38
Irenaeus had a wide and lasting influence on the formation of orthodoxy at the ecumenical councils
from Nicaea to Chalcedon, and through him the earlier apostolic fathers and apologists established the
center and source of orthodox Christology. MacKenzie writes, "There is little, if anything, in the Nicene
formulae which is not present in embryonic or directional form in the works of Irenaeus."
272
Nicaea was
not, then, a correction of the fathers of the second century, but their heir.
*Summary: Drawing liberally from his predecessors, but avoiding much of their imprecise language and
idiosyncrasies, Irenaeus presented the Father, Son, and Spirit as eternally existing as divine, but functioning in
the economy of creation in ordered roles with the Father as the head (A.H. 2.25.3; 4.20.1; Frag. 39; Dem. 47;
51, passim).
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Conclusions
Based on the preceding synthesis, we can make the following conclusions regarding the relationships
of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the writings of the early fathers.
No Clear Arian Ontological Subordination. There is no clear example of an Arian ontological
subordinationism in which the Son is a created being or has an inferior divinity to the Father, though
Tatian's concept of the Logos may come close. When their language was clear, the early fathers'
concept of subordination was functional, not ontological. LaCugna rightly stated that "we should not
regard this economic subordinationism as heretical or even as an inferior or incoherent Christian
theology of God and Christ."
273
Rather, just the opposite is true: where there was opportunity given by
the context, Christ was called "God," "eternal," or the essential mediator of the Father's will.
No Functional Egalitarianism. There is no discernible tradition whatsoever of what is today
described as ontological and functional equality or a "communitarian" or "democratic" model of the
Trinity. Nor is there clear evidence of a view which states that the persons of the Godhead could have
agreed to take on different roles than what has unfolded in the economy of creation (e.g. that the Father
could have become incarnate or the Son could have indwelled believers rather than the Holy Spirit).
Ontological Equality and Functional Subordination. There is an overwhelming tradition of what is
today described as ontological equality and functional subordination within the Trinity that emphasizes
the monarchia of the Father. While the Son and Spirit are not creatures, the Father is their head,
meaning that all activities conform to his will.
Possible Drift toward Ontological Subordinationism. While the later second century fathers began to
speculate more on the specific nature of the generation of the Son,
274
we begin to discern language
implying an eternal functional subordination while still maintaining essential (ontological) equality.
However, with Tatian the language becomes fuzzy, and the stage appears to be set for greater deviation
away from ontological equality toward Arian ontological subordinationism.
Implications
If, for the sake of argument, we were to regard the fathers of the first and second centuries as our
canon of orthodoxy and the proper understanding of Scripture, then our judgments on various views of
subordination and the Trinity become rather clear.
Eternal Functional Equality and Ontological Equality. Modern day advocates of what I call "eternal
functional equality" suggest that "there can be no separation between the being and the acts of God,
between the one divine nature of the three persons and their functions."
275
Therefore, orthodox
ontological equality is said to demand functional equality as well, and distinctions in rank between the
272
MacKenzie, Irenaeus's Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 29. For a brief summary of the themes in Irenaeus that
are later developed in Nicene orthodoxy, see MacKenzie, Irenaeus's Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 29-30. For a simple
and brief summary of Irenaeus's incorporation of the theology of the apostolic fathers and apologists, see Grant, Jesus after the
Gospels, 9193; 98103.
273
LaCugna, God for Us, 26.
274
This may have been the impetus for Irenaeus to assert that the generation of the Son is unknowable (A.H. 2.28.6).
275
Giles, The Trinity and Subordinationism, 93.