Quick Trinitarian Progression Question

[N/A Gone]

Ok, quick question.

WOuld it be wrong to say that in the same way the Son "contributes" to the "creation" of the Spirit, that the Spirit "contributes" in the "creation" of the son?




**ignore the fact that "creation" and "contributes" are loaded terms and answer the bloody question with PROOF!!!!



(basic idea, If the Spirit is understood as the love between father and son, then the love would also contribute to the creation of the son. Not just be the result. In this the father is still held as primary creator, with both other members of the trinity contributing in the progression of the other. Being that our language is limited to one thought at a time, I feel that the actions could have happened together, and co-dependant on each other.)

Just a thought. Am I a heretic?

Edited June 5, 2007 by Revprodeji

[N/A Gone]

Gonna post some comments from a convo I had tonight with a smart guy.


[quote]Read this link (*provides link to this thread)
[color="#0000FF"]TacoBellGod: Dear God, that would be very wrong[/color]
rev_prodeji: :'(
rev_prodeji: I feel like the puppy hit with the newspaper..
[color="#0000FF"]TacoBellDog haha, sorry[/color]
rev_prodeji: care to tell me what I pee'd on?
[color="#0000FF"]TacoBellDog: hold on[/color]
rev_prodeji: yes sir
rev_prodeji: see...this is what happens when I think theology in the shower.
rev_prodeji: listening to Fleetwood mac
[color="#0000FF"]TacoBellDog: well, b/c the son only relates to the first person as father, not the first and the third. this is in virtue of the fact that only the first person begets[/color]
rev_prodeji: that is a classic argument that the east would use to show that the son could not "contribute"
rev_prodeji: in essence, thats the nutshell of the filioque debate..But Im working with that somewhere else.
[color="#0000FF"]TacoBellDog: it is true that western theology is often criticized for giving the Holy Spirit too much of a passive role in the Trinity, but I don't think the solution is to attribute some role to the Spirit in the begetting of the Son[/color]
rev_prodeji: In an augustine model (love model) the spirit is understood as the love between the father and son. But wouldnt the love contribute to the creation of the son? Anytime in scripture God creates it is with the spirit (gen) and in love (God so loved the world...)
rev_prodeji: the problem with western trin theo is that the spirit becomes a 3rd wheel. A puppy. The filioque was created to show the son as divine, because he could assist in the crreation of the spirit. Dont we need the spirit to do the same? And in scripture the spirit is what hovers over mary as well.
rev_prodeji: hehe..I am a dork
[color="#0000FF"]TacoBellGod: i don't know if this changes anything, but u can't speak of the son as being "created" b/c that term implies that there was a time when the Son was not. That's why we use the term "begotten" (which, admittedly, I do not entirely understand)[/color]
rev_prodeji: notice my " " admiting it is a loaded term and in english we have nothing short of forma paragraphs to explain.
rev_prodeji: language from greek to latin in this issue hurts, bringing it to english is like riding the short bus...if u get my point
[color="#0000FF"]TacoBellDog: yea[/color]
rev_prodeji: so, then what else do u think?
[color="#0000FF"]TacoBellDog: i guess i don't really know. i can't think theology and play scrabble at the same time[/color]
rev_prodeji: hehe.
rev_prodeji: my master plan
rev_prodeji: muwahahaha[/quote]

yea, so Im not sure still.

[jmjtina]

I know you want trinity experts, but I couldn't resist!

From tonights Theology on Tap:

Msgr. Mark: The Trinity is a mystery which means we aren't meant to totally understand it.

(pause)

Msgr. Mark: So with that in mind, I am going to try and briefly explain it.





carry on..............

[RezaMikhaeil]

I'm surprised you put me in this convo, that's a tough question... I gotta ponder it.

[kujo]

I think it boils down to the question of whether the Trinity is a hierarchical structure. I don't see how Jesus was "created" at any point, thus there can be no "contribution" in His "creation" by the Spirit. In the words of the greatest rappers on the planet, Point 5 Covenant,"He was, is now, and ever shall be, my God, all glory to Thee." So, basically, they are all even in that the Holy Spirit is the LOVE that is central and foundational to what IS God and what IS Jesus. It's not a "third wheel," for, without love, what is God?

That's how I see it, anyway....

[Apotheoun]

The Logos can be described as eternally "caused" ([i]aitia[/i]), but not as "created."

[Apotheoun]

Below is something that I said in a previous post that touches upon the issue at hand:

[quote]Eastern Triadology, unlike the Scholastic philosophical theology of the West, is focused first and foremost upon the monarchy of the Father, Who is seen as the sole principle, source, and cause of divinity. Now, it follows from the doctrine of the monarchy of the Father that both the Son and the Holy Spirit receive their existence solely from Him, i.e., that He is their sole source and origin; and so, they are — as a consequence — [i]homoousios[/i] with Him. Moreover, it is important to remember that the word [i]homoousios[/i] itself, which was used by the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in order to describe the eternal communion of nature that exists between the Father and the Son, is a term that indicates a relation of dependence. In other words, the term [i]homoousios[/i] involves recognition of the fact that the Son receives His existence as person ([i]hypostasis[/i]) from the Father alone by generation, and that He is dependent upon the Father for His co-essential nature. That being said, it follows that the Son comes forth from the Father’s person ([i]hypostasis[/i]), and not from the divine essence ([i]ousia[/i]), which is always absolutely common to the three divine persons. The same also holds with the personal procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) of origin of the Holy Spirit, because He also receives His existence from the Father alone, i.e., from the Father’s person ([i]hypostasis[/i]), and not from the divine essence ([i]ousia[/i]), which — as I already indicated — is absolutely common to the three divine persons [see St. Gregory Palamas, “Logos Apodeiktikos” I, 6]. Thus, it is from the Father Himself personally that the other two persons of the Holy Trinity derive their eternal existence and their co-essential nature.

Now, with the foregoing information in mind, it is clear that the Eastern Churches must reject any theological system or theory that tries to elevate the Son to a co-principle of origin in connection with the existential procession ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) of the Holy Spirit as person ([i]hypostasis[/i]), because within Byzantine Triadology a theological proposition of that kind entails either the sin of ditheism, which involves positing the false idea that there are two principles or causes of divinity (i.e., the Father and the Son); or the heresy of Sabellian Modalism, which involves proposing the false notion that the Holy Spirit as person ([i]hypostasis[/i]) proceeds from Father and the Son “as from one principle,” thus causing an unintentional blending of the persons of the Father and the Son, by giving the Son a personal characteristic (i.e., the power to spirate the Holy Spirit as person) that is proper only to the Father.[/quote]

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1288545' date='Jun 5 2007, 02:49 AM']I'm surprised you put me in this convo, that's a tough question... I gotta ponder it.[/quote]

I wanted some eastern flavor. I think this mode of thought works to address issues of Sabellian modalism, and takes away the son as co-principle without the Spirit not having a principle involved. In the same way that the spirit is "through the son" the son can be "through the spirit" While at the same time not taking away the father as primate in the monarchy. Remembering that the West used the Filioque to defend what they saw as an eastern teaching, and needed to prove that the son was divine by being part of the process. I also remember that Gregory did an analogy of the trinity as Adam/Eve/Seth in which Father and SPirit were the parents. (Im babbling..sorry)

[quote name='kujo' post='1288550' date='Jun 5 2007, 03:14 AM']I think it boils down to the question of whether the Trinity is a hierarchical structure. I don't see how Jesus was "created" at any point, thus there can be no "contribution" in His "creation" by the Spirit. In the words of the greatest rappers on the planet, Point 5 Covenant,"He was, is now, and ever shall be, my God, all glory to Thee." So, basically, they are all even in that the Holy Spirit is the LOVE that is central and foundational to what IS God and what IS Jesus. It's not a "third wheel," for, without love, what is God?

That's how I see it, anyway....[/quote]

The Father is primate in the monarchy. This is a standard principle in trinitarian theology. So in that, there is a hierarchical structure. I told you to please ignore the "created" language. The issues of the language (created-begotten, etc) is a problem with latin/greek. It becomes utter lil bus with english. The average masters theology student does not even know how to explain begotten. So I simply used the term created. When instead you could throw in Begotten, generated, etc. My point is that it is not this debate at this time to argue over the wording. English is a poor language in theology. So saying Christ is "created" is wrong, and I disclaimed it. The quote you provided from Point 5 does not offer much to the issue. If you think it does could you please explain.

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1288654' date='Jun 5 2007, 11:36 AM']The Logos can be described as eternally "caused" ([i]aitia[/i]), but not as "created."[/quote]

Yes, I know. I wanted to use simple language and not debate about language because the thread would get off course. To be formal we would need to bring it back to the greek and I dont know how to use the phatmass greek font.

Acknowledging that the Constantoplian creed avoids explicit language, allowing for an openess of various pnematological expressions. The filioque is more than just an issue of disagreement, it masks the serious differences in eastern and western theological mentality and method. Shaping not only the understanding of God and salvation, but the Church structure and spiritual and pastoral practices. East led by the Cappadocians have an aprophatic approach, marked by caution. Although Thomas is hostile towards the greeks he alters the western theology with a sense of the aprophatic. He is restrained in what he is willing to say about the inner life of the trinity.

**in a nutshell. I know the language problem. Now can someone play with my question, or can I just assume that it is ok?

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1288658' date='Jun 5 2007, 11:42 AM']Below is something that I said in a previous post that touches upon the issue at hand:[/quote]

Thanks, But I agree with you. I dont want to argue language. The paragraph was very good. Thank you for that. In that I argue that The father is still as source, through the son to the spirit, and in turn, through the spirit to the son. The monarchy of Father is in tact, with the other members of the trinity assisting in the " " of the other members.

Is that school of thought wrong? I dont see how it is. I think it is profitable.

[Apotheoun]

The monarchy of the Father means that He is the sole cause of the hypostasis of the Son and the hypostasis of the Spirit; and so, there can be no intermediaries between the Father and the Son, or between the Father and the Spirit, in connection with the existential origin of those two persons from the Father, Who alone is the source of Godhead.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1288679' date='Jun 5 2007, 10:15 AM'][. . .]

The Father is primate in the monarchy. This is a standard principle in trinitarian theology. So in that, there is a hierarchical structure. I told you to please ignore the "created" language. The issues of the language (created-begotten, etc) is a problem with latin/greek. It becomes utter lil bus with english. The average masters theology student does not even know how to explain begotten. So I simply used the term created. When instead you could throw in Begotten, generated, etc. My point is that it is not this debate at this time to argue over the wording. English is a poor language in theology. So saying Christ is "created" is wrong, and I disclaimed it. The quote you provided from Point 5 does not offer much to the issue. If you think it does could you please explain.

Yes, I know. I wanted to use simple language and not debate about language because the thread would get off course. To be formal we would need to bring it back to the greek and I dont know how to use the phatmass greek font.

Acknowledging that the Constantoplian creed avoids explicit language, allowing for an openess of various pnematological expressions. The filioque is more than just an issue of disagreement, it masks the serious differences in eastern and western theological mentality and method. Shaping not only the understanding of God and salvation, but the Church structure and spiritual and pastoral practices. East led by the Cappadocians have an aprophatic approach, marked by caution. Although Thomas is hostile towards the greeks he alters the western theology with a sense of the aprophatic. He is restrained in what he is willing to say about the inner life of the trinity.

**in a nutshell. I know the language problem. Now can someone play with my question, or can I just assume that it is ok?[/quote]
Both the Latin and the Greek Fathers reject the idea that the Logos is "created." Moreover, the terms "created" and "begotten" are not the same; in fact, as used by the Fathers these two terms are seen in a kind of dialectic of opposition. In other words, the Son is begotten, while the world is created.

That said, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed is not ambiguous, because in connection with the procession of origin of the Holy Spirit it says -- at least as it was originally written -- that the Holy Spirit proceeds ([i]ekporeuomenon[/i]) from the Father, and it does not go on to say that the Holy Spirit takes His origin ([i]ekporeusis[/i]) from the Son.

Now, as far as your original question is concerned: (1) the use of the word "creation" in connection with the origin of either the Son or the Spirit is Arian, and should be avoided altogether; and (2) the Son has no part in the existential origin of the Spirit as person, because the Father (as person) gives existence to both the Son and the Spirit, and His (i.e., the Father's) personal characteristics cannot be shared with any other person in the Trinity without falling in to the heresy of Sabeliian Modalism. Thus, the idea that the Son and Spirit participate in each others hypostatic origin would be seen as heretical by Eastern Christians.

Finally, the Eastern Christian position can be summarized in the following manner: the Father alone is the source of the Godhead, and -- as a consequence -- He alone (personally) gives existence to the other two persons of the Holy Trinity; and, in doing this, He imparts His essence to them.

[kafka]

Here is an interesting article on the Trinity:

[url="http://www.catholicplanet.com/MHT/procession-Trinity.htm"]http://www.catholicplanet.com/MHT/procession-Trinity.htm[/url]

[N/A Gone]

Todd. I understand the language issue. I said created in " " because whatever term I used would be argued and fought and I do not know how to use the phatmass greek font.

That being said, it is acceptable in greek theology to say that "From the Father through the son" In that, could it not be said "From the father, through the spirit" when it comes to the son? Gregory of Nazianzus, in the fifth oration wrote an image of the trinity as Adam/Eve Seth in which the Son came from the father with participation of the spirit.

You reject the son being involved in any way for the " " of the spirit? Right? In that, the issue is mute to you. I respect your decision as a look at how an eastern response would be. I thought that if we affirm that the source of everything is the father, and the spirit contributes to the son, and the son contributes to the spirit then we would solve numerous problems involved with the current filioque dialogue.

In my understanding the standard eastern objections are 1.) subordination of the spirit (arguably east does this for son and spirit, but thats regardless) and I think this solves that. 2.)the fathers primacy, which I think this holds to that, 3.) The issue of the son and spirit competing (protestant pnematology has this big time right now) I think this shows a stronger bond of contribution rather than competing.

I understand the balance between ditheism and Sabellian modalism, but I do not think this is a problem in this model. There is the obvious fact that it is set against Ditheism, allowing both spirit/son to participate in the " " of the son/spirit. Holding that the father is the source, and the " " is through the spirit/son for the son/spirit. In my understanding the issue of Sabellian modalism is that if the son is given the ability to " " that he has a characteristic that belongs only to the father (hypostasis) but I agree with you here.

(As far as the eccesiological aspects I do hold that we have the original creed as primary, but this is simply a theological reflection in an attempt to stop problems of the filioque)

[reyb]

[indent]It is written in Luke 23:44-46

[color="#FF0000"]44 It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last. [/color]NIV[/indent]

[indent]Question: When Jesus said ‘Father….’ is he referring to whom?[/indent]

[N/A Gone]

ReyB....what is your point? We all know who he was refering to. Are you trying to be condesending or do you have a point?

[N/A Gone]

Here is a chance for me to explain this again...

[quote]The story is my internship thesis is a reflection on the contemporay Filioque dialogue. In the process my thesis statement was that there is enough openness language in the filioque, as a pneumatological expression of the creed, to interpret the Augustianian love model in a way that can allow a viable option for the Eastern and Western view of the Trinity. A common pneumatological model that can be understood as both Catholic and Orthodox in its language. In this a major part of this was to work with the classic eastern arguments against the filioque. From this is where I had the concept of a shared participation. If the Church felt the need to express Christ having a part in the procession of the spirit, as a way of proving he was divine. Then I feel that the same could be said about the spirit. Otherwise, perhaps, the eastern argument of the son being elevated above the spirit could be valid. In the augustine model, (as beautifully expressed by Frank Sheed) we see the spirit as being the perfect love between Father and Son. Using the family model it would be possible to have the father and the love produce the son. Almost any father who is expecting child will love the child before they hold him. Being that we hold the beggeting as a timeless act, it would not be impossible to see a situation where the source is the father which goes through the son to the spirit (classic filioque model accepted by some in the east) while at the same time the father is the source that is going through the spirit in begetting the son.

While I need to work with the language, and find a way to properly explain this without drawing a picture. I am cautious in making sure I am not saying something that is against church teaching. If it would be plausable with you sir, could I send you my mental notes as I progress in order to safeguard against saying something against church teaching? I had an issue 2 years ago with open theism that I would not want to repeat, and I desire to submit this paper with my application to the Steubenville distance MA program and underlining heresy might hurt my chances of making it into the program.[/quote]

[reyb]

[indent]Revprodeji,[/indent]
[indent]I just want to know if the spirit of Jesus is God the Father himself because he said…into your hands I commit my spirit. It seems he is saying ‘Father into your hands I commit Your spirit’.[/indent]

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='reyb' post='1291747' date='Jun 10 2007, 03:04 AM'][indent]Revprodeji,[/indent]
[indent]I just want to know if the spirit of Jesus is God the Father himself because he said…into your hands I commit my spirit. It seems he is saying ‘Father into your hands I commit Your spirit’.[/indent][/quote]


If I understand the question correctly the answer is no. God is Three Spirits in One Being. Or rather God is three Persons in One Being. Christ's spirit is not the Father's, and the Father's spirit is not Christ's. Also, you nor anyone will ever understand the Trinity.


Perhaps this will help...

[img]http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e34/TheVoodookilla/Trinity.jpg[/img]


The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. The Father is distinguishable from the Son, the Son is distinguishable from the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is distinguishable from the Father. However the Father is God, nothing less, and the Son is God, nothing less, and the Holy Spirit is God, and God is essentially one.

Edited June 10, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[reyb]

[indent]Therefore, you are commanded to accept it without knowing it? [/indent]

[Laudate_Dominum]

Rev,

I'm not Trinity expert, but I got your email and noticed this thread so I figured I'd post my email reply in here in order to contribute to the discussion a bit. Although, I must say that I just proof read those emails I sent you and as usual I find my own writing to be nauseating. There are plenty of details in these rants that even I would dispute. These were truly rants of the first degree--enjoy! ;-)




Let me know if this little rant is helpful at all..

If there is some way I could get more information on the details of your problem perhaps I could offer more useful feedback. At a glance it seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that the heart of the tension you're trying to resolve is a way of articulating the mystery of the Trinity which does not apparently diminish the full divinity of the three Persons (subordinationism of some sort).

A very crude way of illustrating such a supposed problematic in classical Latin theology may be to characterize it as a modification of neo-platonic emanationism (I prefer to describe the Plotinian motif rather in terms of an effluence because of certain historical connotations which the term 'emanation' bears).

In Plotinus (and in neo-Platonism generally speaking), the Divine is conceived as a graded hierarchy of being, the ultimate source or summit, at least for Plotinus, being 'The One'. In a necessary emanation, or irradiation, from The One the so-called Nous is timelessly produced in a kind of two-fold dynamism of out-pouring and return to the source. The last substantial grade of being, or really hypostasis, in the Divine is the World-Soul, which is also variously interpreted but for Plotinus at least seems to have a bifurcated structure. Neo-Platonism en masse involves many variations and different interpretation of the structure of Divinity, but as a whole the tendency is toward a general three-fold paradigm such as that which Plotinus elucidates. In some cases The One is identified with The Good (typically based on exegesis and or eisegesis of Plato), at other times the second stage of Divinity is identified with The Good; at times the transcendent "Ideas" are located in the Nous, at other times in the World-Soul, etc..

While Neo-Platonism has many flavors, and the latest manifestations of Neo-Platonism took on a character and spirit quite foreign to that of Plotinus, I think it can be useful, and to some extent fair, to imagine a broad sort of Neo-Platonic/Middle-Platonic schematic of Divine Being for the sake of a general, brush stroke conversation.

Based on this imaginary schema, one of the most obvious differences between the pagan understanding of Divinity and that of their contemporary Christian theologians would be the way in which the unity of God is conceived. From this angle it is clear that two general approaches to the reconciliation of unity and multiplicity (in the most broad and fundamental sense) are expressed by these distinct traditions.

The tendency in pagan thought (particularly Neo-Platonism) might be characterized by that somewhat ambiguous term "emanationism". Divinity is described as successive stages of transcendent being with the ultimate source often being pushed as far "beyond being" as human conceptualization can reasonably attain; typically the multiplication of intermediary gradations and hierarchies of beings is carried out, at times in a rather unrestrained fashion (I’m thinking in particular of the theology of Proclus).
In this scenario the "solution" to the problem of unity and multiplicity would seem to be, paradoxically, multiplication—as though issues such as immanence and transcendence can be resolved by simply piling on layers of mediation ad nauseum. Although I must admit that this is largely an insane caricature of the facts since many of the late pagan philosophers and systems were extremely profound and there are always exceptions to the rules.

But the truth I'm trying to get it is that among pagan speculatives (particularly of the platonic traditions) the spiritual aspect of man—the soul, or the "highest part" of the soul—is seen as continuous with the Divine and not so much a separate created substance (creation being a foreign concept for all intents and purposes). Matter is dealt with in various ways, but in Neo-Platonism the tendency is often not as negative as is often supposed. The theurgists, for example, conceive of the place of matter in a way somewhat reminiscent of Catholic sacramentalism, and one can find theories which describe matter as simply the outer fringes of the Divine irradiation of divine being (Neo-Platonism is not Gnosticism or Manichaeism).

Christianity, being rooted in its own distinct revelation, has a very different character—even if many early theologians adopted the language and even, at times, the modified paradigms of pagan philosophers.

Augustine himself attributed much to Neo-Platonism in the process of his conversion to the Catholic faith. In speaking of his early realization and understanding of the spiritual realm, the mystical ascent to God, and of the Divine exemplarity in the world, it is to the Neo-Platonists that he gives much credit.

But we know that the starting point, indeed the fontal source and ultimate totality of Christian truth, is contained in the Scriptures; and it is to be noted that while many of Augustine's most well-known works have a largely philosophical character, he was not a philosopher, but was a Christian theologian. If one peruses his extant works one will find mostly biblical commentary, and secondly, theological exposition relentlessly drawn from Scripture.

So what are a few of the elements in Christian theology that distinguish it from Neo-Platonism? The list could touch upon every conceivable branch of philosophy and theology. But first I would acknowledge that we are talking about a very complex milieu and diverse historical dynamics. We could compare Augustinian theology with Cappadocian and discovery areas of difference and tension for example (or even Augustine and Ambrose), but in terms of what would be considered orthodox Christian teaching I think we can draw some lines whilst remaining sufficiently inclusive.

For our purposes I will touch on only a couple of important differences: for Christianity there is an infinite distinction between creation and the Godhead, whereas, in Neo-Platonism, the contingent order is co-eternal and often in some respect coextensive with the Divine. The Divine Hypostases, the gods, the daimons, the souls of men, the forms which unfold in the cosmos, etc., are all aspects of a necessary activity or effluence of the Divine in an eternal chain of being. For most of the history of Hellenic-Roman religion the idea of a comprehensive systematic theology was quite absent, and really contrary to its essential character. In the twilight of pagan religious culture, and largely in response to the Christian phenomenon, we find explicit and voluminous attempts at coherent, systematic theological paradigms (I’m thinking of late Neo-Platonism). In order to find a place for the various myths, the star-gods, the syncretic pantheons of disparate deities, the cults, etc., it was only natural that an approach involving a conception of being as a vast hierarchical organization with successive levels and interrelations would dominate. In the Christian world, rooted in the revelation of Scripture, it was the absolute unity of God (not in the sense of a mere negation of multiplicity), the infinite uniqueness of God—singularly uncreated, the freedom of God, the self-sufficiency of God, the supremely ethical character of God, and the personality of God—including the vastness of His providential love and grace (which goes far beyond any notion of universal sympathy), which was of intrinsic importance. While the pagan traditions provided a rich vocabulary for describing spiritual concepts and the spiritual journey of man systematically, the differences between pagan and Christian theology are too vast and fundamental to really be considered aspects of an over-arching tradition (which has been done at times). Often people speak of "Christian Platonists", or "Christian Neo-Platonism"; I can understand the expediency of this sort of thing, but it seems a bit too misleading to me. What is really fascinating and important, IMHO, are the essential differences between Neo-Platonism proper and the development of Christian theology, which in many cases was influenced by Neo-Platonism either through conflict or by positive engagement, but ultimately derives from a very different source and expresses radically different truths of an entirely different nature.

The reason why I’m rambling on in such a superficial manner about something that everybody already knows is because I believe that this specific subject is capable of shedding much light on the precise nature of Christian Trinitarianism in its essence and in its distinctiveness.

For Christians God is infinitely distinct from His absolutely free work of creation. It is in light of this distinction that the Christian understanding of God’s absolute unity is cast. It goes against the revealed religion to speak of "The Divine" in Neo-Platonic terms, as essentially an eternal subordinationist spectrum of being stretching from an utterly transcendent first principle down to matter. In Christian theology, God is God, and the cosmos (including time) is created; and in every moment utterly dependant upon God’s free activity to sustain its existence.

If I may be allowed a hypothetical and vestigial sort of discussion I might say that the most basic problem in formulating the doctrine of the Trinity is the problem of Tritheism. For a pagan (our superficial-imaginary pagan that is) it could be said that all of the "gods" are divine. Perhaps it could even be said that there is one divinity, with many "persons" or distinct acting subjects who share the divine nature. But in Christian revelation God is supremely one; so how might we articulate the revelation of the Trinity to people who understand divinity in a pluralistic way, while at the same time insisting upon the authentic oneness of God? With the affirmation of one divine substance and three hypostases no doubt. For starters, God is not a divine being; God is the fullness of Divinity. It is not the fact that Christianity puts forth a Trinitarian God that might perturb our imaginary simplistic pagan crowd, it is the fact that Christianity claims that one God alone is Divine. The universe is not divine, the human soul is not divine, and the "intermediaries" (angels, demons, heroes/saints) are not divine. We are not saying that the Persons of the Trinity share in a Divine Nature in the way that men share in one human nature. We are saying that the Persons of the Trinity are of one substantial nature, not as instances of a kind, but as the fullness of an individual substance. In this case a substance that is ultimately incomprehensible and infinitely beyond created substances that we know, superessential.
Of course a natural temptation in light of this would be to grasp this mystery on our own terms and do violence to the fullness of the mystery. Modalism seems a natural enough attempt at making such a doctrine more palatable, one subject who acts in a multiplicity of modes; but of course this is heresy.

It would seem to me that a subordinationist theology takes away from what is distinctly Christian and at least points toward the late pagan understanding of Divinity (generically speaking). I think this is one of the tensions perceived in certain attempts to articulate the mystery of the Trinity which seem to diminish one or another of the Divine Persons.

I believe that it is essential to affirm the monarchia of the Father— namely that the Father is the sole cause/origin of the Son and the Holy Spirit. I do not understand the Filioque in a way which makes the Father and the Son two "causes" of the Spirit’s Hypostatic reality. I understand the Filioque in terms of the proeinai of the Holy Spirit. Rather than implying a kind of subordinationist tendency, I believe that the classical formulations of the Trinitarian dynamics, for the most part, clearly and truly express the revealed truth of God’s inner life. I will explain why I say this when I get a chance.