BLOCK II: THE THEOLOGICAL AND DOGMATIC

EVOLUTION OF THE TRINITARIAN DOCTRINE

Introduction to Block II

Let's see previously why this name, and what we are going to see in this block of topics.
Between the biblical revelation of God and the Trinitarian doctrine of the Church, there
is an evolution, a development.

While in the first block we studied the event of salvation (item 2) and its announcement
by the apostolic preaching (item 3). Putting the accent on the economy (of salvation),
with a narrative and doxological language. Although, in Block II we are going to study
the reflection on what happened and a systematic formulation of the content of the
announcement. The accent will be placed on immanence and a speculative language
will be used.

But, as the title itself says, it is a theological and dogmatic evolution, which are what
contribute to that development or evolution mentioned above. This means that there is a
circularity between theology (thought - reflection) and dogma (the normative
formulation of the Church), since they are interrelated. While theology reflects, dogma
sets the limits so that theology does not go beyond revelation. Dogma is the framework
of theological reflection. There is a priority of theological reflection on dogma, but it is
the framework. Theology renders a service to the intelligence of faith, and once there is
a dogmatic formulation, theology tries to explain it better.

In topic 4 we will see the first development of the narrative preaching of the first
Christians to the reflexive and theological formulation. In topic 5 we will see the
dogmatic development of the IV Century, topic 6 we will see other formulations of the
faith in the Trinity, and finally topic 7 we will see the Trinity in the thought of the great
theologians.

1
SUBJECT 4. The theological development of the Centuries II
and III.
Introduction

We are going to study the first development of the Trinitarian doctrine, and it happens
in the field of theological reflection. Let us insist that this first theological development
implies a new language to speak of the mystery of the God of Jesus Christ, it implies
new accents or nuclei of interest, but it will not imply in any case different contents,
neither those of the preaching of Jesus nor of the proclamation of the early Christian
community.

I) A new cultural horizon: Hellenism

The new cultural horizon in which the Christian preaching of the God of Jesus is found
in the S. II and III is with Hellenism . Hellenism more than a structured and unitary
system of thought, is a set of doctrines. It is the cultural atmosphere of the Greco-
Roman world. It is an eclectic system in which there are three great currents of thought
that intermingle:

a) Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism: (late versions of Platonism). Middle Platonism

is characterized as a cosmological system (the whole of reality) part of the total
separation between God and the world. A total separation whose distance is saved by a
multitude of intermediate beings (gods, demigods, creatures...) For them, God and the
world cannot be related, and this doctrine thinks of a series of beings that mediate in
that relationship.

Neoplatonism is characterized by strong speculation about the divine world . For these,
the divine world is presided over by the "one" as the first principle of everything, from
it the rest of reality derives by emanation, especially from the first two emanations of
the One, which are the thought ( Nous ) and the soul. of the world ( Pneuma ).

2
b) Stoics : For them the Logos is immanent in reality. Unlike Neoplatonism, Stoicism
thinks not so much of the transcendent, but rather internal to the world, immanent.

c) Gnosticism : It is not in itself a homogeneous system, it is syncretistic. It has

philosophical elements of Platonism, others of Eastern thought, etc. The main
characteristic is his way of understanding reality as one composed of two principles
(dualistic). These principles are opposed to each other, they are antagonistic. There
would be a good god (principle of all things and invisible realities), and another bad
principle, which would be the foundation of the corporeal or material. They advocate a
theological dualism, they are two antagonistic principles. Finally we can say that it is
resolved in a historical and salvific dualism, contrasting matter - spirit, body - soul, one
is the history of the material and another of the spiritual realities, opposing the order of
creation (matter) and another in order to salvation, you have to go out of the first to
enter the second.

The question that concerns us is how the encounter with these cultural systems will
influence the Christian preaching about God.

Faced with these late versions of Platonism (Middle and Neoplatonism) that both
deny the possibility of an immediate relationship between God and the world, Christian
preaching had to defend that this relationship is possible, otherwise there would be no
salvation, that is, the immediacy of salvation. And it is possible because Jesus Christ is
not a simple creature, and because the Holy Spirit is not a simple creature. The
relationship is possible because both the Son and the IS are not mere intermediaries, but
are of the same divine condition as the Father. That is, they are consubstantial with the
Father, this is the defense against this doctrine.

Faced with these Stoicist versions , Christian preaching had to affirm the transcendent
character of the Logos that is Jesus. That is to say, it is a personal Logos, and that the
Christ logos is transcendent and divine.

In the face of Gnostic speculations, and their theological and historical dualism -
salvific, Christian theology, Christian preaching had to affirm: a) that the identity of the
Creator God and the Savior God is the same God. The same God who creates is the 3
same who saves, creation is for salvation. There are not two plans, only one, made by
the same God. B) with this, they affirm the unity and harmony between the order of
creation and the order of salvation: that is, the unity of the salvific economy.

So it is normal that such a new and different cultural context (unlike the Jewish one that
already had some concrete bases especially fixed in monotheism), it is normal that
Christian preaching sees the need to formulate in some way or in a synthetic, concise
way , clear and normative the main contents of the Christian faith, this is what is known
as: the rule of faith : synthetic and normative exposition of the main contents of the
Christian faith, which is necessary to announce the God of Jesus Christ in this very
different cultural context.

II) The rule of faith

This is not a laboratory elaboration, but the development of the Christian faith, lived,
celebrated in the liturgy and life of believers and witnessed in the martyrdom of many
Christians, and transmitted by preaching and catechesis. It is not elaborated or
previously thought of in an academic or theological way, but rather as a result of the
natural path of faith and its practice and celebration of Christians in that same context.
Examples of the rule of faith: (Justin, I Apology 6, 1-2) (Justin, Apology 13, 3)
(Irenaeus, Demonstration 6).

Trinitarian structure that the rule of faith has draws our attention , and tells us about its
action in the economy of salvation. In contact with Hellenism, the question arises as to
whether this God who saves and is Trinitarian, differentiated, is really three persons in
his intimate life, and if so, what kind of relationship does he have between them so that
he does not cease to be a only God?

What is new is that the intimacy of the Trinity becomes the subject of theological
reflection. (The intimacy of the Trinity is immanence, the action of the Trinity is the
salvific economy).

4
The trinitarian doctrine is speculative, it asks how is the trinity, how is the logos coming
from the father, is it different, how is that...

In this new perspective of "theme" the meaning is changed, from the transition from
economy to immanence. From the New Testament of the action of God in history, how
the Trinity is related, the intimacy of the Trinity (immanence) . The central theme of the
theological reflection is the "theme of the intimacy of the Trinity" in the face of God's
action in history, in the salvific economy.

The meeting of the Christian faith, the proclamation of the God of Jesus Christ with the
Hellenistic cultural context, requires a further reflection that leads to the rule of faith.

Hence the question arises how the Trinity works, and how it is compatible with the One
true God, with the monotheism that defends the faith itself.

III) A change of perspective: from economy to immanence

By this change of perspective we understand that immanence becomes the subject of

theological reflection. But you have to do a double nuance:

1) Although it is certain that in the Centuries I to III it is the central theme, this is not a
total innovation : it is rather the development of what is latent in the NT. In the NT the
intimacy of the Trinity is present, but it is present as a presupposition of its
understanding and not as a theme. In fact we can mention two examples where the
presence of the theme of immanence is present as a presupposition, although not
developed:

- Foreword to Ev . From Saint John, 18 :

“
No one has ever seen God: the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father,
is the one who has made him known.”

5
The Son appears as different from the Father, but who is God, only-begotten God, and
yet is not a second God. He is God, and he is only begotten. The father's bosom is a
metaphor for divine immanence. In Juan's thought the theme of intimacy is present, but
without trying to explain it speculatively, that is, it is present as a presupposition.

- Phil 2, 6-11 :

6
Who, being divine, | he did not greedily hold to be equal to God ; 7 on the contrary, he
emptied himself | taking the condition of slave, | made in the likeness of men. | And so,
recognized as a man by his presence, 8 he humbled himself, | made obedient unto death,
| and a death on the cross. 9 Therefore God exalted him above all | and gave him the
Name-above-all-names; 10
so that at the name of Jesus | every knee bends | in heaven,
on earth, in the deep, 11
and let every tongue proclaim: | Jesus Christ is Lord, | to the
glory of God the Father.

The assumption of the hymn to understand obedience until death is the relationship in
eternity, in the form of God, Christ had with the Father, who was the same as Him, and
for this, he had to divest himself of said condition. That is, the one who dies as a slave
existed in the form of God. Again, Trinitarian intimacy is presupposed. Equal to God
because he divests himself, but different because he obeys him. The theme is the
delivery of Christ on the Cross, but the assumption to understand that is the intimacy of
the Trinity. The obedience of Christ “ in the form of a servant” (economy), understood
from his annihilation “ in the form of God ” (immanence)

2) It does not mean that the theologians of the 2nd and 3rd centuries have forgotten the
salvific dimension of the mystery of the Trinity. On the contrary, it is not lost from the
soteriological point of view. Rather, this Trinitarian speculation is at the service of a
better understanding of the mystery, and from there follows a more conscious and
cordial adherence to faith in the God who saves.

IV) The great themes of the Trinitarian theology of the second and
third centuries
6
1) The generation of the Logos

1.1) The meaning of the theme: why this logos thing, why the generation?

There is talk of generation, it is because theologians, especially apologist fathers, find

themselves faced with the difficulty of having to affirm that God is one in the face of
pagan polytheism, and at the same time that in the face of Judaism they have to affirm
that God is Triune. How to do it? How to justify both the unique character of God
(uniqueness) and at the same time his plurality or alterity (Trinitarian).

The concept of generation seems to them to be an appropriate instrument for this, to

speak of both its uniqueness and its plurality at the same time. In addition to the fact that
the concept of generation responds to what is most genuine of the Christian faith,
proclaiming the divine sonship of Christ, he is the Son of God, the only begotten, and
sonship is generation, he has been begotten by God.

Therefore, generation by:

- Fidelity to what the Christian faith says about Christ: that he is a Son, since
filiation includes generation.

Now then, speaking of generation by Christ, why generation of the Logos, and not of
Christ or the Son? For three reasons:

- Because of the encompassing character of the Logos category : (in addition to

appearing in the NT, Prologue of Saint John 1, 1-3,14, 1Jn 1, 1-2, Ap 19, 13).
The all-encompassing character because the theologians of that time allowed
them to relate great themes of theology (the trinity, creation, Christology...)
logos of God is the internal rationality of God, what springs from his heart,
allows think life, but also creation (because he creates by his word – logos -),
Christology (the logos made flesh), the revealing mission of the Son (speak the
word of God). He gives a lot of himself and puts everything in relation to
7
 meaning. They talk about the logos – Jesus Christ, not the Stoic logos or
anything like that. It gives unity to theological thought.

- Because of its missionary potentiality: First, because it was a familiar term for
many of its recipients (Stoics, Platonists, or Judaism developed in Hellenism-
Philo of Alexandria), the people of the time understood them, it had missionary
valence. And secondly, because of the conviction of those fathers (St. Justin)
who, when they think about this reality of the logos, see the logos disseminated (
λόγος σπ ερμ α τικὸς ), it is the preparation for Christ by the pagans, the seeds
truly scattered, sown, scattered.

- Spiritual conception of generation : speaking of the generation of the logos,

allows us to think of a reproductive or generative process in a spiritual and not a
material way, allows us to think of a generation that does not suppose a
numerical multiplication of beings, as happens in the human generation or
animal reproduction. (Example: when I conceive or generate an idea, it is
something different from me – the idea – but it is something intimately mine,
and not separate, it is different from me only nominally, God and Jesus are
different: different numerically) Facilitates the explanation of uniqueness and
internal plurality.

1.2) The generation of the Logos as an "emission" of thought

It is about an emission that has its origin in the Father, who by his own will generates or
conceives the Word before all things, and who has creative potentiality, power. (The
metaphor is the way we conceive an idea, how it comes out of our mind, it comes out of
us, it is different, but it is us). It does not indicate separation, it is not a second God.
Tertullian explains it by saying that “we have the true guardian emission of unity by
saying that the Son was uttered outside the Father, but not separated, because God
uttered the Word as the paraclete himself teaches. Just as the root produces the branch
and there is no separation, just as the source the river, the sun the ray. Because these
species are also emissions of the substances from which they come, but they are not
separated from their source, nor is the Word of God.” It is emission, but not separation.
It is understood by analogy or comparison. It is distinct but not separation. 8
1.3) The generation of the Logos in relation to the creation of the world: from the
apologists to Origen:

We begin with Teófilo de Antioquia, who explains what the generation of the logos
thinks with the creation of all creation. This relationship is established (generation of the
logos and creation of the world) for two reasons :

a) Biblical Reason : the Scripture does it, the creation of the world with the issuance of
a Word by God. (Gn 1, 3): " And God said let there be light, and there was light " Also
in Wisdom, when he refers that he created it before all the rest of the things of creation.
Wisdom helps you create the world. At least it does so implicitly. Creation is the fruit of
a creative Word of God.

b) Philosophical reason : It has as a mental scheme the average Platonism, and in this
doctrine the transcendence of God prevents Him from being the immediate cause of the
world. With which, the figure of an intermediary of creation is necessary, that is the
Logos. The Logos is generated to create the world.

This has several consequences (both reasons in general, closely relate the Logos to the
creation of the world):

- That these first theologians do not understand the generation of the Logos in an
eternal way, is temporary. That is, they see it as in two moments of existence,
that of God and that of the Logos. It is a certain subordinationism, first God and
then the Logos. Since this cannot be, they keep thinking about it to explain it.

- Tertullian comes to speak of three phases of the Logos: 1) it always exists as the
thought of God (ratio) 2) God begins to deliberate within himself thinking about
creation, an intra-divine dialogue , the immanent ratio becomes word ( sermo ),
3) when he emits that Word, he becomes a Son, because it is uttered, generated,
pronounced ( Filius ). That is, It has always existed without being generated .
On this one progresses and perfects the thought.
9
 - It is surpassed with Origins in the S. III. It is understood as a point of arrival in
this matter. It affirms the eternal generation of the Logos, it is eternal as God and
not generated prior to the Creation. It is the eternal generation of the Logos. “
De principiis ” the work where he exposes it. It decouples the generation of the
logos from the creation. He speaks for the first time of the eternal generation
of the Logos, without beginning . The question is to know how he arrives at
that affirmation (Of the eternity of the generation of the Logos, of the Son), and
he does so based on two arguments:

a) Exegetical argument : 3 passages:

Pv 8, 25: The mountains were not plumb yet, | Before the mountains I was begotten.

Ps 2, 7: I will proclaim the decree of the Lord; | he told me: «You are my son: | I have
begotten you today .

Heb 1, 3: He is a reflection of his glory, imprint of his being . He sustains the universe
with his powerful word. And, having performed purification from sins, he is seated at
the right hand of the Majesty on high

Understand that "before", "today" refers to concepts prior to creation, and therefore does
not indicate a temporary moment (our categories) but expresses with our language, the
existence and creation of the eternal logos, at the moment when nothing existed. ,
consubstantial to the Father, with "imprint of his being".

b) Philosophical argument : Based on divine immutability. God does not change, so

there can be no time when God was not a Father. Therefore, if there has always been a
Father, there has always been a Son. God is always Father of his only begotten Son born
of Him.

This is the greatness of Origen.

1.4) The generation of the Logos as an ineffable mystery :

10
The Fathers have not wanted to exhaust the mystery. Nor is the ineffable mystery of
God lost. Basically, what is in these reflections is the idea that despite everything they
might think it will be an unattainable mystery, it is true, that we must try to give reasons
and explain it, but knowing that deep down we are facing before a mystery that cannot
be said, that cannot be explained.

In this sense, we quote Saint Irenaeus who criticizes the attempts to explain the
generation of the Son by an emission (Gnostic thought, not that of Christians), for him
wanting to explain the generation of the Son by comparing it with the emission of the
thought, is a gross form of anthropomorphism, because God is something else and much
more. It is to apply to the eternal and spiritual verb categories that have to do with the
material and sensible world, it is based on a phrase from the Bible Is 53, 8 (in Greek of
the LXX and Latin, the current literary translation in Spanish is not faithful) "
generationem eius quis enarrabit ?.

It was not only Saint Irenaeus, others also defended him, but he is the greatest exponent,
and that is why we quote him.

2) The unity of the Trinity as a presupposition of the unity of the history of

salvation

For Saint Irenaeus the Father creates through the Son and the Holy Spirit. To explain it,
he uses a metaphor to explain the internal Trinitarian unity, the unity of the creative
action, the principle of the saving work, saying that they are like the hands or the
ministers of God in creation. With this, he gives reason for the unity of the three, each
one of them as hands or ministers accentuating an aspect.

With his hands: the father creates through his Son (his Wisdom) underlines the
immediacy of God the Father in the creative work . It says that the Son and the Spirit is
the same God acting through them. God creates the world, God himself, through "his
hands." I write, they are my hands, but I write it, well, the same in creation by this
metaphor. God is the creator, he has done it through his hands, which are the Son or
wisdom and the Spirit.
11
The image of the hands is ideal, but it could blur the difference between the three, so
this image is counterbalanced by the second statement that they are his ministers. As
ministers: it highlights their personal distinction, they have different functions in the
creative action, a peculiar role that differentiates them from the Father. These functions
are:

The Father has the decision and the will to create.

To the Son corresponds the execution and formation (the one that shapes) of the
creation.
It is up to the Holy Spirit to perfect, order, and beautify that work.
The same and only God is the one who carries out the creative work: the one who
wants, the one who executes and the one who perfects.

The whole work of salvation can be said by means of that analogy. All the work of
creation and salvation have this Trinitarian structure. One and one is the God who
creates and the God who saves, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The God who
creates to save in creation itself and not outside of it. This is how the motto of Saint
Irenaeus is understood: Salus Carnis . Meat Salvation.

The trinitarian unity bases the unity of the history of salvation. He creates to save, and
he does it without intermediaries, he does it mediately, with his hands and ministers
who are one with him. Creation is the beginning of the saving work.

3) The "personality" of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (which are three)

This brings us to the personality of the Father, the Son and the HE. In that differentiated
action between them shown in creation and the work of redemption, it also corresponds
in their personality. They must respond to what they are, acting like this. To respond to
this, the theology of the 2nd and 3rd centuries made a terminological effort, a language
was developed, which over time became technical to the Trinitarian doctrine. In the
Greek and Latin of the time, three words are used to try to explain what they are, what
realities are the Father, the Son and the IS. Let's see them (they are maturation in the
formulation of the same idea):
12
a) PROSOPON (plural prosop): classical greek . It comes from theatrical language.
They were the masks that were used to distinguish the characters. Those masks were
called propose or prosopa. Hipólito (Against Noetus) says, commenting on Jn 10, 30:
“the Father and I are one”. Hipólito says, the verb “we are” is said of two people, but
only one power. Duo prosops a dynamis.

The content of Prosopon (person): We could say that the theologians of this time try to
imply that it is the individual personality composed of differential traits. Individualize
the characters. It is the person, in terms of holder of some traits or characteristics that
differentiate them from others.
The accent of the prosopon is placed on that, on the set of differential traits that make up
someone's personality, differentiating him from others.

b) HYPOSTASIS: This comes from philosophical and metaphysical language. Its

meaning is "what is under something" Hipo = below Stasis = what is or is below. What
is below each individual, which configures it as one and as that specifically
differentiated, is the hypostasis, it is like the substratum to which these differential traits
adhere. In this sense, hypostasis is the way of being of substances (ousias), since
substances subsist, accidents do not subsist. ( Ex : the green does not subsist, its way of
being is stuck to something, the table does subsist).

Trinitarian people are not only differentiated traits, that is why, in addition to prosopon,
an internal unit is used, which is the hypostasis. (I am a human being, that is my
hypostasis, it is humanity, which is given in my person. My person is the concretion of
that essence of humanity, that is the hypostasis). To say that there are three hypostases,
is to say that they are three different ones.

The nuance added by hypostasis is that there is a substratum in these differential traits
that gives them unity .

Origen says that the Father is the first Hypostasis ( dutotheos ), because he has not
received from anyone to be God. The Son is the second ( deuterotheos ) because he
comes from the Father, and the IS is the third, since he comes from the Father through
the Son. 13
c) PERSONA: Latin translation of Prosopon. It is translated like this because from the
Greek the masks, in addition to what was said (differentiate characters), were used to act
as a sounding board and made the voice amplify and be heard throughout the theater. In
Latin it translates as PER SONA, personare = make it sound louder, with more
intensity.

It is Tertullian who introduces this concept ( Adversus Praexam ). Person is the

speaking subject, but what is manifested is the responsible action of the subject (through
the word), in God it designates the personality of each part of the trinity, and in turn is
opposed to the word Substance. Person is different from substance.
The substance is what is identical to the three, and the person would be the differential.
Person designates plurality as distinct from identity. The substance is the only thing, the
person the different. One substance, but three people. (Substance = subsists). We see
how the mentality of the Greek and Latin theologians is different. It complicates it.

But let's stay with the elementary, the terminological effort to say with a word that they
are the Father, the Son and the IS: that they are three prosopa, three hypostases or three
persons. We want to underline the effort to differentiate and account for the existing
Trinity in Revelation, trying to explain it.

V) First Trinitarian heresies

All this theological development has a reverse, and it is that all that effort to better
understand and explain the divine Trinity is sometimes not achieved, and reductive or
deficient visions are formulated . Trinitarian heresies are formulated. It is the non-
flourishing aspect of speculation on this subject. They are deficient, insufficient and
reductive visions of the mystery of God. They are reductive because if the mystery of
God is unity and trinity, ignoring either of the two elements is a deficient vision , and
that is what happened, in the attempt to explain the divine identity, because in the end
the trinity is denied.

14
There is no monolithic cast, but there is a set of doctrines that can be grouped into the
following:

- Monarchianism : God is one person, and they deny the three persons, they deny
the Trinity.

- Subordinationism : They accept the three people, but affirm that among them
there is a subordination, that is, there is one who is God par excellence and the
rest participate in that divinity, but the rest are but to a lesser degree.

- Tritheism : Considered as three gods, it is a form of polytheism.

Before going into one by one, let us stop at a hermeneutical observation on the
interpretation of these doctrines.
And it is that all heresies always start from a legitimate theological assumption, they do
not start from denying some essential aspect of God. As a hermeneutical criterion we
can say that they are wrong in what they deny, not in what they affirm.

We already know what they are: what are the trinitarian heresies? (examination):
deficient and reductive explanations of the mystery of God, because they end up
affirming one aspect of God that is true, but denying another that is also true, they
are wrong in what they deny, not in what they affirm .

Let's see them separately:

a) Monarchianism:

It is called that because it comes from monarchy, and in Greek it is made up of two
elements:
Monos : one alone (unique) and Arché : Principle = A single principle. How does it
apply to theology and Trinitarian theology? They do it to refer to God the Father, to
refer to an exclusive personal quality that only belongs to Him: the unique principle of
divine life , the Son (born from the Father) and the IS (proceeds from Him but is not
born, is not a second son) come from Him. That is why the monarchy is a characteristic 15
or property of God the father, it defines him and differentiates him from the other two
persons of the Trinity.

But monarchy is not monarchianism. Let's say that monarchianism is a derivation, a

misunderstanding of the Father's monarchy. This heresy is the claim that the Father is
the only divine person . He is right that the Father is the only principle of divine life,
they are wrong in interpreting that he is the only divine person. Heresy because it denies
the Trinity.

Those who fell into this were Christians, so they had something to say about Jesus and
the ES, to justify it and respond to the absence, they had to give reason for what they
left, of that diversity. It is here that monarchianism diversifies as they explain the
identity of the Son and the IS. This is the common element, and diversity in how the
other two Trinitarians explain.

a.1) Adoptionist or dynamic monarchianism : It is called that because it is

monarchianist, and adoptionist because it defends that the Son is a simple man like us,
but believing him to be the Son of God is explained by means of the thesis in which
God adopts to that man. He is adopted by God in Baptism when he sends down the
sanctifying force of his Spirit. (Force in Greek is Dinamis, therefore adoptive or
dynamic).

This type of monarchianism arises in Christian circles from Judaism where Old
Testament monotheism is deeply rooted, where there is a memory of a very human
Jesus because he was there and they remember him.

a.2) Patripassian Monarchianism : More of the Greek field accustomed to the myths of
the gods who come down to earth. The thesis is the same, only God the Father, Jesus
Christ is the same father who becomes visible, he accommodated himself on earth with
that flesh and in that way, but he is the same Father. They are called that because the
Fathers who criticize them claim to affirm at the end the passion of the Father ( patri –
pasiano ).
16
Both of these forms are Christological heresies. The ES does not appear.

a.3) Modalist or Sabellian Monarchianism : In a way, by the way that explains it, and
Sabellian by the author who popularized it. If this is already properly Trinitarian, it
already makes the three intervene, and not only the Son. What it says: There is only one
divine person (monarchianism). In this assumption to explain Son and IS are different
ways, different ways or different names of the only divine person. Sabellius says that
they are three different names of the one divine person. The characteristic that made it
reasonable is because of the historical context of salvation. They are three different
names at different moments of salvation. We call the only divine person Father as
created (creation), we call the only divine person the Son as redeemer, and we call the
only divine person IS as sanctifier.

His disciples slightly modified the doctrine to make them more feasible. They said that
there are three people (prosopa), but this means that there are three roles, not so much
three people. That the only divine person plays the role of the Father in creating, that of
the Son in redeeming and the role of the IS to make Himself present and sanctify today
among us.
b) Subordinationism :

We are going to see the general principles, because we will see its diversity in topic
four.

It appears to deal with the modal monarchism that defends that there are three
characters, but only one person. Well, they pretend to defend that there is a Father, a
Son and an ES, if there are three people. So you are not wrong about this.

It begins to be heresy when they say that there are three different ones, but each one of
them participates in the divine condition in different degrees, one of them is fully God,
the other is less God, and the third is even less God than the second. They are different
grades and they are descending, there is even a hierarchy. God the Father first as full
God, the Son subordinate to Him and the IS subordinate to the Son.

17
The mental scheme of this thesis is the neoplatonic scheme. It has the scheme of
participation in being in subordinate and descending degrees. From the One to be
perfect to the increasingly subordinate reality.

Basically there is a final and fundamental coincidence between monarchianism and

subordinationism , since the one who is God - God, is God the Father. Because either
one is God or one is not God, there is no way to be God being less than God. There is an
underlying coincidence because there is only one divine person, God cannot be less than
God. It is the inability to account for the Trinity, for three fully divine divine persons.
And in both the Trinity ends up being denied, although in subordinationism they want to
maintain it.

Kasper says that there is only one Trinitarian heresy: since it is modal and
subordinationist monarchianism, because both end up reducing it to a single divine
person, either by directly denying it, or by reduction, which does not fit into the very
conception of God.

c) Trit eism

The true denial of the unity of God is this, because the other two deny the Trinity. This
defends that there are three gods, and that is to expressly deny the unity of God. In the
doctrine of theology it has never been given. No one in Christian history has defended
the idea that there are three different gods, it cannot happen because we are based on
biblical monotheism, Jesus says so. It is rather the difficulty of explaining the trinity,
not so much denying the unity of God. If it has never existed, we speak of tritheism
because some theologians have been accused of being so. It has not existed as a
doctrine, but as a possibility, or as the possible conclusion and some approaches that
could lead to the conclusion of this doctrine. In history, it appears in the form of an
accusation rather than a doctrine, accusing certain of explaining the difference between
the Father, the Son and the IS. Let's look at two examples of these accusations:
18
c.1) Theology S.III, the controversy of the two Dionysus (Alexandria and Rome)

Against modalism, Dionysius of Alexandria wrote a work against modalism, and to

affirm that they are not simply papers, he said:

"There are three hypostases absolutely separate from each other" Dionysius of Rome
replies to this and says: "It is true that what Sabellius says is not clear, but what you
affirm is in a certain way like preaching three gods"

c.2) Saint Anselm of Canterbury with Roscelin of Compiegne (French canon)

Roscelino wanted to underline that the one who is Incarnated is the Son (only He), and
not the Father nor the IS, nor the Trinity as a whole. For this argument:

“If the Father, the Son and the IS, were a single thing and not three things (res) each of
them separately (like three angels, or three souls), then it would be necessary to
conclude that the Father and the Son and the ES would have been incarnated at the
same time”.

Saint Anselm replies: “he who speaks in this way either means that there are three
gods, or he does not understand what he is saying”

19