Part 2: https://universalistheretic.blogspot.com/2023/03/the-evolution-of-early-christian.html
“In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.” (John 1:1) This single verse from the Bible produced endless volumes of speculation during the first few centuries of Christianity. As we saw in the last post in this series on the evolution of early Christian theology, the earliest Christians interpreted the Logos as God’s plan or purpose regarding the Messiah (Odes of Solomon 7.7-8; 9.3; 16.19). In contrast, the apologists of the latter half of the second century AD believed (largely due to the influence of Platonism) that the Logos was Jesus in a pre-existent state, and that this Logos was generated from God’s own rationality at the beginning of creation (two-stage Logos theory).
However, around the turn of the third century AD, a one-stage Logos theory arose and became dominant among Christian theologians. Under this theory, the Logos was always a personal being, and always existed with the Father, being ‘eternally generated’ by Him. In this article, we’ll take a look at the third-century theologians who taught this, and the disputes that arose as a result.
Irenaeus of Lyons
The first Christian theologian who propounded a one-stage Logos theory was Irenaeus of Lyons, who was the bishop of Lyons in France until his death in AD 202. His writing career was contemporaneous with some proponents of two-stage Logos theory, including Theophilus of Antioch and Tertullian of Carthage. Irenaeus’ most famous work is Against Heresies (Adv. Haer.), which he authored in AD 180, intending it to be a comprehensive refutation of all the views which he deemed ‘heretical.’
Although whether Irenaeus was a one- or two-stage Logos theorist is debated among scholars, several passages from Against Heresies suggest that he believed that the Son eternally existed alongside the Father. For example, consider the following excerpts:
But there is only one God, the Creator, He who is above every principality, and power, and dominion, and virtue; He is Father, He is God, He the Founder, He the Maker, He the Creator, who made those things by Himself, even through His Logos and Wisdom... He is the Father of our Lord Jesus the Messiah. Through His Logos, who is His Son, through him He is revealed and manifested to all those to whom He is revealed; for only those to whom the Son has revealed Him know Him. But the Son, eternally co-existing with the Father, from of old, yea, from the beginning, always reveals the Father to angels, archangels, powers, virtues, and to all whom he wills that God should be revealed. (Adv. Haer. 2.30.9)
For with [God] were always present the Logos and Wisdom, the Son and Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom He also speaks, “Let us make man after our image and likeness” [Genesis 1:26]... I have largely demonstrated that the Logos, namely the Son, was always with the Father. (Adv. Haer. 4.20.1)
In these passages, Irenaeus demonstrates his belief that the Father alone is the only God, while at the same time stating that the Logos (Son) and Wisdom (Spirit) always existed with the Father. Furthermore, he repudiates the view held by two-stage Logos theorists that the generation of the Logos was analogous to speaking, in which a word first exists in the mind and then is uttered (Adv. Haer. 2.13.8; 2.28.4-6).
Nevertheless, there is some ambiguity as to Irenaeus’ views, which has led to debate among scholars. Although he states that the Spirit/Wisdom was “always present” with God, he also says that Proverbs 8:22, “The Lord created me at the beginning of His ways in His work,” refers to the Spirit (Adv. Haer. 4.20.3). Elsewhere, he argues that no one can possibly understand how or when the Logos was generated, and quotes Isaiah 58:3 to this effect (Adv. Haer. 2.28.5-6). It appears that Irenaeus may have wavered back and forth between two- and one-stage Logos theory, or perhaps held neither of these views.
Irenaeus’ views on the identity of the one God are far more clear than his views on the generation of the Logos. According to him, “the Father Himself is alone called God... moreover, the Scriptures acknowledge Him alone as God, and yet again, since the Lord confesses Him alone as his own Father, and knows no other” (Adv. Haer. 2.28.4). And again:
He is the only God, the only Lord, the only Creator, the only Father, alone containing all things, and Himself commanding all things into existence. (Adv. Haer. 2.1.1)
Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless He were truly God; nor would they have named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father ruling over all, and His Son who has received dominion from his Father over all creation (Adv. Haer. 3.6.1)
Wherefore I do also call upon you, Lord God of Abraham, and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob and Israel, who is the Father of our Lord Jesus the Messiah... who is the only and the true God, above whom there is none other God... give to every reader of this book to know You, that You are God alone, to be strengthened in You, and to avoid every heretical, and godless, and impious doctrine. (3.6.4)
...neither the prophets, nor the apostles, nor the Lord Messiah 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 [than the Father], and confessing no other as Lord [than the Son]. 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. (3.9.1)
We do indeed pray that these men may... cease blaspheming their Creator, who is both God alone and the Father of our Lord Jesus the Messiah. (3.25.7)
There are further statements in Against Heresies to this effect (e.g., 2.9.1; 3.15.3; 4.1.1-2), but this should suffice to show that Irenaeus considered the Father alone to be the true God, and was in this sense a unitarian. He also repeatedly described how the Son is subordinate to and lesser than the Father, and was given authority by the Father (Adv. Haer. 2.28.6, 8; 3.6.1; 3.12.9; 5.18.2). Yes, he refers to the Son as “God,” but he clarifies that this is because he is the visible image of God and begotten of God, not because he is God Himself (Adv. Haer. 4.6.6; Dem. 47).
Irenaeus also reports the existence of a creed which the entire Church (that is to say, all of the sects which he considered ‘orthodox’) held to in his day. This creed states:
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth and sea and all the things in them; and in one Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, which proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God (Adv. Haer. 1.10.1)
This creed is unitarian, identifying the one God as the Father alone, and the “one Jesus” as the Son of that God. Although some trinitarians might argue that this creed is not explicitly unitarian, based on the way in which Irenaeus refers to the Father elsewhere, we can be fairly certain that it was identifying the Father alone as the one God. As such, not only Irenaeus, but the entire ‘orthodox’ (non-Gnostic) Church at the turn of the third century AD was unitarian in its theology.
Hippolytus of Rome
Hippolytus of Rome was another third-century theologian, a student of Irenaeus, who wrote during the early third century and died in AD 235. Although several of his works survive today, his primary works are Against Noetus, a polemic against modalism, and his Refutation of All Heresies (Haer.). Like Tertullian, his writings might at first seem to be trinitarian when read in light of the later creeds. For example, consider the following passage:
If, then, the Logos was with God and was also God, what follows? Would one say that there are two Gods? I shall not, indeed, speak of two Gods, but of one; of two persons, however, and that a third economy is the grace of the Holy Spirit. For though the Father is one, there are two persons, because there is also the Son; and then there is the third, the Holy Spirit. The Father decrees, the Logos executes, and the Son is manifested, through whom the Father is believed on. This economy of harmony leads back to the one God, for there is one God. (Against Noetus 14)
This statement certainly seems trinitarian, or at least binitarian, and if this were taken out of context it might very well be. However, at the end of this passage, Hippolytus clarifies that by “one God” he refers to the Father alone:
Now the Father’s own Logos, knowing the economy and the will of the Father, that the Father seeks to be worshipped in no other way than this, gave this charge to the disciples after he rose from the dead: “Go and disciple all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” [Matthew 28:19] By this he showed that anyone who omits one of these fails to glorify God perfectly. For it is through this trinity that the Father is glorified. (Against Noetus 14)
When Hippolytus says, “This economy of harmony leads back to the one God, for there is one God,” he is evidently referring to the fact that “it is through this trinity that the Father is glorified.” Therefore, Hippolytus would today be classed as a unitarian, as he believed that the Father alone was the one God, and the purpose of the ‘trinity’ (of which God is a member) is to glorify God, the Father. We see this meaning of the word ‘trinity’ (trinitas) in the earlier writings of Theophilus and Tertullian.
Unlike his teacher, Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus held clearly to the two-stage theory of the Logos’ generation. In Against Noetus, he says:
God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined to create the world... Beside Him there was nothing, but He, while existing alone, yet existed in plurality. For He was neither without reason, nor wisdom, nor power, nor counsel. And all things were in Him, and He was the All. When He willed, and as He willed, He manifested His Logos in the times determined by Him, and by him He made the world... He begat the Logos...
And thus there appeared another beside Himself. But when I say “another,” I do not mean that there are two Gods, but that it is only as light from light, or as water from a fountain, or as a ray from the sun. For there is but one power, which is from the All; and the Father is the All, from whom comes this power, the Logos. And this is the mind which came forth into the world and was manifested as the Son of God. (Against Noetus 10-11)
Taken in isolation, Hippolytus’ statement that God “while existing alone, yet existed in plurality” might seem to be trinitarian (or at least binitarian). However, he immediately makes clear that by “plurality,” he means that God had reason and counsel within Himself, not that there were multiple persons within God. As he states later, “the Father is the All” who existed alone in the beginning. Then, the Father manifested His reason as the Logos by a free act, not out of necessity (Against Noetus 16), and “another appeared beside Himself.” This is a straightforward recitation of the tenets of two-stage Logos theory. But, Hippolytus says, this does not show that there are two Gods, because the Logos’ power is from the Father who is the one God.
As far as I can tell, Hippolytus was the last ‘orthodox’ theologian to promote two-stage Logos theory. Despite believing that the Son came into existence some finite time ago, however, he still refers to the Logos as “God” (or “a god”) in Against Noetus 14 and elsewhere. Did he consider the Son to be the same God as the Father, and how can “God” have been created? Well, Hippolytus actually explains what he meant by calling the Logos “God” in his Refutation of All Heresies:
Therefore this supreme and solitary Deity [the Father], by an exercise of reflection, brought forth the Logos first... and He formed the ruler of all [Adam] and fashioned him out of all composite substances. The Creator did not wish to make him a god, and failed in His aim; nor an angel — be not deceived — but a man. For if He had willed to make you a god, He could have done so. You have the example of the Logos. His will, however, was that you should be a man, and He has made you a man. (Haer. 10.)
According to Hippolytus, if God had wanted to make Adam a god, He could have, because of the fact that He made the Logos a god! Thus, in his view, the Logos is not the one God — that is a title belonging to the Father alone — but was made to be a god by the Father. Hippolytus finishes his Refutation of All Heresies by saying to the ‘heretics’:
[If you become a Christian] you shall escape the boiling flood of hell’s eternal lake of fire... by being instructed in knowledge of the true God... And you shall be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by passions or lusts, and never again wasted by disease. For you have become a god: for whatever sufferings you did undergo while being a man, these He gave to you, because you were of the mortal mould; but whatever it is consistent for God to impart, these God has promised to bestow upon you...
Be not inflamed, therefore, O you men, with enmity toward one another, nor hesitate to retrace with all speed your steps. For Christ is the god above all, and he has arranged to wash sin away from human beings, regenerating the old man... And provided you obey His solemn injunctions, and become a faithful follower of Him who is Good, you shall resemble Him, inasmuch as you shall have honor conferred onto you by Him. For the Deity does not, by condescension, diminish anything of the divinity of His divine perfection by having made you even God, unto His glory! (Haer. 10.30)
Therefore, Hippolytus believed that God could confer divine honor onto a created being and make him god (or God). The Logos, Christ, is the example of this, because God has made him “the god [or God] above all.” Hippolytus was most certainly a unitarian by the modern definition.
Origen of Alexandria
Origen of Alexandria was a prolific Christian writer during the first half of the third century, until his death in AD 254. He was the first to write a systematic theology, setting down all of the teachings of what was considered ‘orthodox’ Christianity in his day in his book, On First Principles (De Principiis). He also authored an influential defense of Christianity against the critic Celsus, titled Against Celsus (Contra Celsum). During his life, he was venerated as a great teacher and apologist of Christianity.
Origen was the first theologian to clearly articulate a one-stage Logos theory (unlike Irenaeus, who was unclear in his views). Like previous Christian writers, he applied Proverbs 8:22 (“the Lord created me at the beginning of His ways”) to the Son, but interpreted it very differently:
For He [the only-begotten Son of God] is termed Wisdom according to the expression of Solomon: “The Lord created me, the beginning of His ways, and among His works, before He made any other thing.” [Proverbs 8:22]... He is also styled Firstborn, as the apostle has declared: “he is the firstborn of every creature.” [Colossians 1:15] The Firstborn, however, is not by nature a different person than Wisdom, but one and the same. Finally, the apostle Paul says that “Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.” [1 Corinthians 1:24]
If, then, it is rightly understood that the only-begotten Son of God is His wisdom hypostatically existing... who can suppose or believe that God, the Father, ever existed even for a moment of time without having generated His Wisdom? For in that case he must say either that God was unable to generate Wisdom before He produced her, so that He afterward called into being her who did not formerly exist; or else that He possessed the power indeed, but was unwilling to use it, which cannot be said of God without impiety. Both of these suppositions, it is obvious to all, are alike absurd and impious...
For this reason we have always held that God is the Father of His only-begotten Son, who was indeed born of Him, and derives from Him what he is, but without any beginning, not only such as may be measured by any divisions of time, but even that which the mind alone can contemplate within itself, or behold, so to speak, with the naked powers of the understanding. And therefore we must believe that Wisdom was generated before any beginning that can be either comprehended or expressed. And since all the creative power of the coming creation was included in this very existence of Wisdom... she was created the beginning of the ways of God, inasmuch as she contained within herself either the beginnings, or forms, or species of all creation. (De Principiis 1.2.1-2)
According to Origen, because the Son is equivalent to Wisdom, and God was never without His wisdom, it’s impossible that God could have ever been without His Son. Origen believed that God has all of His attributes essentially, not contingently, (De Principiis 1.1.6) and as such He cannot cause His wisdom to become a person (as the two-stage Logos theorists believed). Instead, His Wisdom must have always been a person. Consequently, in his view, the Son is generated in an “eternal [aidios] and everlasting begetting, as brightness is begotten from light.” (De Principiis 1.2.4)
Origen also held a more exalted view of the Son than the theologians and apologists before him. Earlier Christian writers rarely if ever assigned the title “Almighty” (Pantokrator) to the Son, but Origen argues that this title is proper for the Son, citing Jesus’ prayer to the Father, “All that are mine are Yours, and all that are Yours are mine,” to show that the Son has dominion over everything the Father does (De Principiis 1.2.10 cf. John 17:10). However, Origen also says that the Son’s dominion was given to him by the Father, and that he is fundamentally subordinate to the Father:
Him we affirm to be Son of God, yes, of that God which (to use the words of Celsus) “we most highly reverence”; and he is the Son who has been most highly exalted by the Father. We grant that there may be some among the multitudes of believers who are not in agreement with us, and incautiously assert that the Son is the Most High God; however we do not hold with them, but rather believe him who said: “The Father is greater than I.” [John 14:28] We would not, therefore, make Him whom we call Father inferior to the Son of God, as Celsus accuses us of doing...
Here, again, Celsus quotes from some most obscure sect of heretics, and ascribes them to all Christians. I call it “a most obscure sect,” because although we have often contended with heretics, we are unable to discover from what set of opinions he has taken this quote, if indeed he has quoted it from any author... For we... do declare that the Son is not mightier than the Father, but inferior to Him. And this belief we ground upon the saying of Jesus himself, “The Father who sent me is greater than I.” [John 14:28] ...
But when we affirm the Savior to be “God,” the Logos, and Wisdom, and Righteousness, and Truth, we certainly say that he is Lord over all things which have been subjected to him in this capacity, but not that his dominion extends over the God and Father who is Ruler over all. (Contra Celsum 8.14-15)
In this excerpt from Against Celsus, Origen takes Celsus to task for claiming that Christians believe the Son to be the Most High God. He states that Christians believe the Son to be inferior to the Father, having been given his entire dominion by the Father, and says that he is not aware of even a single sect of ‘heretics’ that makes Jesus out to be the Most High God.
Origen’s belief in the subordination of the Son does not shine through as much in On First Principles as in Against Celsus. However, this isn’t because he changed his mind about the Son’s subordination. Rather, it’s because On First Principles was redacted by a trinitarian, Rufinus, in the fourth century, who stated in the preface to his translation of the book, “Wherever I have found in his [Origen’s] books anything contrary to the truth concerning the Trinity... I have either omitted it... or set it down in terms agreeing with the rule of faith.” Fortunately, several fragments from On First Principles (Peri Archon) that were omitted by Rufinus have been found:
the Savior… is an image of God’s goodness, but not goodness itself. And perhaps also the Son, while being good, is yet not good purely and simply. And just as he is the image of the invisible God, and in virtue of this is himself a god, and yet is not He of whom Christ himself says, “that they may know thee, the only true God.” [John 17:3] So he is the image of the goodness, and yet not, as the Father is, good without qualification. (Peri Archon 1.2.13)
Now this Son was begotten of the Father’s will, for he is the “image of the invisible God” and the “effulgence of his glory and the impress of his substance,” “the Firstborn of all creation,” a created thing [ktisma], Wisdom. For Wisdom herself says: “God created me in the beginning of his ways for his works”... and I would dare to add that, as he is a likeness of the Father, there is no time when he did not exist. (Peri Archon 4.4.1)
But someone will inquire whether it is true that God is known by Himself in the same way in which He is known by the only-begotten, and he will decide that the saying, “My Father who sent me is greater than I,” is true in all respects; so that even in His knowledge the Father is greater, and is known more clearly and perfectly by Himself than by the Son. (Peri Archon 4.4.8)
These fragments show that Origen’s subordinationism was not just a misunderstanding. On the contrary, Origen’s belief that the Son is subordinate to the Father so pervaded the original manuscript of On First Principles that later trinitarians, like Rufinus, simply omitted or altered the offending passages.
Origen believed that the Son was “God” or “a god,” but not in the same sense that the Father is God; he is worshipped not because he is God Himself, but because he is the image of God, and we worship the Father through him (Contra Celsus 8.12-13). Responding to the charge that this makes two Gods, he states, “Christ Jesus was in the form of God, being other than the God in whose form he existed... a god distinct from this God in whose form he existed... we confess two gods... [but] the power is one... we must formulate the doctrine carefully, and show in what sense the two are one God... That is why we understand, in this sense, ‘I and the Father are one.’” (Dialogue with Heraclides)
What exactly did Origen mean by this? He evidently thought that Jesus was a god in a different sense than the Father is God, but his statement that “the two are one God” and quotation of John 10:30 is confusing. Elsewhere, however, he interprets John 10:30 to mean that “while they [the Father and the Son] are two separate existences, they are one in unity of mind, in harmony, and in identity of will” (Contra Celsum 8.13). Because the Son is in unity with the Father, and his power is derived from the Father, “the power is one.” Whether this truly preserves Origen’s monotheism from the charge of two Gods is questionable, but it does show in what sense Origen believed the Son to be a god.
That Origen believed the Son to be a god lesser than the Father is confirmed by his commentary on John 1:1 (“and the Word was theos”):
Now there are many people who wish to be pious and are troubled [by John 1:1] because they are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into false and impious doctrines. Either they deny that the Son has an individual nature distinct from the Father, by confessing him to be God whom they refer to as “Son” in name only; or they deny the divinity of the Son, making his individual nature and essence to be different from the Father, so that they are separable from one another. (Commentary on John 2.2)
In response to these monarchians, who either deny that the Son is a different person from the Father (modalism) or deny the divinity of the Son, what does Origen do? Unlike later trinitarians, he does not argue that the Son and the Father are the same God, and that this solves the problem. On the contrary, he argues the opposite:
To such people we have to say that God, with the article, [Greek: ho theos] is True God; and so the Savior says in his prayer to the Father, “That they may know you, the only true God“ (John 17:3). But all that is beyond the True God is made ‘God’ [or: a god] by participation in His divinity, and is not properly called “the God” [ho theos] but “God” [theos, a god].
To be sure, the Firstborn of all creation, who was the first to be with God and to attract to himself divinity, is more exalted than the other gods beside him [Christians], of whom God is the God, as it is said, “The God of gods, the Lord, has spoken and called the earth.” [Psalm 49:1] It was by his [the Son’s] ministry that they [Christians] became gods, for he drew from God that they might be deified, sharing ungrudgingly with them according to his goodness.
The True God is then “the God.” [ho theos] The others are gods formed after Him as images of the prototype. But again, the archetypal image of the images is the Word with the God [ho theos], who was “in the beginning.” By being “with the God” he continues to always be a god. [theos] But he would not have this if he were not with the God, and he would not always remain a god if he did not continue in unceasing contemplation of the depths of the Father. (Commentary on John 2.2)
This is extremely different than the view held by trinitarians, who believe that John 1:1 shows that the Son is the same God as the Father. Origen, on the other hand, believed that the difference between ho theos and theos in John 1:1 was significant, and that it was saying that the Logos was “a god” by virtue of being “with the God.” Therefore, despite believing that the Son existed eternally in the past, Origen was a unitarian who believed that the Father is the only true God, and that the Son is a lesser god who derives his power from the Father.
Novatian of Rome
Novatian was a Christian priest and theologian who lived in Rome in the middle of the third century, during the Decian persecution. For one year, from AD 250-251, during an interim in which there was no bishop (because of persecution), he was appointed to be one of several leaders of the church in Rome. Afterward, there was a schism in the Roman church in which some Christians backed Novatian as bishop of Rome, and others supported another priest named Cornelius. This schism was not the result of theological disputes, but on the issue of whether Christians who had denied Christ (because of the persecution) should be allowed to be re-baptized. Ultimately, Cornelius was accepted as bishop.
Because Novatian was accepted as bishop of Rome by so many, and his only point of disagreement with his opponents was regarding the baptism of the lapsed, we can be sure that his theology reflects the orthodoxy of the mid-third century AD. So what were his views about the Father, the Son, and the Spirit? Fortunately, one of his surviving works titled On the Trinity deals precisely with this very question. Despite the book’s name, however, Novatian in no way defended the trinitarianism of later creeds. On the contrary, he believed that the Father alone is truly God:
The Rule of truth requires that we should first of all believe in God, the Father and Lord Almighty, that is, the perfect Founder of all things… And over all these things He Himself, containing all things and having nothing vacant beyond Himself, has left room for no superior God… Him, then, we know and acknowledge to be God, the Creator of all things. Lord on account of His power, Parent on account of His discipline. Him, I say, who spoke and all things were made, He commanded and all things went forth…
Him [the Father] alone the Lord [Jesus] rightly declares good, [Mark 10:18] and of His goodness the whole world is witness… And thus He [the Father] is declared to be one, having no equal. For whatever can be God, must necessarily be the Highest. But whatever is the Highest must certainly be the Highest in such sense as to be without any equal… This God [the Father], then, setting aside the fables and figments of heretics, the Church knows and worships…
The same Rule of truth teaches us to believe, after the Father, also on the Son of God, Messiah Jesus, the Lord our God, but the Son of that God who is both one and only, to wit the Founder of all things, as has already been expressed above. (On the Trinity 1-9)
Thus God, the Father, the Founder and Creator of all things, who alone knows no beginning, invisible, infinite, immortal, eternal, is one God; to whose greatness or majesty or power, I would not say that nothing can be preferred, but nothing can be compared... the Father is proved to be one God, while by degrees in reciprocal transfer that majesty and divinity are again returned and reflected as sent by the Son himself to the Father, who had given them, so that reasonably God, the Father, is God of all, and the source also of His Son himself whom He begot as Lord.
Moreover, the Son is God of all else, because God the Father put him before all, whom He begot. Thus the mediator of God and men, Messiah Jesus, having the power of every creature subjected to him by His own Father, inasmuch as he is god; with every creature subdued to him, found at one with his Father God, has, by abiding in that condition that he moreover “was heard,” briefly proved God, His Father, to be one and only and true God. (On the Trinity 31)
Novatian makes clear that, in his view, the Father is absolutely unequaled and there can be no other God beside Him. The Son’s authority and dominion are not his in and of himself, but were given to him by the Father. In this sense, Novatian was obviously a unitarian, not a trinitarian, despite the title of his book.
Nevertheless, he also referred to Jesus as “the Lord our god,” and argued at length that the title “god” is applicable to Jesus (On the Trinity 11-21). How is this compatible with his strictly monotheistic belief that the Father alone is the one God? Apparently, this troubled Novatian (or at least his opponents) as well, because he spends an entire chapter at the end of the book arguing that Jesus can be another god without threatening the unique Deity of the Father:
It is most faithful that Jesus Christ the Son of God is our Lord and god… What, then, shall we say? Does Scripture set before us two Gods? How then does it say that “God is one”? Or is not Christ god also? How, then, is it said to Christ, “My Lord and my god”?… And in the first place, we must turn the attack against them who undertake to make against us the charge of saying that there are two Gods.
It is written, and they cannot deny it, that “there is one Lord.” What, then, do they think of Christ? That he is Lord, or that he is not Lord? But they do not doubt absolutely that he is Lord; therefore, if their reasoning is true, here are already two Lords.
And Christ is called the “one Master.” Nevertheless we read that the Apostle Paul is also a master. Then, according to this, our Master is not one, for from these things we conclude that there are two masters. How, then, according to the Scriptures, is “one our Master, even Christ”?
In the Scriptures there is “one called Good, even God”; but in the same Scriptures Christ is also asserted to be good. There is not, then, if they rightly conclude, one Good, but even two goods. How, then, according to the scriptural faith, is there said to be only one Good?
But if they do not think that it can by any means interfere with the truth that there is one Lord, that Christ is also Lord, nor with the truth that one is our Master, that Paul is also our master, or with the truth that one is Good, that Christ is also called good; on the same reasoning, let them understand that, from the fact that God [the Father] is one, no obstruction arises to the truth that Christ is also declared to be a god. (On the Trinity 30)
Novatian’s argument here is obvious: just because there is one person deserving of a title in an absolute sense does not mean that other people cannot also be called by that title. Christ is called “our only Master,” but Paul is also a master; thus, in one sense, there is one (absolute) Master, but two masters. To use a modern analogy, the CEO of a company is the only person in the company who is absolutely boss, but people lower in the hierarchy can also be called “Boss” in a relative sense. Therefore, just because “God is one” does not mean that Jesus, to whom the Father has subjected all other things, cannot be called a god.
That Novatian did not believe the Son to be God, but merely ‘God’ or a god, is confirmed in the last chapter of his book. Here, he describes a number of counterpossibles in which case the Son would have been a second God. He states:
Assuredly [the Logos is] a god proceeding from God, causing a person second to the Father as being the Son, but not taking from the Father that characteristic that He is one God. For if he [the Logos] had not been born... he would make two unborn beings, and thus would make two Gods. If he had not been begotten... they not being begotten, would reasonably have been given two Gods. Had he been formed without beginning like the Father... this would have made two Beginnings, and consequently two Gods also. Had he been invisible... he would have shown forth two Invisibles, and thus also he would have proved them to be two Gods. If incomprehensible, or whatever other attributes belong to the Father, reasonably, we say, he would have given rise to two Gods... But now, whatever he is, he is not of himself... and therefore he declared that God is one. (On the Trinity 31)
Because the Logos does not have the attributes which properly belong to the one God, the Logos is not a second God, but is merely ‘God’ or a god, and therefore this does not threaten the monotheistic creed that “God is one.” Novatian, then, was definitively a unitarian, as he believed that the Father is the only one who is God, and that the Son is not the same God as the Father, but a god given authority by the Father.
Finally, what was Novatian’s view on the generation of the Logos? Although his opinion about this is not exactly clear, he appears to have been a one-stage Logos theorist, following Origen. In the last chapter of On the Trinity, he describes his view of the Logos’ generation:
[The Son], then, since he was begotten from the Father, is always in the Father. And I thus say always, not that I may show him to be unborn, but born. But he who is before all time must be said to have always been in the Father, for no time can be assigned to him who is before all time. And he is always in the Father, unless the Father is not always Father; only that the Father precedes him — in a certain sense — since it is necessary — in some degree — that He should exist before He is Father. This is because it is essential that He who knows no beginning must go before him who has a beginning. (On the Trinity 31)
So, did Novatian believe that the Son is eternally generated from the Father, or that the Son began to exist some finite time ago? Again, it’s not entirely clear, because he seems to contradict himself. You can decide for yourself whether he was a two-stage or one-stage Logos theorist. Either way, it is interesting that the statement, “God should exist before He is Father,” was considered perfectly orthodox less than a century before Arius was condemned as a heretic for making precisely this claim.
No comments:
Post a Comment