Relational subordination

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,

Here is a quote from the wikipedia article on 'Subordinationism':
Subordinationism is to be distinguished from the widely held view of "relational subordination". In relational subordination, both God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are said to be subordinate to God the Father because they never command the Father, but rather do the will of the Father. However, this does not mean that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are in any way inferior to the Father by nature or being. On the contrary, both the Son and the Spirit are held to be co-equal and co-eternal with the Father because they are of the same being or substance as the Father. Do we as Orthodox Christians officially accept the term "relational subordination" to describe the relationship of the Son and the Holy Spirit to the Father? Is the monarchia of the Father in any way in conflict with the co-equality of the three Persons of the Trinity?

As a secondary question, might it be correct to imagine that the primacy issue among bishops (with Papal primacy as a 'prime' example, if you'll pardon the pun) is in some way related to the issue of the monarchia? In other words, is the structure of councils based on our understanding of the structure of the Holy Trinity?

I ask as a layman, hoping someone might clarify these issues for me. I'd like to hear a generally accepted Orthodox dogmatic explanation, and I'm less interested in hearing about the differences between churches.

Coming up to Christmas.

In Christ
Byron

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Byron,

Some very good questions here, and the start of an interesting conversation. You wrote:


Do we as Orthodox Christians officially accept the term "relational subordination" to describe the relationship of the Son and the Holy Spirit to the Father? Is the monarchia of the Father in any way in conflict with the co-equality of the three Persons of the Trinity?

The seminal discussions on the monarchia of the Holy Trinity are found in the Cappadocian Fathers, and those writing of the period, in which this was much discussed. The essential position they articulate is that the equality of the three persons is precisely ensured by the monarchia of the Father, which means that the Son and Spirit have their personal identity precisely in their relation to the 'one source' (mone arche) who is Father. It is the identity of the Father that enables us to articulate the distinguishing relations of the Spirit and Son; and it is in these relations that the personal identities of each of these 'one of the Holy Trinity' are discerned.

The Cappadocian discussion is absolutely 'monarchialist': this is the very heart of the Orthodox vision of the Trinity. A problem, however, arises in attaching the term 'subordinationism' to 'relational' or 'monarchical' ('monarchical' simply defining the type of relation). This term indicates a distinct ranking of superiority and inferiority (from the Latin: 'sub' [below] 'ordinare' [to ordain, to number, to rank]). Monarchicalism does not cause the Son to 'rank below' the Father; nor the Spirit the Father or the Son -- it simply defines their personal identity by their relations. As the Cappadocians were wont (each in their own way) to say, this is precisely what makes the persons co-equal: it is only in their relations, and not in their essence or being, that they are personally unique.

In the end, the phrase 'relational subordination' is a contradiction - at least in an Orthodox, and indeed Cappadocian, understanding. The Son and Spirit cannot be 'subordinate' in any literal sense to the Father if their distinction genuinely is defined by their relations; the one precludes the other.

I hope this helps as a start; but I'm sure there are more questions, and more to address. This is an important issue in the way the Fathers see and articulate God in Trinity.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Byron,

In the second part of your message, you wrote:


As a secondary question, might it be correct to imagine that the primacy issue among bishops (with Papal primacy as a 'prime' example, if you'll pardon the pun) is in some way related to the issue of the monarchia? In other words, is the structure of councils based on our understanding of the structure of the Holy Trinity?

Perhaps, but only to a (very) limited, and perhaps in fact miniscule, degree. There is an inviting aspect to this line of thought; but we need to remember (as St Gregory of Nyssa and others remind) that the discussion of relations in the Trinity is utterly distinct from discussions of relations anywhere else, for only amongst Father, Son and Holy Spirit are we able to conceive of relations between persons of one essence (ousia). In all other relations, we speak of very different 'persons', of created 'natures'; and so the equality-in-relational-diversity vision we have of the Trinity cannot be exactly paralleled in any created relation or relationship.

This does not mean that the relational nature of the Trinity has no value in ordering our vision of created relations: we are, after all, created in God's image, and God's being-in-relation is foundational to our own nature and existence. Yet we image God in a created manner, which means that our relations can never be identical.

I highly recommend reading St Gregory's, To Ablabius: That There Are Not Three Gods. It is an incredibly complicated, heady text; but it is absolutely central to the Orthodox articulation of Trinity and relations.

As to the ordering of the hierarchy: the councils certainly aim to reflect the 'conciliar' nature of God as a community of relating persons; but the conciliar equality of the hierarchs will always be a created icon, where the unity is true, but not of the consubstantial nature known of God. A council is a community of hierarchs, yet they remain many men. The Trinity is a community of persons, yet mystically one God.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

Dear Byron,

I second Fr. Dn. Matthew's answers but would add a point about divine will, in reference to your definition of relational subordination:

There is only one will in God, on account of the perfect unity and shared nature of the three Persons, but because of the monarchia the Father is for the the Son and the Holy Spirit the point of reference for all things. Thus when the Son speaks of the one divine will, He speaks of it as the Father's will, even though it is very much His own will. At the same time, when the Son speaks of His own will at variance with the Father's will, as when He prays that the cup pass from Him (Matt. 26:39), He is speaking of His natural human will, by which He naturally desires not to die. Thus, in the drinking of the cup, there is no subordination of the Son to the Father, but rather a subordination by the Son of His human will to His divine will, which He regards as the Father's will on account of the monarchia.

I would also caution that what the Fathers call monarchia is not what they call hierarchia. There is no hierarchy within the Trinity, for hierarchy, as the Fathers understand it, is based on dissimilarity of nature, inequality of being, and mediation between persons. There is, however, archy within the Trinity because the Father is the arche of both the Son and the Holy Spirit. I would argue that archy is also the original basis of relation in man and that hierarchy came in among men only on account of the fall. The distinction of archy and hierarchy would go a long way toward clearly up this issue of subordination and equality.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I have to admit that will as shared by the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity is the most difficult thing for me to grasp. That will refers to nature especially with the Holy Trinity is understandable since we are speaking of One God; not three.

And yet in some crucial sense for the Holy Trinity will must be/would seem to be personal; otherwise we risk slipping into a kind of modalism. Even to state that the will of the Son & Holy Spirit is the Father's will still begs the question I think. If the Son & Holy Spirit only manifest the will of the Father, if there is no personal aspect to this manifesting of will, then how again is this not a kind of modalism? How does this not diminish the reality of each distinct Divine Person, since will is so fundamental to personal reality?

To clarify myself: I have no trouble with the understanding of will as a natural quality in reference to fundamental theological insights concerning the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity. However when it comes to their distinct Personal reality I have a difficult time correlating this to the understanding of one will.

Somewhat similarly when it comes to Christology since Christ is One but has two distinct natural wills I have a difficult time seeing how this doesn't end up with the One Christ being two things in one room as it were each distinctly coming to agreement with each other.

Whereas the crucial concept of will seems to sit uncomfortably where it concerns the Personal reality of the Holy Trinity, it then can cause unease as to the Oneness of Christ.

Again- and please don't misunderstand me on this- I see the positively fundamental theological point of will & nature and also of how this point prevents a drift towards heresy. But I have yet to read an explanation that also takes into account will when it comes to the Personal reality of the Holy Trinity & will when it comes to the Oneness of Christ. (I think Lossky refers to this point in his Mystical Theology but he doesn't develop it much).

Although maybe the answer is that our language although crucial to express reality is weak in that it puts it into structured terms that cannot fully convey the true mystery of being- and so much the more the mystery of Divine Being.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

The one divine will and the two wills of Christ are, of course, great mysteries, but I find them less troublesome since I started thinking of will more in the sense of desire instead of choice. Maximus the Confessor assigns will to nature but choice (my word for Maximus's tropos) to the person. Thus Christ can desire to live yet choose to die; thus the divine Persons can share the same desire yet each freely choose to act in concert on that desire; thus also men can at times share the same desire and act with "one will," even though their separate bodies (with separate wills) more often bring them into conflict.

Furthermore, man, given certain natural human desires, can wrongly choose to satisfy those desires by sinning, not fully understanding where his desires will lead him. The fall therefore occurs as a choice of the person and not as a natural desire of will. Adam was not made by nature to sin; he freely chose to sin to satisfy his desire.

If this explanation seems "modal" as regards the Trinity, we should be reminded that it is each divine Person who does the "modaling," not the one divine nature.

This is the best I can do at the moment. Now for some last minute shopping.

Merry Christmas, Dn. Patrick

[Olga]

As a common layman (neither clergy, nor patristic scholar), but simply as someone who is reasonably familiar with liturgical texts, I have yet to come across any hymn to the Holy Trinity (troitsen/triadikon) which in any way shows any "relational subordination" of the Second and Third Persons of the Trinity to God the Father. Of course, the human nature of Christ is submissive to His Father (is this not the essence of human salvation and divine condescension?), but, in my layman's understanding, all three are "co-equal, co-eternal", as I've heard and read in many a triadikon/troitsen. Christ, as the Second Person, does stand out, as He is the one who, as Jesus, has clothed Himself in human nature and a human body, which the other Persons have not, hence the emergence of all sorts of ideas about Him, both proper and heretical.

I'm happy to be corrected on this.

[Vasiliki D.]

I purchased a gift card with the attached icon ... its apparantly a very old icon. It is the Holy Trinity as One God ... interesting.

[Olga]

I purchased a gift card with the attached icon ... its apparantly a very old icon. It is the Holy Trinity as One God ... interesting.

This is derived from a Serbian image from the late 18th-early 19thC, so it is really not that old. It is an understandable attempt of portraying the Three Persons as One God, but, unfortunately, falls short of the proper doctrine and theology of the Holy Trinity, and is therefore, I'm afraid, an uncanonical icon.

[Ben Johnson]

The one divine will and the two wills of Christ are, of course, great mysteries, but I find them less troublesome since I started thinking of will more in the sense of desire instead of choice. Maximus the Confessor assigns will to nature but choice (my word for Maximus's tropos) to the person. Thus Christ can desire to live yet choose to die; thus the divine Persons can share the same desire yet each freely choose to act in concert on that desire; thus also men can at times share the same desire and act with "one will," even though their separate bodies (with separate wills) more often bring them into conflict.

Furthermore, man, given certain natural human desires, can wrongly choose to satisfy those desires by sinning, not fully understanding where his desires will lead him. The fall therefore occurs as a choice of the person and not as a natural desire of will. Adam was not made by nature to sin; he freely chose to sin to satisfy his desire.

If this explanation seems "modal" as regards the Trinity, we should be reminded that it is each divine Person who does the "modaling," not the one divine nature.

This is the best I can do at the moment. Now for some last minute shopping.

Merry Christmas, Dn. Patrick That could explain how in the Hebrew Scriptures, the soul (nephesh) has desires, but it is not the desire that brings about sin. Thank you, Fr. Hopefully after the next few months I will be able to begin to read some of the Church Fathers. Merry Christmas to everyone!

--Ben

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Brian Patrick Mitchell wrote:


The one divine will and the two wills of Christ are, of course, great mysteries, but I find them less troublesome since I started thinking of will more in the sense of desire instead of choice. Maximus the Confessor assigns will to nature but choice (my word for Maximus's tropos) to the person.

Thanks for reminding me about this. I had forgotten about St Maximus and how he explains personal mode of willing. And yes this explanation does cover a lot of ground in accounting for the distinction of nature & person.


thus the divine Persons can share the same desire yet each freely choose to act in concert on that desire; thus also men can at times share the same desire and act with "one will," even though their separate bodies (with separate wills) more often bring them into conflict.

Although of course with created human nature, will is manifested by individual persons in a manner that only remotely shadows the will of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity. For us will is humanly characterized (in the sense that the nature of human will is different let's say from the will of different animals) and this refers to its nature. But this human will is expressed personally. In both senses, nature & person, there is a separateness between individuals which we could never apply to the nature & Personhood of the Holy Trinity.


If this explanation seems "modal" as regards the Trinity, we should be reminded that it is each divine Person who does the "modaling," not the one divine nature.

Modalism finds a more rational solution by not allowing for the reality of the Divine Persons. For us though the distinct reality of the Divine Persons is the starting point of theology. All of our theological formulations flow from this divine reality. Maybe then will takes us to the fringes of what we can humanly express since it does not easily allow for an expression of a reality that is both Three and One at once.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

Although of course with created human nature, will is manifested by individual persons in a manner that only remotely shadows the will of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity. For us will is humanly characterized ... and this refers to its nature. But this human will is expressed personally. In both senses, nature & person, there is a separateness between individuals which we could never apply to the nature & Personhood of the Holy Trinity.

Absolutely. We can expect, though, that once fully united with God through Christ we also will be "one even as we [the Father and the Son] are one." (John 17:22)


Modalism finds a more rational solution by not allowing for the reality of the Divine Persons. For us though the distinct reality of the Divine Persons is the starting point of theology. All of our theological formulations flow from this divine reality. Maybe then will takes us to the fringes of what we can humanly express since it does not easily allow for an expression of a reality that is both Three and One at once.

Indeed. Our wills are so at odds that we can hardly imagine willing exactly the same thing as someone else, but that is indeed a part of the Promise. Thank you, Father.

Dn. Patrick

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Father Patrick and others,

I've enjoyed your further thoughts in this thread. However, you made one comment that referred back to points you'd made in another, which reminded my of a clarification I've needed to ask of you since then but haven't yet. In your recent post, above, you wrote:


There is, however, archy within the Trinity because the Father is the arche of both the Son and the Holy Spirit. I would argue that archy is also the original basis of relation in man and that hierarchy came in among men only on account of the fall. The distinction of archy and hierarchy would go a long way toward clearly up this issue of subordination and equality.

Your distinction between 'archy' and 'arche' is, I confess, something I don't understand at all. Can you say, briefly in a word or two, what you mean by it?

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Father Raphael, you wrote:


I have to admit that will as shared by the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity is the most difficult thing for me to grasp. That will refers to nature especially with the Holy Trinity is understandable since we are speaking of One God; not three.

The perception of will in the Trinity is perhaps one of the deepest mysteries - perhaps one of the reasons it only became a point of intense theological controversy and debate amongst the Fathers after several centuries of clarifications over other things. We all gaze into this mystery inadequately.

Simply as a thought: the commonality of will amongst the Father, Son and Spirit is part-and-parcel with St Gregory of Nyssa's observation that the distinguishing marks of the persons are their relations. As the divine nature (i.e. that which wills) is not different in relation, the wills are not different in nature but there is one will as there is one nature.

But you say the following, which is important:


And yet in some crucial sense for the Holy Trinity will must be/would seem to be personal; otherwise we risk slipping into a kind of modalism. Even to state that the will of the Son & Holy Spirit is the Father's will still begs the question I think. If the Son & Holy Spirit only manifest the will of the Father, if there is no personal aspect to this manifesting of will, then how again is this not a kind of modalism? How does this not diminish the reality of each distinct Divine Person, since will is so fundamental to personal reality?

Here it seems to me that it is important to remember that the common nature of Father, Son and Spirit is nonetheless personal. If we start to think of it as a common 'thing' that they all 'share', then we slip down the path not only towards modalism, but also potentially 'participation theology' (i.e. 'Origenism'), etc. That the Father, Son and Spirit are homoousios one with another does not mean that they 'participate' in His divine nature (as Origen had speculated); rather that the divine nature encountered in their persons is the same as the divine nature encountered in His.

This is true of the divine will. The Father's will is not 'shared' by the Son and Spirit as if it were a substance apportioned out to additional participants. Reifying the will in this way is as incorrect as reifying the divine nature itself. Rather, in each person is found the one divine will of God, which can be identified relationally as the Father's will, since all relations in the Trinity are articulated with reference to the Father (which is what the Orthodox doctrine of monarchia means), but which is nonetheless a truly personal will in the Son and the Spirit also.

Perhaps this is of some help.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

Your distinction between 'archy' and 'arche' is, I confess, something I don't understand at all. Can you say, briefly in a word or two, what you mean by it?

Certainly, Father. I make the same distinction between arche and archy that one makes between monarch and monarchy and between hierarch and hierarchy. The former refers to the person; the latter, to the relation or order. The Father is Himself the Arche of the Son and the Holy Spirit; the Trinity is ipso facto an archy.

In the same way, I would argue that based on Gen. 2 the man is the arche of the woman, and therefore the sexes originally constituted an archy and only afterwards became a hierarchy on account of the fall, but this is only economical, for they are still meant naturally to relate to one another archically.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Anna Stickles]

I've had some questions for a while, since I don't really understand quite was is meant when the Fathers talk of person, or of will.

Especially in terms of will most of the things that come to mind seem inconsistent somewhere.

In thinking about will in regards human nature, the more I have thought about it the more I have been prone to stay away from desire (since this is considered a power of the soul) and also choice, since this term is seen almost exclusively in terms of conscious decisions made in the mind. ie this too, the way it is usually understood, ends up merely to refering to one particular action of the soul. However, the Fathers seem to have a somewhat broader conception. Could saying we have personal will be understood as saying we have input into the governance of our own energies/faculties of soul and body? That these energies can either be "tuned into God" or turned against Him?

I suppose I am having problems with connecting "will" with any distinct faculty of the soul since the main definition of will is that which governs the soul, and wonder how the Fathers have explained what "will" is.

[D. W. Dickens]

There are many complementary, conflicting and downright confusing terminology even when it is some of the most important debates in Christian history. Flesh and spirit, body and soul, mind and heart... and often body, soul and spirit; heart, soul and mind... sometimes mind is intellect, sometimes not. When is nous not a nous? The important thing is that the Church (not the individual theologian) is the authority here and the Creeds use and the liturgical use, this is what ultimately matters to everyone but a professional theologian/church historian/canonist.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Fr Dn Matthew wrote:



Here it seems to me that it is important to remember that the common nature of Father, Son and Spirit is nonetheless personal. If we start to think of it as a common 'thing' that they all 'share', then we slip down the path not only towards modalism, but also potentially 'participation theology' (i.e. 'Origenism'), etc. That the Father, Son and Spirit are homoousios one with another does not mean that they 'participate' in His divine nature (as Origen had speculated); rather that the divine nature encountered in their persons is the same as the divine nature encountered in His.

This is true of the divine will. The Father's will is not 'shared' by the Son and Spirit as if it were a substance apportioned out to additional participants. Reifying the will in this way is as incorrect as reifying the divine nature itself. Rather, in each person is found the one divine will of God, which can be identified relationally as the Father's will, since all relations in the Trinity are articulated with reference to the Father (which is what the Orthodox doctrine of monarchia means), but which is nonetheless a truly personal will in the Son and the Spirit also.

Sorry- I only noticed your comments right now. So thank you very much for this. It is helpful to understand how it is precisely the Personal reality of the Holy Trinity which prevents modalism.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,

I'd like to thank everyone for their useful and probing comments on this issue of "relational subordination", although a lot of it, I confess, feels 'over my head', as when Fr Dcn Brian writes:
Maximus the Confessor assigns will to nature but choice (my word for Maximus's tropos) to the person. Can you unscramble that a bit for us, Fr Dcn. Brian? Does desire originate in the nature of the person according to St Maximus? If so, where does choice (tropos) originate?

What I get from the whole rich debate is the sense in which the Father is the arche of the Trinity, and each co-equal Person's will is at all times in perfect hamony with the will of the Father; yet this does not in any sense render the distinct Persons of the Son or the Holy Spirit 'subordinate' to the Person of the Father.

I'd like to wish everyone a Happy New Year 2010.

In Christ
Byron

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

I'm sure Fr. Dn. Matthew could give us a better explanation of St. Maximus on will and way (thelema and tropos). But as I recall, the problem with monothelitism was that, by basing the unity of Godhood and manhood in Christ on the one encompassing will (thelema), it effectively reduced Christ's Incarnation to divine manipulation of a human body without actual experience of human desire and therefore real suffering. To be fully human, Christ must actually desire food and shelter, safety and companionship, everything that man by nature needs. His divine nature had no need of food or shelter (indeed, no need of anything, as we "need" things), so Christ could not truly desire them and suffer from deprivation of them unless He had two natural capacities for desire, two wills, one divine and one human. (The human will we can well understand; the divine will is unfathomable.) With two wills, there must therefore be something else at the higher level that unites them, that something being the Person (hypostasis) of the Son, who actually acts upon the wills, comforming the human will to the divine will. The way the Person acts is its tropos.

The advantages of this understanding are several. Besides making sense of the Gospel narratives about Christ's suffering and ensuring His full humanity, it also helps us understand how man could be made good by nature, desiring things as God intended us to desire them, and yet sin in his person by turning away from one desire and toward another. It also helps us understand how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can be of one will, on account of being of same nature, and yet act differently according to Their distinctive tropoi. There's a lot that's still a mystery, but also a lot that makes more sense, at least to me.

But this is only what I can recall without re-reading Maximus or commentaries on him. I beg Fr. Matthew's pardon and correction.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Dova Nisavic]

Dear Father Raphael, you wrote:



The perception of will in the Trinity is perhaps one of the deepest mysteries - perhaps one of the reasons it only became a point of intense theological controversy and debate amongst the Fathers after several centuries of clarifications over other things. We all gaze into this mystery inadequately.

Simply as a thought: the commonality of will amongst the Father, Son and Spirit is part-and-parcel with St Gregory of Nyssa's observation that the distinguishing marks of the persons are their relations. As the divine nature (i.e. that which wills) is not different in relation, the wills are not different in nature but there is one will as there is one nature.

But you say the following, which is important:



Here it seems to me that it is important to remember that the common nature of Father, Son and Spirit is nonetheless personal. If we start to think of it as a common 'thing' that they all 'share', then we slip down the path not only towards modalism, but also potentially 'participation theology' (i.e. 'Origenism'), etc. That the Father, Son and Spirit are homoousios one with another does not mean that they 'participate' in His divine nature (as Origen had speculated); rather that the divine nature encountered in their persons is the same as the divine nature encountered in His.

This is true of the divine will. The Father's will is not 'shared' by the Son and Spirit as if it were a substance apportioned out to additional participants. Reifying the will in this way is as incorrect as reifying the divine nature itself. Rather, in each person is found the one divine will of God, which can be identified relationally as the Father's will, since all relations in the Trinity are articulated with reference to the Father (which is what the Orthodox doctrine of monarchia means), but which is nonetheless a truly personal will in the Son and the Spirit also.

Perhaps this is of some help.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Here we have paradoxical concept.
This is the phrase of Gospel “Whomsoever has seen me, has seen the Father, for I am in the Father and the Father is in me”. Who see the Son also see the Father. The Father is present, and the Son is present within the Father. How each persona to exist inside the other personae if :
The Father's will is not 'shared' by the Son and Spirit ?
Do you cretaes individuality?

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

How each persona to exist inside the other personae if : "The Father's will is not 'shared' by the Son and Spirit ?"

By "not 'shared,'" Fr. Matthew means that the Father does not take a portion of His will and give it to the Son and Holy Spirit; they share it in the sense of holding the whole of the same will in common.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Fr Dn Matthew has often mentioned St Gregory of Nyssa's Letter to Ablabius: That There are not Three Gods. So I found the following from this letter which goes about as far as we can go I think.


Therefore, among men, because the activity of each is distinguished, although in the same pursuit, they are properly mentioned in the plural. Each of them is separated into his peculiar context from the others in accord with his peculiar manner of activity. But in reference to the divine nature we have learned that this is not the case, because [as if? my addition] the Father does something individually in which the Son does not join, or the Son individually works something without the Spirit. But every activity which pervades from God to creation and is named according to our manifold designs starts off from the Father, proceeds through the Son, and is completed by the Holy Spirit. On account of this the name of activity is not divided into the multitude o those who are active. The action of each in any regard is not divided and peculia. But whatever of the anticipated things would happen, whether for our providence or to the administration of the whole and to its constitution, it happens through the three, the things which do happen are not three distinct things.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Dova Nisavic]

Fr Raphael Vereshack:
Fr Dn Matthew has often mentioned St Gregory of Nyssa's Letter to Ablabius: That There are not Three Gods....

Absolutely! We have the concept of Agape.

I exactly know what Dn Matthew means.
That the Father, Son and Spirit are homoousios one with another does not mean that they 'participate' in His divine nature (as Origen had speculated); rather that the divine nature encountered in their persons is the same as the divine nature encountered in His.

This is problem and what does that mean? Why Christos is called the Father’s mirror?

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Why Christos is called the Father’s mirror? This is interesting, I've never heard this metaphor used for Christ before. A very quick websearch seems to identify more references to Christ as a mirror for humans rather than for God the Father, as in the Odes of Solomon, Ode 13:
1 Behold! the Lord is our mirror: open the eyes and see them in Him: and learn the manner of your face:2 And tell forth praise to His spirit: and wipe off the filth from your face: and love His holiness, and clothe yourselves therewith: 3 And be without stain at all times before Him. Hallelujah Since we know however, from John 14:8, that in seeing Christ we see the Father, could the metaphor used in the way suggested by Dova mean that the Son reflects the glory of the Father?

Thank you, Fr Dcn. Brian, for your very clear explanation of thelema and tropos in St. Maximus.

In Christ,
Byron

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

We don't often speak of Christ as the "mirror" of the Father, but I believe Dova is referring to Heb. 1:3, which speaks of Christ as "the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person." The Greek word translated as "express image" is character, which means a stamp that reproduces an exact image in a wax seal. The point is that in Christ man can at last see what God is like. Before the Incarnation, man could not possibly understand the self-giving character of God; he could not see self-giving as the basis of all goodness and the source of all life. Only by seeing Christ suffer and die and rise again can man come to a true knowledge of God.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

I should add that the obvious reason we do not often speak of Christ as the "mirror" of the Father is that a mirror merely reflects an image, whereas Christ actually bears the image of the Father.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

I should add that the obvious reason we do not often speak of Christ as the "mirror" of the Father is that a mirror merely reflects an image, whereas Christ actually bears the image of the Father. Yes, Fr Dcn Brian, this would seem to me, too, to be the most potentially misleading aspect of using such a metaphor. Thanks again!

In Christ,
Byron

[Dova Nisavic]

Again and again you must accept the theological terms before you post a comment. ...what we don't talk about when we talk about the concept of Agape which is a basicaly significant topic of gnosiology.

I comment this:


The Father's will is not 'shared' by the Son and Spirit ? and ask did Dn Matthew cretaes individuality?

However, this is the phrase of Gospel "The person who has seen me has seen the Father! How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? - John 14:9.

The Son is Father’s image and mirror. Image and mirror are the same thing.

If Father not share His will with Son and Holy Spirit we don't have concept of Agapa....Saint Clement of Alexandria and Saint Athanasios posed this question but didn’t pragmatically use it.

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

Dear Dova,

Please consider that your command of English is rather limited, making it difficult for the rest of us to understand your posts and also obviously difficult for you to understand ours. The theological issues are difficult in themselves; when it comes to the best way to express them in English, you should trust the judgment of native English-speakers.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Dova Nisavic]

This means that if we don’t accept the concept of Agape that exists between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit we can't ever know God as a Father.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Dova,


The Son is Father’s image and mirror. Image and mirror are the same thing. I think I may be able to see what you're saying as a general point. Unfortunately I don't speak Serbian or any other Slavic language to be able to tell whether this is a linguistic misunderstanding, but certainly in English 'Image' and 'mirror' are not the same. And if we are to draw theological implications from such terms, in English the connotations of these words are substantially different: 'Image' suggests content, where 'mirror' suggests a means for conveying a certain content. This would make the Son a being of a different order to the Father, which I think noone on this forum, including yourself, would agree to. I am not a professional theologian, but I can say with no reservations, that I'm sure agape is fundamental to a Christian understanding of the relations between the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I don't think anyone is saying otherwise, but sometimes language barriers can cause misunderstandings. Perceiving you as a Serbian Orthodox brother in Christ, I don't worry at all about us having a different view of God!

In Christ
Byron