The basic elements that the Cappadocian fathers contributed to the dogma on God are the following: First of all, they contributed towards terminology. They shifted the term “hypostasis” away from its original connection to the term “essence” (which it had until that time, and even had almost the same meaning) and they moved it towards the persona. They related the term “hypostasis” to the term “persona”. The theological significance of this shift is that by their relating the “persona” (which was a suspect term for Savellianism, because in the ancient Greek language and usage, the word “persona” implied the façade or the mask worn by an actor on stage) to the term “hypostasis”, the term of “persona” now acquired an ontological content. The word “hypostasis” implies that something or someone actually exists; that they indeed and truly have an actual hypostasis. Whatever is regarded as non-hypostatic is that which has no true existence, no actual hypostasis. We still acknowledge this inference today, when we (Greeks) use expressions like “These rumors are non-hypostatic”, when we want to stress that something is devoid of truth; that it does not have a comprehensive, ontological content. The hypostasis is that which provides a comprehensive, ontological content to someone or something. And that was precisely the contribution of the Cappadocian Fathers. By acknowledging, by naming the three personae of the Holy Trinity “hypostases”, they attributed to each of the three personae a full ontological hypostasis, thus avoiding Savellianism, which did not acknowledge a full ontological hypostasis to each persona, but instead attributed to each of them the notion of individual roles that are enacted by the one and the same persona. The third element that the Cappadocian Fathers contributed was that they not only “endowed” a complete hypostasis to each of the three personae, they in fact attributed the cause of God’s existence to the persona of the Father. In other words, they attributed the beginning of God’s existence to the person of the Father – to a persona. In view of the fact that they introduced these new elements (note: in the terminology, not in the dogma), the Cappadocian Fathers utilized images and analogies when referring to the Holy Trinity, which always had the characteristic of comprising complete beings. In the 1st Ecumenical Council, with the theology of Saint Athanasius it was stressed very much that the Son is born of the nature -or of the essence- of the Father. That could have been misconstrued as an extension of the Father’s essence, and not as a birth of a complete and independent entity. If we have three extensions of God’s essence, then we are dangerously close to Savellianism. That is why such a huge reaction against the “homoousion” had been raised, by those who were concerned that the “homoousion” -as defined in Nice- might contain in it the danger of Savellianism. Savellius viewed God as a unit that extended itself; a unit that expanded and took on these three separate roles, and that in the end, this group would again contract unto itself, and become once again the original one unit. He saw God as a being that extended itself and acquired three “offshoots” which had the same essence. The Cappadocians wanted to eliminate this interpretation, hence their insistence that these three personae are not extensions of the one essence, but three independent, complete entities, and that is the reason for their stressing the meaning of “hypostasis”. The images they used for this purpose are characteristic. In both the 1st Ecumenical Council as well as the Symbol of Faith (the Creed), we note the image of light, which was used to portray the unity between the Father and the Son. There is the image and the expression of: “light out of light”. Just as light emanates rays that cannot be distinguished from their source, nor the source from the rays, this proved itself to be a useful portrayal, to indicate that the Son is united with the Father inseparably, as “light out of light”. The Cappadocian Fathers found this depiction inadequate, as it (the rays) could be construed, as the extension of a body, also, the Son could be construed as an energy of God. So, instead of saying: “light out of light”, they preferred the concept of three suns. Not just a light that originates from a light, but three individual suns, three lit torches. These are the favored depictions, by which it is illustrated that we have three self-existent, complete personae, which, together with this depiction, are simultaneously presented as united. But here is the critical point: What is that common thing that unites those three suns? It is the common essence, the common energy which they possess, because all three suns emanate the same heat and the same light. Consequently, the energy is common to all three, and the Essence –which goes along with the energy- is also common to all three. It is in this manner that the presence of their hypostasis and the fullness of each persona and their unity are simultaneously depicted. In the analogy used for man, they used three persons in order to denote the three personae of the Holy Trinity. Just as Basil, George and John are three persons, three people joined by a common nature, a common essence, which is their human nature, so can the three personae of the Holy Trinity be denoted by the image of three people. In the instance of God, an adjustment of this depiction is necessary, because it is different than the instance of three people. What needs to be stressed as an introduction to what will follow, is that the Cappadocian Fathers insisted that each persona of the Holy Trinity comprises a complete entity, and that the depictions we use should be depictions of complete entities and not extensions of a body. Three suns, three torches, three people. This is the way to denote the full hypostasis of each persona. This led the Fathers to a special way of referring to the association between the three personae, in order to denote the unity and at the same time the individuality and fullness of each one. This was named the “inter-embracing” (perihoresis) of the personae. The three personae are inter-embraced. The one is found entirely within the other. In this way, each persona retains his self-existence and fullness, but at the same time they maintain their unity. In the 38th epistle of Saint Basil, we note the following that was written by the saint, regarding the subject of inter-embracing: “Whatever the Father is, is also found in the Son. And whatever the Son is, is also found in the Father. The Son is found in His entirety within the Father and He respectively has the Father in His entirety within Him. Thus, the hypostasis of the Son is the image and the likeness by which the Father is recognized. And the hypostasis of the Father is recognized in the image of the Son”. This is where the phrase of the fourth Gospel relates to : “Whomsoever has seen me, has seen the Father, for I am in the Father and the Father is in me”. Whomsoever sees the Son, also sees the Father. The Father is fully present, and the Son is fully present within the Father. In this way, each hypostasis, each persona becomes the bearer of the entire Essence. Godhood cannot be partitioned or fragmented; each Persona possesses godhood, undivided and complete. This is precisely what allows each persona to exist inside the other personae. Saint Gregory the Nazianzene says: “Godhood is unpartitioned, among its parts”. Godhood, nature, essence cannot be partitioned. It is however found in full, in the individual personae, in other words, in the personae that are different from each other. Here we have a mysterious, paradoxical concept, which of course one could call a mystery (like the whole mystery of the Holy Trinity) and not attempt to comprehend at all. But, as we attempted to do so with the other aspects of this great mystery of the Holy Trinity, we shall likewise attempt to shed light on this mystery also. How is it possible, for one persona to be the bearer of the entire Essence, and how is it possible for a persona to exist inside another persona, without losing its identity? Because, if we place two personae inside each other, there is the risk that they may relate to each other so much, that their individuality may be lost. On the contrary, here, the existence of the one persona inside the others actually creates an “individuality”, a “selfsameness”, an “anotherness”. In our experience this is not possible, and the Fathers attribute this to the fact that our nature –the essence of humanity- is partitioned when the persona comes into being. No single person is the bearer of the entire human essence, because if he were the bearer of the entire human essence, then at the death of one person, all people would have to die – all of the essence of humanity. The entirety of human nature would be eliminated, with the death of one man alone. But in the case of mankind, we have a partitioning of the essence and of the nature, with the birth of every single person. This is attributed to the fact that the created being is composite, it has a beginning, and it moves within the limits of space and time, where space and time divide, and not unite. This is why the created are also mortal/perishable. These conditions cannot apply to God, as God has no beginning, and He has no mortality. Subsequently, He has no partitioning of the essence. With the three personae, the Essence is not partitioned into three parts, so that each persona has a part; instead, each persona takes all of the essence, it has all of the essence. In our experience, if we examine the biological hypostasis of man, we can see that this does not apply, because we are all born with this partitioning nature. Hence the existence of death. Apart from the above, in our experience when we refer to personal relations, we can observe the phenomenon whereby a specific person has been regarded as the bearer of the entire human essence, of human existence. For example, in an announcement regarding the victims of a battle, the Ministry of Defence will say that there were ten fatalities. To a person who has no personal relations with those ten dead people, they are ten different people, whose individual deaths did not affect human nature in its entirety. Other people continue to exist, who continue to live and therefore human nature will continue to perpetuate itself. But for the mother of each of those deceased, or for someone who had a personal relationship with them, that one deceased person is a bearer of the entire human essence. He cannot be counted as “one of the ten”. He is the one, the person, the entire person. All of human nature is at risk of vanishing, when one person vanishes. This is our experience within a personal association. Outside of a personal association, we cannot have this kind of experience. And why is this? Because this unity is so close, between two people, that the one actually considers the other to be the bearer of human essence, of human existence in its fullness. With these precise types of categorizing in the back of our mind, we can explain why this paradoxical and no less mysterious phenomenon occurs, as applied to the Holy Trinity. For example, when considering how the murder of one person is equivalent to a “crime against all of mankind”. Or, when we say “after all, only one man was killed, the world isn’t lost”… Why is this? Where do all these ideas of generalizing, of absolutizing a single person to such an extent spring from? Well, all these ideas spring from our experience of personal relations, from our experience of the persona. The more we regard someone a persona, the more we regard him the bearer of humanity overall. We have taken this from the concept that we have of God, because this is what God, the Holy Trinity means: that a single persona is not a portion of the essence; it is the entire essence. Thus, we can observe in our own experience also, indications of such a Triadic existence - the same manner of existence as the Holy Trinity. And that is what makes us human beings the images of God. When we say that man is made in the image of God, we need to look for the analogies between God and man, based on the triadic association. This is why the dogma on the Holy Trinity is so important. Because it sheds light on man’s very existence. Continuing on with this historical retrospect, we saw what the Cappadocian Fathers contributed. With the Cappadocians, the dogma was completed in the East; practically nothing else was added, nothing was further elucidated afterwards. If we were to divide the Fathers after the Cappadocians (like Maximus and John the Damascene, who did not contribute essentially towards any topic but were able expressers of Patristic thought), then, on the subject especially of the dogma of the Holy Trinity, we could say that no-one had contributed essentially, after the Cappadocian Fathers. They did, however contribute essentially; they had actually made huge steps in completing the formulation of the dogma on the Holy Trinity. Thus, in the East, the Greek Fathers came to a halt at the Cappadocians, with regard to the dogma on the Holy Trinity. Whoever is not acquainted with the Cappadocians, is not acquainted with the dogma of the Holy Trinity. One cannot learn about it from anyone else, only from the Cappadocians. Prior to the Cappadocians, many ideas had been expressed, which, however, needed to be supplemented by the Cappadocians. With the Cappadocian Fathers, the East possessed the dogma on God in its completed form. We shall now take a look at the West, to see what was going on there. The first thing we observe, is that the Cappadocians were not well known in the West, nor did they influence the Western theologians and writers in essence. And when we say “the West”, we are chiefly referring to personalities such as Saint Ambrose of the 4th century. Before that, we have Tertullian, and Hippolyte – who was a Hellenic Westerner, not just a Westerner. All of them comprised the antechamber of the Cappadocian Fathers’ theology. In the West, the one who placed his seal on Western thought and Theology with regard to the Holy Trinity was Augustine. And even Augustine did not appear to know of the Cappadocians, nor was he influenced by them. For a very long time, Augustine was unknown, even to the West. However, with the rising of the Franks, Augustine became the banner of (initially) Frankish only theology, but eventually of the entire Theology of the West and the source from which westerners drew all of their theology, and especially their Triadic theology. This is why it is important to see how Augustine contributed to -and expressed- the dogma on the Holy Trinity. The first thing we must observe is that Augustine did not apply the concept of three individual personae, three different entities, when denoting the personae of the Holy Trinity. He presented us the basis of one single person. He believed that by observing one person, one can be led to the analogies required to speak of the Holy Trinity. We have here a radical difference from the Cappadocians. By taking one person as the basis, Augustine attempted –through the observation of that one single person- to formulate images that would assist in expressing the Holy Trinity. In this detail, Augustine was obviously influenced by neo-Platonism; so, in order to find a way to somehow shed light on the mystery of the Holy Trinity, he utilized Platonic anthropology in the belief that in there, he would find all the elements that were required for these analogies. Platonic thought located the human’s “essence” by observing a human being; it was that, which supposedly made the human a human : it was the element they called the “Nous” (mind). The Nous of man was supposed to be his main characteristic. It was the Nous that caused man to exist, in a manner that was not merely biological, but also metaphysical. Now, if that concept is transferred into the dogma on God (and Augustine did this), then the corresponding metaphysical concept would be to likewise call God in His entirety, in His essence, “Nous”. This image was not used for the first time by Augustine, i.e., that God is Nous. It was something that Plato had also said, and numerous other Christian theologians such as Saint Augustine had said, and many others also. Later on, this concept was adopted by Origen and Evagrios, who pursued and expanded on Origen. All of them spoke of God with this concept of Nous: God is a Nous; He is the supreme Nous. And because man is also a nous by nature, he is related to God, through the nous. So, we have here an analogy. When we look at a human, we will supposedly see that in essence, he is a Nous. And this precise fact – that God is Nous in essence – is what denotes the unity. The one God is seen as one, big, metaphysical Nous. Moving on from this basis, and observing human psychology, we notice that the nous of man consists of three basic elements. The one, supreme element is the element of Memory. Plato had slightly related the Nous to the notions of “Benevolent” (Agathos) and “Good” (Calos). The term “Good” also denoted the “fair”, the “beautiful” (i.e., in composite words beginning with “cali-“). With this as his basis, Augustine attempted to elucidate the mystery of the Holy Trinity, by presenting God as the “Good”, who, being a “Nous”, has Knowledge. But, what does He have knowledge of, if there is nothing else beyond God? He must have knowledge of Himself. Therefore, “knowledge” must imply a knowledge of His Self. Given that the Good and the Benevolent exert an attraction –and this is also a Platonic idea- it is not possible for the Good not to attract someone who will love it. That is supposedly why the Good and the Benevolent love each other. And love –in this instance- is supposedly the love of God’s Nous for His Self. God loves Himself; He is attracted by His Self. These are the three elements on which Augustine rested the analogies for the three personae of the Holy Trinity. Thus, he puts the Father in the place of Memory; he puts the Son in the place of Knowledge and the Holy Spirit in the place of Love. Thus, God is supposedly something analogous to these three psychological characteristics which we find in man, i.e., Memory, Knowledge and Love. That is why the Spirit is referred to as the Nexus Amatis (the bond of love) between the Father and the Son. We shall see later on how significant these points are, especially with regard to the Filioque problem. What we should stress is that we are now in an entirely different theological cosmos than that of the Cappadocians and the Greek Fathers in general. We will now highlight the differences. The first difference is that –- according to the Cappadocians -- we require three personae in order to denote the Holy Trinity; three individual persons. One is not adequate. Man is not man because he possesses nous, memory, logos, or love. These are not the elements that comprise the term “in the mage of” , i.e., man’s image; but according to Augustine, one could say that these are precisely the elements that compose the image, i.e. man’s being “in the image of God”. Many Orthodox also have this same impression of the logos, of logic (you see, this theory of “in the image of” is not exclusively Augustinian), and they too place the concept of “in the image of” there, i.e., in the logic of man. If we observe closely, we will see that, in order to obtain an image of the Holy Trinity, we need to have a communion of more than one persons. One person is not sufficient. One person equals no person. But Augustine (and this is important) portrayed the persona as a thinking object., and in this way, he opened up a path which continues to be walked by the West and by some of us, as we are also influenced by Western thought. To Western thought, the persona is no longer what it was to the Cappadocians; instead, for someone to be a persona, one must possess the faculties of logic, of self-awareness, of cognizance and in fact, a cognizance of one’s self. This self-awareness was subsequently pursued by western philosophy in general, and chiefly by Cartesian. Others followed him, such as Kant, Hegel, the Illuminists… Thus, when in the West –as well as here- one says: “he is a persona”, it is implied that he is someone with a developed awareness, of himself as well as of others. In this context, the main characteristic of a persona according to western thought is his awareness, his “conscience”. This psychological approach of the persona gave rise to the problem of: “what happens to those people who do not have a developed faculty of awareness: are those people considered deficient, as personae? Nowadays psychology fervently contemplates this point, and the tendency is to admit that these people are indeed deficient. In fact, it is striving to pinpoint that time in man’s life, during which he actually becomes a persona. So, they ask themselves: When does man become a persona? Of course it can’t be during the fetal stage, before birth, nor when one is still a young child (which has no awareness of itself), but only when one is grown up and has acquired an awareness, a conscience of one’s self, only then does one become a persona. This is a hazy perception, which is attributed to Augustine, and more specifically, it is attributed to his triadology. To the Eastern Fathers, to Eastern thought, perceptions such as these regarding the persona are non-existent. We shall now make our comparisons on this point, in more detail. To the Fathers of the East, it is not possible to express the three personae on the basis of their characteristics, and especially psychological characteristics such as memory, cognizance, volition or love. Cognizance, volition, love, all of these are associated –according to the Greek Fathers- with the one essence of God. They do not denote three different personae. So, which are the three different personae, and in what manner are the three personae denoted? They are denoted by their hypostatic characteristics, which are of an ontological nature. In other words, the Father has the hypostatic characteristic, the hypostatic quality, that He is unborn – the only unborn One (as a negative aspect), and (as a positive aspect), that He is a Father, inasmuch as He has a Son. The Son is denoted negatively, inasmuch as He is not a Father, and positively, inasmuch as He is born. The Holy Spirit : negatively inasmuch as it is neither a Father or a Son, and positively, inasmuch as it proceeds from somewhere, and to proceed from somewhere signifies something different to being born of someone; but what that difference is exactly, we cannot say. It merely denotes that the Holy Spirit is not the Son, because if the Spirit were also born of the Father, we would have two Sons. The Son is one, therefore the one persona is born of someone. So, how do we denote the other persona, who comes from the Father, but is not born of the Father? We denote it, with the concept of “proceeding from” the Father. These three characteristics, Paternity, Filiality and Procession, denote an ontological association. And what do we mean by “ontological association”? We mean that these are the ways these three entities exist. These characteristics do not denote how these entities feel or how they think; nor do they denote love, cognizance, etc. They simply denote a manner of existence. This is what the Cappadocians meant about the “persona” : they implied the manner of existence, the manner in which each persona of the Holy Trinity exists; how they are each “subject to existence”. The Father does not come into being; He simply exists, but He exists as the Father. And that is something ontological, because the term “Father” signifies one who brings the Son and the Spirit into existence. Thus, for the Greek Fathers the names of the Holy Trinity denote their ontological differences, their ontological peculiarities, and not their psychological experiences. There is a positive and a negative side to these hypostatic characteristics. Saint Cyril of Alexandria (and before him, Saint Athanasios and the Cappadocians) continuously stressed that there is a difference between the terms “unborn” and “Father”. They both pertain to the same persona of course, but they have different meanings. This is because the Eunomians tended to relate the notion of “unborn” to the notion of “Father”. The Father (says Saint Cyril of Alexandria) is a term which denotes that God has a Son. God cannot be Father if He doesn’t have a Son. This is not the same as saying the Father is unborn, because “unborn” merely signifies that the Father was not born of anyone. This served the Arians’ and the Eunomians’ purposes – to simply declare that He is unborn. But not so, when we name God “Father”, because that way, we are giving a positive aspect to Him, inasmuch as He has a Son. Consequently, He could not be a Father without having a Son, nor could He become a Father some day, since He has been the Father eternally. Consequently, the Son has also existed eternally. This was precisely the Orthodox argument that confronted the Arians’ theory. In the term “Father” we also have the “unborn” element, however; the term “Father” itself is the positive aspect. In the concept of “Son”, the “Son” is the positive aspect, i.e., it denotes the way in which He came into being; it is His manner of coming into existence through birth, which is not merely an ontological dependence, but a special manner, which we cannot define how it is thus, but only that it is special. He differs from the Spirit, because the Spirit also originates from the Father; there is also an ontological dependence, but with a different manner of existence; a different manner by which the Spirit “came into existence”. Thus, according to the Greek Fathers, no psychological categories are utilized in order to denote the personae of the Holy Trinity, whereas according to Augustine, there are psychological categories which lead us to a perception of God; categories that permit the “images of God” (man) to be considered a persona, even when there is only one. But, as a consequence of the Cappadocians’ Theology, a persona cannot be a persona in that manner. It must be in communion with other personae. According to Western Theology, it is possible to refer to one persona, and thus, the “persona” is related to the “person”. Here, we not only have a literal relating of the two terms, of the two words; we have an essential relating of the persona to the person. In other words, the “person” –which is also used by the Greek Fathers, but as an alternative word for “persona” (we find this alternating usage in John the Damascene) – in no way has the same meaning as it does in Western thought, Western Theology. In Western Theology, the term “persona” signifies an isolated person/being, which does not need to be perceived in communion with others, with a reference to others; whereas for the Greek Fathers, the term “persona” bears an inference to association and cannot therefore be perceived as an isolated being/person. There are even broader consequences for the perception of man, within the triadic Theology of Augustine. Before examining these consequences with regard to human existence, we must firstly examine them in depth, with regard to the dogma on God. To the Greek Fathers, memory, cognizance, volition and love are common to all three Personae (of the Holy Trinity). They are either energies, or, they are associated with the nature – the essence - of God. In this way, (although we have here a very delicate issue, which is misconstrued when we speak of the persona) the Greek Fathers refer to the personae of the Holy Trinity, without “bestowing” upon God any anthropological-psychological experiences such as these (memory, cognizance and love). That would have meant the risk of anthropomorphism; we would have projected onto God the psychological experiences of man. This projection of psychological experiences does not exist in the Greek Fathers, and it is for this reason that so many have spoken so much on negation and negativity, with regard to the personae. Lossky was the first to make such an observation and many Orthodox also follow him today; they want to state that, when referring to the personae of the Holy Trinity, we have a concept of “persona” that does not correspond to the concept of man’s “persona”. They too have based themselves on the assumption that the only possible notion of “persona” is the psychological one. It is the western idea of “Personalism”, which does not see man in any other way, except as that object which has a conscience and psychological faculties. So, given that this “Personalistic” perception of the persona developed in the West, many Orthodox today likewise consider it a bad thing for one to speak of a “persona” when referring to the Holy Trinity. Of course, it is something they cannot avoid, because it exists in their terminology, but they find it dangerous, for one to notice corresponding points in human existence. The error here is located in the fact that they base their view on the presupposition that the only way to speak of a human persona is through Personalism, i.e. self-awareness. But a faithful Theology, instead of taking various anthropomorphic, human experiences and transferring them to God, should take from Triadic Theology the meaning of the term “persona” and transfer it to the human persona. This is imperative; otherwise, we cannot speak of man “according to the image and the likeness of God.” Here, Augustine has shaped God in the image and the likeness of Man, and that is why he has attributed psychological experiences to God, and that is also why western Personalism -quite correctly- cannot relate to Triadic Theology. And from this viewpoint, they are also correct, who say that it is futile for many people to speak of “persona”, if they do not utilize the Patristic notion of “persona”. The mistake is in the contemporary stance that: “Since we have western Personalism, it is therefore inappropriate to embrace the concept of the “persona”, which is found in the Theology of the Greek Fathers” ! And this, precisely, is Orthodox Theology’s contribution: To put aside that western Personalism, and to draw from Triadic Theology – especially of the Cappadocian Fathers - the meaning of “persona”. This way, man can become “in the image and the likeness of God”, instead of God becoming “in the image and the likeness of man”. The dogma on God is of great importance, for the meaning behind man’s “persona”. In theosis, man becomes nothing else, except a persona that is in the image and the likeness of the Holy Trinity. We cannot attain theosis through our nature. Our human nature cannot become God. My divine nature and my human nature cannot become God; it cannot become divine nature. Created nature cannot turn into Divine nature. However, Man can become a persona; he can become a child of God and recognize God as his Father. All of the above imply personal relationships, which cannot be comprehended by means of western Personalism, nor can they be comprehended with the help of Augustine. We need to comprehend them by means of the Cappadocian Fathers’ Theology, and Theology here has a very serious workload.

卡帕多西亞教父們對有關於上帝的教條所作出的貢獻之基本的要素是如下： 首先， 他們在術語方面做出了貢獻。 他們把「位格」這字與「本質」斷絕了關系 (直到那時為止， 這兩字不但關系密切，並且幾乎有著同樣的意思) 並且將其往人格移近。他們把位格與人格相聯上。 這個字面的轉移所有的神學上的意義則是，當他們把人格 (記得這字是有 Savellianism 的嫌疑的， 因為在希臘語語言以及用法中， 人格是暗示著面相或者一位演員在台上所帶著的面具的) 與位格連接上之時， 「人格」這字現在就獲得了一個存在性的內容。 位格這詞表示著，某事或某人是真正地存在著的；他們是的確地和真實地有著實際的位格的。任何被當成是非位格性之事即是沒有真實的存在性的、沒有實際的位格的。我們今天仍然承認著這種想法， 當我們(希臘人)說，「這些謠言是非位格性的」 （οι φήμες αυτές είναι ανυπόστατες）， 也就是當我們想強調，某某事是無真相的； 某某事是沒有一個全面的存在性的內容的。 位格是提供某人或某物一個全面性的內容的東西。而那即是卡帕多西亞教父們所作出的貢獻。 他們承認、命名神聖的三位一體中的三個人格為位格，他們以此而能給與每個人格一個充分的存在性的位格， 因而避免了Savellianism，而 Savellianism 沒有給與每個人格一個充分的存在性的位格。 反之，它給與了每個人格一個由同樣的人格所制造出的角色。 卡帕多西亞教父們所作出的貢獻的第三個要素則是，他們不但給與了三個人格中的每一者一個完整的位格， 他們其實也把上帝的存有的起因歸因於父親的人格。換句話說， 他們把上帝的存有的起點歸因於父親的這個人-- 一個人格。 他們既然介紹出了這些新的要素 (注意： 這是在術語上的，而不是在教義上的要素)，卡帕多西亞教父們在提到三位一體之時也用上了圖像和比喻等等，而這些總是有組成完整的存有物的特性。 第一大公會議， 因有 Saint Athanasius 的神學，非常強調著兒子是出生於父親的本性 （或本質）的。那可能被誤會為是父親的本質之伸展， 而不是一個完全的以及獨立的個體之誕生。如果我們有上帝的本質之三面性的伸展， 那麼我們就有非常接近 Savellianism 的危險。那就是為甚麼同本體 (homoousion) 造成了這樣大的反應， 很多人害怕由 Nice 所定義出的同本體可能有包含著Savellianism 的危險。 Savellius 把上帝看成是延伸了自己的單位體； 它伸展了自己，並且再擔上了三個不同的角色， 而在最後， 這些角色將再自我收縮，回復成原來的單一體。他把上帝看成是伸展了自己的、而再獲得到三個擁有同樣的本質的「分枝」的存有者。 卡帕多西亞教父們想消滅這種解釋， 因此他們堅持著，這三個人格不是同一本質的伸展， 而是三個獨立的、完整的個體， 而那就是為甚麼他們一直強調著位格的意思的原因。 他們為了這個目的而使用的圖像在此是值得注意的。在第一大公會議中，並且也在信仰的符號(教條的)中 （the Symbol of Faith: Creed)， 我們注意到光的圖像。 他被用來代表在父親和兒子之間的聯合性。 在那有「光出於光」的圖像和說法。就好像光散發出無法與它們的來源分清楚的光線，而這光線的來源也不能與光線本身分清楚， 這即證明是一個有用的寫照， 表示出兒子是不能與父親分離的之事， 就如「光出於光」。 但是卡帕多西亞教父們認為這個描述方法並不妥當， 因為光芒仍能被解釋為是某某身體的伸展， 因此兒子還是能被解釋為是上帝的能量。所以， 「光出於光」的這個說法他們不用，反而喜歡三個太陽的那個概念。不只是起源於光的光芒， 反而是三個各自的太陽， 三個點燃了的火炬。 這些是他們所偏愛的描述方法，它說明著我們有三個自已現存的、完整的人格，並且，與這個描述方法一起， 這三個人格是同時被提出的、團結於一起的。但是在此的重要的要點則是，將這三個太陽連結在一起的、他們所共有的事物到底是什麼呢? 那是他們所共有的本質， 他們所共同擁有的能量， 因為所有的這三個太陽皆散發出同樣的熱力以及同樣的光。結果呢，能量是由所有三者所共有的，並且 -- 與能量一起 -- 本質也是由所有三者所共有的。這樣， 他們的位格的存有、各個人格的豐滿、以及他們的團結性就可同時被描述出。 在人的比喻中， 他們使用三個人，以表示出神聖的三位一體中的三個人格。就如巴希耳、喬治、和約翰是三個人， 三個由共同的本性所連合的人 -- 也就是他們所共有的人類的本性 -- 因此神聖的三位一體中的三個人格也可由三個人的圖像表示出。 但是，在上帝的例子中， 這樣的描述是有調整的必要的， 因為它是不同於三個人的例子的。 而我們在此為了介紹出隨後的要點所需要注意的事則是，卡帕多西亞教父們堅持著, 神聖的三位一體中的各個人格已是完整的個體, 並且我們所使用的描述方法應該是表示出完整的個體的, 而不是一個身體的伸展。三個太陽, 三個火炬, 三個人。這是用來表示各個人格的豐滿的位格的方式。 這帶領卡帕多西亞教父們到一個特別的指出在三個人格之間所有的協會的方式, 以便同時表示出每一個人格的聯合性, 單一性, 和豐滿性。這被命名為人格的 "相互擁抱" (interembracing: perihoresis) 。三個人格相互擁抱。一個人格的整體是在其他的兩個人格之內被發現的。這樣, 各個人格保留了他的自我存有和豐滿性, 但他們同時也維護了他們的聯合性。 在 Saint Basil 的第38 封書信中, 我們注意到這位聖徒在有關於相互擁抱的主題的方面上, 是這樣寫的: "父親是什麼, 這即也在兒子中被發現。兒子是什麼, 這即也在父親中被發現。 兒子的整體是在他的父親中所找到的, 並且, 他在他之內也擁有著他父親的整體。因而, 兒子的位格是父親所可被認識到的圖像和相像。並且, 父親的位格是可在兒子的圖像中被認識到的"。這是在第四本福音中所有的說法有所關係的地方: "誰看見了我, 也看見了父親, 因為我是在父親之中的, 而且父親是在我之中的" 。 誰看見了兒子, 也看見了父親。父親是充分地存在的, 並且兒子是充分地在父親中存在著的。這樣, 每個位格, 每個人格, 皆成為了整個本質的持有者。神性是不能被分成或分割開的; 每個人格皆擁有未分割的以及完整的神性。 這就是允許每個人格存在於其它人格裡面之事。 Saint Nazianzene 說道: "神性在它所有的部分之中是未分割的" 。神性, 本性, 本質是無法被分割的。它是在各個人格中被充分地發現的, 換句話說, 在互相是不同的人格中。 在這裡我們有一個神奇的, 似是而非的概念, 而當然你是能夠稱之為奧秘的 (就像神聖的三位一體的奧秘) 並且不想去試圖理解它。但是, 當我們試圖去如此理解 這三位一體的巨大奧秘的其它方面的時候, 我們將同樣地試圖顯示清楚這個奧秘。 由一個人格去持有著整個本質, 這怎麼能是可能的; 並且, 一個人格去存在在其它人格裡面, 而又不失去它的自我身分, 這又怎麼能是可能的? 因為, 如果我們把兩個人格安置在彼此之中, 他們就有互相太有關係, 以至失去他們的個性的危險。 反之, 在這裡, 一個人格之在其他人格裡面的存有實際上制造出"個性", "自我相同性", "他性" 。在我們的經驗中, 這不是可能的, 而卡帕多西亞教父們將此歸因於我們的自然本性 -- 人類的本質 -- 當人格開始存在之時被分割成許多部份的這個事實。沒有人是持有著整個人類的本質的, 因為如果他是整個人類的本質的持有者, 那麼在他死亡之時, 所有的人類皆必須死 -- 所有的人類的本質。人類本性的全體皆會被消滅, 祇因一個人的死亡之故。但是在有關於人類的方面上, 當一個人誕生之時, 我們有一種本性或本質的分割。這是歸因於受造物是綜合性的這個事實, 它有一個起點, 並且它活動在空間和時間的極限內, 而空間和時間是會劃分的, 而不是會連結的。這也並且是為什麼受造物是會死的, 是會腐壞的。 這些情況是無法適用於上帝身上的, 因為上帝沒有起點, 並且他也不會死。因而, 他沒有本質之分割。雖然他有三個人格, 他的本質並不被分成三部份, 以便各個人格有一部份; 反之, 各個人格得取到所有的本質, 他擁有著所有的本質。 在我們的經驗中, 如果我們去審查一下人類生理之位格, 我們就能看到, 這並不適用於此, 因為我們全部皆生來就有這分割過的自然本性。 因此有死亡之事。除了以上之外, 在我們的經驗中, 當我們提及到人際關繫之時, 我們能觀察到一種現象, 某某人被認為是整個人類的本質的持有者, 整個人類的存有的持有者。例如, 在一個關於戰爭的受害者的公告中, 國防部發表說, 有十人死亡。對一個沒有與那十個已死的人有某種關繫的人來說, 他們是十個不同的人, 他們的死亡沒有影響到人類本性的全體。其他的人繼續存在著, 繼續活著, 因此人類的本性將繼續存有著。 但是對每一個逝世者的母親來說, 或者是對某個與他們有私人關係的人來說, 那個已去世的人是整個人類的本質的持有者。他不能只被算作是"十個人當中的一個" 。他是一個人, 那個人, 整個人。 當一個人消失之時, 所有人類的本質皆有消失的危險。這是我們在個人協會關係之內的經驗。在個人協會關係之外, 我們無法有這種 經驗。而為什麼是如此呢? 因為在二個人之間所有的連結性是如此之緊, 其中一人在實際上已認為另一人是整個人類的本質 -- 整個人類的存有 -- 之持有者。 以這些精確詳細的分類, 我們將能夠解釋為什麼在有關於三位一體的方面上, 這種似是而非以及神奇之極的現象可以發生。例如, 只謀殺一人如何能等於是一種"對所有人類的罪行" 。或者, 當我們說, "終究, 只有一個人被殺害, 世界還是在的"... 為什麼會是如此? 這種把 一個人如此絕對化和普遍化的想法, 是從何處而來的? 所有這些想法皆是從我們的個人關係的經驗中而來的, 從我們對人格的經驗中而來的。我們越是把某人看成是人格, 我們也就越是把他看成是人類總體的持有者。 我們是從我們對上帝所有的概念中將此提取出的, 因為這就是上帝(三位一體之性)所意味的東西: 一個人格不是本質中的一部份; 它是整個本質。因此, 我們也能在我們自己的經驗中觀察到這樣像三位一體的存在方式的徵兆 -- 與神聖的三位一體同樣的存在方式。並且那就是使我們人類是上帝的圖像的事情。當我們說人是被受造為上帝的圖像之時, 我們需要在上帝和人之間去尋找類似之事, 而這是在三位一體的協會的基礎上。這就是為什麼有關於三位一體的教條是很重要的。因為它把人的存有顯示得更清楚。 再繼續下去這個歷史回顧, 我們看見, 卡帕多西亞教父們做出了些什麼樣的貢獻。因卡帕多西亞教父們之故, 在東方的教義終於被完成了; 在之後沒有什麼東西再被加上, 沒有什麼東西再進一步被闡明。如果我們將卡帕多西亞教父們之後的教父們劃分開 (例如Maximus 和 John the Damascene; 他們在根本上沒有對任何題目做出什麼貢獻, 但是他們很能表示出教父們的想法), 那麼, 特別在有關於三位一體的教義的主題的方面上, 我們能說, 在卡帕多西亞教父們之後, 沒有人在根本上做出任何貢獻。他們確實地在根本上做出了貢獻; 他們在完成有關於三位一體的教義的公式的方面上, 在實際上做出了巨大的貢獻。 所以, 在東方, 在有關於神聖的三位一體的教義的方面上, 希臘教父們止步在卡帕多西亞教父們身上。誰對卡帕多西亞教父們不熟悉, 誰就對三位一體的教義不熟悉。你無法從任何其他人中得知它, 只能從卡帕多西亞教父們中。在卡帕多西亞教父們之前, 許多想法有被表達出來, 然而, 它們需要由卡帕多西亞教父們來補充。因卡帕多西亞教父們之故, 東方擁有了有關於上帝的完整教條。 我們現在將看看西方, 看看在那裡發生了些什麼。我們所觀察到的第一件事則 是, 卡帕多西亞教父們在西方不是知名的, 他們亦未在實質上影響到西方世界的神學家和作家。並且當我們說"西方"的時後, 我們首先是在講如第4世紀的 Saint Ambrose 之類的人士。在之前, 我們有 Tertullian 和 Hippolyte -- 他是一位希臘血源的西方人, 不僅是西方人 。所有他們皆是卡帕多西亞教父們的神學之前室中的人士。 在西方, 在有關於神聖的三位一體的教義的方面上, 那位對西方思想和西方神學有決定性的一者就是奧古斯丁。但甚至連奧古斯丁也不像是知道卡帕多西亞教父們的, 而他亦不由他們所影響過。在一非常久的時間中, 連奧古斯丁在西方也是未被人所知的。但是, 當法蘭克人來到之時, 奧古斯丁在起初就成為了法蘭克人的神學標準, 而在之後終於成為了西方世界的整個神學的來源, 特別是他們的有關於神聖的三位一體的神學。這就是為什麼來看看奧古斯丁是怎樣對有關於神聖的三位一體的教條做出貢獻, 以及他是怎樣表達出這個教條, 那會是很重要的。 我們所必須注意的第一件事則是, 當他表示出神聖的三位一體的人格之時, 奧古斯丁沒有用上三個各自的人格的概念, 三個不同的個體的概念。他給與我們一個唯一人格的依據。他相信, 若是祇觀察著一個人, 你可能得到講三位一體之性之時所必須用上的比喻法。我們在這裡有一個與卡帕多西亞教父們相對的根本區別。以使用一個人為依據, 奧古斯丁試圖著 -- 經由對那唯一一人的觀察 -- 做出能表達出三位一體之性的圖像。 在有關於這個細節的方面上, 奧古斯丁 很明顯地是由新柏拉圖哲學派所影響到了; 如此, 為了能找到某種可以很清楚地顯示出三位一體的奧秘的方式, 他運用了帕拉圖式的人類學, 因為他相信, 如此他會發現所有這些比喻所必須的要素。 帕拉圖式的想法由觀察著一個人而找出人的"本質"; 就是那個是使人是一個人的東西: 這就是他們所謂的"Nous" 的東西 (理性) 。 人的 Nous 應該是他的主要特徵。導致人存在的東西是 Nous, 而那不是僅僅在生理性的方面上, 而且也是在形而上學的方面上。 現在, 如果那個概念被轉移於有關於上帝的教條身上 (奧古斯丁就是如此做了的), 那麼, 對應的形而上學的概念就會是同樣地將上帝之全體, 上帝之本質, 稱之為"Nous" 。這個圖像不是由 奧古斯丁 所第一次使用的, 即, 上帝是 Nous 。 這是柏拉圖 -- 以及許多其它基督徒神學家, 譬如聖奧古斯丁 -- 所認為的。以後, 這個概念由 Origen 和 Evagrios 所採取了, 而 Evagrios 則更加擴展了 Origen 的想法。他們所有皆以這個 Nous 的概念來講上帝: 上帝是 Nous; 他是至尊的 Nous 。 並且因為人天生就是 nous, 他是因 nous 之故而與上帝有關的。如此, 我們在這裡有個類比。當我們看一個人之時, 我們應該看見他在本質上來說即是 Nous 。並且這件事實--上帝在實質上就是Nous -- 就是表示出單一性之事。是為一者的上帝被看成是一個很大的, 形而上學的 Nous 。 以這個為依據, 再觀察著人的心理學, 我們注意到, 人的 nous 包括著三個基本的要素。那個至尊的要素是記憶。柏拉圖將 nous 與"仁慈" (Agathos) 以及 "好" (kalos) 的概念又稍微地連結上了。 "好" 這個字也表示著 "好看", "美麗" 等等 (即, 由 kali- 所開始的綜合詞) 。 以這作為他的依據, 奧古斯丁試圖闡明三位一體的奧秘, 他把上帝作為 "好的", 上帝是"Nous", 他有知識。但是, 他有著什麼知識, 如果在上帝之外什麼也沒有? 他必須是對他自己有知識。所以, "知識" 必須暗示著他對自已的知識。即然好的和仁慈的有吸引力-- 而這也是帕拉圖式的想法 -- 好的也非得吸引上某人來愛他。那就是為什麼好的和仁慈的互相相愛。 並且愛-- 在這個事例中 -- 就是上帝的 Nous 愛他的自已。上帝愛自己; 他是由他的自已所吸引上的。 這些就是奧古斯丁用來比喻神聖的三位一體中的三個人格的三個要素。因此, 他把父親作為記憶; 他把兒子作為知識, 把聖靈作為愛。因此, 上帝被假設是類似於我們在人中所發現的三個心理特徵, 即, 記憶、知識, 和愛。 所以聖靈被稱為是在父親和兒子之間的 Nexus Amatis (愛的連結) 。我們以後將看到這些要點是多麼地重要的, 特別是在有關於「及聖子」 (Filioque) 的問題的方面上。 我們應該注重的事則是, 我們現在是在與卡帕多西亞教父們和希臘教父們完全不同的神學世界之內。我們現在得將它們之間所有的區別指示出。 第一個區別是 -- 根據卡帕多西亞教父們的說法 -- 我們需要三個人格來表示出神聖的三位一體之性; 三個各自的人格。一個是不足夠的。我們無法經由內向的方式, 經由對人的自我的觀察, 來想像神聖的三位一體之性。 人不是因為他擁有 nous, 記憶、Logos, 或愛, 而是人的。這些不是人的圖像的要素; 但根據奧古斯丁的說法, 你能認為, 這些正好就是組成圖像的要素, 即人"在上帝的圖像"中的存有 。 許多正教人士對 Logos, Logic 也有同樣的印象, (你看, 這種 "在圖像中" 的理論不完全是奧古斯丁學派的), 並且他們也把"在圖像中" 的概念安置在那裡, 即, 在人的邏輯 (Logic) 中。 如果我們更謹慎地觀察一下, 我們可以看見, 為了能獲得神聖的三位一體的圖像, 我們需要有不祇一個人的共融。一個人不是足夠的。一個人等於沒有人。 但奧古斯丁(這是非常重要的) 把人格敘述為一個思想的物體, 而這樣, 他開出了一條繼續由西方世界以及我們中的一些人所走的道路 (因為我們也有被西方世界的想法所影響到)。 對西方的想法來說, 人格不再是卡帕多西亞教父們所認為是的東西; 反而, 若某人是為人格, 他則必須擁有邏輯, 自我意識, 以及對自已的認識。這個自我意識之後由西方哲學繼續追求著 (首要是由笛卡爾信徒們) 。其他人則跟隨著, 譬如 康德, 黑格耳, 啟明主義者(Illuminists)... 因而, 當在西方 -- 就像在這裡 -- 一個人說: "他是人格", 這暗示著, 他是一個擁有著已開發了的意識的人, 對他自己以及對其他人的意識。在這個上下文中, 一個人格的主要特徵 -- 根據西方世界的想法 -- 則是他的意識, 他的"良心" 。 這種心理學的方法則造成了這個問題: 那些沒有已開發了的意識的人, 他們是甚麼? 他們可被認為是有缺陷的人格嗎? 現今, 心理學真心地冥想著這點, 並且想承認, 這些人的確是有缺陷的。 心理學努力地試著定位出, 人是在甚麼時候成為了一個實際的人格。如此, 他們自問: 在何時一個人才成為了人格? 當然那是無法在胎兒階段期間的, 在誕生之前, 亦不能是當他仍是一個沒有意識的幼兒, 但只能是當他已長大了, 並且獲取了自已的意識和良心, 然後才算是成為了一個實際的人格。這是一個朦朧的想法, 歸因於奧古斯丁, 並且, 更加具體地, 這是歸因於他的三位一體學 。 對東正教教父們來說, 在東正教的想法中, 這種關於人格的看法是不存在的。我們現在將更詳細地在這點的方面上做出比較。 對東方的教父們來說, 以根據他們的特徵來表達出三個人格, 那不是可能的, 特別是那些心理性的特徵, 如記憶、意識、意志或愛。意識, 意志, 愛, 所有這些皆是 -- 根據希臘教父們的想法 -- 與上帝的獨一本質相連繫上的。他們並不表示著三個不同的人格。 那, 那些才是三個不同的人格, 並且, 那三個不同的人格是以什麼方式來表示出的? 他們是由他們的位格性的特徵所表示出來的, 而這些位格性的特徵是存在性的東西。換句話說, 父親有這個位格性的特徵, 這個位格性的性質: 他是未出生的 -- 唯一的未出生的一個 (在否定性的方面上來說), 以及(在正面性的方面上來說), 他是父親, 由於他有一個兒子之故。兒子是由否定性的方式所表示出來的, 由於他不是父親之故, 並且他也是由正面性的方式所表示出來的, 由於他是出生的之故。聖靈: 由否定性的方式, 由於這不是父親或兒子, 以及由正面性的方式, 由於它是從某處而出現的, 而從某處而出現的, 這是不同於出生於某人之事的; 但那個區別確切地是什麼, 我們則無法說明。 它僅僅表示著, 聖靈不是兒子, 因為如果聖靈也是出生於父親的話, 我們則會有兩個兒子。兒子是一個的, 因此一個人格是出生於某人的。那麼, 我們得怎麼樣來表示出另一個來自於父親的, 但不是出生於父親的人格? 我們以"從父親進行出來的"概念將之表示出 。 這三個特徵, 父性、兒性、 和來源性, 表示出一個存在性的協會。而我們以 "存在性的協會"， 又是在意味著什麼呢? 我們是在意味著, 這是這三個存有者之存在的方式。這些特徵並不表示出這些存有者是如何感覺或如何認識事物的; 他們亦不表示出愛、意識, 等等。他們只簡單地表示出某種存在的方式。這即是卡帕多西亞教父們所謂的人格的意思: 他們表示著存在的方式, 神聖的三位一體中的各個人格存在的方式; 他們中的每個是如何"依於存有"的 。父親並不先開始存在; 他就是存在著的, 但他是以父親的身份而存在著的。並且那是存在性的一件事, 因為"父親" 表示著一位帶領兒子和聖靈進入世界之者。因而, 對希臘教父們來說， 三位一體中的名字是表示著他們的存在性的區別、他們的存在性的特異的, 而不是他們的心理性的經驗。 這些位格性的特徵有著正面性和反面性的方面。亞歷山大的聖西里耳 (Saint Cyril; 以及在他之前的 Saint Athanasios 和卡帕多西亞教父們) 一直強調, 在"未出生的" 和 "父親" 之間有一個區別。 當然， 他們兩個皆是屬於同樣的人格的, 但是他們有著不同的意思。這是因為烏奴米耳教人傾向於將 "父親" 這個概念與 "未出生的" 這個概念相連結上。父親 (亞歷山大的聖西里耳說道) 是表示出上帝是有兒子的之事的一個字。 上帝如果沒有一個兒子就無法是父親。這與說父親是未出生的之事不是相同的，因為"未出生" 僅僅是表示出父親不是出生於任何一人。 這符合了阿裡烏斯教人和烏奴米耳教人的目的 -- 就只簡單地宣稱, 他是未出生的。但是，當我們命名上帝為"父親"之時， 則不是如此, 因為那樣, 我們就給予了他一個正面性的方面, 就因他有一個兒子之故。結果, 他不能沒有兒子而是父親, 他亦不能在某一天成為父親, 因為他是永恆地是父親的。以至, 兒子也是永恆地存在著的。這就是正教所用來面對阿裡烏斯教人的理論的論據。 然而，在"父親" 這字之中我們也有"未出生的" 要素; "父親" 這字本身是屬於正面性的方面的。在"兒子" 的概念中, "兒子" 是屬於正面性的方面的, 即, 它表示著他是如何開始存在的方式; 他是經由出生而能開始存在的, 而出生不僅僅是一種存在性的依賴性, 但也是一種特別方式： 我們無法將其定義出是怎麼樣, 但只能說它是特別的。他與聖靈不同, 因為聖靈也是起源於父親的; 在此也有一種存在性的依賴性, 但是是以一種不同的存在方式; 聖靈是以另外一種方式而"開始存在" 的。 然而， 根據希臘教父們的說法， 没有任何心理性的類別可被運用來表示出神聖的三位一體中的人格， 但是， 若是根據奧古斯丁的說法， 那裡則有帶領我們至對上帝之悟性的心理性的類別等等； 這些類別允許上帝的"圖像" (人) 被認為是人格， 既使當前有只一個。 但是， 卡帕多西亞教父們的神學之結果之一則是， 一個人格是不能以那種方式而成為人格的。它必須與其它的人格共融。 根據西方神學的說法， 只提及到一個人格，那是可能的， 並且， "人格" （persona; προσώπο) 因此是與"人" （person: άτομο) 有關系的。 在這裡， 我們不僅是有一個在兩個字之間所有的字面性的關係； 我們也有一個根本性的人與人格的關係。換句話說， "人" -- 這字也是由希臘教父們所使用的， 但是那只是作為一個能替代"人格" 的另一字 (我們在 John the Damascene 的書寫之中也發現到這個替字) -- 在此並没有它在西方思想和神學中所有的一樣的意思。在西方神學中， "人格" 表示著被隔絕開的人或存有者； 他不需要被察覺為是與其他的人格有所關系的東西； 但是對希臘教父們來說， "人格" 有協會性的意思， 因此他是無法被察覺為是一個被隔絕開的人或存有者的。 奧古斯丁的三位一體之性的神學對我們對人的看法有更加重要的後果。在審查這些關於人的存有的後果之前， 我們必須首先詳細審查一下其之在有關於上帝的方面上有些甚麼後果。 對希臘教父們來說， 記憶、意識、意志、和愛是神聖的三位一體中的三個人格所皆共有的 。它們或者是能量， 或者是與上帝的本性 -- 本質 -- 相聯繫上的。這樣 (雖然我們在這裡有一個非常精妙的問題， 並且當我們講人格之時可能造成誤會)， 希臘教父們在提及到神聖的三位一體中的人格之時，沒有給與上帝任何人類性的或是心理性的經驗等等， 譬如這些記憶、意識、和愛 。那會有擬人化的 危險； 我們會將人的心理經驗投射在上帝身上。這種心理經驗之投射不存在於希臘教父們的想法之中，並且就是因為如此，許多人在講關於人格之時一直說到否定和否定性。 Lossky 是第一位做出這樣的觀察之人，並且今天許多正教人士皆跟隨著他； 他們想要闡明， 當提到三位一體中的人格之時， 我們有一個並不對應於人的"人格"的 概念的"人格" 的概念。但他們也是以對"人格" 所唯一能有的概念是心理性的概念的這種想法為依據的。這是西方世界的 "Personalism" 的想法， 也就是除了把人作為是一個擁有良心和心理性的能力等等的東西之外，無法再把他看成是其他的東西。 如此，既然這種人性式 （Personalistic） 的說人格的方法是出現在西方世界的， 許多正教人士今天則認為，在提及到神聖的三位一體之時，講"人格"是一件壞事。 當然， 這是他們無法避免的一件事， 因為這存在於他們的術語中， 但是他們發現， 注意到在人的存有中有對應之事等等， 這是很危險的。 但是在此所有的錯誤則是，他們以為唯一能講人的人格的方式是通過 Personalism, 即自我意識。但是， 一個忠實的神學不應該採取一些擬人化的方式，把人的經驗轉交於上帝身上， 反而應該從三位一體的神學中提取出"人格" 的意思， 再把它轉移到人的人格身上。 這是必要的； 否則， 我們就無法去講人受造於"上帝之形像和相像"。 在這裡， 奧古斯丁却以人的形像和相像去塑造上帝， 而那就是為甚麼他把心理經驗等等歸因於上帝身上， 並且那也是為什麼西方的 Personalism 不能正確地與三位一體之神學有所關係。 並且從這個觀點來看， 他們也還是正確地說明出，如果人們不運用教父們的 "人格" 的概念而去講"人格"，那也是没有用的 。差錯是在於當代的那種想法： "既然我們有西方的 Personalism， 那我們就不應當去接受在希臘教父們的神學裡所被發現的人格的概念！" 並且這就是正教神學所作出的貢獻： 把西方的 Personalism 放在一邊， 反而從 （特别是卡帕多西亞教父們的） 三位一體的神學中取出 "人格" 的意思。這樣， 人就可以成為"上帝的形像和相像"， 而不是上帝去成為"人的形像和相像" 。 對於人的人格的意思來說， 關於上帝的教條是很重要的。 在神化 （theosis） 中， 人就是只成為一個在神聖的三位一體的形像和相像中的人格。我們無法通過我們自己的本性而獲得神化。我們人類的本性是無法成為上帝的。我的神性和我的人類本性是無法成為上帝的； 它是無法成為神的本性的。受造的本性是無法變成神的本性的。但是， 人能成為人格； 他能成為上帝的孩子， 並認可上帝為他的父親。所有這些皆暗示著私人關係， 而這是無法通過西方的 Personalism 而被領會的， 而它亦不可能以奧古斯丁的想法而被了解到。我們只能以卡帕多西亞教父們的神學來了解它， 並且神學在這裡有非常重的工作量。