T
thephilosopher6
Guest
I have been studying the Christology of the early Church fathers lately, particularly when it comes to the nature of the Son, and I have found that much of the early Church fathers from the mid 2nd to mid 3rd century have more of Subordinationst bent. Most of the scholarly sources I have read regarding early Christology and the early doctrine of the Trinity in the Church fathers seem to support this.
Many scholars believe that the early Church fathers, particularly the apologist (Justin Martyr, Tatian, Theophilus, and Athenagoras), assert a belief they call “Two-staged Logos Theology.” While I am not convinced of every point made by scholars in this, I have to say it does fit in well with what they seem to teach.
Essentially, the Logos (the Son) has existed for eternity with God the Father, but he was one and the same as the Father, he was not yet an external person distinct from the Father, but then at some point, probably just before the creation of the universe, he was generated outwards as a distinct person; though he still possessed the essence of the Father, he was subordinate to him not just relationally but also metaphysically. He is not a creature of God, for he still possesses what God is, thus in some sense making him “God”, but he is still subject to God who is greater than him metaphysically. Through him, the Father created the world, and he was to act at the mediator and messenger between God the Father, and the world. The Son is the “second God” as Justin Martyr (and later Origen) calls him in contrast to the “almighty God” which is the Father, who has power over all including the Son. Tertullian would later expand upon this, keeping in line with most of it, though asserting that God is made of a finer sort of matter than the matter in the universe, this was in sharp contrast to most of the other Church fathers who vehemently denied that God was made of any sort of material substance.
What does CAF think of this? It does deny the eternal generation of the Son as well as the true nature of the Son, but it does seem just short of Nicene orthodoxy
Many scholars believe that the early Church fathers, particularly the apologist (Justin Martyr, Tatian, Theophilus, and Athenagoras), assert a belief they call “Two-staged Logos Theology.” While I am not convinced of every point made by scholars in this, I have to say it does fit in well with what they seem to teach.
Essentially, the Logos (the Son) has existed for eternity with God the Father, but he was one and the same as the Father, he was not yet an external person distinct from the Father, but then at some point, probably just before the creation of the universe, he was generated outwards as a distinct person; though he still possessed the essence of the Father, he was subordinate to him not just relationally but also metaphysically. He is not a creature of God, for he still possesses what God is, thus in some sense making him “God”, but he is still subject to God who is greater than him metaphysically. Through him, the Father created the world, and he was to act at the mediator and messenger between God the Father, and the world. The Son is the “second God” as Justin Martyr (and later Origen) calls him in contrast to the “almighty God” which is the Father, who has power over all including the Son. Tertullian would later expand upon this, keeping in line with most of it, though asserting that God is made of a finer sort of matter than the matter in the universe, this was in sharp contrast to most of the other Church fathers who vehemently denied that God was made of any sort of material substance.
What does CAF think of this? It does deny the eternal generation of the Son as well as the true nature of the Son, but it does seem just short of Nicene orthodoxy