Misplaced Pages

Subordinationism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:27, 15 December 2021 editAndriesvN (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users712 edits Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church: this was a small change. Novices would find the rest of this section be difficult to read. I plan to simplify it a bit.Tag: Visual edit← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:46, 23 November 2024 edit undo71.188.98.71 (talk) Arius and Alexander: Changed "Socrates" to "Socrates of Constantinople" to avoid confusionTag: Visual edit 
(134 intermediate revisions by 40 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Assertion that the Son and the Holy Spirit are subordinate to God the Father in nature and being}} {{short description|Assertion that the Son and the Holy Spirit are subordinate to God the Father in nature and being}}
]" through the ] of the ] – '']'' by ] ({{circa|1677}})]]
{{Multiple issues|
'''Subordinationism''' is a ] wherein the ] (and sometimes also the ]) is subordinate to the ], not only in submission and role, but with actual ontological subordination to varying degrees.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Papandrea |first=James Leonard |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FWM1bqkLtQQC&dq=trinity+Subordinationism+Didache&pg=PT119 |title=Reading the Early Church Fathers: From the Didache to Nicaea |date=2012 |publisher=Paulist Press |isbn=978-0-8091-4751-9 |language=en}}</ref> It posits a hierarchical ranking of the persons of the Social Trinity, implying ontological subordination of the persons of the Son and the Holy Spirit.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Giles |first=Kevin |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lo42zEOKobwC&dq=Subordinationism&pg=PA232 |title=The Eternal Generation of the Son: Maintaining Orthodoxy in Trinitarian Theology |date=2012-05-07 |publisher=InterVarsity Press |isbn=978-0-8308-3965-0 |language=en}}</ref> It was condemned as heretical in the ].<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Jowers |first1=Dennis W. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3E_7DwAAQBAJ&dq=subordinationism+council+of+constantinople&pg=PA385 |title=The New Evangelical Subordinationism?: Perspectives on the Equality of God the Father and God the Son |last2=House |first2=H. Wayne |date=2012-08-16 |publisher=Wipf and Stock Publishers |isbn=978-1-7252-4586-0 |language=en}}</ref><ref name="Origen" />
{{POV|date=July 2017}}
{{more citations needed|date=July 2017}}
{{Original research|date=July 2017}}
{{Religious text primary|date=July 2017}}
}}


It is not to be confused with ], as Subordinationism has been generally viewed as closer to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan view. While Arianism was developed out of it, it did not confess the personality of the Holy Spirit and the eternity of the Son.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Beisner |first=E. Calvin |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cgFLAwAAQBAJ&dq=Subordinationism+and+Arianism&pg=PA107 |title=God in Three Persons |date=2004-02-10 |publisher=Wipf and Stock Publishers |isbn=978-1-59244-545-5 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last1=Ramelli |first1=Ilaria L. E. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yyJIEAAAQBAJ&dq=Origen+Subordinationism+and+Arianism&pg=PA435 |title=T&T Clark Handbook of the Early Church |last2=McGuckin |first2=J. A. |last3=Ashwin-Siejkowski |first3=Piotr |date=2021-12-16 |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |isbn=978-0-567-68039-6 |language=en}}</ref>
In orthodox Christianity, the Son is equal to the Father in power, in glory, and in being.<ref>{{Cite web|title=What's the Difference between the Ontological and the Economic Trinity?|url=https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/whats-difference-between-ontological-and-economic-trinity|access-date=2021-12-14|website=Ligonier Ministries|language=en-US}}</ref> This is called ontological equality (ontology – the study of being and essence).<ref>{{Cite web|last=Slick|first=Matt|date=2008-11-23|title=The Ontological and Economic Trinity|url=https://carm.org/doctrine-and-theology/the-ontological-and-economic-trinity/|access-date=2021-12-14|website=Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry|language=en-US}}</ref> In the Catholic understanding of the Trinity, as explained by Aquinas, the only difference between the Persons are their "relations,"<ref>{{Cite web|title=SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The person of the Holy Ghost (Prima Pars, Q. 36)|url=https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1036.htm#article2|access-date=2021-12-14|website=www.newadvent.org}}</ref> namely that the Son is begotten by the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Son (in Western catholic thinking). However, Orthodox Christianity accepts that the Son is subordinate to the Father in terms of relations, namely that the Son was begotten by the Father and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and/or the Son. '''Subordinationism''' asserts that ] and ] are subordinate to ] ontologically (in terms of nature and being).


== History ==
Ted Peters says that if anything, contemporary mainline Protestant and Roman Catholic trinitarian thinking is “antisubordinationist.”<ref>Ted Peters, ''God as Trinity'' (Louisville: Westminster, 1993), p. 45</ref>


=== Ante-Nicene ===
Subordinationism began within ]. Virtually all orthodox theologians prior to the ] in the latter half of the fourth century were subordinationists to some extent (Badcock<ref>{{Cite book|last=Badcock|first=Gary D.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qnDyjaXPwooC&q=Origen+Subordinationist&pg=PA43|title=Light of Truth and Fire of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit|date=1997|publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing|isbn=978-0-8028-4288-6|language=en}}</ref>'','' p. 43.). This also applies to Irenaeus and Tertullian<ref>{{Cite web|date=2021-11-26|title=RPC Hanson - A lecture on the Arian Controversy|url=https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/hanson/|access-date=2021-12-14|website=From Daniel to Revelation|language=en-US}}</ref> and to Origen<ref>La Due, William J. (2003), Trinity Guide to the Trinity, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, <nowiki>ISBN 978-1-56338-395-3</nowiki> p. 38.</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=2021-11-26|title=RPC Hanson - A lecture on the Arian Controversy|url=https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/hanson/|access-date=2021-12-14|website=From Daniel to Revelation|language=en-US}}</ref>
According to Badcock, virtually all orthodox theologians prior to the ] in the latter half of the fourth century were subordinationists to some extent,<ref>{{Cite book |last=Badcock |first=Gary D. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qnDyjaXPwooC&q=Origen+Subordinationist&pg=PA43 |title=Light of Truth and Fire of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit |date=1997 |publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing |isbn=978-0-8028-4288-6 |language=en}}</ref> which also applies to ], ], ],<ref>{{cite book | last=La Due | first=William J. | title=The Trinity guide to the Trinity | publisher=Trinity Press International | publication-place=Harrisburg, Pa. | date=2003 | isbn=1-56338-395-0 | oclc=51740028}} p. 38.</ref><ref name="revelationbyjesuschrist.com">{{Cite web |date=2021-11-26 |title=RPC Hanson - A lecture on the Arian Controversy |url=https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/hanson/ |access-date=2021-12-14 |website=From Daniel to Revelation |language=en-US}}</ref> ], ] and ].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Clark |first=Elizabeth A. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ahDPz4mFuD8C&dq=trinity+Subordinationism+Didache&pg=PA230 |title=Founding the Fathers: Early Church History and Protestant Professors in Nineteenth-Century America |date=2011-04-12 |publisher=University of Pennsylvania Press |isbn=978-0-8122-0432-2 |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":32">{{Cite book |last=Novatian |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=i1sd2j_ILAgC&dq=Novatian&pg=PT5 |title=The Sacred Writings of Novatian |date=2012 |publisher=Jazzybee Verlag |isbn=978-3-8496-2144-5 |edition=Annotated |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last1=Marmion |first1=Declan |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=S17mtJCCr_MC&dq=Subordinationism+Clement+of+Rome&pg=PA59 |title=An Introduction to the Trinity |last2=Nieuwenhove |first2=Rik van |date=2011 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-87952-1 |language=en}}</ref> It was also found in the ].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Barker |first=Margaret |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IWCpAwAAQBAJ&dq=Ascension+of+Isaiah+Subordinationism&pg=PT43 |title=Christmas, The Original Story |date=2011-09-22 |publisher=SPCK |isbn=978-0-281-06726-8 |language=en}}</ref> However, there may have been some Ante-Nicene Christian writers who did not affirm subordinationism. ], ] and the early ] seem to reflect a non-subordinationist understanding of the trinity.<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vMqiDwAAQBAJ&dq=Odes+of+Solomon+docetic&pg=PA101 |title=The Spirit Is Moving: New Pathways in Pneumatology |date=2019-02-26 |publisher=BRILL |isbn=978-90-04-39174-1 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Koutloumousianos |first=Chrysostom |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WtHYDwAAQBAJ&dq=Subordinationism+Ignatius+of+Antioch&pg=PA215 |title=The One and the Three: Nature, Person and Triadic Monarchy in the Greek and Irish Patristic Tradition |date=2015-07-30 |publisher=ISD LLC |isbn=978-0-227-90417-6 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Church Fathers: The Other Greek Apologists |url=https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/church-fathers-other-greek-apologists/ |access-date=2022-11-06 |website=www.catholicculture.org}}</ref> Additionally, theologians such as Emile Mersch have disputed the claim that Irenaeus taught any form of subordinationism.<ref>{{Cite book |last=SJ |first=Emile Mersch |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rUX7DwAAQBAJ&dq=Irenaeus+subordinationism&pg=PA243 |title=The Whole Christ: The Historical Development of the Doctrine of the Mystical Body in Scripture and Tradition |date=2011-08-04 |publisher=Wipf and Stock Publishers |isbn=978-1-7252-3033-0 |language=en}}</ref>


=== Arius and Alexander ===
Until the fourth century, various forms of subordinationism were believed or condemned. The Nicene Creed declared the Son to be equal with the Father:<blockquote>The issue before the council, it is virtually universally agreed, was not the unity of the Godhead but rather the coeternity of the Son with the Father, and his full divinity, as contrasted with the creaturehood that the Arians attributed to him. (God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85<ref>{{Cite web|title=Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons - Nicene Creed|url=https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/erickson/|access-date=2021-12-14|website=From Daniel to Revelation|language=en-US}}</ref>)</blockquote>In 380, the Roman Emperor Theodosius, by making the Trinity doctrine the State Religion, outlawed all forms of subordination:<blockquote>By 379, when ] succeeded Valens, Arianism was widespread in the eastern half of the Empire, while the west had remained steadfastly Nicene. (Williams, Stephen; Friell, Gerard (1994). Theodosius: The Empire at Bay. B.T. Batsford Ltd. ] ], pp. 46–53)
The dispute between Alexander and Arius, which started the Arian Controversy, arose in 318 or 319.<ref>{{Cite web|title=A Chronology of the Arian Controversy|url=http://legalhistorysources.com/ChurchHistory220/LectureTwo/ArianControversy.htm|access-date=2021-12-16|website=legalhistorysources.com}}</ref> At the beginning of the controversy nobody knew the right answer.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2021-11-26|title=RPC Hanson - A lecture on the Arian Controversy|url=https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/hanson/|access-date=2021-12-16|website=From Daniel to Revelation|language=en-US}}</ref> ] ({{circa|250}}–336), a clergyman of Alexandria in Egypt, "objected to ]'s (the bishop of the church in that city) apparent carelessness in blurring the distinction of nature between the Father and the Son by his emphasis on eternal generation".<ref>Lyman, J. Rebecca (2010). "The Invention of 'Heresy' and 'Schism'" (PDF). The Cambridge History of Christianity. Retrieved 30 November 2015.</ref> According to ], Arius' position was as follows:<blockquote>"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 had his substance from nothing."<ref>(Socrates of Constantinople, ''Church History,'' Book I, Ch. 5.)</ref></blockquote>As explained in the article on the ], according to Kelly,<ref>{{cite book | last=Kelly | first=J. N. D. | author-link = John Norman Davidson Kelly | title=Early Christian doctrines | publication-place=San Francisco | date=1978 | isbn=0-06-064334-X | oclc=3753468}}</ref> the dispute was over whether the Son had a beginning. To argue this point, the parties referred to the source of the Son's existence: {{Origenism}}<blockquote>To justify his view that the Son had no beginning, Alexander argued that the Son had been 'begotten' by the Father from his own being.


But Arius argued that the Son was created out of nothing, and therefore had a beginning. </blockquote>Alexander, therefore, described the Son as equal with the Father while Arius described Him as subordinate to the Father.
On 28 February 380, (prior to the Council of Constantinople of 381) Theodosius issued the ], determining that only Christians who believed in the consubstantiality of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit could style themselves "]" and have their own places of worship officially recognized as "churches"; deviants were labeled heretics and described as "out of their minds and insane". (''Errington, R. Malcolm (2006).'' Roman Imperial Policy from Julian to Theodosius''. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.'' ] ]'','' p. 217).

This edict is the first known secular Roman law to positively define a religious orthodoxy. (''Errington, R. Malcolm (2006).'' Roman Imperial Policy from Julian to Theodosius''. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.'' ] ]'','' p. 217.)</blockquote>In the traditional understanding of the Trinity, the Son is ] co-equal with the Father. The Nicene Creed describes the Son as ] with the Father. This means that He is of the "same substance" as the Father (The Free Dictionary<ref>{{Citation|title=Homoousion|url=https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Homoousion|work=The Free Dictionary|access-date=2021-12-14}}</ref> or Liddell & Scott<ref>{{Cite web|title=Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, ὁμο-ούσιος|url=https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=o(moou/sios|access-date=2021-12-14|website=www.perseus.tufts.edu}}</ref>). This does not necessarily mean that the Son is ontologivally equal to the Father. For example, Tertullian wrote:<blockquote>“The Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: My Father is greater than I (John 14:28).” (Against Praxeas 9<ref>{{Cite web|title=Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. III : Against Praxeas|url=https://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-43.htm#P10498_2941060|access-date=2021-12-14|website=www.tertullian.org}}</ref>).</blockquote>In other words, although Tertullian regarded the Father and the Son as of the same substance, he also regarded the Son as subordinate (ontologically subordinate) to the Father.

However, in the traditional understanding of the Trinity, homoousiom is understood to mean that the Father and the Son share one single substance (numerically the same substance, as opposed to qualitatively the same). Consequently, homoousion is sometime translated as "one substance" (e.g. Merriam-Webster<ref>{{Cite web|title=Definition of HOMOOUSION|url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homoousion|access-date=2021-12-14|website=www.merriam-webster.com|language=en}}</ref>). For a discussion of the views, see, for example Erickson<ref>{{Cite web|title=Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons - Nicene Creed|url=https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/erickson/|access-date=2021-12-14|website=From Daniel to Revelation|language=en-US}}</ref>).

As indicated by names of the sides in the ], that controversy was not about the entire ], but specifically about the key word in the creed: ]. By disputing that the Son is homoousion with the Father, the various factions of Arianism disputed that the Son is equal with the Father. In other words, the various factions of Arianism during the fourth century were subordinationists.

In various forms it thrived at the same time as Arianism, and long survived Arianism.{{citation needed |date=September 2019}} Its chief proponents in the 4th century were ], with whom the view is most commonly associated, and with ] and ]. Two ], ] and his mentor and predecessor, ], battled Arian subordinationism.{{citation needed |date=September 2019}}

Subordinationism continues in various forms today principally among ], who reject the creeds and confessions of the Nicean Churches.

==History==

===Ante-Nicean===
* ] (AD 115-200) is the earliest surviving witness to recognize all four ]s as essential.<ref name="amazon.com">] ''An Introduction to the New Testament'', p. 14. ]; 1st edition (October 13, 1997). {{ISBN|978-0-385-24767-2}}.</ref> He is perhaps the most clear in his language defining the relationships between the Father and the Son. "...the Father himself is alone called God...the Scriptures acknowledge him alone as God; and yet again...the Lord confesses him alone as his own Father, and knows no other."<ref>Irenaeus ''Against Heresies | Book II'', 6 (] 1:{{ws|]}}).</ref> | " . . this is sure and steadfast, that no other God or Lord was announced by the Spirit, except him who, as God, rules over all, together with his Word, and those who receive the spirit of adoption, that is, those who believe in the one and true God, and in Jesus Christ the Son of God; and likewise that the apostles did of themselves term no one else God, or name no other as Lord; and, what is much more important, since it is true that our Lord acted likewise, who did also command us to confess no one as Father, except he who is in the heavens, who is the one God and the one Father."<ref>Irenaeus ''Against Heresies | Book VI'', 6 (] 1:{{ws|]}}).</ref> | "This, therefore, having been clearly demonstrated here (and it shall yet be so still more clearly), that neither the prophets, nor the apostles, nor the Lord Christ in His own person, did acknowledge any other Lord or God, but the God and Lord supreme: the prophets and the apostles confessing the Father and the Son; but naming no other as God, and confessing no other as Lord: and the Lord Himself handing down to His disciples, that He, the Father, is the only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler of all;" <ref>Irenaeus ''Against Heresies | Book III'', 6 (] 1:{{ws|]}}).</ref> | Irenaeus also refers to John "...proclaiming one God, the Almighty, and one Jesus Christ, the only-begotten, by whom all things were made."<ref>Irenaeus ''Against Heresies | Book I'', 6 (] 1:{{ws|]}}).</ref>
* ] taught that Jesus was ''{{transl |grc|deuteros theos}}'' (''secondary god''),<ref>Origen '']'', 5.39 (PG 14:108-110; ] 4:{{ws|]}}).</ref> a notion borrowed from ]. He also said the Son was "distinct" from the Father.<ref>Prestige xxvii</ref> It should be noticed that some of these same references are used to defend the concept of the Trinity. However, subordinationism is not a differentiation or distinction between persons in the Trinity. In this regard they agree. Subordinationism rather suggests that the Son (and Spirit) are other in substance than the Father.<ref name="Origen">Origen ''On Prayer'', 15:1</ref>
* ] (composed late 1st or early 2nd century): "The apostles received the gospel for us from Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ was sent from God. So Christ is from God, and the apostles are from Christ: thus both came in proper order by the will of God."<ref>Clement of Rome '']'', 42:1-2 (] 1:{{ws|]}}).</ref>
* ] (50-115): "Jesus Christ ... is the expressed purpose of the Father, just as the bishops who have been appointed throughout the world exist by the purpose of Jesus Christ."<ref>Ignatius of Antioch ''Letter to the Ephesians'', 3.</ref> "Be subject to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ in the flesh was subject to the Father and the apostles were subject to Christ and the Father, so that there may be unity both fleshly and spiritual."<ref>Ignatius of Antioch ''Letter to the Magnesians'', 13</ref> "All of you are to follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as the apostles."<ref>Ignatius of Antioch '']'', 8.</ref>
* ] ({{circa|100}}): "{{interp|...|orig=And further, my brethren:}} if the Lord endured to suffer for our soul, He being Lord of all the world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, 'Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness,' {{interp|...|orig=understand how it was that He endured to suffer at the hand of men.}}"<ref>''Epistle of Barnabas'' 5:5 (] 1:{{ws|]}})</ref> "For the Scripture says concerning us, while He speaks to the Son, 'Let Us make man after Our image, and after Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the beasts of the earth, and the fowls of heaven, and the fishes of the sea.' And the Lord said, on beholding the fair creature man, 'Increase, and multiply, and replenish the earth.' These things to the Son."<ref>''Epistle of Barnabas'' 6:12-13 (] 1:{{ws|]}}).</ref>
* ] (100-165) : "I shall attempt to persuade you, {{interp|...|orig=since you have understood the Scriptures, <!-- interpolation in source --> of what I say,}} that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things {{interp|...|orig=—above whom there is no other God—}} wishes to announce to them."<ref>Justin Martyr ''Dialogue with Trypho'', 56 (] 1:{{ws|]}}).</ref> <ref>Cf. Greek text and commentaries in Philippe Bobichon, ''Dialogue avec Tryphon (Dialogue with Trypho), édition critique''. VOLUME I: Introduction, Texte grec, Traduction, Editions universitaires de Fribourg, 2003 Volume II: Commentaires, Appendices, Indices </ref> "But to the Father of all, who is unbegotten, there is no name given. {{interp|...|orig=For by whatever name He be called, He has as His elder the person who gives Him the name. But these words, Father, and God, and Creator, and Lord, and Master, are not names, but appellations derived from His good deeds and functions.}} And His Son, {{interp|...|orig=who alone is properly called Son,}} the Word, who also was with Him and was begotten before the works, when at first He created and arranged all things by Him, is called Christ, in reference to His being anointed and God's ordering all things through Him; {{interp|...|orig=this name itself also containing an unknown significance; as also the appellation "God" is not a name, but an opinion implanted in the nature of men of a thing that can hardly be explained.}} But 'Jesus', His name as man and Saviour, has {{interp|...|orig=also}} significance. For He was made man {{interp|...|orig=also, as we before said,}} having been conceived according to the will of God the Father."<ref>Justin Martyr ''Dialogue with Trypho'', 6 (] 1:{{ws|]}}).</ref> <ref>On Justin Martyr's Christology, see Philippe Bobichon, "¿ Como se integra el tema de la filiación en la obra y en el pensamiento de Justino ?" in ''Filiación. Cultura pagana, religión de Israel, orígenes del cristianismo'', vol. III, Madrid, 2011, pp. 337-378 </ref>
* '']'' ({{circa|1st century}}): "We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David your servant, which you have made known unto us through Jesus your Servant."<ref>''Didache'', 9:1, Sparks ed.</ref> "We thank you, our Father, for the life and knowledge, which you have made known to us through Jesus your Servant. Glory to you forever!"<ref>''Didache'', 9:3, Sparks ed.</ref>
* ] (AD 165-225): professed that the Father, Son, and Spirit "are inseparable from each other." His "assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each Other. This statement," according to Tertullian, "is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, as if it predicated {{interp|...|orig=a diversity, in such a sense as to imply}} a separation among the Father, {{interp|...|orig=and the}} Son, and {{interp|...|orig=the}} Spirit." Tertullian said "it is not by {{interp|...|orig=way of}} diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division {{interp|...|orig=that He is different,}} but by distinction; {{interp|...|orig=because the Father is not the same as the Son, since}} they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, {{interp|...|orig=as He Himself acknowledges: 'My Father is greater than I.' In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being 'a little lower than the angels.'}} Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He {{interp|...|orig=, too,}} who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He {{interp|...|orig=, again,}} who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another." Moreover, "their names represent {{interp|...|orig=them to be; and}} what they are {{interp|...|orig=and ever will be, that will they be}} called; and the distinction indicated by the names does not {{interp|...|orig=at all}} admit {{interp|...|orig=of any}} confusion, because there is none in the things which they designate."<ref>Tertullian ''Against Praxeas'', 9 (] 3:{{ws|]}}).</ref>
* ] (composed 265): "Neither, then, may we divide into three godheads the wonderful and divine unity.... Rather, we must believe in God, the Father Almighty; and in Christ Jesus, his Son; and in the Holy Spirit; and that the Word is united to the God of the universe. 'For,' he says, 'The Father and I are one,' and 'I am in the Father, and the Father in me'."<ref>Dionysius of Rome ''Letter to Dionysius of Alexandria'', 1. Excerpt in {{cite web|title=The Trinity|website=catholic.com|location=El Cajon, CA|publisher=Catholic Answers|url=http://www.catholic.com/library/Trinity.asp|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20011217084903/http://www.catholic.com/library/Trinity.asp|archive-date=2001-12-17|url-status=dead}}</ref> Yet, Jesus is not treated as synonymous with God the Father.{{Citation needed|date=August 2021}}


===First Council of Nicaea=== ===First Council of Nicaea===
{{main|First Council of Nicaea}}For the reasons of him being moderate in the religious and political spectrum of beliefs, ] turned to ] to try to make peace between the Arians and their opponents at Nicaea I.<ref>On the so-called 'Arians' of the fourth century see Hanson, ''The Search,'' 3-59, 557-638, Ayres, ''Nicea,'' 105-132, and, D. Gwynn, ''The Eusebians'': ''The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Construction of the Arian Heresy'' (Oxford: OUP, 2007).</ref>
{{main|First Council of Nicaea}}
Bishop Alexander, of Alexandria, taught that Christ was the Divine ], who was equal to the Father by nature, and in no way inferior to him, sharing the Father's divine nature. However, Presbyter Arius believed this was inconsistent with the recent decisions against ] at the Synod of Rome. Arius opposed Alexander and called him a heretic. At subsequent local synods, Alexander's view was upheld, and Arius was condemned and excommunicated as a heretic.


Eusebius of Caesarea wrote, in ''On the Theology of the Church'', that the Nicene Creed is a full expression of Christian theology, which begins with: "We believe in One God..." Eusebius goes on to explain how initially the goal was not to expel Arius and his supporters, but to find a Creed on which all of them could agree and unite.
Arius' friendship with powerful allies, especially Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was influential in Constantine's Imperial Court, led to the controversy being brought before Constantine. Constantine at first viewed the controversy as trivial and insisted that they settle their dispute quietly and peacefully. When it became clear that a peaceful solution was not forthcoming, Constantine summoned all Christian bishops to convene the ] (Nicaea I) at Nicaea. From the beginning of the Arian controversy, due to the influence of Arian bishops like Eusebius of Nicomedia, Constantine initially favored the Arian position. He saw their views as being easier for the common Roman to understand, and easier for Roman pagans to accept and convert to.


Eusebius of Caesarea suggested a compromise wording of a creed, in which the Son would be affirmed as "homo'''i'''ousios", or "of '''''similar''''' substance/nature" with the Father. But Alexander and Athanasius saw that this compromise would allow the Arians to continue to teach their heresy, but stay technically within orthodoxy, and therefore rejected that wording.
Two vocal subordinationists were ] and Eusebius of Nicomedia. Of these, Eusebius of Caesarea was more moderate in his subordinationist views. Although not as extreme as the Arians in his definition of who ] is, he disagreed with the ] in equating Jesus with his Father in authority or person but he was flexible concerning ''ousia'' (substance). The Anti-Arians also opposed Modalism, but insisted on the equality of the Son and the Father by nature (though they generally allowed that the Son was relationally subordinate to the Father as to his authority). For the reasons of him being moderate in the religious and political spectrum of beliefs, ] turned to Eusebius of Caesarea to try to make peace between the Arians and their opponents at Nicaea I.<ref>On the so-called ‘Arians’ of the fourth century see Hanson, ''The Search,'' 3-59, 557-638, Ayres, ''Nicea,'' 105-132, and, D. Gwynn, ''The Eusebians'': ''The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Construction of the Arian Heresy'' (Oxford: OUP, 2007).</ref>


"The decisive catchword of the Nicene confession, namely, '']'' ... comes from no less a person than the emperor himself. To the present day no one has cleared up the problem of where the emperor got the term.<ref>A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Bernard Lohse, 1966, p51-53</ref> Homoousios means "of the same substance/nature" with the Father. Many theologians were uncomfortable with this term. "Their objection to the term homoousian was that it was considered to be un-scriptural, suspicious, and "of a ] tendency"."<ref>Select Treatises of St. Athanasius - In Controversy With the Arians - Freely Translated by John Henry Cardinal Newmann - Longmans, Green, and Co., 1911, footnote n.124</ref><ref name=":3">{{Cite web |title=Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons - Nicene Creed |url=https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/erickson/ |access-date=2021-12-14 |website=From Daniel to Revelation |language=en-US}}</ref> "But the emperor exerted considerable influence. Consequently, the statement was approved by all except three."<ref name=":3" /><ref>Cheryl Graham, University of Glasgow, Assess the role of Constantine at the council of Nicaea</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Trinity: The role of Constantine in the Nicene creed|url=https://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-history-constantine.htm#:~:text=Constantine%20was%20introduced%20to%20the%20trinity%20debates%20which,they%20viewed%20Jesus%20as%20a%20creature,%20not%20God.|access-date=2021-12-21|website=www.bible.ca}}</ref>
Eusebius of Caesarea wrote, in ''On the Theology of the Church'', that the Nicene Creed is a full expression of Christian theology, which begins with: "We believe in One God..." Eusebius goes on to explain how initially the goal was not to expel Arius and his supporters, but to find a Creed on which all of them could agree and unite. The Arians, led by Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia, insisted that the Son was "heteroousios" or "of a different substance/nature" from the Father. The opposition, led by Alexander, his protege ], and ] insisted that the Arian view was heretical and unacceptable. Eusebius of Caesarea suggested a compromise wording of a creed, in which the Son would be affirmed as "homo'''i'''ousios", or "of '''''similar''''' substance/nature" with the Father. But Alexander and Athanasius saw that this compromise would allow the Arians to continue to teach their heresy, but stay technically within orthodoxy, and therefore rejected that wording. Hosius of Cordova suggested the term "'']''" or "of the same substance/nature" with the Father. This term was found to be acceptable, though it meant the exclusion of the Arians. But it united most of those in attendance at Nicaea I. Even the "semi-Arians" such as Eusebius of Caesarea accepted the term and signed the Nicene Creed.


===Post-Nicene===
Constantine, though he initially backed the Arians, supported the decision of the Council in order to unify the Church and his Empire. He ordered that any bishop, including his friend Eusebius of Nicomedia, who refused to sign the Creed should be removed from their positions in the Church and exiled from the Empire.
] opposed subordinationism and was highly hostile to hierarchical rankings of the divine persons.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Giles |first=Kevin |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lo42zEOKobwC&dq=Athanasius+Subordinationism&pg=PA113 |title=The Eternal Generation of the Son: Maintaining Orthodoxy in Trinitarian Theology |date=2012-05-07 |publisher=InterVarsity Press |isbn=978-0-8308-3965-0 |language=en}}</ref> It was also opposed by ] and ].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Hippo |first=Augustine of |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RN6cDAAAQBAJ&dq=Subordinationism+Augustine&pg=PA2092 |title=Delphi Collected Works of Saint Augustine (Illustrated) |date=2016-07-03 |publisher=Delphi Classics |isbn=978-1-78656-376-7 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last1=Ramelli |first1=Ilaria L. E. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yyJIEAAAQBAJ&dq=Origen+Subordinationism+and+Arianism&pg=PA435 |title=T&T Clark Handbook of the Early Church |last2=McGuckin |first2=J. A. |last3=Ashwin-Siejkowski |first3=Piotr |date=2021-12-16 |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |isbn=978-0-567-68039-6 |language=en}}</ref> It was condemned in the 6th century along with other doctrines taught by Origen.<ref name="Origen">{{Cite book |last=Origen |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vn6qEg2MwX0C&dq=Origen+subordinationism+condemned&pg=PA6 |title=Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Books 1-5 |date=April 2010 |publisher=CUA Press |isbn=978-0-8132-1203-6 |language=en}}</ref>


], writing against Origen, attacked his views of subordinationism.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Clark |first=Elizabeth A. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9joABAAAQBAJ&dq=Subordinationism+Origen&pg=PA90 |title=The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate |date=2014-07-14 |publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=978-1-4008-6311-2 |language=en}}</ref>
===Post-Nicean===
Athanasius, while believing in the Monarchy of God the Father in which the Father is the source of the Son, rejected Arian subordinationism. Constantine, who had been sympathetic to the Arian view from the beginning of the controversy, ends up rescinding the exiles of Arius and his supporters only a few short years after Nicea. He also brings Eusebius of Nicomedia in as his personal spiritual advisor, and then turned on Athanasius, who is not only deposed from his seat as bishop of Alexandria, but also banished from the ] a total of five different times.


===Sixteenth-century Reformed===
After the death of Constantine, his sons, ] and ], share joint rule in the Empire. Both sons begin to actively support the subordinationist views of Arianism, and begin to depose Trinitarian bishops in key sees throughout the empire and replace them with Arian bishops. This policy begins to change the balance of power in the Christian Church, as many of the most influential churches in the empire became Arian by the intervention of Constans I and Constantius II.<ref>] ''Church History'', 2.37 (NPNF2 2:{{ws|]}}).</ref> To this, ] lamented about the creed of the ]: "The whole world groaned and was astonished to find itself Arian."<ref>Jerome ''Dialogue against the Luciferians'', 19 (NPNF2 6:{{ws|]}}).</ref> Ironically, after Nicaea I, Arianism actually grew in power in the Church.
In his ''Institutes of the Christian Religion'', book 1, chapter 13, ] attacks those in the Reformation family who while they confess "that there are three persons" speak of the Father as "the essence giver" as if he were "truly and properly the sole God". This, he says, "definitely cast the Son down from his rank".<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Institutes of the Christian Religion|last=Calvin|first=John|publisher=SCM|year=1960|editor-last=McNeil|editor-first=J.|volume=1.13.23|location=London|page=149|translator-last=Battles|translator-first=F.I.}}</ref> This is because it implies that the Father is God in a way the Son is not. Modern scholars are agreed that this was a sixteenth-century form of what today is called "subordinationism". Richard Muller says Calvin recognised that what his opponents were teaching "amounted to a radical subordination of the second and third persons, with the result that the Father alone is truly God".<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|title=Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, Vol 4, The Triunity of God|last=Muller|first=Richard|publisher=Baker|year=2003|location=Grand Rapids|page=96}}</ref> Ellis adds that this teaching also implied tritheism, three separate Gods.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book|title=Calvin, Classical Trinitarianism, and the Aseity of the Son|last=Ellis|first=Brannon|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2012|location=Oxford|page=122}}</ref>

The deaths of Constans I and Constantius II ended this policy, however the increased power of Arianism in the Church remained unchanged until the ascension of an Emperor friendly to the Trinitarian view. ] called the ], Constantinople I, in 381, 56 years after Nicaea I, to confront the Arian controversy.<ref>Socrates Scholasticus ''Church History'', 5.8 (NPNF2 2:{{ws|]}}), 5.11 (NPNF2 2:{{ws|]}}).</ref> Constantinople I once again rejected Arian subordinationism, and affirmed ]. In addition, the ] of 325 was amended and expanded to include a more detailed statement about the Holy Spirit, rejecting an idea which had been advanced by the Arians during the intervening years since Nicea, termed "]", which denied the full deity of the Holy Spirit. The Creed of 381<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/doctrine/the-symbol-of-faith/nicene-creed|title = The Orthodox Faith - Volume I - Doctrine and Scripture - the Symbol of Faith - Nicene Creed}}</ref> included an affirmation of the full deity of the Holy Spirit, calling him "the Lord, the giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father."<ref>Tanner, Norman; Alberigo, Giuseppe, eds. (1990). Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. p. 84. {{ISBN|0-87840-490-2}}</ref>

] achieved final victory against Arian Subordinationism by refuting the various later versions of Arianism. Like all catholic theologians they also believed in the Monarchy of God the Father, which they interpreted as denying the subordination of the essence of the Son and Holy Spirit. (The Greek Fathers and the whole Christian Orient speak, in this regard, of the "Father's Monarchy," and the Western tradition, following ], also confesses that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father ''{{lang|la|principaliter}}'', that is, as principle.<ref>Augustine of Hippo. '']'' XV, 25, 47 (PL 42:1094-1095).</ref> In this sense, therefore, the two traditions recognize that the "monarchy of the Father" implies that the Father is the sole Trinitarian Cause (Aitia) or Principle (''{{linktext|principium|lang=la}}'') of the Son and the Holy Spirit.)

The origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone as Principle of the whole Trinity is called ''{{transl|grc|ekporeusis}}'' by Greek tradition, following the Cappadocian Fathers. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, the Theologian, in fact, characterizes the Spirit's relationship of origin from the Father by the proper term ekporeusis, distinguishing it from that of procession (to proienai) which the Spirit has in common with the Son. "The Spirit is truly the Spirit proceeding (proion) from the Father, not by filiation, for it is not by generation, but by ekporeusis."<ref>''Discourse 39'', 12 (Sources chretiennes 358, p. 175)</ref> {{speculation inline|text=Even if Cyril of Alexandria happens at times to apply the verb ekporeusthai to the Son's relationship of origin from the Father, he never uses it for the relationship of the Spirit to the Son.|date=June 2016}}<ref>c.f. Commentary on St. John, X, 2, (PG 74:910D); Ep 55, (PG 77:316D), etc.</ref> Even for Cyril, the term ''{{transl|grc|ekporeusis}}'' as distinct from the term "proceed" (proienai), can only characterize a relationship of origin to the principle without principle of the Trinity: the Father.

In 589, battling a resurgence of Arianism, the ], in the ], added the term ''{{lang|la|]}}'' ("and the Son") to the Nicene Creed.<ref name="ODCCfilioque">{{cite encyclopedia|year=2005|title=Filioque|editor1-last=Cross|editor1-first=Frank L.|editor2-last=Livingstone|editor2-first=Elizabeth A.|encyclopedia=The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church|url=http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780192802903.001.0001/acref-9780192802903-e-2606|edition=3rd rev.|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=9780192802903|via=Oxford Reference Online|url-access=subscription }}</ref> This was ostensibly to counter the Arian argument that the Son was inferior to the Father because he did not share in the Father's role as the Source of the Holy Spirit's Godhead, and so they affirmed that the Holy Spirit proceeded "from the Father ''and the Son''". This, phrase, however, was not intended originally to change the Nicene Creed, but only used as a local creed in defense against the Arians. But its use began to spread throughout the Western Church. To many in the Eastern Church, the ''filioque'' implied that there were two sources of the Godhead, the Father and the Son, which to them meant that there were now two Gods, and the Holy Spirit was relegated to an inferior status, as the only member of the Godhead who was not the source of any other. The Western Churches, however, did not necessarily understand this clause to imply this, but understood it to mean the Holy Spirit proceeded "from the Father through the Son" or "From the Father and the Son as from one principle our source".<ref>Davies, Rupert Eric (1987-07-01). Making sense of the creeds. Epworth. {{ISBN|978-0-7162-0433-6}}. Retrieved 2013-03-14.</ref> But to the Eastern Church, it appeared to be a denial of the Monarchy of the Father and an heretical and unauthorized change of the Nicene Faith.

In the Eastern Church, the debate surrounding subordinationism was submerged into the later conflict over ], or single-source of divinity. This idea was that the Father was the source of divinity, from whom the Son is eternally begotten and the Spirit proceeds. As the Western church seemed to implicitly deny the monarchy of the Father and explicitly assert the ]. Disagreements about the ''filioque'' and ] eventually contributed to the ] of 1054.

=== Sixteenth-century Reformed ===
In his ''Institutes of the Christian Religion,'' book 1'','' chapter 13 Calvin attacks those in the Reformation family who while they confess ‘that there are three persons’ speak of the Father as ‘the essence giver’ as if he were ‘truly and properly the sole God’. This he says, ‘definitely cast the Son down from his rank.<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Institutes of the Christian Religion|last=Calvin|first=John|publisher=SCM|year=1960|editor-last=McNeil|editor-first=J.|volume=1.13.23|location=London|page=149|translator-last=Battles|translator-first=F.I.}}</ref> This is because it implies that the Father is God in a way the Son is not. Modern scholars are agreed that this was a sixteenth century form of what today is called, ‘subordinationism’. Richard Muller says Calvin recognised that what his opponents were teaching ‘amounted to a radical subordination of the second and third persons, with the result that the Father alone is truly God.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|title=Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, Vol 4, The Triunity of God|last=Muller|first=Richard|publisher=Baker|year=2003|location=Grand Rapids|page=96}}</ref> Ellis adds that this teaching also implied tritheism, three separate Gods.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book|title=Calvin, Classical Trinitarianism, and the Aseity of the Son|last=Ellis|first=Brannon|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2012|location=Oxford|page=122}}</ref>


=== Seventeenth-century Arminianism === === Seventeenth-century Arminianism ===
] (1560-1609), in contrast to Calvin, argued that the begetting of the Son should be understood as the generation of the ''person of the Son'' and therefore the attribute of self-existence, or ''aseitas'', belonged to the Father alone.<ref name=":1" /> His disciple, ] (1583-1643), who assumed the name Episcopius, went further speaking openly and repeatedly of the subordination of the Son.<ref name=":2">{{Cite book|title=Institutiones Theologicae, in Opera Theologica, 2nd ed., vol 1|last=Episcopius|first=Simon|publisher='s Gravenhage|year=1678|pages=4.2.32}}</ref> He wrote, ‘It is certain from these same scriptures that to these people’s divinity and divine perfections are attributed, but not collaterally or co-ordinately, but subordinately.<ref name=":2" /> Ellis says: ‘His discussion of the importance of recognizing subordination among the persons takes up nearly half of the chapter on the Trinity, and the following four chapters are largely taken up with the implications of this subordination.<ref name=":1" /> In seventeenth century ] subordinationism gained wide support from leading English divines, including, Bishop John Bull (1634-1710), Bishop ] (1683-1689) and ] (1675-1729), one of the most learned biblical scholars of his day.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite book|title=Archetypal Heresy. Arianism through the Centuries|last=Wiles|first=Maurice|publisher=Clarendon|year=1996|location=Oxford|pages=153–159}}</ref> ] (1560–1609), in contrast to Calvin, argued that the begetting of the Son should be understood as the generation of the ''person of the Son'' and therefore the attribute of self-existence, or ''aseitas'', belonged to the Father alone.<ref name=":1" /> His disciple, ] (1583–1643), who assumed the name Episcopius, went further speaking openly and repeatedly of the subordination of the Son.<ref name=":2">{{Cite book|title=Institutiones Theologicae, in Opera Theologica, 2nd ed., vol 1|last=Episcopius|first=Simon|publisher='s Gravenhage|year=1678|pages=4.2.32}}</ref> He wrote, "It is certain from these same scriptures that to these people's divinity and divine perfections are attributed, but not collaterally or co-ordinately, but subordinately."<ref name=":2" /> Ellis says: "His discussion of the importance of recognizing subordination among the persons takes up nearly half of the chapter on the Trinity, and the following four chapters are largely taken up with the implications of this subordination."<ref name=":1" /> In seventeenth-century England, ] gained wide support from leading English divines, including Bishop ] (1634–1710), Bishop ] (1683–1689) and ] (1675–1729), one of the most learned biblical scholars of his day.<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{Cite book|title=Archetypal Heresy. Arianism through the Centuries|last=Wiles|first=Maurice|publisher=Clarendon|year=1996|location=Oxford|pages=153–159}}</ref>


==Current views== ==Current views==


===Eastern Orthodox=== ===Eastern Orthodox===
According to the Eastern Orthodox view, the Son is derived from the Father who alone is without cause or origin. This is not subordinationism, and the same doctrine is asserted by western theologians such as Augustine. In this view, the Son is co-eternal with the Father or even in terms of the co-equal uncreated nature shared by the Father and Son. However, this view is sometimes misunderstood as a form of subordinationism by Western Christians, who also asserts the same view even when not using the technical term i.e. Monarchy of the Father. Western view is often viewed by the Eastern Church as being close to ].<ref>{{cite book|last=Meyendorff|first=John|author-link=John Meyendorff|year=1996|orig-year=©1981|editor-last=Lossky|editor-first=Nicholas|translator-last=Chapin|translator-first=John|title=The Orthodox Church: its past and its role in the world today|edition=4th rev.|location=Crestwood, NY|publisher=St. Vladimir's Seminary Press|isbn=9780913836811|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=E16XzwPdJtsC}}</ref>{{Page needed|date=June 2016}}<ref>{{cite book|last=Ware|first=Timothy (Kallistos)|author-link=Kallistos Ware|year=1993|title=The Orthodox Church|series=Penguin religion and mythology|edition=New|location=London |publisher=Penguin Books|isbn=9780140146561|page=213?<!-- page mismatched with edition -->}}</ref> According to the Eastern Orthodox view, the Son is derived from the Father who alone is without cause or origin. In this view, the Son is co-eternal with the Father or even in terms of the co-equal uncreated nature shared by the Father and Son. This view is sometimes misunderstood by Western Christians as subordinationism{{Cn|date=January 2023}}. The same doctrine is asserted by western theologians such as Augustine even when not using the technical term i.e. Monarchy of the Father{{Cn|date=January 2023}}. Western view is often viewed by the Eastern Church as being close to ].<ref>{{cite book|last=Meyendorff|first=John|author-link=John Meyendorff|year=1996|orig-year=©1981|editor-last=Lossky|editor-first=Nicholas|translator-last=Chapin|translator-first=John|title=The Orthodox Church: its past and its role in the world today|edition=4th rev.|location=Crestwood, NY|publisher=St. Vladimir's Seminary Press|isbn=9780913836811|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=E16XzwPdJtsC}}</ref>{{Page needed|date=June 2016}}<ref>{{cite book|last=Ware|first=Timothy (Kallistos)|author-link=Kallistos Ware|year=1993|title=The Orthodox Church|series=Penguin religion and mythology|edition=New|location=London |publisher=Penguin Books|isbn=9780140146561|page=213?<!-- page mismatched with edition -->}}</ref>


===Catholics=== ===Catholics===
The Catholic Church also believes that the Son is begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit is proceeding from the Father through / and from the Son. Catholic theologian ] wrote that subordinationism "denies that the second and third persons are ] with the Father. Therefore it denies their true divinity."<ref>{{cite web|last=Hardon|first=John A.|author-link=John Hardon|title=Catholic doctrine on the Holy Trinity|website=therealpresence.org|location=Lombard, IL|publisher=Real Presence Eucharistic Education and Adoration Association|publication-date=2003|url=http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Trinity/Trinity_001.htm|access-date=2016-06-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20031224184528/http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Trinity/Trinity_001.htm|archive-date=2003-12-24|url-status=live}}</ref> Arius "made a formal heresy of" subordinationism.<ref name="ITC1979"/> The ] wrote that "many Christian theologians borrowed from Hellenism the notion of a secondary god (''{{transl|grc|deuteros theos}}''), or of an intermediate god, or even of a ]." Subordinationism was "latent in some of the Apologists and in Origen."<ref name="ITC1979">{{cite web|author=International Theological Commission|author-link=International Theological Commission|date=1979|title=Select questions on Christology|website=vatican.va|at=§II.A.2.|url=https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1979_cristologia_en.html|access-date=2016-06-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120318120545/https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1979_cristologia_en.html|archive-date=2012-03-18|url-status=live}}</ref> The Son was, for Arius, in "an intermediate position between the Father and the creatures." Nicaea I "defined that the Son is consubstantial (''{{transl |grc|]}}'') with the Father. In so doing, the Church both repudiated the Arian compromise with Hellenism and deeply altered the shape of Greek, especially ] and ], metaphysics. In a manner of speaking, it demythicized Hellenism and effected a Christian purification of it. In the act of dismissing the notion of an intermediate being, the Church recognized only two modes of being: uncreated (nonmade) and created."<ref name="ITC1979" /> The Catholic Church also believes that the Son is begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit is proceeding from the Father through / and from the Son. Catholic theologian ] wrote that subordinationism "denies that the second and third persons are ] with the Father. Therefore it denies their true divinity."{{Cn|date=January 2023}} Arius "made a formal heresy of" subordinationism.<ref name="ITC1979"/> The ] wrote that "many Christian theologians borrowed from Hellenism the notion of a secondary god (''{{transliteration|grc|deuteros theos}}''), or of an intermediate god, or even of a ]." Subordinationism was "latent in some of the Apologists and in Origen."<ref name="ITC1979">{{cite web|author=International Theological Commission|author-link=International Theological Commission|date=1979|title=Select questions on Christology|website=vatican.va|at=§II.A.2.|url=https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1979_cristologia_en.html|access-date=2016-06-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120318120545/https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1979_cristologia_en.html|archive-date=2012-03-18|url-status=live}}</ref> The Son was, for Arius, in "an intermediate position between the Father and the creatures." Nicaea I "defined that the Son is consubstantial (''{{transliteration |grc|]}}'') with the Father. In so doing, the Church both repudiated the Arian compromise with Hellenism and deeply altered the shape of Greek, especially ] and ], metaphysics. In a manner of speaking, it demythicized Hellenism and effected a Christian purification of it. In the act of dismissing the notion of an intermediate being, the Church recognized only two modes of being: uncreated (nonmade) and created."<ref name="ITC1979" />


===Lutherans=== ===Lutherans===
{{Undue weight section |date=June 2016}} {{Undue weight section |date=June 2016}}
Subordinationism in yet another form gained support from a number of Lutheran theologians in Germany in the nineteenth century. Stockhardt, writing in opposition, says the well-known theologians Thomasius, Frank, Delitsch, Martensen, von Hoffman and Zoeckler all argued that the Father is God in the primary sense, and the Son and the Spirit are God in second and third degree. He criticises most sharply the Leipzig theologian, Karl Friedrich Augustus Kahnis (1814-1888).<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Stockhardt|first=G|date=1894|title='Der moderne Subordinatianismus im Licht der Schrift,'|journal=Lehre und Wehre|volume=40|pages=17–24}}</ref> For these Lutheran theologians, God was God, Jesus Christ was God in some lesser way. The American Lutheran theologian, F. Pieper (1852-1931), argues that behind this teaching lay an acceptance of ‘modernism’, or what we would call today, theological ‘liberalism’.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Christian Dogmatics|last=Pieper|first=Francis|publisher=Concordia|year=1950|location=St Louis, Miss|page=384}}</ref> Subordinationism in yet another form gained support from a number of Lutheran theologians in Germany in the nineteenth century. Stockhardt, writing in opposition, says the well-known theologians Thomasius, Frank, Delitsch, Martensen, von Hoffman and Zoeckler all argued that the Father is God in the primary sense, and the Son and the Spirit are God in second and third degree. He criticises most sharply the Leipzig theologian, Karl Friedrich Augustus Kahnis (1814–1888).<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Stockhardt|first=G|date=1894|title='Der moderne Subordinatianismus im Licht der Schrift,'|journal=Lehre und Wehre|volume=40|pages=17–24}}</ref> For these Lutheran theologians, God was God, Jesus Christ was God in some lesser way. The American Lutheran theologian, F. Pieper (1852–1931), argues that behind this teaching lay an acceptance of ‘modernism’, or what we would call today, theological ‘liberalism’.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Christian Dogmatics|last=Pieper|first=Francis|publisher=Concordia|year=1950|location=St Louis, Miss|page=384}}</ref>


More recently John Kleinig, of ], promoted a form of subordinationism and concluded: More recently John Kleinig, of ], promoted a form of subordinationism and concluded:
{{quote |Well then, is the exalted Christ in any way subordinate to the Father right now? The answer is both "yes" and "no". It all depends on whether we are speaking about Him in His nature as God, or about Him in his office as the exalted Son of God. On the one hand, He is not subordinate to the Father in His divine essence, status, and majesty. On the other hand, He is, I hold, subordinate to the Father in His vice-regal office and His work as prophet, priest, and king. He is operationally subordinate to the Father. In the present operation of the triune God in the church and the world, He is the mediator between God the Father and humankind. The exalted Christ receives everything from His Father to deliver to us, so that in turn, He can bring us back to the Father.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Kleinig|first=John W.|date=2005–2006|title=The subordination of the exalted Son to the Father|journal=Lutheran Theological Review|volume=18|issue=1|pages=41–52|issn=1180-0798|url=https://brocku.ca/concordiaseminary/LTR/LTR%20XVIII.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150905124854/http://www.brocku.ca/concordiaseminary/LTR/LTR%20XVIII.pdf|archive-date=2015-09-05|url-status=live}}</ref>}} {{blockquote |Well then, is the exalted Christ in any way subordinate to the Father right now? The answer is both "yes" and "no". It all depends on whether we are speaking about Him in His nature as God, or about Him in his office as the exalted Son of God. On the one hand, He is not subordinate to the Father in His divine essence, status, and majesty. On the other hand, He is, I hold, subordinate to the Father in His vice-regal office and His work as prophet, priest, and king. He is operationally subordinate to the Father. In the present operation of the triune God in the church and the world, He is the mediator between God the Father and humankind. The exalted Christ receives everything from His Father to deliver to us, so that in turn, He can bring us back to the Father.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Kleinig|first=John W.|date=2005–2006|title=The subordination of the exalted Son to the Father|journal=Lutheran Theological Review|volume=18|issue=1|pages=41–52|issn=1180-0798|url=https://brocku.ca/concordiaseminary/LTR/LTR%20XVIII.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150905124854/http://www.brocku.ca/concordiaseminary/LTR/LTR%20XVIII.pdf|archive-date=2015-09-05|url-status=live}}</ref>}}


===New Calvinists=== ===New Calvinists===
{{main|Eternal functional subordination}}
While contemporary Evangelicals believe the historically agreed fundamentals of the Christian faith, including the Trinity, among the ] formula, the Trinity is one God in three equal persons, among whom there is "economic subordination" (as, for example, when the Son obeys the Father). As recently as 1977, the concept of economic subordinationism has been advanced in ] circles.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism|last=Piper & Grudem|first=John & Wayne|publisher=Crossways|year=1991|location=Wheaton, Ill|pages=104, 130, 163, 257, 394}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|title=Systematic Theology|last=Grudem|first=Wayne|publisher=IVP|year=1994|isbn=0851106528|location=Leicester|pages=230–257}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|title=Father, Son and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles and Relevance|last=Ware|first=Bruce|publisher=Crossways|year=2005|isbn=978-1-58134-668-8|location=Wheaton, Ill}}</ref> In ''The New Testament teaching on the role relationship of men and women'', Presbyterian minister ] wrote that the Son is functionally – but not ontologically – subordinate to the Father, thus positing that eternal functional subordination does not necessarily imply ] subordination.<ref>{{cite book|title=The New Testament teaching on the role relationship of men and women|last=Knight|first=George W.|publisher=Baker Book House|year=1977|isbn=9780801053832|location=Grand Rapids, MI|pages=32–34, 55–57}}</ref>{{Page needed|date=June 2016}}. The reception of such doctrine among other Evangelicals has yielded certain controversies.<ref>Jowers, Dennis W., and H. Wayne House, eds. The New Evangelical Subordinationism?: Perspectives on the Equality of God the Father and God the Son. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2012.</ref><ref>Holmes, Stephen R. "Classical trinitarianism and eternal functional subordination: some historical and dogmatic reflections." Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology (2017).</ref><ref>Kovach, Stephen D., and Peter R. Schemm Jr. "A Defense of the Doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42.3 (1999): 461.</ref> While contemporary Evangelicals believe the historically agreed fundamentals of the Christian faith, including the Trinity, among the ] formula, the Trinity is one God in three equal persons, among whom there is "economic subordination" (as, for example, when the Son obeys the Father). As recently as 1977, the concept of economic subordinationism has been advanced in ] circles.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism|last=Piper & Grudem|first=John & Wayne|publisher=Crossways|year=1991|location=Wheaton, Ill|pages=104, 130, 163, 257, 394}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|title=Systematic Theology|last=Grudem|first=Wayne|publisher=IVP|year=1994|isbn=0851106528|location=Leicester|pages=230–257}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|title=Father, Son and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles and Relevance|last=Ware|first=Bruce|publisher=Crossways|year=2005|isbn=978-1-58134-668-8|location=Wheaton, Ill}}</ref> In ''The New Testament teaching on the role relationship of men and women'', Presbyterian minister ] wrote that the Son is functionally―but not ontologically―subordinate to the Father, thus positing that eternal functional subordination does not necessarily imply ] subordination.<ref>{{cite book|title=The New Testament teaching on the role relationship of men and women|last=Knight|first=George W.|publisher=Baker Book House|year=1977|isbn=9780801053832|location=Grand Rapids, MI|pages=32–34, 55–57}}</ref>{{Page needed|date=June 2016}}. The reception of such doctrine among other Evangelicals has yielded certain controversies.<ref>Jowers, Dennis W., and H. Wayne House, eds. The New Evangelical Subordinationism?: Perspectives on the Equality of God the Father and God the Son. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2012.</ref><ref>Holmes, Stephen R. "Classical trinitarianism and eternal functional subordination: some historical and dogmatic reflections." Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology (2017).</ref><ref>Kovach, Stephen D., and Peter R. Schemm Jr. "A Defense of the Doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42.3 (1999): 461.</ref>


===Nontrinitarians === ===Nontrinitarians ===
{{main|Nontrinitarianism}} {{main|Nontrinitarianism}}
Nontrinitarianism is a form of ] that rejects the mainstream ] of the ]—the teaching that ] is three distinct ] or ]s who are coeternal, coequal, and indivisibly united in one being, or essence (from the Greek '']''). Certain religious groups that emerged during the ] have historically been known as antitrinitarian. The mainstream ] of the ] may be described as the teaching that ] is three distinct ] or ]s who are coeternal, coequal, and indivisibly united in one being, or essence (from the Greek '']''). The three largest ] that do not accept the Trinity doctrine are ], ] and the ].<ref name="Halsey1988">{{cite book|last=Halsey|first=A.|title=British Social Trends since 1900: A Guide to the Changing Social Structure of Britain|date=13 October 1988|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan UK|language=en |isbn=9781349194667|page=518|quote=his so called 'non-Trinitarian' group includes the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Christadelphians, Christian Scientists, Theosophists, Church of Scientology, Unification Church (Moonies), the Worldwide Church of God and so on.}}</ref> The ] also do not accept the Trinity doctrine.

In number of adherents, nontrinitarian ] comprise a small minority of modern Christianity. The three that are by far the largest are ] ("Mormons"), ] and the ], though there are a number of other smaller groups.<ref name="Halsey1988">{{cite book|last=Halsey|first=A.|title=British Social Trends since 1900: A Guide to the Changing Social Structure of Britain|date=13 October 1988|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan UK|language=en |isbn=9781349194667|page=518|quote=his so called 'non-Trinitarian' group includes the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Christadelphians, Christian Scientists, Theosophists, Church of Scientology, Unification Church (Moonies), the Worldwide Church of God and so on.}}</ref>


===Scholars=== ===Scholars===


====Oxford Encyclopedia==== ====Oxford Encyclopedia====
According to the Oxford Encyclopedia:<blockquote>Subordinationism means to consider Christ, as Son of God, as inferior to the Father. According to the Oxford Encyclopedia:<blockquote>Subordinationism means to consider Christ, as Son of God, as inferior to the Father.


This tendency was strong in the 2nd- and 3rd-century theology. It is evident in theologians like Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Novatian, and Irenaeus. Irenaeus, for example, commenting on Christ's statement, “the Father is greater than I” ({{bibleref2 |John|14:28|NRSV}}), has no difficulty in considering Christ as inferior to the Father.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|year=1992|encyclopedia=Encyclopedia of the early church|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=New York|last=Simmonetti|first=M.|editor-last=Berardino|editor-first=Angelo Di|volume=2|page=797|isbn=9780195208924|translator-last=Walford|translator-first=Adrian}}</ref> This tendency was strong in the 2nd- and 3rd-century theology. It is evident in theologians like Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Novatian, and Irenaeus. Irenaeus, for example, commenting on Christ's statement, “the Father is greater than I” ({{bibleref2 |John|14:28|NRSV}}), has no difficulty in considering Christ as inferior to the Father.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|year=1992|encyclopedia=Encyclopedia of the early church|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=New York|last=Simmonetti|first=M.|editor-last=Berardino|editor-first=Angelo Di|volume=2|page=797|isbn=9780195208924|translator-last=Walford|translator-first=Adrian}}</ref>


In those centuries subordination was developed in Logos Christology which, partly under the influence of ], explained Christ as the divine logos of Greek philosophy; mediator between the high God and this world of change and decay. In those centuries subordination was developed in Logos Christology which, partly under the influence of ], explained Christ as the divine logos of Greek philosophy; mediator between the high God and this world of change and decay.


When Origen enlarged the conception of the Trinity to include the Holy Spirit, he explained the Son as inferior to the Father and the Holy Spirit as inferior to the Son. When Origen enlarged the conception of the Trinity to include the Holy Spirit, he explained the Son as inferior to the Father and the Holy Spirit as inferior to the Son.


Subordination is based on statements which Jesus made, such as (a) that “''the Father is greater than I''” (John 14:28); (b) that, with respect to when the day of Judgment will be, “''of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone''” (Mark 13:32), and that He spoke of God as somebody else (Mark 11:18).</blockquote> Subordination is based on statements which Jesus made, such as (a) that “''the Father is greater than I''” (John 14:28); (b) that, with respect to when the day of Judgment will be, “''of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone''” (Mark 13:32), and that He spoke of God as somebody else (Mark 11:18).</blockquote>


====Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church==== ====Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church====
According to ''Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church'', Subordinationism "regards either the Son as subordinate to the Father or the Holy Spirit as subordinate to both. It is a characteristic tendency in much Christian teaching of the first three centuries, and is a marked feature of such otherwise orthodox Fathers as" ] and ]. Reasons for this tendency include: According to ''Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church'', Subordinationism "regards either the Son as subordinate to the Father or the Holy Spirit as subordinate to both. It is a characteristic tendency in much Christian teaching of the first three centuries, and is a marked feature of such otherwise orthodox Fathers as" ] and ]. Reasons for this tendency include:<blockquote>Consistent with Greek philosophy, the thought that God is transcendent (that He exist beyond the normal or physical level), and therefore that He is unable to interact directly with the physical world, implies that Christ is a lesser being.
*"the stress on the absolute unity and transcendence of God the Father, which is common to all forms of theology using the existing categories of Greek thought
*"the fear of compromising monotheism
*"the implications of one strand of biblical teaching" represented by {{bibleref2 |John|14:28|NRSV}}”


The Bible presents God as one (monotheism).
By the 4th century, subordinationism was "regarded as clearly heretical in its denial of the co-equality of the Three Persons of the Trinity. The issue was most explicitly dealt with in the conflict with Arius and his followers, who held that the Son was God not by nature but by grace and was created by the Father, though in a creation outside time." {{Citation needed|reason=This claim needs a reliable source of quote, not just that it's included in Oxford material. It is a clear opinion of a person, which should then be named.|date=May 2021}} Subordination of the Holy Spirit became more prominent in the 4th century ]. The ], Constantinople I, condemned subordinationism in 381.<ref name="ODCCsubordinationism">{{cite encyclopedia|year=2005|title=subordinationism|editor1-last=Cross|editor1-first=Frank L.|editor2-last=Livingstone|editor2-first=Elizabeth A.|encyclopedia=The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church|url=http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780192802903.001.0001/acref-9780192802903-e-6581|edition=3rd rev.|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=9780192802903|via=Oxford Reference Online|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

Although others interpret the New Testament differently, {{bibleref2 |John|14:28|NRSV}} (“the Father is greater than I”) and similar texts presents Christ as subordinate.</blockquote>During the Arian Controversy of the 4th century, Arius and his followers did regard the Son as divine, but the words theos or deus, for the first four centuries of the existence of Christianity had a wide variety of meanings. There were many different types and grades of deity in popular thought and religion.<ref name="ReferenceA">{{Cite web|date=2021-11-26|title=RPC Hanson - A lecture on the Arian Controversy|url=https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/hanson/|access-date=2021-12-15|website=From Daniel to Revelation|language=en-US}}</ref> Arius, therefore, held that the Son was divine by grace and not by nature, and that He was created by the Father, though in a creation outside time.<ref>{{Cite web|title=The Letter of Arius to Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia|url=https://biblehub.com/library/theodoret/the_ecclesiastical_history_of_theodoret/chapter_iv_the_letter_of_arius.htm|access-date=2021-12-15|website=biblehub.com}}</ref> In response, the Nicene Creed, particularly as revised by the ] in Constantinople I in 381, by affirming the co-equality of the Three Persons of the Trinity, condemned subordinationism.<ref name="ODCCsubordinationism">{{cite encyclopedia|year=2005|title=subordinationism|encyclopedia=The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church|publisher=Oxford University Press|url=http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780192802903.001.0001/acref-9780192802903-e-6581|editor1-last=Cross|editor1-first=Frank L.|edition=3rd rev.|isbn=9780192802903|editor2-last=Livingstone|editor2-first=Elizabeth A.|via=Oxford Reference Online|url-access=subscription}}</ref>

Until the middle of the fourth century very little attention had been paid to the Holy Spirit by the theologians.<ref name="ReferenceA"/> The 4th century ] rejected the divinity of the ]. The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism'','' “God,” p.&nbsp;568, states that the teaching of the three ] “made it possible for the Council of Constantinople (381) to affirm the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which up to that point ''had nowhere been clearly stated, not even in Scripture''.''”''


====The Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology==== ====The Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology====
{{quote|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 does not illuminate much of the theology of the pre-Nicene teachers, where a subordinationist presupposition was widely and unreflectively shared.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|year=2004|last=McGuckin|first=John A.|title=Subordinationism|encyclopedia=The Westminster handbook to patristic theology|location=Louisville |publisher=Westminster John Knox Press|series=Westminster handbooks to christian theology|isbn=9780664223960|page=321|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=u4i8jv0b7IkC&pg=PA321}}</ref>}} {{blockquote|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 does not illuminate much of the theology of the pre-Nicene teachers, where a subordinationist presupposition was widely and unreflectively shared.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|year=2004|last=McGuckin|first=John A.|title=Subordinationism|encyclopedia=The Westminster handbook to patristic theology|location=Louisville |publisher=Westminster John Knox Press|series=Westminster handbooks to christian theology|isbn=9780664223960|page=321|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=u4i8jv0b7IkC&pg=PA321}}</ref>}}This handbook refers to subordination as "retrospective" and a "modern concept" because it is only able to define this term with the hindsight of the developments of the fourth century.


====Kevin Giles==== ====Kevin Giles====
{{Further|Kevin Giles}} {{Further|Kevin Giles}}
{{quote|Ante-Nicene subordinationism. It is generally conceded that the ante-Nicene Fathers were subordinationists. This is clearly evident in the writings of the second-century "Apologists.". …Irenaeus follows a similar path… The theological enterprise begun by the Apologists and Irenaeus was continued in the West by Hippolytus and Tertullian… The ante-Nicene Fathers did their best to explain how the one God could be a Trinity of three persons. It was the way they approached this dilemma that caused them insoluble problems and led them into subordinationism. They began with the premise that there was one God who was the Father, and then tried to explain how the Son and the Spirit could also be God. By the fourth century it was obvious that this approach could not produce an adequate theology of the Trinity.<ref>{{cite book|last=Giles|first=Kevin|year=2002|title=The Trinity & subordinationism: the doctrine of God and the contemporary gender debate|location=Downers Grove, IL|publisher=InterVarsity Press|isbn=9780830826636|pages=60–62}}</ref>}} Mark Baddeley has criticized Giles for what he sees as a conflation of ontological and relational subordinationism, and for his supposed generalisation that "the ante-Nicene Fathers were subordinationists."<ref>{{cite journal|last=Baddeley|first=Mark|year=2004|title=The Trinity and Subordinationism|journal=]|volume=63|issue=1|pages=29–42|issn=0034-3072}}</ref> {{blockquote|Ante-Nicene subordinationism. It is generally conceded that the ante-Nicene Fathers were subordinationists. This is clearly evident in the writings of the second-century "Apologists.". …Irenaeus follows a similar path… The theological enterprise begun by the Apologists and Irenaeus was continued in the West by Hippolytus and Tertullian… The ante-Nicene Fathers did their best to explain how the one God could be a Trinity of three persons. It was the way they approached this dilemma that caused them insoluble problems and led them into subordinationism. They began with the premise that there was one God who was the Father, and then tried to explain how the Son and the Spirit could also be God. By the fourth century it was obvious that this approach could not produce an adequate theology of the Trinity.<ref>{{cite book|last=Giles|first=Kevin|year=2002|title=The Trinity & subordinationism: the doctrine of God and the contemporary gender debate|location=Downers Grove, IL|publisher=InterVarsity Press|isbn=9780830826636|pages=60–62}}</ref>}} Mark Baddeley has criticized Giles for what he sees as a conflation of ontological and relational subordinationism, and for his supposed generalisation that "the ante-Nicene Fathers were subordinationists."<ref>{{cite journal|last=Baddeley|first=Mark|year=2004|title=The Trinity and Subordinationism|journal=]|volume=63|issue=1|pages=29–42|issn=0034-3072}}</ref>


==See also== ==See also==
Line 131: Line 93:
* ] * ]
* ] * ]

==Further reading==
* {{cite book|title=The Bible and Early Trinitarian Theology|editor1-last=Beeley|editor1-first=Christopher|editor2-last=Weedman|editor2-first=Mark|isbn=9780813229966|year=2018}}


==References== ==References==
{{reflist|colwidth=30em}} {{reflist|colwidth=30em}}

==Further reading==
* {{cite book|title=The Bible and Early Trinitarian Theology|editor1-last=Beeley|editor1-first=Christopher|editor2-last=Weedman|editor2-first=Mark|isbn=9780813229966|year=2018|publisher=Catholic University of America Press }}


{{Heresies condemned by the Catholic Church}} {{Heresies condemned by the Catholic Church}}
Line 142: Line 104:
] ]
] ]
] ]

Latest revision as of 22:46, 23 November 2024

Assertion that the Son and the Holy Spirit are subordinate to God the Father in nature and being
The "Heavenly Trinity" joined to the "Earthly Trinity" through the Incarnation of the SonThe Heavenly and Earthly Trinities by Murillo (c. 1677)

Subordinationism is a Trinitarian doctrine wherein the Son (and sometimes also the Holy Spirit) is subordinate to the Father, not only in submission and role, but with actual ontological subordination to varying degrees. It posits a hierarchical ranking of the persons of the Social Trinity, implying ontological subordination of the persons of the Son and the Holy Spirit. It was condemned as heretical in the Second Council of Constantinople.

It is not to be confused with Arianism, as Subordinationism has been generally viewed as closer to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan view. While Arianism was developed out of it, it did not confess the personality of the Holy Spirit and the eternity of the Son.

History

Ante-Nicene

According to Badcock, virtually all orthodox theologians prior to the Arian controversy in the latter half of the fourth century were subordinationists to some extent, which also applies to Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus, Justin Martyr and Novatian. It was also found in the Ascension of Isaiah. However, there may have been some Ante-Nicene Christian writers who did not affirm subordinationism. Ignatius of Antioch, Athenagoras and the early Odes of Solomon seem to reflect a non-subordinationist understanding of the trinity. Additionally, theologians such as Emile Mersch have disputed the claim that Irenaeus taught any form of subordinationism.

Arius and Alexander

The dispute between Alexander and Arius, which started the Arian Controversy, arose in 318 or 319. At the beginning of the controversy nobody knew the right answer. Arius (c. 250–336), a clergyman of Alexandria in Egypt, "objected to Alexander's (the bishop of the church in that city) apparent carelessness in blurring the distinction of nature between the Father and the Son by his emphasis on eternal generation". According to Socrates of Constantinople, Arius' position was as follows:

"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 had his substance from nothing."

As explained in the article on the First Council of Nicaea, according to Kelly, the dispute was over whether the Son had a beginning. To argue this point, the parties referred to the source of the Son's existence:

Part of a series on
Origenism
Origen of Alexandria
Thoughts
Biblical criticism
Influences and precursors
Origenist thinkers
icon Christianity portal

To justify his view that the Son had no beginning, Alexander argued that the Son had been 'begotten' by the Father from his own being. But Arius argued that the Son was created out of nothing, and therefore had a beginning.

Alexander, therefore, described the Son as equal with the Father while Arius described Him as subordinate to the Father.

First Council of Nicaea

Main article: First Council of Nicaea

For the reasons of him being moderate in the religious and political spectrum of beliefs, Constantine I turned to Eusebius of Caesarea to try to make peace between the Arians and their opponents at Nicaea I.

Eusebius of Caesarea wrote, in On the Theology of the Church, that the Nicene Creed is a full expression of Christian theology, which begins with: "We believe in One God..." Eusebius goes on to explain how initially the goal was not to expel Arius and his supporters, but to find a Creed on which all of them could agree and unite.

Eusebius of Caesarea suggested a compromise wording of a creed, in which the Son would be affirmed as "homoiousios", or "of similar substance/nature" with the Father. But Alexander and Athanasius saw that this compromise would allow the Arians to continue to teach their heresy, but stay technically within orthodoxy, and therefore rejected that wording.

"The decisive catchword of the Nicene confession, namely, homoousios ... comes from no less a person than the emperor himself. To the present day no one has cleared up the problem of where the emperor got the term. Homoousios means "of the same substance/nature" with the Father. Many theologians were uncomfortable with this term. "Their objection to the term homoousian was that it was considered to be un-scriptural, suspicious, and "of a Sabellian tendency"." "But the emperor exerted considerable influence. Consequently, the statement was approved by all except three."

Post-Nicene

Athanasius opposed subordinationism and was highly hostile to hierarchical rankings of the divine persons. It was also opposed by Augustine and Gregory of Nyssa. It was condemned in the 6th century along with other doctrines taught by Origen.

Epiphanius, writing against Origen, attacked his views of subordinationism.

Sixteenth-century Reformed

In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, book 1, chapter 13, Calvin attacks those in the Reformation family who while they confess "that there are three persons" speak of the Father as "the essence giver" as if he were "truly and properly the sole God". This, he says, "definitely cast the Son down from his rank". This is because it implies that the Father is God in a way the Son is not. Modern scholars are agreed that this was a sixteenth-century form of what today is called "subordinationism". Richard Muller says Calvin recognised that what his opponents were teaching "amounted to a radical subordination of the second and third persons, with the result that the Father alone is truly God". Ellis adds that this teaching also implied tritheism, three separate Gods.

Seventeenth-century Arminianism

Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609), in contrast to Calvin, argued that the begetting of the Son should be understood as the generation of the person of the Son and therefore the attribute of self-existence, or aseitas, belonged to the Father alone. His disciple, Simon Bisschop (1583–1643), who assumed the name Episcopius, went further speaking openly and repeatedly of the subordination of the Son. He wrote, "It is certain from these same scriptures that to these people's divinity and divine perfections are attributed, but not collaterally or co-ordinately, but subordinately." Ellis says: "His discussion of the importance of recognizing subordination among the persons takes up nearly half of the chapter on the Trinity, and the following four chapters are largely taken up with the implications of this subordination." In seventeenth-century England, Arminian subordinationism gained wide support from leading English divines, including Bishop George Bull (1634–1710), Bishop John Pearson (1683–1689) and Samuel Clarke (1675–1729), one of the most learned biblical scholars of his day.

Current views

Eastern Orthodox

According to the Eastern Orthodox view, the Son is derived from the Father who alone is without cause or origin. In this view, the Son is co-eternal with the Father or even in terms of the co-equal uncreated nature shared by the Father and Son. This view is sometimes misunderstood by Western Christians as subordinationism. The same doctrine is asserted by western theologians such as Augustine even when not using the technical term i.e. Monarchy of the Father. Western view is often viewed by the Eastern Church as being close to Modalism.

Catholics

The Catholic Church also believes that the Son is begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit is proceeding from the Father through / and from the Son. Catholic theologian John Hardon wrote that subordinationism "denies that the second and third persons are consubstantial with the Father. Therefore it denies their true divinity." Arius "made a formal heresy of" subordinationism. The International Theological Commission wrote that "many Christian theologians borrowed from Hellenism the notion of a secondary god (deuteros theos), or of an intermediate god, or even of a demiurge." Subordinationism was "latent in some of the Apologists and in Origen." The Son was, for Arius, in "an intermediate position between the Father and the creatures." Nicaea I "defined that the Son is consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father. In so doing, the Church both repudiated the Arian compromise with Hellenism and deeply altered the shape of Greek, especially Platonist and neo-Platonist, metaphysics. In a manner of speaking, it demythicized Hellenism and effected a Christian purification of it. In the act of dismissing the notion of an intermediate being, the Church recognized only two modes of being: uncreated (nonmade) and created."

Lutherans

This section may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. Please help to create a more balanced presentation. Discuss and resolve this issue before removing this message. (June 2016)

Subordinationism in yet another form gained support from a number of Lutheran theologians in Germany in the nineteenth century. Stockhardt, writing in opposition, says the well-known theologians Thomasius, Frank, Delitsch, Martensen, von Hoffman and Zoeckler all argued that the Father is God in the primary sense, and the Son and the Spirit are God in second and third degree. He criticises most sharply the Leipzig theologian, Karl Friedrich Augustus Kahnis (1814–1888). For these Lutheran theologians, God was God, Jesus Christ was God in some lesser way. The American Lutheran theologian, F. Pieper (1852–1931), argues that behind this teaching lay an acceptance of ‘modernism’, or what we would call today, theological ‘liberalism’.

More recently John Kleinig, of Australian Lutheran College, promoted a form of subordinationism and concluded:

Well then, is the exalted Christ in any way subordinate to the Father right now? The answer is both "yes" and "no". It all depends on whether we are speaking about Him in His nature as God, or about Him in his office as the exalted Son of God. On the one hand, He is not subordinate to the Father in His divine essence, status, and majesty. On the other hand, He is, I hold, subordinate to the Father in His vice-regal office and His work as prophet, priest, and king. He is operationally subordinate to the Father. In the present operation of the triune God in the church and the world, He is the mediator between God the Father and humankind. The exalted Christ receives everything from His Father to deliver to us, so that in turn, He can bring us back to the Father.

New Calvinists

Main article: Eternal functional subordination

While contemporary Evangelicals believe the historically agreed fundamentals of the Christian faith, including the Trinity, among the New Calvinist formula, the Trinity is one God in three equal persons, among whom there is "economic subordination" (as, for example, when the Son obeys the Father). As recently as 1977, the concept of economic subordinationism has been advanced in New Calvinist circles. In The New Testament teaching on the role relationship of men and women, Presbyterian minister George W. Knight III wrote that the Son is functionally―but not ontologically―subordinate to the Father, thus positing that eternal functional subordination does not necessarily imply ontological subordination.. The reception of such doctrine among other Evangelicals has yielded certain controversies.

Nontrinitarians

Main article: Nontrinitarianism

The mainstream Christian doctrine of the Trinity may be described as the teaching that God is three distinct hypostases or persons who are coeternal, coequal, and indivisibly united in one being, or essence (from the Greek ousia). The three largest denominations that do not accept the Trinity doctrine are the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses and the Iglesia ni Cristo. The Socinians also do not accept the Trinity doctrine.

Scholars

Oxford Encyclopedia

According to the Oxford Encyclopedia:

Subordinationism means to consider Christ, as Son of God, as inferior to the Father.

This tendency was strong in the 2nd- and 3rd-century theology. It is evident in theologians like Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Novatian, and Irenaeus. Irenaeus, for example, commenting on Christ's statement, “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), has no difficulty in considering Christ as inferior to the Father.

In those centuries subordination was developed in Logos Christology which, partly under the influence of middle platonism, explained Christ as the divine logos of Greek philosophy; mediator between the high God and this world of change and decay.

When Origen enlarged the conception of the Trinity to include the Holy Spirit, he explained the Son as inferior to the Father and the Holy Spirit as inferior to the Son.

Subordination is based on statements which Jesus made, such as (a) that “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28); (b) that, with respect to when the day of Judgment will be, “of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone” (Mark 13:32), and that He spoke of God as somebody else (Mark 11:18).

Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church

According to Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Subordinationism "regards either the Son as subordinate to the Father or the Holy Spirit as subordinate to both. It is a characteristic tendency in much Christian teaching of the first three centuries, and is a marked feature of such otherwise orthodox Fathers as" Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Reasons for this tendency include:

Consistent with Greek philosophy, the thought that God is transcendent (that He exist beyond the normal or physical level), and therefore that He is unable to interact directly with the physical world, implies that Christ is a lesser being.

The Bible presents God as one (monotheism).

Although others interpret the New Testament differently, John 14:28 (“the Father is greater than I”) and similar texts presents Christ as subordinate.

During the Arian Controversy of the 4th century, Arius and his followers did regard the Son as divine, but the words theos or deus, for the first four centuries of the existence of Christianity had a wide variety of meanings. There were many different types and grades of deity in popular thought and religion. Arius, therefore, held that the Son was divine by grace and not by nature, and that He was created by the Father, though in a creation outside time. In response, the Nicene Creed, particularly as revised by the second ecumenical council in Constantinople I in 381, by affirming the co-equality of the Three Persons of the Trinity, condemned subordinationism.

Until the middle of the fourth century very little attention had been paid to the Holy Spirit by the theologians. The 4th century Pneumatomachi rejected the divinity of the Holy Ghost. The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, “God,” p. 568, states that the teaching of the three Cappadocian Fathers “made it possible for the Council of Constantinople (381) to affirm the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which up to that point had nowhere been clearly stated, not even in Scripture.

The Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology

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 does not illuminate much of the theology of the pre-Nicene teachers, where a subordinationist presupposition was widely and unreflectively shared.

This handbook refers to subordination as "retrospective" and a "modern concept" because it is only able to define this term with the hindsight of the developments of the fourth century.

Kevin Giles

Further information: Kevin Giles

Ante-Nicene subordinationism. It is generally conceded that the ante-Nicene Fathers were subordinationists. This is clearly evident in the writings of the second-century "Apologists.". …Irenaeus follows a similar path… The theological enterprise begun by the Apologists and Irenaeus was continued in the West by Hippolytus and Tertullian… The ante-Nicene Fathers did their best to explain how the one God could be a Trinity of three persons. It was the way they approached this dilemma that caused them insoluble problems and led them into subordinationism. They began with the premise that there was one God who was the Father, and then tried to explain how the Son and the Spirit could also be God. By the fourth century it was obvious that this approach could not produce an adequate theology of the Trinity.

Mark Baddeley has criticized Giles for what he sees as a conflation of ontological and relational subordinationism, and for his supposed generalisation that "the ante-Nicene Fathers were subordinationists."

See also

References

  1. Papandrea, James Leonard (2012). Reading the Early Church Fathers: From the Didache to Nicaea. Paulist Press. ISBN 978-0-8091-4751-9.
  2. Giles, Kevin (2012-05-07). The Eternal Generation of the Son: Maintaining Orthodoxy in Trinitarian Theology. InterVarsity Press. ISBN 978-0-8308-3965-0.
  3. Jowers, Dennis W.; House, H. Wayne (2012-08-16). The New Evangelical Subordinationism?: Perspectives on the Equality of God the Father and God the Son. Wipf and Stock Publishers. ISBN 978-1-7252-4586-0.
  4. ^ Origen (April 2010). Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Books 1-5. CUA Press. ISBN 978-0-8132-1203-6.
  5. Beisner, E. Calvin (2004-02-10). God in Three Persons. Wipf and Stock Publishers. ISBN 978-1-59244-545-5.
  6. Ramelli, Ilaria L. E.; McGuckin, J. A.; Ashwin-Siejkowski, Piotr (2021-12-16). T&T Clark Handbook of the Early Church. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-0-567-68039-6.
  7. Badcock, Gary D. (1997). Light of Truth and Fire of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8028-4288-6.
  8. La Due, William J. (2003). The Trinity guide to the Trinity. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press International. ISBN 1-56338-395-0. OCLC 51740028. p. 38.
  9. "RPC Hanson - A lecture on the Arian Controversy". From Daniel to Revelation. 2021-11-26. Retrieved 2021-12-14.
  10. Clark, Elizabeth A. (2011-04-12). Founding the Fathers: Early Church History and Protestant Professors in Nineteenth-Century America. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0-8122-0432-2.
  11. Novatian (2012). The Sacred Writings of Novatian (Annotated ed.). Jazzybee Verlag. ISBN 978-3-8496-2144-5.
  12. Marmion, Declan; Nieuwenhove, Rik van (2011). An Introduction to the Trinity. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-87952-1.
  13. Barker, Margaret (2011-09-22). Christmas, The Original Story. SPCK. ISBN 978-0-281-06726-8.
  14. The Spirit Is Moving: New Pathways in Pneumatology. BRILL. 2019-02-26. ISBN 978-90-04-39174-1.
  15. Koutloumousianos, Chrysostom (2015-07-30). The One and the Three: Nature, Person and Triadic Monarchy in the Greek and Irish Patristic Tradition. ISD LLC. ISBN 978-0-227-90417-6.
  16. "Church Fathers: The Other Greek Apologists". www.catholicculture.org. Retrieved 2022-11-06.
  17. SJ, Emile Mersch (2011-08-04). The Whole Christ: The Historical Development of the Doctrine of the Mystical Body in Scripture and Tradition. Wipf and Stock Publishers. ISBN 978-1-7252-3033-0.
  18. "A Chronology of the Arian Controversy". legalhistorysources.com. Retrieved 2021-12-16.
  19. "RPC Hanson - A lecture on the Arian Controversy". From Daniel to Revelation. 2021-11-26. Retrieved 2021-12-16.
  20. Lyman, J. Rebecca (2010). "The Invention of 'Heresy' and 'Schism'" (PDF). The Cambridge History of Christianity. Retrieved 30 November 2015.
  21. (Socrates of Constantinople, Church History, Book I, Ch. 5.)
  22. Kelly, J. N. D. (1978). Early Christian doctrines. San Francisco. ISBN 0-06-064334-X. OCLC 3753468.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  23. On the so-called 'Arians' of the fourth century see Hanson, The Search, 3-59, 557-638, Ayres, Nicea, 105-132, and, D. Gwynn, The Eusebians: The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Construction of the Arian Heresy (Oxford: OUP, 2007).
  24. A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Bernard Lohse, 1966, p51-53
  25. Select Treatises of St. Athanasius - In Controversy With the Arians - Freely Translated by John Henry Cardinal Newmann - Longmans, Green, and Co., 1911, footnote n.124
  26. ^ "Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons - Nicene Creed". From Daniel to Revelation. Retrieved 2021-12-14.
  27. Cheryl Graham, University of Glasgow, Assess the role of Constantine at the council of Nicaea
  28. "Trinity: The role of Constantine in the Nicene creed". www.bible.ca. Retrieved 2021-12-21.
  29. Giles, Kevin (2012-05-07). The Eternal Generation of the Son: Maintaining Orthodoxy in Trinitarian Theology. InterVarsity Press. ISBN 978-0-8308-3965-0.
  30. Hippo, Augustine of (2016-07-03). Delphi Collected Works of Saint Augustine (Illustrated). Delphi Classics. ISBN 978-1-78656-376-7.
  31. Ramelli, Ilaria L. E.; McGuckin, J. A.; Ashwin-Siejkowski, Piotr (2021-12-16). T&T Clark Handbook of the Early Church. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-0-567-68039-6.
  32. Clark, Elizabeth A. (2014-07-14). The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-1-4008-6311-2.
  33. Calvin, John (1960). McNeil, J. (ed.). The Institutes of the Christian Religion. Vol. 1.13.23. Translated by Battles, F.I. London: SCM. p. 149.
  34. ^ Muller, Richard (2003). Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, Vol 4, The Triunity of God. Grand Rapids: Baker. p. 96.
  35. ^ Ellis, Brannon (2012). Calvin, Classical Trinitarianism, and the Aseity of the Son. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 122.
  36. ^ Episcopius, Simon (1678). Institutiones Theologicae, in Opera Theologica, 2nd ed., vol 1. 's Gravenhage. pp. 4.2.32.
  37. Wiles, Maurice (1996). Archetypal Heresy. Arianism through the Centuries. Oxford: Clarendon. pp. 153–159.
  38. Meyendorff, John (1996) . Lossky, Nicholas (ed.). The Orthodox Church: its past and its role in the world today. Translated by Chapin, John (4th rev. ed.). Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press. ISBN 9780913836811.
  39. Ware, Timothy (Kallistos) (1993). The Orthodox Church. Penguin religion and mythology (New ed.). London : Penguin Books. p. 213?. ISBN 9780140146561.
  40. ^ International Theological Commission (1979). "Select questions on Christology". vatican.va. §II.A.2. Archived from the original on 2012-03-18. Retrieved 2016-06-23.
  41. Stockhardt, G (1894). "'Der moderne Subordinatianismus im Licht der Schrift,'". Lehre und Wehre. 40: 17–24.
  42. Pieper, Francis (1950). Christian Dogmatics. St Louis, Miss: Concordia. p. 384.
  43. Kleinig, John W. (2005–2006). "The subordination of the exalted Son to the Father" (PDF). Lutheran Theological Review. 18 (1): 41–52. ISSN 1180-0798. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2015-09-05.
  44. Piper & Grudem, John & Wayne (1991). Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism. Wheaton, Ill: Crossways. pp. 104, 130, 163, 257, 394.
  45. Grudem, Wayne (1994). Systematic Theology. Leicester: IVP. pp. 230–257. ISBN 0851106528.
  46. Ware, Bruce (2005). Father, Son and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles and Relevance. Wheaton, Ill: Crossways. ISBN 978-1-58134-668-8.
  47. Knight, George W. (1977). The New Testament teaching on the role relationship of men and women. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. pp. 32–34, 55–57. ISBN 9780801053832.
  48. Jowers, Dennis W., and H. Wayne House, eds. The New Evangelical Subordinationism?: Perspectives on the Equality of God the Father and God the Son. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2012.
  49. Holmes, Stephen R. "Classical trinitarianism and eternal functional subordination: some historical and dogmatic reflections." Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology (2017).
  50. Kovach, Stephen D., and Peter R. Schemm Jr. "A Defense of the Doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42.3 (1999): 461.
  51. Halsey, A. (13 October 1988). British Social Trends since 1900: A Guide to the Changing Social Structure of Britain. Palgrave Macmillan UK. p. 518. ISBN 9781349194667. his so called 'non-Trinitarian' group includes the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Christadelphians, Christian Scientists, Theosophists, Church of Scientology, Unification Church (Moonies), the Worldwide Church of God and so on.
  52. Simmonetti, M. (1992). Berardino, Angelo Di (ed.). Encyclopedia of the early church. Vol. 2. Translated by Walford, Adrian. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 797. ISBN 9780195208924. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  53. ^ "RPC Hanson - A lecture on the Arian Controversy". From Daniel to Revelation. 2021-11-26. Retrieved 2021-12-15.
  54. "The Letter of Arius to Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia". biblehub.com. Retrieved 2021-12-15.
  55. Cross, Frank L.; Livingstone, Elizabeth A., eds. (2005). "subordinationism". The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd rev. ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780192802903 – via Oxford Reference Online.
  56. McGuckin, John A. (2004). "Subordinationism". The Westminster handbook to patristic theology. Westminster handbooks to christian theology. Louisville : Westminster John Knox Press. p. 321. ISBN 9780664223960.
  57. Giles, Kevin (2002). The Trinity & subordinationism: the doctrine of God and the contemporary gender debate. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. pp. 60–62. ISBN 9780830826636.
  58. Baddeley, Mark (2004). "The Trinity and Subordinationism". Reformed Theological Review. 63 (1): 29–42. ISSN 0034-3072.

Further reading

  • Beeley, Christopher; Weedman, Mark, eds. (2018). The Bible and Early Trinitarian Theology. Catholic University of America Press. ISBN 9780813229966.
Beliefs condemned as heretical by the Catholic Church (list)
Antiquity This 1711 illustration for the Index Librorum Prohibitorum depicts the Holy Ghost supplying the book burning fire.
Middle Ages
Early modernity
Modernity
Categories: