But even that is probably giving far more importance to Hippolytus than is reasonable, for he was certainly no giant in theology like Ptolemy was in astronomy
Hippolytus was arguably the greatest Latin theologian of the third century. (Surpassed in my view only by the pre-heretical Tertullian.) It is true that Hippolytus did not enunciate the subject matter of the Trinity in a fully orthodox way. However, we say this with the value of retrospect. St. Hippolytus was orthodox by the standards of his time. As far as precise trinitarian enunciations, yes Hippolytus fails in this area but frankly, none of the Fathers prior to Nicaea succeeded in this area except for Tertullian.
...
...And even Tertullian's understanding of the Trinity is not perfect by later standards. And as the latter became a Montanist heretic, what does that do for the entire corpus of Trinitarian theology when the one Ante-Nicene writer whose Trinitarian theology most closely mirrored Nicaea (and anticipiated Chalcedon) fell into heresy???
St. Hippolytus combatted many trinitarian heresies of his time. As far as his acumen as a theologian, the Catholic Encyclopedia rightly noted that "Hippolytus was the most important theologian and the most prolific religious writer of the Roman Church in the pre-Constantinian era." His only real fault was an overly rigorist mentality -the same flaw that snared Tertullian. Newman noted the problems of discussing the doctrine of the Trinity as manifested in the Ante-Nicene Fathers HERE.
Gnostism denied in various ways that Jesus was a man, this would violate their idea of divinity.
Many of the Pre-Nicene Fathers make statements defending the fact that Jesus was a man using language that in Nicene theology suggests a subordinist viewpoint, but when not doing apologetics seem much more in line with Nicea.
In view of that we should be slow to assume a subortionist viewpoint on the basis of ambiguous statements or an argument from silence.
Thanks for your comments, guys.
Commenting by HaloScan
