Skip to content

“Subordinationism”

grammar-vaderIn the recent and ongoing series, I have been showing that famous early “fathers” are not, contrary to popular accounts, trinitarians at all, once we carefully define the term. They are unitarians, again, carefully defining the term.

But these recent comments by reader “Villanovanus” got me thinking.

He finds it outrageous that I call people like Irenaeus and Origen “unitarians,” even though I also call them “subordinationists.” Isn’t a subordinationist by definition a trinitarian? (When one reads the trinitarian authors of histories of theology, they are usually a little more modest, saying that these folks are sort of, kind of, maybe trinitarians, if not good ones, or fully developed ones, etc.)  Am I not grammatically challenged, or perversely unwilling to look up terms in a dictionary? If a “subordinationist” is by definition a trinitarian, then “subordinationist unitarian” is a contradiction in terms.

He cites a number of dictionary type definitions of “subordinationism”, e.g.

  • [subordinationism] the doctrine that the first person of the Holy Trinity is superior to the second, and the second superior to the third. (© Random House, Inc. 2013)
  • [subordinationism] either of two interpretations of the doctrine of the Trinity, often regarded as heretical, according to which the Son is subordinate to the Father or the Holy Ghost is subordinate to both (Collins English Dictionary – Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition 2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
    Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009)
  • [subordinationism] the theological tenet of progressively declining essence within the Trinity. (-Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc.)

The second definition is too narrow. But making “subordinationism” an interpretation of “the doctrine” it would rule out any 2nd c. theologians as being subordinationists – for in their day, there was no set doctrine – or rather set formulas – that needed interpreting. Those came into existence later.

That aside, the definitions are arguably roughly equivalent – they will count as “subordinationist” pretty much the same group of theories. They differ, though. I suggest that the core idea is that not all Persons are equally great. I think we can be more precise; I would define “subordinationism” as a theory which affirms that the Father is greater than the Son, or that affirms this, and also that Father (or Father and Son) are greater than the Spirit.

Objections?

Of course, that sort of theory is consistent with unitarianism. “Villanovanus” is jumping at the word “Trinity,” which he’s bolded in the quotations. But that word is vague. It has come to mean a triune god, a tripersonal god it some sense containing equal “persons.” But as I’ve been showing in the present series, in the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries, catholic theologians simply did not believe in such a thing. For them, “Trinity” meant this group: the one God (the Father), his Son, and his Spirit. In this sense – it is not thought to name a single entity at all – but only a plurality of (divine) entities. Even though, some of them would say, the “power” or “operation” of them is one (whatever that means!).

The problem is that these two usages “Trinity” exist side by side, causing quite a lot of confusion. Theologians enthuse that “the entire Bible is about the Trinity” – which is true, in this second sense – the whole Bible IS about one or more of: Father (the one God), his Son, and the Spirit of God. This is consistent with asserting: the Trinity (the tripersonal god) does not appear as such in the Bible, and is not, strictly speaking, taught there, though the catholic movement started to teach it later. But they shout the first, and whisper the second. Or sometimes they just shout the first. Unitarian Christians “believe in the Trinity” in the first sense, but not in the second sense.

I’m looking for a principled, consistent, non-polemical, illuminating classification of views that works for 2nd c. theories, 4th c. ones, 18th c. ones, or current ones.

Let’s see if my usage is as bizarre as Villanovanus thinks. Consider various scholarly contexts:

  • Samuel Clarke? Uncontroversially a unitarian. And uncontroversially a subordinationist, by any of the definitions above.
  • How about the so-called “Arians”? They are generally considered to not be trinitarians. And they are standardly considered to be subordinationists.

So far, so good.

  • Sometimes present day theories are regarded as “Arian” or having “subordinationist” tendencies – and what they mean pretty much the sort of thing any of the definitions above says. Sometimes these theories are considered to be sub-par trinitarian theories – trinitarian but not self-consistent (because the persons are not equally divine). Or at least: the theories are recognized as intended to be trinitarian, whether or not they really are. Any theory that posits “ontological” as opposed to “function” subordination of Son to Father is going to attract this sort of criticism.

In sum, I don’t see any problem here for my definitions – of “subordinatianism,” “Christian unitarian,” or “trinitarian.” It is not controversial to call Origen, etc. a “subordinationist.” But it shouldn’t be controversial to call him a “unitarian” either, given the definition of that term.

Am I using that term (“unitarian“) bizarrely?

  • Think about standard usage, e.g. when comparing religions. Judaism and Islam are described as believing in a “unipersonal” or unitarian god, in contrast to Christians who all (allegedly) believe in a “tripersonal” or “trinitarian” god.

My definition of “unitarian” captures this usage perfectly. Am I, clownishly, going against all previous usage?

Nope. I’m basically following but trying to improve the terminology and classifications of previous unitarian Christians. Like this guy. Or this one. Or this one (hailed in a dictionary of national biography is the “first unitarian minister in English” – he also accepted and used that label, by the way, and is also a subordinationist by any definition). Some of them use the name “Arian” for what I call “unitarian subordinationism.” But that’s an old and misleading polemical label that we were all better rid of, at least outside the 4th c. They would call “Socinian” views which I call “humanitarian unitarianism.”  Some of the above would call this last the “proper Unitarian” view, but without denying that these other views are unitarian, and not trinitarian. Again, the label “Socinian” can and does mislead – it is best reserved for people who really accept the substance of Socinus’ whole system of theology – which most later unitarians do not. And it too was born as a polemical label – a way to tar certain Christians with the name of a supposedly discredited, horrible heretic.

I will post another time on the ambiguity of “Trinity” – more needs to be said about that.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

26 thoughts on ““Subordinationism””

  1. Pingback: A Simple Guide to the Differences between Unitarianism and Trinitarianism | Defunct Creakings of a Cog

  2. In view of all this, would some kind person please tell me what churches and/or denominations I might visit where each side of this argument are represented. Thanks.

  3. Hi MdS

    Yes, that clears it up. ‘It’ is certainly a justified translation of AUTOS.

    I would add that those translations that consider the THEOS that the LOGOS is to be a literal THEOS rather than some sort of quality might, therefore, consider AUTOS to be a HE and not an IT. I say this as a possible reason for their choice, not to make an argument for or against it.

    Andy

  4. @ Andy [#21, March 16, 2013 at 7:34 am]

    According to Liddell & Scott AUTOS means ‘the same’ only when preceded by the article. In John 1:3 it isn’t, which brings into question the validity of your translation. The examples of AUTOS meaning ‘the same’ in BDAG likewise have the article preceding AUTOS.

    Your comment certainly warrants a clarification on my part, because my “literal” translation of John 1:3 was not impeccable. So, bear with me, step by step.

    1. This is the Greek (transliterated) text:

    panta di autou egeneto kai chôris autou egeneto oude en o gegonen

    2. This is a typical English translation (NET Bible, but they are all essentially the same):

    All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created.

    3. Now, the Greek autou, that appears twice, is the Genitive Singular Masculine form of the Pronoun autos, which clearly refers to logos. The ONLY reason why it is masculine is because logos is masculine. Now, in English, logos is normally translated with “word”, which is perfectly fine. BUT, in English, the word “word” is neuter, so the ONLY proper form of the pronoun should be it. Instead the standard English translation of autos, for the Prologue to the Gospel of John is him, which is clearly a biased and surreptitious way of hinting that the pre-incarnated logos is a “he”, a “person”.

    So, in conclusion, once the above has been clarified, the proper English literal translation of John 1:3 is the following:

    all [things] by means of the same it [the word] were created, and apart from the same it [the word] not one thing was created that has been created

    Hope all is clear, now. 🙂

    MdS

  5. MdS: “panta di autou egeneto kai chôris autou egeneto oude en o gegonen

    all by means of the same [logos] was created, and apart from the same [logos] not one thing was created that was created”

    According to Liddell & Scott AUTOS means ‘the same’ only when preceded by the article. In John 1:3 it isn’t, which brings into question the validity of your translation. The examples of AUTOS meaning ‘the same’ in BDAG likewise have the article preceding AUTOS.

    Maybe you have a different lexicon/grammar to me?

    Andy

  6. @ Dale

    [#18, March 15, 2013 at 8:15 pm]

    [a] I’m talking about belief in the Trinity, not use of the word “Trinity”.

    [b] “Too narrow” means that a definition excludes things which should not be excluded. e.g. defining “triangle” is a three-sided polygon with equal sides and equal angles. That’s too narrow because it rules out “right” triangles from being triangles.

    [c] I am interested in making sense of the transition from a unipersonal view of the one God to a tripersonal view. It won’t do just say “It was Greek philosophy!” Yes, that was involved, but much more needs to be said about how such a surprising and fundamental change occurred.

    [a] Ah, but the question is NOT nominalistic, because it is you who arbitrarily restrict (viz. make “too narrow”) the application of the word “Trinity”, by making essential to its definition the “co-eternity” and even the “co-equality”, which, obviously would artificially rule out subordinationism. A visible conjurer’s trick, yours …

    [b] A very interesting example. Pity that, by bringing it up, you have shot yourself in the foot, perhaps forgetting that my question to you was (and is), why would this definition …

    [subordinationism] either of two interpretations of the doctrine of the Trinity, often regarded as heretical, according to which the Son is subordinate to the Father or the Holy Ghost is subordinate to both (Collins English Dictionary – Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition 2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
    Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009)

    … be too narrow, unless you make the definition of “Trinity” too … narrow?

    [c] And that is precisely the point of my affirming that “[y]ou have simply failed to explain the whole dynamic of Christian dogma”. All you have managed to do, in “confronting” the Arian Controversy, is to speak of the Church becoming too “dogmatic”, or something. And, once again, you have failed to account for the watershed that Nicea was, with its homoousios and its ultimate consequence (the “trinity” as defined by the Cappadocian scoundrels), which was ONLY one of the possible outcomes.

    The other one would have been to reaffirm, with Irenaeus, that Logos and Pneuma are NOT two “persons”, “co-equal” and “coeternal” with the Father Almighty, BUT His two essential “hands”. Unfortunately this fully scriptural solution of the homoousios, in spite of the efforts of Marcellus of Ancyra, was never seriously considered, in fact it was (wrongly) dismissed as “Sabellianism”.

    [#19, March 15, 2013 at 8:21 pm]The reading he’s suggesting is that God’s eternal word, by which he created, is expressed in and through the man Jesus. Here’s an analogy I like. Suppose Jefferson had long dreamed of building a house. And the dream house became brick and mortar, wood and shingles.

    It’s an in-brick-ation. Not literally, of course – an idea can’t turn into a brick.

    First, who is “he”? Perhaps the author of the Prologue to the Gospel of John (John 1: 1-18)? If so, “he” does NOT “suggest” anything: he says something about the eternity of God’s Logos and THEN about its incarnation. The rest is interpretation, more or less plausible or prejudiced, informed or biased.

    For instance, that the Logos would be a “(personal) prehuman Son of God” that, somehow got shot from heaven into the womb of the BVM, is certainly not in the text, yet this is what Helez manifestly subscribes to …

    … yet you do not bat an eyelid to this scripturally unsupported claim, nor to its compatibility with your (peculiarly defined) “unitarianism” …

    … yet you seem to find no objection to the metaphysical (non)sense of this manifest “gnosis”.

    Enjoy …

    MdS

  7. “How can someone’s actual and literal word/logos/dabar turn into an autonomous human being? Such a concept seems, metaphysically, fully nonsensical to me.”

    I agree. The reading he’s suggesting is that God’s eternal word, by which he created, is expressed in and through the man Jesus. Here’s an analogy I like. Suppose Jefferson had long dreamed of building a house.

    http://www.monticello.org/

    And the dream house became brick and mortar, wood and shingles.

    It’s an in-brick-ation. Not literally, of course – an idea can’t turn into a brick.

  8. ” To affirm that the word “trinity” would not have been used before then, is manifestly false.”

    Indeed. But who thinks that? I’m talking about belief in the Trinity, not use of the word “Trinity”.

    “Too narrow” means that a definition excludes things which should not be excluded. e.g. defining “triangle” is a three-sided polygon with equal sides and equal angles. That’s too narrow because it rules out “right” triangles from being triangles.

    “You have simply failed to explain the whole dynamic of Christian dogma”

    Haven’t failed, because haven’t tried. 🙂 Not in this series, anyhow. I am interested in making sense of the transition from a unipersonal view of the one God to a tripersonal view. It won’t do just say “It was Greek philosophy!” Yes, that was involved, but much more needs to be said about how such a surprising and fundamental change occurred.

    “Perhaps one day the simple truth will dawn upon you”

    Let us hope.

  9. @ Helez [#16, March 15, 2013 at 10:30 am]

    [a] Once again, only bias and prejudice allows one to read in John 1:1-3 a “reference to the (personal) prehuman Son of God”. In particular, standard English translations of John 1:3 are misleading in conveying the impression of a “personal agent of creation”, whereas the literal translation of the Greek text …

    panta di autou egeneto kai chôris autou egeneto oude en o gegonen

    all by means of the same [logos] was created, and apart from the same [logos] not one thing was created that was created

    … ONLY speaks of a Logos that is instrumental in Creation.

    [b] I find it absolutely bizarre that for you “it is very difficult … to accept how the literal logos of God was, in the conception of Jesus, functionally equivalent to the male genetic patrimony”, yet you have no problem with a “(personal) prehuman Son of God” that would have been, somehow, shot from above in the womb of the BVM! Suit yourself!

    [c] It is NOT true that “the Word is described by John as an entity distinct from God”. In fact John 1:1-2 conveys, in spite of the difficulty of speaking of such unique thing, of the Word/Logos/Dabar that is intimately associated with God, so intimately as an arm (or a hand) would be with a human …

    As for all your Scriptural quotations, interestingly enough, the objections that can be raised are the same that Biblical Unitarians raise against the interpretation in a trinitarian sense of most of those “Common Verses” (see http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses).

    Which confirms my point: the real problem is with a personal interpretation of the pre-incarnated Word/Logos/Dabar.

    MdS

  10. Hi MdS,

    [a] That “the Word” in John 1:1-3 is a reference to the (personal) prehuman Son of God who was God’s agent in creating the world.

    [b] I think you cannot have it both ways. It seems to me something cannot be a true human with a real human body while also being an “incarnation” of something else at the same time. Especially if that “something” is not even a thing, but an attribute of someone else!

    So, yes, it is very difficult for me to accept how the literal logos of God was, in the conception of Jesus, functionally equivalent to the male genetic patrimony. After all, you are not arguing that God performed a miracle by using his logos (or something similar), you are arguing that the actual, literal logos of God itself incarnated. Right?

    [c] I agree, it is certainly an interesting topic. However, that someone’s literal word itself cannot turn into being an autonomous person should be pretty obvious to begin with, as such concept seems plainly nonsensical. Moroever, such reading is not in harmony with the rest of the inspired Scriptures. But, as the Word is described by John as an entity distinct from God, being with God, this is also not what John appears to convey.

    By the way, I object to your phrase “pre-existence projection” as acknowledging Jesus’ prehuman existence is plainly the most natural understanding of what Scriptures actually say. (While it requires a lot of gymnastics to explain these verses in harmony with a preconceived notion that doesn’t allow for Jesus’ prehuman existence.)

    The person known as Jesus, the “only-begotten god” (Joh 1:18, according to P75, P66, Alepf, B, C), whose “origin” is “from early/ancient times” (Mic 5:2)
    – is from the beginning (1Jo 2:13, 14)
    – was at the side of the Father before the world was (Joh 17:5)
    – was in existence before Abraham was born (Joh 8:58)
    – is the firstborn of all creation (Col 1:15)
    – is the beginning of the creation of God (Re 3:14)
    – is created by God as the beginning of his works (Pr 8:22)
    – is from the realms above (Joh 8:23)
    – was beside God as a master craftsman (Pr 8:30)
    – is the one through whom God made the world (Heb 1:1-2)
    – is the one through whom all things came into existence (Joh 1:3)
    – is the one through whom all things are (1Co 8:6)
    – is the one by means of whom all things were created in heaven and on earth (Col 1:16)
    – descended from heaven (Joh 3:13)
    – came down from heaven (Joh 6:38, 41)
    – emptied himself by taking on the form of a slave and came to be in the likeness of men (Php 2:7)
    – ascended to where he was before (Joh 6:62)

  11. @ Helez [#14, March 15, 2013 at 5:40 am]

    [a] What would be “something consistently made clear in other places in the Scriptures”? That the “pre-existing son” was somehow shot from above in the womb of the BVM? What?

    [b] Jesus was most certainly a true human with a real human body. BUT he was also unique (monogênes) in the way of his generation: the Logos of God was, in the conception of Jesus, somehow, functionally equivalent to the male genetic patrimony (logos spermatikos), while the BVM provided the female part. What is so difficult to accept about that?

    As for “incarnation”, once again, it is nothing but the latinization (from the Latin carocarnis, “flesh”, hence “enfleshment”) of the Greek expression sarx egeneto (John 1:14), “became flesh”. What is still unclear to you?

    [c] So you do believe, entirely on the basis of a “pre-existence” projection, that some imaginary “pre-existent son” was somehow shot from above in the womb of the BVM!

    And this, for you would make Jesus more … er … “human” than the notion of Incarnation (“enfleshment”, sarx egeneto, “became flesh”) of God’s Eternal Word, of which ONLY John 1:14 speaks …

    … interesting … 😉

    MdS

  12. MdS,

    [a] No, this is something consistently made clear in other places in the Scriptures (for those willing to accept the most natural reading of these scriptures), and Lu 1:35 in no way contradicts this.

    [b] So in your view Jesus was, not a true human with a real human body, but an incarnation?

    [c] I might as well say that you project your doctrine on 1Jo 1:1-4. It simply says that which was from the beginning with the Father is what the apostles have heard, seen, felt. etc. What was from the beginning? God’s Son, “the word of life”. John repeats this in 1Jo 2:14, saying that you have come to known him [Jesus] who is from the beginning.

    Peace.

  13. @ Christian Thinker [#10, March 14, 2013 at 9:01 am ]

    I am Christian who in his view of Godhead would identify to a large degree with the views of Samuel Clarke (thanks Dale, I hope and wish the Clarkian view will gain a traction in the years ahead). From time to time I visit this blog and other humanitarian Unitarian (hereafter HU) webs to better understand this position. Now here are several friendly questions that I am asking in order to better understand your position:

    [1] Is Holy Spirit numerically identical to God the Father or not?

    [2] Before Word became flesh, was God’s Word/Logos/Dabar numerically identical with God YHWH or not?

    [3] Who ate lunch with Abraham in Genesis 18:1 – 8?

    [4] Who stood in front of Abraham in Genesis 18:22?

    [5] Who or what is the Angel of the Lord in Exodus 23:20 – 21?

    [6] Who or what is standing there next to laying Samuel in 1 Samuel 3:10?

    [7] In Isaiah 63:9 – 10, who or what are the angel of Lord’s presence and His Spirit? Are they simply literary devices along line of “hands” to describe the activity of one personal God so that no personal agents are in view in any form what so ever?

    [1] The Holy spirit is NEITHER “numerically identical to God the Father” NOR a “distinct person”, BUT an essential power (Greek dynamis) (figuratively, a “hand” or “arm”) of the One and Only God, the Father Almighty.

    [2] See [1] above.

    [3] The LORD (His visible presence in human form), accompanied by two angels.

    [4] The LORD (His visible presence in human form), after the two accompanying angels had left.

    [5] The visible presence of the Lord (the “Angel of the Presence”), in the form of a pillar of smoke or fire. Very much like in Exodus 3.

    [6] The LORD (in His visible or perhaps only audible form).

    [7] They are NEITHER “simply literary devices” NOR “personal agents”. They are God’s real, essential powers, figuratively His “hands”.

    MdS

    P.S. Dale’s silence, after his OP is indeed deafening. But that’s quite usual … 😉

  14. @ Helez [Helez, #8, March 14, 2013 at 8:02 am]

    [a] How can someone’s actual and literal word/logos/dabar turn into an autonomous human being? Such a concept seems, metaphysically, fully nonsensical to me. [b] Furthermore, the Gospel of John doesn’t speak about “incarnation,” let alone “with crystal clarity.” There is no such thing. [c] The Word (in my view, a straight-out reference to the person later known as Jesus, compare Re 19:13, 1Jo 1:1) became flesh, i.e., his life was transferred from heaven to the womb of Mary.

    [a] Here is how:

    The angel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:35)

    Does the above say that the Word was some “pre-existing personal self”? Most certainly NOT. (You have to project it on the text …)

    [b] There sure is:

    Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. (John 1:14)

    In case you failed to realize it, incarnated (from the Latin caro, “flesh”), means exactly “became flesh”.

    [c] Rev 19:13 speaks of Jesus, the Incarnated Word of God (and Son of God, and Messiah of God), after his Resurrection and Ascension.

    1 John 1 (and, more in general, the Prologue to the First Epistle of John, 1 John 1:1-4) speaks of God’s “word of life” whose incarnation in/as Jesus the Apostles and disciples have witnessed.

    MdS

  15. Christian Thinker

    Ooops, the silence is deafening. Hopefully, there will finally appear some informed humanitarian Unitarian who will answer those straightforward questions.

    Best regards,
    Christian Thinker

  16. Christian Thinker

    (I have realized that it might be best to repost my questions to this thread now that very similar issues are being discussed here)

    Hello MdS,

    I am Christian who in his view of Godhead would identify to a large degree with the views of Samuel Clarke (thanks Dale, I hope and wish the Clarkian view will gain a traction in the years ahead). From time to time I visit this blog and other humanitarian Unitarian (hereafter HU) webs to better understand this position. Now here are several friendly questions that I am asking in order to better understand your position:

    Is Holy Spirit numerically identical to God the Father or not?

    Before Word became flesh, was God’s Word/Logos/Dabar numerically identical with God YHWH or not?

    Who ate lunch with Abraham in Genesis 18:1 – 8?

    Who stood in front of Abraham in Genesis 18:22?

    Who or what is the Angel of the Lord in Exodus 23:20 – 21?

    Who or what is standing there next to laying Samuel in 1. Samuel 3:10?

    In Isaiah 63:9 – 10, who or what are the angel of Lord’s presence and His Spirit? Are they simply literary devices along line of “hands” to describe the activity of one personal God so that no personal agents are in view in any form what so ever?

    I wish nice week to everyone who is following this thread.

    Christian Thinker

  17. Christian Thinker

    Hello MdS,

    last week, I had posted some questions at https://trinities.org/blog/archives/4385 primarily to you and secondarily to any informed humanitarian Unitarian how would possibly like to contribute. It looks like the thread is no longer followed by you. Should you ever have some free time and willing heart to answer, I will appreciate it. My questions are straightforward and I ask for same with answers. I have no interest in ad hominen attacks against any person in the history of scriptural interpretation. Thanks.

    Best regards,
    Christian Thinker

  18. MdS,

    How can someone’s actual and literal word/logos/dabar turn into an autonomous human being? Such a concept seems, metaphysically, fully nonsensical to me. Furthermore, the Gospel of John doesn’t speak about “incarnation,” let alone “with crystal clarity.” There is no such thing. The Word (in my view, a straight-out reference to the person later known as Jesus, compare Re 19:13, 1Jo 1:1) became flesh, i.e., his life was transferred from heaven to the womb of Mary.

  19. [villanovanus, #1, March 13, 2013 at 12:31 pm] “Jesus is indeed (NOT a pre-existing “person”, BUT) truly and literally (NOT by way of metaphor), the Incarnation of God’s Eternal Word/Logos/Dabar.”

    [Helez, #5, March 14, 2013 at 5:02 am] [a] And that makes sense to you, metaphysically? [b] It seems to me that you have much more in common with Trinitarians than the first and second century subordinationist unitarians.

    [a] Why, what is the problem with considering a literal (not metaphorical) truth what the Prologue to the Gospel of John expresses with crystal clarity?

    [b] Is a literal reading of the Incarnation, as presented in the Prologue to the Gospel of John ONLY compatible with a “pre-existing subordinationist” or “egalitarian trinitarian” solution? No! Not only the understanding of God as ONE self-existent being essentially endowed with two substantial attributes (NOT “persons”), viz. Word/Logos/Dabar and Spirit/Pneuma/Ruwach makes logical and metaphysical sense, BUT it is the best reading of Bible data like Deut 33:27 and Psalm 33:6. A reading which is clearly the same as that of Irenaeus. 😉

    MdS

  20. MdS: “Jesus is indeed (NOT a pre-existing “person”, BUT) truly and literally (NOT by way of metaphor), the Incarnation of God’s Eternal Word/Logos/Dabar.”

    Helez: And that makes sense to you, metaphysically? It seems to me that you have much more in common with Trinitarians than the first and second century subordinationist unitarians. 😉

  21. Helez,

    you are wrong.

    Nobody here, and you in particular, has been able to account adequately for the reason, the dramatic development and the compromise at the conclusion of the Arian Controversy.

    MdS

  22. MdS,

    It is is strange how you persist in calling certain theologies in which the Almighty God is one Person and one Person only Trinitarian and how you even persist in claiming that Arius was the first to affirm that the Son was, not emanated, but created by God, even though it has been pointed out to you that your were wrong about that.

    And, Arius didn’t broke with the ante-Nicene Fathers in general as much as he differed with the view of Athanasius and cohorts, but this has already been pointed out as well.

  23. I will only mention your “opening declaration”, which, with its repeated phrase “carefully define the term” (respectively “trinitarian” and “unitarian”) is nothing but an un-argued self-apology of your own position.

    Your conflating, in the same paragraph, two most diverse Church Fathers and theologians as Irenaeus as Origen shows all your bias (to be kind). Whereas:

    I have expressed serious doubts that Irenaeus –with his doctrine of Word and Spirit as God’s “hands”– is trinitarian at all (even in an improper and/or “incipient” sense).

    I have affirmed, on the basis of his own use of the word trias, that Origen IS a trinitarian, although of the Subordinationist kind. More, his doctrine of the “eternal generation of the son” will be absolutely essential to the later full-fledged Trinitarians, so much so that both Athanasius of Alexandria and Basil of Caesarea (the eldest of the Cappadocian scoundrels) strongly defended Origen’s (trinitarian) orthodoxy.

    As for the logical/grammatical/semantic point on “Subordinationist”, the very word presupposes that there are (at least) two entities –of the same or similar nature– that are hierarchically subordinated, so, indeed, the expression “subordinationist unitarian” is (if not a “contradiction in terms”), certainly an oxymoron. (Just as to say that creatures are subordinated to their Creator is a triviality.)

    You re-quote the dictionary definitions of “subordinationism” that I had previously quoted. I wonder why you have omitted this …

    [subordinationism] a doctrine in theology: the second and third persons of the Trinity are subordinate (as in order or essence) to the first person and the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Son (© 2013 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated)

    … which is the most obvious and intuitive and, I believe the closest to the common understanding.

    Also, I wonder why you call the Collins definition (virtually identical to the Merriam-Webster), “too narrow”. What do you mean by “too narrow”?

    BTW, Justin Martyr, with his doctrine of Logos as deuteros theos was certainly a Subordinationist. In fact, with good reason, the first Subordinationist. As repeatedly affirmed by me, it was with Justin Martyr that the Philonian “original sin” of the “two gods” entered Christianity.

    I have no objections to your re-elaboration of the dictionary definition so as to come up with your own: the Father is greater than the Son, [and/or] Father (or Father and Son) are greater than the Spirit. OTOH, I obviously object to your elimination of the word Trinity, to which ALL the quoted dictionary definitions refer “subordinationism”.

    That the word Trinity would have “come to mean a triune god, a tripersonal god in some sense containing equal persons” is certainly obvious by the end of the 4th century. To affirm that the word “trinity” would not have been used before then, is manifestly false. The ONLY thing that the pre-Constantinopolitan “trinity” lacked before 381 is precisely the co-equality (and, for some, the co-eternity). To deny that pre-Nicene/Constantinopolitan “trinity” would have been …”trinity” is obviously, on your part, to beg the question of what is relevant to the definition of “trinity”.

    One thing that you systematically omit to confront is whether there is any support, in the Scripture (OT and NT) for referring to the pre-incarnated Word/Logos/Dabar as “person”, and to the Spirit/Pneuma/Ruwach as “person” at all, not in the unusual and obfuscating sense of “subsistence” (or “supposit” as one of the commentators here even more fancily says), BUT in the common sense of “self conscious being, endowed with reason, freedom and will“. More or less the definition of Severinus Boethius. Probably close to what you mean by “self”.

    (BTW, there is no support, in the Scripture …)

    I presume you are referring to the Samuel Clarke (1675 –1729) when you call not only “uncontroversially a subordinationist” (which is obvious), but also “[u]ncontroversially a unitarian”, the author of The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity (1712). Which is manifestly absurd: Samuel Clarke re-interpreted the established doctrine of the (co-equal, co-eternal) “Trinity” in a subordinationist sense, somehow winding the clock back, but not back enough. He manifestly never rejected either the term “Trinity” or the associated notion.

    Obviously Arius and the Arians broke with the ante-Nicene Fathers, otherwise, for the umpteenth time, the Arian Controversy, which obviously Nicea 325 was not enough for settling would be totally incomprehensible. Was Arius a “trinitarian”? Certainly NOT in the sense of the equality of the “Son” with the Father, but also NOT in the sense of the similarity, because he affirmed (for the first time, and clearly departing from the tradition) that the “Son” was NOT generated, not emanated, BUT created by God, the Father Almighty.

    Was Arius a Subordinationist? Most certainly NOT in the sense that Origen was (and Tertullian, and others). However much you may protest and expostulate. Period.

    Finally, you admit that [s]ome of the above (Thomas Belsham, 1750-1829; William Christie, 1748-1823; Thomas Emlyn, 1663-1741) would call this last [viz. “humanitarian unitarianism”, viz. the view that Jesus of Nazareth was ONLY human, albeit, perhaps, miraculously born] the “proper Unitarian” view. Good.

    Your concluding expression, “supposedly discredited, horrible heretic”, presumably referred to (Faustus?) Socinus. What is your “supposedly” … supposed to mean? Who supposes?

    AFAIAC, you can hold on to your terminology as much as you like. But it is the theology that doesn’t work. You have simply failed to explain the whole dynamic of Christian dogma, in particular in its most critical period, the Arian Controversy, from beginning to (authoritarian) end, from 318 to 381.

    Perhaps one day the simple truth will dawn upon you, while I laboriously worked through several texts to achieve it in full: that “humanitarian unitarianism” is too reductive, because it doesn’t take into account Jesus’ real divinity, and that the ONLY way to take into account Jesus’ divinity is to affirm, with the Prologue to the Gospel of John, that Jesus is indeed (NOT a pre-existing “person”, BUT) truly and literally (NOT by way of metaphor), the Incarnation of God’s Eternal Word/Logos/Dabar. (BTW, you never clarified what you meant by “proper understanding” of the Incarnation …)

    MdS

Comments are closed.