The Source of the Trinity

[Constantine the Sinner]

My apologies if my contributions to this thread are not pertinent to what you wish to discuss. I thought they were related. As a seeker of truth, I am curious as to whether you are avoiding the subordination issue, or whether you don't hold the earliest fathers' teaching in high regard. All the best to you.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "subordination"? In Orthodox theology, the Son and the Spirit have the Father's will and the Father's action.

 

[Look Up]

Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology (publ. 1949) has made the rounds as a textbook in US (and perhaps Canadian) Christian and theological schools of (Protestant) Reformed (and some baptistic) persuasions. On pp. 96-97, it reads in part:

"... And the long drawn dispute about the question, whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father alone or also from the Son, was finally settled by the Synod of Toledo in 589 by adding the word "Filioque" to the Latin version of the Constantinopolitan Creed: 'Credimus in Spiritum Sanctum qui a Patre Filioque procedit' ('We believe in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son'). This procession of the Holy Spirit, briefly called spiration, is his personal property. Much of what was said respecting the generation of the Son also applies to the spiration of the Holy Spirit, and need not be repeated. The following points of distinction between the two may be noted, however: (1) Generation is the work of the Father only; spiration is the work of both the Father and the Son. (2) By generation the Son is enabled to take part in the work of spiration, but the Holy Spirit acquires no such power. (3) In logical order generation precedes spiration. It should be remembered, however, that all this implies no essential subordination of the Holy Spirit to the Son. In spiration as well as in generation there is a communication of the whole of divine essence, so that the Holy Spirit is on an equality with the Father and the Son. The doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is based on John 15:26, and on the fact that the Spirit is also called the Spirit of Christ and of the Son, Rom. 8:9, Gal. 4:6, and is sent by Christ into the world. Spiration may be defined as that eternal and necessary act of the first and second persons in the Trinity whereby they, within the divine Being, become the ground of the personal subsistence [of the Son on p. 93, Berkhof distinguishes personal subsistence from divine essence--!?] of the Holy Spirit, and put the third person in possession of the whole divine essence, without any division, alienation, or change."​

Orthodox (capital "O") folk are asked not to dispute with me Berkhof's claim to the issue being "finally settled," etc. (e.g., finally settled according to whom?) and as of this writing I cannot otherwise independently confirm the historical claims. Nor do I well understand how on the one hand (1) "in logical order generation precedes spiration" and "generation is the work of the Father only" while on the other hand also (2) "in spiration as well as in generation there is a communication of the whole of divine essence." The paragraph is western rather than eastern wrt the Filioque, yet the distinction between "generation" and "spiration" (= procession) has me wondering if it well represents the history of western (i.e., Roman Catholic) thought; others are more competent to address that question than I. And does Berkhof's paragraph comport with Philip_B's wine bottle and cup analogy (post # 20)?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology (publ. 1949) has made the rounds as a textbook in US (and perhaps Canadian) Christian and theological schools of (Protestant) Reformed (and some baptistic) persuasions. On pp. 96-97, it reads in part:

"... And the long drawn dispute about the question, whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father alone or also from the Son, was finally settled by the Synod of Toledo in 589 by adding the word "Filioque" to the Latin version of the Constantinopolitan Creed: 'Credimus in Spiritum Sanctum qui a Patre Filioque procedit' ('We believe in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son'). This procession of the Holy Spirit, briefly called spiration, is his personal property. Much of what was said respecting the generation of the Son also applies to the spiration of the Holy Spirit, and need not be repeated. The following points of distinction between the two may be noted, however: (1) Generation is the work of the Father only; spiration is the work of both the Father and the Son. (2) By generation the Son is enabled to take part in the work of spiration, but the Holy Spirit acquires no such power. (3) In logical order generation precedes spiration. It should be remembered, however, that all this implies no essential subordination of the Holy Spirit to the Son. In spiration as well as in generation there is a communication of the whole of divine essence, so that the Holy Spirit is on an equality with the Father and the Son. The doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is based on John 15:26, and on the fact that the Spirit is also called the Spirit of Christ and of the Son, Rom. 8:9, Gal. 4:6, and is sent by Christ into the world. Spiration may be defined as that eternal and necessary act of the first and second persons in the Trinity whereby they, within the divine Being, become the ground of the personal subsistence [of the Son on p. 93, Berkhof distinguishes personal subsistence from divine essence--!?] of the Holy Spirit, and put the third person in possession of the whole divine essence, without any division, alienation, or change."​

Orthodox (capital "O") folk are asked not to dispute with me Berkhof's claim to the issue being "finally settled," etc. (e.g., finally settled according to whom?) and as of this writing I cannot otherwise independently confirm the historical claims. Nor do I well understand how on the one hand (1) "in logical order generation precedes spiration" and "generation is the work of the Father only" while on the other hand also (2) "in spiration as well as in generation there is a communication of the whole of divine essence." The paragraph is western rather than eastern wrt the Filioque, yet the distinction between "generation" and "spiration" (= procession) has me wondering if it well represents the history of western (i.e., Roman Catholic) thought; others are more competent to address that question than I. And does Berkhof's paragraph comport with Philip_B's wine bottle and cup analogy (post # 20)?

"Generation" and "spiritation" are just different terms for engendering, the former used for the Son, the latter for the Spirit. That was the case in the Middle Ages and applies to this day in the Catholic Catechism. Similar to the distinction between "begotten" and "proceeds".

The Pope, in fact, strongly opposed the addition of the Filioque to the Creed, even after the See of Rome started embracing the theology of the Filioque. There are transcripts (printed in translation in Photius and the Carolingians: The Trinitarian Controversy) of Pope Leo III's conversation with the Carolingian envoy from Charlemagne trying to convince him to accept the change. He starts by saying it's okay for them to sing it, but that he wasn't going to officially add it, but by the end he grows so irritated with their persistence that he forbids them even to sing it that way (despite still subscribing to the theology, albeit not in the way the Filioque was to be intended, with the Son and the Father one origin of the Spirit). The Pope said, on justifying his opposition to altering the Creed, "I shall not say that I prefer myself to the Fathers. And far be it from me to count myself their equal." Pope Leo III later went on to have the original Creed, without the Filioque, inscribed on two silver tablets in Rome, to ensure it would never be changed.

 

[JoeP222w]

A quick history lesson for those of you not familiar with it: in the Middle Ages, the Pope added what is called the "Filioque" to the Nicene Creed, which is the clause that says "and from the Son" regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit. This caused a major controversy, since in the West it was intended to mean that the Holy Spirit's existence is endowed from the Father and the Son as one principle (this is still the position of the Catholic Church). This directly conflicted with Eastern theology, which says that the Father is sole source of the Trinity, the will is furnished by the Father alone, and the existences of the Son and the Holy Spirit are furnished by the Father alone. Thus, the Father's hypostasis, alone, is the bedrock of the entire Trinity. This controversy contributed greatly to the schism (the main issue causing the schism was the Pope's authority over the Church, although this is not the thread to discuss that).

My question is, what is the sentiment today about this? Particularly among Christians who are neither Catholic nor Orthodox. Is the Father alone generally seen as the source of the entire Trinity?

It would be more helpful to point Biblical evidence that might refer to such a concept of the Father alone as being the "source of the entire Trinity". This concept seems to imply that God, being the "source" would mean that the Father existed before the Son and the Holy Spirit, I don't find that to be shown in scripture.

The Christian does not hold the words of any Pope or the Roman Catholic church to any high level of authenticity or authority. Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith in God, not the Pope and not Rome. Nor is Rome the source of Theology.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

It would be more helpful to point Biblical evidence that might refer to such a concept of the Father alone as being the "source of the entire Trinity". This concept seems to imply that God, being the "source" would mean that the Father existed before the Son and the Holy Spirit, I don't find that to be shown in scripture.

The Christian does not hold the words of any Pope or the Roman Catholic church to any high level of authenticity or authority. Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith in God, not the Pope and not Rome. Nor is Rome the source of Theology.

The Father always endowed the Son and Holy Spirit with existence, there was never a time when he wasn't endowing them with existence, ergo he didn't exist prior to them. The Father eternally begot the Son.

As for your question about Scripture, this should answer it.

Christ says the Spirit proceeds (in Greeks it means "come out of") from the Father in John 15:26. In John 14:26, Christ describes the Father as the sole origin for the sending of the Holy Spirit, although the sending is done in Christ's name (as in, through him). In John 14:16, Christ describes the Spirit as ultimately being given by the Father.

 

[jargew]

These debates serve to remind me why Christianity has so many denominations
all reading the same Book.
So which denomination is the right denomination?????
According to the World Christian Encyclopedia (year 2000 version), global Christianity had 33,820 denominations with 3,445,000 congregations/churches composed of 1,888 million affiliated Christians.
http://www.answers.com/Q/How_many_different_types_of_Christianity_are_there

Someone pleeeease explain which one is the right one?
The Catholic denomination started out as the catholic denomination.
Small case "c" in catholic meant "universal".
Curious what?
So which one is the right, correct, true, denomination?
Some, like the J.W's, call their denomination the "TRUTH".
Members say "we are in the Truth".
A bold claim?????
Inquiring minds don'cha'know?

Westboro Baptists preach hate in the name of "god".
Some Pentacostals play with rattlesnakes to demonstrate faith.
Some get bitten and refuse medical intervention as a demonstration
of faith.
Some die as a result of snake bites and members say "god" called
the dead guy to heaven.
Really?
Faith or stupidity?
J.W.'s DIE, let their children DIE, rather than accept a blood transfusion or
organ transplant.
I think the Governing Body of J.W.'s has made a transfusion or transplant
a "matter of conscious" now.
What about those that died in previous decades?????
Inquiring mind don'cha'know?
Bible interpretation and religious dogma.
Wow.
All this ^^^ is why I refuse to join a church or claim a denomination.
I am a Christian.
I have my own beliefs and don't want to join a church as such.
I pray daily and am grateful for my life.

According to my bible:
Romans 10:9 (NIV)
If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

It doesn't say "if you say with your mouth Jesus is Lord, AND have such and such views of the trinity AND have other specific views about ministers".
It says EVERYONE who confesses can be saved. Period.
So the true church, in my opinion, is simply the church of God, the body of Christ, that have confessed that Jesus is Lord.

But we are encouraged (commanded?) to attend a church in order to uplift the other believers.
Hebrews 10:25
Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another
—and all the more as you see the Day approaching. (NIV)

Personally, I attend a non-denominational church. It's awesome.

 

[younglite]

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "subordination"? In Orthodox theology, the Son and the Spirit have the Father's will and the Father's action.

The Father always endowed the Son and Holy Spirit with existence, there was never a time when he wasn't endowing them with existence, ergo he didn't exist prior to them.

Perhaps this will answer both quotes at once...

Oxford Dictionary: Teaching about the Godhead which regards either the Son as subordinate to the Father or the Holy Ghost as subordinate to both. It is a characteristic tendency in much of Christian teaching of the first three centuries...” (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd ed., p. 1319)


SUBORDINATIONISM. The term is a common retrospective concept used to denote theologians of the early church who affirmed the divinity of the Son or Spirit of God, but conceived it somehow as a lesser form of divinity than that of the Father. It is a modern concept that is so vague that is that it [modern theology] does not illuminate much of the theology of the pre-Nicene teachers, where a subordinationist presupposition was widely and unreflectively shared. (The Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology, p. 321)


"With the exception of Athanasius, virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy." (R.P.C. Hanson 1988. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381, p.xix.)

Essentially, the earliest fathers taught that the Father was "alone," but had His Word and Wisdom (Son and Spirit) within Him. At some point in eternity past (which is the real meaning of eternally begotten - because no time can be ascribed), He begat His Word and Wisdom outward from within. Because like begets like, the Son and Spirit can be worshiped as God, since they are of His very essence. This is the essence of subordination. I have countless quotes from the first 300 years regarding this, and they virtually in agreement in what I have just described.

 

[younglite]

A few quotes to substantiate the above...

Ireneaus: "And as He was born of Mary in the last times, so did He also proceed from God as the First-begotten of every creature;”

Tertullian: God's own dispensation, in which He existed before the creation of the world, up to the generation of the Son. For before all things God was alone -- being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself." "...but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son...There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the Son..."

Novatian: "...because He [Son] is born, and of like nature with the Father in some measure by His nativity, although He has a beginning in that He is born, inasmuch as He is born of that Father who alone has no beginning. He, then, when the Father willed it, proceeded from the Father, and He who was in the Father came forth from the Father..."

Novatian: "And reasonably, He is before all things, but after the Father, since all things were made by Him, and He proceeded from Him of whose will all things were made. Assuredly God proceeding from God, causing a person second to the Father as being the Son, but not taking from the Father that characteristic that He is one God. For if He had not been born—compared with Him who was unborn, an equality being manifested in both—He would make two unborn beings, and thus would make two Gods."

Tatian: "For the Lord of the universe, who is Himself the necessary ground (npostasis) of all being, inasmuch as no creature was yet in existence, was alone; but inasmuch as He was all power, Himself the necessary ground of things visible and invisible...the Logos Himself also, who was in Him, subsists. And by His simple will the Logos springs forth; and the Logos, not coming forth in vain, becomes the first-begotten work of the Father."

Theophilus: John, says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, "The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence." The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills..."

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Perhaps this will answer both quotes at once...

Oxford Dictionary: Teaching about the Godhead which regards either the Son as subordinate to the Father or the Holy Ghost as subordinate to both. It is a characteristic tendency in much of Christian teaching of the first three centuries...” (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd ed., p. 1319)


SUBORDINATIONISM. The term is a common retrospective concept used to denote theologians of the early church who affirmed the divinity of the Son or Spirit of God, but conceived it somehow as a lesser form of divinity than that of the Father. It is a modern concept that is so vague that is that it [modern theology] does not illuminate much of the theology of the pre-Nicene teachers, where a subordinationist presupposition was widely and unreflectively shared. (The Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology, p. 321)


"With the exception of Athanasius, virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy." (R.P.C. Hanson 1988. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381, p.xix.)

Essentially, the earliest fathers taught that the Father was "alone," but had His Word and Wisdom (Son and Spirit) within Him. At some point in eternity past (which is the real meaning of eternally begotten - because no time can be ascribed), He begat His Word and Wisdom outward from within. Because like begets like, the Son and Spirit can be worshiped as God, since they are of His very essence. This is the essence of subordination. I have countless quotes from the first 300 years regarding this, and they virtually in agreement in what I have just described.

The early Fathers did not teach that the Spirit or the Son had a "lesser form of divinity" than the Father, unless you're talking about the Arians, whom I would not consider Fathers, neither would the Church.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

A few quotes to substantiate the above...

Ireneaus: "And as He was born of Mary in the last times, so did He also proceed from God as the First-begotten of every creature;”

Tertullian: God's own dispensation, in which He existed before the creation of the world, up to the generation of the Son. For before all things God was alone -- being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself." "...but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son...There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the Son..."

Novatian: "...because He [Son] is born, and of like nature with the Father in some measure by His nativity, although He has a beginning in that He is born, inasmuch as He is born of that Father who alone has no beginning. He, then, when the Father willed it, proceeded from the Father, and He who was in the Father came forth from the Father..."

Novatian: "And reasonably, He is before all things, but after the Father, since all things were made by Him, and He proceeded from Him of whose will all things were made. Assuredly God proceeding from God, causing a person second to the Father as being the Son, but not taking from the Father that characteristic that He is one God. For if He had not been born—compared with Him who was unborn, an equality being manifested in both—He would make two unborn beings, and thus would make two Gods."

Tatian: "For the Lord of the universe, who is Himself the necessary ground (npostasis) of all being, inasmuch as no creature was yet in existence, was alone; but inasmuch as He was all power, Himself the necessary ground of things visible and invisible...the Logos Himself also, who was in Him, subsists. And by His simple will the Logos springs forth; and the Logos, not coming forth in vain, becomes the first-begotten work of the Father."

Theophilus: John, says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, "The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence." The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills..."

None of these men is a Church Father, save Saint Ireneaus, and he says nothing about the Son having a lower grade of divinity, or the Father being alone prior to the Son. His position is the Orthodox one: the Son is begotten of the Father, always, eternally, God of God.

 

[Toneri Otsutsuki]

A few quotes to substantiate the above...

Ireneaus: "And as He was born of Mary in the last times, so did He also proceed from God as the First-begotten of every creature;”

Tertullian: God's own dispensation, in which He existed before the creation of the world, up to the generation of the Son. For before all things God was alone -- being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself." "...but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son...There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the Son..."

Novatian: "...because He [Son] is born, and of like nature with the Father in some measure by His nativity, although He has a beginning in that He is born, inasmuch as He is born of that Father who alone has no beginning. He, then, when the Father willed it, proceeded from the Father, and He who was in the Father came forth from the Father..."

Novatian: "And reasonably, He is before all things, but after the Father, since all things were made by Him, and He proceeded from Him of whose will all things were made. Assuredly God proceeding from God, causing a person second to the Father as being the Son, but not taking from the Father that characteristic that He is one God. For if He had not been born—compared with Him who was unborn, an equality being manifested in both—He would make two unborn beings, and thus would make two Gods."

Tatian: "For the Lord of the universe, who is Himself the necessary ground (npostasis) of all being, inasmuch as no creature was yet in existence, was alone; but inasmuch as He was all power, Himself the necessary ground of things visible and invisible...the Logos Himself also, who was in Him, subsists. And by His simple will the Logos springs forth; and the Logos, not coming forth in vain, becomes the first-begotten work of the Father."

Theophilus: John, says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God," showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, "The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence." The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills..."

I concur with Constantine over the credibility we should pay to the claims of each of these guys.

Oddly enough, the only Church Father here (Ireneaus) is the only one who isn't implying that God is bound by time as the others seem to do.

To apply the laws of time to God, or even to a single person of the trinity (so still God) means to ignore or overlook one of the most important attributes of God: transcendence.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

An Orthodox reading of Aquinas isn't possible, it's not just doctrinal difficulties, it's that mindset isn't Patristic, it's Scholastic. He is, however, a fascinating theologian, but I read him for the same reasons I read Muslim theologians or atheistic philosophers. His system of thought was the chief impetus behind The Divine Comedy.

Well, actually it is, one of the Orthodox scholars at Oxford, in the program that was until recently supervised by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware (he formally retired from Oxford in 2001 IIRC but continues to be by virtue of his prominence the major influence) published such a book, and it has been positively received by most of the Orthodox blogosphere (with the exception of the doctrinaire Old Calendarist set like orthodoxchurch.info).

https://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Readings-Paradigms-Historical-Systematic/dp/0199650659

That said, an Orthodox reading of Aquinas is difficult, which is why the one book on the subject is an extremely advanced theological work priced at $93. In other words, we're not going to be passing out Orthodox-edited versions of the Summa Theologica to parishioners or Orthodox inquirers any time soon; the work is not catechtically useful, whereas for example any Orthodox church would do well to use Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick's Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy as the basis for an upper level Sunday School or adult catechesis program.

(that said, they would not do well to include the O&H blog in it, which consists too much of unedifying conversion stories and dubious scholarship by people like Dr. Nicholas Marinides, who is a borderline crypto-Nestorian, in my opinion, quixotically denouncing the Oriental Orthodox at every opportunity while failing to denounce at all the active ecumenical relationship and reconciliation that has been going on for about a century now between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Assyrian Church of the East)

 

[Paul Yohannan]

None of these men is a Church Father, save Saint Ireneaus, and he says nothing about the Son having a lower grade of divinity, or the Father being alone prior to the Son. His position is the Orthodox one: the Son is begotten of the Father, always, eternally, God of God.

Most Orthodox scholars recognize Tertullian, and Origen as important church fathers, worthy of study, who simply were not glorified as saints because they fell into heresy. Fr. John Behr of St. Vladimir's for example spent an extensive amount of time studying Tertullian and Origen; they dominated his study of the Third Century fathers just as St. Irenaeus dominated his study of the Second Century fathers.

One does not have to be a saint to be an Early Church Father; Tertullian for example was initially fully Orthodox and coined the word Trinitas; we deny that he is a saint and regard him a heretic only because he fell under the influence of the Montanus and left the Church of Rome to join the schismatic Montanist sect. But the writings of Tertullian remain invaluable in Patristics, and he did give us the word Trinitas; he is undeniably a church father.

Tatian on the other hand was a heresiarch; initially a member of the church, he produced the very unsatiafactory Gospel harmony known as the Diatessaron which was the only Syriac language New Testament material available for use, and thus of neccessity, the Gospel as it was used by the Church in Nisibis, Edessa, Seleucia-Cstesiphon, Yemen, Kerala and throughout other locations in Syria, Mesopotamia, Persia, and India, that had been established by St. Thomas the Apostle, until the Fourth Century, when the Peshitta translation of the New Testament was completed. Now some might argue that his production of the Diatessaron makes him a father, however, there is a major problem...

Tatian fell under the influence of Gnosticism and became one of the leading Syriac Gnostics, and what is more, unlike Tertullian and Origen, nothing he wrote, that I am familiar with, was actually mystagogically or kerygmatically influential or important; even the Diatessaron was rubbish, to be blunt, compared to the Peshitta, because in merging the four books into one, he destroyed the unique poetic and prosaic beauty of each of the Evangelists and dilluted their work. I believe this is why there were not any major Syriac fathers between the time of Ss. Addai and Mari, the disciples of Thomas, and the fourth century, when in the wake of the completion of the Peshitta the church was graced with Syrian fathers like St. Ephrem, the "Harp of the Spirit," whose prayers and hymnody remain important in Eastern Orthodoxy to this day (you probably know the Prayer of St. Ephrem by heart from using it in Lent).

As for the rest, Novatian, et al, I don't believe any of them made a contribution so as to be recognized as Patriatic sources of influence, and the Novatian sect was a major pain in the church at the council of Nicea, although their extent of their errors were limited to a rejection of forgiveness for people who denied Christ during the persecutions, and refusal to commune with those who did; basically, they were fundamentalist moral hypocrites who missed the point about mercy and repentence).

 

[younglite]

The early Fathers did not teach that the Spirit or the Son had a "lesser form of divinity" than the Father, unless you're talking about the Arians, whom I would not consider Fathers, neither would the Church.

Just because the Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology interprets their position of subordination as being a "lesser form of Divinity" doesn't make it so. I used the quotes from several books to show that the earliest writers are ignored in favor of a later orthodoxy. I am amazed at how quickly researchers will adopt the teachings put forth many hundreds of years later, but dismiss the earliest generations that are closer to the Apostle's teachings. The Son was born "very God of very God," and was worshiped by all these writers as such. I hold nothing in respect to Arius' teachings, so please don't equate this early teaching with his. He taught the Son was made of nothing, and that there was a time He did not exist. These writers are clear that He did exist within the Father, and later was born of the Father in eternity past, which makes Him eternal.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

I concur with Constantine over the credibility we should pay to the claims of each of these guys.

Oddly enough, the only Church Father here (Ireneaus) is the only one who isn't implying that God is bound by time as the others seem to do.

To apply the laws of time to God, or even to a single person of the trinity (so still God) means to ignore or overlook one of the most important attributes of God: transcendence.

You are correct regarding the eternality of God, but, Tertullian was a church father, but not a saint; his works before he fell into heresy and converted to Montanism remain required reading in Patristics courses in many seminaries.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Just because the Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology interprets their position of subordination as being a "lesser form of Divinity" doesn't make it so. I used the quotes from several books to show that the earliest writers are ignored in favor of a later orthodoxy. I am amazed at how quickly researchers will adopt the teachings put forth many hundreds of years later, but dismiss the earliest generations that are closer to the Apostle's teachings. The Son was born "very God of very God," and was worshiped by all these writers as such. I hold nothing in respect to Arius' teachings, so please don't equate this early teaching with his. He taught the Son was made of nothing, and that there was a time He did not exist. These writers are clear that He did exist within the Father, and later was born of the Father in eternity past, which makes Him eternal.

The problem with subordinationism is that it denies the coequality of the Son with the Father according to their divine essence.

However, it is true that Christ took from his assumed human nature humility and submission to the Father and subordinated His human will to the unified Divine will, which He attributed to the Father; this was neccessary in order to hypostatically unite us with the Godhead and to glorify the human race, repairing the damage of the fall and facilitating the glorious resurrection of the faithful.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Just because the Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology interprets their position of subordination as being a "lesser form of Divinity" doesn't make it so. I used the quotes from several books to show that the earliest writers are ignored in favor of a later orthodoxy. I am amazed at how quickly researchers will adopt the teachings put forth many hundreds of years later, but dismiss the earliest generations that are closer to the Apostle's teachings. The Son was born "very God of very God," and was worshiped by all these writers as such. I hold nothing in respect to Arius' teachings, so please don't equate this early teaching with his. He taught the Son was made of nothing, and that there was a time He did not exist. These writers are clear that He did exist within the Father, and later was born of the Father in eternity past, which makes Him eternal.

The thing is, you are presuming that just because a writer is early, he's Orthodox. That's far from the case, there were a ton of heresies very early. The problem is most of your quotes are from people who were anathematized as opposed to contemporaries of theirs who did not assertion any such theology of the Father being prior to the Son in existence. "Prior" is kind of an inherently temporal term.

 

[younglite]

None of these men is a Church Father, save Saint Ireneaus, and he says nothing about the Son having a lower grade of divinity, or the Father being alone prior to the Son. His position is the Orthodox one: the Son is begotten of the Father, always, eternally, God of God.

Fair enough. I was being general with names, but I will endeavor to use quotes from recognized fathers. Keep in mind, that there are many Scriptures that point to the Father alone as God, and you'll be hard pressed to find any that refer to Jesus as God apart from the Father. Paul and Peter in virtually every greeting refer to God the Father, and Jesus as Son and Lord, but rarely referred to the Son as God. This doesn't mean He isn't God, but that they made a distinction.

Paul:
1 Corinthians 8:6 - yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Col 3:10 – Jesus is the image, created by God (see 2 Cor 4:4)

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus

Clement of Rome: "[Grant unto us, Lord,] that we may set our hope on Thy Name which is the primal source of all creation, and open the eyes of our hearts, that we may know Thee, who alone abidest Highest in the lofty...and hast chosen out from all men those that love Thee through Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son..."
"Let all the Gentiles know that Thou art the God alone, and Jesus Christ is Thy Son."


Doesn't say God is alone before creation, but is clear that he just made a distinction between unbegotten vs the begotten, a form of subordinationism.

Ignatius: "But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin."

Ignatius: He [Jesus] made known the one and only true God, His Father, and underwent the passion, and endured the cross

Justin: "For with what reason should we believe of a crucified man that He is the first-born of the unbegotten God..."

All of the following from Irenaeus: "...assuring us that there is but one true God, and that we should truly love Him for ever, seeing that He alone is our Father;"

"How then was the Son produced by the Father? "we reply to him, that no man understands that production, or generation, or calling, or revelation, or by whatever name one may describe His generation, which is in fact altogether indescribable...and while they (Gnostics) style Him unspeakable and unnameable, they nevertheless set forth the production and formation of His first generation, as if they themselves had assisted at His birth,"

"But that He (Son) had, beyond all others, in Himself that pre-eminent birth which is from the Most High Father, and also experienced that pre-eminent generation which is from the Virgin, the divine Scriptures do in both respects testify of Him."

“as the first-born and eldest offspring of the thought of the Father, the Word, fulfilling all things, and Himself guiding and ruling upon earth.”

"but as truth declares concerning the Word who is ever existent within (endiatheton) the heart of God. For before anything was made He had Him to His Counselor, as being His own mind and understanding. But when He willed to make what He had counseled, He begat this Word into outwardness (prophorikon), as first-begotten of all creation: not being Himself emptied of the Word, but having begotten the Word, and for ever conversing with His Word."

These quotes can be verified on several sites. They are very hard to ignore, unless they are refused on the basis of disagreeing with theology based on later teachings.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Most Orthodox scholars recognize Tertullian, and Origen as important church fathers, worthy of study, who simply were not glorified as saints because they fell into heresy.

The thing is, "Church Father" is a specific Orthodox term, it doesn't mean "any early Christian writer." It means an Orthodox saint who was who instrumental in defending doctrine. Tertullian and Origen are neither considered saints, nor defenders of doctrine (since they were both heretics). They are certainly, absolutely useful to study, but they are also completely ruled out as doctrinal authorities.

 

[younglite]

The thing is, you are presuming that just because a writer is early, he's Orthodox.

I presume no such thing. I do consider the context of their lives, and whether the teaching is consistent with other respected writers. It is well known that Tatian, for instance, later became a heretic. This doesn't mean we should ignore his letter to the Greeks to gain clarity for Justin's writings, as he was a disciple of his. As long as his writings match the style and form of Justin's, I consider it. I do not consider his later writings.

The key is to not consider a rogue writer when none of the other early writers suggested such teaching. But the distinction of the unbegotten Father, and the Begotten Son is pervasive in many of these early writers and cannot be dismissed.