Hilary of Poitiers and Eternal Subordination

[Reformed Covenanter]

ESS/EFS proponents have been known to appeal to Hilary of Poitiers in support of their views. The likes of Matthew Barret, by way of contrast, argue against this assertion. I just came across the following comment in the introduction to the CUA translation of Hilary's De Trinitate. The below analysis seems rather confusing, which makes me think that the ESS/EFS attempt to claim Hilary may not be completely misguided. Of course, I will reserve judgment until I have read more of Hilary's work for myself.

 

[John The Baptist]

If that’s what Hilary meant, then no, right? The Father is the principle, no? But that may be a stretch in interpreting Hilary that way. Please update us with what you find!

 

[RamistThomist]

Right. Even if Hilary meant that Jesus was subordinate in essence, he would not have drawn the inference that theobros draw. He isn't talking about keeping Jesus in the kitchen. It has nothing to do with functions and roles.

 

[John The Baptist]

Right. Even if Hilary meant that Jesus was subordinate in essence, he would not have drawn the inference that theobros draw. He isn't talking about keeping Jesus in the kitchen. It has nothing to do with functions and roles.

Ironic.

‘Theobros’ want to say he is not subordinate in essence even though they draw inferences that necessitate a subordinate essence. All while they are willing to quote someone who may actually have thought Jesus had a subordinate essence…

If I’m understanding Hilary’s potential position correctly