The objection
Pre-Nicene theologians sometimes speak of the Son's subordination and use unclear ideas about his origin. A uniform Trinitarian faith from the beginning therefore seems retrospectively constructed.
1. Early theology was not linguistically uniform
It would be historically false to read every early Christian author as though they already used the carefully delimited concepts of later confessions. Some formulations remain open to misunderstanding or substantively problematic from a later perspective. Christian historiography need not smooth this over.
But it follows no more that all early authors were modern Unitarians. There is a substantial difference between “not yet fully formulated in Nicene terms” and “the Son is only a human or creature.” Each text must be read with its own positive statements.
2. Tertullian shows clarification and remaining tension together
In Against Praxeas, chapter 2, Tertullian confesses one divine substance and distinguishes Father, Son and Spirit. He opposes identifying their persons and three separate gods. At the same time, he uses expressions such as rank, form and mode of appearance, which later had to be delimited more precisely.[1]
We must neither overlook distinction and unity in him nor uncritically declare every one of his expressions the definitive model. His text attests an already existing Trinitarian question and a genuine process of conceptual work.
3. “Subordination” can mean different things
For a statement about subordination, we must ask: Does it describe the Son's mission, his obedience as a human, an eternal personal relationship of origin or an inferior divine nature? These statements are not interchangeable. Only the last makes the Son by his being a lower god or creature.
That Jesus is sent and obeys appears in the New Testament. That his divine nature must therefore be inferior does not. Later clarification serves precisely to prevent this inference. Where an early author actually draws it, scripture requires us to disagree with him.
4. The church receives truth; it does not produce it
An apostle's authority and that of a later interpreter are not equal. Neither a problematic formulation of Justin nor a successful formulation of Tertullian decides the doctrine of God in its own right. Both stand under the judgment of apostolic scripture.
Development can therefore contain both preservation of original truth and correction of earlier lack of clarity. This is no excuse but follows from the distinction between infallible revelation and fallible interpretation. Demonstrating early differences refutes a claim of continuous linguistic uniformity. It does not refute the biblical statements from which the Nicene distinction between created and uncreated was derived.[2]
Biblical texts in context
Sources and further study
- Tertullian, Against PraxeasCh. 2–3: one substance, three persons and the terminology of the time.
- John M. Frame, The Doctrine of GodCh. 28, pp. 638–639: New Testament witness as the starting point of later doctrine.