Life of St. John Chrysostom

Life.

Chrysostom's life was neither calm nor easy. He was an ascetic and a martyr. It was not in the desert that his feats were accomplished but in the chaos of the world, in the pulpit of the preacher, and on the episcopal throne. His martyrdom was bloodless. He was tormented not by external enemies but by his brothers who proved false to him, and he ended his life in chains, in exile, under interdiction, and persecuted by Christians for his faith in Christ and the Gospel, which he preached as a revelation and the law of life.

Chrysostom was primarily an evangelist and a preacher of the good news of the Gospel. He was also a teacher who had a lively interest in contemporary issues, and the true significance of his teaching can be fully understood only in its historical context. He condemned the Christians of the fourth century who claimed to be living according to the precepts of the Gospel and warned them that they had relaxed their efforts prematurely. This prophet of universal love frequently spoke harshly and severely because it seemed to him that he was preaching and bearing witness before men who were dead. For him the injustice and the absence of love in the Christian world assumed catastrophic, almost apocalyptic significance. "We have extinguished our fervor and the body of Christ has died." The light yoke of love seemed an unbearable burden for the indifferent world. This explains Chrysostom's ultimately bitter fate, for he was driven out for the sake of the truth which he preached. "For this the world will hate you."

Chrysostom was a native of Antioch, and he remained a typical Antiochene in his spiritual temperament and in his religious outlook. The exact year of his birth is unknown but it was probably sometime between 344 and 354. Chrysostom came from a wealthy and prominent Christian family. Both by birth and education he belonged to the intellectual Hellenistic circles of the society of his aristocratic gentility. Chrysostom did not renounce his cultural heritage even when he rejected the world and everything in it.

Chrysostom was a true Hellenist. He studied with the famous Libanius and received a broad and brilliant education. He was not a thinker or a philosopher, and in the classical sense he is best defined as an orator and a rhetorician. The classical rhetorician was a teacher, moralist, and preacher, and Chrysostom was just such a man. Chrysostom's Hellenism is most apparent in his language and style. As an orator and stylist, he can be compared with Demosthenes and even Xenophon and Plato, for the brilliance of the classical Athenians is revived in his writing. Even his contemporaries recognized him as an Atticist. It is incorrect to consider that his Hellenism is purely external or formal because it has penetrated all aspects of his style. It is true that Chrysostom was apparently never stirred by the philosophical problems of Hellenism and he was never forced to reconcile the Hellenist in himself with his Christianity. This, however, was characteristic of the intellectual outlook of the Antiochenes and of the "historical" culture of Asia Minor, which was always more "philological" than "philosophical."

Chrysostom always remained a Hellenist and this is especially evident in his moralism. In a sense moralism was the natural truth of the classical world. This explains and justifies the acceptance and transformation of Stoicism by Christian ethics, in which natural truth is elevated to new heights through Divine grace. In Chrysostom the transformed elements of Stoicism are particularly apparent. He constantly tried to teach moral wisdom and nobility, and moral judgments and evaluations are present everywhere in his writing. However, he saw the full realization of natural truth only in the ideal that is revealed in the Gospel.

None of this implies that Chrysostom was not a mystic. "Moralism" does not exclude "mysticism." It is true, however, that his mysticism had a moral significance. It is a mysticism of conscience, of goodness, of good works and virtue. Ethical considerations are less clearly expressed in Chrysostom. He considered beauty more as an ethical than an aesthetic phenomenon, and he saw beauty primarily in active goodness. For him the Gospel is most significant as a book about the beauty of virtue as revealed in the image of the God-man, and this determined the course of his own life. Chrysostom's moral character was formed very early in his youth. The example of his mother was reinforced and strengthened by the lessons of his devout mentors, including Meletius of Antioch, Diodore, and the ascetic Carteria.

Chrysostom was not satisfied by any secular vocation, and even before he was able to withdraw from the world he began to practice ascetic discipline in the home of his parents. Only after the death of his mother in 374 or 375 did it become possible for him to retire to a monastery not far from Antioch and became a friend of Theodore of Mopsuestia. He spent two years there, followed by two years in the desert. His novitiate was of short duration, however, and he returned to the world in order to continue his austerities amid the world. Chrysostom always considered asceticism more as a spiritual orientation than as a specifically regulated form of daily life. And this state could be achieved primarily through renunciation, through internal freedom and independence from the external circumstances and conditions of fife in the world. In this sense Chrysostom remained an ascetic throughout his life.

Chrysostom returned to the world to preach the necessity of ascetic renunciation. It was not his intention to exhort men to make an external withdrawal from the world by leaving their cities. "I frequently prayed," Chrysostom wrote in these years, that the need for monasteries would pass away, and that I would be able to find even in cities such goodness and such order that no one would ever again have to flee to the desert." Chrysostom wanted to transform life in the cities and towns so that it would accord with the principles of the Gospel and with the spirit of "the higher philosophy." To this end he became a pastor and preacher.

Chrysostom was made deacon in 381 by Meletius of Antioch, and he was ordained priest by his successor Flavian in 386. Chrysostom discusses his new vocation in his famous six books On the Priesthood [De sacerdotio] (which actually deal with episcopal duties). The exact dates of these works are unknown but they were probably written before his ordination. Chrysostom takes the ideas of Gregory the Theologian as the point of departure for his own exposition, which has two main emphases. In the first place, he describes the highest goal of the holy calling as the performance of the sacraments. "Sacred service takes place on this earth but it also has a place among the heavenly powers." This is because the priesthood has been established by the Spirit of the Comforter Himself. How can it be that we remain on earth when we see the Lord Whose body is offered to us, and when we become incarnadined with His blood? The priest participates at the sacrificial table, which stands in the heavens. He is given the heavenly power of the keys which has not been received even by the angels.

In the second place, Chrysostom sees the priest as a teacher, mentor, preacher, and pastor of souls. He devotes most of his attention to the teaching responsibilities of the priesthood, and in this respect he places the priest even higher than the monk. There is more love in pastoral work than in monastic isolation, and the pastor's service to his neighbors is a service of active love. "The whole universe would be upset if we were to think that only monks need severity and discipline in their lives, while the rest of us can live freely," he writes.

As a priest and pastor Chrysostom himself was first of all a preacher. It is difficult to enumerate all of the themes with which he dealt. From among the homilies delivered in Antioch particular mention should be made of the Homilies on the Statues [Homiliae 21 de statuis] and also of a long series of exegetical homilies on Matthew and John, on the epistles to the Corinthians, Galatians, Titus, possibly Ephesians and Romans, and probably also on Genesis. The orations against the Jews and against the Anomoeans were written at this same time. Chrysostom never concerned himself with abstract themes. His homilies are lively and based on actual experience because they are intended for living people, and the presence of the audience and the preacher himself can be sensed in them. Chrysostom usually concludes his homilies with appeals to the wills of his listeners and with practical exhortations. His primary goal is to teach love but he also tries to encourage integrity and responsibility. Chrysostom spoke with authority, but this authority was based on the convictions of his faith. He emphasizes that personal transformation can be achieved through the strength of the spirit and even more through the strength of love. It was love which kept Chrysostom in the world with his flock.

In 398 Chrysostom was elevated to the see of Constantinople. The clergy, the court, and the laity were all united in summoning him for his recognized ability as a pastor and teacher. Chrysostom continued to preach in Constantinople, and Sozomen remarks that it was his habit to take a place among the congregation at the reader's ambo so that his listeners could sit closely around him. His sermons were more like conversations than speeches. During this period Chrysostom wrote commentaries on the Acts of the Apostles, the Psalms, and many of the epistles of Paul. A large number of his homilies were recorded by stenographers as they were being delivered, and these records preserve the liveliness of the spoken word. At this time Chrysostom saw his main task in the reformation of the morals of lay society. It was his impression that he was preaching to people for whom Christianity had become no more than a fashionable garment. "From among so many thousands," he said, "it is impossible to find more than one hundred who are truly saving their souls, and I am not even sure that there are that many."

Chrysostom was troubled by the very fact that there was such a large number of "Christians": "This is all the more fuel for the fire." He spoke with bitterness about their prosperity: "In matters of piety, freedom from oppression is the worst form of persecution. It is worse than any other persecution. No one understands or senses this danger because safety gives birth to carelessness. It weakens the soul and lulls it to sleep, and the devil destroys sleeping men." The preacher's voice became harsh and severe because around himself he saw only chaff fit for the fire. Chrysostom was deeply concerned with the immorality of his society. He was troubled not only by debauchery, but even more by the tacit lowering of standards and ideals which he saw in the laity and in the clergy. Chrysostom fought with both words of denunciation and acts of love. "No one would remain a pagan if we were true Christians," he said. He spent a great deal of time in charitable work and organized hospitals and refuges for the homeless. He demanded practical activity from everyone and this caused dissatisfaction and opposition not only in Constantinople but in other dioceses as well.

The hostility against Chrysostom manifested itself on several occasions, and his altercation with the empress Eudoxia was only the final pretext for the ultimate outburst. Chrysostom had enemies everywhere, especially among the clergy and in particular among the wandering monks. He also had opponents in the wealthy society of the court. The shameful history of Chrysostom's deposition and condemnation at the "Synod of the Oak" is too complicated to be recounted here. Traitors were found even among the bishops, who were led by Theophilus of Alexandria, and others who were actively hostile included Acacius of Beroea, Severian of Gabala, and Antiochus of Ptolemais, all of whom at some time had been insulted by Chrysostom. The accusations against Chrysostom were many, and he was also charged with Origenism. He was deposed and his sentence was confirmed by the emperor. His exile was of short duration and at his return he was greeted by popular rejoicing. However, the hostility against him had not died down. The very fact that he had returned without obtaining a revocation of the synod's decree was used against him because, according to the fourth canon of the Antiochene council, this made him liable to be deprived of his rights, even if his sentence was unjust. Chrysostom recognized neither the legitimacy of the synod which condemned him (and in this he was not alone) nor the legitimacy of the Antiochene canon, and he demanded the convocation of a new council so that he could exonerate himself. The bishops condemned him for a second time. He carried on with the duties of his office but the unrest continued to grow. In June of 404 he was again exiled and sent first to Cucusus in Lower Armenia and then to Pityus, a wild area on the eastern end of the Black Sea. Chrysostom did not survive the hardships of his journey and died while traveling on September 14, 407.

The injustice of Chrysostom's condemnation soon became evident, and in 417 Atticus, bishop of Constantinople, readmitted his name to the Church diptychs, claiming that this was the will of the people. Cyril of Alexandria protested violently: "If you include John among the bishops, why not include Judas among the apostles? And if there is a place for Judas, then where is Matthew?" By 419, however, Chrysostom was rehabilitated even in Alexandria. In 438 his remains were brought to Constantinople and interred in the Church of the Apostles. The sentence of the "Synod of the Oak" was revoked by the general testimony of the Church.

Thanks to and source:

http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/fathers_florovsky_1.htm#_Toc3723913

St. Gregory "The Theologian" The Fate of the Unrepentant.

The Fate of the Unrepentant.

Gregory has written little that deals with eschatology. He frequently speaks of man's call to "deification," and preaches the necessity of ascetic discipline. He summons sinners to repentance but mentions the fate of the unrepentant only in passing. Their greatest punishment will be rejection by God, and this will be a torment and a "shame to the conscience" that will have no end. For just men God is light but for the unjust He is fire, and "this most terrible fire is eternal for the wicked." Possibly Gregory admits that purification can be achieved after death because he writes that sinners "may there be baptized by fire. This is the last baptism, the most difficult and prolonged, which eats up matter as if it were hay and consumes the weight of each sin." It is probable that he had in mind only the fate of unrepentant Christians because he also writes: "I know a fire which is not purifying, but avenging. The Lord sends it down like rain on every sinner, adding to it brimstone and storms. It was prepared for the devil and his angels and for everyone who does not submit to the Lord, and it burns up the enemies around Him." However, Gregory adds that "some may prefer to think that this fire is more merciful and worthy of Him who punishes." Gregory does not agree with the extreme position of the Origenists.

thanks to and source:

http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/fathers_florovsky_1.htm#_Toc3723870

St. Gregory "The Theologian" Crucifixtion, Ransom, Rebirth

The Crucifixion and Salvation.

Humanity is saved through union with God. However, the Incarnation alone does not accomplish salvation. Gregory stresses that the Crucifixion is vital for redemption. The death on the cross is a manifestation of the greatest good and the greatest gift of God, "the suffering of God, the Lamb, who is slaughtered for our sins." The Crucifixion is a sacrifice, "the purification not of a small part of the universe and not for a short time, but of the whole world forever." Gregory emphasizes that the Savior's death is a sacrifice, and he compares this sacrifice to the sacrifice in the Old Testament through which it was foretold. The Crucifixion is a sacrificial offering and Christ is the true Lamb, the High Priest, and the Conciliator. His death is a sacrifice and a ransom, λυτρον.

Christ takes upon Himself all the sins of humanity, and it is for this reason that He suffers. "He has made Himself one of us," and "He is the Head of our body." He is not merely a substitute for us. Gregory tries to express the intimacy of the Savior's assumption of our sins through such neologisms as αυτοαμαρτια, the “very principle of sin." He who is without sin is not defiled by assuming sin. The God-man ascends the cross of His own will. He carries our sins with Him so that they are crucified too. Gregory glorifies "the cross and nails, by which I am released from sin."

Gregory and the Notion of "Ransom."

For Gregory the full significance of the Crucifixion is not expressed by the concepts of sacrifice and retribution alone. "There is one more question and dogma, neglected by many other people, but in my opinion worth examining," he declares in his oration on Easter. "To whom has this blood which is shed for us been offered, and why? I mean the blood of our great and glorious God, the High Priest and Sacrifice. We were in the power of the evil one, sold under sin, and buying ourselves injury with our wickedness. Since a ransom is paid only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom this ransom was offered and for what cause? If it is to the evil one, then this is an outrage! If the robber receives a ransom not only from God, but a ransom that is God Himself, then he has such an immense payment for his tormenting that it would have been right for him to have left us alone. But if it is paid to the Father, then in the first place I ask how? And next, why was the blood of His Only-Begotten Son pleasing to the Father, who would not accept even Isaac when he was offered by his father, but changed the sacrifice and put a ram in the place of the human victim? Is it therefore not evident that the Father accepts this sacrifice not because He asks for it or demands it, but because man must be sanctified by the humanity of God, and so that He might deliver us Himself, and overcome the tormentor, and draw us to Himself through the mediation of the son, who arranges this to honor His Father, whom He obeys in all things." It may seem that Gregory gives no direct answer to this question, but he does in fact respond, although only briefly: "Let the rest be respected in silence."

The Cross as Rebirth and Purification.

The Cross is victorious over Satan and hell but it is not a ransom. The Cross is a gracious sacrifice and it is not a payment to God. The Cross is made necessary by human nature, not by the Divinity. The root of this necessity is man's sin and the degeneration of the body. Through Adam's fall the flesh was weighted down and became a corpse which burdened the soul, but the flesh is purified and relieved of its burden through the blood shed on the Cross. In one passage Gregory refers to the Crucifixion as a baptism "by blood and suffering." Elsewhere he speaks about the two kinds of purification which are Christ's gift to us: "We are purified by the eternal Spirit who purges the earlier damage in us which we received from the flesh, and we are also purified by our blood (for I call the blood which Christ my God has shed our own), which expiates our original weaknesses and redeems the world." The Crucifixion is a rebirth, and therefore baptism has a part in it. We die with Christ and are buried with Him, and we arise from the grave and through the grave. "It is necessary for me to suffer this redeeming change, so that just as good can lead to grief, so from grief our good arises."

At the Crucifixion the original purity of human nature was restored. "We needed God to become flesh and die in order to give us life. There were many miracles at that time. God was crucified and the sun darkened and again shone forth, for it was fitting for creatures to suffer with their Creator. The veil was torn, and blood and water were shed from His side: one because He was a man; the other because He was above man. The earth trembled and rocks were sundered for the sake of the Rock. The dead arose as a pledge of the final resurrection of all men, and there were miracles at the sepulcher. But not one of these is equal to the miracle of my salvation. A few drops of blood renewed the whole world and did for all men what rennet does for milk by drawing us together and binding us into a unity."

thanks to and source:

http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/fathers_florovsky_1.htm#_Toc3723870

Ravi Zacharias' argument that life is not meaningless

Ravi Zacharias’ response to a person in audience claiming life is meaningless

“Everything in life is meaningless.”

“You don’t believe that?”

“I do.”

“No you don’t.”

“Yes, I do!”

“You don’t!”

“Who are you to tell me I don’t?’

“Stand up and say it again!”

“Everything in life is meaningless!”

“I assume that you assume that what you just said is meaningful, and if what you said is meaningful then everything is not meaningless. On the other hand, if everything is meaningless, then what you just said is meaningless too. You, basically, said nothing…”

St. Gregory "The Theologian" Mystery of Salvation

Human Life and Union with God through the Single Person of the God-Man.

Gregory sees the meaning and goal of human life in "deification," in actual union with the Divinity. This is possible because "that which is dominant" in man has been made in the image of God. More importantly, it is possible through the "humanity of God." From this point of view a clear dogma of the completeness of the two natures united in the Hypostasis and Person of the God-man is vitally important for Gregory's doctrine of salvation. Gregory's teaching is similar to that of Athanasius, but while Athanasius opposes the heresies of the Arians by stressing the absoluteness of the Divinity within the God-man, Gregory in writing against Apollinarius emphasizes Christ's humanity. The basic principle of his soteriology is that if human nature has not been fully assumed by Christ, it can be neither healed nor saved by Him. As part of his polemic against the Apollinarians he advances the doctrine of the "substantial" union "of two natures" within the single person of the God-man.

Christ was born, the laws of nature were breached, and the lower world became full. "I proclaim the glory of this day. He Who is incorporeal has become incarnate, the Word has been firmly fixed, the Invisible has become visible, the Impalpable can now be touched, Timelessness has begun, and the Son of God has become the Son of man." The birth of Christ is a theophany and "God is made manifest in being born." God has not only become manifest, for the incarnation is a true "assumption" of human nature. "He assumes my flesh in order to save His image and to make the flesh immortal," Gregory writes. "Each mystery of Christ causes me great rejoicing, and the greatest joy is my perfection, that I am made perfect, given new life, and that I return to the First Adam." This is a "new and wonderful commingling."

"When man failed to become god, God made Himself a man to do me honor," Gregory writes. "God was uncompound from the beginning. He became united with human nature, and then He was nailed to the cross by the hands of His murderers. This is our teaching about God, Who has become one with us." Christ is God incarnate, and not a defied man. In Christ "human nature is completely joined with the whole Divinity, not in the way that a prophet, divinely inspired, is in communion with God Himself, with something divine, but in essence, so that God has humanity in the way that the sun has rays." In Christ humanity is "anointed" not merely by an action of God but by His presence. At the same time God has completely assumed human nature. "In brief, Gregory says in conclusion, "our Savior is both one and the other." He then qualifies himself: "But He is not only one plus the other, for both of them are commingled so that God has become man and man has been deified." Gregory chooses words which emphasize the intimacy and completeness of this union in which the components nevertheless retain their individuality.

The Two Natures of Christ, the God-Man.

In the eclectic language of Hellenism κρασις, ουγκρασισ, and μιξισ, all of which designate “commingling,” stand in opposition to ουγχυσις, which implies absorption, and παραθεισις, which indicates a mechanical union or juxtaposition. According to Alexander Aphrodisias, the author of a well-known commentary on Aristotle, κρασις signifies the “complete and mutual union of two or more bodies in such a way that each retains its own essence and substantial properties." He uses the image of fire and iron as an example, and this image was adopted by the patristic writers as a symbol of the unity of natures in the God-man. Later the use of this term was altered. "Commingling" was also the most exact term from the vocabulary of philosophy to express the orthodox conception of the unconfused unity of the two, at least until it was tainted by the heretical usage of the Monophysites. In "commingling" the doubleness is maintained and the unity is also recognized. It signifies "one" and "two" at the same time, and this is precisely the mystery of the Person of Christ. He is not two, but "one from two."

Gregory clearly distinguishes the "two natures" of Christ. One nature is "subject to suffering" and the other is "immutable and above suffering." This is the main thrust of his exegetical polemic against the Arians. "There was a time when He who is now despised by you was superior to you. Now He is a man, but once His nature was not compound. He remains that which He has always been, and He has assumed that which He previously did not have." Gregory examines the evidence of this double nature contained in the Gospel by considering the "mystery of the names," the mystery of the double names and the double symbols, the manger and the star. All names and all symbols, however, refer to one and the same, "One God from both."

"He was a mortal, but also God; He was from the tribe of David, but He was also the Creator of Adam; He had a body, but was incorporeal; He was borne by the Virgin, but could not be contained; the cradle held Him, but the Magi were led to Him by the star. As a man He struggled, but He cannot be overcome and He defeated the tempter three times. As a mortal He was subject to sleep, but as God He tamed the seas. He was tired by His journeys, but He gave strength to the weak. He prayed, but who is it who hears the prayers of those who are perishing? He was a Victim, but also the High Priest. He is a Priest, but He is God." He is One Person, One God-man, One Christ, One Son, and "not two sons," which is the false teaching of Apollinarius. His two natures have been joined in essence and have penetrated each other. Gregory is the first to use the word κρασις to express the unity of the two natures in the God-man. “His natures and His names have been commingled and therefore they each are transformed into the other."

The Divinity remains immortal and humanity is "deified." The unity of the two natures in the person of Christ is based on the principle that "that which is strongest is victorious." By "deification" Gregory does not imply that human nature is transformed or that it undergoes transsubstantiation. What he means is that it is in complete communion and interpenetration with the Divinity. In the God-man human nature has been deified at its very source, for God Himself has become human. By virtue of this "commingling" each name is now applicable to the other.

Gregory devotes a great deal of attention to the suffering and death of God, since through this he confesses the unity of natures in the Person of the God-man. For this reason he insists on the name "Bearer of God": "Anyone who does not recognize that Mary is the Bearer of God is estranged from the Divinity." The reason for this is that deification is possible for us only through the humanity of the Word and its consubstantiality with us. In the Word humanity is deified through commingling with God.

thanks to and source:

http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/fathers_florovsky_1.htm#_Toc3723867

St. Gregory "The Theologian" Father, Son, Holy Spirit

God the Father as the Source.

"There should be no one so zealous in his love for the Father that he would deny Him the attribute of being a Father. For whose Father can He be if we consider that He is separated not only from creation, but also from the nature of His own Son! One should not detract from His dignity as a Source, since this belongs to Him as a Father and Generator." "When I call Him a Source, do not imagine that I am referring to a source in time, or that I am presuming an interval between the Begettor and the Begotten. Do not separate their natures or falsely assume that there is something existing to separate these two coeternities abiding within each other. If time is older than the Son, this is because the Father caused time before the Son."

Thus, the being of the Father and the generation of the Only-Begotten coincide exactly, but also without confusion. The generation of the Son and procession of the Spirit should be Considered to have taken place "before there was time." The Father never began to be a Father in time since His very being had no beginning. He "did not take being from anyone, not even from Himself." He is properly the Father "because He is not also the Son." Gregory draws this idea from Athanasius.

Although the hypostases are coeternal and superior to time they are not independent of each other. The Son and the Spirit "have no beginning in relation to time" but They are "not without an ultimate Source." The Father, however, does not exist before them because neither He nor They are subject to time. The Son and the Spirit are coeternal but, unlike the Father, they are not without a source, for they are "from the Father, although not after Him." This mysterious causality does not entail succession or origination. Nothing within the Trinity ever comes into being or originates because the Divinity is completion, "an endless sea of being." Gregory is aware that this distinction is not easy to comprehend and that it can be confusing to "simple people." "It is true that that which has no beginning is eternal, but that which is eternal is not necessarily without a source, if this source is the Father."

Gregory demonstrates that to overemphasize the dignity of the Second and Third Hypostases is in effect to detract from the First: "It would be extremely inappropriate for the Divinity to achieve complete perfection only after changing something about Itself." "To cut off or eliminate anything at all from the Three is equal to cutting off everything. It is a rebellion against the whole Divinity." Gregory asks: "What father did not begin to be a father?" And he answers: "Only a Father whose being had no beginning." In this same manner the Son's generation is coincident with His being.

The Divine Unity and Identity of Essence.

The complete and immutable unity of the Divinity determines the consubstantiality, the "identity of essence," of the hypostases of the Trinity. But the distinctions of each hypostasis do not disappear within the Divine unity. For Gregory, as well as for Basil the Great, the unity of the Divinity means an identity of essence and a monarchy that is from the Father and to the Father. The influence of Platonism is evident in the description of this "dynamic" unity. In Gregory's theology this dynamic aspect is dominant, and in this respect he is closer to Athanasius than to Basil.

Although Gregory conceives of the basic difference between "essence" and "hypostasis" as the difference between the general and the particular, he makes relatively little use of this concept. "What we hold in honor is monarchy," Gregory writes. "Not a monarchy which is limited to one person (this is in distinction to Sabellius), but one which is composed of an equality of nature, a unity of will, an identity of motion, and a convergence to a one, single Whole of those elements which are from this One. This is impossible in a created nature," that is, a nature which is complex, derived, or originated. Everything which the Father has belongs also to the Son, and everything which belongs to the Son belongs to the Father, so that "nothing is particular because everything is held in common. Their very being is common and equal, although the being of the Son is from the Father." But this should not be "given more attention than is proper."

Differences between Gregory and Basil.

The individual properties of the Three are immutable. These "properties," ιδιοτητες, “do not distinguish essence, but are distinguished within one essence.” In Gregory's understanding the concepts “hypostasis” and “property” are nearly the same. He also uses the expression “three Persons” τρια προσωπα, which Basil avoids. Gregory is responsible for developing a theological terminology which is close to Western usage through his identity of hypostasis and person, τρεις υποστασεις η τρια προσωπα.

Gregory also differs from Basil in his definition of the individual properties within the Trinity. He avoids the terms "fatherhood" and "sonship" and does not describe the personal attribute of the Spirit as "sanctity." He usually defines the properties of the hypostases as ungeneratedness, generation, and procession, αγεννησια, γεννεσις, εκπορευσις. Possibly he uses the term procession, εκπορευσις, to designate an individual property of the Father in order to put an end to the speculation of the Eunomians that “ungeneratedness” defines the essence of the Divinity. He takes this word from Scripture ("who proceeds from the Father." John 15:26) in the hope of avoiding pointless arguments on the "fraternity of the Son and the Spirit." Gregory also attempts to forestall possible efforts to explain the exact meaning of these terms through analogies with the created world. Only the Trinity Itself knows "the order It has within Itself." How is the Son generated? How does the Spirit proceed? Divine generation is not the same as human generation. It is impossible to equate things which cannot be compared. "You have heard about generation. Do not attempt to determine how it occurs. You have heard that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Do not try to find out how." "How? This is known by the Father who generates and the Son who is generated, but it is veiled by a cloud and inaccessible to you in your shortsightedness."

The Hypostatic Names and Mutual Relationship of Persons.

The hypostatic names express the mutual relationship of the persons, σχεσεις. The three persons are three modes of being, inseparable and yet not confused, each “existing independently." They cannot be compared in such a way that one can be said to be greater or less than the others. Neither is one before or after the others. "The Sonship is not an imperfection" in comparison with the Fatherhood, and "procession" is not less than "generation." The Holy Trinity exists in complete equality. "All are worthy of worship, all have dominion, they all share a single throne and their glory is equal."

The Trinitarian Common Name.

The confession of the Trinity expresses a complete knowledge of God. Gregory refers to the baptismal creed and asks, "In whose name are you baptized? In the name of the Father? Good! However, the Jews also do this. In the name of the Son? Good! This is no longer according to Jewish tradition, but it is not yet complete. In the name of the Holy Spirit? Wonderful! This is perfectly complete. But are you baptized simply in their individual names, or in their common name? Yes, in their common name. And what is this name? There is no doubt that this name is God. Believe in this name and you will flourish and reign."

The Divinity of the Holy Spirit.

Much of Gregory's writing is devoted to defending the divinity of the Spirit. This issue was still being debated in 370 and also later at the Second Ecumenical Council. "Now they ask," he writes, "what do you say about the Holy Spirit? Why do you introduce something which is not known from Scripture? This is said even by those who have an orthodox understanding of the Son." "Some consider the Spirit the energy of God, some a creature, and some believe that He is God. Others have not made up their minds on anything. They say that this is because of their respect for Scripture, as if nothing about this were clearly set forth in it. Therefore they do not honor the Spirit, but also do not deny His dignity, and take no definite position on Him, which is pitiful. Even among those who recognize His divinity some are orthodox only in their hearts, whereas others dare to confess Him with their lips." Amidst this confusion Gregory's teaching is clear. "Listen well: the Spirit has been confessed by God. I say further, 'You are my God'. And for the third time I cry out, 'The Spirit is God'." "Nothing has yet caused such commotion in the universe," Gregory writes, "as the boldness with which we proclaim that the Spirit is God."

Gregory follows the example of Athanasius by citing the baptismal creed in defense of his doctrine of the consubstantial divinity of the Holy Spirit. Baptism is accomplished in the name of the Holy Trinity, the unchanging, indivisible Trinity whose members are completely equal. "If the Holy Spirit is a creature, you have been baptized to no purpose." "If the Spirit is not worthy of veneration, how does He make me a god in baptism?" Gregory asks. "And if He is to be venerated, is He not also to be adored? And if He is to be adored, how can He not be God? Each of these things implies the next, and this is the true golden chain of our salvation. Through the Spirit we are reborn, and in being reborn we are given new life, and through this we know the dignity of the One who has given us new life." Therefore, "to separate One from the Three is to dishonor our rebirth, and the Divinity, and our deification, and our hope." "You see," Gregory writes in conclusion, "what the Spirit, who has been confessed by God, gives to us, and what we are deprived of if He is cast out." The Spirit is the Sanctifier and the source of enlightenment, "the light of our intellect, who comes to those who are pure and makes man a god." "By Him I know God, for He Himself is God and makes me a god in this life." "I could not bear to be deprived of the possibility of becoming perfect. Can we be spiritual without the Spirit? Can one who does not honor the Spirit participate in the Spirit? And can one who has been baptized in the name of a fellow creature honor the Spirit?" Athanasius reasons in a similar way.

Scripture bears witness to the Spirit, but its evidence is not entirely clear and we must "penetrate the surface to know what is contained within it." Gregory explains that Scripture should not be understood only literally. "Some things which are contained in Scripture do not exist, and other things exist but are not found in Scripture. Some things do not exist and Scripture says nothing about them, but other things exist and are also described in Scripture." Scripture says that God sleeps and becomes awake. This is a metaphor, not a description of reality. Conversely, the words "ungenerated," "immortal," "eternal," and others have not been taken from Scripture, but it is obvious that "although these words are not found in Scripture, nevertheless they have meaning." We should not lose sight of things for the sake of words.

The Spirit was active among the fathers and the prophets, for He enlightened their minds and showed them the future. He was proclaimed by the prophets who foretold the great day when the Spirit would be poured out on all mankind (Joel 20:28). The Spirit also bore witness to Christ. "Christ was born as the Spirit foretold. Christ was baptized and the Spirit was present. Christ was tempted and the Spirit raised Him up. Christ's strength was perfected and the Spirit was with Him. Christ ascended and the Spirit succeeded Him." The Savior revealed the Spirit in stages, and the Spirit gradually descended to the disciples, sometimes in the breath of Christ, sometimes working miracles through them, and finally appearing in tongues of fire. The whole New Testament is filled with evidence of the Spirit and His powers and gifts. "I tremble when I consider the richness of His names," Gregory cries. "Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ, Mind of Christ; He gives new life in baptism and resurrection. He breathes where He wills. He is the Source of light and life. He makes me a shrine (1 Corinthians 6:19) and makes me a god. He perfects me. He is present at baptism and He is conferred on me through baptism. He does everything that God does. Through tongues of fire He bestows His gifts and makes us Bearers of the good news, Apostles, Prophets, Pastors, and Teachers." He is "another Comforter" and "another God." Although the divinity of the Spirit is not explicitly proclaimed in Scripture, there is much solemn evidence of this. Gregory explains the reticence of Scripture on the doctrine of the Spirit by showing that revelation takes place in economic stages.

The spiritual experience of the Church is also a form of revelation, and through this experience the Spirit makes clear His own dignity. It further seems to Gregory that "even the best pagan theologians had a conception of the Spirit, but did not agree on a name for Him and called Him the Intellect of the world, the external Intellect, and so forth." Gregory is here referring to Plotinus and the Neoplatonic conception of the World Soul. Basil the Great also applied many of Plotinus' definitions to the Holy Spirit in his treatise to Amphilochius.

Gregory develops his doctrine of the Spirit analytically. He reaches the conclusion that the Spirit is divine from the fact that the Gifts He gives are divine. However, for Gregory, this remains at best a pedagogical device to be used in argumentation. In his personal experience the divinity of the Spirit is revealed through the contemplation of the Trinity, and the truth of the Triunity reveals the immediate consubstantiality of the Spirit. Therefore Gregory does not designate the individual property of the Spirit as "sanctity," which would have an economic meaning. He does, however, speak about "procession," εκπορευσις, εκπεμψις, in order to indicate the place of the Spirit in the indivisible triunity of the Divinity.

Thanks to and source:

http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/fathers_florovsky_1.htm#_Toc3723867

St. Gregory "The Theologian" The Existence of Trinity as Outside of Time.

Gregory's Elucidation of His Mystical Vision.

The contemplation of the Trinity in its perfectly consubstantial and yet unmerged state is part of Gregory's spiritual experience, and, even though he has no confidence that he can succeed, he tries to describe the object of his meditation. He does this through a series of images, comparisons, and antitheses. His writings seem to be a description of what he has actually seen, and not only an exposition of his reasoning. Gregory expresses his own mystical experience in the formulas of contemplative theology and tries to elucidate it by using the devices of Neoplatonic philosophy. "We have one God because the Divinity is One. Everything that exists through God strives to raise itself to the One, even while believing in Three. Neither One nor the Other is more or less God. One is not first and the Other behind it. They are not separated by desire or divided by strength, and anything which is proper to divisible things has no place in them. On the contrary, that which is separable within the Divinity is not divisible. Because of the identity of their essence and powers each of them is a unity independently, and also when they are all unified. This is our conception of this unity, as much as we are able to understand it. If this conception is trustworthy, then we thank God for this knowledge."

Gregory's Qualification of Plotinus' "Overflowing Effusion."

Triunity is an interpenetration or motion within the Divinity. Gregory echoes Plotinus by stating: "The Divinity goes beyond singleness because of its richness, and has overcome doubleness because it is beyond matter and form. It is defined by triunity because it is perfect. The Trinity is overflowing, and yet it does not pour itself out into eternity. In the first case there would be no communion, and in the second case there would be disorder." This idea is directly drawn from Plotinus, and Gregory identifies with it: "This is the same for us." But he is careful to qualify himself: "We do not dare to call this process an excessive effusion of good, as did one of the Hellenistic philosophers who, when speaking about the first and second causes, referred to an 'overflowing cup'." Gregory rejects this interpretation of Divine Being on the ground that it involves uncaused, independent motion.

For Gregory the Triunity is a manifestation of Divine Love. God is love and the Triunity is a perfect example of "unity of thought and internal peace."

The Existence of Trinity as Outside of Time.

The complete unity of the Trinity is primarily expressed by the fact that Its existence is unconditionally outside of time. God is eternal by nature and is beyond sequence and divisibility. It is not enough to say that God has always been, is, and will be. It is better to say that He is because He "contains within Himself the whole of being, which has no beginning and will never end." "If there has been One from the beginning, there have also been three." The Divinity "is in agreement with itself. It is always identical, without quantity, outside of time, uncreated, indescribable, and has never been and will never be insufficient for Itself."

It is impossible to conceive of any change or "division in time" within the Divinity. "For," Gregory writes, "to put together a Trinity from that which is great, greater, and greatest (that is, the Spirit, Son, and Father), as if it were the radiance, rays, and sun, would be to make a graduated ladder of Divinity. This would not lead the way to heaven but would lead down from it." This is because the mutual relationship of the hypostases of the Trinity is entirely superior to time.


thanks to and source:
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/fathers_florovsky_1.htm#_Toc3723867