1. Some claim (Dale Tuggy is one of them - see trinities.org/blog) that one can only properly speak of "trinity" or "trinitarianism" when one has the whole hog doctrine (co-eternality, co-equality, tri-personality, "one ousia in three hypostaseis"). But this is pure sophistry, because that definition was only achieved at the end of the 4th century, after a prolonged strife first between the Arians and the Nicene, then the semi-Arians and the new-Nicene, then through the "great compromise" of the Synod of Alexandria of 362 AD, then through the (essential) role of the Cappadocian scoundrels.
2. As is
well known , the Arian controversy started with the rebuttal of
Arius, in response to the doctrine of the similarity of the "Son" to
the father, preached by the (then) bishop of Alexandria, his bishop. Mark this, only
similarity, not equality. To which sermon, Arius replied that "if the Father begat the Son, he
that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident,
that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows,
that he
[the Son]
had his substance from nothing." (The Ecclesiastical Histories of Socrates
Scholasticus) What Alexander affirmed was simply the standard
belief of the Church, or at least of its highest ranks. Origen brought it even
further, by affirming the "eternal generation of the Son" (a formula
that, later, turned out to be very useful to the "trinitarians" ...) It
certainly did NOT alter the status quo. It was Arius who
undoubtedly altered the status quo, affirming (or at least
implying) that the "Son" was a creature.
3.
Subordinationism, that is the doctrine that the "Son" (and the Spirit)
are divine beings, BUT are inferior to the Father, is intrinsically un-stable,
if affirmed within the Scriptural Religion, that is a religion which proclaims the
unconditional Oneness of God. Inevitably, under a challenge like the one that
Arius brought forth, it can only evolve (and stabilize) into full-fledged "trinitarianism"
(or "binitarianism"), OR it can evolve into "unitarianism" (in
the obvious sense that there is no such thing as a "pre-existing Son"
– let alone "pre-existing Son" and that Jesus was just a man, however
exalted.)
4. There is another option, that I refer to as Strict Monotheism. Historically it was fully formulated only by Marcellus of Ancyra: the Word/logos/dabar and the Spirit/pneuma/ruach are essential, eternal attributes of the One God and Father. Jesus Christ is real God because the divine logos got incarnated (sarx egeneto) in him. He is real man, having derived his real humanity from the Blessed Virgin Mary. Jesus Christ is a real person, BUT, contrary to what Trinitarians (and also Subordinationists and even Arians) affirm, NOT a split second before he was conceived by the BVM.
4. There is another option, that I refer to as Strict Monotheism. Historically it was fully formulated only by Marcellus of Ancyra: the Word/logos/dabar and the Spirit/pneuma/ruach are essential, eternal attributes of the One God and Father. Jesus Christ is real God because the divine logos got incarnated (sarx egeneto) in him. He is real man, having derived his real humanity from the Blessed Virgin Mary. Jesus Christ is a real person, BUT, contrary to what Trinitarians (and also Subordinationists and even Arians) affirm, NOT a split second before he was conceived by the BVM.
No comments:
Post a Comment