The Economic Trinity
Doctrine stands outside, above life; it serves only the head; it is a suitable object for theological speculation. In addition, there is another source for life in the mysticism of the Spirit; it does not spring from knowledge but has its own origin, and nurtures the soul.
Head and heart are not in the right relationship; conception and emotion are separated; ethical connection is lacking.
The Economic Trinity These immanent relations of the Three Persons in the Divine Being also manifest outwardly in their revelations and works. Indeed, all opera ad extra are commonly owned by the Three Persons. Opera
Deitatis ad extra sunt indivisa, servato ordine et discrimine personarum. It is always the same God who acts in creation and recreation. Yet, in this unity, the order of the three Persons is preserved. The ontological Trinity reflects itself in the economic
Trinity. Therefore, particular attributes and works are attributed to each of the three Persons, not to the exclusion of the other two
Persons, as Abelard believed, but so that the order existing among the Persons in the ontological Trinity is manifested therein. These attributes are thus not propriae but appropriatae, and this is consistent with Holy Scripture. Citing Mt. 28:19 and 1Cor. 8:6,
Hilary states that the Father is the auctor, from Whom everything is; the Son, the Only Begotten, through Whom everything is; and the Holy Spirit is a gift to all. Therefore, there is one power, one Son, one gift. Nothing is lacking in this perfection. In the Father is eternity, in the Son is the species in image, in the Spirit is the use in gift. Hilary attributes these characteristics to the three persons because the Father is the arch and without a beginning; the Son is the image of
the Father, who reveals Him in His glory; the Holy Spirit is a gift from the Father and the Son, who makes us partakers of communion with God. Augustine raised some objections against this and expressed the distinction differently: in the Father unity, in the Son equality, in the Holy Spirit the concord of unity and equality; and these three are one in all things because of the Father, equal in all things because of the Son, united in all things because of the Holy
Spirit. Augustine further elaborated on this distinction in his work De Trinitate. Here, he attributes power to the Father, wisdom to the Son, and goodness or love to the Holy Spirit. However, this should not be understood as if the Father became wise and good through the wisdom of the Son and the goodness of the Holy Spirit. For the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all share the same divine nature and the same divine attributes. Nevertheless, it is permissible to attribute the mentioned attributes to the three Persons in an economic sense.
Later theologians adopted this distinction as well.
This corresponds to an economic distinction in the opera ad extra.
Although these are all works of being, each of the three Persons assumes the place that corresponds to the order of His existence in the Divine Being. The Father works from Himself through the Son in the Spirit. Holy Scripture clearly indicates this distinction in the socalled distinctive prepositions ek, dia, and en, as seen in 1Cor. 8:6 and Joh. 1:3,14. The frequently cited text Rom. 11:36 is not trinitarian in division, and Col. 1:16 is only seemingly in conflict with this use of prepositions. This distinction, which Scripture makes between the three Persons, was recognized early on and emphasized.
Athanasius frequently refers to Eph. 4:6, stating that God as Father is above all, as Son through all, and as Spirit in all, and that the Father creates and recreates all things through the Son in the Spirit.
Basil was accused because in his prayer he sometimes thanked the Father meta tou uiou sun tw pneumati tw agiw and then again dia
tou uiou and tw agiw pneumati. In his work "De Spiritu Sancto," he defends the first expression, stating that the Son and the Spirit are one Being with the Father and therefore must receive the same honor and speaks extensively about the distinction of the prepositions.
Against the Arians, he argues that the unequal prepositions do not prove the inequality of the Persons but indicate a specific order in their existence and activity. The Father is the prokatarkric cause, the Son is the demiurgic cause, the Spirit is the teleiwtic cause. This same distinction reappears in all later theologians.
All outward works of God have one principium, namely, God, but they are brought about through the cooperation of the three Persons, who occupy a distinct place and fulfill a unique task in both the works of creation and those of redemption and sanctification.
Everything originates from the Father, is accomplished by the Son, and perfected in the Holy Spirit. Indeed, to a certain extent, the outward works are also divided among the three Persons. Gregory of Nazianzus explained, as mentioned earlier, the great difference of opinion about the Holy Spirit in his time by stating that the Spirit first made Himself known through His indwelling in the church.
Much abuse has been made of the truth expressed by Gregory, due to various forms of pantheism. From Montanus to Hegel, the idea emerged repeatedly that the three Persons represented three successive periods in the history of the church. Consequently, the economic Trinity was detached from its metaphysical foundation,
God's Being was drawn into the stream of becoming, and cosmogony was transformed into theogony. The struggle of the fathers was precisely to banish this paganistic, pantheistic element from Christian theology, to detach God as the Being from the evolution of becoming, and therefore to conceive of the Trinity as an eternal life movement within the Divine Being itself. Gregorius of Nazianzus does not teach in the aforementioned words that the Godhead of the
Son and the Holy Spirit became so later; he endeavors to prove both as decisively as possible from Scripture. But in His self-revelation,
God did consider the capacity of humans. It was dangerous, as Gregorius says, to teach about the Godhead of the Son while the Godhead of the Father was not yet acknowledged, and to impose on us the Godhead of the Holy Spirit while that of the Son was not yet confessed. He did not want to overwhelm us with food or blind our eyes with the full light of the sun. All outward works, creation, maintenance, governance, incarnation, atonement, renewal, sanctification, etc., are works of the entire Trinity. Nevertheless, in an economic sense, creation is attributed more specifically to the Father, redemption to the Son, and sanctification to the Holy Spirit.
Just as in the ontological Trinity, the Father is first in order, and the Son is second, and the Holy Spirit is third; so also in the history of revelation, the Father preceded the Son, and the Son, in turn, preceded the Holy Spirit. The economy of the Father was especially that of the Old Testament (Heb. 1:1); the economy of the Son began with the incarnation, and the economy of the Holy Spirit commenced with Pentecost (John 7:39, 14:15). The Father comes from Himself, but the Son comes only sent by the Father (Mt. 10:40, Mk. 9:37, Luk.
9:48, John 3:16, 5:23,30,37, 6:8, etc.), and again, the Holy Spirit comes only sent by both (John 14:26, 16:7,12).
But this mission in time is a reflection of the immanent relation of the three Persons in the Being of God and has its foundation in generation and spiration. The incarnation of the Word has its eternal archetype in the generation of the Son, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is a weak analogy of the procession from the Father and the Son. Therefore, the church fathers rightly concluded from the relations that appeared between the three Persons in time, to their eternal immanent relations. And this is entirely correct. For, as Augustine says, the Son cannot be called sent because He became
flesh, but He is and is called sent, so that He might become flesh. For the Father did not speak a word in time that the eternal Son would be sent. Sed utique in ipso Dei verbo quod erat in principio apud
Deum et Deus erat, in ipsa scilicet sapientia Dei sine tempore erat, quo tempore illam in carne apparere oporteret. Itaque cum sine ullo initio temporis in principio esset verbum, et verbum esset apud
Deum et Deus esset verbum; sine ullo tempore in ipso verbo erat, quo tempore verbum caro fieret et habitaret in nobis. Quae plenitudo temporis cum venisset, misit Deus filium suum, factum ex muliere, id est, factum in tempore, ut incarnatum verbum hominibus appareret, quod in ipso verbo sine tempore erat, in quo tempore fieret. Ordo quippe temporum in aeterna Dei sapientia sine tempore est. Cum itaque hoc a patre et filio factum esset, ut in carne filius appareret, congruenter dictus est missus ille qui in ea carne apparuit, misisse autem ille qui in ea non apparuit. Quoniam illa quae coram corporeis oculis foris geruntur, ab interiore apparatu naturae spiritalis existunt; propterea convenienter missa dicuntur. And the same applies to the sending of the Holy Spirit. Facta est enim quaedam creaturae species ex tempore in qua visibiliter ostenderetur spiritus santus....Haec operatio visibiliter expressa et oculis oblata mortalibus missio Spiritus Sancti dicta est, non ut ita appareret ejus ipsa substantia, qua et ipse invisibilis et incommutabilis est sicut pater et filius, sed ut exterioribus visis hominum corda commota atemporali manifestatione venientis ad occultam aeternitatem semper praesentis converterentur. The Holy Spirit was already a gift before He was given to anyone. Quia sic procedebat ut esset donabile, jam donum erat et antequam esset cui daretur. Aliter enim intelligitur cum dicitur donum, aliter cum dicitur donatum. Nam donum potest esse et antequam detur, donatum autem nisi datum fuerit, nullo modo dici potest. The sending in time is thus closely related to the eternal procession in the Divine Being. And while now the Son and the Spirit have appeared in the incarnation and