CHAPTER 30

T H E T R I N I T Y , C R E A T I O N , AND
CHRISTIAN ANTHROPOLOGY
RI S T O S A A R I N E N

T h e relationship between the Trinity and creation belongs to the broader dogmatic

framework o f Gods interaction with the world. The following discussion focuses on the
ological anthropology, leaving out other important issues regarding the broader frame
work, for instance, the nature o f revelation, divine attributes, and theological ontology.
First, some traditional views of the human being as an image o f God are outlined. Then
the analogical relationships between the triune God and creation are discussed, focusing
on the problem of avoiding anthropomorphism. In the third section some contemporary
accounts are evaluated from the perspective o f Trinitarian anthropology.

Im age

and

Lik en ess

The creation o f human beings to the image and likeness (Gen. 1:26) of God has, since
patristic times, prompted theological discussion on the relationship between God and
human beings. Although sin has, according to Catholic doctrine, deformed the divine
likeness of humans, Christian anthropology states that the basic theological definition
o f human being as an image o f God has not been completely destroyed by sin. Even
when it is maintained that the divine image in us is lost due to sin, the authors normally
also presume that some other level or aspect o f this being an image is preserved
(Gaudium et spes no. 22; Crouzel 1980). Therefore, created human beings continue to
reflect aspects of their Creator and they continue to have the dignity of being a person.
But this doctrine does not necessarily imply that the image o f God in the human being is
recognized as a Trinitarian image. Some theologians, most notably Augustine (1991),
develop a psychological Trinitarian imagery, whereas others, for instance, the authors of
The Catechism o f the Catholic Church (356-68,370), discuss the normative doctrine of
image without Trinitarian differentiation, noting that in no way is God a mans image.

C R E A T I O N AND A N T H R O P O L O G Y

415

Eastern theology in particular attempts to define the relationship between God and
created human nature through employing a consistent distinction between image and
likeness. In terms of this distinction, our being an image reflects our human nature,
whereas the attribute o f likeness refers to a category o f perfection which is accomplished
by grace or other supernatural reality. This distinction is present already in Irenaeus,
Clemens o f Alexandria, and Origen. In Greek theology it is often connected with the
dynamics of deification, in which the likeness to God grows gradually in the process of
salvation. In Christian initiation and subsequent progress o f Christian life, human
nature as image is thus complemented with the increasing presence o f divine likeness.
The goal o f salvific process, theosis or deification, thus comprises the Christians being as
both image and perfect likeness. Likeness does not mean, however, identity with God
(Crouzel 1980; Saarinen 2002; Christensen and Wittung 2007).
Although western theology sometimes employs the distinction between image and
likeness (similitude>) and can affirm the ideal o f theosis, it does not normally focus on
this distinction as a major theme of Christian progress and salvation. This historical
observation has provoked debate regarding the different relationship between God and
creation in eastern and western theology. It has been suggested that while the eastern
theology operates with the concept o f Platonic participation in God, the western theol
ogy prefers to speak o f God s interaction with the world in terms of efficient causality
(Hallonsten 2007:286). This might, however, be an oversimplification, as the individual
Church Fathers in East and West apply the ideas o f causation and participation in differ
ent and complementary ways.
At the same time it is heuristically fruitful to treat the eastern and western discussions
separately. The western discussion normally presupposes a fundamental difference
between God and creation; this fundamental difference is not overcome by means o f
participation and Christian progress, but the concept of analogy as well as elaborate lin
guistic reflections are needed in order to formulate Gods interaction with creation.
Although the final goal and fulfilment o f this interaction may also in the West be con
ceived as a participation in God, the elaboration o f this fundamental difference employs
technical vocabularies which stem from the western institutions o f rational learning and
education.
Augustines discussion o f the so-called psychological Trinity in books V III-X V of
his De Trinitate (1991) exemplifies this intellectual tendency o f western theology. As it
is treated in more detail elsewhere in this volume, we outline it only in so far as it is
relevant for our theme. Because this discussion also appears, in a somewhat abridged
and modified fashion, in Peter Lombards Sentences (Peter Lombard 1971: Bk. 1, dist. 3,
ch. 2), for centuries it had a formative significance for the Latin reflection on Christian
anthropology. In Book V III, Augustine establishes an ontological link between God
and human self with the concepts o f goodness and truth. The highest level o f human
inner self, the mind (mens), contains an image o f the Trinity. When the human mind
knows itself and loves itself, a triad o f mind, self-knowledge and self-love emerges in
which the three constituents are coequal, mutually related but unconfused.

416

R I S T O SA A R IN E N

This triad does not refer to the different faculties o f the human soul in its totality, but
the mind also contains lower cognitive and affective functions. Augustine further
teaches that when the mind does not consider itself, but another, it becomes memory.
Likewise, the concepts of understanding and will are so called with reference to another
(Augustine, De Trinitate X.11.18). Given this, there are two Trinitarian images in the
human mind: while the mind as created and the natural image of God remembers,
understands, and loves itself, the final and perfect image of God consists in the minds
remembering, understanding, and loving another, namely God. The emergence of this
final image is a lifelong process o f grace working in humans. When Augustine describes
this final perfection he refers to Gen. 1:26 and 1 Jn 3:2: We shall be like him because we
shall see him as he is (Augustine, De Trinitate XIV.12.15 and XIV.19.25). After this conclu
sion, however, Augustine warns in Book X V that the mental image of the Trinity remains
enigmatic and mysterious; its dissimilarity and unlikeness to the original should also be
remembered.

Augustines elaboration of the psychological Trinity reveals an intellectual striving for

theological understanding. God is fundamentally different from creation, but a thor
ough analysis of the inner structure of the hum an m ind reveals Trinitarian structures.
The end result of this analysis is not, however, radically different from Greek theology, as
Augustine also sees the perfection to consist in a participation in God and in increasing
likeness to God. In this process of growing participation, the mental image turns away
from itself and begins to remember, understand, and love God. On the one hand,
Augustine conceives this process as knowing, recognizing, and seeing, either from a
m irror or face to face. But it is also a process of restoration, growing conformity to God,
and receiving of divine gifts. The intellectual emphasis does not rule out the ontological
process but rather supports and illuminates it. The emerging super-image is likeness
to the Trinitarian God.
Although the mental image cannot be used for the closer explanation of Trinitarian
persons, Augustines psychological Trinity in many ways focuses on the primacy of per
sons. As m em ory and m ind, the first person is the source of everything else; as knowl
edge and understanding, the second person is born from the first; as love, the third
person connects the first with the second, enabling coherent external action. As the
three instances are not faculties but simply represent the m ind in its different activities,
the essence or nature of the m ind is not to be discussed apart from its three
representations.
The relationship between essence and persons was discussed in the fourth Lateran
Council (1215) in which Joachim de Fiores view was condemned. This condemnation
formulates some classical principles regarding the similarity between the Creator and
creation, reiterating the cautions expressed by Augustine in Book X V o f De Trinitate.
Joachim opposed Peter Lombards view, according to which the divine essence neither
generates nor is generated nor proceeds, being thus distinct from all three persons.
For Joachim, Lombards view adds a fourth agent into divinity. The council confirmed
Peter Lom bards teaching, concluding that the divine nature is not a fourth agent but

C R E A T IO N AND A N T H R O P O L O G Y

417

the three persons together and each one o f them separately (Tanner and Alberigo
1990:231-2).
This decision is important already in itself, since it contributes to the alleged western
development in which the unity o f divine nature in some sense precedes the Trinitarian
persons (Hennessy 2007). For our topic, the condemnation o f Joachim is also significant
for other reasons. Joachim had argued that the ecumenical prayer o f Jesus in Jn 17:22,
that they may be one, as we are one, denies the postulate o f additional essence. If the
Father and the Son are one in the same sense as the faithful are one, then the unity at
stake here is one among persons. It cannot be understoodin the sense o f a single reality
which is common to all.
The council, however, decided that Jn 17:22 should not be read in this manner. The
faithful constitute a union o f love in grace, whereas the Father and the Son form a
unity o f identity in nature. In this manner the analogy from God to created reality is
no strict correspondence: the divine unity of persons is significantly different from
the ecclesiastical unity in the created reality. To point this out, the council formulates
its famous hermeneutical rule: For between creator and creature there can be noted
no likeness (similitudo) so great that a greater dissimilarity (dissimilitude>) cannot be
seen between them.
The decisions of 1215 have been contested from various angles. M artin Luther, for
instance, claimed that one should affirm the sentence the essence generates in order
to avoid the problematic separation of essence from persons (Helmer 19 9 9 :10 7-113).
Although the condemnation does not address Augustines psychological Trinity, it can
also be argued that the hermeneutical rule weakens Augustines argument in De
Trinitate. A third angle concerns the general relationship between G od and creation.
If even Trinitarian analogies stated in a biblical text need to be read with a view to the
dissimilarity rather than likeness, then most attempts to argue that a created structure
reflects Trinitarian realities are to be regarded with suspicion. At the same time, the
likeness between Creator and created reason postulated in the decisions o f 1215
remains a real analogy, as Benedict X V I emphasizes in his recent Regensburg lecture
(Benedict XV I: 2006).
The Council o f Florence (1441) continued to emphasize the priority o f divine
essence, saying that in God and divine persons everything is one where the differ
ence o f a relation does not prevent this (Tanner and Alberigo 1990: 570-1). Given
this unity, the possibility to establish created Trinitarian analogies on the basis o f
divine persons becomes more difficult. M edieval Trinitarian theology is character
ized by the scholastic attempts to formulate specific rules o f Trinitarian speech. These
rules often focus on the differences between Trinitarian speech and ordinary,
Aristotelian syllogistics (Karkkainen 2007). The uniqueness o f the Trinity is thus
emphasized, while analogies with creation are downgraded. The nature o f Trinitarian
language and its ability to shed light on the divine mystery has, however, remained
a vital discussion topic o f western dogmatics. In contemporary discussions this
has again become a topic o f interest between eastern and western Trinitarian
theologians.