On the Doctrine of the Trinity

God is Love? If God is essentially self-emptying love (agape), then the question is raised: to whom or to what is God essentially emptied out to?

Possibilities If the world, then the world is not to be conceived as a gift, for it is necessary for God to be God. And if the world, then God is no longer transcendent of creation. If the term of God’s self-emptying love is interior to God, then there is the question of whether there is multiplicity in God, and whether God is indeed one.

Working Principle Only if God is a communion of self-emptying love in himself can God be self-emptying love for us and the world. God can only give to what is outside of himself what God is first in himself.

Implications To say that God is a communion of self- emptying love in himself is to imply that God is 1) relational and 2) personal.

On God as Essentially Relational God is defined in terms of the relations in himself (God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.) In other words, God is the relations God has. Not a solitary God Rather, God is a communion of persons. Relations in God are relation of origin. Relations of origin are logical, not ontological.

God is Essentially Personal Persons can only exist in self-communication to others. God as personal exists uniquely in eternal self- communicating love in himself. Unlike us, God is not a communion of separate beings Rather, God is a communion in one and the same being.

On the Unity of God Not a unity of number In other words, not a mathematical unity God’s unity is a unity of essence God’s unity is a unity of love God’s concrete unity is precisely that of the Trinity Authentic love has a trinitarian essence: that of giving, receiving, and mediating

On Arius 3 rd -4 th century priest who basically taught that Christ could not conceived as truly divine Sought to preserve the Father’s monarchy or pride of place Thought that to call the Father unbegotten, and the Son begotten, meant that there was a time when the Son was not. Treated the intra-Trinitarian relations as ontological rather than logical relations. Confessed that the Son is homoiousios (“of like substance”) with the Father, not homoousios (“of the same substance”)

Distinction of Arius from other Heterodox Positions Unlike Valentinus, held that the Son is really distinct from the Father Unlike the Manichaeans, held that God is indivisible rather than composed of parts Unlike Sabellius, held that God is unchangeable

Neo-Platonism of Arius The One The Monad The Dyad God The Father The Father and The Son

Problems with the Neo-Platonism of Arius Made God’s revelation subject to human philosophical schemes and categories Contradicted the revelation of God’s highest name as that of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

Critique of Arius Lex orandi, lex credendi (“the law of prayer is the law of belief”) Alexander basically argued that Arius’ prayer and teaching were in contradiction If the Son is not truly divine, then praising the Son in prayer is an act of blasphemy.

Response to Arius Principle: Whatever is said of the Father is said of the Son, except that the Son is not the Father.” In order for the Son to be truly divine, the Son must not just be “God from God,” but “true God from true God.”

On the Nicaean Creed Not like a catalogue of beliefs Rather like a single story with a single plot Single object: the confession of who God is Doesn’t speak of many things Speaks ultimately of one thing: that all mysteries hang together in terms of the one mystery of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit What the Bible says at length, the Nicaean Creed says in brief.