Program / Course 8: God, Trinity, and Creation / Lesson 5.1
What you will learn
- Define ousia, hypostasis and prosopon and explain how their meanings were fixed in the fourth century.
- Explain the formula one ousia in three hypostases and what it excludes.
- Describe how the three persons are distinguished by relations of origin.
- State the main objections to the vocabulary, ancient and modern.
The big idea
After Nicaea the church had a creed but not a clear grammar. Greek writers used ousia and hypostasis almost as synonyms, so that saying one hypostasis seemed to mean one person, and saying three hypostases seemed to mean three gods. The Cappadocian fathers settled the matter by giving the words separate jobs: ousia for what the three share, hypostasis for what makes each one distinct. The formula one ousia in three hypostases became the standard way of saying that God is one being in three persons.
Key terms
- Ousia
- Being, substance or essence: what a thing is. In Trinitarian use, what the three persons have in common.
- Hypostasis
- A concrete, individual reality. In Trinitarian use, each of the three, the Father, Son and Spirit.
- Prosopon
- A Greek word for face or role. Used by some early writers, including Sabellians, which made it seem weak; later joined to hypostasis.
- Person
- The English and Latin word (persona) used for each of the three. It does not mean a separate individual consciousness in the modern sense, according to many scholars.
- Unbegotten, begotten, proceeding
- The three modes of origin by which the persons are distinguished: the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten, the Spirit proceeds.
- Property (idiotes)
- A distinguishing feature of a person, such as fatherhood, sonship or procession.
- Common and particular
- A pair of terms Basil used: what is common is the ousia, and what is particular is the hypostasis.
- Monarchy of the Father
- The teaching that the Father is the source or principle of the Godhead, from whom the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds.
Background
In ordinary Greek, ousia and hypostasis were close in meaning, and both could mean something like reality or being. The council of Nicaea in 325 added an anathema against those who say that the Son is of a different hypostasis or ousia, treating the words as nearly the same. Athanasius also used them loosely. So when some Eastern bishops spoke of three hypostases, they sounded to Westerners as if they said three substances, three gods. And when Westerners said one substance, which in Latin is one substantia or hypostasis, they sounded to Easterners as if they said one hypostasis, which is Sabellian.
The problem was worsened because the Latin vocabulary had a different history. Tertullian had written una substantia, tres personae. The Latin word substantia is a literal rendering of the Greek hypostasis, and so Latin writers who translated hypostasis as substantia turned the Greek formula into three substances. The mutual suspicion between East and West around 360 was largely a confusion of language. The synod of Alexandria in 362 recognized that both ways of speaking could be orthodox if the meaning was clear.
The settlement is credited to the three Cappadocian fathers: Basil of Caesarea (died 379), his younger brother Gregory of Nyssa (died about 395) and their friend Gregory of Nazianzus (died about 390). They came from Cappadocia, in central Turkey. Basil’s letters, especially Letter 38 (which scholars have debated whether to assign to Basil or to Gregory of Nyssa), set out the distinction between what is common and what is particular.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: Common and particular
Basil used the example of human beings. Peter, James and John are three individuals who share one human nature. What they share is humanity; what makes each one himself is his particular character and identity. Humanity corresponds to ousia and the individual to hypostasis. Applied to God, there is one divine ousia, and the Father, Son and Spirit are three hypostases, each with his own property.
The example has a danger, which the Cappadocians knew. Three humans are three separate beings with three separate wills, and they can act independently. If the example were pressed, the Trinity would be three gods. Gregory of Nyssa dealt with this in his work To Ablabius: That There Are Not Three Gods. He said that in the case of humans one speaks of three men only loosely, since the nature is one, and that in the case of God it is even more fitting to speak of one God, since the three have one operation, not three separate acts.
Step 2: The persons are distinguished by relation
If the three share the same being, what distinguishes them? The Cappadocians answered that the difference lies in their origin and relation. The Father is unbegotten and is the source. The Son is begotten of the Father. The Spirit proceeds from the Father. These are not differences of nature, power or glory, but of how each is related to the others. Basil held that the Father is distinguished from the Son by being the Father, and not by any greater dignity.
This is important for preventing the errors of the previous lessons. Because the three are distinguished by relations, they are not parts, as in subordinationism. They are also not modes, as in modalism, since a relation requires two sides: a Father is a Father of a Son. Gregory of Nazianzus said that the difference between begetting and proceeding is real, but that he could not explain what it is (Oration 31).
Step 3: One operation, one will
A second principle was that the three act with a single operation. Gregory of Nyssa argued that every divine act begins from the Father, goes through the Son and is completed in the Spirit. It is one act, not three. This helped to answer the charge of tritheism, since three gods would have three operations. Scripture agrees: the Father creates through the Son, and the Son does the works of the Father (John 5:19).
The Cappadocians also said that the three are not three lords or three gods. The number applies to the persons, but when speaking of what God is, the word is singular. The creeds reflect this: one God, one Lord, one Spirit. Whether this is satisfactory remains a matter of discussion, but it was the shape of the settlement.
Step 4: Objections
From early on, critics said that the Cappadocian language was too close to tritheism. Some in the West, then and later, said that it risked three separate beings. Modern scholars debate this as well. Some, such as Lewis Ayres, defend the Cappadocians as thoroughly orthodox and as holding that the three persons are inseparable. Others, such as the Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, thought that Western theology had lost the sense of the three in the one, and also criticized overly psychological models of the person.
Another objection concerns the human analogy. Three men are not one God, and analogies from human society can mislead. Many writers today still use the analogy of a social Trinity, with the persons as a community of love. Its defenders find this in the Cappadocians. Its critics say it goes beyond them and is closer to tritheism. This issue is active in contemporary theology.
- How does the example of three people sharing one humanity help, and where does it fail?
- What is the difference between a person’s nature and a person’s identity?
- Why would a shared vocabulary matter so much for church unity?
- In what sense could a relation distinguish persons without making them parts?
- Why might the Cappadocians have insisted on one operation?
- What does it mean to call God Father before speaking of God as Creator?
Examples
Peter, James and John
Basil’s example is three men who share human nature. Each is a distinct individual, though they have one nature. He used the example to show the relation between the common and the particular, then warned that the example fails because the three men are separable.
A language mix-up
A Greek bishop says three hypostases. A Latin bishop hears three substances. The Latin bishop says one substance. The Greek hears one hypostasis. They seem to disagree when they might agree. This kind of confusion is the reason the synod of Alexandria in 362 urged patience over words.
Unbegotten, begotten, proceeding
The Father has the property of being unbegotten, the Son of being begotten, and the Spirit of proceeding. These are the three names of relation. They tell what is distinct, not how much divinity each has, because the divinity is the same.
Different perspectives
Orthodox
The Cappadocian settlement is the heart of Orthodox Trinitarian theology. Orthodox writers stress the monarchy of the Father and the distinctness of the persons. They argue that this is a more faithful account than later Western developments, and they often accuse the West of beginning with the unity of the essence.
Catholic
Catholic teaching accepts the Cappadocian vocabulary and gives it a Latin form: one nature, three persons. Aquinas defines a person as a subsisting relation. The Catechism uses both Greek and Latin terms and treats them as expressing the same faith.
Protestant
Protestant confessions repeat the formula of one substance and three persons. Calvin was cautious about technical terms but accepted that the words person and substance had to be used to answer heresy. Some contemporary Protestants, particularly evangelical theologians, favor a social model; others defend the older Western approach.
Scholarly debate
Historians dispute how far the Cappadocians were original and how far they formalized what Athanasius and the Westerners were already saying. Some, following Theodor de Regnon, spoke of a contrast between Eastern emphasis on the three and Western emphasis on the one. Recent work, particularly by Ayres and Michel Barnes, has argued that the contrast was overdrawn.
Why it matters
Every ordinary creed, hymn and prayer that names Father, Son and Spirit lives within this vocabulary. Knowing how the words were fixed explains why the Greek and Latin traditions sound different and why they often agreed on content. It also gives a lesson in how doctrine moves forward: by distinguishing words, not by adding new ideas.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: Person in the creed means what it means today.
Correction: The modern sense of person as an individual self with independent consciousness is recent. Ancient and medieval writers meant something nearer a distinct subject within a shared nature. Using the modern sense can make the doctrine look like three gods.
Misunderstanding: The Cappadocians believed in three gods.
Correction: They explicitly denied it. Gregory of Nyssa wrote a treatise on the subject. Critics have asked whether their model drifts that way, but their own claim is one God, one operation, three persons.
Misunderstanding: East and West have different doctrines of the Trinity.
Correction: They differ on emphasis and on the filioque, but both hold one ousia and three persons. Many scholars regard the picture of a sharp divide as overstated.
Misunderstanding: Ousia and hypostasis always meant different things.
Correction: Before the Cappadocians they were often used as synonyms. The distinction was a deliberate decision of the fourth century.
Knowledge check
What do ousia and hypostasis mean in the Cappadocian formula?
Ousia means being or substance, what the three persons have in common. Hypostasis means a concrete individual reality, each of the Father, Son and Spirit. The formula one ousia in three hypostases says God is one being in three persons.
How are the three persons distinguished from one another?
By relations of origin. The Father is unbegotten and is the source. The Son is begotten of the Father. The Spirit proceeds from the Father. They do not differ in nature, power or glory but in how each stands to the others.
How did the Cappadocians answer the charge of tritheism?
They said the three share one nature and act with one operation, so that every act begins from the Father, goes through the Son and is completed in the Spirit. Gregory of Nyssa argued that even among humans the nature is one, and that for God it is even more proper to speak of one God.
Why was there confusion between East and West around 360?
Greek ousia and hypostasis were used as near synonyms, and Latin substantia could translate either. A Greek who said three hypostases sounded to a Latin like he said three substances, and a Latin who said one substance sounded like one hypostasis. The synod of 362 recognized that both could be orthodox.
Think it through
- What would be lost if the church had decided to use only one word, ousia or hypostasis, for everything?
- How would you explain the formula to someone who has only heard it as three in one?
- Do you find the analogy of three human beings helpful or misleading?
Independent assignment
A glossary
In your own notebook, write about 400 words. Make a glossary of the key words of this lesson in Greek and Latin: ousia, hypostasis, prosopon, substantia, persona. For each, give its original meaning, how the Cappadocians or Tertullian used it, and how it is used in English today. Then write a paragraph on one risk of using the modern English word person. Do not send this to anyone.
Further study
- Gregory of Nyssa, Dogmatic Treatises, etc. (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, vol. 5) Read the treatise on why there are not three gods.
- Basil of Caesarea, On the Holy Spirit (De Spiritu Sancto) Read the chapters on the Spirit’s place in the Trinity.
- J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines Read the chapter on the Cappadocians.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Trinity See the section on contemporary models, including the social model.
- John of Damascus, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith Read the chapters that summarize the Eastern account of the persons.
- John 5:19 The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do.
- Hebrews 1:3 The express image of his person.
- Ephesians 4:6 One God and Father of all.