I think all the orthodox would agree that there is an order amongst the persons of the Trinity. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father. The Spirit, on the Western understanding, proceeds from the Father and the Son. Whether or not the distinction between the persons goes beyond their eternal relation of origins or, to put it differently, what freight we should give to that relation, is, it seems to me rather trickier.
Critiquing the work of Kevin Giles,
Robert Doyle quotes this on the monarchy of the Father from
Athanasius:
[Against polytheism] For we must not think there is more than
one ruler and maker of Creation: but it belongs to correct and true religion to believe that its
Artificer is one … Who then might this Maker be? … the God we worship and preach is the only true One, Who is Lord of Creation and Maker of all existence. Who then is this, save
the Father of Christ, most holy above all created existence, Who like an excellent pilot,
by His own Wisdom and His own Word,
our Lord and Saviour Christ,
steers and preserves and orders all things, and does as seems to Him best?
Athanasius,
Against the Heathen, paragraphs 39-40; emphasis mine. See also
Against the Heathen, paragraphs 6-7; also
Defence of the Nicene Council/[Definition], 26, 30-31; and
On Luke 10.22.
He also cites
Defence of the Nicene Council/[Definition], 30,
On Luke, 4-5 and
Defence of the Nicene Council/[Definition], 31,
On Luke, 4-5. Doyle comments: "Note that here and in Athanasius’ wider writings the priority (that is, the order) of the person and work of the Father in defining who the Son is:
from the Father
to the Son;
from the Father who is the monarch, the one ruler as well as the one origin. In this way, Athanasius recognizes the asymmetrical, yet mutually conditioning nature of the relations between Father and Son. By
locating the monarchy in the Father, and his wielding of it through that which is also truly God, his very own Word, the Son, Athanasius keeps the Son and the Father as both truly God, and safeguards this differentiation in the one God from slipping into polytheism."
"In the immanent Trinity the roles and functions of Father and Son are not interchangeable, but permanent. The Son is Lord by sharing in his own way the monarchy of the Father who gives it to him."
"the Father cannot really be the eternal Father unless he has such an eternal Son, of the same substance as himself,
and to whom he gives his authority. The Father does not hand over his authority to an agent who is his essential inferior. Further, if the Father is not the final locus of authority, how indeed can he really be a ‘father’? It is proper for the divine Father to ‘give’ and the divine Son to respond to that."
"Let me say it again: a careful reading of the texts referred to above shows that in Athanasius’ writings, the giving of authority to the Son by his Father belongs to the immanent Trinity, and not the economic alone."
"
Augustine is absolutely insistent that in the eternal counsels and life of God, only the Father could ‘send’ and the Son be ‘sent’. ‘Sender’ and ‘sent’ are permanent roles or functions, not interchangeable. For the triune God to act truly according to his eternal being or essence, only the Father could be the Sender, and the Son the Sent One. In Augustine’s thought there is no possibility of these being interchangeable."
For Augustine "
economic subordination does speak of the eternal relations, not just the one substance. Jesus states that, “the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing” (
John 5:19ff). And in that way he—at least in the economy—is subordinating himself to the Father. Augustine, however, makes it clear that this economic relation is to be tied closely to the eternal relation. As related in eternity, so the Son operates on earth.
… that the work of the Father and the Son is inseparable [inseparabilis est operatio], and yet the Son’s working is from the Father just as the he himself is from the Father; and the way in which the Son sees the Father is simply by being the Son. For him, being from the Father, that is being born of the Father, is not something different from seeing the Father; nor is seeing him working something different from his working equally; and the reason he does not work of himself is that he does not (so to put it), be of himself … (On the Trinity, II.3)
For Augustine "The Father operates by the Son. The Father creates by the Son, and not vice versa. That is, the roles/functions/work are not interchangeable. This can be clearly seen in Augustine’s account of the missions: the Sending by the Father and the Being Sent by the Son.
It was not fitting that the Begetter be sent by his Son, but that the Son be sent by his Begetter. This is not inequality of substance, but the order of nature.19
The pattern seen in them is not arbitrary, but reflects the eternal relations.
20 It is foolish, Augustine says, to think that the Son or the Spirit could send the Father.
21 "
"Rahner strongly insists that the Father could
not die. The roles/functions/operations of the Persons of the Trinity are not interchangeable, but eternal. What happened in the economy is rooted in the eternal differentiation of the three Persons. If every divine member of the Trinity could become man, become incarnate, that would ‘create havoc with theology’ and ‘be against the whole sense of holy Scripture’. Rahner also affirms that theincarnation reveals not only something about God generally (which we already knew anyway), but particularly about the Person of the Son or the Logos, “his own relative specific features within divinity”.
27 Later, Rahner ties the obedience of the Son in the economy back into the immanent Trinity.
28
For
Barth "eternal relational subordination within the Trinity, and that it is necessary to salvation!
30 The methodological point made by Barth, which is also that of Athanasius and Rahner (amongst others) is that unless the ordering in the relations we see in the economy actually witness to the relations in the immanent Trinity, then we are in fact not in touch with God himself. "
"Barth, in his thorough christological way, goes on to apply this to man-woman relationships...."
33
Posts
