| Revision as of 06:11, 8 December 2007 editGregbard (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers90,738 editsm ontology using AWB← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:14, 13 December 2007 edit undo143.250.2.10 (talk) Updated some data, tried to make it more objective and factualNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{sources|date=October 2007}} | {{sources|date=October 2007}} | ||
| {{wikify|date=October 2007}} | {{wikify|date=October 2007}} | ||
| '''Subordinationism''' is a ] which holds that ] is eternally ] to ] the Father, implying a hierarchical view of the Trinity. | '''Subordinationism''' is a ] which holds that ] is eternally ] to ] the Father, implying a hierarchical view of the Trinity. Some of the ideas used to explain this position are John 14:28, 1 Cor 8:4-6, and the rejection of the filioque clause. | ||
| Subordinationism is sometimes mistakenly confused with ]. While ] and his followers were certainly also subordinationist, |
Subordinationism is sometimes mistakenly confused with ]. While ] and his followers were certainly also subordinationist, the Arians also went further to assert that there was a time when Christ did not exist. (Albeit later, Arius confessed the ] before ].) | ||
| "The First general Council -Nicea 325- knew Arius's teaching leaned toward Subordinationism, but they were not unduly upset about that. Subordinationism had been implicit in 'Logos' Christology from the outset and didn't mean a denial of the Word's divinity - Arius was not denying the existence and exalted status of the 'Word': he was simply saying, so it seemed that the Father is greater than the "Word." By maintaining this, he claimed, he was countering the Sabellianism of Bishop Alexander.... At the Council at Sirmium in 375 the Arians nearly went too far. The Creedal Statement issued there forbade the use of the word ''ousia'' at all when speaking of the Father & Son. It cited scriptural passages that seemed to support a subordinationist view and laid the groundwork for the Arians to state their basic conviction - 'That the "Son" is Unlike the "Father".' Hilary of Poitiers in Gaul, a firm defender of Nicea, |
"The First general Council -Nicea 325- knew Arius's teaching leaned toward Subordinationism, but they were not unduly upset about that. Subordinationism had been implicit in 'Logos' Christology from the outset and didn't mean a denial of the Word's divinity - Arius was not denying the existence and exalted status of the 'Word': he was simply saying, so it seemed that the Father is greater than the "Word." By maintaining this, he claimed, he was countering the ] (aka ]) of Bishop Alexander.... At the Council at Sirmium in 375 the Arians nearly went too far. The Creedal Statement issued there forbade the use of the word ''ousia'' at all when speaking of the Father & Son. It cited scriptural passages that seemed to support a subordinationist view and laid the groundwork for the Arians to state their basic conviction - 'That the "Son" is Unlike the "Father".' Hilary of Poitiers in Gaul, a firm defender of Nicea, called the the Creed 'THE BLASPHEMY OF SIRMIUM'" | ||
| - FROM HERESIIES, SCHIMSMS & OTHER CONTROVERSAL STANCES | - FROM HERESIIES, SCHIMSMS & OTHER CONTROVERSAL STANCES | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| Quoted from Education for Ministry - Anglican Church of Australia | Quoted from Education for Ministry - Anglican Church of Australia | ||
| Subordinationism eventually fell out of favor in the wake of the rejection of Arius. ], in particular, categorically rejected subordinationism in all its forms, possibly as a reaction against ] In the ], all three divine persons are ''almighty'' and ''Lord''; no divine person is ''before or after another, none is greater or less than another'' … all three are ''co-equal.'' Athanasius' influence |
Subordinationism eventually fell out of favor among the Church of Rome in the wake of the rejection of Arius. ], in particular, categorically rejected subordinationism in all its forms, possibly as a reaction against ] In the pseudonymous ], all three divine persons are ''almighty'' and ''Lord''; no divine person is ''before or after another, none is greater or less than another'' … all three are ''co-equal.'' Athanasius' influence on subordinationism made it a non-issue in the Western Church until the times of the Reformation. | ||
| Traditionally, subordinationists have asserted that the Son is eternally and therefore ]ly subordinate to the Father. Recently, subordinationism has regained currency in ] circles by the suggestion of George W. Knight III, in his landmark 1977 book, "The New Testament Teaching on Role Relationship with Men and women." In this book, Knight suggests that the Son is functionally but not ontologically subordinate to the Father. The assertion of eternal subordination in function, combined with the denial of ontological subordination, is Knight's unique contribution to the teaching of subordination. Knight's publication has led to an unprecedented popularity of this new, modified subordinationist Christology in conservative, evangelical, and fundamentalist circles. | Traditionally, subordinationists have asserted that the Son is eternally and therefore ]ly subordinate to the Father. Recently, subordinationism has regained currency in ] circles by the suggestion of George W. Knight III, in his landmark 1977 book, "The New Testament Teaching on Role Relationship with Men and women." In this book, Knight suggests that the Son is functionally but not ontologically subordinate to the Father. The assertion of eternal subordination in function, combined with the denial of ontological subordination, is Knight's unique contribution to the teaching of subordination. Knight's publication has led to an unprecedented popularity of this new, modified subordinationist Christology in conservative, evangelical, and fundamentalist circles. | ||
Revision as of 19:14, 13 December 2007
 | This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Subordinationism" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (October 2007) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
 | Template:Wikify is deprecated. Please use a more specific cleanup template as listed in the documentation. |
Subordinationism is a doctrine which holds that Jesus is eternally subordinate to God the Father, implying a hierarchical view of the Trinity. Some of the ideas used to explain this position are John 14:28, 1 Cor 8:4-6, and the rejection of the filioque clause.
Subordinationism is sometimes mistakenly confused with Arianism. While Arius and his followers were certainly also subordinationist, the Arians also went further to assert that there was a time when Christ did not exist. (Albeit later, Arius confessed the Nicene Creed before Constantine.)
"The First general Council -Nicea 325- knew Arius's teaching leaned toward Subordinationism, but they were not unduly upset about that. Subordinationism had been implicit in 'Logos' Christology from the outset and didn't mean a denial of the Word's divinity - Arius was not denying the existence and exalted status of the 'Word': he was simply saying, so it seemed that the Father is greater than the "Word." By maintaining this, he claimed, he was countering the Sabellianism (aka Modalism) of Bishop Alexander.... At the Council at Sirmium in 375 the Arians nearly went too far. The Creedal Statement issued there forbade the use of the word ousia at all when speaking of the Father & Son. It cited scriptural passages that seemed to support a subordinationist view and laid the groundwork for the Arians to state their basic conviction - 'That the "Son" is Unlike the "Father".' Hilary of Poitiers in Gaul, a firm defender of Nicea, called the the Creed 'THE BLASPHEMY OF SIRMIUM'"
- FROM HERESIIES, SCHIMSMS & OTHER CONTROVERSAL STANCES
From Fiona on 22nd July 2007 - Wester Australia Quoted from Education for Ministry - Anglican Church of Australia
Subordinationism eventually fell out of favor among the Church of Rome in the wake of the rejection of Arius. Athanasius, in particular, categorically rejected subordinationism in all its forms, possibly as a reaction against Arianism. In the pseudonymous Athanasian Creed, all three divine persons are almighty and Lord; no divine person is before or after another, none is greater or less than another … all three are co-equal. Athanasius' influence on subordinationism made it a non-issue in the Western Church until the times of the Reformation.
Traditionally, subordinationists have asserted that the Son is eternally and therefore ontologically subordinate to the Father. Recently, subordinationism has regained currency in evangelical circles by the suggestion of George W. Knight III, in his landmark 1977 book, "The New Testament Teaching on Role Relationship with Men and women." In this book, Knight suggests that the Son is functionally but not ontologically subordinate to the Father. The assertion of eternal subordination in function, combined with the denial of ontological subordination, is Knight's unique contribution to the teaching of subordination. Knight's publication has led to an unprecedented popularity of this new, modified subordinationist Christology in conservative, evangelical, and fundamentalist circles.
SUBORDINATIONISM IN LUTHERAN CIRCLES Dr John Kleinig (Dean of worship and Head of biblical studies at Australian Lutheran College) promotes a form of subordinationism in his paper, 'The subordination of the exalted Son to the Father'. He concludes
"Well then, is the exalted Christ in any way subordinate to the Father right now? The answer is both “yes” and “no”. It all depends on whether we are speaking about Him in His nature as God, or about Him in his office as the exalted Son of God. On the one hand, He is not subordinate to the Father in His divine essence, status, and majesty. On the other hand, He is, I hold, subordinate to the Father in His vice-regal office and His work as prophet, priest, and king. He is operationally subordinate to the Father. In the present operation of the triune God in the church and the world, He is the mediator between God the Father and humankind. The exalted Christ receives everything from His Father to deliver to us, so that in turn, He can bring us back to the Father. To Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus for ever and ever. Amen."
His paper can be found at Others within Lutheran circles are critical of Dr Kleinig's position including Dr Mark Worthing who presented the problems with Dr Kleinig's position in a paper presented to pastors in Queensland.
Categories: