Trinitarianism and [Eternal] Hierarchicalism

Because I wasn't able to participate in our monthly podcast in May due to the passing of my grandmother, I recently reviewed a book called "Masculine Christianity." In the course of writing the review, I had a few thoughts on "hierarchicalism," a term I use to mean that all [earthly] societies exhibit an ordered hierarchy. These thoughts diverged from the point of the review enough that I felt a separate post on the subject was warranted. So here we are:

Whether it is in the context of the church, government, family, or work, all earthly organizations have authorities and those who submit to said authorities. Because, as I mentioned in the review, I think earthly societies image the divine society, I think there is good reason to consider some idea of eternal hierarchicalism as understandably motivated. It would make sense that the functions of the economic Trinity were rooted in the ontological Trinity, for example.

Could the Father have been sent by the Son to become incarnate? Did the Father not have authority to send His Son? Is it possible for the Son to even obey the Father? A common reply to eternal hierarchicalism is the idea that there is one Trinitarian will, which would seemingly prevent any one person from submitting to or having the capacity for authority over any other. This idea does not seem to do justice to the fact the Father sent/loves His Son (cf. John 17:24) or how the Son obeyed/loves His Father. Rather, a more plausible possibility is that the members of the Trinity have distinct wills - similar to how they must have their own, distinct minds to respectively think "I am the Father" vs "I am the Son" (and perhaps distinct minds itself entails distinct wills) - which, because they are of the same nature, will always be mutually interdependent and directed.

In the book, the author made much of chronological priority in Adam and woman's case as to why Adam was the head over woman. Is there perhaps an analogy to be made - albeit not in temporal terms, obviously - with eternal generation (in that the Father may be considered the fount of divinity)? If so, eternal hierarchalism would make the author's case in the book even stronger. Of course, I would stress that the author is correct to say that women and men are of equal value, equally image God, are equally human, and think they are equally important to that for which God commissioned them in the dominion mandate. But, as the author says, "rank" or hierarchy exists. So too, the Father and Son are equal in nature... thus, I think 1 Corinthians 15:28 and the like (John 5:19, 26) could use better argumentation as to why the authority or hierarchy implied is only an economic one (due to the incarnation) rather than an eternal one - especially since, in the 1 Corinthians passage, Paul specifically switches terminology from Christ to Son.

Nevertheless, in spite of my above reservations and thoughts, I am not as dogmatic about this as I used to be. The subject is complicated, to say the least! Before all else, I deny that the Father and Son are of different natures. After all, if we are speaking of analogies, there is a clear analogy between sonship in human terms vs. Sonship in divine terms in that our being sons of fathers doesn't mean we have different natures than our fathers. So, too, the Son and Father do not have different natures. This parallel is clear, and it is the one I think through which we should evaluate any other parallels we wish to draw (if such there be). That is, human nature and generation differs from divine nature and generation. Thus, if any other parallel we draw would logically imply that the Father and Son are not of the same nature, we should reject such parallels as being instances of disanalogies due to these differences.

While it is possible for those of the same nature to differ in terms of who is authoritative, then (for earthly fathers have authority over sons), if - and this is the big question - it turned out that eternal hierarchicalism would entail that the Father and Son have different natures (e.g. due to aseity), we must reject that the idea that a father-son relationship necessarily entails a hierarchy. One can point out that earthly fathers have authority over their earthly sons as an example of how those of the same nature can differ in rank or authority. But to parallel this to the Trinity would be wrong to do so if such would imply that the Father and Son are of different natures. The intended parallel would break down at precisely this point due to the difference in human and divine nature. Eternal hierarchicalism would be wrong.

Now, I don’t find such an entailment to be a clear implication - and if it were, I would have questions about eternal generation too - but the situation is unclear enough that I hesitate to dogmatically assert eternal hierarchalism. On the other hand, in contrast to the author of the book, I would not be dogmatic in denial of eternal hierarchicalism either. The position makes sense to me, but there are orders of belief, and this one would be subordinate to my belief in the consubstantiality of the Trinity.

Perhaps the author or others have searched the matter more deeply. If so, and to return to the question and men and women and authority, I wish the author would have explained why he thinks a difference in rank or authority implies a difference in nature between men and women, both of whom he regards as equally human but, somehow, as having different natures. After all, fathers and sons or masters and slaves or kings and citizens or elders and congregations have different authority, but they do not have different natures (presumably?). If rank or authority does not usually imply a difference in nature, why suppose that men and women must have different natures? Is it because in the other cases, the relationship is contingent (one can fail to become a father, master, king, or elder) whereas a human is necessarily either a man or woman? Crucially missing in the book was a definition of “nature,” so I can only attempt to hypothesize the author’s case so far.

Either way, care is needed when comparing the earthly father-son parallel to the Heavenly Father-Son parallel. For example, when children leave their earthly fathers and mothers to start new families, new headships and priorities are established that eclipse old ones. In fact, at some point, children begin to become responsible for the well-being of the parents in their old age. Should we press the analogy such that when the Son left His Father’s domain to come wed the church, He similarly has left the divine family to be the Head of a new one? Of course not. Nor can we regard the Father as capable of aging, etc. There are limits to parallels and analogies we can make between human and divine families, though such parallels there are.

ECFs on the Father Alone Being Autotheos

I recently posted 74 pages of quotes by 20 early church fathers affirming the doctrine that the Father alone is autotheos or God-of-Himself. You can find the entire document here. I have a few quick comments on the project itself.

Firstly, I only searched for and copied passages which mention the Father as the first cause, the ultimate cause of all things, the cause of the Son or Spirit, passages which, for instance, identify the Father being without cause with His exclusive property of being unbegotten, etc. In other words, there are many more passages I could have quoted, passages which instead speak of, say, the Father's uniqueness in terms of origination, sourcehood, or beginning, or how the Son's or Spirit's being or existence is from, of, or otherwise derived from the Father. I just found it convenient to hone my search in terms of causation.

Further, I only researched books found on http://newadvent.org/. I am aware of at least one book not on that website which contained statements which would have otherwise qualified, but I did not intend for this to be comprehensive. That wasn't the point. The point of the document is simply to show how pervasive this doctrine was in the early church.

Any edits I made in the above document were either grammatical - in changing the font and type for better readability, some errors occurred and a few have probably been missed - or because newadvent includes Scriptural quotations not found in authors' original works. People are welcome to compare my edit to the online version, there is no significant difference.

Now, I don't usually research church history, but Sean Gerety rekindled my interest after recently peddling the same embarrassing canards on facebook he did when we discussed Trinitarianism several years ago, including this one:

I find it offensive that you think we're stupid, when even a toad could tell that no Trinitarian could ever write as you have: "The Son and Spirit are not “autotheos.” FWIW I'm not going to revisit this whole sorry affair, but suffice it to say you're not a Christian. You may not like Unitarian or Arian, but you is what you is.

Sean is now free to consider Alexander of Alexandria, Athanasius, Basil, Clement of Alexandria, Cyril, Eusebius, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Hillary of Poitiers, Hippolytus, Irenaeus of Lyons, John Chrysostom, John of Damascus, Justin Martyr, Novatian, Origen, Rufinus, Tertullian, Theodoret, etc. as anti-Trinitarians and less intelligent than toads.