Cappadocian fathers and the Trinity

[Tom Powell]

I have just finished reading the "Word full of Arians" article on this site. It mentions the formula for the Trinity that the Cappadocians came up with, but it doesn't really talk about the formula. Does anyone know where I can look for more info about it? I want to know some details on what made it so unique.

Thanks,
Tom

[M.C. Steenberg]

Tom, there is a large volume entitled The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, by R.P.C. Hanson, which addresses the whole of the Arian/Trinitarian Controversy of the fourth and fifth centuries -- and in the process, it spends a great deal of time on the Cappadocian Fathers and their role in the explication of the orthodox conception of the Trinity. The book is suitably sweeping and thus specific doctrinal peculiarities will need to be examined with reference to more particular monographs, but it is a remarkably academically precise text for so large a volume.

The basic conception which is generally and very broadly termed the 'Cappadocian Formula', with respect to Trinitarianism, is the famous 'One divine ousia in three hypostases' (i.e. one divine essence in three persons, as it would later be clarified). The doctrine itself cannot be wholly credited to the Cappadocians, but it was they who offered the first stages of precision to the terminology that others had already employed, and began to firmly implant this language and this conception into the theological tradition as Orthodox.

INXC, Matthew

[John Wehling]

Matthew,

I just finished reading your article on epinoia and the Cappadocians. For the most part I found it very good. However, once or twice you seem to state that epinoia is the only faculty that humans have for perceiving God. This, of course, ignores the Cappadocian (and Patristic) emphasis on noetic knowledge. I realise that you were concerned, along with the Cappadocians (and I hope the rest of us!), with defending epinoia, but I felt it was worth drawing attention to.

Glad to be on the list!

Peace to you,
John Wehling

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear in the Lord, John,

It is good to have you here amongst the discussions. You bring up a good point regarding the Cappadocians and the larger patristic witness to the knowledge of God. When taken on the larger scale, epinoia certainly isn't the only method of knowing God: noetic knowledge, or the direct knowledge of true prayer, is not only different from the process of epinoia, but in fact a higher way of knowing, as such Fathers as St Gregory of Nyssa, St Maximos the Confessor, St John of Sinai, St Gregory Palamas and so many others were wont to point out.

However, as I am sure you will be quite aware, epinoia and noetic knowledge actually fit into to quite different categories of knowing: the first stands among the methods of knowledge by means of reason and rational faculty (in some sense, a category of kataphatic knowledge), while the second stands among the 'experiential', direct, non-sensory and in some sense 'non-rational' knowledge (to some degree a category of apophaticism).

Within the first category, that of positive rational knowledge, the Cappadocians were quite insistent that the process of epinoia was, in fact, the primary if not the only way of obtaining knowledge about God -- or anything else (see the relevant quotes in the study). Epinoia seems to be somewhat identical with a Cappadocian definition of 'rational knowledge' itself, as it describes the means by which the God-given human intellect is used to interpret, make sense of and draw truths from the perceived realities of the world and of God. It is, especially for St Gregory of Nyssa (who is one of the great exponents of noetic knowledge in the apophatic realm), the means, par excellence, of coming to know God in the rational realm of the sensory world and created intellect. It is within this context that, I hope, my statements such as 'the epinoiai are the only means by which a genuine knowledge of God can be attained', will be found to be accurate.

But such statements do not hold --at all-- once one moves beyond the realm of positive, kataphatic knowledge into negative, direct, apophatic and noetic knowledge. By definition, such a way of knowing does not rely upon the perception of sensory realities, which is the basis for the process of epinoia, and as such this means of obtaining knowledge does not apply. Here we move into what the modern world wants too unrestrainedly to call 'mysticism', but which in any case goes beyond the 'rational' knowledge of the positive approach. The process of epinoia is no longer a primary tool at this point.

Your criticism is entirely valid on the larger level of knowledge -- thank you for bringing it up. I hope to have shown by the above , however, that within a given context (namely, the 'rational'), the process of epinoia is indeed the way of knowing, as the Cappadocians present it in those settings. And in the conflict with Eunomius in particular, this is the context that was most under attack, and thus the one most defended. But within the realm of higher knowledge, as you rightly point out, epinoia certainly does not stand alone.

INXC, Matthew

[John Wehling]

Matthew,

Thank you for the clarification. After looking at your other posts and the site in general, I knew that you were speaking in the cataphatic context and that you were fully aware of the importance of noetic knowledge, but felt it worthwhile to seek clarity on this point.

Thank you also for your further elaboration on the importance of epinoia in this last post. I find that too often there is an Orthodox reaction against scholasticism that leads (wrongly) to a disparagement of reason in general (the old baby and bathwater scenario). The Cappadocians for one (or rather three!) will not allow us to follow this path. St Gregory of Nyssa even says at one point in his response to Eunomius/-anism that anyone who says that epinoia is the greatest gift given to man by God would not be far wrong. In other words, all of God's gifts to us are good and to be used with thanksgiving within their proper sphere and toward their intended end. This includes the reason by which we know and understand the world and even God in a limited sense through the process of epinoia.

Thank you, Matthew, for your kind response and for your work on this site.

Many fruitful discussions!

The Peace of Christ,
John