One of Dale Tuggy's favs (at the his SEP > Trinity and SEP > Unitarianism entries - the latter subordinated by Tuggy himself to the Trinity entry by calling it a "Supplement to Trinity"; amply supported in many posts at his blog trinities.org/blog: see here and here, for a selection) is that Subordinationism has nothing to do with Trinitarianism (which Tuggy considers to exist only in its fully-fledged, co-eternal, co-equal, tri-personal, final verson), whereas it would be a sub-category of Unitarianism.
Of course this is historically ludicrous (the fully-fledged Trinity certainly did not pop out of the blue in 381 AD or later; the terms "unitarian" and "unitarianism" both appeared at the end of the 17th century, with reference to a phenomenon that is no earlier, anyway, than the 16th century, with Lelio Sozzini (1525 - 1562) and Fausto Sozzini (1539 - 1604), respectively uncle and nephew).
But even a simple look at dictionary definitions shows the obvious:
- [subordinationism] the doctrine that the first person of the Holy Trinity is superior to the second, and the second superior to the third. (Dictionary.com, © Random House, Inc. 2017)
- [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 – Copyright © HarperCollins Publishers)
- [subordinationism] the theological tenet of progressively declining essence within the Trinity. (-Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc.)
- [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 (© 2017 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated)
So, not only Dale Tuggy makes a totally idiosyncratic use of the notions of Unitarianism and Subordinationism, but he repeatedly tries to argue that Origen (ca. 184 - 254) is a Unitarian (see here).
I have repeatedy affirmed that Origen IS a trinitarian, 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.
This is what we read about him in the Encyclopaedia Britannica:
I have repeatedy affirmed that Origen IS a trinitarian, 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.
This is what we read about him in the Encyclopaedia Britannica:
As for the logical/grammatical/semantic point of the adjective "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. On the other hand, to say that creatures are subordinated to their Creator is a triviality.Origen shows himself to be one of the most original and profound of speculative theologians. Neoplatonist in background, he constructed a system that embraces both the notion of the preexistence of souls, with their fall and final restoration, and a deeply subordinationist doctrine of the Trinity—i.e., one in which the Son is subordinate to the Father. (Encyclopaedia Britannica > Patristic literature)
Justin Martyr, with his doctrine of the Logos as theos kai kyrios eteros 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.
That the word Trinity would have “come to mean a triune god, a tripersonal god in some sense containing equal persons” (as Dale Tuggy says here) 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 to beg the question of what is relevant to the definition of Trinity.
One thing that Dale Tuggy omits 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 some fancily say), BUT in the common sense of “self conscious being, endowed with reason, freedom and will“. More or less the definition of Severinus Boethius. (BTW, there is no support, in the Scripture …)
Obviously Arius and the Arians broke with the ante-Nicene Fathers, otherwise 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) were.
That the word Trinity would have “come to mean a triune god, a tripersonal god in some sense containing equal persons” (as Dale Tuggy says here) 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 to beg the question of what is relevant to the definition of Trinity.
One thing that Dale Tuggy omits 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 some fancily say), BUT in the common sense of “self conscious being, endowed with reason, freedom and will“. More or less the definition of Severinus Boethius. (BTW, there is no support, in the Scripture …)
Obviously Arius and the Arians broke with the ante-Nicene Fathers, otherwise 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) were.
Insisting that everything before Arius is "unitarianism" simply fails 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.
"Humanitarian unitarianism” is too reductive, because it doesn't take into account Jesus' 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.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete