fireandrose.blogspot.

com

Bulgakov on the Holy Spirit

This essay is a longer version of my official contribution to the 2008 Bulgakov Blog Conference,
hosted by D. W. McClain at The Land of Unlikeness.
I must begin by confessing up front that I am wholly unqualified for this task. I am
knowledgeable neither in Russian Orthodox theology nor in pneumatology. Furthermore, I
approach theology as a modern, Western, Barthian Protestantattributes which predispose me to
find the work of Sergius Bulgakov quite alien in nature. Due to limitations in time and ability, I
have limited my focus to the second volume in Bulgakovs great trilogy on Divine-humanity,
The Comforter. In this volume, Bulgakov builds on the account of Divine-humanity and Sophia
that he explores in more detail in The Lamb of God (christology) and The Bride of the Lamb
(ecclesiology and eschatology), the first and third volumes in the trilogy, respectively. My
treatment of Bulgakovs pneumatology will proceed in the following way: first, I will comment
briefly on his doctrine of the Trinity; second, I will explore (a) the procession and (b) the
revelation of the Spirit in Bulgakovs pneumatology; and, finally, I will conclude with some
critical reflections and questions for further engagement.
1. Bulgakovs Doctrine of the Trinity
Bulgakovs doctrine of the Trinity appears in The Comforter after he examines the various
attempts by the church fathers to locate the Third Hypostasis in the triune life of God. What he
finds in this historical survey are a lot of theological errors, including different forms of
subordinationism and impersonalism. Most importantly, he states that there is no dogma of the
Holy Spirit anywhere, and the dogmatic creativity of the epoch of the ecumenical councils was
never applied to developing a doctrine of the Holy Spirit (40). He gives the most praise to the
Cappadocians with the caveat that their doctrine of the Trinity remains unfinished in the sense
that its result is three united in one nature, not a triunity (32). He acknowledges Augustine as
the father of the Western trinitarian tradition, where, unlike the Cappadocians, the point of
departure is not the trinity of the hypostases . . . but the unity of the ousia (41). He concludes his
survey by looking at John of Damascus, who systematizes the achievements and errors of the
past while introducing new problems of his own. The important development in the Damascene
is that he introduces the concept of causality into the doctrine of the Fathers monarchy. This will
have important ramifications for the filioque debate, as I will show below.
In light of this historical overview, Bulgakov constructs a nuanced and highly technical doctrine
of the trinitarity of God: the Holy Trinity is not three, but a triunity; and It is not a series but an
enclosed whole, which has the fullness of Its being, Its power, precisely in trinitarity (54). And
so he speaks of Trinity-Unity or unifiedness in Trinity (53). Bulgakov elaborates upon this
starting-point by rejecting the notion that God is either a self-enclosed, singular I or a
tritheistic community or harmony of three Is. Both of these options emphasize one or three at
the expense of understanding God as unity-trinity and trinity-unity (55). Within the
immanent Trinity, God is simultaneously I, thou, he, and therefore we and you, with the

observation that only they is excluded as an abstraction from I (ibid.). Bulgakov thus walks a
very fine line; his entire theology is characterized by the greatest subtlety. The moment you feel
confident pegging him as this or that, he immediately offers a clarification which shatters your
hasty judgment. For example, the statement that in the one absolute I there exist three Is, as
fully equal centers of I, seems to place him squarely in the social trinitarian camp. But he rejects
the view that this is a community of Is, and even says that in the Holy Trinity there is the total
identity of personal self-consciousness: one is three and three are one, hetero-personally and unipersonally (ibid.). He strongly emphasizes that the Trinity is one Divine I, the Absolute
Subject, whom we address as one person, yet who is also three Persons (ibid.). Of course,
only a couple paragraphs later, he speaks of both three hypostatic subjects and the
trihypostatic subject (56).
What appear to be contradictory statements juxtaposed together is precisely the brilliance of
Bulgakovs doctrine of the Trinity: he deftly moves from emphasizing unity to emphasizing
trinity and then back again, always aware of the inadequacy of human language while seeking to
do theological justice to the mystery of Gods triune being. He eventually articulates his
trinitarian axiom:
The Holy Trinity is a divine triunity which is exhaustive and perfect in Its fullness, a triunity of
interrelations which is trine and integral in all Its definitions, without any disjunctive or
conjunctive and connecting the separate hypostases. Every hypostasis in separation, as well as
their triunity, must be understood in trine connection and in trine self-definition, which form the
Whole, the Holy Trinity. (57)
The significance of this axiom will become clearer after outlining his discussion of the
procession of the Spirit. Briefly, here, it is worth noting that God is not Father and Son and Holy
Spirit, but Father-Son-Holy Spirit. Whereas the patristic tradition tended to view the Spirit as a
kind of theological addendum, an etc. or and so on (56), Bulgakov seeks to define each
person of the Trinity in concrete relationship with the other two persons. We will see now how
this takes shape in his doctrine of the Spirits procession.
2. Bulgakovs Pneumatology
2.1. The Procession of the Spirit
Bulgakovs treatment of the Spirits procession is really a book within a book: he does both
historical and systematic theology within this particular subsection, which is worth the price of
the book alone. He frames the problem of the filioque in the following way: the patristic tradition
made the mistake of interpreting generation and procession as two forms of origination from
the Father, and then interpreting Fatherhood as causality (cf. 58). In this thesis, he also
anticipates his solution: remove all aspects of origination and causality from the trinitarian
relations. But I am getting ahead of myself, so lets back up briefly to explore this in more detail.
In the early patristic literature, two variations on the procession of the Spirit coexist: the Eastern
dia (through) and the Western que (and). The former states that the Spirit precedes from the
Father through the Son, while the latter says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

While distinct, these two were not mutually exclusive; there was no ecumenical dogma either
way. John of Damascus, as mentioned earlier, introduced causality into the mix, and this is
presupposed in the work of those who follow. The pivotal change then occurred with Patriarch
Photius in the ninth century. In his anti-Latin treatises, he made the two patristic options
mutually exclusive, with the addition of causality: the Spirit originates either from the Father
alone or from the Father and the Son. The latter is theologically bankrupt, according to Photius,
because it introduces two principles into the procession, and this violates the fundamental
doctrine of the Fathers monarchy. This position had the effect of determining the rest of the
debate. From that point on, one was either Photian or anti-Photian. Bulgakov then summarizes
the Western anti-Photian doctrine of the filioque in four theses (121-22): (1) in the procession of
the Spirit, the Father and the Son act as one principle, not as two; (2) the procession is the
origination of the Holy Spirit in which the Spirit receives essence and substantial being; (3)
in the generation of the Son, the Father gives the Son the capacity of giving essence and
substantial being to the Spirit in procession; and (4) the being of the Holy Trinity is grounded in
the pre-hypostatic divine principle of divinitas, and thus the difference between the hypostases
is solely determined by the opposition of relations (according to origin). That is, the three
hypostases are distinguished by virtue of their ontic relationship with each other according to
origination.
Bulgakov criticizes the Latin position on several levels, which I will briefly summarize. The
basic charge involves impersonalism and subordinationism. The impersonalism is rooted in the
fact that the three persons of the Trinity are co-divine because they ontologically share in the
impersonal and pre-personal Divinitas (123). The relationally distinct persons appear in the
capacity of accidents, although substantial onesi.e., to be Father is to have the ontic
accident of fatherhood added to the essence of divinitas. Ontologically priority thus belongs to
divinitas. In this accidental differentiation between the persons, we have an ontological
subordinationism, since the origination of the hypostases involves a decreasing progression of
Divinity: the Father = the fullness of the nature, Deitas; the Son = Deitas minus the power to
generate; the Holy Spirit = Deitas minus the power to generate and the power to originate by
procession (124). Furthermore, in this origination, the triunity of the Holy Trinity is destroyed,
and the Holy Trinity is sundered into two dyads (ibid.). Photius made the great mistake of
creating two dyads in the Trinity by asserting that the Son and the Holy Spirit originate from the
Father alone, creating the dyads Father-Son and Father-Holy Spirit. The Latin response, stated
in the first thesis, was merely a variation on the Photian error, so that the two dyads now are
Father-Son and Father-and-Son Holy Spirit. Photianism and anti-Photianism are completely
equivalent in nature (138). To summarize, Bulgakov argues that the fundamental defect in the
filioque doctrine is that it considers the hypostases as relations, and in particular relations of
origination by opposition; the hypostases ontologically originate thanks to differences in one
Divinity (127).
Bulgakovs response to the filioque doctrine is crafted with caresiding with the East, but free
from the polemics that so often characterizes this debate. Against impersonalism, Bulgakov
argues that the being of God is totally hypostatize[d] (140). The being of God is hypostatic all
the way down. God simply is Father-Son-Holy Spirit. More importantly, against ontological
subordinationism, Bulgakov argues that the hypostases do not have any origin, nor are the
hypostases constituted by their intra-trinitarian relations, as the West argues (e.g., the Father is

fatherhood, etc.). Neither generation nor procession is origination, for the latter is not known by
the equi-eternal, equi-divine, co-beginningless hypostases (128). In other words, God does not
originate; God just is from all eternity. Bulgakov acknowledges that the West affirms such
statements, but he argues that origination is logically inconsistent with a definition of the Trinity
as equi-eternal and equi-divine. Origination finally undermines the doctrine of divine
trihypostatic aseity (138). According to Bulgakov, then, generation and procession are not two
originations but two images of love between the triune persons (136). The monarchy of the
Father remains, though the Father is the source not of being but of the revelation which is
accomplished in the revealing dyad of Son and Spirit (137).
The central rebuttal to the Latin filioque involves recognizing that each hypostasis is defined in
relation to the other two hypostases. Each hypostasis is conditioned by the other two. This leads
to Bulgakovs general thesis, which is a kind of axiom concerning the Holy Trinity:
The three hypostases, in their character, are not single and not double, but trine. They must be
understood not on the basis of themselves alone, but on the basis of their trinitarian union; they
are defined and shine not only with their own light, but also with the light reflected from the
other hypostases. It follows that all three hypostases must be understood in a distinctly personal
as well as trinitarian manner; and any doctrine that transforms the Holy Trinity into a system of
originations and dyads is fundamentally deficient. (141)
What is key about this definition is that he can affirm what most people mean when they refer to
the filioque: viz., that the procession of the Spirit involves the necessary presence or
participation of the Son (142). The difference is that he extends this necessary presence or
participation to each of the other persons in the Holy Trinity. The relation between the
Engendering One (Father) and the Engendered One (Son) involves the mutual love that is the
Holy Spirit, Who not only reposes upon the Son but also passes through the Son (ibid.). The
Spirit is the unifying love between Father and Son, as Augustine affirmed. The Father is
therefore defined by generation and spiration, Son and Spirit; the Son is defined by the
engendering of the Father and the reposing and passing through of the Spirit; and the Spirit is
defined by the procession from the Father and the presence of the Son for whom the Spirit is a
transparent medium (67; cf. 70). The Spirit proceeds from the Father toward the Son, upon
the Son, in relation to the Son, but also from the Son, through the Son toward the Father
(181).
To conclude this summary of Bulgakovs assessment of the filioque, we have to note his
ecumenical proposals at the end. First, he lays more of the blame on the Western church for (1)
constructing a pointless dogmatic edifice to support their erroneous theologoumenon and then (2)
stamping the whole affair with the seal of papal infallibility (144). Second, he insists upon a
key ecumenical axiom: there does not yet exist a definitive dogma of the procession of the Holy
Spirit, either with regard to the meaning of the procession or with regard to its mode (145).
Third, he says, rather surprisingly, that in and of itself, the Filioque is not a heresy (ibid.) and
thus does not constitute an obstacle to church unity. Fourth, as long as we jettison any notion of
origination from the doctrine of the Trinity, then the various formulas used to describe the
procession of the Holy Spirit can and must be understood . . . not as mutually contradictory or
mutually exclusive expressions but as equivalent in some sense (146). Each formula describes

the Trinity from different points, while still referring to one and the same Divine being
(ibid.). Fifth, and finally, the Western and Eastern churches do not differ in their veneration of
the Holy Spirit, and what separated the churches was really a schismatic spirit, not a dogmatic
or living heresy (148-49). It is thus high time, according to Bulgakov, to reconsider
pneumatology and the unacceptable split within the communion of the church.
2.2. The Revelation of the Spirit
Bulgakovs doctrine of the Trinity includes a sharp distinction between the immanent and
economic Trinity. He distinguishes between the supra-eternal life of the Holy Trinity in Itself
from Its trihypostatic revelation in creation (53). As we turn to look at the work of the Spirit ad
extra, however, it is necessary to flesh out the relation between immanent and economic as that
distinction takes shape in the relation between the Divine Sophia and the creaturely Sophia.
Bulgakovs sophiology is a key aspect of his theology, one that has been addressed elsewhere in
this series. Here I will provide a brief summary for the sake of clarifying the revelatory role of
the Holy Spirit.
According to Bulgakov, divine self-revelation occurs both within the immanent Trinity in pretemporal eternity and in the economic activity of God in relation to creation. The immanent selfrevelation of God is the Divine Sophia, while the economic self-revelation of God is the
creaturely Sophia. The Divine Sophia is not a fourth hypostasis but rather the life of God in the
activity of divine self-revelation ad intra; similarly, the creaturely Sophia is not a second thing
alongside the world but rather the life of the cosmos in the divine activity ad extra which
sustains the worlds participation in the divine life.[1]
In both dimensions of revelation, the Father is the monarchical source or principle, while this
revelation is actualized as the bi-unity of two hypostases: the Word uttered by the Father, upon
which reposes the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father (177). While Son and Spirit are
necessary to reveal the Father, the doctrine of the Fathers monarchy means that the Divine
Sophia belongs to the Father, or rather, the Father is Sophia (366). Having said that, it is key
to Bulgakovs theology that the work of revelation requires both Son and Spirit; and that means
the Spirit has an indispensable role to play in the divine life. The Holy Spirit is the Life of the
Father and of the Son (64), the hypostatic Joy of the Godhead (66). In short, the Third
Hypostasis completes the self-revelation of the Divine (65). This has important implications for
Gods work ad extra, as we shall see below. Finally, despite a sharp distinction between the
immanent and economic Trinitysuch that Bulgakov repeatedly rejects applying the language of
becoming or history to Godthe Divine Sophia is not alien to the creaturely Sophia. In fact,
Bulgakov can say that the Divine Sophia is the eternal Humanity, the heavenly proto-image of
creaturely humanity (186). This leads us, then, to the creaturely Sophia.
According to Bulgakov, the created world is established in being by God . . . in the Divine
Sophia, as her creaturely image, or the creaturely Sophia. In creation there is nothing that does
not belong to Sophia (189). This statement has enormous consequences for the rest of his
theology, which I will attempt to elucidate here. First, there is no independent act of creation, no
second act of divine self-revelation. The seeds or ideas of creation are already posited in Gods
self-revelation ad intra, in the Divine Sophia, and the being of the world develops from these

seeds by an act of divine will.[2] Creation is, in this sense, an eternal reality. One might even say,
to borrow a phrase from christology, that there was no time when creation was not. Second, the
being of the world (the creaturely Sophia) is grounded in the being of Father-Son-Holy Spirit
(the Divine Sophia), or perhaps more accurately, the creaturely Sophia is united with the Divine
Sophia according to the Chalcedonian pattern (without confusion, without separation), a
formula Bulgakov uses throughout this book. The unity of divinity and humanity in Christ
becomes the analogical template for all other unions, including the unity of God and creation. We
might even speak of an analogy of Sophia, as opposed to an analogy of being (the latter being far
too Latin and scholastic).[3] The important thing to note here is that Bulgakov openly endorses
panentheism, or what he calls a pious pantheism.[4]
The underlying key to Bulgakovs trinitarian sophiologywhat establishes the relationship
between Divine and creaturely Sophiais the Holy Spirit. As the life of God, the Holy Spirit is
the life of the world; as the one who completes the intra-trinitarian self-revelation, the Holy
Spirit is the one who completes the deification of creation. The Holy Spirit is the ontic
foundation of the world in a way that corresponds to the action of the Third Hypostasis in the
Divine Sophia (200). Just as the Spirit is the force of life and joy in the Divine Sophia, so too
the Spirit is the force of life and joy in the creaturely Sophia. The Holy Spirit sustains the being
of the world by bringing Gods self-revelation ad extra to completion. In the life of the Spirit,
creation participates in the sophianic being of God. Bulgakovs panentheism is thus rooted in his
pneumatocentric theology of creation, in which the Spirit is the power of life in both God and
creation as well as the bond of participation.
More specifically, the Spirits role in completing divine self-revelationboth ad intra and ad
extrainvolves the work of inspiration.[5] In the immanent Trinity, this means that [b]y the
Spirit the Father inspires Himself in His own Word, and this self-inspiration is divine life,
Beauty. . . . Divine life is an act of self-inspiration . . . in the Word through the Holy Spirit. . . . In
God, all things are actual and actualized in the Holy Spirit (184). The Holy Spirit actualizes the
Divine Sophia through the act of inspiration. The Holy Spirit carries on the same actualizing
work ad extra. The Spirit inspires the world by bringing forth beauty and inspires humanity
through the imprint of the image of God. The Holy Spirit, according to Bulgakov, is bestowed
upon the world in the creaturely Sophia, through the Divine Sophia (210). This means that, in
the creaturely Sophia, the Holy Spirit has implanted the force of life and inspiration as the
sophianic foundation of this being (213). The inspiring power of the Spirit becomes a natural
grace in the creation, bringing forth natural beauty but also human reason and creativity.
Bulgakov speaks of this work as kenotic in that the Spirit diminished Himself to becoming in
His revelation in the creaturely Sophia (220). The Fullness that is divine life receives
unfullness into itself by becoming the force of being and the giver of life in the world (ibid.).
Bulgakov goes on to examine the kenotic nature of divine self-revelation ad extra as it applies to
each of the three hypostases (219f). The Fathers relation to the world is kenotic in that the
Father remains outside of the creaturely Sophia; the Father stands at a kenotic distance. The
Sons work is kenotic because he diminished Himself to the human form of being, entering the
world and dying a human death in time and space. But the Holy Spirits kenotic work is the most
expansive, since the Spirits kenosis involves the whole of creation. The Spirit sustains the
participation of the creaturely Sophia in the Divine Sophia. Bulgakov states that insofar as the

world is still in process toward full deification, the relation of God to the world is a kenotic one.
The kenosis will end once the world is fully sanctified, i.e., made fully transparent to the deifying
power of the Spirit.
3. Concluding Reflections
Reading Bulgakovs pneumatology is like walking into rich and ornate cathedral: one is
immediately captured by the grandeur of its aesthetic beauty, but one easily gets lost in its wide
expanses. The nuances of the architecture are often disorienting, which is a feeling I had
repeatedly while reading The Comforter. And yet, no matter how grand Bulgakovs project may
be, it is necessary to point out some major points of theological disagreement. For the sake of
brevity and discussion, I will list only three.
First, while Bulgakov is quite traditional in having such a strict distinction between the
immanent and economic Trinity, he makes a very odd and disconcerting statement at the start of
his reflections on the economic Trinity. I will quote him at length:
The kenosis in creation of God Who is in the Holy Trinity signifies His self-diminution with
respect to His absoluteness. The absolute God, correlated with nothing but Himself, becomes
correlative with something outside Himself. That is, positing relative creaturely being, He enters
into a relation with the latter: the Absolute becomes God, and God is a relative concept: God is
such for another, for creation; whereas in itself the Absolute is not God. (219)
For a variety of reasons, this is a troubling statement. Bulgakov seems to posit a God behind
God, or rather, an Absolute behind God. One wishes to ask him where the concept of the
Absolute comes from. Is it postulated on the basis of revelation? Or is it a kind of apophatic
metaphysics posited in order to protect the divine being from anything relative and creaturely. At
the very least, one wishes to ask him just how he knows about this Absolute.
Second, Bulgakovs entire theology is non-christocentric, at least as that word defines the kind of
theology pursued by Western theologians like Karl Barth. Bulgakov is non-christocentric in two
key ways: (1) he rejects the christocentric method that begins and ends with Gods historical selfrevelation in Jesus of Nazareth; and (2) he rejects what he sees to be the ecclesial implications of
christocentrism, viz., that it provides the religio-psychological basis for the possibility of the
dogma of the pope as the vicar of Christ (132). The latter is less interesting to me as a
Protestant. The former, however, is more crucial. While it is clear that divine self-revelation is
absolutely central to his theology, his method (which is nowhere made clear) is rather speculative
in nature. He always begins by speaking about the immanent Trinity and the Divine Sophia, only
then to discuss how this holds true for Gods self-revelation in the world. While I personally
think his doctrine of the Trinity, and particularly his understanding of the intra-trinitarian
relations, is excellent and well worth adopting, at least in part, one notices right away the virtual
absence of biblical exegesis. Moreover, the history of Jesus Christ has almost no importance for
how he understands the being of God. His actualism is a distinctly metaphysical actualism: actus
purus, but not actus purus et singularis. As a result, there is a lack of concretion in his theology.
Gods relation to the creaturely world is a diminishment of Gods absoluteness, rather than the
proper location of Gods being. All of this, of course, is related to his panentheism and

affirmation of natural theology. One could very well summarize all of this by saying that
Bulgakov is an anti-apocalyptic theologian.
Third, Bulgakovs speculative doctrine of the Trinity results in a problematic soteriology. For
Bulgakov, as with Barth, revelation is reconciliation. And since revelation is accomplished in the
divine dyad of Son and Holy Spirit, it follows that it is the Holy Spirit Who completes the work
of salvation by His descent on the Pentecost, His abiding in the Church, and His accomplishment
of the Kingdom of God (72). Bulgakovs dyadic soteriology is assisted by the fact that
redemption is located in the incarnation, not in Christs death and resurrection. This is, of course,
a feature common to almost all Eastern theologians, going back to the church fathers. By
locating salvation in the incarnation, one sees that the Holy Spirit is essential to salvation, since
the church confesses that Mary conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. And so Bulgakov can
say that the Son is sent into the world by the Father through the Holy Spirit, just as at
Pentecost, the Holy Spirit is sent into the world through the Son (259). While such triune
interrelatedness is attractive, I have to take exception with the almost complete effacement of the
cross from Bulgakovs theology. One could say that he is more Johannine, whereas I (following
Barth and the Latin tradition) am more Pauline. While somewhat oversimplistic, this is a
distinction that is broadly true of the Eastern and Western churches. Whereas Cyril of Alexandria
turned to Johns Gospel, Augustine turned to Romans, and one could say that has made all the
difference. In any case, Bulgakovs soteriology is rooted in the participation of creation in the
Divine Sophia which is fulfilled by the Sons incarnation and the Spirits pentecostal descent
upon the world. What remains lacking is the apocalyptic and eschatological event of the new
creation that is actualized in Christs death and resurrection.
Other objections could certainly be raised. For example, the entire ontology undergirding the
doctrine of deification needs to be overthrown. Bulgakovs connection of Son-Christ-male and
Holy Spirit-Virgin Mary-female should be discarded for numerous reasons (cf. 187, 246-49).
And, finally, Bulgakovs entire sophiology needs to be subjected to serious theological criticism.
It is by no means clear to me that he has escaped the scholastic tendencies of the West. In many
ways, this treatise feels at least as scholastic and speculative as Latin theologies. The one clear
advantage is that Bulgakovs work is much more aesthetically pleasing and historically sensitive.
In the end, I would like to adopt much of what Bulgakov proposes in his doctrine of the
trinitarian relations. His work on the procession of the Holy Spirit is brilliant and deserves a wide
reading, particularly in any graduate course in theology. But I would leave behind most of what
he proposes in terms of the Trinitys relationship to the world, much of which is governed by his
pious pantheism. While Sergius Bulgakovs most important contributions to theology are
found in the other two volumes on Divine-humanity, his work on the Holy Spirit should not be
overlooked and may provide a key to understanding the rest of his theology.
David W. Congdon
Princeton Theological Seminary
Princeton, NJ

[1] See p. 195: We are saying that God the Father creates the world by and in Sophia, who is not
a hypostasis but a hypostatizedness; she is the objective principle of divine self-revelation and
life. Here we must remember that, since Sophia is hypostatized by the hypostases from all
eternity, she does not exist separately from them.
[2] To clarify matters, it is important to remember that Bulgakov here is attempting to explicate
the fact that only God the Father appears in the Genesis text. The Son and Holy Spirit do not
appear in their concrete hypostatic form; they are transparent or invisible in the act of creation.
But it is equally important to remember that the Father does not act as an individual hypostasis.
The Father always acts in and through the Son and the Holy Spiritthe Fathers hands, as the
church fathers put it (190). And so, if Son and Spirit are the agents of divine revelation, and if
this revelation occurred in pre-temporal eternity, then it follows that the creation of the world has
its basis in that eternal act of divine self-revelation. For this reason, Bulgakov states that the Son
and Holy Spirit
both participate in the creation sophianically, through their self-revelation in [Divine]
Sophia, . . . the divine world. Sophia is not a hypostasis, although, belonging to the hypostases,
she is hypostatized from all eternity. In herself, however, she is the objective principle of divine
being, by and in which God the Father not only reveals Himself in divine being but also creates
the world. (191; emphasis added)
By this, Bulgakov means that the immanent trinitarian act of self-revelation contained the
content for the creation of the world. Nothing was added to that eternal act in order to bring forth
the cosmos. Instead, the triune activity of Father-Son-Holy Spirit ad intra is then directed or
oriented ad extra. To make this clear, Bulgakov refers to the commands in Genesis 1, and then
says the following:
These are the words of the Word which are contained in the Divine Sophia and are called here to
creation in the creaturely Sophia, in the world. . . . [T]hey are spoken here not by the hypostatic
Word, Who seems to be mute here, in the creation of the world, although He speaks in the eternal
Sophia. They are spoken by the creative hypostasis of the Father, Who repeats, as it were, the
words of the Word already spoken eternally in Sophia. . . . God the Father, as the Creator, in
creation Himself speaks these words spoken from all eternity in the Son, transmitting them to
creation as commands. (191-92; emphasis added)
[3] Bulgakov declares that God creates the world by and in Sophia; and in its sophianic
foundation the world is divine, although it is at the same time extra-divine in its creaturely
aseity (200). The being of the world is grounded not directly in the being of God, but
specifically in the being-in-Sophia of God, the being of God in the act of divine self-revelation.
Bulgakov clearly affirms everything that worries those who reject the analogia entis, including
natural theology, a union of divinity and humanity, etc. But Bulgakov does not have an ontology;
instead, he has a sophiology. There is no substance or essence of God which defines what it is to
be divine. Rather, it is the Trinity in trihypostatic self-revelation which constitutes divinity. As

such, the cosmos is not grounded in an essence but in a divine act, namely, the trihypostatic act
of self-revelation. While this is a more complex and interesting proposal than the traditional
scholastic analogia entis, it fundamentally serves the same basic purpose, except that he finds
even more continuity between God and the world than do most theologians in the West.
[4] See pp. 199-200: This Spirit is the being that contains all things in itself, although it does
not add anything to this all from itself. This Spirit is the world in its extra-divine aseity. . . . This
Spirit is the natural energy of the world which can never be extinguished or interrupted in the
world, but always bears within itself the principle of the growth of creative activity. This Spirit is
our mother, the moist earth, out of which all things grow and into which all things return for
new life. This Spirit is the life of the vegetative and animal world after their kind. This Spirit is
the life of the human race in the image and likeness of God. This Spirit is that life-giving
principle which pious paganism, without knowing Him, worshipped as the Great Pan, as the
Mother of the gods, Isis and Gaia. . . . This Spirit is the world itself in all its beingon the
pathways from chaos to cosmos. But is this not a pantheism, an impious deification of the world,
leading to a kind of religious materialism? Yes, it is a pantheism, but an entirely pious one; or
more precisely, as I prefer to call it in order to avoid ambiguity, it is a panentheism.
[5] The Holy Spirit is also responsible for the work of sanctification, to which Bulgakov only
devotes a short amount of space. The distinction between sanctification and inspiration is
important, though. In sanctification we have a descent of the Holy Spirit and a communication
of His force to natural and spirit-bearing creation: the creaturely Sophia is united here with the
Divine Sophia, the Holy Spirit with the spirit of God in creation (221). The paradigmatic
instance of sanctification is the Eucharist, but it extends to all moments of creaturely deification.
In fact, deification is simply a form of sanctification. In both, creaturely matter becomes
transparent for the Spirit. This results in a communication of properties, even a
perichoresis, in which there is an inseparable and inconfusible unity of creaturely and divine
life. In other words, a divine-humanity is being realized here (221-22)! Bulgakov goes on to
distinguish between sanctification and inspiration in the following way: If sanctification is
proper to creaturely matter, then inspiration is proper to the human spirit and is a divine-human
act, a manifestation of eternal divine-humanity in creaturely divine-humanity (222).