The Cappadocian Fathers and the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity
The Cappadocian Fathers and the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity

The Cappadocian Fathers and the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity

Available Only on StudyHippo
  • Pages: 6 (2632 words)
  • Published: September 25, 2017
Text preview

Introduction

In speaking about God, the Catholics pronounce, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. These names are predicated comparatively and decently spoken, as belonging to each individual in peculiar as Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. It is of import to observe that neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit is the Three, unless they are spoken of singly with regard to themselves but as One, the Trinity. Thus the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God who is good, holy and almighty. From this apprehension, this paper seeks to show the Holy Trinity in the divinity of St Augustine. In this enterprise, the paper shall get down in brief with the part of the Cappadocian male parents on the Nicaea-Constantinople credo. Second the paper shall explicate the philosophy of the Holy Trinity harmonizing to Augustine. Last, the analysis of Augustine’s divinity of the Trinity shall be given before the decision.

The Cappadocian Fathers and the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity

The philosophy of the Holy Trinity put away in the credo of Constantinople reaffirmed the usage of the termhomoousiousin depicting the relationship of the Son to the Father. That is the Son is “true God from True God, begotten non made, of one substance with the Father ( Faber 21 ) . It is through the Cappadocian male parents viz. Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus, that some footings were coined and explained so as to assist in the preparation of the philosophy in its authoritative signifier as it is today. F

...

or illustration, ‘mia ousia treis hypostasis’which is translated as “God is One Nature three persons” ( Faber 19 ) . It is from these, that significances of certain footings were fixed particularly‘ousia and hypostasis’.Ousiais the cosmopolitan kernel, what makes them together or that which binds the three individuals together, while,hypestasisis the character of each individuals ( St Augustine 28 ) . It is through the Cappadotian male parents that the job of the beginning of the Son was settled, that is: since the Son is of the same substance with the Father, so the Son was begotten (gennesia) non made.

Among the Capadodian Fathers, it is Basil who was the first to take a firm stand on the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. This is clearly seen in the doxology which he pronounced that is, ‘glory to the Father with the Son with the Spirit’ ( St Augustine 28 ) . With this, he affirmed that the Holy Spirit is worthy the same honor and the same worship with the Father and the Son. As such it follows that the Spirit belongs, in both equality and in self-respect in the sanctum three.

In add-on to that, Gregory of Nyssa described the Spirit as life giving. This was derived from the instruction that the formation of the Christian and his flawlessness (teleiosis) of which Christ was a theoretical account were the work of the Holy Spirit. The spirit was hence consubstantial with the Son and the Father, a integrity ofousiabut a differentiation ofHypothesis( 28 ) .

Furthermore, Gregory of Nazianzus continue

View entire sample
Join StudyHippo to see entire essay
View entire sample
Join StudyHippo to see entire essay

to depict how the Holy Spirit returns from the Father in a manner that is different from the Son ( Augustine 28 ) . He besides affirmed the consubstantiality and insisted on the monarchy of the Father who is without get downing. He maintained that: the name of the 1 who is without a beginning is the Father, the name of the beginning is the Son and the name of the 1 with beginning is the Holy Spirit ( Faber 24 ) . In this manner he maintained the Godhead. It is from this that in the council of Constantinople completed the credo, confirming the new deity of the Spirit and his eventful significance for the human life of grace. That is, the Christian would profess their religion stating, I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, together with the Father and the Son who spoke through Nebiims.

Augustine’s Interpretation of the Holy Trinity

Scott avers that, the philosophy of the Holy Trinity harmonizing to Augustine is non taken from the sociological position but he minimized the Godhead person’s equality by stressing God’s unity in either hierarchal or ontological sense. In the Tradition, it is in the Bible that naming God as substance or an kernel is justified. This implies that, God is excluded from all that is inadvertent and capable to alter. Although non everything said of God is said in footings of substance, for illustration, relational statements like ‘unbegotten’ or ‘origin’ are to be understood as inadvertent, but they do non mean any alteration in God ( Studer 107 ) . On the other manus, there are scriptural words which refer to all three individuals ( the term appropriated to the single individual such as ‘love’ , spirit, infinity, signifier ) seem to present a plurality of names into God. Everything meant by these footings is indistinguishable with the being of God. It is from this connexion that Augustine developed the cardinal differentiation between decently or particularly and common or universally, so as to infer the assorted ways in which the Bible and traditions speak of wisdom, Love and the Spirit of God ( Studer 107 ) .

In seeking to explicate how the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, who exist together from infinity and besides work together outside deity since the beginning of creative activity are in one deity and manifest their integrity every bit, Augustine applied the differentiation between decently ( particularly ) and in common ( universally ) ( Studer 104 ) . That is, in peculiar the Spirit is used of all the three in common, but decently or particularly of the Holy Spirit. Thus, in a proper sense, the Father is to be called God, while in common the full Three as the instance may be, may be called God. This follows that the common construct of God is non distinguished in its context from the construct as used in the proper sense ( 104 ) . Naming the Father to be decently God, may merely denote that, what is being asserted when God is

View entire sample
Join StudyHippo to see entire essay