. Stake, “Augustine and His Interpreters,” 170. Stake, “Augustine and His Interpreters,” 171. 315 Claunch, “God is the Head of Christ,” 91. 316 ES affirms what Johnson says and Johnson is correct: “Augustine’s opponents – probably Latin Homoian theologians – argued the sending of the Son by the Father reveals the ‘inferiority’ of the Son to the Father on the 313 314 56 ES claims that the eternal generation has a bearing on Son’s economic action of being sent for a mission. In the sending of the Son, for Augustine, as Starke reads, there is a functional order – initiation (stands for noncompetitive authority) from the Father and reception (notes the receptive obedience) by the Son. The Son only does what the Father does and it is irreversible.317 Ware says the anti-ES’s interpretations of Augustine that says all subordination of the Son to the Father rests fully in the Son’s incarnate state, is false.318 Based on DT. 4.27, Ware says that the Son was sent before the incarnation and he continued his role of fulfilling the will of the Father.319 Augustine says, “In the light of this we can now perceive that the Son is not just said to have been sent because the Word became flesh, but that he was sent in order for the Word to become flesh” (DT. 4.27). Hill, while giving commentary to DT. 4, thinks “while the incarnation is, in fact, identical with the mission of the Son as realized, the mission is at least logically prior to the incarnation.”320 This implies, so ES reason, the obedience of the Son to be sent according to the will of God before being sent, in the eternal state. Letham says sending precedes the incarnation so that through incarnation something about eternal relations will be revealed. Otherwise, Jesus, as he says, cannot be the revealer of the eternal Father (John 14:9).321 Letham writes, for Augustine sending of the Son does not degrade the Son, as it does not refer to God’s essence but to relations of the persons. However, sending of the Son shows an irreversible distinction of the persons.322 Moreover, Ovey reasons that Augustine deals with the biblical texts that talk about the Son being sent by the Father to establish the idea of the equality of the persons in being against the Arian notion. Augustine does not see the sending of the Son as merely an economic activity but eternal activity. It is not just an economic action, but an eternal obedience of the Son is involved.323 grounds that the one who sends must, on necessity, be “greater” than the one who is sent.” (Johnson, “Trinitarian Agency, 13) 317 Starke, “Augustine and His Interpreters,” 162-165. 318 Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 80–81. 319 Ware, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 81. 320 Hill, in On the Trinity by Augustine, Notes 83 book IV. The Trinity, Kindle. 321 Letham, The Holy Trinity, 494. 322 Robert Letham, “Reply to Kevin Giles,” in EQ 80.4 (2008), 340. 323 Ovey, Your Will Be Done, 89–91. 57 However, Erickson,324 Johnson325 and Giles326 - the opponents of ES - think that Augustine’s inseparable actions do not allow such inference. Any work attributed to one of the members of the Trinity is the work of all. Therefore, Johnson says, there is no submission or obedience that are related to Son’s incarnate state and there is no evidence of ES.327 Quoting the ‘sending texts’, says Giles, as a proof text for son’s subordination is an error. For Augustine, ‘being sent’ does not imply inferiority, but only says ‘he is from the Father’ and Father abides with the Son as he works. Thus, Augustine could say, in one sense, Son sends Son DT 2.9.328 Erickson states, that for Augustine, the will of the Father that the Son came to do should be seen in the light of indivisible operation. So, the will of the Father is not just the will of the Father alone, it is the will of all three persons and all participated in the decision.329 Ironically, this is the point the ES camp attempts to achieve: substance-wise, sending of the Son is the will decision of all divine persons. However, in relational category, we need to see the divine actions in terms of relational category that the Son came in obedience to the will of the Father. Starke says that anti-ES flatters the order.330 Augustine’s indivisible operation should not be taken to an extent that distinction between the persons are blurred and the irreducibility of the persons are not maintained. Starke states that the unity should be seen as harmony among the three divine persons and not a unison of action. Divine persons work in harmony, not in unison where there is no distinction of persons in terms of who does what, but all three do the one operation in the same way.331 In other words, even though the Word sent the Son, it cannot be taken to mean ‘Father sent Father’ or ‘Son sent Father.’ Letham says “sender is both the Father and the Son, but the Son is not the sender in the same way the Father is the sender.”332 Vos argues that if the unity of God and indivisible operation is stressed so strongly that the distinct “persons can no longer enter into judicial terms,” then, it will lead to Sabellianism.333 To take the indivisible actions to mean unison334 is to violate what Augustine meant for the harmony of the persons. This way of reading Augustine’s inseparable operation can be done Erickson, Who’s Tampering with the Trinity, 158. Keith E. Johnson, “Trinitarian Agency,” 7-25. 326 Giles, Jesus and the Father, 194. 327 Keith E. Johnson, “Trinitarian Agency,” 13, 20. 328 Erickson, Who’s Tampering with the Trinity, 158. 329 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 308. 330 Starke, “Augustine and His Interpreters,” 168. 331 Starke, “Augustine and His Interpreters,” 169. 332 Starke, “Augustine and His Interpreters,” 169. 333 Starke, “Augustine and His Interpreters,” 160, 170. 334 Johnson, “Trinitarian Agency,” 7-25. 324 325 58 only at the expense of his irreducible distinction of the persons.335 ES argues that when this scheme of reading is applied to Jesus’ baptismal and prayer at Gethsemane episodes, then it will lead to Patripassianism. It will blur the distinction between the persons. The distinction of persons (Augustine’s irreducible persons) should allow one to talk that the “the Father initiates the activity, and the Son faithfully accepts and joyfully carries out the Father’s plan.”336 Though Augustine is strong in emphasizing divine simplicity through the indivisible will and work,337 he balanced it by emphasizing the different roles of the persons that are appropriate and fitting to each person on the virtue of intra-trinitarian order.338 Kelly notices this well in Augustine. Augustine’s emphasis on unity may seem to destroy “the several roles of the three Persons.”339 But Augustine’s answer, says Kelly, is that “it is fitting for the Son…in virtue of His relation to the Father to be (sent) manifested and made visible.”340 He continues, “since each of the Persons possesses the divine nature in a particular manner, it is proper to attribute to each of Them, in the external operation of the Godhead, the role which is appropriate to Him in virtue of His origin.”341 4.3.4 The Humility of the Son in Economic Trinity Reveals the ‘Humble God’ of Immanent Trinity 4.3.4.1 Summary of the Argument ES's main argument is the idea that the economic Trinity reveals the immanent Trinity. For Augustine, incarnation has an epistemic function – to reveal eternal relationships of the divine persons. The Son’s humility in the economic trinity is grounded in his eternal nature. It would be problematic to say, as anti-ES does, that the Son is obedient only in his incarnate state as second Adam and after resurrection Son resumes his eternal non-obedient nature. It is problematic because we humans have a virtue that the creator of us does not have and it also John Strake, “Augustine and His Interpreters,” 168-169. Strake, “Augustine and His Interpreters,” 170. 337 … Father and Son have but one will and are indivisible in their working. DT. 2.9 338 … In what manner did God send his Son? DT. 2.9 339 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 273. 340 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 273. Augustine is clear in stating that the sending of the Son did not happen in time and it is eternal and corresponds to his begetting of the Son. 340 Because he says it DT. 2.8 that when he was begotten eternally, he was sent eternally and invisibly; and when he was born of Mary, he was sent in time and visibly. 341 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 273-274. 335 336 59 creates poor Christology where Son changes his moral nature from one state to another (preincarnate, incarnate and post-incarnate states). 4.3.4.2 Argument Expounded It is noted in the last previous chapter that seeing an epistemic function in incarnation is one of the criteria of the Augustinian framework for subordination. The basic logic of ES is this: if the Son is subordinate to the Father in his Incarnation, then it has to be treated as the reflection of what they are in intra-trinitarian life. If the persons are fully different from what they are on time, then what we know about the persons through revelation is not true and trustworthy. Based on this, ES thinks that it can be inferred that Son is obedient to the Father eternally as he was in his incarnate state. However, ES does not claim that the incarnation reveals the intra-trinitarian life comprehensively, but truthfully. They see the Son’s economic life should be a reflection of who he is eternally and that this is the conviction of Augustine.342 By quoting DT. 4.29, Claunch argues that for Augustine, the economic Trinity (missions of the Son and the Spirit) rooted in ontological grounds reveals the eternal relations of the divine persons.343 The Son is from the Father and therefore, he is sent by the Father: “The fact that he is “sent” makes known the fact that he is eternally “from” the Father.”344 Building on the argument that the Son’s economic life does reveal the immanent life of God to an extent, ES says that Son’s humility in the state of incarnation reveals his submission to the Father in the pre-incarnate state. ES argues that created humans cannot have the virtue that the Creator himself does not have. On the other hand, anti-ES says God cannot submit to God. Letham and Ovey use Augustine’s idea of humble God and humility of the Son to advocate ES's case. They ask whether the Son was humble before Incarnation and whether humility is a virtue found in the Trinity in eternity and they think that the answer is affirmative. They see that Augustine portraits the Son as the ‘humble God’ who obeys the Father. To say that the Son obeys only in economic operation and not in intra-trinitarian life is to take away the Claunch, “God is the Head of Christ,” 84. Claunch, “God is the Head of Christ,” 84. 344 Claunch, “God is the Head of Christ,”85. 342 343 60 eternal nature of the relations of the Father and the Son. Moreover, it gives the false idea that the Son’s earthly nature is different from his eternal nature.345 Augustine says to imitate the lowly God by pointing out the Son who says ‘I came not to do my own will, but the will of Him that sent me.’346 Augustine argues, according to Ovey, that love by nature is other-person-centered and due to sin it becomes self-centered. But the love that manifests in authority and submission among divine persons is perfect, selfless, and other person-centered love.347 According to Ovey, Augustine saw the humility of the Son as something extended beyond his human nature. Ovey thinks that for Augustine to make sense of the humility of the Son to take human nature (Phil. 2.6-7), the Son should have been humble in his pre-incarnate state.348 Anti-ES has a Christological argument for ES as far as the Son’s economic submission reveals his eternal submission, is concerned. Giles says that nowhere we can see Father commending and the Son obeying in Augustine. He denies the idea that there is a connection between the eternal Son and the obedience of Christ as second Adam on the following grounds. He maintains that the Son is eternally equal to the Father in power and authority, possessing the one identical divine will; that the obedience of Christ was as the second Adam, as man, for our salvation; and that once His saving work was done, He was exalted to the full exercise of omnipotence.349 Giles says that ES quotes the texts that talk about Son in the form of a servant to prove the claim. For him, this activity is reading the economic Trinity back into the immanent Trinity and Augustine’s first rule does not allow this inference.350 Letham responds to Giles’s second Adam argument. Based on DT 4.27, Letham argues that the sending of the Son precedes the incarnation, so his life reveals something of his eternal relations. Otherwise, we cannot know him.351 There has to be something in the Son that will make it possible for the Son to unite himself with the human nature of obedience. If not, the hypostatic union of two natures of the Son is perilous.352 Anti-ES states that Son is obedient 345 Letham, The Holy Trinity, 389-404; Ovey, Your Will Be Done, 70-74. Augustine, Tractate of John, XXV.16, The Complete works of Saint Augustine, Kindle. 347 Michael J. Ovey, “True Sonship,” 154. (According to Ovey, for Augustine, this is the kind of love that belongs to the city of God that contrasted against the earthly city where the self-centred love prevails, and the ramification of that love is oppressive authority and inequality. Augustine, City of God, Trans. Henry Bettenson (New York: Penguin Putnam, 1972), 14.28.) 348 Ovey, Your Will Be Done, 136. 349 Giles, Jesus and the Father, 192. 350 Giles, Jesus and the Father, 242-274. 351 Letham, The Holy Trinity, 494. 352 Letham, The Holy Trinity, 394. 346 61 in his human nature on earth but did not continue the obedience beyond economic operations. Therefore, Letham wants to know the dynamics, if any, that make the submission inappropriate to one nature and appropriate to another. He says “all actions of the incarnate Christ according to both natures are attributed to the person of the Son…Thus, the word incarnate obeys the Father. At the same time, it is Word incarnate who obeys the Father.”353 Letham contends that there is obedience before the fall and after the resurrection. If this were not so, Christ’s human obedience ended at the cross, and Adam would have been under no constraint to obey God before the fall, nor would we after our resurrection. Therefore, there is a continuity between the Son’s eternal and economic obedience to the will of the Father.354 Letham notes that if one posits that the Son is submissive to the Father in human nature and not in divine nature, then he falls in the Nestorian separation of two natures of the Son.355 Claunch responds to Giles’ argument about Augustine’s hermeneutical rule. He says that the first hermeneutic rule should be seen against Arianism and his understanding of trinitarian and Christological passages.356 Claunch is correct in saying that “Giles has not dealt adequately with Augustine’s conviction that the economic Trinity makes known the immanent Trinity.”357 Ovey makes an important critique that Giles does not refer to Augustine’s later trinitarian treatments which Augustine directed to Homoian Arians.358 Giles has nothing substantial to say regarding Ovey’s treatment of Augustine in his latest book except mentioning that Ovey – as an Anglican, still had to depend upon non-Nicene and Homoian creeds.359 4.3.5 Summary This section juxtaposed arguments that appealed to Augustine’s trinitarianism by both sides of the debate. ES argued that Augustine’s trinitarian theology developed to counter the Homoian Arian subordination which taught that Son is not homoousios, but he is of the similar substance of the Father. Thus, Augustine’s trinitarianism upheld the equality of persons in terms of being/nature. Anti-ES did not deny this. ES says though Son is equal 353 Letham, The Holy Trinity, 395. Robert Letham, “Does the Son submit to the Father,” Christian Research Journal, volume 31, number 1 (2008). 355 Letham, The Holy Trinity, 395. 356 Claunch, “God is the Head of Christ,” 84. 357 Claunch, “God is the Head of Christ,” 87. 358 Ovey notes texts such as Arian Sermon 34 and Debate with Maximinus. See Ovey, Your Will Be Done, 9 (n18). 359 Giles, The Rise and Fall of the Complementarian Doctrine of the Trinity, 33. 354 62 according to substance but subordinate according to the relations category. Anti-ES says that this inference will lead to ontological subordination of the Son. Then the debate turns to the question of what constitutes the distinction of the divine persons. Anti-ES says that they are distinguished by the relation of origin. In this area, anti-ES have mixed views. Few anti-ES think there is no monarchy of the Father as it sets Father above the Son and Spirit. However, for ES, it is relations of authority-submission that constitutes the distinction of the person and this order is grounded on the intra-trinitarian taxis. Showing the epistemic function of incarnation, ES argues that the Son’s obedience in his incarnate state reveals the immanent life of God where the Son submits to the will of the Father. Anti-ES says Son obeys the Father only with regard to the Father’s redemptive plan – economic Trinity where he took the form of a servant. After this, the Son resumes his original status where there is no submission of the Son to the Father. 4.4 Way forward This section proposes a trinitarian model based on Augustinian trinitarianism. Ayres says, “… there are not only two alternatives: The Trinitarian persons are equal or eternal subordination. It is much more interesting than that.”360 The irony of Ayres’s statement is many think that these are the only possible outcomes of the eternal subordination debate. Common reductionism is applied in terms of possible results of the debate: if the Son is subordinate, then he is not equal to Father or if the trinitarian persons are equal, then there is no eternal subordination in the Trinity. But this chapter suggests that it is more than that. Some methodological and theological challenges involved in the debate can be identified from the preceded discussion. It is assumed that the proposed model will be able to solve the challenges. 4.4.1 Challenges Involved in the Debate 4.4.1.1 Differences in Contexts Both Augustine and the debate are from the West. However, Augustine’s context where his trinitarian theology was developed and the contemporary context where the debate is happening, is different. Augustine developed theology through ecclesiological and polemical settings. He preached and taught Trinity to his parishioners. He also faced opponents in debates and writings. His main challenge was to make arguments for the deity of the Son Bird, “Ayres on the Intra Complementarian Debate.” https://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/patristics-scholar-lewis-ayres-weighs-in-on-the-intracomplementarian-debate/ 360 63 against his days’ Arians who taught that the Son is of a different substance and thus less than the Father. In the contemporary context, the implication of intra-trinitarian life is directed for the role of men and women in family, church, and society. The monarchical and egalitarian models of Trinity are used to advance the complementarian and egalitarian views of the gender debate, respectively. It is very obvious to see the motive of the theologians who advocate either view of the Trinity. Some complementarians reject ES and few others affirm it. But, with the notable exception of Craig Keener,361 almost all the egalitarians reject ES. 4.4.1.2 Nature of Augustine’s Trinitarianism Augustine’s theology – particularly his trinitarian theology – did not get unanimous reception both in past and the present. His teaching of filioque became one of the reasons for the schism of the Church into two: Western and Eastern. His psychological analogy for Trinity supports the oneness of God than the threeness. This becomes a point of departure for Western theology to focus more on one substance than the Trinity and parting ways with Eastern understanding of Trinity. Thus, any study on Augustine’s theology should keep this limitation in mind. However, as it is noted, his trinitarian theology can be considered pro-Nicene regarding the doctrine of Trinity. 4.4.1.3 Theological Nature of Contemporary Debate The question of whether Augustine can be brought under one of the sides of the debate needs attention. Given the difference of time and the context, it is anachronistic to read Augustine in the contemporary debate. In a theological discussion of this nature, the tendency is that our theological speculative questions take the center stage and what the theologian has to say in his/her style goes unheard.362 Thus, given the time and context of Augustine, the answer to the question on ‘where does Augustine belongs’ is, neither side. Whereas, the ES debate, in one sense, attempt to answer a speculative question: How much can we talk about the distinctive relationships of the divine persons?363 Augustine did not speculate the notion of the Son’s obedience to the Father in the category of relations of authority-submission in his time. Thus, it is safe to say that Augustine’s trinitarianism does not directly support or reject ES in its present categories. However, this should not stop Craig S. Keener, “Is Subordination withing the Trinity Really Heresy? A Study of John 5:18 in Context,” in TRINJ 20NS (1999) 39-51. 362 Johnson, “Trinitarian Agencies,” 25. 363 Johnson, “Trinitarian Agencies,” 25. 361 64 present theologians from engaging with theology or theologians of the past, because Augustine’s trinitarianism either, in one sense, does not hinder anything the ES debate is discussing. The diversity in language, people groups, new social and theological issues, change and growth of human language and communication, demand present day theologians communicate and respond to his/her generation in a relevant manner, by being either conservative364 or revisionist.365 4.4.1.4 Semantic and Theological Concerns of Terms The term ‘subordination’ is understood to give different notions in the debate. According to anti-ES the one who is subordinate is somehow inferior to the one whom he is subordinate to. Anti-ES affirms that Son is subordinate to the Father in his incarnate state. The subordination is demonstrated by the Son’s obedience to the Father’s will. So, the Son’s obedience makes him inferior to the Father in the incarnation. This is problematic. The Son is not inferior to the Father in any state. For ES subordination does not stand for inferiority. It is impossible to have the idea of relations of origin without an inherent subordinationist notion. This is the Nicene way to distinguish the divine persons: Son is begotten by the Father and Spirit is breathed from the Father.366 The concepts such as Father as ‘anarchy,’367 ‘monarchy’ or ‘principium,’ and Father as ‘source of divinity’ of the Son and the Spirit entail a derivative notion of origin.368 All these aspects are found in Augustinian trinitarianism as much as in Nicene trinitarian theology.369 For Augustine, the order of Trinity based on relations of origin is how the relations of persons are distinguished. There are two possibilities kept before the modern theologians concerning the idea of relations of origin. Either to affirm the idea of ‘relations of origin’ with the derivative notion of the divinity of the Son and the Spirit or to avoid the idea of relations of origin and try to find an alternative way, i.e., bringing a notion of reciprocity in relations of origin. If some want to stick with the order of relations of origin, then they have to accept the subordination 364 Sticking with the historical or established doctrine or theological assumptions. Keeping the historical or established doctrine as point of departure for a new concept or questioning the established doctrine or theological assumptions. 366 This can be called the doctrine of Eternal Generation. 367 Has no beginning. 368 This idea is not same as that the Father is the source of Trinity. The triune God/One essence does not and cannot have ‘source’ from which derives divinity. Because the derivation notion is happening inside the one being of God. 369 In the beginning of the fourth century, Father/Son relationship is used to show ‘continuity of nature’ and in pro-Nicene sense it shows only the distinction of the persons. Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy, 236. Gunton thinks looking at the ways of relations with the order of origin not as relation of opposition is scriptural and traditional. Gunton, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, 70-74. 365 65 notion as given and that is not the ontological one.370 It will be illogical to deny this by saying there is no subordination here but only distinction of relations. Few theologians attempted an alternative paradigm to talk about the relationship of persons. Pannenberg suggests one that falls away from the traditional way of distinguishing the persons – the order of relations of origin.371 ES sees an order – from Father to the Son – that entails the roles and functions of ad-extra but balances it by bringing the unity of God through the ideas of inseparable operation, appropriation, and perichoresis to maintain the unity of God. On the other hand, anti-ES (Giles) sees the Father/Son relationship as something that brings distinction. And, on the other hand, he wants to have mutuality and reciprocity in relations of the persons. Thus, he ascribes the beginning/monarchy/principium to all persons and ends up having three beginnings – losing the distinction. This is to say that there are three Fathers in the Godhead. This is not what church fathers meant. 4.4.1.5 Nature of Doctrine of Trinity Doing theology is a serious endeavour. Our attempts to think and talk about the being of God come with a lot of human limitations. We cannot think about God in his entirety and we are not able to articulate what we think of God in its entirety.372 When we come to the revelation of God in Scripture, we come to know him as he is: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Mystery relies upon the relationship between one God and three divine persons. One of the functions of the doctrine of Trinity is to bring the different paradoxical yet theological and biblical nuggets into healthy polarization and harmony.373 The temptation is to emphasize one end of the spectrum: unity or Trinity; oneness or threeness; one God or 370 As eternal generation assumes the intra-trinitarian order and monarchy of the Father. There are theologians, ES would point, who affirm it as orthodox and included it systematising their theology. Lewis and Demarest dealt this in the framework of eternal generation. See Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest, Integrative Theology (Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1987), 1:270-280. Gunton is another example from recent past. See Colin Gunton, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Essays Toward a Fully Trinitarian Theology (London: T&T Clark LTD, 2003), 58-74. On the other hand, Giles, with other anti-ES, sees this as derivative subordination and thinks it has to be avoided. Giles, Trinity and Subordinationism, 64-69. 371 Pannenberg says that it is the self-distinction of persons in the Godhead. The Son subjects to the Father and the Father depends upon the Son to be Father. Thus, mutuality maintained. It seems, for Pannenberg, the equality of the divine persons comes equally though shared personal or personhood properties, and from the ontological property of homoousios. Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 1:280-326. 372 Augustine captures this idea well in saying “God can be thought about more truly than he can be talked about, and he is more truly than he can be thought about.” DT. 7.7 373 Not to prove or explain away the doctrine rationally. It is the role of faith, and we know God to be Triune only by the faith/special revelation not by reason/natural theology. Augustine captures this well in De Trinitate. 66 three Persons; substance or subsistence; one or many; divine simplicity or particularity of persons; economy or theology.374 Though both sides of the debate are heading from the Christian West, which generally emphasizes the oneness and unity of God, ES seems to have a more balanced approach to the paradoxes. Trinity is the life of three persons in the Godhead. Therefore, the particularities of the personhoods – their roles/functions/actions – need to be given enough space in our talk of God. Moreover, the idea of inseparable operation should not be stretched to the extent where one does not need the doctrine of Trinity anymore.375 This is a good lesson from the Eastern (Orthodox) Church. The particularity of the persons is celebrated in their worship, liturgy, and theology. They do not fall into a practical Unitarianism or modalism as their Western counterparts do. 4.4.2 Eternal-Relational-Volitional Submission: A Proposal Augustine did not speculate the notion of the Son’s obedience to the Father in the category of relations of authority-submission, in his time. Thus, it is safe to say that Augustine’s trinitarianism does not directly support or reject ES in its present categories. However, while Augustine’s trinitarianism does not presuppose the eternal submission of the Son,376 neither his trinitarian framework would contradict it.. Given that ES strongly rejects the ontological subordinationism, its arguments can be established without contradicting Augustine’s trinitarianism. This study proposes the ‘eternal relational and volitional submission’377 model of Trinity. It can be demonstrated from within the framework of Augustine’s trinitarianism. It states that the Son submits to the Father relationally as the Son in his hypostasis and this submission is not out of coercion but volitional submission that comes out of reciprocal love in the FatherSon relationship. The Son is not subordinate in his being as he is consubstantial with the Father. Thus, this model is in one way, a defense of qualified ES. This model is a cumulative form of the interpretations of Augustine by Ware, Letham, and Ovey. All four words – Eternal, Relational, Volitional and Submission – need further clarity. They are explained in the reverse order. It affirms what ES affirms yet tries to avoid the term ‘subordination.’ Anti-ES sees the terms ‘subordination’ and ‘submission’ interchangeably. 374 Immanent Trinity and economic Trinity. Over emphasis of distinction and particularity of persons may bring one closer to tritheism as well. 376 Giles says that is not the focus of Augustine. (Giles, Son and the Father, 190). 377 From here onwards it is ERVS. 375 67 According to them, if the Son submits to the Father at any state then he is subordinate to the Father. However, here, the intention to substitute the term ‘subordination’ with ‘submission’ is to avoid the historical heretical notion that the word is identified with. By ‘submission’ it is meant that the Son obeys/submits to the will of the Father. This is neither hierarchical nor egalitarian but hypostatical and relational in character and in keeping in line with the eternal irreversible order ‘from the Father, through the Son, by the Holy Spirit.’ To talk about the Trinity in terms of hierarchical and egalitarian Trinity is to bring the notion of fourth-century discussion that happened around the idea of the ontological equality of the person. The consensus of the Nicene theology was homoousios. Therefore, Son and Spirit are not deficient in being to make them subordinate to the Father. There is no deficiency or subordination of the Son and the Spirit to the Father in their beings. There is no hierarchy in Godhead as the divine persons are equal and one in essence. Secondly, this submission is ‘volitional.’ Son submits to the Father out of reciprocal love for each other. There is no coercion involved. Thirdly, the Son’s submission is relational and not of the essence. The Son, according to the essence, is God. Father, according to the essence, is God.378 Yet there aren’t three gods, but one God. This submission does not mean ‘one God submits to another God.’ That makes the Father and the Son of a different substance and that would lead to tritheism – one supreme god and two subordinate gods. In the same way, Father and Son love each other relationally. The Son submits to the Father relationally. Finally, this submission is eternal, because one God exists in three divine persons eternally. 4.4.3 Substantiating the Model The argument is done in two stages. The first stage attempts to establish the notion that in our talk of God an asymmetry and a kind of inequality can be ascribed to divine persons. Thus, equality of the Son and obedience of the Son are theologically compatible. In the second stage, an attempt is made to demonstrate that Augustine saw the Son’s economic obedience to be grounded in his eternal relationship with the Father. This model is the right way to talk about the Son’s submission to the Father given that there are categories to talk about God apart from the category of substance. Keeping in line with eternal trinitarian order, the Son willingly submits to the Father. The submission/obedience of 378 So also, Holy Spirit. 68 the Son to the will of the Father is a self-distinct act of the Son.379 The obedience of the Son in his incarnate state is the reflection of what he is eternally. ERVS model keeps Augustine’s understanding of the separation between the ‘categories of substance and relations’ as the foundation. Therefore, it affirms what ES said in its defense earlier in this chapter. It is noted in chapter three that Augustine saw that the distinctions in persons (asymmetry of relations)380 do not bring change in the essence/nature of God as Arians alleged. Augustine saw substance and relations in two different categorical understandings. According to substance, the Son is equal with the Father. According to relations, there is no equality of relations, but the asymmetry of relations – in the order of Father and Son. The Son obeys the Father’s will willingly, in mutual love. Augustine does not seem to have understood Trinity as a community of three friends, that are equal in all aspects of relationships, but Trinity of the Father, Son, and Spirit. The ‘commonality’ of persons (that makes them unity and one) is not in the ‘distinction’ of the persons. That will make three fathers/sons/spirits just like between three friends and neighbors.381 For Augustine, the ‘commonality’ that brings ‘unity’ in Trinity is ousia, not anything they have in equal measure. It is worth quoting Augustine in length here. He asks, what makes the Son equal to the Father; is it what is said of him with reference to himself, or what is said of him with reference to the Father? Well, it cannot be what he is called with reference to the Father, because with reference to the Father he is called Son; and in this respect the other is not Son but Father, for father and son do not have the same sort of reference to each other as friends or neighbors. Friend of course has reference to friend, and if they love each other equally, there is the same friendship in each; and neighbor has reference to neighbor, and because they neighbor equally on each other (A is as near to B as B is to A), there is the same neighborness in each… It remains that what makes him equal must be what he is called with reference to himself. But whatever he is called with reference to himself he is called substance-wise. So it follows that he is equal substance-wise.382 379 Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 1:310-315. 380 As Augustine notes that they are not and cannot three friends, three fathers, not three sons. Ovey highlights this point in arguing for order of authority and submission in Trinity. 381 DT. 7.7 382 DT. 5.7 (Emphasis is added) 69 Augustine says the Son is equal in who he is in himself – homoousios! That settles the question of equality. Rowan Williams rightly notes that Augustine sees an asymmetry and inequality in who the persons are in terms of how they relate to other persons. This is talking of God in relative categories. However, there is no asymmetry or inequality in terms of who they are (God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit) and terms of the divine attributes attributed to them (good, great, wise etc.).383 There is an ambiguity in how the terms ‘equal’ and ‘equality’ are used in creedal and dogmatic statements.384 These terms are often misused in trinitarian discussions. When it is said ‘divine persons are equally (and eternally) God,’ it does not mean that the ‘divine persons are equal persons.’ It means simply that none of the persons are less in deity or inferior in nature or second rank gods. As Augustine uses it,385 the term ‘equal’ should be used to assert the consubstantiality of the persons. In the Trinity, the notion of subordination is inevitable. Our piety has to be shown against any subordinationist notion of Arian where the Son's consubstantiality is removed and Son becomes inferior to Father in being, power, and glory. The apparent subordination – which this chapter notes as relational volitional submission – should not be rejected. It has to be understood in relational categories, not in substance. To read equality in persons is an attempt to abolish the very distinction or the asymmetry of relations in which the divine persons are identified. This is crossing the categories (of substance and relations).386 Shedd rightly notes that Augustine certainly maintained trinitarian subordination of the Son,387 but that was not Arian subordinationism but the common trinitarian view taught by fathers in the East and the West.388 The Son’s volitional obedience to the will of the Father follows from the irreversible order and the relational category. The obedience of the Son is not something Jesus invented in his incarnation but it is the continuation of the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son.389 Augustine in his writings anticipated Rahner’s rule: “Immanent Trinity is Economic Trinity and Economic Trinity is Immanent Williams, “De Trinitate,” 847. Athanasian creed’s statement “the whole three persons are coeternal, coequal.” Augustine also says, “Son is equal to the Father and consubstantial and co-eternal.” Giles uses this line of argument against ES. 385 DT. 5.7 386 Routley, Eternal Submission. Kindle. 387 One of orthodox subordination. See Definition. 388 Shedd, “Introductory Essay,” 4-5. 389 J. I. Packer, Knowing God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1973), 54-55. 383 384 70 Trinity”390 through his idea of the epistemological function of incarnation.391 So, we know the eternal obedience of the Son through the obedience of the Son in his incarnate state. It is illogical for anti-ES to say that the obedience of the Son in his incarnate state should not be taken to the extent that he is eternally obedient to the Father. If one wants to see the Son’s obedience through the lens of one essence of God or substancewise, then we have the Humble God before us, we see divine obedience in Triune God. If we see the same Humble God through the lens of three divine persons or relational-wise, we see the Son submits to the Father eternally to the initiation and the will of the Father. This difference in categories is very clear in the following quotation. Augustine says, But however much God the son obeys God the Father, is the nature of human father and human son different, because the Son obeys the father? It is utterly intolerable on your part that you want to prove from the obedience of the Son a difference of nature between the Father and the Son. Moreover, it is one question whether the Father and the Son have one and the same substance; it is another question whether the Son obeys the Father. Hence, if true reasoning admits that the equal Son obeys his equal Father, we don not deny the obedience, but if you want to believe that he is inferior in nature by reason of this obedience, we forbid it.392 Few points need to be highlighted here. The obedience of the Son to the Father does not make him of different nature. The obedience of the Son does not make him inferior to the Father, because he is of one and the same substance. Therefore, it is truthful to says that the Son’s obedience is possible without being inferior and Son’s obedience is possible even though he is of the same substance as the Father.393 To affirm the incompatibility of obedience and ontological equality is to affirm the Homoian Arians’ stand.394 Augustine points out the one may have the obedience of the Son without compromising his equality with the Father.395 4.4.4 Evaluation of the Model A trinitarian model, in order to be effective, should deal with relationships between the persons in terms of ad-intra and ad-extra and have the following criteria. It should have an 390 Rahner, The Trinity, 22. Chapter 3. 392 Augustine, Answer to Maximinus the Arian II, XVIII, 3. As quoted by Ovey, Your Will Be Done, 73. 393 Ovey, Your Will Be Done, 74. 394 Ovey, Your Will Be Done, 8–9. 395 Ovey, Your Will Be Done, 74. 391 71 explanatory power to deal with the various doctrinal aspects/issues of divine persons such as the idea of irreversible order of relations of origin, the idea of indivisible will and work, irreversible order of divine works, irreducible categories of substance and relations and appropriation of roles. It should have a strong lineage to the tradition of the doctrine of the Trinity. There should be a space of vulnerability given where future theologians would explore the mystery with doctrinal imaginations in doing theology. In the process, logical coherency and Scriptural testimony and due mystery must be kept in-tact. Under the headings of ‘Evaluation of the model’ and ‘Features of the model,’ it is demonstrated that the ERVS model comes close to the criteria mentioned above. This study suggests that it is possible to infer, without contradicting Augustine’s indivisible work and will, that the Son is equal with Father in being, power, authority, and glory in respect to his nature/essence (the Son as God) and he is submissive396 to the Father in respect to divine subsistence (the Son as Son of God). 4.4.4.1 Pro-Nicene Standard ERVS is pro-Nicene.397 It does not contradict the important tenets. It does not compromise the key insight of pro-Nicene theology: homoousios. This model does not deny the Nicene settlement of the Trinity: One ousia Three hypostases.398 It maintains the unity of substance and distinction of persons. It opposes the Arian ontological subordination of the Son with pro-Nicene zeal. ERVS places balanced value for the distinction of persons and indivisible operations of the persons. 4.4.4.2 Augustinian’s Framework for Subordination It is noted that Augustinian trinitarianism is Latin pro-Nicene theology. ERVS model is based on the Augustinian framework. This model starts with and heavily depends on Augustine’s idea of the necessity of talking about God in both substance and relational categories. It makes the right use of Augustine’s hermeneutical rules to incorporate the Son’s different 396 It can also be noted as eternal functional/role/relational/subsistence subordination or eternal relational authority-submission. 397 This study adopts Ayres’ definition of pro-Nicene theology. It is “1. A clear version of the person and nature distinction, entailing the principle that whatever is predicated of the divine nature is predicated of the three persons equally and understood to be one (this distinction may or may not be articulated via a consistent technical terminology); 2. Clear expression that the eternal generation of the Son occurs within the unitary and incomprehensible divine being; 3. Clear expression of the doctrine that the persons work inseparably.” Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy, 236. 398 Augustine writes the similarities Greek and Latin trinitarian theology as early as 400 AD as following. “our Greek colleagues talk about one being, three substances (hypostases in Gk.), while we Latins talk of one being or substance, three persons, because as I have mentioned before, in our language, that is Latin, “being” and “substance” do not usually mean anything different.” DT. 7.7 72 states concerning incarnation.399 ERVS uses Augustine’s understanding of clear irreversible order of persons in the Godhead and the epistemic function of incarnation about the intratrinitarian life as grounding for their theological inference: the Son submitting to the will of the Father out of mutual love and obedience, is the Son’s self-distinctive property and not the property of the substance. Thus, this model does not contradict pro-Nicene or Augustine’s trinitarianism, but it builds from there. 4.4.5 Features of the Model ERVS pushes the boundaries of theology by looking at intra-trinitarian life in a dimension that will strengthen the doctrine of Trinity and particularly Christology. This model gives more clarity in the relationships between unity and Trinity. It gives more meaning to the relations of origin by which the divine persons are distinguished. This model gives equal importance/value/appreciation to all the states of life of the Son: preincarnate, incarnate, and post-incarnate. It does not divide the nature of the Son from one state to the other (i.e., Son preserves humility only for his incarnation). This model fits better to Paul’s teaching to imitate the humility of God (Phil. 2:1-11) – not humility which starts in a point of time (incarnation) and stops in a point of time (resurrection), but the humility/obedience that stands forever. This model helps better to keep the divine simplicity (one nature/unity) and plurality/Trinity in God (life between three divine persons) in good balance. There is always a tendency to emphasize one end of the spectrum and do some lip service to the other. Different traditions of Christianity have done this at different times and different levels. That left many Christians either to be practical unitarians, modalists, or tritheists. ERVS does not just emphasize only the oneness/unity or only the threeness. It gives a lot of theological opportunity to talk about the life of God (unity) through three divine persons as three centers of consciousness. This model helps to get into the mystery of the Trinity with more light on what constitutes the distinction of persons. This way acknowledges the idea of God’s immutability and ineffability. There is and has to be, an element of awe and wonder when one comprehends the God of the Bible. He is both near and far. He is simple and complex. We need to realize that “the scriptural witness itself demands of us this subtlety and recognition of complexity.”400 It is not claimed that there is an ontological subordination and ontological equality at the same 399 400 Son’s pre-incarnate, incarnate and post-incarnate states. Bird, “Intra Complementarian Debate.” 73 time, but there is functional submission and ontological equality in Godhead. Nevertheless, we are recognizing that the scriptural witness itself demands of us this subtlety and recognition of complexity. 4.5 Conclusion At the beginning of this chapter, it is shown how Augustine’s trinitarian thought is used by both sides of the ES debate to strengthen their arguments. It is noted that Augustine neither says anything explicitly or directly towards the current debate nor his trinitarian theology says anything that can contradict eternal subordination. Therefore, both sides made Augustine a point of departure for their theological questions.401 The difference in the context and time of the Augustine and actual debate make a gulf between them. Based on Augustine’s framework, the Eternal Relational Volitional Submission model is proposed. Augustine’s idea of categories of substance-relations and his understanding that incarnation has the epistemic function of immanent Trinity, are the main pillars of the model. The Son’s incarnational life reveals his eternal relationship with the Father and his obedience does not make him inferior to Father in substance. Thus, it is argued that the ERVS model, which is based on Augustine’s trinitarian framework and Ware, Letham and Ovey’s understanding of eternal subordination, is the better way to talk and understand the relations among the divine persons in the doctrine of Trinity. 5 5.1 IMPLICATIONS Introduction Based on the discussions of the previous chapters few implications can be drawn to the content and the practice of Systematic Theology, Hermeneutics, Apologetics and Christian spiritual formation. Special attention is given to the theology of the Father and the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity as they are personal rationale. 401 However, it is to be noted that Augustine is not the only theologian who was brought in to the debate. There are other theologians both from the past and present got used. 74 5.2 Implications to Theology Does Jesus reveal the Father or the substance of God/the triad/the one God? God the Father is the answer to be technically correct. But when we know Jesus, we know God. 5.2.1 The Difficulty of Language and Mind One learning from the discussion of the Trinity in the past for the church and theologians is that our capacity to comprehend God, is limited. There are huge differences between the ideas of talking of God, thinking of God, and the being of God. Most of the time we talk of God in negative terms as Eastern theologians do. We would not have known God to be Trinity if he had not revealed himself in creation and redemption.402 5.2.2 Forgotten Father in the Methodology of the Doctrine of God The Apostles’ and Nicene creeds begin with the first article, ‘I believe in God the Father Almighty’ and then move to the second and third article, declaring the belief in the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Christology and Pneumatology have their loci in systematic theology. Thus, we have a good amount of content that discusses the Son and the Holy Spirit. The place of the theology of the Father is either replaced by theology proper or assumed as dealt under the loci of theology proper. Invariably, the loci ‘doctrine of God’ deals not with the person of Father but God in general terms, which very close to natural theology. It gives two false assumptions. It gives the false sense that the Father (alone) is the one God who is invisible and unapproachable. The discussion on God the Father comes only in the framework of the Trinity. The reason could be that the revelation is about the activities of God’s agency to the world: The Son and the Spirt, and in a sense, they reveal the Father. The study of theology should keep the doctrine of the Trinity as the center.403 However, if the doctrine of the Father is given a correct emphasis, it can give more light to the doctrine of Trinity and theology proper in doing systematic theology.404 5.2.3 The Content of the Theology of the Father The content of the Paterology should cover the history of how the term ‘Father’ was understood in the process of the development of the doctrine of Trinity. The idea of 402 John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, 182. Athanasius creed gives a good outline for systematic theology. It starts with Trinity then moves to divine persons. It does not mean that the first chapter of systematic theology should deal with Trinity, but it means the theology should be strongly trinitarian with needed information about the person of the Father. 404 This does not mean that ‘Paterology’ should cover as many pages as ‘Christology’ or ‘Pneumatology’. 403 75 monarchy/principium of the Father and its correlation with the idea of eternal generation and/or order of relations of origin should be clearly stated. Thus, the relation of the person of the Father with the Triune God and with other divine persons can be clearly stated. The Indian Church and theology are influenced by the Western Church and theology can be benefited if it can listen to the Eastern doctrine of the Trinity. Many Western Christian songs can be “sung by Unitarians, orthodox Jews or Muslims.”405 They “are only theistic and, at best, binitarian.”406 The point is not that we cannot have a song like that. However, Christian songs can be more trinitarian. 5.2.4 The Starting Point of Trinitarian Theology The question of the starting point of trinitarian theology is part of the debate. It is noted in chapter 3 that it is problematic to say that the Eastern Church starts with three divine persons and moves to the Unity of God while the Western Church does it in reversal. Modern Western theology, basing its works on pre-modern theologians, tends to focus on the unity and oneness of God. On the other hand, few modern-day Eastern theologians and some Western theologians, particularly social trinitarians, think that “divine persons [are] more basic than one being of God”407 or the threeness of God is the starting point or right way doing trinitarian theology.408 The oneness and threeness have to be given equal ultimacy. The focus and the starting of the Trinity should be Unity and Trinity. To emphasize one over the other may lead to modalism or tritheism. There is always a tendency to see quaternity than Trinity. In trying to grasp the substance of God in metaphysical discussions, we can ignore the fact that the persons of divinity is ‘the Trinity’ and the ‘the substance.’ The essential nature of God applies to all persons of the Godhead, the one substance/essence is not God, but the persons who identically carry the one essence. Thus, we don’t go to the one essence to know God, but we go to the revealed persons to see the oneness. ERVS model is grounded on equal ultimacy. 5.2.5 Church Traditions and Trinity Church in India is divided at least into three major traditions: Catholicism, Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy. There are multiple denominations under every tradition.409 In terms of the 405 Letham, The Holy Trinity, 410. Letham, The Holy Trinity, 410. 407 Letham, The Holy Trinity, 463. 408 Zizioulas, Being as Communion, 41-41; Colin Gunton, “Being and Person: T. F. Torrance’s Doctrine of God,” in The Promise of Trinitarian Theology: Theologians in Dialogue with T. F. Torrance, ed. Elmer M. Colyer (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefiel Publishers, 2001), 115-137. 409 Catholicism may not have as many sub-traditions as Eastern Orthodox Church and Protestantism. 406 76 doctrine of Trinity, Catholicism and Protestantism stand apart from Eastern Orthodoxy’s trinitarianism on the idea of monarchy, perichoresis and particularity of the hypostases. ERVS model uses these ideas without eliminating the one ousia and divine simplicity which are strong pillars/marks of Western trinitarianism. 5.2.6 Father in Worship and Contemplation The term ‘father’ is used in different notions in Christians’ worship – public and private. The term ‘Father’ is used to mean the person of the Father only at the beginning and the end of the prayer depending on the language the prayer is offered. Most of the time the term Father is used to mean the Godhead or the fatherhood of God. In some Indian vernacular worship songs, the Son Jesus Christ is fondly called ‘daddy/father Jesus.’ Many think that it is the Father who is alone transcendent and Son and Spirit are the visible manifestation of the Father. In that sense, it is falsely deduced that Father is the ultimate God against the understanding that the Father is the first person of the Trinity at the same time one among the three co-equal and co-eternal divine persons. The ultimate object of worship is God the Trinity. “The Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshiped.”410 In Trinitarian language, it is right to say we worship the Father through the Son in Holy Spirit (Gal. 4:4; Jn. 4:23; 6:44; Eph. 3:21; 5:20; Col. 1:3,12). God the Father is revealed through the Son by the Holy Spirit (1 Tim. 2:5). “Here is the reverse movement that is seen as the ground of the church’s worship – by the Holy Spirit through Christ o the Father.”411 Given the unity of God and perichoresis – the mutual indwelling of the three persons, when Father is worshiped all the persons are worshiped and the one Triune God is worshiped. However, as Basil the Great says, that the object of worship is only one, the one God.412 In other words, we worship the one Triune God. To say, however, that we worship only the Father is Unitarianism and stands similar to Jehovah’s witnesses; to say that we worship three Gods is tritheism. We worship the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in one act of adoration. Though Father is God and Son is God and Spirit is God, we have one God and do not worship or pray to three gods.413 The trinitarian taxis is from the Father, 410 Article 27, Athanasius Creed, Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1170. Letham, The Holy Trinity, 414. 412 Letham, The Holy Trinity, 150. 413 The term ‘God’ is not used univocally. We say Father is God, Son is God and Spirit is God; we also say that Father is not Son and Spirit, so also every person to other two. We also say there is one God. The ‘is’ is used in two ways. The ‘is’ of identity’ and the ‘is’ of predication. When it is said “He is royal,” it stands to mean that there are other kings who shared the kingship. Then the ‘is’ here is not a ‘is’ of identity but of predication. Similarly, when it is said the Father/Son/Spirit is God, it is not said with the ‘is’ of identity, because, having said Father is God and we when we say Son is God, then it makes that Father is Son, but that is wrong to say. But 411 77 through the Son and by the Spirit and the taxis of our worship is to the Father, through the Son and by the Spirit.414 The same is applied in our prayers. Jesus prayed to his Father. Jesus taught us to pray to the Father in his name. It is not to say that our prayers are invalid just because they are not addressed to the Father (Mt. 6:6,9; Jn. 16:23,24). There are places where the worship and prayer are addressed the Son and Spirit. When we take one of the names of the divine persons, in fact, we are talking to God. But when we pray to the Father in the name of the Son through the Holy Spirit, we enter into the life of triune God (Eph. 2:18; 3:14). 5.2.7 Christian Discipleship and Trinity Unity and oneness that exist in the Trinity teach some moral lessons to the Church. Looking at the Trinity as a model for our different walks of life is not something wrong in itself. Certainly, some things can be learned and be applied to our personal and social life. 5.2.7.1 Unity Among Believers Jesus, in his priestly prayer (Jn. 17), prayed the believers are to be united as one, just as the Son and the Father are united as one. Many factors can classify and categorize Christians into different groups. That should not allow us to be in disunity. Where there are love and communion of the Spirit, unity in diversity is possible. 5.2.7.2 Love, Authority, and Humility Our authority and power are always used and tested against the virtue of love. Those who are in authority should make sure that they don’t coerce others or use the authority for selfpromotion. On the other hand, no one is without someone to whom he/she is accountable. Subordination is not a sign of weakness, rather subordination or submission or being humble is to be Godlike. We see this expressed in the Godhead. 5.2.7.3 Relationship Between the Genders Looking at the love and unity among the divine persons, the church should work for the maximum unity and love among the genders. In Indian society, there is a mixed thought about the intrinsic value of women. They are depicted as divine in religious mythology on the one hand, and on the other hand, they are treated as less valued than men. In some societies, when we say Father is God it means the Father/Son/HS is divine. See J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2003), 590-591. 414 Ryan Rippee, The God May Be All in All: A Paterology Demonstrating that the Father is the Initiator of All Divine Activity (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2018), Ch. 9. Kindle. 78 girl children are considered a curse and a burden. The same thing exists inside the church to some degree. The church should treat men and women as equal in value as they are made in the image of God and the gender difference should be understood in a complementarian mindset.415 5.2.7.4 Equality and Casteism No one is less valuable than another person based on his/her caste. Casteism is from Hinduism. This has captured the Indian Christian society as well. There are different church buildings built for different castes. The Indian Christian mind should be transformed and should treat others as valuable as their own self. Our understanding of the relational love of the divine persons of the Trinity should transform our tendency to suppress others who are different in terms of race, language, and wealth. The church should welcome all classes of society. The church should become a model for unity in diversity, founded on love. 5.2.7.5 Embracing Differences The church should learn to accept and celebrate the diversity of race and language by looking at the Trinity. Classless society in terms of ethnicity, culture, language and wealth is not practical. However, it is wise to accept the difference but maintain equality. Trinity is a good model. There is a distinction of person and yet they work indivisibly. The idea of indivisible operation should encourage us to work together with the unity of will for the kingdom of God. The idea of appropriation should motivate us to identify our gifts and roles in the kingdom of God and complement them with that of others. Thus, all the believers in the body of Christ are ministered to and the Triune God is glorified. 5.2.7.6 Obedience to the Will of the Father Son always obeyed the will of the Father. As the Son did, no matter what may come, we need to be submissive to the will of God in our lives. The Christian walk is a call of self-denial and a call to live by the will of God in the personal, family, church and social aspects of our lives. The Christian life is a call to align our values and morality in alignment with the will of God. 415 Understanding the fact that God has created men and women with biological and psychological differences. God created men and women in such a way that they will depend and complement each other with their uniqueness, limitations, and strength. 79 5.3 Trinity, Polemic, and Apologetics 5.3.1 Islam, Unitarians, and Jehovah’s Witnesses Islam does not have any point of reference in the eternal cause for unconditional love and any moral virtue that is celebrated in humanity. Contrary to the Trinity, Islam’s emphasis on the oneness of God, becomes the ground for dictatorship and authoritarianism in religious, political, and social lives. The unitarians face the same problem. Jehovah’s witnesses are the present-day Arians. They do not see how one God can be in three persons. Thus, they subordinate the Son ontologically. 5.3.2 Indian Theology, Unitarian, and Impersonal God Looking at the trinitarian relationship through the ERVS model gives a clear understanding of looking at God as a personal God against the notion of impersonal theos. In the Indian theological scene, the debate exists subtly. Two major strands in Indian theology concerning the doctrine of God can be seen. The first group of theologians, being very much influenced by the Indian Vedic way of thinking, depersonalize God.416 This group consists not just of Christian thinkers but also thinkers from the Indian renaissance as well.417 The second group of theologians claims the personhood of God.418 Theocentric approach emphasis that theos is impersonal and cannot be brought under any personal categories such as ‘Krishna centered’ or ‘Christocentric’ approach. While every faith/religion can celebrate uniqueness, (e.g., Krishna or Christ), the connecting point of all the diverse, personal, unique and individual deities is the impersonal and unknowable theos or Brahman. Any Indian (non-Christian) unitarian would want to say that this perspective can be adopted by Indian Christian pluralists as well. This is very evident in Samartha’s approach.419 However, through the doctrine of Trinity, theos is not impersonal but the Holy Father who is personal, who has a dynamic relationship with the Son and the Spirit. Through the life of Jesus Christ, we come to know that we can have fellowship with God the Father through the Son Jesus, in Spirit. Theology should not be theocentric and or just Christocentric. It has to To accommodate other faiths’ truth climes. Robin H. S. Boyd, An Introduction to Indian Christian Theology (Delhi: ISPCK, 2009); Sunand Sumithra, Christian Theologies from an Indian Perspective (Bangalore: Theological Book Trust, 2002). 418 This demarcation is very broader one. I use Robin Boyd’s Indian Christian Theology and Sumithra’s Christian theologies from an Indian Perspective. 419 S. J. Samartha, One Christ – Many Religions: Toward a Revised Christology (New York: Orbis Books, 1991). 416 417 80 be ‘Trinity center’ where the theos is not impersonal and unknowable, but he is ‘Father’ who is relational and knowable. The Christian doctrine of God should not lose this dynamic of the Father in doing theology. 5.4 Conclusion Trinity is the center of Christian theology and life. Through the Son’s incarnation, we come to know that God is a tri-personal God and there is inter-trinitarian life. Through the agency of God to the world – sending of the Son and Holy Spirit, God the Father is revealed. To some extent, God the Father is forgotten in the theological discussion. Our worship through singing, preaching, thinking, doing theology, and contemplation should be trinitarian in style. 6 CONCLUSION This research started with the personal rationale of knowing the nature and functions of the divine persons of the Godhead. To know more about the intra-trinitarian life and to know how the divine persons relate among themselves, the thesis got into the debate of Eternal 81 Subordination of the Son. The proponents, keeping the ideas of the supremacy of the Father and the subordination of the Son as the focal point, say that Son is eternally subordinate to the Father in role/function and relations/persons. However, they contented, this position in no way make the Son subordinate ontologically. The opponents say that the Son is temporarily subordinate to the Father in his incarnate state and after his resurrection, the Son resumes his equal position with the Father. The real debate starts from the fact that both proponents and opponents of eternal subordination appeal to Augustine for their arguments. Where does Augustine belong? To see the validity of Augustine’s trinitarian theology being claimed by both sides of the subordination debate, this research attempted to bring Augustine’s trinitarianism in conversation with the Eternal Subordination debate. First, in chapter two, the research traced the trajectory of subordination in selected theologians from the ante-Nicene, Nicene, and post-Nicene periods of church history. Through that it was found out the logos theologians and apologists tried to keep up the monotheism of the scripture and the divinity of Jesus (and Spirit) are acknowledged. They struggled with the unavoidability of the notion of subordination in their talk about the Trinity. Origen and Arian ontological subordination is highlighted through the works of Athanasius and Cappadocian fathers. And subordinationist notion in orthodox (pro-Nicene) doctrines – eternal generation and monarchy of the Father – were also identified. Then, the research in chapter three provides an Augustinian framework concerning the ontological subordination of his time. Five aspects of the Augustinian framework for (ontological) subordination are identified namely, the categories of substance-accidentsrelations, Augustine’s hermeneutical rules, the indivisible operations, an irreversible order of relations of origin, and the epistemic function of incarnation. This framework is used to look at three important aspects of Augustine’s thought, namely, the eternal generation of the Son (or) relations of origin, the theophanies of the Old Testament, and the mission of the Son and the Spirit. Chapter four identified four major arguments of the Eternal Subordination debate concerning Augustine’s trinitarian theology. They are 1) the distinction of divine persons based on eternal relations of origin implies the relation of authority-submission or eternal subordination in Godhead; 2) Augustine’s perspective of the categories of substance and relations implies relational subordination and ontological equality; 3) Economic mission of 82 Son shows eternal obedience of the Son to the Father; 4) The humility of the Son in economic Trinity reveals the ‘Humble God’ of immanent Trinity. Some problems surrounding the debate and Augustine’s trinitarian thought were identified in terms of the different contexts of Augustine and the modern debate, and ambiguity in the use of the terms ‘equal’ and ‘equality’ in trinitarian theology. Then the research proposed the Eternal Relational Volitional Submission model to see Augustine’s place in the debate. The arguments were in two stages. The first stage attempted to establish the notion that in our talk of God an asymmetry and a kind of inequality can be ascribed to divine persons. Thus, the equality of the Son and the obedience of the Son can be seen theologically compatible. The second stage was an attempt to demonstrate that Augustine saw the Son’s economic obedience to be grounded in his eternal relationship with the Father. In the end, the research makes recommendations to the content and structure of systematic theology in terms of having a robust ‘Paterology.’ Implications were drawn to personal and corporate Christian worship and prayer. Applications are drawn to Christian formation in terms of having the mutual love, value, and respect for one another among the believers and having the right use of authority in church and family. 83 Bibliography Books Augustine. City of God. Trans. Henry Bettenson. New York: Penguin Putnam, 1972. Augustine. On the Holy Trinity. Translated by A. W. Haddan. Savage: Lighthouse Publishing, 2018. Augustine. “On the Holy Trinity.” Augustin: On the Holy Trinity, Doctrinal Treatises, Moral Treatises. Ed. Philip Schaff. Trans. Arthur West Haddan. Vol. 3. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995. 1–228. Print. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 1. Ayres, Lewis. Augustine and the Trinity. Cambridge University Press, 2010. Ayres, Lewis. Nicaea and It's Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology. Oxford University Press, 2006. Barackman, Floyd H. Practical Christian Theology: Examining the Great Doctrines of the Faith. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2001. Bird, Michael F., and Scott Harrower. Trinity Without Hierarchy: Reclaiming Nicene Orthodoxy in Evangelical Theology. Kregel Academic, 2019. Blackburn, Simon. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. OUP Oxford, 2016. Boettner, Loraine. Studies in Theology. P & R Publishing, 1947. Boyd, Robin H. S. An Introduction to Indian Christian Theology. Delhi: ISPCK, 2009. 84 Cairns, Alan. Dictionary of Theological Terms. Bangalore: Omega Book World, 2019. Chadwick, Henry. Augustine: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Clark, Mary T. Augustine. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1996. Clark, Mary T. “De Trinitate,” in The Cambridge Companion to Augustine, edited by Eleonore Stump and Norman kretzmann. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Davis, Stephen T., Daniel Kendall SJ, and Gerald O’Collins SJ. The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity. OUP Oxford, 2002. Dunham, Scott A. The Trinity and Creation in Augustine: An Ecological Analysis. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2008. Dunzl, Franz. A Brief History of the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Early Church. London: T&T Clark Ltd, 2007. Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013. Erickson, Millard J. God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995. Erickson, Millard J. Who’s Tampering with the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2009. Forsyth, Peter Taylor. God the Holy Father. New Creation Publications, 1987. Giles, Kevin. Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006. Giles, Kevin. The Rise and Fall of the Complementarian Doctrine of the Trinity. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2017. Gioia, Luigi. The Theological Epistemology of Augustine’s De Trinitate. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Gunton, Colin. “Being and Person: T. F. Torrance’s Doctrine of God,” in The Promise of Trinitarian Theology: Theologians in Dialogue with T. F. Torrance, edited by Elmer M. Colyer. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefiel Publishers, 2001. Grenz, Stanley J. Rediscovering the Triune God: The Trinity in Contemporary Theology. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2004. Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994. Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952. 85 Holmes, Stephen R. Quest for the Trinity: The Doctrine of God in Scripture, History and Modernity. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2012. Johnson, Keith E. Rethinking the Trinity and Religious Pluralism: An Augustinian Assessment. InterVarsity Press, 2011. Joseph, P. V. An Indian Trinitarian Theology of Missio Dei: Insights from St. Augustine and Brahmabandhab Upadhyay. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2019. Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. The Trinity: Global Perspectives. 1st ed. Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007. Kasper, Walter. The God of Jesus Christ. New York: Crossroad, 1984. Kelly, John Norman Davidson. Early Christian Doctrines. 5th ed. London: A & C Black, 1985. LaCugna, C. M. God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991. Letham, Robert. The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship. Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing Co, 2004. McCall, Thomas. Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism? Philosophical and Systematic Theologians on the Metaphysics of Trinitarian Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2010. McCall, Thomas and Michael Rea. Philosophical and Theological Essays on the Trinity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. McGrath, Alister E. Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought. Oxford; Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishers, 1998. Meyendorff, John. Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes. New York: Fordham University Press, 1983. Moreland, J. P. and William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2003. Ovey, Michael J. Your Will Be Done: Exploring Eternal Subordination, Divine Monarchy and Divine Humility. London: Latimer Trust, 2016. Packer, J. I. Knowing God. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1973. Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Systematic Theology, Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Rahner, Karl. The Trinity. New York: Crossroad Pub, 1997. Samartha, S. J. One Christ – Many Religions: Toward a Revised Christology. New York: Orbis Books, 1991. 86 Schaff, Philip, and Henry Wace. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: Second Series. Christian literature Company, 1904. Smail, Thomas Allan. The Forgotten Father: Rediscovering the Heart of the Christian Gospel. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1996. Sumithra, Sunand. Christian Theologies from an Indian Perspective. Bangalore: Theological Book Trust, 2002. Sumruld, William A. Augustine and the Arians: The Bishop of Hippo’s Encounters with Ulfilan Arianism. Selinsgrove: Susquehanna University Press, 1994. Ware, Bruce A. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2005. Ware, Bruce A. and John Starke. One God in Three Persons: Unity of Essence, Distinction of Persons, Implications for Life. Wheaton: Crossway, 2015. Williams, Rowan. “De Trinitate.” In Augustine Through the Ages: An Encyclopaedia, edited by Fitzgerald, Allan D., 845-851. Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans Publishing Co, 2009. Williams, Rowan. On Augustine. Oxford: Bloomsbury, 2016. Zizioulas, John D. Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church. Crestwood: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1997. Zizioulas, John D. “The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity: The Significance of the Cappadocian Contribution,” in Trinitarian Theology Today: Essays on Divine Being and Act, edited by Christoph Schwöbel, 44-60. Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1995. Electronic Books Augustine, The Trinity (Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century). Trans. Edmund Hill. New York: New City Press, 1991. Kindle. Rippee, Ryan L. That God May Be All in All: A Paterology Demonstrating That the Father Is the Initiator of All Divine Activity. Eugene: PICKWICK Publications, 2018. Kindle. Routley, Jonathan J. Eternal Submission: A Biblical and Theological Examination. Eugene: WIPF & STOCK, 2020. Kindle. Schaff, Philip, ed. The Church Fathers: The Complete Ante-Nicene & Nicene and PostNicene Church Fathers Collection. London: Catholic Way Publishing, 2014. Kindle. Articles Bird, Michael F, and Robert E Shillaker. “Subordination in the Trinity and Gender Roles: A Response to Recent Discussion.” Trinity Journal 29, no. 2 (2008): 267–83. 87 Hennessy, Kristin. “An Answer to de Regnon’s Accusers: Why we should Not Speak of “His” Paradigm.” in Harvard Theological Review 100, (2007): 179-197. Johnson, Keith E. “Trinitarian Agency and the Eternal Subordination of the Son: An Augustinian Perspective.” Themelios 36, no. 1 (2011):7-25. Johnson, Keith E. “What Would Augustine Say to Evangelicals Who Reject the Eternal Generation of the Son?” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 16, no. 2 (2012): 26-43.. Keener, Craig S. “Is Subordination withing the Trinity Really Heresy? A Study of John 5:18 in Context.” Trinity Journal 20, no. 1 (1999): 39-51. Kim, E. C. “The Necessity of Rediscovering Patrology: Why is the Father Forgotten?” Asia Journal of Theology 19, no. 1 (2005): 14-29. Online Sources Ayres, Lewis. Augustine and the Trinity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10431419. Barnes, Michel René. “De Régnon Reconsidered.” Augustinian Studies, October 1, 1995. https://doi.org/10.5840/augstudies199526213. Letham, Robert. “Does the Son Submit to the Father in the Indivisible unity of the Trinity?” Christian Research Journal, volume 31, number 1 (2008). https://www.equip.org/article/is-the-son-eternally-submissive-to-the-father/. Michael F. Bird, “Patristic Scholar Lewis Ayres Weighs in on the Intra Complementarian Debate,” in https://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2016/06/patristics-scholar-lewisayres-weighs-in-on-the-intra-complementarian-debate/ (accessed on 7-11-20). Dissertation Paul Krueger, James. “God the Father in the Western Tradition: Bringing Augustine and Bonaventure into Conversation with Modern Theology.” PhD diss., School of Theology and Religious Studies of The Catholic University of America, 2014. Videos Henry Center. “Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem: Relations of Authority and Submission among the Persons of God head.” YouTube video, 2:32:16. August 2, 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySFrG3mOp5o&t=5240s. 88