Summary: This post seeks to demonstrate what the patristic Trinitarian controversy was about, and in doing so determine how best to formulate a method for evaluating them. Unfortunately I have decided to do this backwards (and with little detail). Therefore, what you will first read are modern methods of patristic doctrinal formulation, a critique, and lastly my thoughts on what it was truly about.
What are some of the major perspectives contemporary scholars hold toward patristic Trinitarian doctrinal formulation? How do these perspectives reflect the world views of the scholars, and how have these perspectives influenced us as evangelicals? How do the scholars’ assessments of the central concerns of the controversies compare to the patristic authors’ own statements of their central concerns?
There are several major contemporary approaches to understanding patristic doctrinal formulation concerning the Trinitarian controversies. The basic approach that influences most every other perspective is the understanding that these controversies are “a clash between two schools, Antioch and Alexandria” (Richard Norris, The Christological Controversies, 23.). Certain contemporary scholars will claim that throughout the controversies the ecumenical councils seemed to go back and forth from one method to the other. In light of this model of modern scholarly discussions of patristic doctrinal formulation, scholars will associate patristic doctrines according to an Antiochian and Alexandrian theological stance. So for example, concerning Trinitarian issues, the Alexandrian school can be identified or recognized by its placement of emphasis on the threeness of God while the Antiochian school places emphasis on the oneness of God (Alister McGrath, Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998), pp. 61-72; Justo González, A History of Christian Thought, Vol. 1: From the Beginnings to the Council of Chalcedon (Nashville: Abingdon, 1970), 338-40.)
The catalyst for such a distinction and approach to understanding the Trinitarian controversy seems to be scholars’ primary preference for Western philosophical and logical thinking. Therefore, since it makes more sense to start with the oneness of God and thus favoring the Western method of the Trinity, scholars seem to pass judgment on the Eastern model and frame the controversies in such a manner. So with this perspective of the controversy, some scholars assume that Western philosophy/logic is a more appropriate approach to the matter. Also, this perspective seems to have a great influence on evangelicals today (more thoughts on this are shortly to come.).
Associated with the schools’ theological emphases, contemporary scholars also approach patristic doctrinal formulation according to an Alexandrian vs. Antiochenian method of biblical interpretation or hermeneutics (See Roger Olson, The Story of Christian Theology, 202-204). It seems that this approach is most influential on modern evangelical scholarship since we seek to follow the more literal or grammatical-historical hermeneutical method. If this perspective is correct, and the Alexandrian school interpreted allegorically and the Antiochenian school literally, then we might have a good reason to claim that the Antiochenian approach is to be favored since they at least interpreted Scripture according to a grammatical-historical method and did not allegorize Scriptural teachings like those Alexandrians did. (I will discuss this further in coming sections.)
Also, closely related to the schools’ preferred method of interpretation is the contemporary approach to a patristic doctrinal formulation that centers on the issue of terminology. William Rusch is a prime example of a scholar who presupposes that the controversies surrounding the patristic doctrinal formulations were the result of not having a robust, intellectually savvy, and technical vocabulary (The Trinitarian Controversies, 1-2, 6).
It seems that the assumption here is that the Trinitarian and Christological debates/controversies of the early church did not pertain to discussing who the Father, Son and Holy Spirit really were (i.e. God), but how we should talk about the Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Approaching these controversies from the standpoint that modern thinkers use better terminology than patristic authors did is also quite influential and evident in evangelical scholarship. For evangelicals often feel the need to talk about Christ and the trinity in a technical manner (just look at all the terms used in modern systematic theologies- such as Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology).
Another contemporary approach to patristic doctrinal formulation is the assumption that orthodoxy is the result of political maneuvers and thus simply what won out. Bart Ehrman is the classic proponent of such an assumption (See his Lost Christianities and Lost Scriptures). “Orthodoxy” won because of political motives and intrigue, and as a result theology doesn’t matter because it is divorced from Scripture. Ehrman’s presuppositions are quite clear. Given his agnosticism, he tends to speak in terms of winners and losers not right and wrong. It seems that this perspective is quite persuasive to a relativistic and/or skeptical audience, but evangelicals do well to reject such notions and understand that political endeavors encouraged orthodoxy but they never established it.
What is the most appropriate way to describe the course of these controversies?
First of all, it doesn’t seem appropriate to describe this controversy in an East vs. West manner. There are numerous patristic fathers from both the Eastern and Western tradition who don’t fit exactly into their respective mold. From the theological standpoint, instead of describing the Trinitarian controversy in a three vs. one model we should address it in a Western philosophical model and an Eastern personal model.
The benefit of describing this controversy in such a manner has huge theological implications. For example, while the Western model seems to be more philosophically or logically developed the personal aspects of the Eastern models appeal to the enjoyment of the benefits experienced within the Trinitarian relationship and that Christians will share with the persons of the Godhead. This seems to be what certain patristic authors mean when they talk about being made divine (Athanasius, On the Incarnation (Crestwood: SVS Press, 1977), 39.). It’s not that we will be exactly like God, but that we will share in the benefits and enjoyments of the Trinitarian relationship.
Also, the Western method has the implication of discussing the essence of God as it were a “thing” in addition to the three persons. Furthermore, this essence that each person of the trinity possesses and thus constitutes them as God may lead people to speak of God in an impersonal way (Rusch, Trin. Cont., 1). There, Rusch refers to this God essence as “the divine.”) To explain this a bit more, compare the Western philosophical model with the Eastern personal model and the impersonal implications of the West become clearer. That is, the relationship between the divine essence of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit might lead one to worship a God that is a “thing” and perhaps impersonal; while the East speaks of persons who are equally God and persons of the Godhead who relate with each other. See how the approaches seem starkly different from one another? One goes from speaking of an essence that ties the persons together to discussing the persons of the Godhead who are equally God and relate with each other. It seems that the latter has wonderful implications for Christians as we are to understand ourselves as participating in and enjoying the benefits of that relationship after salvation. Now there are theological burdens with each approach. Namely implications of tritheism with the Eastern model and implications of modalism with the Western model; however, these controversies will not be addressed in great detail at this time.
In light of this theological distinction, describing the patristic Trinitarian controversies is best done in a manner that is biblically grounded and not philosophically/logically consistency. As some scholars have pointed out, even the heretics focused on using Scripture and describing their perspective in light of the biblical language (Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, Revised and Updated (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004), 40). Moreover, it’s not that some patristic fathers were not at all concerned with one option or another, but where does he place primary importance? In other words, do biblical and theological studies ever take a back set to philosophy and logic?
Next, these notions of Antiochian vs. Alexandria interpretation seem to be the product of nineteenth-century scholarship and not a reflection of patristic doctrinal formulation (Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 37-38). Moreover, there are some Alexandrian fathers (e.g. Cyril) who “favored a more grammatically based approach” (Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 39). Therefore, the line is not as clear as some wish it were. Therefore, since many patristic fathers share a common approach of interpretation, a conclusion can be drawn that asserts that the appropriate way of describe these controversies is not allegorical vs. grammatical-historical interpretation but rather who the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ are and identifying their nature and function within the trinity. (More on this in the following section.)
Also, it’s best to not describe this controversy in light of terminology. If one considers the issues to be primarily terminological, then the West always comes out looking better, because the Latin terminology was more rigid and therefore easier to use and understand than the corresponding Greek words. Now terminological issues were important to patristic fathers; however, terminology was primarily about the need to clearly define the meaning of certain terms rather than what terms are appropriate and necessary for a Trinitarian discussion. Furthermore, scholars should focus on describing these controversies in a way that reflects what’s at stake if the heretics are correct. (Again, I’ll provide more thoughts on this matter very soon.)
What were the fundamental issues? What was the controversy primarily about? What was ultimately at stake?
It seems that the fundamental issue of the Trinitarian controversy was who the persons of the trinity are (namely the Son and Holy Spirit). Following this issue the controversy was primarily about the possibility and the reality of salvation. In other words, how do Christians understand what the Bible says about both God and salvation? For it seems that the early church talks about these questions in the same manner. That is, the way one talked about God was done in the same manner that one talked about salvation. For who God is and how he saves believers are closely related topics.
Given this theological necessity, these controversies were primarily about the nature and function of the persons of the Godhead. For example, if Christ is divine, then what does it mean and how does it relate to our salvation? In other words, if the primary concern of the controversies were soteriological, then why do modern scholars tend to focus on what God does rather than who God is? For the Son must be God in order to save us, and the Holy Spirit must be God in order to unite us to God. If one looks at the controversies in light of soteriological matters, then the devastating implications of the heretic would be that humanity could not be saved. In other words, if Christ were like Nestorius claimed he was then humanity would have no hope because Nestorius’ savior could not save us. Moreover, if Arius was correct, then Christ could not save us. As I have attempted to illustrate, what is really at stake in this controversy is salvation, and for this reason either side of the debated Trinity implied a saving God or a failing God. For God (or Christ, or HS) has to BE who he is, to DO what he did, to give us the KIND of salvation we have. In other words, the Son had to be God in order to save us (or enable us to achieve salvation), and the Holy Spirit had to be God in order to give us (or enable us to achieve) this kind of salvation.
No comments:
Post a Comment