Frank

Having completed my errand, and now having the time to do so, I would like to complete my previous comment and add some to it, if I may. Torrance, in the comment above, referred to the orations of Gregory Nazianzen, also known as Gregory the Theologian, that gave the most powerful account of “the inseparable oneness of the divine Persons, and indeed the identity between the one ever living Being of God and the three coequal divine Persons.” He was referring to, of course, Gregory’s ORATIONS ON THE GREAT ATHANASIUS, both a commentary and expansion the Trinitarian teaching of Athanasius, in which he made these statements:

1. “No sooner do I consider the One than I am enlightened by the radiance of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish them that I am carried back to the One. When I bring any One of the Three before my mind I think of him as a Whole, and my vision is filled, and the most of the Whole escapes me. I cannot grasp the greatness of the One in such a way as to attribute more greatness to the rest. When I contemplate the Three together, I see but one Torch, and cannot divide or measure out the undivided Light,” ORATIONS, 40.41
2. “To us there is one God, for the Godhead is One, and all that proceeds from him is referred to the One, though we believe in Three Persons. For One is not more and Another less God; nor is One before and Another after; nor are they parted in will or divided in power, nor can you find here any of the features that obtain in divisible things; but the Godhead is, to speak concisely, undivided in being divided; and there is one mingling of Light, as it were of three suns joined to each other,” ORATIONS, 31.14

And it was this grand understanding of both the Unity and Diversity of the Divine Persons of the Triune God which led the author(s) of the Athanasian Creed, who I think better understood the teaching of Athanasius, Gregory the Theologian, and St. Augustine to write than we moderns, to write, “We are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord…And in this Trinity none is afore or after another, none is greater or less than another, but the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal so that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.”

Now, in light of this Ecumenical understanding of both the Unity and Diversity of the Three Persons who are the One True God, and the One True God who is the Three Persons, the question to be asked is this: Can anyone then teach that the distinctions between the Three Persons is simply constituted by and reducable to “roles” or “functions,” and not violate this understanding of the Trinity and fall back into heretical Subordinationism? I believe the answer is, “No, they cannot.” Here is why I think so:
1. Neither the Early Church nor any of the Ecumenical Creeds utilize the idea of “roles” or “functions” to affirm the distinctions or differences between the Divine Persons. In fact, it was the debate over one ousia, three hypostases vs. one substantia, three personae between the Latin and Greek theologians before the creedal ratifications of 381 A.D. and 382 A.D. that made this clear. Prosopon in classical Greek, of which the Latin personae was the equivalent term, primarily stood for the mask worn by actors to distinguish the various characters they played in the Greek drama. The Greek theologians felt prospon was an inadequate term to describe the Trinitarian persons, since it easily led to modalistic thinking. Therefore they promoted the term hypostastis which indicated an objective reality, having certain characteristics that could be perceived in thought, by the intellect. And so after some discussion with their Latin counterparts, it was agreed that hypostatis and personae would be used as equivalent terms, but would be defined by both to mean an objective reality, not a fictious role. And both ousia and substantia would be understood as the common divine essence or being fully and equally shared by each Person of the Triune God. This mutual understanding and agreement on how to understand and expound the Doctrine of the Trinity was necessary. For all agreed with Athanasius and Basil that the Three Persons could not be understood as three different appearances or modes of action in creation and redemption by God. Since God is eternal, God’s Triunity must also be eternal. So the Three Persons, if truly divine, must have real being without and before God’s actions in creation and redemption, since both creation and redemption are not eternal, but temporal in nature. So the various distinguishable temporal actions, operations, or “roles” of God in creation and redemption cannot be essential to the true eternal distinctions or differences between the Persons. If “roles” in creation and redemption were necessary for marking the true distinctions between the Three Persons, then none could be none of them could be said to be eternal, and so there would be a time when there was not a Father, not a Son, not a Spirit. Again, if “roles” or “functions” were necessary for distinguishing the Divine Persons, then there was a time when God was not triune or when the Persons, if they were at all, were not wholly God.
2. Now, just because the distinctions between the Father, Son and Spirit cannot be identified with or reduced to differing modes of action does not mean that God cannot serve in different roles in creation or redemption, or that certain tasks or operations may not be primarily associated with one or the other of the Divine Persons. However, the Early Church recognized that these distinctions in external action were not to be read back into the persons of the Trinity.
a. Gregory of Nyssa adamantly ruled out any “ranking” of the Three Persons either within the Trinity itself or in their working toward creation. Such ranking according to distinctive ministry, he argued, called into question the very unity of God: “If the Father is King, and the Only Begotten is King, and the Holy Ghost is the Kingship, one and the same definition of Kingship must prevail through this Trinity” (Cf. “Oration on the Holy Spirit,” Oration 41.9, NPNF, Vol. 5, pp. 320-321).
b. On this issue of “ranking,” Athanasius himself stated: “Inasmuch as there is in the Holy Trinity oneness of essence and equality in rank, who, then, would dare to separate either the Son from the Father or the Spirit from either the Son or the Father? Or who would be so rash as to say that the Trinity is dissimilar and of diverse nature within itself?” (Cf. Four Letters to Serapion, 1.20)
c. And in terms of the unity and diversity of their relationship in redemption and sactification, we have these testimonies:
1. St. Paul himself: “There are different kinds of spiritual gifts, but the same Spirit is the source of them all. There are different kinds of service, but we serve the same Lord. God works in different ways, but it is the same God who does the work in all of us” (1 Corinthians 12:4-6, NLT).
2. Athanasius: “There is a Trinity holy and perfect, acknowledged as God in Father, Son and Holy Spirit, having nothing foreign or external mixed with it…It is consistent in Itself, indivisible in nature, and Its activity is one. The Father does all things through the Word in the Holy Spirit; and thus the unity of the Holy Trinity is preserved; and thus there is preached in the Church One God, ‘who is over all, and through all, through the Word; and in all, in the Holy Spirit” (Cf. Four Letters to Seripon, 1.28).
3. Ambrose: “And as he who is blessed in Christ is blessed in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, because the Name is one and the Power one; so, too, when any divine operation, whether of the Father, or of the Son, or of the Holy Spirit is treated of, it is not referred only to the Holy Spirit, but also to the Father and the Son, and not only to the Father, but also to the Son and the Spirit” (Cf. “On The Spirit,” NFPF, Vol.2, 7:98).
4. Didymus: “Therefore, whoever shares in the Holy Spirit shares immediately in the Father and the Son. And he who has love from the Father has it from the Son and joined with the Holy Spirit. And he who has a share of the grace of Jesus Christ has that grace given by the Father through the Holy Spirit. For in all these things it is proven that the operation of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is the same. But those who have the same operation have the same substance, because those things which are homoousia in the same substance have the same operations and those which are of different substance and not homoousia are different and separate in operation” (Cf. On The Holy Spirit, 24, MC 3:116; PL 23:119).

Now, there are one or two more comments I would like to make, but I will do so later, for it is very late and I am very tired. But perhaps, Mark, by what I have said so far, you and others may begin to understand why I regard ESS as a destestable subordinationist heresy.