Excerpts taken from Beau Branson’s dissertation
Gregory of Nyssa argues that the word God (Theos) primarily expresses an activity rather than simply an identity. He compares it to words like “king” or “president”—titles that imply a role or function rather than just a state of being. Similarly, being God is about engaging in divine activity, such as ruling or governing:
And a proof of this [that “God” does not signify the divine nature] is that many even of the inferior existences are called by this very name. Further, the Divine Scripture is not sparing in this use of the name even in the case of things incongruous, as when it names idols by the appellation of “God.”
Thus, Gregory makes it quite clear here that, in his view, “God” is in no way a special term for predicating the divine ousia, since it can be applied to obviously non-divine beings. Rather, this is a claim he attributes to his opponents as well as the majority.
For Gregory, natures (or ousiai) are individuated (made distinct) by their energies (Grk. ἐνέργειαι (energeiai), Ltn. Operatio) and that the Spirit shares all the same energeiai as the Father and Son, so that He must have the same nature anyway. Thus, he says, even if “God” did signify the divine nature (which for him it doesn’t), it would still follow that “God” can be predicated of the Holy Spirit (the main question under discussion in Ad Eustathium).
So “God” in the singular for Gregory is not the unity of nature at all, but the unity of activity, and why these two kinds of unity turn out to be importantly different for the purposes of defending the doctrine of the Trinity today. For now, though, we’ve seen that for Gregory “God” is not a kind term, but an agent noun (An agent noun is a noun that refers to a person or thing that performs an action, typically formed from a verb. For example, “teacher” (from “teach”) or “runner” (from “run”). Thus, although Gregory can and does enter into debates that assume “God” is a kind term like “man,” his actual view is that it is more like “rhetorician” or “shoemaker” (agent nouns).
3 “Gods”?
For Gregory it is indeed the unity of activity (not of nature) that makes it importantly misleading (and in fact, on his view, false) to speak of “three Gods,” in a way such that it would at least not be misleading to speak of “three men” or three “three shoemakers,” and indeed possibly even true to say there are “three shoemakers” in the relevant cases. This is also what allows Gregory, in fact, to admit that the metaphysics of the Trinity is not strictly analogous to the metaphysics of humans and other creatures after all – contrary to how he has typically been read. That is, as we will see, while men do have the same kind of unity of nature as the Trinity, it would simply be impossible for there to be three men who have the sort of unity of activity the Trinity has, though if per impossibile such a state of affairs came about, it would be, on Gregory’s view, false, and as I will argue also certainly misleading, to speak of the three men as three shoemakers instead of one shoemaker.
St. Novatian says
And His divinity is thus declared, that it may not appear by any dissonance or inequality of divinity to have caused two Gods.
(Trin. Ch.30)
According to Gregory, the Father is the source of these divine activities, but he shares them with the Son and the Spirit. All three persons of the Trinity participate in the same divine actions, which aligns with biblical teaching. One of the key arguments against the Eunomians was this: they were challenged to find any action in Scripture that is attributed to God the Father but not also to the Son. The same applied to the Holy Spirit. This was a crucial way they defended the divinity of the Holy Spirit—by showing that everything the Father does, the Son and Spirit do as well.
Jesus himself affirms this when he says, “Whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise.” (John 5:19). If being God means ruling, then the Son rules too. If it means creating, then the Son also creates. If it implies authority over heaven and earth, then that authority belongs to the Son as well.
For Gregory, this was the primary biblical meaning of the term “God”—not just a title, but a reality defined by divine action, which is fully shared among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Granted obviously the Incarnation which is itself is a hypostatic property, everything done by virtue of essence, is done all simultaneously and indivisibly hence why there is one God, if of course “God” here means whatever energy/activity imposed.
When we share an activity, like co-authoring a paper, what usually happens is that we break the task down into smaller parts. For instance, you might write one paragraph, and I’ll write another. So, while we’re technically working together, the activity itself is split into individual pieces that each of us does separately. This process highlights how sharing an activity often means dividing it into distinct parts, and each person performs their own section independently. Now, consider something like the actions of the Trinity. What makes me “me” and you “you” are the ways we are connected to space and time. For example, when I write a paragraph, it happens at a specific time and place, separate from where and when you write yours. But with the Trinity, their actions are not separated by time and space in the same way. For example, in an event like the creation of the universe, all three persons of the Trinity—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—are involved at the same time and place, but there is no distinction between their actions. They are all working together without division, sharing the task completely. This is different from our experience, where time and space separate our activities. However, the persons of the Trinity are outside of time and space, meaning their activities are never divided or individuated by those factors. The only thing that differentiates them is their relational roles—the Father, Son, and Spirit relate to each other in different ways, but their essence, actions, and nature remain fully united. In contrast, our shared activities are always divided by time and space, but in the case of the Trinity, their unity transcends these limitations. The Father, Son, and Spirit work together in perfect harmony, with no division in their actions, nature, or will.
Analogy:
- Imagine two painters, Alice and Bob, each with their own brushes and canvases. Normally, when they paint separately—even if working on the same mural—there are two painters, and two distinct sets of actions. Alice’s brush strokes happen in one spot and time, Bob’s in another. Now, imagine a fantastical scenario where Alice and Bob somehow merge completely—not just side by side, but fully converge so that there is no distinction between their bodies, minds, or movements. Their hands move as one; their brush strokes perfectly overlap and blend seamlessly on the same canvas at the exact same moment. In this impossible fusion, there is no way to separate who painted which stroke, or even to say there were two painters. The painting is the work of one single action performed by this merged entity. In this case, despite the fact that Alice and Bob are originally two distinct persons, their fully converged action can only be described as one painter’s work, not two. This stresses that when two “persons” are truly united in action and substance without division—like the persons of the Trinity—the action is not doubled or divided. It is a singular, unified activity, not two separate ones.