Autor: Lonergan, Bernard J. F.

Buch: The Way to Nicea

Titel: The Way to Nicea

Stichwort: Vorwurf, Verwirrung: Subordinationismus (subordinationism) vor Nicaea; subtile Fehlschlüsse; Wille: Sohn, Vater

Kurzinhalt: If, however, one were to infer from this that the Father is invisible and the Son visible ... if one were to infer from such passages that the Son was born of the Father only when the Father willed to create ...

Textausschnitt: 40a
1. There are many conclusions, drawn from more recent theology, which, to those who are not very well versed in the matter, can seem rather subtle. (Fs)

40b For example, the scriptures represent the Father as the one who is hidden, whom no one has ever seen, and the Son as the one who reveals him. If, however, one were to infer from this that the Father is invisible and the Son visible, one would be going against the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. For if there is only the one divine substance, then either it is invisible or it is visible. And therefore, if the Father is invisible, it follows of necessity that the Son is also invisible. (Fs) (notabene)

40c Again, in the scriptures the Father is the one from whom all things come, whereas the Son is the one through whom all things come (1 Cor 8,6; Col 1,17; Heb 1,3; Jn 1,3). Besides, the Son is the Word (Jn 1,1.18), the wisdom of God (1 Cor 1,24), the image of God (2 Cor 4, 4; Col 1,15); and one may add from the Old Testament whatever is said of wisdom (Prov 8, 22 ff) and of the creative word of God (Ps 32,6; Gen 1). But if one were to infer from such passages that the Son was born of the Father only when the Father willed to create, in order to assist the Father in creating and governing the universe, one would be involved in many errors. (Fs) (notabene)

40d For the substance of the Father and that of the Son is one and the same substance; therefore, if the Father is eternal, so also is the Son. Again, if the Father exists for his own sake, not for the sake of his creatures, no less does the Son exist for his own sake. (Fs)

41a And if the Father exists necessarily, then the Son exists necessarily. Further, just as the Father and the Son share the one substance, so in reality they also share a single will; and so the Son cannot be some object, really distinct from the Father's will, and arising out of a decision of the Father's will.1 (Fs)

41b Now these conclusions follow, beyond a shadow of doubt, from more recent theology, but the ante-Nicene authors, to judge from the language they used, had little grasp of them, and so they have been charged with subordinationism.2 (Fs)

41c If the term, subordinationism, is used to describe a certain fact, namely, that the ante-Nicene authors were not well up in the theology of a later age, then of course its use is both legitimate and useful. For before anything can be understood and explained, one must know precisely what it is that is to be understood and explained. (Fs)

41d On the other hand, if we consider the proper goal of scientific inquiry, which is understanding, then the term, subordinationism, becomes a source of the greatest obscurity and confusion. For it is anachronistic to conceive the doctrine of the ante-Nicene authors according to the criteria of a later theology, and anachronism precludes correct historical understanding. (Fs)

It is for this reason that, when we come later on to deal with the structure of the ante-Nicene movement,1 we shall speak, not of subordinationism, but rather of a kind of dialectic, whereby firm belief in the revealed word of God gradually eliminated less exact conceptions, and thus prepared the way for the later theology. (Fs)