Last time at my father’s house, I grabbed Karen Armstrong’s A History of God off the shelf, thinking I might shoot through it some day. This morning I was plodding through the development of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, a sample of which goes like this…
Gregory of Nyssa outlined his doctrine of the inseparability or coinherence of the three divine persons…One should not think of God splitting himself up into three parts…God expressed himself wholly and totally in each one of these three manifestations when he wished to reveal himself to the world. Thus the Trinity gives us an indication of the pattern of “every operation which extends from God to creation”: as Scripture shows, it has its origin in the Father, proceeds through the agency of the Son and is made effective in the world by means of the immanent Spirit. But the Divine Nature is equally present in each phase of the operation. In our own experience we can see the interdependence of the three ‘hypostases’: we should never have known about the Father were it not for the revelation of the Son, nor could we recognize the Son without the indwelling Spirit who makes him known to us. The Spirit accompanies the divine Word of the Father, just as the breath accompanies the word spoken by a man.
I put the book down and thought, maybe I should read this as if it were a novel.
Bobby, I wouldn't blame Armstrong for this. It's about as clear a brief explication of Gregory of Nyssa on the Trinity as you're going to get. A History of God is really a fine book. The early Church fathers are just really difficult and, if you read them as instances of the on-going re-interpretation of near eastern religious experience in terms of hellenic philosophy, there's a lot to be learned.
Posted by: Ralph Luker at April 24, 2005 06:56 AMOh, I'm not blaming Armstrong, and I am enjoying the book. It's been some time since I read about this period and I'd forgotten about the incredible theologic gymnastics that went on. Blame it age (mine) and having put matters of faith behind me, but that whole struggle now seems rather fantastic - which is why I thought maybe I would get through it more easily if I just approached it as a work of fiction.
Pleased, though, with your appraisal of the book. I mentioned Armstrong to a co-worker and I thought he was going to gag.
Posted by: Bobby Farouk at April 24, 2005 08:43 AMGregory of Nyssa was one of the Cappadocians, wasn't he? I've never been able to wrap my had around the Christological controversies.
In The Melody of Theology, a thoroughly enjoyable memoir/dictionary, Jaroslav Pelikan comments that third century Cappadocia was to trinitarian theology what eighteenth century Virginia was to political philosophy. Not terribly relevant, but I thought I'd share the simile.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at April 24, 2005 02:12 PMWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
In a certain light, this could as much the product of mysticism as it is rationalism.
Posted by: Bobby Farouk at April 25, 2005 06:45 AMThe early Church fathers are just really difficult and, if you read them as instances of the on-going re-interpretation of near eastern religious experience in terms of hellenic philosophy, there's a lot to be learned.
Yes, this is all Neoplatonism and Stoicism, isn't it?
Posted by: Alan Hogue at April 25, 2005 10:01 AMThe early Church fathers are just really difficult
I remember Tertullian having some snarky bits. And what's not to love about the very title of The Complete Overthrow of All "Knowledge" Falsely So-Called?
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at April 25, 2005 11:06 AMThe Complete Overthrow of All "Knowledge" Falsely So-Called
Sounds like a great cd title.
Posted by: Bobby Farouk at April 25, 2005 11:21 AM