Trinity According to Orthodox Christianity

A Short Treatise on Trinitarian Theology

This “treatise” was originally planned to be part of a larger work that ideally would involve and encompass all major Orthodox Theological beliefs. Unfortunately, due to the vastness of Orthodox theology, it was and still is difficult for me to finish this endeavor without having to dive very deeply into several books and lectures on various different topics.

Suffice it to say, I have decided to upload it periodically over time based on my own schedule, one day I might compile my writings and publish it as a book or collection of writings of some sorts for the benefit of all (free of charge mind you), but for the time being, I will instead keep on doing what I usually do: Powerpoint presentations on my YouTube Channel and occasional writings on whatever I feel like writing about.

As confident as I am in my ability to reflect what Patristic and Biblical Theology is in regards to the Trinity, it is also the case that publishing this as an article instead of as part of a book is to my advantage in case there’s a mistake that is made in writing this document. Kindly look past any potential grammatical or spelling errors for the time being.

God & The Trinity

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.¹

From the book of Genesis until Pentecost, there is a consistent trend in the revelation of the Trinity. St. Gregory the Theologian points out that there is a gradual development:

The Old Testament proclaimed the Father openly, and the Son more obscurely. The New manifested the Son, and suggested the Deity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit Himself dwells among us, and supplies us with a clearer demonstration of Himself. For it was not safe, when the Godhead of the Father was not yet acknowledged, plainly to proclaim the Son; nor when that of the Son was not yet received to burden us further (if I may use so bold an expression) with the Holy Ghost; lest perhaps people might, like men loaded with food beyond their strength, and presenting eyes as yet too weak to bear it to the sun's light, risk the loss even of that which was within the reach of their powers; but that by gradual additions, and, as David says, Goings up, and advances and progress from glory to glory, the Light of the Trinity might shine upon the more illuminated. For this reason it was, I think, that He gradually came to dwell in the Disciples, measuring Himself out to them according to their capacity to receive Him, at the beginning of the Gospel, after the Passion, after the Ascension, making perfect their powers, being breathed upon them, and appearing in fiery tongues. And indeed it is little by little that He is declared by Jesus, as you will learn for yourself if you will read more carefully. I will ask the Father, He says, and He will send you another Comforter, even the spirit of Truth. This He said that He might not seem to be a rival God, or to make His discourses to them by another authority. Again, He shall send Him, but it is in My Name. He leaves out the I will ask, but He keeps the Shall send, then again, I will send, His own dignity. Then shall come, the authority of the Spirit.²

In short, the Old Testament primarily reveals God the Father, and the New Testament primarily reveals God the Son. The Pentecost³ completes this by revealing us the Holy Spirit personally through sacraments in the life of the Church. This revelation was, one can say, progressive/developed.

The development of doctrine can refer to an evolution, which is an innovation. This is not the Orthodox understanding, for when we speak of a “development”, we understand this development like looking at doctrine with a magnifying glass, as time goes by and our understanding advances, the magnifying glass upgrades and we are able to see more of what we are looking at, however, what we are looking at undergoes absolutely no change. This is what development for the Orthodox is.

Israel was not ready to understand nor grasp the Trinity, although as stated in Genesis 1:1-3 above, there were traces of the Trinity in the scriptures, such as the pre-incarnate Son of God taking the form of an angel (not assuming the form, for He did not incarnate as an angel) and has God’s name in Him⁴, this name indicating another person that shares God’s divinity.

To discriminate clearly between the Persons, He is called the Angel of God; He Who is God from God is also the Angel of God, but, that He may have the honour which is His due, He is entitled also Lord and God.⁵

When I had spoken these words, I continued: “Permit me, further, to show you from the book of Exodus how this same One, who is both Angel, and God, and Lord, and man, and who appeared in human form to Abraham and Isaac, appeared in a flame of fire from the bush, and conversed with Moses.” And after they said they would listen cheerfully, patiently, and eagerly, I went on: “These words are in the book which bears the title of Exodus: ‘And after many days the king of Egypt died, and the children of Israel groaned by reason of the works;’ and so on until, ‘Go and gather the elders of Israel, and thou shalt say unto them, The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath appeared to me, saying, I am surely beholding you, and the things which have befallen you in Egypt.’ ” In addition to these words, I went on: “Have you perceived, sirs, that this very God whom Moses speaks of as an Angel that talked to him in the flame of fire, declares to Moses that He is the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob?”⁶

The document of most authority on the Trinity according to the Orthodox Church is the Nicene Creed⁷, everyone knows it but not everyone actually grasps it. For instance, many will confess the Nicene Creed and still have a completely wrong Trinitarian theology in which they express beliefs that are contrary to the creed itself!

The creed starts with “I believe in one God, the Father”, now just like with most terms, the term God has multiple meanings, here’s a list of them:

1. Divine nature⁸

2. Hypostasis of the Father⁹

3. Divine Energy¹⁰

4. A person possessing divine nature

5. Uncaused cause

The divine nature is above all names¹¹, this approach is referred to as “apophatic theology”, that is, knowing God through negation¹². This implies that there is only so much one can do about knowledge of God through philosophical speculation and that our approach to Him is based on supernatural revelation. God is a Father, He by nature is unchangeable, omnipotent (that is, He has the power to do anything that has potency), omnipresent, and is uncreated. These divine characteristics are possessed not only by the Father but also by the Son¹³ and the Holy Spirit. Likewise, the faculties of nature, such as mind, will, and energy are the Father’s¹⁴ that are shared by the divine persons. Not only is there one God, but there is also one activity, one will, and one mind of God. The divine nature thus is not a generic divine nature that all persons merely participate in and are made God that way, but the divine nature is the essence of the Father, thus God who is the “I am” is fundamentally a personal divine being. Contrasted with “generic theism” of the past and even our day today, this is a strongly unique understanding of God.

Basil, in addition to employing the term “simplicity”, also uses the
term “The One” in reference to God. But here he does so in a unique
sense that confounds any attempt at a neoplatonic analysis. In the Greek,
“the One” is, in Plotinus’ system, referred to in the neuter (το εν) as
evidence by his use of the pronoun “It” to describe the One. For Plotinus
the One is also “That Which Exists”, or simply “Being”, again in the neuter
(το ον). But for St. Basil, God is never referred to but in the masculine, the
One is for him o εις and referred to as Him. Likewise, the One is “He Who
exists”, o ων. This seemingly minor point will assume crucial significance
when were turn to the application of dogma to art in the ikonography of
the First and Second Europes, and even more significance when we
discover how the Second Europe, through a process of the application of
the Gnostic technique of assigning new meanings to old terms, will come
to understand the tetragrammaton of Exodus, “I AM Who I AM”, not in the
personal sense of St. Basil, but in the abstract impersonal “essentialism”
of Plotinus.¹⁵

God doesn’t only have essential characteristics that one must have to be considered God, He also has hypostatic properties, these are characteristics that a hypostasis has. The Father as was said before is a Father to the Son by nature, His hypostatic property is then to be the unbegotten cause in the Trinity, whereas the Son’s hypostatic property is to be begotten for He is the only-begotten Son¹⁶. This generation of the Son is eternal since nothing existed before Him¹⁷, the Holy Spirit on the other hand proceeds from the Father¹⁸, we don’t know the distinction between procession and begetting¹⁹, but through revelation, we do know that they are distinct. This illustrates to us multiple important points that need to be considered before we move on:

1. Hypostasis and Ousia/Physis (Essence/Nature) are distinct.

2. The persons in the Trinity are not confused and have peculiar attributes the other divine persons do not have. These peculiar attributes are not natural (for if it were, then all the persons would possess it), but rather hypostatic (personal).²⁰

3. The Father is the only uncaused cause in the Triad.²¹ The Son and the Holy Spirit have their essence from the Father²²

4. Being caused does not make you a metaphysically lower being, nor does it imply you are created

5. Although there are three divine persons that are considered “God”, there are not three Gods because there is only one divine nature that is indivisible.²³

Most misunderstandings about the Trinity come from the inability to understand these four points about the Trinity. The distinction between ousia and hypostasis is incredibly crucial, according to St. John of Damascus says:

However, the reason for the heretics' error is their saying that nature and hypostasis are the same thing.²⁴

This distinction between nature and hypostasis is why we say the Trinity is one in nature three in hypostases, we know the hypostases because of their hypostatic properties, the Father is unbegotten but the Son is begotten! This means that there’s only one uncaused cause ad-intra.²⁵

The idea that causation meant a different and lower substance is fundamentally a Neoplatonic presupposition of Arians. For Arius, and later on Eunomians, God’s essence is unbegottenness, this conclusion can only be arrived at if one fails to distinguish nature and hypostasis, for it would imply that hypostatic properties are also therefore natural properties. Generation is a “work” of essence that causes another being with the same essence, thus whoever the Father begets, has to have the same essence, and for the Father to be eternally Father, His Son likewise has to be eternal.

The work of energy (of God) is to create while that of nature is to give birth, therefore nature and energy (in God) are not identical.²⁶

St. Athanasius points out the distinction between an act that is a result of will which drives energy, and an act that is done by nature:

A man by counsel builds a house, but by nature he begets a son; and what is in building began to come into being at will, and is external to the maker; but the son is proper offspring of the father’s essence, and is not external to him; wherefore neither does he counsel concerning him, lest he appear to counsel about himself. As far then as the Son transcends the creature, by so much does what is by nature transcend the will. And they, on hearing of Him, ought not to measure by will what is by nature; forgetting however that they are hearing about God’s Son, they dare to apply human contrarieties in the instance of God.²⁷

St. Basil in Against Eunomius points out a logical problem if one decides to define something’s nature by causation (that is, if begotteness and unbegotteness can be the essence or part of the essence), then Adam who is unbegotten would have a different nature than other human beings that he caused because they are begotten:

So, then, when we reflect upon the matter, we find that our notion of unbegottenness does not fall under the examination of 'what it is,' but rather-and here I am forced to speak this way-under the examination of 'what it is like. When our mind scrutinizes whether God who is over all has some cause superior to himself, then, unable to conceptualize any, it designates the fact that his life is without beginning as 'unbegotten.' When we talk about human beings and say that this person .has come from that person, we are not relating the 'what it is' of each but the 'from where he has come.' Similarly, when we talk about God, the term 'unbegotten' does not signify his 'what' but that he is 'from no source.'[…]

[…]Whoever says that being 'without origin' is the substance equates himself with someone who, when asked, "What is the substance of Adam? What is his nature?" replies that he is not formed from the copulation of a man and a woman, but rather by the divine hand. The recipient of such a reply may object: "I am not seeking the manner of his subsistence but rather the material substrate of the man himself. Your response has not answered my question."" So, then, this is how it is for those of us who have learned from the term 'unbegotten' what God is like rather than his very nature²⁸

We know of something’s essence by its properties, for instance, we know that something is a tree by observing its natural “tree” properties. If the causation of a tree was part of what made it a “tree”, then we would never be able to know whether what we are looking at is a tree or not:

But in speaking of cause, and of the cause, we do not by these words denote nature (for no one would give the same definition of cause and of nature), but we indicate the difference in manner of existence. For when we say that one is caused, and that the other is without cause, we do not divide the nature by the word cause, but only indicate the fact that the Son does not exist without generation, nor the Father by generation: but we must needs in the first place believe that something exists, and then scrutinize the manner of existence of the object of our belief: thus the question of existence is one, and that of the mode of existence is another. To say that anything exists without generation sets forth the mode of its existence, but what exists is not indicated by this phrase. If one were to ask a husbandman about a tree, whether it were planted or had grown of itself, and he were to answer either that the tree had not been planted or that it was the result of planting, would he by that answer declare the nature of the tree? Surely not; but while saying how it exists he would leave the question of its nature obscure and unexplained. So, in the other case, when we learn that He is unbegotten, we are taught in what mode He exists, and how it is fit that we should conceive Him as existing, but what He is we do not hear in that phrase. When, therefore, we acknowledge such a distinction in the case of the Holy Trinity, as to believe that one Person is the Cause, and another is of the Cause, we can no longer be accused of confounding the definition of the Persons by the community of nature.²⁹

Thus we can observe that God the Father is the only uncaused cause in the Godhead, the Son and the Spirit are caused by Him but are not of a different substance but in fact, are consubstantial. One might still argue that this is polytheism, for although the three persons are of one nature, it is still three gods. This doesn’t stand for two reasons:

1. The term “God” refers primarily to nature, the usage of “man” in the plural is a grammatical misusage of the term man, because to speak of “many men” would not imply many hypostases but rather many natures that are called “men”, but this is not so.³⁰

2. The divine persons are not spatiotemporally separated, which is what polytheism necessarily implies.

According to St. John of Damascus, the Jews defend the unity of God but reject the plurality of hypostases, whereas the Greeks reject the unity of God but defend the plurality of hypostases.³¹ The Orthodox faith on the other hand accepts the unity of God and the plurality of hypostases.

There is no such thing as a metaphysical opposition between unity and plurality, the Orthodox faith considers both of these concepts as united, therefore God is both a monad as much as He is a triad. Certain people might have a problem with this, thinking one thing cannot be plural at the same time. Although this topic is more relevant to the discussion on divine energies, we will answer it here.

For a strict monotheist who takes a stance that unity and plurality are opposites, he runs into what is known as the “Origenist Problem” or “Origenist Problematic”.³² If God can only be spoken of in the sense of strictly one, then are His attributes and activities also one? If they are not one, then how can they be God, of God, or have any form of Divinity in them? Islam is a good example of this with its doctrine of Tawheed.³³ God has 99 names, and many of those names are related to the created order. The question then becomes this: Are those names of God, real names that describe their own metaphysical reality or not? If they are, then the whole Islamic polemic against Christianity is false and contradictory, since by their own admission unity and plurality can be spoken of God. If they are merely human conventions that do not really speak of God, then anything you can speak of God does not really speak of Him at all! But even if that was the answer (which for Eunomius this was the case according to him), he still cannot avoid the Origenist problem: If God is an absolutely simple essence with no plurality, then His plural acts are not really plural, but creating and being provident over creation are two different acts and distinction implies plurality.³⁴ Not only that, but all of God’s acts would also be necessary, eliminating His free will and making all of His actions an emanation from His essence.

Summary

God is a Father that is personally revealed to us. He begets a Son and spirates His Spirit that is of the same essence as Him, which is why they are also “God”. God is one in essence, three in hypostases. We distinguish the divine persons in the Trinity by their hypostatic properties, the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten³⁵ and the Spirit is spirated. Only the Father is the uncaused cause in the Godhead, the Son nor the Spirit share in that specific hypostatic property that marks the Father as unique.

The Son and the Spirit are caused by the Father, but are not created for creation is a natural property whereas causation is not. If causation was a natural property, then Adam would be of a different essence than us, since He is unbegotten but we are begotten. If someone attempts to argue that Adam then is begotten of God, then that would necessitate Adam being God, since one cannot beget something of a different essence.

Filioque?

A brief word should be said about the Filioque since it is a serious controversy between Orthodoxy and mainly geographically western Christianity. Before I explore the issue, I want to express my disappointment in various apologetical efforts undertaken by certain people who dive into these issues without trying to understand what the issue itself is. Many people consider this as a difficult issue, not because it actually is difficult, but because there are extreme amounts of misinformation and misrepresentation from people who deem themselves as “experts”.

The filioque is not merely a magic word that the Orthodox reject and don’t like, the controversy isn’t only because it isn’t part of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (although this indeed is a huge reason why one should reject this innovation), it is because it fundamentally inserts a theological mistake that undermines traditional Christian doctrines. I could get into the history of the filioque and why the pre-schism western church introduced this, I could also get into the supposed filioque quote-mines promoted by people who obviously do not understand what the problem is, but for the benefit of the reader, it is much more important to explain what it even is.

The reader most likely has noticed from patristic evidence that we distinguish the divine persons in the Trinity by their hypostatic properties and that the Father’s hypostatic property is to be unbegotten and the sole cause of the Godhead. We also note that this hypostatic property of the Father is something He possesses that the other divine persons do not, this is why when we speak of the Holy Spirit, we say He was caused by the Father. The filioque position however argues that the Spirit is caused by the Father and the Son as this supposed sole principle. St. Gregory the Theologian swiftly refutes such a notion before this belief even came into existence:

"Everything the Father has belongs to the Son with the exception of causality.³⁶

St. Gregory the Theologian is explicit that the Son does not share the hypostatic property of causation, the Father ad-intra is the sole source of the Godhead, to speculate that the Son can somehow share that would imply either a form of ditheism or a confusion of the Father and the Son. Another fatal error of this view is the Holy Spirit would not possess a quality that both the Father and the Son would possess, this contains the danger of a potential subordinationist argument, which as showcased by Jay Dyer, is what Roman Catholic logically leads to.³⁷ This is why the Orthodox cannot accept the heresy of filioque.

One might ask if the Spirit does not proceed from the Son, what about certain patristic passages that seem to imply such?³⁸ Even biblical prooftexts Orthodox Christians use such as John 15:26³⁹ imply some form of relationship between the Son and the Spirit, and that the Spirit is sent from the Son. The Orthodox do reject hypostatic procession, but this doesn’t mean we reject other forms of processions such as economic procession⁴⁰ and energetic procession.⁴¹ All actions in the Trinity are triadic: From the Father, through the Son and in the Holy Spirit,⁴² this means that the Holy Spirit’s role in divine activities will be that of being from the Father and the Son, thus in this level, one can speak of a “double procession”, but this double procession is not hypostatic but rather energetic. Thus, to fully understand the Orthodox rejection of the filioque, while explaining the relationship between the Son and the Spirit, one needs to understand the doctrine of the Divine Energies in God.

Divine Energies

A distinguishing mark of Orthodox Theology is the doctrine of divine energies, The
operation, or energy, is the capacity or power to act inherent in every nature.⁴³ Thus energy is proper to nature.

However, one must know that operation is one thing, what is operative another, which is operated another, and still another the operator. Operation, then, is the efficacious and substantial motion of the nature. And that which is operative is the nature from which the operation proceeds. That which is operated is the effect of the operation. And the operator is the one who performs the operation; the person, that is. However, the term operation is also used for the effect, and the term for the effect for the operation, as 'creation is used for 'creature. For in that way we say all creation," meaning 'all creatures.' One must know that the operation is a motion and that it is operated rather than operating, as Gregory the Theologian says in his sermon on the Holy Ghost: 'But if He is an operation, then He will obviously be operated and will not operate. And, as soon as He has been effected, He will cease.It is further necessary to know that life itself is an operation, and the primary operation of the animal. So also is the whole vital process the motions of nutrition and growth, or the vegetative; the impulsive, or the sensitive; and the intellectual and free motions. Operation, moreover, is the perfection of a potentiality. So, if we find all these things in Christ, then we shall declare that He also has a human operation.⁴⁴

So energy can be distinguished into the agent, the effect, and the activity itself. Another curious statement from St. John of Damascus is that life is an energy as well. This is why although God in His essence is above existence, existence is an energy of His, therefore we can speak of Him as existent even if He transcends existence.

Since God in His essence is above all names, yet in His energies can still be named, we also know God by His energies as St. Basil the Great says:

Do you worship what you know or what you do not know? If I answer, I worship what I know, they immediately reply, What is the essence of the object of worship? Then, if I confess that I am ignorant of the essence, they turn on me again and say, So you worship you know not what. I answer that the word to know has many meanings. We say that we know the greatness of God, His power, His wisdom, His goodness, His providence over us, and the justness of His judgment; but not His very essence. The question is, therefore, only put for the sake of dispute. For he who denies that he knows the essence does not confess himself to be ignorant of God, because our idea of God is gathered from all the attributes which I have enumerated. But God, he says, is simple, and whatever attribute of Him you have reckoned as knowable is of His essence. But the absurdities involved in this sophism are innumerable. When all these high attributes have been enumerated, are they all names of one essence? And is there the same mutual force in His awfulness and His loving-kindness, His justice and His creative power, His providence and His foreknowledge, and His bestowal of rewards and punishments, His majesty and His providence? In mentioning any one of these do we declare His essence? If they say, yes, let them not ask if we know the essence of God, but let them enquire of us whether we know God to be awful, or just, or merciful. These we confess that we know. If they say that essence is something distinct, let them not put us in the wrong on the score of simplicity. For they confess themselves that there is a distinction between the essence and each one of the attributes enumerated. The operations are various, and the essence simple, but we say that we know our God from His operations, but do not undertake to approach near to His essence. His operations come down to us, but His essence remains beyond our reach.

But, it is replied, if you are ignorant of the essence, you are ignorant of Himself. Retort, If you say that you know His essence, you are ignorant of Himself. A man who has been bitten by a mad dog, and sees a dog in a dish, does not really see any more than is seen by people in good health; he is to be pitied because he thinks he sees what he does not see. Do not then admire him for his announcement, but pity him for his insanity. Recognise that the voice is the voice of mockers, when they say, if you are ignorant of the essence of God, you worship what you do not know. I do know that He exists; what His essence is, I look at as beyond intelligence. How then am I saved? Through faith. It is faith sufficient to know that God exists, without knowing what He is; and He is a rewarder of them that seek Him.⁴⁵ So knowledge of the divine essence involves perception of His incomprehensibility, and the object of our worship is not that of which we comprehend the essence, but of which we comprehend that the essence exists.

And the following counter question may also be put to them. No man has seen God at any time, the Only-begotten which is in the bosom has declared him.⁴⁶ What of the Father did the Only-begotten Son declare? His essence or His power? If His power, we know so much as He declared to us. If His essence, tell me where He said that His essence was the being unbegotten? When did Abraham worship? Was it not when he believed? And when did he believe? Was it not when he was called? Where in this place is there any testimony in Scripture to Abraham's comprehending? When did the disciples worship Him? Was it not when they saw creation subject to Him? It was from the obedience of sea and winds to Him that they recognised His Godhead. Therefore the knowledge came from the operations, and the worship from the knowledge. Do you believe that I am able to do this? I believe, Lord; and he worshipped Him. So worship follows faith, and faith is confirmed by power. But if you say that the believer also knows, he knows from what he believes; and vice versa he believes from what he knows. We know God from His power. We, therefore, believe in Him who is known, and we worship Him who is believed in.⁴⁷

Before we are able to grasp St. Basil’s argument, one has to understand the argument of his opponent properly first, Eunomius was an Arian that believed the Father and the Son were “heteroousios”⁴⁸ Eunomius’ more radical stance is that his claim that he knows God as much as God knows Himself and that God’s essence is His unbegottenness.⁴⁹ This is why all of the names that are proper to God would be the same as each other and “unbegotten”.

Gladly, then, would I scrutinize him to see if he similarly sticks to this prudence in the case of all that is said about God, or if he does so only in the case of this word." For if he does not consider anything at all by way of conceptualization so as to avoid the appearance of honoring God with human designations, then he will confess this: that all things attributed to God similarly refer to his substance. But how is it not ridiculous to say that his creative power is his substance? Or that his providence is his substance? Or the same for his foreknowledge? In other words, how is it not ridiculous to regard every activity of his as his substance? And if all these names converge upon a single meaning, each one has to signify the same thing as the others, such as is the case with polyonyms, as when we call the same man 'Simon,' 'Peter,' and 'Cephas.⁵⁰

St. Basil attacks the absurdity of the conclusion of Eunomius, which denies the distinction between God’s essence and energy, leading to the complete identification of both. As quoted before, St. Cyril of Alexandria says:

The work of energy (of God) is to create while that of nature is to give birth, therefore nature and energy (in God) are not identical.⁵¹

God because He is one in nature, has one divine energy, this divine energy is shared within the Trinity and all the divine persons possess it. This is another reason why Christians believe in one God as opposed to many gods. The basic Dionysian⁵² maxim as was shown above thanks to St. Basil the Great, is God’s essence is beyond names, whereas names that can be applied to God are His energies⁵³. As such, the name “God” is an energy that is inherent to all persons of the Trinity, since this activity is inseparable (unlike human beings where our activities are separate), all persons are fully God and there’s only one God because there’s only one energy of God.

The divine energy is plural at the same time in another way, since as St. Basil said, the energies are distinct from one another. Creating the world is not the same as God’s providence, yet both are activities of God. This doesn’t create a plurality of natures but rather the unity and plurality of divine energies, which is a consistent theme in Triadology.

Then there is the fact that the divine irradiation and operation is one, simple, and undivided; and that, while it is apparently diversely manifested in divisible things, dispensing to all of them the components of their proper nature, it remains simple. Indivisibly, it is multiplied in divisible things, and, gathering them together, it reverts them to its own simplicity. For, toward Him all things tend, and in Him they have their existence, and to all things He communicates their being in accordance with the nature of each. He is the being of things that are, the life of the living, the reason of the rational, and the intelligence of intelligent beings. He surpasses intelligence, reason, life, and essence.⁵⁴

God is an uncreated being (remember, being is an energy), thus we participate in Him.⁵⁵ It is through the divine energies that one can have proper participation in God, since we participate in His energies, we aren’t merely participating in something created, but something uncreated.

Let not these words disturb you, for I am not implying the destruction of our power of self-determination, but rather affirming our fixed and unchangeable natural disposition, that is, a voluntary surrender of the will, so that from the same source whence we received our being, we should also long to receive being moved, like an image that has ascended to its archetype, corresponding to it completely, in the way that an impression corresponds to its stamp, so that henceforth it has neither the inclination nor the ability' to be carried elsewhere, or to put it more clearly and accurately, it is no longer able to desire such a thing, for it will have received the divine energy— or rather it will have become God by divinization—experiencing far greater pleasure in transcending the things that exist and are perceived to be naturally its own. This occurs through the grace of the Spirit which has conquered it, showing that it has God alone acting within it, so that through all there is only one sole energy, that of God and of those worthy of God, or rather of God alone, who in a manner befitting His goodness wholly interpenetrates all who are worthy.⁵⁶

thus the divine grace that sanctifies and saves us is the divine grace God has according to His nature, St. Maximus the Confessor points out that the energy we receive from God is the uncreated energy whereas the “created” aspect of it is merely the created being that receives it.⁵⁷ This is why St. Athanasius of Alexandria famously says:

He, indeed, assumed humanity that we might become God.⁵⁸

We do not become God by nature, for human nature cannot change into divine nature, but that human nature becomes deified with God’s uncreated grace. Thus as Christ says, we are gods,⁵⁹ only according to the uncreated grace of God that is given to us as a gift of salvation.

1. Genesis 1:1-3. Boldened passages reflect the hypostatic mode of operations in the Trinity. The Father acts according to His good pleasure, the Holy Spirit hovers around the waters, gracing them with His divine presence, and the Son “speaks” for He is the Word of God.

2. St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 31

3. Acts 2:1-4 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

4. Exodus 23:21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.

5. St. Hilary of Poitiers, On The Trinity Book 4

6. St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Chapter 59

7. I believe in one God, the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through Him all things were made. For our sake and for our salvation He came down from heaven, and was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man. He was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; He rose again on the third day, in accordance with the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He is coming again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom will have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with Father and Son is worshipped and together glorified; who spoke through the Prophets. In one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I await the resurrection of the dead and the life of the age to come. Amen.

8. Nature in Orthodox theology is synonymous with the terms “Essence” and “Substance”. It refers to the “whatness” of a thing. Example: If you point to a chair and ask “what is that thing”, the answer “chair” answers the question for its essence.

9. Hypostasis today commonly refers to person (prosopon), it means “substance” in Greek but through historical developments, became a term distinct from nature. Joseph Farrell in God History Dialectic page 127 writes: “…it [Hypostasis] implies a kind of “irreducible concrete uniqueness” that “stands under”, that is, “prior to,” as distinct from and as establishing any conception of essence or natures.”

10. Energy answers the question “what it is that they are doing”, it is commonly translated in English as “activity” or “operation”. On the term Godhead being an energy, St. Gregory of Nyssa in “On Not Three Gods” states: “If, indeed, Godhead were an appellation of nature, it would be more proper, according to the argument laid down, to include the Three Persons in the singular number, and to speak of One God, by reason of the inseparability and indivisibility of the nature: but since it has been established by what has been said, that the term Godhead is significant of operation (energy), and not of nature”

11. Proverbs 30:4: “Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?”

12. In a way, this can refer to what God is not, in another way it can also refer to what God transcends. For instance, when we speak of God as immaterial, we do not mean God lacks a body or material form, rather that He in His divine nature, transcends a material form. This is why God can still manifest materially in creation without losing His immateriality, and also how God can exist while being above existence.

13. John 5:26 “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself”

14. John 5:19 “So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.”

15. Joseph P. Farrell, God, History, And Dialectic (2016 edition pdf), p. 133

16. 1 John 4:9 In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him.

17. John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

18. John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

19. See St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 31: But since we do not admit your first division, which declares that there is no mean between Begotten and Unbegotten, at once, along with your magnificent division, away go your Brothers and your Grandsons, as when the first link of an intricate chain is broken they are broken with it, and disappear from your system of divinity. For, tell me, what position will you assign to that which Proceeds, which has started up between the two terms of your division, and is introduced by a better Theologian than you, our Saviour Himself? Or perhaps you have taken that word out of your Gospels for the sake of your Third Testament, The Holy Ghost, which proceeds from the Father; Who, inasmuch as He proceeds from That Source, is no Creature; and inasmuch as He is not Begotten is no Son; and inasmuch as He is between the Unbegotten and the Begotten is God. And thus escaping the toils of your syllogisms, He has manifested himself as God, stronger than your divisions. What then is Procession? Do you tell me what is the Unbegottenness of the Father, and I will explain to you the physiology of the Generation of the Son and the Procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be frenzy-stricken for prying into the mystery of God. And who are we to do these things, we who cannot even see what lies at our feet, or number the sand of the sea, or the drops of rain, or the days of Eternity, much less enter into the Depths of God, and supply an account of that Nature which is so unspeakable and transcending all words?

20. See St. John of Damascus, Fount of Knowledge, p. 143: While we confess one nature of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, we hold that these have three hypostases, that is to say, persons, by which each one is distinguished from the rest in some peculiar property. For, what might the one nature of the Godhead be but the common basis of the divine nature considered in itself and conceived as distinct from the peculiar property of each hypostasis?

21. ibid. p.177: “We believe in one Father, the principle and cause of all things, begotten of no one, who alone is uncaused and unbegotten, the maker of all things and by nature Father of His one and only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, and Emitter of the All-Holy Spirit. We also believe in one Son of God, the only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who was begotten of the Father before all the ages, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father…

22. See Nicene Creed (325): “And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father…”

23. See St. Gregory of Nyssa’s Ad Ablabium (aka on “Not Three Gods”)

24. See St. John of Damascus, Fount of Knowledge p. 272

25. Although in the Trinitarian life, only the Father is the uncaused cause, outside of the Trinitarian life (meaning the Trinity’s relation to creation), the Trinity due to it being uncreated and the only source of creative power can be considered “uncaused cause”. See St. Gregory of Nazianzus Oration 25:

Teach also that we must not make the Father subject to [another] source, lest we posit a ‘‘first of the First,’’ and thus overturn the [divine] existence; nor should we say that the Son or the Holy Spirit is without source, lest we take away the Father’s special characteristic. For they are not without source—and yet in a sense they are without source, which is a paradox. They are not without source with respect to their cause, for they are from God even if they are not subsequent to him in time, just as light comes from the sun. But they are without source with respect to time, since they are not subject to time.

thus “uncaused cause” (alternatively you can call this Autotheos or Unorigination) ad-intra compared to ad-extra are two different concepts with the same name.

26. St. Cyril of Alexandria, Patrologia Graeca Vol. 75 p. 312. Can also be found in St. Mark of Ephesus’s First Antirrhetic Against Manuel Calecas’s On Essence And Energies by Marios Pilavakis

27. St. Athanasius, Third Discourse Against the Arians

28. St. Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, 1.15

29. St. Gregory of Nyssa, Ad Ablabium (also known as: on “Not Three Gods”)

30. Ibid.: “We say, then, to begin with, that the practice of calling those who are not divided in nature by the very name of their common nature in the plural, and saying they are many men, is a customary abuse of language, and that it would be much the same thing to say they are many human natures. And the truth of this we may see from the following instance. When we address any one, we do not call him by the name of his nature, in order that no confusion may result from the community of the name, as would happen if every one of those who hear it were to think that he himself was the person addressed, because the call is made not by the proper appellation but by the common name of their nature: but we separate him from the multitude by using that name which belongs to him as his own — that, I mean, which signifies the particular subject. Thus there are many who have shared in the nature — many disciples, say, or apostles, or martyrs— but the man in them all is one; since, as has been said, the term man does not belong to the nature of the individual as such, but to that which is common. For Luke is a man, or Stephen is a man; but it does not follow that if any one is a man he is therefore Luke or Stephen: but the idea of the persons admits of that separation which is made by the peculiar attributes considered in each severally, and when they are combined is presented to us by means of number; yet their nature is one, at union in itself, and an absolutely indivisible unit, not capable of increase by addition or of diminution by subtraction, but in its essence being and continually remaining one, inseparable even though it appear in plurality, continuous, complete, and not divided with the individuals who participate in it. And as we speak of a people, or a mob, or an army, or an assembly in the singular in every case, while each of these is conceived as being in plurality, so according to the more accurate expression, man would be said to be one, even though those who are exhibited to us in the same nature make up a plurality. Thus it would be much better to correct our erroneous habit, so as no longer to extend to a plurality the name of the nature, than by our bondage to habit to transfer to our statements concerning God the error which exists in the above case. But since the correction of the habit is impracticable (for how could you persuade any one not to speak of those who are exhibited in the same nature as many men? — indeed, in every case habit is a thing hard to change), we are not so far wrong in not going contrary to the prevailing habit in the case of the lower nature, since no harm results from the mistaken use of the name: but in the case of the statement concerning the Divine nature the various use of terms is no longer so free from danger: for that which is of small account is in these subjects no longer a small matter. Therefore we must confess one God, according to the testimony of Scripture, Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord, even though the name of Godhead extends through the Holy Trinity. This I say according to the account we have given in the case of human nature, in which we have learned that it is improper to extend the name of the nature by the mark of plurality. We must, however, more carefully examine the name of Godhead, in order to obtain, by means of the significance involved in the word, some help towards clearing up the question before us.

31. St. John of Damascus, Fount of Knowledge p.175-176: Thus, on the one hand, the unity in nature exposes the polytheistic error of the Greeks; on the other hand, the doctrine of the Word and the Spirit demolishes the teaching of the Jews. At the same time, the good in both of these heresies remain: from the Jewish opinion the unity of nature; and from Hellenism the unique distinction according to persons.

32. The Origenist Problematic is a term coined by Joseph Farrell in his work “God, History, and Dialectic”, it describes the logical problem of identifying actions of God with His eternal essence, which implies that all of God’s acts and titles are active and eternal. Titles/Activities such as “Creator/Creating” would be eternally active, meaning that God is eternally a creator, thus creation is eternal. This concept, as can be seen in this treatise, is an ancient problem regarding “modal collapse”

33. “Tawheed” means Oneness. It indicates the belief that God is spoken of as one, although in which manner this is debated amongst different schools of Islamic thought

34. (Real) Distinction refers to two things that are unlike each other in some way. This presupposes that there’s more than one thing being talked about.

35. The Son acquires human hypostatic properties after the incarnation

36. St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 34

37. See Jay Dyer, Filioquism is Arian Subordinationism Applied to the Spirit

38. For an example, see St. Ambrose, on the Holy Spirit Book I: The Spirit is not, then, sent as it were from a place, nor does He proceed as from a place, when He proceeds from the Son, as the Son Himself, when He says, ‘I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world,’ destroys all fancies, which can be reckoned as from place to place. In like manner, also, when we read that God is within or without, we certainly do not either enclose God within anybody or separate Him from anybody, but weighing these things in a deep and ineffable estimation, we comprehend the hiddenness of the divine nature.

39. “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me”

40. The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son in relation to creation. An example of this would be the Pentecost or John 20:22 “And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost”

41. Also known as “Energetic Manifestation”, it describes the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son in relation to the eternal energies of God. An example of this would be the Holy Spirit manifesting the divine energy of love between the Father and the Son, or the Son manifesting the divine energy of “Logos” (Wisdom).

42. See St. Athanasius, First epistle to Serapion: “For there is from the Father one grace which is fulfilled through the Son in the Holy Spirit”

43. See. St. John of Damascus, Fount of Knowledge p.304

44. Ibid.

45. Hebrews 11:6

46. John 1:18

47. St. Basil, Letter 234

48. Of unlike essence. This is contrasted to Orthodox belief the persons in the Trinity are “homoousios”, meaning the same essence, and the semi-Arian “homoiousios” who argue the persons are of like essence.

49. St. Basil, Against Eunomius 1.5:

As if committing himself to travel along a certain road, he starts with a line of reasoning meant to deceive, and advances toward establishing the proposition that unbegottenness is the substance of the God of the universe, so that, once this has been demonstrated, it may be conceded that the Only-Begotten is unlike the Father in substance.

50. St. Basil the Great, Against Eunomius, 1.8

51. See Footnote 26.

52. Referring to St. Dionysius the Areopagite

53. This was a subject of debate between St. Mark of Ephesus, and Manuel Calecas who was a Barlaamite. See Marios Pilavakis, Markos Eugenikos’s First Antirrhetic Against Manuel Calecas’s On Essence And Energy P. 179, 29-30 (English notes on P. 246)

54. St. John of Damascus, Fount of Knowledge p. 202

55. 2 Peter 1:4 “Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.”

56. St. Maximus the Confessor, Ambiguum 7

57. See St. Maximus the Confessor, Two Hundred Chapters on Theology, 1.48

58. St. Athanasius of Alexandria, On the Incarnation, p. 93

59. John 10:34 “Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?” (Quoted from Psalm 82)