Nicaea and its Legacy

Abstract

The first part of the book offers a new narrative of the fourth-century Trinitarian controversies. It takes forward modern revisionary scholarship, showing the slow emergence of the theologies that came to constitute pro-Nicene orthodoxy. Ancient heresiological categories, such as ‘Arian’ and ‘Neo-Arian’, are avoided while the unity of ‘Nicene’ theologies is not assumed. The second part offers a new account of the unity in diversity of late fourth-century pro-Nicene theologies. In particular it is argued that the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed and the statements of unity and plurality in the Trinity, to be found in all pro-Nicene theologians and in Theodosius’ anti-heretical legislation, were intended to be understood in the context of a broad set of theological practices and assumptions. An account of the basic strategies that ground pro-Nicene theology is offered, focusing on common epistemological concerns, a common notion of purification and sanctification, and a common aesthetics of faith. Instructions are provided detailing the Trinitarian theology of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Augustine of Hippo. Throughout the first two parts of the book, a constant concern is to show that the common acceptance of a basic division between Eastern and Western Trinitarian theologies is unsustainable. Finally, the failure of modern Trinitarian theology to engage pro-Nicene theology in a substantial manner is considered.

Truthmaker Trinitarianism

“…Accordingly, this should increase our confidence that, if the Father, Son, 4 The classification derives in part from Théodore de Régnon (see Barnes 1995), and it has been employed by inter alia (Leftow 1999), (Hasker 2010), , and (Rea 2009). For resistance to this classificatory scheme, see (Ayres 2004) and (Cross 2002). 5 Echoing this description, Dale Tuggy writes that Latin Trinitarianism "explain[s] that these three divine 'persons' are really ways the one divine self is, that is say, modes of the one god" (Tuggy 2016).…”

Divine Simplicity in Historical Perspective: Resourcing a Contemporary Discussion

“…80 In fact, Lewis Ayres has argued that the primary concern in early Eastern formulations of divine simplicity was the protection of the unity of the Godhead amidst affirmations of the three divine persons. 81 One of the clearest examples of seeking to ground the Trinity as monotheistic by means of divine simplicity is Anselm's Proslogion 23. Already in Proslogion 5 Anselm had stipulated divine aseity as a foundational implication of the divine name, and divine simplicity has repeatedly been affirmed as a necessary consequence of aseity throughout the book.…”

“Ascending the Mountain, Singing the Rock: Biblical Interpretation Earthed, Typed, and Transfigured”

“…I am aware of Lewis Ayres's concern that systematic theologians borrow Trinitarian capital-the result of Patristic exegesis-but seek to distance themselves from the processes of Patristic exegesis. 48 While Ayres and I agree that theology is fundamentally contemplation of Scripture, I am less inclined to take descriptions of Patristic exegesis as normative for biblical interpretation today. 49 He may be right historically about the difficulty of distinguishing allegory and typology, but I believe some such distinction is both necessary and legitimate.…”