In the article The Danger of Equating Eternal Authority & Submission with Arian Heresy, posted by Owen Strachan on November 9, 2021, Strachan cites historian Philip Schaff. For more about the purpose of this series, please see the introductory post.
Schaff is well known as the editor of various historical resources on early Christianity, and so his citation by Strachan is intended to provide an air of reliability from a source who is competent in early Christianity.
Here is the quote with its expanded context
5. The Nicene doctrine already contains, in substance, a distinction between two trinities: an immanent trinity of constitution, which existed from eternity, and an economic trinity of manifestation; though this distinction did not receive formal expression till a much later period. For the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit are, according to the doctrine, an eternal process. The perceptions and practical wants of the Christian mind start, strictly speaking, with the trinity of revelation in the threefold progressive work of the creation, the redemption, and the preservation of the world, but reason back thence to a trinity of being; for God has revealed himself as he is, and there can be no contradiction between his nature and his works. The eternal pre-existence of the Son and the Spirit is the background of the historical revelation by which they work our salvation. The Scriptures deal mainly with the trinity of revelation, and only hint at the trinity of essence, as in the prologue of the Gospel of John which asserts an eternal distinction between God and the Logos. The Nicene divines, however, agreeably to the metaphysical bent of the Greek mind, move somewhat too exclusively in the field of speculation and in the dark regions of the intrinsic and ante-mundane relations of the Godhead, and too little upon the practical ground of the facts of salvation.
6. The Nicene fathers still teach, like their predecessors, a certain subordinationism, which seems to conflict with the doctrine of consubstantiality. But we must distinguish between, a subordinatianism of essence (οὐσία) and a subordinatianism of hypostasis, of order and dignity. The former was denied, the latter affirmed. The essence of the Godhead being but one, and being absolutely perfect, can admit of no degrees. Father, Son, and Spirit all have the same divine essence, yet not in a co-ordinate way, but in an order of subordination. The Father has the essence originally and of himself, from no other; he is the primal divine subject, to whom alone absoluteness belongs, and he is therefore called preeminently God, or the principle, the fountain, and the root of Godhead. The Son, on the contrary, has his essence by communication from the Father, therefore, in a secondary, derivative way. “The Father is greater than the Son.” The one is unbegotten, the other begotten; the Son is from the Father, but the Father is not from the Son; fatherhood is in the nature of the case primary, sonship secondary. The same subordination is still more applicable to the Holy Ghost. The Nicene fathers thought the idea of the divine unity best preserved by making the Father, notwithstanding the triad of persons, the monad from which Son and Spirit spring, and to which they return.
This subordination is most plainly expressed by Hilary of Poictiers, the champion of the Nicene doctrine in the West. The familiar comparisons of fountain and stream, sun and light, which Athanasius, like Tertullian, so often uses, likewise lead to a dependence of the Son upon the Father. Even the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed favors it, in calling the Son God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God. For if a person has anything, or is anything, of another, he has not that, or is not that, of himself. Yet this expression may be more correctly understood, and is in fact sometimes used by the later Nicene fathers, as giving the Son and Spirit only their hypostases from the Father, while the essence of deity is common to all three persons, and is co-eternal in all.
Scriptural argument for this theory of subordination was found abundant in such passages as these: “As the Father hath life in himself (ἔχει ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ), so hath he given (ἔδωκε) to the Son to have life in himself; and hath given him authority to execute judgment also;” “All things are delivered unto me (πάντα μοι παρεδόθη) of my Father;” “My father is greater than I.” But these and similar passages refer to the historical relation of the Father to the incarnate Logos in his estate of humiliation, or to the elevation of human nature to participation in the glory and power of the divine, not to the eternal metaphysical relation of the Father to the Son.
In this point, as in the doctrine of the Holy Ghost, the Nicene system yet needed further development. The logical consistency of the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son, upon which the Nicene fathers laid chief stress, must in time overcome this decaying remnant of the ante-Nicene subordinationism.
Philip Schaff and David Schley Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), 680–683.
Original quote: 85 words
Words supplied prior to quote: 230
Words omitted from quote: 1
Words supplied following quote: 445
This is an example in which the EFS advocate lifts a quote from an author intended to support the thesis that EFS is an ancient theology that finds wide representation across the historic testimony of the Church. In this case, Strachan is using a quote by Schaff in which Schaff argues that the early Church held a theology similar to EFS.
There are several issues with the use of this quote. First, you will note that the quote comes within a list of numbered points that Owen omits. Specifically, this is the 6th and final point in the section. Each point builds as a cumulative argument, and no one point can or should be considered apart from the others.
First, in point 1 (not presented above but significant), Schaff argues that the theology represented is a form of social trinitarianism in which the unity of the Trinity is a generic unity. That is, three persons with the same kind of nature, not a numerically singular nature.
The term homoousion, in its strict grammatical sense, differs from monoousion or toutoousion, as well as from heteroousion, and signifies not numerical identity, but equality of essence or community of nature among several beings.
Philip Schaff and David Schley Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), 672.
Unless Owen intends to argue that ERAS is actually a form of Social Trinitarianism, which is precisely what ERAS opponents like Matthew Barret suggest, Schaff is not a reliable witness for him.
Second, in point 2 (not presented above but significant), Schaff argues that while the Nicene Fathers held a view of Social Trinitarianism in reference to a generic essence, nevertheless a theology in which the persons of the Trinity are different actors in the economy of salvation is excluded. Although Schaff does not say so explicitly, this would exclude any theology which implicitly or explicitly includes a plurality of wills within the Trinity, since to possess a distinct will would be to be a distinct actor.
the term person must not be taken here in the sense current among men, as if the three persons were three different individuals, or three self-conscious and separately acting beings.
Philip Schaff and David Schley Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), 676.
Third, the distinction between the immanent and economic Trinity is something which is recognized by Schaff as fundamental to the reflection of the Nicene Fathers. This distinction is something which Strachan denies. In his view the economic operations of the Trinity are mutually determinative with the immanent operations.
The Nicene doctrine already contains, in substance, a distinction between two trinities: an immanent trinity of constitution, which existed from eternity, and an economic trinity of manifestation
Philip Schaff and David Schley Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), 680.
Schaff points out that the Scriptures focus primarily on the latter of these categories and only give a glimpse of the former. In order for Schaff's understanding of the patristic testimony to represent a substantially similar theology to Strachan's ERAS, there would have to be a much closer identification between these two, which is not articulated by Schaff.
Fourth, Schaff argues that the Nicene Fathers held a form of Monarchianism in which the Father was the primary deity, and the Son and Spirit a sort of derivative deity. Although this does bear some affinity to reflection which would be provided by Calvin later, Schaff's articulation of the Nicene position represents the idea that this was still theology in development rather than simply theology being clarified (more on this in the next point).
The Nicene fathers thought the idea of the divine unity best preserved by making the Father, notwithstanding the triad of persons, the monad from which Son and Spirit spring, and to which they return.
Philip Schaff and David Schley Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), 682.
I doubt very much that Strachan would agree that the previous quote is an accurate representation of ERAS theology, however according to Schaff this is the position which the Nicene Fathers held. If Strachan wants to argue that Schaff's representation here proves that the Nicene Fathers held to ERAS theology based on he 85 words he quotes, then it must be acknowledged that their theology is dependent (according to Schaff) on a prior metaphysic assumption in reference to the Trinity that Strachan himself would reject.
Fifth, Schaff makes brief reference to the Scriptural support for these passages. Notably he cites passages that ERAS advocates would also cite. While this may seem like a support for the historic pedigree, Schaff himself notes that the use of these passages is spurious since the texts in question are a reference to the historic incarnate ministry of the God-man, not the eternal ad intra relations of the Trinity. While it is true that Schaff is saying that this is the support the patristics used, he is in the same breath making the same argument that anti-ERAS figures marshal against Strachan's exegesis. Either Schaff is a reliable witness, including his assessment of the exegetical weakness of the patristic ERAS argument, or he is not. Strachan cannot have his cake and eat it too.
Scriptural argument for this theory of subordination was found abundant in such passages as these: “As the Father hath life in himself (ἔχει ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ), so hath he given (ἔδωκε) to the Son to have life in himself; and hath given him authority to execute judgment also;” “All things are delivered unto me (πάντα μοι παρεδόθη) of my Father;” “My father is greater than I.”3 But these and similar passages refer to the historical relation of the Father to the incarnate Logos in his estate of humiliation, or to the elevation of human nature to participation in the glory and power of the divine, not to the eternal metaphysical relation of the Father to the Son.
Philip Schaff and David Schley Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), 682–683.
Sixthly, Schaff concludes this section by arguing that this patristic subordinationism, which Strachan is arguing is simply a historic manifestation of ERAS theology, is merely a leftover vestige of primitive ante-Nicene theology which the Church had not sufficiently outgrown. Schaff, although outwardly resistant to Hegelian historiography, was in fact deeply Hegelian in his approach. Although not a liberal theologian as we might use the word today, Schaff was trained in the Tübingen School. He studied directly under Ferdinand Christian Baur and had, unfortunately, inherited many of the same assumptions of his educational background. Although Schaff did not follow his teachers in the same wholesale disregard of the historical theological tradition, he held the Nicene Creed to be not only a fallible, but actually failing doctrinal statement. What Owen has inadvertently done here is provided a witness who indeed does articulate that the Nicene Fathers held a theology with affinities to ERAS theology, but has also provided a witness who believes that that proto-ERAS theology was in fact deeply flawed and represented an immature and suborthodox articulation of Trinitarian theology.
In this point, as in the doctrine of the Holy Ghost, the Nicene system yet needed further development. The logical consistency of the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son, upon which the Nicene fathers laid chief stress, must in time overcome this decaying remnant of the ante-Nicene subordinationism.
Philip Schaff and David Schley Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), 683.
When all is said and done, this article is not making a claim to the accuracy of Schaff's view (in fact, we do not believe that Schaff's analysis of the Nicene Fathers is accurate). However, in citing him approvingly, Strachan apparently believes he is reliable enough to provide a suitable witness in his favor. However, Strachan's quote when placed in proper context proves too much. Schaff, whom Strachan presents as correct, argues against ERAS as being a correct view, even as he may argue that the patristic witness held it.