The Trinity and Personhood

[theopoesis]

A few weeks back I discussed briefly the doctrine of the Trinity with McCulloch. I lacked the time then to fully provide an acceptable level of attention to the matter, but have taken some time now. Please forgive the length of the OP, but I need to present an idea before I can ask the questions necessary.

I believe that the writings of John Zizioulas, a contemporary Orthodox theologian, might shed some interesting light on the doctrine of the Trinity. Or, perhaps it will be pointless. Regardless, here is discussion of Zizioulas' Being as Communion. I will follow up my discussion of Zizioulas with some brief comments on Constantin Scouteris.

The Language:

Theology has traditionally claimed that the Trinity is the notion of a God of one substance/being (ousia) but three persons (hypostases). This is in the creeds, and Zizioulas takes it as granted. He also notes that the development of the philosophical idea of the "person" originated in the writings of the Cappadocian Fathers in their attempt to understand the three hypostases or persons in the Godhead.

The East/West Dispute:

Zizioulas points to the division between conceptions of the Trinity in the East among the Orthodox, and in the West among Catholics and Protestants. In the East, the Person of the Father is the source of the Son and the Spirit. The Second and Third Persons of the Trinity find their being in and through the First Person, the Father, who is the unifying principle. In the West, the unifying principle is being. The son is from the Father, and the Spirit from the Son and the Father, but all tend to be conceptualized as arising out of a nature or being - God. This seems trivial, but to Zizioulas, it is critical to understand. Zizioulas suggests correct theology is only done by the Orthodox in this area.

Personhood

To Zizioulas, to be a person or hypostasis is to exist in relation to others on one's own terms, separate from the other and yet capable of experiencing the other positively. In a biological sense, Zizioulas suggests that personhood is impossible insofar as the person is a product of biological nature. The ontological ground of "personhood" is the biological nature of the person. This is true in that the biological "person" comes to exist through a biological act of procreation, and in that the "person" ceases to exist when the biological substance of that "person's" body itself ceases to function. The will and identity of the "person," biologically speaking, is constrained by the nature of that "person" genetically, hormonally, mentally, bodily, etc.

Socially, one might also try to construct a conception of the person, but the "person" here exists only artificially. Rather, the "person" is in fact reduced to the social nature. This is true insofar as the social "person" exists in a role (plumber, architect, trend setter, outcast) only as a result of that individual's participation in the nature of society itself. Though in a small degree, an individual might influence society, society as a whole seems the stronger influence on the identity and will of the "person" itself. Thus, the "person" only exists as a manifestation of a particular social current. Here again, personhood collapses into nature/being.

Ecclesially, however, Zizioulas argues that it is possible to be a person through the theological concept of the Trinity as understood by the Eastern Church. In the Trinity, the first person of the Trinity, the Father, acts by will to eternally beget the Son and to send forth the Spirit. The Spirit and Son maintain the full nature or being of the Father, but this being or nature is not the determinative principle. Differentiation of personhood is possible through the Father's sovereign will despite the perfect identity of nature. Whereas a human being is differentiated through biological diversity or through divergent social roles and positions, the Father and Son are differentiated not by differences in nature but by will. And therefore, through the eternal begetting of the Father, within the Godhead itself three persons exist which can relate to one another on their own terms, separate from one another and yet capable of experiencing one another positively through love. The diversity of the Godhead conversely allows for unity and authentic relationship insofar as the nature of the three persons is identical. Were there no similarity of nature, there would be no basis for communication or communion.

Through participation in the divine communion (the Greek term for this is theosis or theopoiesis - from which my name is derived) the Christian, theologically speaking, claims to develop an identity through a "rebirth" in relation to God. The Son, Jesus Christ, through assuming the human nature, offers the opportunity for that nature to come into communion with the nature of the Father, thereby establishing the grounds for relationship despite the infinite divide between the infinite, eternal God and the human being. This relationship is continually unfolding, but offers the eschatological hope of personhood, wherein the human being relates to God as other in an unconstrained way, effected no longer by biological determinism (the body) or by social location (society itself having ceased to exist). Rather, the human exists independently, willingly, and autonomously, and yet is capable of relation to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit through love as a result of the assumption.

Therefore, to Zizioulas, the primary question is not "how can something be three persons in one nature?" Instead, the question becomes, how can the concept of "person" have any meaning if the "person" can be reduced to an epiphenomenon of biology or sociology or some other nature?

I might point out that I have just summarized chapter 1 of Zizioulas's book, just one of many solid books on the Trinity. But this brief introduction is sufficient for now in terms of Zizioulas.

Here I would add a few brief points from another Orthodox thinker, Constantine Scouteris in his book Ecclesial Being. Scouteris notes several points worth considering. Salvation when understood as a restoration to true personhood involves not simply a rational understanding of the work of Christ, but a participation in that work unto restored personhood. Therefore, the Church itself is not the gathering of those who share a set of ideas, but rather is the union of those beings which are saved into a communion of persons. Jesus restores the image of God onto humanity through defeating the sinful nature as represented in the biological and social and even spiritual nature of human beings, but this defeat entails both the offering of a new nature which is shared among all believers and also the creation of humans as persons in communion, no longer constrained to finitude as a result of their impending biological death, nor constrained to social inequality, but subsisting eternally in equality as independent wills and not as social roles, biologically determined bodies, or otherwise as a result of natures.

I hope these thoughts will be helpful. If nothing else, they would seem to open up a host possible of debate topics:

(1) If personhood is not grounded in being, is it illogical to speak of one being subsisting in three persons?
(2) Can personhood exist when grounded in being? How might we define this personhood?
(3) Can a non-Christian affirm or explain personhood apart from the Trinity?

[theopoesis]

I think the importance is in recognizing the divide between person and being. The Son is, scripturally, the only begotten Son of the Father. This suggests the Father is some sort of source. Often, being and personhood are collapsed into a unitary principle, which leads to a being (the Father) eternally begetting a distinct being (the Son), yet existing with the Son and Spirit as a single being. This doesn't make sense logically. Or, the tendency is to suggest the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct manifestations of the one Being (God) which tends to modalism, as fewwillfindit caught me on above.

If, however, the Person of the Father is the source of the Son and Spirit, but persons exists independently of and yet through nature/being, then the Father can eternally beget the Son and the Spirit can eternally proceed from the Father without differentiating the being of that Father because the three persons do not emanate from Being, but from a Person who exists.

I think I'm explaining that right. The eternal differentiation is of persons, the eternal communion is through unitary being.

The important observation here is that, though we have nuanced theological disputes, separating personhood from being eliminates non-theistic objections and validates the idea of personhood itself

I'm waiting for Zzyzx or McCulloch to find this thread...

OK, now my ears are burning.

I have read what you have said twice. It is still a word salad to me. There are a whole lot of words and I know what each of them mean. And they are arranged really nicely into properly constructed phrases and sentences. But I really don't have any idea what you are saying. I did find one statement that I fully agree with. Highlighted in red.

Begotten is the past participle of beget. To beget (an archaic word not frequently used) means to procreate. I have absolutely no idea what you could possibly mean by eternally begetting.

McCulloch:

I'll try to reduce it or simplify it:

(1) If personhood is rooted in being, 3 persons = 3 beings.

(2) If 3 persons = 3 beings, then statement 3 persons = 1 being is illogical. This is the objection of many non-theists to the Trinity.

(3) If personhood is rooted in being, the idea of the person adds nothing to the idea of the body or the social role. Thus, if personhood is rooted in being, personhood is a vacuous philosophical concept.

(4) Christian theology claims personhood is not rooted in being. (I cited Zizioulas interpreting the Cappadocian Fathers here). This focuses on the essence/existence divide in philosophy.

(5) If personhood is not rooted in being, 3 persons need not equal three beings.

(6) If three persons need not equal three beings, 3 persons = 1 being is not illogical.

(7) If personhood is not rooted in being, personhood can have meaning above and beyond bodily being or social being.

The OP was an attempt to show that personhood, as defined by Christians, eliminates any contradiction in the idea of the Trinity. Furthermore, personhood as defined in any other way is an empty philosophical idea.

[theopoesis]

the word was interpolation,that's why it was taken out of newer more accurate translations

I'm looking at my Greek NT with it's critical apparatus, and I see no comment of textual elimination of the Greek word "monogenes" in the passage. There are variants as to whether "autos" or "his" is included. Can you help me understand where your objection comes from?

Again, we might consider redirecting a full debate to another thread so as not to hijack the discussion here.

[EduChris]

...explain a conception of "personhood" that has any meaning above or beyond the body and social role...

For the non-theist, isn't a "person" just "a distinctly localized conglomeration of cells and gray matter all laboring under the vain illusion that they constitute an independently sufficient self, an agent, an observer, and an initiator of real thought and real emotion and meaningful choosing"?

And in contrast to this, in the Trinitarian Christian view is a person "an act of the Divine will through which differentiation and relationality collaborate in the process of knowing, revealing, and responding"?

[theopoesis]

In light of your amended definition:

In the East, the Person of the Father is the source of the Son and the Spirit. The Second and Third Persons of the Trinity subsist in and through the First Person, the Father, who is the unifying principle and from whom they eternally emanate.

Paired with this synopsis:

The important observation here is that, though we have nuanced theological disputes, separating personhood from being eliminates non-theistic objections and validates the idea of personhood itself.

I must admit that you've given me something to ponder, study and pray about. It most certainly would be gratifying, when affirming the Hebrew Shema, "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One," to mean it quantitatively as well as qualitatively.

Bear with me as I attempt to wrap my head around the distinction between "being" and "person."

I'm glad to have stimulated thought. Do keep in touch. You've already helped me clarify, and if need be I am willing to reject the Eastern understanding. Or, if you decide I am on to something, you might be able to help me continue to clarify.

[theopoesis]

...explain a conception of "personhood" that has any meaning above or beyond the body and social role...

For the non-theist, isn't a "person" just "a distinctly localized conglomeration of cells and gray matter all laboring under the vain illusion that they constitute an independently sufficient self, an agent, an observer, and an initiator of real thought and real emotion and meaningful choosing"?

And in contrast to this, in the Trinitarian Christian view is a person "an act of the Divine will through which differentiation and relationality collaborate in the process of knowing, revealing, and responding"?

Perhaps that's another way to ask my question. We'll see what answers we get.

[Cathar1950]

...explain a conception of "personhood" that has any meaning above or beyond the body and social role...

For the non-theist, isn't a "person" just "a distinctly localized conglomeration of cells and gray matter all laboring under the vain illusion that they constitute an independently sufficient self, an agent, an observer, and an initiator of real thought and real emotion and meaningful choosing"?

And in contrast to this, in the Trinitarian Christian view is a person "an act of the Divine will through which differentiation and relationality collaborate in the process of knowing, revealing, and responding"?

The Christian view of persons as in the Trinity is more of a mask or emanation as a mask an actor might use on stage TO REPRESENT A character. The Trinitarian doctrine was about Jesus being divine and human anything else you might ADD IS OPINION, CONJECTURE AND INVENTION. DAMN CAP LOCK.

I just read you claiming there is no love without God too and here more nonsense about persons being just:

" distinctly localized conglomeration of cells and gray matter all laboring under the vain illusion that they constitute an independently sufficient self, an agent, an observer, and an initiator of real thought and real emotion and meaningful choosing"

This straw man is nothing like what non-theist think. This is even a straw man when it comes to materialism and is reductionist in your presentation.

All those gray cells are more then just chemical, and electrical processes as the have much more effects then you fable description.

[McCulloch]

In contrast to [the non-theist view], in the Trinitarian Christian view is a person "an act of the Divine will through which differentiation and relationality collaborate in the process of knowing, revealing, and responding"?

Really? Are you a person? Am I a person? Can you really show that I am an act of the Divine will through which differentiation and relationality collaborate in the process of knowing, revealing, and responding?

I am pretty sure that most people who, let's say might invite a person over to their house for dinner, are not inviting an act of Divine will to the table.

[fewwillfindit]

The Christian view of persons as in the Trinity is more of a mask or emanation as a mask an actor might use on stage TO REPRESENT A character.

Absolutely incorrect. What you are describing is called Modalism, and is not an accepted doctrine that falls within the pale of Christian orthodoxy.

Would you care to cite a widely accepted orthodox (lower case "o") creed, synod or confession to support your claim?

[Cathar1950]

The Christian view of persons as in the Trinity is more of a mask or emanation as a mask an actor might use on stage TO REPRESENT A character.

Absolutely incorrect. What you are describing is called Modalism, and is not an accepted doctrine that falls within the pale of Christian orthodoxy.

Would you care to cite a widely accepted orthodox (lower case "o") creed, synod or confession to support your claim?

You are absolutely incorrect and you are misunderstanding what I said.
I was assuming the trinity which was three persons or distinct mask of the same substance or god-stuff making up the Godhead. You projected Modalism in there as I never said there was just one mask.
I go with the Jewish adoption view and see anything after that as an innovation much like the Trinity was as before that the norm was that Jesus was at least under God the Father and from the Father where the Trinity makes them equal and distinct which was why it ends up as a mystery.

On the other hand I tend to think just about any of the alternatives are preferable to the Trinity and a step in a better direction but dogma and doctrine are dogma and doctrine. At least the mobs of the Bishops are not beating each other up over the issue and after a many years of battling, off and on exiles, various compromises and succeeding emperors, the issue landed on one side of the surviving emperor. Then it still took hundreds of years with ups and downs as the heretics were exterminated far more then any Early Christians endured and for longer times.

[fewwillfindit]

Ree masks

The Christian view of persons as in the Trinity is more of a mask or emanation as a mask an actor might use on stage TO REPRESENT A character.

Absolutely incorrect. What you are describing is called Modalism, and is not an accepted doctrine that falls within the pale of Christian orthodoxy.

Would you care to cite a widely accepted orthodox (lower case "o") creed, synod or confession to support your claim?

You are absolutely incorrect and you are misunderstanding what I said.
I was assuming the trinity which was three persons or distinct mask of the same substance or god-stuff making up the Godhead. You projected Modalism in there as I never said there was just one mask.

I projected nothing. You described Modalism to a tee. Then you said it is the Christian view. You are wrong on all counts.

Who said anything about one mask? In Modalism, there are three "masks."