Heteroousios or Social Trinitarianism: Entailments of the Eternal Relations of Origin

Abstract I argue that the doctrine of the eternal relations of origin fails to preserve the sort of trinitarianism that the pro-Nicene Fathers thought that it did. The pro-Nicenes argued (1) that the Father, Son, and Spirit are homoousios with one another, (2) that the divine nature is simple, and (3) that there is only one will in God that is somehow shared amongst the divine persons. I argue that the eternal relations of origin entail a contradiction with at least one of these three listed propositions, depending on whether one locates them in the divine nature or the divine volition. If the relations of origin are located in the divine nature, then the Son and Spirit are heteroousios with the Father. If they are located in the divine volition, then this would entail that (1) there are three wills in God, and (2) that God has potential and is not simple. If my argument holds, then those desiring to maintain the eternal relations of origin in their doctrine of the Trinity will have some choices to make: they can affirm that the Father is heteroousios with the Son and Spirit, thus rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity altogether, or they can affirm some version of social trinitarianism and deny accounts of divine simplicity that understand God as actus purus.