Homoousion: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:20, 28 October 2024

Homoousion (/ˌhɒmoʊˈuːsiɒn, ˌhoʊm-/ HO(H)M-oh-OO-see-on; Template:Lang-grc, from ὁμός, homós, 'same' and οὐσία, ousía, 'being' or 'essence')^[1]^[2] is a Christian theological term, most notably used in the Nicene Creed for describing Jesus (God the Son) as "same in being" or "same in essence" with God the Father (ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί).

Neither the 325- or 381-versions of the Nicene Creed describe the Holy Spirit as homoousios^[3] but was in later centuries also applied to the Holy Spirit in order to designate him as being "same in essence" with the Father and the Son. Those notions became cornerstones of theology in Nicene Christianity, and also represent one of the most important theological concepts within the Trinitarian doctrinal understanding of God.^[4]

Terminology

The term ὁμοούσιον, the accusative case form of ὁμοούσιος (homoousios, 'consubstantial'),^[2] was adopted at the First Council of Nicaea (325) in order to clarify the ontology of Christ. From its Greek original, the term was translated into other languages.^[5] In Latin, which is lacking a present participle of the verb 'to be', two main corresponding variants occurred. Since the Aristotelian term ousia^[6] was commonly translated in Latin as essentia (essence) or substantia (substance),^[7] the Greek term homoousios was consequently translated into Latin as coessentialis or consubstantialis,^[8] hence the English terms coessential and consubstantial. Some modern scholars say that homoousios is properly translated as coessential, while consubstantial has a much wider spectrum of meanings.^[9] The Book of Common Prayer renders the term as "being of one substance with the Father."^[10]

From ὁμοούσιος ('coessential'), the theological term ὁμοουσιότης ('coessentiality') was also derived. It was used by Greek-speaking authors, like Didymus of Alexandria and other theologians.^[11]

Pre-Nicene usage

Some interpret a few sayings of Jesus that suggest he claimed to be of a similar nature to God the Father^[12] but the Bible never refers to God's substance and never says that the Son is homoousios with the Father.^[13]

The term homoousios had been used before its adoption by the First Council of Nicaea. The Gnostics were the first to use the word ὁμοούσιος, while before the Gnostics there is no trace at all of its existence.^[14]^[15]^[16]^[17]^[18]^[19]^[20]^[21]^[22]^[23]^{[excessive citations]} The early church theologians were probably made aware of this concept, and thus of the doctrine of emanation, taught by the Gnostics.^[24] In Gnostic texts, the word ὁμοούσιος is used with the following meanings:

Identity of substance between generator and generated.
Identity of substance between things generated of the same substance.
Identity of substance between the partners of a syzygy.

For example, Basilides, the first known Gnostic thinker to use ὁμοούσιος in the first half of the 2nd century AD, speaks of a threefold sonship consubstantial with the god who is not.^[25]^[26] The Valentinian Gnostic Ptolemy says in his letter to Flora that it is the nature of the good God to beget and bring forth only beings similar to, and consubstantial with, himself.^[27] The term ὁμοούσιος was already in current use by the 2nd-century Gnostics, and through their works it became known to the orthodox heresiologists, though this Gnostic use of the term had no reference to the specific relationship between Father and Son, as is the case in the Nicene Creed.^[28] While homoousios in the Nicene Creed is often understood as saying that the Father and Son are 'one substance', the examples above show that the Gnostics used it to compare distinct beings or substances.^[29]

According to P.F. Beatrice, Egyptian paganism used homoousios to describe the Logos-Son as of the same perfect divine nature as the Father/^[30] Beatrice proposes that Emperor Constantine's insistence on the term at Nicaea^[31] was at least partly due to his prior exposure to Egyptian paganism.

Tertullian (155–220), writing in Latin, nowhere uses any term corresponding exactly to the Greek word homoousios.^[32] However, in his theology, Father and Son are a single substance and a single hypostasis.^[33]^[34] That implies not only homoousios (same substance) but, more specifically, 'one substance'.

Sabellius did indeed use the term and he used it to say that Father and Son are a single hypostasis. In other words, he used the term not only to mean 'same substance' but, specifically, 'one substance.^[35]^[36]

Origen did not use the term^[37]^[38] despite claims to the contrary.^[39] He may have rejected the term.^[40] In opposition to Tertullian and Sabellius, he believed that Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases,^[41] meaning three distinct substances.

Around the year 260, Rome and Alexandria disagreed about the term. While some Sabellians in Libya as well as the bishop of Rome believed in one hypostasis and used homoousios to say that the Father and Son are one Person (hypostasis),^[42]^[43]^[44] the bishop of Alexandria believed that the Son is a distinct Person and, initially, denied the term.^[45]^[46]^[47] He later accepted it but only after the bishop of Rome applied pressure on him and only in a general sense of meaning 'the same type of substance'.^[48]

More or less at the same time, Paul of Samosata used the term to say that Father and Son are a single substance, a single hypostasis or Person. But, in the year 268, a council at Antioch condemned both Paul and the term homoousios.^[49]^[50]^[51]^[52]^[53]

In conclusion, before Nicaea, homoousios was preferred only by Sabellians, including Sabellius himself, the Libyan Sabellians, Dionysius of Rome, and Paul of Samosata. For them, Father and Son are a single Person with a single mind.

"The word homousios had not had … a very happy history. It was probably rejected by the Council of Antioch, and was suspected of being open to a Sabellian meaning. It was accepted by the heretic Paul of Samosata and this rendered it very offensive to many in the Asiatic Churches." (Philip Schaff) ^[54]^[55]

The only non-Sabellian who accepted the term was Dionysius of Alexandria, but he accepted it reluctantly and only as meaning that the Father and Son are two distinct substances of the same type.

"We can detect no Greek-speaking writer before Nicaea who unreservedly supports homoousion as applied to the Son." (Hanson, p. 169)^[56]

Adoption in the Nicene Creed

The Nicene Creed is the official doctrine of most Christian churches—the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Churches, Church of the East, Lutheran Churches, Moravian Church, Anglican Communion, and Reformed Churches as well as other mainline Protestant and evangelical churches with regard to the ontological status of the three persons or hypostases of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

It was clearly articulated by the Nicene Council that the Son was taken to have exactly the same essence with the Father and, therefore, to be as eternal and immutable as his Father.^[57]

While orthodox theologians agree that subordination was the orthodoxy during the first three centuries and for most of the fourth, Ilaria Ramelli discussed the "anti-subordinationism" of Origen.^[58]

Both the Nicene^[59] and Athanasian^[60] creeds affirm the Son as both begotten of, and equal to his Father. If so, many concepts of the Holy Trinity would appear to have already existed relatively early while the specific language used to affirm the doctrine continued to develop.^[61]^[62]^[63]^[64]

Some theologians preferred the use of the term ὁμοιούσιος (homoioúsios or alternative uncontracted form ὁμοιοούσιος [homoiοoúsios] Error: {{Transliteration}}: transliteration text not Latin script (pos 6) (help); from ὅμοιος, hómoios, 'similar', rather than ὁμός, homós, 'same, common')^[2] in order to emphasize distinctions among the three persons in the Godhead, but the term homoousion became a consistent mark of Nicene orthodoxy in both East and West. According to this doctrine, Jesus Christ is the physical manifestation of Logos (or the Word), and consequently possesses all of the inherent, ineffable perfections which religion and philosophy attribute to the Supreme Being. In the language that became universally accepted after the First Council of Constantinople in AD 381, three distinct and infinite hypostases, or divine persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - fully possess the very same divine ousia.

This doctrine was formulated in the 4th century, during the Arian controversy over Christology between Arius and Athanasius. The several distinct branches of Arianism which sometimes conflicted with each other as well as with the pro-Nicene homoousian creed can be roughly broken down into the following classifications:

Homoiousianism (from ὅμοιος, hómoios, 'similar', as opposed to ὁμός, homós, 'same, common'), which maintained that the Son was "like in substance" but not necessarily to be identified with the essence of the Father.
Homoeanism (also from ὅμοιος), which declared that the Son was similar to God the Father, without reference to substance or essence. Some supporters of Homoean formulae also supported one of the other descriptions. Other Homoeans declared that the father was so incomparable and ineffably transcendent that even the ideas of likeness, similarity or identity in substance or essence with the subordinate Son and Holy Spirit were heretical and not justified by the Gospels. They held that the Father was like the Son in some sense but that even to speak of ousia was impertinent speculation.
Heteroousianism (including Anomoeanism), which held that God the Father and the Son were different in substance and/or attributes.

All of these positions and the almost innumerable variations on them which developed in the 4th century were strongly and tenaciously opposed by Athanasius and other pro-Nicenes, who insisted on the doctrine of homoousion or consubstantiality, eventually prevailing in the struggle to define this as a dogma of the still-united Western and Eastern churches for the next two millennia when its use was confirmed by the First Council of Constantinople (381). The struggle over the understanding of Christ's divinity was not solely a matter for the Church. The Roman Emperor Theodosius had published an edict, prior to the Council of Constantinople, declaring that the Nicene Creed was the legitimate doctrine and that those opposed to it were heretics.^[65]

It has also been said that the term homoousios, which Athanasius favored and which was ratified in the Nicene Council and Creed, was actually a term reported to also be used and favored by the Sabellians in their Christology. It was a term with which many followers of Athanasius were actually uncomfortable. The so-called Semi-Arians in particular objected to it. Their objection to this term was that it was considered to be "un-Scriptural, suspicious, and of a Sabellian tendency."^[66] This was because Sabellius also considered the Father and the Son to be "one substance", meaning that, to Sabellius, the Father and the Son were "one essential Person", though operating in different faces, roles, or modes. This notion, however, was also rejected at the Council of Nicaea, in favor of the Nicene Creed, which holds the Father and Son to be distinct yet also coequal, coeternal, and consubstantial divine persons.

The use of the word homoousios in the Nicene Creed was proposed by Emperor Constantine I, who convened and chaired the First Council of Nicea. By persuasion and by threats of excommunication and exile, Constantine obtained the endorsement of all but two of the attending bishops for the inclusion of the word.^[67]

After Nicaea

The view that homoousios was of fundamental importance is deeply mistaken.^[68] For about 25 years after Nicaea, nobody mentioned the term.

"What is conventionally regarded as the key-word in the Creed homoousion, falls completely out of the controversy very shortly after the Council of Nicaea and is not heard of for over twenty years."^[69]^[70]

Not even those who defended the term at Nicaea,^[71]^[72] nor Athanasius,^[73] the main defender of the term, nor the Western church,^[74] which is often described as the stalwart defender of Nicaea throughout the fourth century, mentioned the term during those decades.

Athanasius re-introduced the term into the debate in the 350s, some 30 years after Nicaea,^[75]^[76] but it took some time before the Western church adopted it.^[77] Since homoousios was first defended in the 350s, we see attacks on it only in the 350s.^[78]

This absence of the term homoousios in the 20 or more years after Nicaea means that it was not regarded as important.^[79]^[80] The term was a problem even for anti-Arians.^[81]

The term homoousion appears in the Nicene Creed not because it was an important concept, but merely to force Arius and his supporters to reject the Creed so that the emperor could exile them.^[82]^[83]^[84]

After Athanasius was exiled for violence in 335, he developed his polemical strategy in which he claimed that he was exiled for his opposition to Arianism.^[85]^[86] At first, his strategy did not include the term homoousios. But after Constantius became emperor of the entire empire in the early 350s, and after he attempted to isolate Athanasius, Athanasius added homoousios to his polemics.

Notes

References

^ οὐσία. Liddell, Henry George; Scott, Robert; A Greek–English Lexicon at the Perseus Project.
^ ^a ^b ^c ὁμοούσιος, ὁμοιούσιος, ὅμοιος, ὁμός in Liddell and Scott.
^ “Of course the theologians of the side which was ultimately victorious included the Holy Spirit in the Trinity. In a sense this was an afterthought, because the theme of the Son occupied the screen, so to speak, right up to the year to the year 360.” (Hanson)
^ Bethune-Baker 2004.
^ Beatrice 2002, p. 243-272.
^ Loux 2008.
^ Weedman 2007.
^ consubstantialis. Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short. A Latin Dictionary on Perseus Project.
^ Pásztori-Kupán 2006, p. 59.
^ Baskerville, John. "The Book of Common Prayer" (PDF). Society of Archbishop Justus. Charles Wohlers. pp. The Communion (source lacks page numbers). Retrieved 21 January 2018. Begotten, not made, Being of one substance with the Father,
^ Florovsky 1987.
^ Matthew 11:27, John 17:21
^ The term homoousios “is not to be found in the Holy Scripture” (P.F. Beatrice). “Nobody could pretend that it was Scriptural” (Hanson, p. 167).
^ von Harnack, Adolf, Dogmengeschichte (in German), 1:284–85, n. 3; 2:232–34, n. 4.
^ Ortiz de Urbina, Ignacio (1942), "L'homoousios preniceno" [The prenicene homoousios], Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 8: 194–209.
^ Ortiz de Urbina, Ignacio (1947), El Simbolo Niceno [The Nicene symbol] (in Spanish), Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, pp. 183–202.
^ Mendizabal, Luis M (1956), "El Homoousios Preniceno Extraeclesiastico" [Ecclesiastical studies], Estudios Eclesiasticos (in Spanish), 30: 147–96.
^ Prestige, George Leonard (1952) [1936], God in Patristic Thought (2d ed.), London: SPCK, pp. 197–218.
^ Gerlitz, Peter (1963), Aufierchristliche Einflilsse auf die Entwicklung des christlichen. Trinitatsdogmas, zugleich ein religions- und dogmengeschichtlicher Versuch zur Erklarung der Herkunft der Homousie, Leiden: Brill, pp. 193–221.
^ Boularand, Ephrem (1972), L'heresie d'Arius et la 'foi' de Nicke [The Arius' heresy and the 'faith' of Nicke] (in French), vol. 2, La "foi" de Nicee, Paris: Letouzey & Ane, pp. 331–53.
^ Kelly, John Norman D (1972), Early Christian Creeds (3rd ed.), London: Longman, p. 245.
^ Dinsen, Frauke (1976), Homoousios. Die Geschichte des Begriffs bis zum Konzil von Konstantinopel (381) (Diss) (in German), Kiel, pp. 4–11{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link).
^ Stead, Christopher, Divine Substance, pp. 190–202.
^ Grillmeier, Aloys (1975), Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. 1, From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451), London: Mowbrays, p. 109.
^ of Rome, Hippolytus, Refutatio omnium haeresium [Refutation of all heresies] (in Latin), 7:22, Υἱότης τριμερής, κατὰ πάντα τῷ οὐκ ὄντι θεῷ ὁμοούσιος.
^ For the Gnostic use of the term, Marcovich, Miroslav (1986), Patristische Texte und Studien [Patristic texts & studies] (in German), vol. 25, Berlin: W de Gruyter, pp. 290f. V, 8, 10 (156), V, 17, 6.10 (186 f.).
^ of Salamis, Epiphanius, Panarion (in Greek), 33:7,8, Τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ φύσιν ἔχοντος τὰ ὅμοια ἑαυτῷ καὶ ὁμοούσια γεννᾶν τε καὶ προφέρειν.
^ Turner, Henry E. W. (1978). The Pattern of Christian Truth: A Study in the Relations Between Orthodoxy and Heresy in the Early Church. AMS Press. p. 161.
^ "The term was adopted in the second century by Gnostics, probably to indicate ‘same ontological status’ or ‘of a similar kind’." (Ayres, p. 93)
^ “In the theological language of Egyptian paganism the word homoousios meant that the Nous-Father and the Logos-Son, who are two distinct beings, share the same perfection of the divine nature.” (Beatrice)
^ "The decisive catchword of the Nicene confession, namely, homoousios, comes from ... the emperor himself." (Bernard Lohse, in 'A Short History of Christian Doctrine', 1966, p51-53) Constantine "pressed for its inclusion." (Hanson, p. 211)
^ Tertullian, “writing in Latin, nowhere uses any term corresponding to homoousios.” (Hanson, p. 190)
^ “Tertullian ... had already used the Latin word substantia (substance) of God … For him God … had a body … It was possible for Tertullian to think of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit sharing this substance.” (Hanson, p. 184)
^ He used “the expression unius substantiae.” “This has led some scholars to see Tertullian as an exponent of Nicene orthodoxy before Nicaea … But this is a far from plausible theory.” (Hanson, p. 184) “The word in Greek translation of Tertullian's una substantia would not be the word homoousios but mia hypostasis (one hypostasis).” (Hanson, p. 193)
^ According to Basil of Caesarea, “Sabellius used it (homoousios) … in rejecting the distinction of hypostases” (Hanson, p. 192); “in the sense of numerical sameness” (Prof Ninan).
^ “Sabellius used it (homoousios) … in rejecting the distinction of hypostases” (Hanson, p. 192)
'^ “Origen certainly did not apply the word homoousios to the Son and did not teach that the Son is 'from the ousia of the Father.” (Hanson, p. 185)
^ The word “consubstantial … would have suggested to him that the Father and the Son were of the same material, an idea which he was anxious to avoid.” (Hanson, p. 68)
^ “There is one celebrated fragment … where Origen appears to sanction the use of homoousios. … But in its present form, this seems too closely bound to the specific interests of the post-Nicene period … to come directly from Pamphilus, let alone Origen.” (Rowan Williams, p. 132-3)
^ “Origen may have rejected the term.” (Ayres, p. 92) “Origen had rejected the term (substance) years before for fear that it attributed materiality to the divine.” (Steven Wedgeworth)
^ "He (Origen) taught that there were three hypostases within the Godhead.” (Hanson, p. 184)
^ "Stead … believes … it was the people in Libya criticized by Dionysius of Alexandria who had introduced the term. Simonetti agrees that it was not Dionysius of Rome who first used the word homoousios in the interchange." (Hanson, p. 193)
^ “Dionysius of Rome … found homoousios acceptable but could not tolerate a division of the Godhead into three hypostases.” (Hanson, p. 192, quoting Loofs)
^ “His doctrine could only with difficulty be distinguished from that of Sabellius!” (Hanson, p. 193)
^ “It seems … likely that Dionysius of Alexandria, in a campaign against some local Sabellians, had denied the term.” (Ayres, p. 94)
^ According to Basil of Caesarea, “Dionysius of Alexandria … sometimes rejected homoousios because Sabellius used it … in rejecting the distinction of hypostases.” (Hanson, p. 192)
^ Ayres, Lewis (2004). Nicaea and its legacy.
^ Dionysius of Alexandria was “persuaded by his namesake of Rome to accept (the term)” (Ayres, p. 94) but he “only adopted it with reluctance” (Hanson, p. 193) and only “in a general sense, meaning 'of similar nature, ‘of similar kind'” (Hanson, p. 192).
^ “The council that deposed Paul of Samosata in 268 condemned the use of homoousios.” (Ayres, p. 94; cf. Hanson, p. 193-194)
^ “In using the expression ‘of one substance', Paul declared that Father and Son were a solitary unit;" “a primitive undifferentiated unity.” (Williams, p. 159-160)
^ According to Hilary, “Our fathers (the 268-council) … repudiated homoousion” because “the word to them spelt Sabellianism.” (Hanson, p. 194)
^ “The condemnation of homoousios by this well-known council” caused “considerable embarrassment to those theologians who wanted to defend its inclusion in an official doctrinal statement in the next century.” (Ayres, p. 94; cf. Hanson, p. 195)
^ Williams, Rowan (2002). Arius: Heresy and Tradition.
^ Schaff, Philip (1899). "Excursus on the Word Homousios". In Percival, Henry R. (ed.). A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Vol. XIV. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
^ “The word homoousios, at its first appearance in the middle of the third century, was therefore clearly connected with the theology of a Sabellian or monarchian tendency.” (P.F. Beatrice)
^ Hanson, RPC (1987). The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God - The Arian Controversy 318-381.
^ Fulton, W (1921), "Trinity", Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, vol. 12, T&T Clark, p. 459.
^ Ramelli, Llaria (2011). "Origen's Anti-Subordinationism and Its Heritage in the Nicene and Cappadocian Line". Vigiliae Christianae. 65 (1). Brill: 21–49. doi:10.1163/157007210X508103. JSTOR 41062535.
^ Nicene, Creed. "Nicene Creed". Reformed.org. Archived from the original on 6 June 2017. Retrieved 31 May 2017.
^ Athanasian, Creed. "Athanasian Creed". Reformed.org. Archived from the original on 12 May 2017. Retrieved 31 May 2017.
^ Pavao, Paul. "The Trinity: Doctrine Development and Definition". Christian-History.org. Retrieved 1 June 2017.
^ Pavao, Paul. "Orthodoxy: An Ironic Side Note on Heresy, and the Trinity". Christian-History.org. Retrieved 1 June 2017.
^ P. "Holy Trinity and Modern Arians Part 2". BiblicalCatholic.com. Retrieved 1 June 2017.
^ Barnard, L.W. (1970). "The Antecedents of Arius". Vigiliae Christianae. 24 (3): 172–188. doi:10.1163/157007270X00029. JSTOR 1583070.
^ Theodosian Code 16:2, 1 Friell, G., Williams, S., Theodosius: The Empire at Bay, London, 1994.
^ St. Athanasius (1911), "In Controversy With the Arians", Select Treatises, Newman, John Henry Cardinal trans, Longmans, Green, & Co, p. 124, footn.
^ Norwich, John Julius (1988). Byzantium: The Early Centuries. London: Guild Publishing. p. 55.
^ Referring specifically to the view that homoousios was of fundamental importance, Ayres says that “such older accounts are deeply mistaken.” (Ayres, p. 11)
^ Hanson, RPC (1981-05-02), Colloquium in commemoration of the Nicene Creed: Doctrine of Trinity Achieved in 381, Edinburgh – via revelationbyjesuschrist.com{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
^ “During the years 326–50 the term homoousios is rarely if ever mentioned.” (Ayres, p. 431)
^ The events of the Council of Serdica in AD 343 show that the main drivers of the Nicene Creed, “such as Ossius, Athanasius, and Marcellus” were “willing to turn to an alternative statement of faith.” (Ayres, p. 126)
^ The word homoousios “has left no traces at all in the works of … the leaders of the anti-Arian party such as Alexander of Alexandria, Ossius of Cordova, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Eustathius of Antioch, who are usually considered Constantine's theological advisers and the strongest supporters of the council.” (P.F. Beatrice) For example, the draft creed formulated at the Council of Antioch just a few months before Nicaea, which was an anti-Arian, pro-Alexander council, does not mention the term. (See here.)
^ “Even Athanasius for about twenty years after Nicaea is strangely silent about this adjective (homoousios) which had been formally adopted into the creed of the Church in 325.” (Hanson, p. 58-59)
^ “Even the Western bishops at Serdica in 343 did not mention the word.” (Hanson, p. 436) That council, 18 years after Nicaea, “opted clearly for Una substantia meaning one hypostasis, (rather than consubstantial).” (Hanson, p. 201)
^ “It is not until he (Athanasius) writes the De Decretis (356 or 357) that Athanasius again mentions the word and begins to defend it.” (Hanson, p. 436)
^ “Athanasius’ decision to make Nicaea and homoousios central to his theology has its origins in the shifting climate of the 350s.” (Ayres, p. 144)
^ “The 350s show how Nicaea only slowly came to be of importance in the west.” (Ayres, p. 135) (For more detail, see here.)
^ “Many of the theologies we have considered so far are non-Nicene more than anti-Nicene: only in the 350s do we begin to trace clearly the emergence of directly anti-Nicene accounts.” (Ayres, p. 139)
^ “For nearly twenty years after Nicaea nobody mentions homoousios, not even Athanasius. This may be because it was much less significant than either later historians of the ancient Church or modern scholars thought that it was.” (Hanson, p. 170)
^ “After Nicaea homoousios is not mentioned again in truly contemporary sources for two decades. … It was not seen as that useful or important.” (Ayres, p. 96)
^ “Homoousios was in fact a foreign body or stumbling block for all the people attending the council, without distinction, Arians and anti-Arians, and for this very reason it soon disappeared in the following debates.” (P.F. Beatrice)
^ “The choice of the term homoousios seems to have been motivated in large part because Arius was known to reject it. Athanasius … tells us that those running the council originally proposed describing the Son as ‘like’ the Father or ‘exactly like the Father in all things’ and as being ‘from God’. But these terms would not serve because everyone could agree to them. … Hence, homoousios and ‘from the essence of the Father’ were chosen specifically to exclude Arius' supporters.” (Ayres, p. 90)
^ Hanson concludes similarly that “the most satisfactory explanation of why it was put there is that it was certainly a word … which serious and wholehearted Arians could not stomach.” (Hanson, p. 167; cf. Hanson, p. 172)
^ Ayres agrees with Hanson that “the homoousion was probably not a flag to be nailed to the masthead, a word around which self-conscious schools of theology could rally. But it was an atropopaic formula for resisting Arianism.” (Ayres, p. 92)
^ “Athanasius’ account begins by presenting Arius as the originator of a new heresy.” (Ayres, p. 107) In contrast, “Athanasius presents himself as the preserver of the one theological tradition that is equivalent with scriptural orthodoxy.” (Ayres, p. 107)
^ Athanasius described “his enemies as ‘Arians’ seeking to perpetuate a theology stemming from Arius.” (Ayres, p. 106) “To this end Athanasius quotes extensively from Arius’ Thalia.” (Ayres, p. 107) See also - Athanasius invented Arianism.

Bibliography

Athanasopoulos, Constantinos; Schneider, Christoph, eds. (2013). Divine Essence and Divine Energies: Ecumenical Reflections on the Presence of God. Cambridge, UK: James Clarke & Co. ISBN 9780227900086.
Beatrice, Pier Franco (2002). "The Word "Homoousios" from Hellenism to Christianity". Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture. 71 (2): 243–272. doi:10.1017/S0009640700095688. S2CID 162605872.
Bethune-Baker, James (2004) [1901]. The Meaning of Homoousios in the Constantinopolitan Creed. Cambridge, U.K.: The University Press. ISBN 9781592448982.
Florovsky, Georges (1987). The Eastern Fathers of the Fourth Century. Vaduz: Büchervertriebsanstalt. ISBN 9783905238075.
Grillmeier, Aloys (1986), Christ in Christian Tradition: from the Council of Chalcedon (451) to Gregory the Great (590-604), Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, ISBN 0-664-22160-2
Loux, Michael J. (2008) [1991]. Primary Ousia: An Essay on Aristotle's Metaphysics Z and H. Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0801474880.
Pásztori-Kupán, István (2006). Theodoret of Cyrus. London & New York: Routledge. ISBN 9781134391769.
Weedman, Mark (2007). The Trinitarian Theology of Hilary of Poitiers. Leiden-Boston: Brill. ISBN 978-9004162242.

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 '''Homoousion''' ({{IPAc-en|ˌ|h|ɒ|m|oʊ|ˈ|uː|s|i|ɒ|n|,_|ˌ|h|oʊ|m|-}} {{respell|HO(H)M|oh|OO|see|on}}; {{lang-grc|ὁμοούσιον|lit=same in being, same in essence}}, from {{Lang|grc|ὁμός}}, {{transl|grc|homós}}, {{Gloss|same}} and {{Lang|grc|οὐσία}}, {{transl|grc|[[Ousia|ousía]]}}, {{Gloss|being}} or {{Gloss|essence}})<ref>{{LSJ|ou)si/a|οὐσία|ref}}.</ref><ref name="LSJmultiple"/> is a [[Christian theological]] term, most notably used in the [[Nicene Creed]] for describing [[Jesus in Christianity|Jesus]] ([[God the Son]]) as "same in being" or "same in essence" with [[God the Father]] ({{lang|grc|ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί}}).
-The same term was later also applied to the [[Holy Spirit in Christianity|Holy Spirit]] in order to designate him as being "same in essence" with the Father and the Son. Those notions became cornerstones of theology in [[Nicene Christianity]], and also represent one of the most important theological concepts within the [[Trinitarian]] doctrinal understanding of [[God in Christianity|God]].{{sfn|Bethune-Baker|2004|p=}}
+Neither the 325- or 381-versions of the Nicene Creed describe the Holy Spirit as homoousios<ref>“Of course the theologians of the side which was ultimately victorious included the Holy Spirit in the Trinity. In a sense this was '''an afterthought''', because the theme of the Son occupied the screen, so to speak, right up to the year to the year 360.” ([https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/hanson/#spirit Hanson])</ref> but was in later centuries also applied to the [[Holy Spirit in Christianity|Holy Spirit]] in order to designate him as being "same in essence" with the Father and the Son. Those notions became cornerstones of theology in [[Nicene Christianity]], and also represent one of the most important theological concepts within the [[Trinitarian]] doctrinal understanding of [[God in Christianity|God]].{{sfn|Bethune-Baker|2004|p=}}
 ==Terminology==
@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 ==Pre-Nicene usage==
-The [[Bible]] mentions a few sayings of Jesus that suggest he claimed to be of a similar nature to [[God the Father]].<ref>[[Matthew 11]]:27, [[John 17]]:21</ref> However, the theological language that would later develop was not used in the [[Gospel|gospels]].
+Some interpret a few sayings of Jesus that suggest he claimed to be of a similar nature to [[God the Father]]<ref>[[Matthew 11]]:27, [[John 17]]:21</ref> but the Bible never refers to God's substance and never says that the Son is homoousios with the Father.<ref>The term homoousios “is not to be found in the Holy Scripture” ([https://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+word+%22homoousios%22+from+Hellenism+to+Christianity.-a089816070#:~:text=Homoousios%20was%20used%20in%20the%20third%20century%20as,distinct%20inclination%20towards%20a%20kind%20of%20Sabellian%20monarchianism. P.F. Beatrice]). “Nobody could pretend that it was Scriptural” (Hanson, p. 167).</ref>
-The term {{lang|grc|ὁμοούσιος}} had been used before its adoption by the First Council of Nicaea. The [[Christian Gnosticism|Gnostics]] were the first to use the word {{lang|grc|ὁμοούσιος}}, while before the Gnostics there is no trace at all of its existence.<ref>{{Citation | first = Adolf | last = von Harnack | language = de | title = Dogmengeschichte | at = 1:284–85, n. 3; 2:232–34, n. 4}}.</ref><ref>{{Citation | first = Ignacio | last = Ortiz de Urbina | title = L'homoousios preniceno | journal = Orientalia Christiana Periodica |trans-title=The prenicene homoousios | volume = 8 | year = 1942 | pages = 194–209}}.</ref><ref>{{Citation | first = Ignacio | last = Ortiz de Urbina | title = El Simbolo Niceno | language = es|trans-title=The Nicene symbol | place = Madrid | publisher = Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas | year = 1947 | pages = 183–202}}.</ref><ref>{{Citation | first = Luis M | last = Mendizabal | language = es| title = El Homoousios Preniceno Extraeclesiastico | journal = Estudios Eclesiasticos |trans-title=Ecclesiastical studies | volume = 30 | year = 1956 | pages = 147–96}}.</ref><ref>{{Citation | first = George Leonard | last = Prestige | title = God in Patristic Thought | place = London | publisher = SPCK | orig-year = 1936 | edition = 2d | year = 1952 | pages = 197–218}}.</ref><ref>{{Citation | first = Peter | last = Gerlitz | title = Aufierchristliche Einflilsse auf die Entwicklung des christlichen. Trinitatsdogmas, zugleich ein religions- und dogmengeschichtlicher Versuch zur Erklarung der Herkunft der Homousie | place = Leiden | publisher = Brill | year = 1963 | pages = 193–221}}.</ref><ref>{{Citation |last=Boularand |first=Ephrem |title=L'heresie d'Arius et la 'foi' de Nicke |volume=2, La "foi" de Nicee |pages=331–53 |year=1972 |trans-title=The Arius' heresy and the 'faith' of Nicke |place=Paris |publisher=Letouzey & Ane |language=fr}}.</ref><ref>{{Citation |last=Kelly |first=John Norman D |title=Early Christian Creeds |page=245 |year=1972 |edition=3rd |place=London |publisher=Longman}}.</ref><ref>{{Citation | first = Frauke | last = Dinsen | title = Homoousios. Die Geschichte des Begriffs bis zum Konzil von Konstantinopel (381) | language = de | type = Diss | place = Kiel | year = 1976 | pages = 4–11}}.</ref><ref>{{Citation | first = Christopher | last = Stead | title = Divine Substance | pages = 190–202}}.</ref>{{Excessive citations inline|date=June 2020}} The early church theologians were probably made aware of this concept, and thus of the doctrine of [[Emanationism|emanation]], taught by the Gnostics.<ref>{{Citation | first = Aloys | last = Grillmeier | title = Christ in Christian Tradition | volume = 1, From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451) | place = London | publisher = Mowbrays | year = 1975 | page = 109}}.</ref> In Gnostic texts, the word {{lang|grc|ὁμοούσιος}} is used with the following meanings:
+The term homoousios had been used before its adoption by the First Council of Nicaea. The [[Christian Gnosticism|Gnostics]] were the first to use the word {{lang|grc|ὁμοούσιος}}, while before the Gnostics there is no trace at all of its existence.<ref>{{Citation | first = Adolf | last = von Harnack | language = de | title = Dogmengeschichte | at = 1:284–85, n. 3; 2:232–34, n. 4}}.</ref><ref>{{Citation | first = Ignacio | last = Ortiz de Urbina | title = L'homoousios preniceno | journal = Orientalia Christiana Periodica |trans-title=The prenicene homoousios | volume = 8 | year = 1942 | pages = 194–209}}.</ref><ref>{{Citation | first = Ignacio | last = Ortiz de Urbina | title = El Simbolo Niceno | language = es|trans-title=The Nicene symbol | place = Madrid | publisher = Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas | year = 1947 | pages = 183–202}}.</ref><ref>{{Citation | first = Luis M | last = Mendizabal | language = es| title = El Homoousios Preniceno Extraeclesiastico | journal = Estudios Eclesiasticos |trans-title=Ecclesiastical studies | volume = 30 | year = 1956 | pages = 147–96}}.</ref><ref>{{Citation | first = George Leonard | last = Prestige | title = God in Patristic Thought | place = London | publisher = SPCK | orig-year = 1936 | edition = 2d | year = 1952 | pages = 197–218}}.</ref><ref>{{Citation | first = Peter | last = Gerlitz | title = Aufierchristliche Einflilsse auf die Entwicklung des christlichen. Trinitatsdogmas, zugleich ein religions- und dogmengeschichtlicher Versuch zur Erklarung der Herkunft der Homousie | place = Leiden | publisher = Brill | year = 1963 | pages = 193–221}}.</ref><ref>{{Citation |last=Boularand |first=Ephrem |title=L'heresie d'Arius et la 'foi' de Nicke |volume=2, La "foi" de Nicee |pages=331–53 |year=1972 |trans-title=The Arius' heresy and the 'faith' of Nicke |place=Paris |publisher=Letouzey & Ane |language=fr}}.</ref><ref>{{Citation |last=Kelly |first=John Norman D |title=Early Christian Creeds |page=245 |year=1972 |edition=3rd |place=London |publisher=Longman}}.</ref><ref>{{Citation | first = Frauke | last = Dinsen | title = Homoousios. Die Geschichte des Begriffs bis zum Konzil von Konstantinopel (381) | language = de | type = Diss | place = Kiel | year = 1976 | pages = 4–11}}.</ref><ref>{{Citation | first = Christopher | last = Stead | title = Divine Substance | pages = 190–202}}.</ref>{{Excessive citations inline|date=June 2020}} The early church theologians were probably made aware of this concept, and thus of the doctrine of [[Emanationism|emanation]], taught by the Gnostics.<ref>{{Citation | first = Aloys | last = Grillmeier | title = Christ in Christian Tradition | volume = 1, From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451) | place = London | publisher = Mowbrays | year = 1975 | page = 109}}.</ref> In Gnostic texts, the word {{lang|grc|ὁμοούσιος}} is used with the following meanings:
 * Identity of substance between ''generator and generated''.
 * Identity of substance between things ''generated of the same substance''.
 * Identity of substance between the ''partners of a [[Syzygy (Gnosticism)|syzygy]]''.
-For example, [[Basilides]], the first known Gnostic thinker to use {{lang|grc|ὁμοούσιος}} in the first half of the 2nd century AD, speaks of a threefold sonship consubstantial with the god who is not.<ref>{{Citation | author-link = Hippolytus of Rome| first = Hippolytus | last = of Rome | quote = Υἱότης τριμερής, κατὰ πάντα τῷ οὐκ ὄντι θεῷ ὁμοούσιος | title = Refutatio omnium haeresium | language = la |trans-title=Refutation of all heresies | at = 7:22}}.</ref><ref>For the Gnostic use of the term, {{Citation | first = Miroslav | last = Marcovich | author-link = Miroslav Marcovich | language = de | title = Patristische Texte und Studien |trans-title=Patristic texts & studies | volume = 25 | place = Berlin | publisher = W de Gruyter | year = 1986 | pages = 290f. V,8, 10 (156); V,17,6.10 (186 f.)}}.</ref> The [[Valentinianism|Valentinian]] Gnostic [[Ptolemy (gnostic)|Ptolemy]] says in his letter to Flora that it is the nature of the good God to beget and bring forth only beings similar to, and consubstantial with, himself.<ref>{{Citation | author-link = Epiphanius of Salamis| first = Epiphanius | last = of Salamis | quote = Τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ φύσιν ἔχοντος τὰ ὅμοια ἑαυτῷ καὶ ὁμοούσια γεννᾶν τε καὶ προφέρειν | title = Panarion | at = 33:7,8 | language = el}}.</ref> The term {{lang|grc|ὁμοούσιος}} was already in current use by the 2nd-century Gnostics, and through their works it became known to the orthodox [[heresiologists]], though this Gnostic use of the term had no reference to the specific relationship between Father and Son, as is the case in the [[Nicene Creed]].<ref name="Turner">{{Cite book |last=Turner |first=Henry E. W. |title=The Pattern of Christian Truth: A Study in the Relations Between Orthodoxy and Heresy in the Early Church |date=1978 |publisher=AMS Press |pages=161}}</ref>
+For example, [[Basilides]], the first known Gnostic thinker to use {{lang|grc|ὁμοούσιος}} in the first half of the 2nd century AD, speaks of a threefold sonship consubstantial with the god who is not.<ref>{{Citation | author-link = Hippolytus of Rome| first = Hippolytus | last = of Rome | quote = Υἱότης τριμερής, κατὰ πάντα τῷ οὐκ ὄντι θεῷ ὁμοούσιος | title = Refutatio omnium haeresium | language = la |trans-title=Refutation of all heresies | at = 7:22}}.</ref><ref>For the Gnostic use of the term, {{Citation | first = Miroslav | last = Marcovich | author-link = Miroslav Marcovich | language = de | title = Patristische Texte und Studien |trans-title=Patristic texts & studies | volume = 25 | place = Berlin | publisher = W de Gruyter | year = 1986 | pages = 290f. V,8, 10 (156); V,17,6.10 (186 f.)}}.</ref> The [[Valentinianism|Valentinian]] Gnostic [[Ptolemy (gnostic)|Ptolemy]] says in his letter to Flora that it is the nature of the good God to beget and bring forth only beings similar to, and consubstantial with, himself.<ref>{{Citation | author-link = Epiphanius of Salamis| first = Epiphanius | last = of Salamis | quote = Τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ φύσιν ἔχοντος τὰ ὅμοια ἑαυτῷ καὶ ὁμοούσια γεννᾶν τε καὶ προφέρειν | title = Panarion | at = 33:7,8 | language = el}}.</ref> The term {{lang|grc|ὁμοούσιος}} was already in current use by the 2nd-century Gnostics, and through their works it became known to the orthodox [[heresiologists]], though this Gnostic use of the term had no reference to the specific relationship between Father and Son, as is the case in the [[Nicene Creed]].<ref name="Turner">{{Cite book |last=Turner |first=Henry E. W. |title=The Pattern of Christian Truth: A Study in the Relations Between Orthodoxy and Heresy in the Early Church |date=1978 |publisher=AMS Press |pages=161}}</ref> While homoousios in the Nicene Creed is often understood as saying that the Father and Son are 'one substance', the examples above show that the Gnostics used it to compare  distinct beings or substances.<ref>"The term was adopted in the second century by Gnostics, probably to indicate ‘same ontological status’ or ‘of a similar kind’." (Ayres, p. 93)</ref>
+According to [https://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+word+%22homoousios%22+from+Hellenism+to+Christianity.-a089816070#:~:text=Homoousios%20was%20used%20in%20the%20third%20century%20as,distinct%20inclination%20towards%20a%20kind%20of%20Sabellian%20monarchianism. P.F. Beatrice], Egyptian paganism used homoousios to describe the Logos-Son as of the same perfect divine nature as the Father/<ref>“In the theological language of Egyptian paganism the word homoousios meant that the Nous-Father and the Logos-Son, who are two distinct beings, share the same perfection of the divine nature.” ([https://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+word+%22homoousios%22+from+Hellenism+to+Christianity.-a089816070#:~:text=Homoousios%20was%20used%20in%20the%20third%20century%20as,distinct%20inclination%20towards%20a%20kind%20of%20Sabellian%20monarchianism. Beatrice])</ref> Beatrice proposes that Emperor Constantine's insistence on the term at Nicaea<ref>"The decisive catchword of the Nicene confession, namely, homoousios, comes from ... the emperor himself." (Bernard Lohse, in 'A Short History of Christian Doctrine', 1966, p51-53) Constantine "pressed for its inclusion." (Hanson, p. 211)</ref> was at least partly due to his prior exposure to Egyptian paganism.
 [[Tertullian]] (155–220), writing in Latin, nowhere uses any term corresponding exactly to the Greek word {{transl|grc|homoousios}}.<ref>Tertullian, “writing in Latin, nowhere uses any term corresponding to ''homoousios''.” (Hanson, p. 190)</ref> However, in his theology, Father and Son are a single substance and a single [[Hypostasis (philosophy and religion)|hypostasis]].<ref>“Tertullian ... had already used the Latin word ''substantia'' (substance) of God … For him God … had a body … It was possible for Tertullian to think of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit sharing this substance.” (Hanson, p. 184)</ref><ref>He used “the expression ''unius'' ''substantiae''.” “This has led some scholars to see Tertullian as an exponent of Nicene orthodoxy before Nicaea … But this is a far from plausible theory.” (Hanson, p. 184) “The word in Greek translation of Tertullian's ''una'' ''substantia'' would not be the word ''homoousios'' but ''mia hypostasis'' (one ''hypostasis).''” (Hanson, p. 193)</ref> That implies not only {{transl|grc|homoousios}} (same substance) but, more specifically, 'one substance'.
-[[Sabellius]] did indeed use the term and he used it to say that Father and Son are a single hypostasis. In other words, he used the term not only to mean 'same substance' but, specifically, 'one substance.<ref>According to Basil of Caesarea, “Sabellius used it (homoousios) … in rejecting the distinction of hypostases” (Hanson, p. 192); “in the sense of numerical sameness” (Prof Ninan).</ref>
+[[Sabellius]] did indeed use the term and he used it to say that Father and Son are a single hypostasis. In other words, he used the term not only to mean 'same substance' but, specifically, 'one substance.<ref>According to Basil of Caesarea, “Sabellius used it (homoousios) … in rejecting the distinction of hypostases” (Hanson, p. 192); “in the sense of numerical sameness” (Prof Ninan).</ref><ref>“Sabellius used it (homoousios) … in rejecting the distinction of hypostases” (Hanson, p. 192)</ref>
-[[Origen]] did not use the term.<ref>“Origen certainly did not apply the word ''homoousios'' to the Son and did not teach that the Son is 'from the ''ousia''' of the Father.” (Hanson, p. 185)</ref><ref>The word “consubstantial … would have suggested to him that the Father and the Son were of the same material, an idea which he was anxious to avoid.” (Hanson, p. 68)</ref> In opposition to Tertullian and Sabellius, he believed that Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases,<ref>"he (Origen) taught that there were three ''hypostases'' within the Godhead.” (Hanson, p. 184)</ref> meaning three distinct substances.
+[[Origen]] did not use the term<ref>“Origen certainly did not apply the word ''homoousios'' to the Son and did not teach that the Son is 'from the ''ousia''' of the Father.” (Hanson, p. 185)</ref><ref>The word “consubstantial … would have suggested to him that the Father and the Son were of the same material, an idea which he was anxious to avoid.” (Hanson, p. 68)</ref> despite claims to the contrary.<ref>“There is one celebrated fragment … where Origen appears to sanction the use of ''homoousios.'' … But in its present form, this seems too closely bound to the specific interests of the post-Nicene period … to come directly from Pamphilus, let alone Origen.” (Rowan Williams, p. 132-3)</ref> He may have rejected the term.<ref>“Origen may have rejected the term.” (Ayres, p. 92) “Origen had rejected the term (substance) years before for fear that it attributed materiality to the divine.” ([https://calvinistinternational.com/2013/05/11/the-defeat-of-orthodoxy-an-examination-of-the-rise-of-homoean-theology-and-the-council-of-constantinople-in-ad-360/ Steven Wedgeworth])</ref> In opposition to Tertullian and Sabellius, he believed that Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases,<ref>"He (Origen) taught that there were three ''hypostases'' within the Godhead.” (Hanson, p. 184)</ref> meaning three distinct substances.
-Around the year 260, the bishops of Rome and Alexandria; both named Dionysius, disagreed about the term. Some Sabellians in Libya as well as [[Dionysius of Rome]] believed in one hypostasis and used ''{{transl|grc|homoousios}}'' to say that.<ref>"Stead … believes … it was the people in Libya criticized by Dionysius of Alexandria who had introduced the term. Simonetti agrees that it was not Dionysius of Rome who first used the word ''homoousios'' in the interchange." (Hanson, p. 193)</ref><ref>“Dionysius of Rome … found homoousios acceptable but could not tolerate a division of the Godhead into three hypostases.” (Hanson, p. 192, quoting Loofs)</ref><ref>“His doctrine could only with difficulty be distinguished from that of Sabellius!” (Hanson, p. 193)</ref> In contrast, [[Dionysius of Alexandria]] believed in three hypostases and, initially, denied the term.<ref>“It seems … likely that Dionysius of Alexandria, in a campaign against some local Sabellians, had denied the term.” (Ayres, p. 94)</ref><ref>According to Basil of Caesarea, “Dionysius of Alexandria … sometimes rejected homoousios because Sabellius used it … in rejecting the distinction of hypostases.” (Hanson, p. 192)</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Ayres |first=Lewis |title=Nicaea and its legacy |year=2004}}</ref> He later accepted it but only after the bishop of Rome applied pressure on him and only in a general sense of meaning 'the same type of substance'.<ref>Dionysius of Alexandria was “persuaded by his namesake of Rome to accept (the term)” (Ayres, p. 94) but he “only adopted it with reluctance” (Hanson, p. 193) and only “in a general sense, meaning 'of similar nature, ‘of similar kind'” (Hanson, p. 192).</ref>
+Around the year 260, Rome and Alexandria disagreed about the term. While some Sabellians in Libya as well as the bishop of Rome believed in one hypostasis and used ''{{transl|grc|homoousios}}'' to say that the Father and Son are one Person (hypostasis),<ref>"Stead … believes … it was the people in Libya criticized by Dionysius of Alexandria who had introduced the term. Simonetti agrees that it was not Dionysius of Rome who first used the word ''homoousios'' in the interchange." (Hanson, p. 193)</ref><ref>“Dionysius of Rome … found homoousios acceptable but could not tolerate a division of the Godhead into three hypostases.” (Hanson, p. 192, quoting Loofs)</ref><ref>“His doctrine could only with difficulty be distinguished from that of Sabellius!” (Hanson, p. 193)</ref> the bishop of Alexandria believed that the Son is a distinct Person and, initially, denied the term.<ref>“It seems … likely that Dionysius of Alexandria, in a campaign against some local Sabellians, had denied the term.” (Ayres, p. 94)</ref><ref>According to Basil of Caesarea, “Dionysius of Alexandria … sometimes rejected homoousios because Sabellius used it … in rejecting the distinction of hypostases.” (Hanson, p. 192)</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Ayres |first=Lewis |title=Nicaea and its legacy |year=2004}}</ref> He later accepted it but only after the bishop of Rome applied pressure on him and only in a general sense of meaning 'the same type of substance'.<ref>Dionysius of Alexandria was “persuaded by his namesake of Rome to accept (the term)” (Ayres, p. 94) but he “only adopted it with reluctance” (Hanson, p. 193) and only “in a general sense, meaning 'of similar nature, ‘of similar kind'” (Hanson, p. 192).</ref>
 More or less at the same time, [[Paul of Samosata]] used the term to say that Father and Son are a single substance, a single hypostasis or Person. But, in the year 268, a council at Antioch condemned both Paul and the term ''{{transl|grc|homoousios}}''.<ref>“The council that deposed Paul of Samosata in 268 condemned the use of homoousios.” (Ayres, p. 94; cf. Hanson, p. 193-194)</ref><ref>“In using the expression ‘of one substance', Paul declared that Father and Son were a solitary unit;" “a primitive undifferentiated unity.” (Williams, p. 159-160)</ref><ref>According to Hilary, “Our fathers (the 268-council) … repudiated homoousion” because “the word to them spelt Sabellianism.” (Hanson, p. 194)</ref><ref>“The condemnation of homoousios by this well-known council” caused “considerable embarrassment to those theologians who wanted to defend its inclusion in an official doctrinal statement in the next century.” (Ayres, p. 94; cf. Hanson, p. 195)</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Williams |first=Rowan |title=Arius: Heresy and Tradition |year=2002}}</ref>
@@ Line 36: / Line 38: @@
 The Nicene Creed is the official doctrine of most Christian churches—the [[Catholic Church]], [[Eastern Orthodox Church]], [[Oriental Orthodox]] Churches, [[Church of the East]], [[Lutheran Church]]es, [[Moravian Church]], [[Anglican Communion]], and [[Reformed tradition|Reformed Churches]] as well as other [[mainline Protestant]] and [[evangelical]] churches with regard to the [[ontological]] status of the three persons or [[Hypostasis (philosophy and religion)|hypostases]] of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
+It was clearly articulated by the Nicene Council that the Son was taken to have exactly the same essence with the Father and, therefore, to be as eternal and immutable as his Father.<ref>{{Citation | first = W | last = Fulton | contribution = Trinity | title = Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics | publisher = T&T Clark | year = 1921 | volume = 12 | page = 459}}.</ref>
-[[Origen]] seems to have been the first ecclesiastical writer to use the word {{transl|grc|homoousios}} in a [[nontrinitarian]] context,{{efn|In an exegetical comment on Hebrews 1:3, cited in the first book of the ''Apology'' for Origen by [[Pamphilus of Caesarea|Pamphilus]] and [[Eusebius]], Origen explains the special relationship of Christ, the Wisdom of God (Wisdom 7:25), with the Father:<blockquote>{{lang|la|Vaporis enim nomen inducens hoc ideo de rebus corporalibus assumpsit, ut vel ex parte aliqua intelligere possimus quomodo Christus, qui est Sapientia, secundum similitudinem eius vaporis qui de substantia aliqua corporea procedit, sic etiam ipse ut quidem vapor exoritur de virtute ipsius Dei.  Sic et Sapientia ex eo procedens ex ipsa substantia Dei generatur; sic nilominus, et secundum similitudinem corporalis aporrhoeae, esse dicitur aporrhoea gloriae Omnipotentis, pura et sincera. Quae utraeque similitudines manifestissime ostendunt communionem substantiae esse Filio cum Patre. Aporrhoea enim}} {{lang|grc|ὁμοούσιος}} {{lang|la|videtur, id est unius substantiae, cum illo corpore ex quo est vel aporrhoea, vel vapor.}}<ref>{{Citation | title = [[Patrologia Graeca|PG]] | at = 14:1308; 17:580, 581}}.</ref></blockquote>}} and it is evident in his writings that he considered the Son's divinity equal to the Father's, though he calls the Son "a creature", for man is but one of God's creatures.<ref>{{Citation | first = Jaroslav | last = Pelikan | title = The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine | publisher = The Chicago University Press | year = 1971 | volume = 1 | page = 191}}.</ref> It was more clearly articulated by [[Athanasius of Alexandria]] and the Nicene Council that the Son was taken to have exactly the same essence with the Father, and in the Nicene Creed the Son was declared to be as immutable as his Father.<ref>{{Citation | first = W | last = Fulton | contribution = Trinity | title = Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics | publisher = T&T Clark | year = 1921 | volume = 12 | page = 459}}.</ref>
-While it is common to find statements by their critics that Origen and other early apologist Church fathers held [[Subordinationism|subordinationist]] views, [[Ilaria Ramelli]] discussed the "anti-subordinationism" of Origen.<ref name="Origen's Anti-Subordinationism and Its Heritage in the Nicene and Cappadocian Line">{{cite journal|last1=Ramelli|first1=Llaria|title=Origen's Anti-Subordinationism and Its Heritage in the Nicene and Cappadocian Line|journal=Vigiliae Christianae|year=2011|volume=65|issue=1|pages=21–49|jstor=41062535|publisher=Brill|doi=10.1163/157007210X508103}}</ref>
+While orthodox theologians agree that subordination was the orthodoxy during the first three centuries and for most of the fourth, [[Ilaria Ramelli]] discussed the "anti-subordinationism" of Origen.<ref name="Origen's Anti-Subordinationism and Its Heritage in the Nicene and Cappadocian Line">{{cite journal|last1=Ramelli|first1=Llaria|title=Origen's Anti-Subordinationism and Its Heritage in the Nicene and Cappadocian Line|journal=Vigiliae Christianae|year=2011|volume=65|issue=1|pages=21–49|jstor=41062535|publisher=Brill|doi=10.1163/157007210X508103}}</ref>
 Both the Nicene<ref name="Nicene Creed">{{cite web|last1=Nicene|first1=Creed|title=Nicene Creed|url=http://www.reformed.org/documents/nicene.html|website=Reformed.org|access-date=31 May 2017|archive-date=6 June 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170606022501/http://www.reformed.org/documents/nicene.html|url-status=dead}}</ref> and [[Athanasian Creed|Athanasian]]<ref name="Athanasian Creed">{{cite web|last1=Athanasian|first1=Creed|title=Athanasian Creed|url=http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/athanasian.html|website=Reformed.org|access-date=31 May 2017|archive-date=12 May 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170512054300/http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=https%3A%2F%2Ffanyv88.com%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fwww.reformed.org%2Fdocuments%2Fathanasian.html|url-status=dead}}</ref> creeds affirm the Son as both begotten of, and equal to his Father. If so, many concepts of the Holy Trinity would appear to have already existed relatively early while the specific language used to affirm the doctrine continued to develop.<ref name="The Trinity: Doctrine Development and Definition">{{cite web|last1=Pavao|first1=Paul|title=The Trinity: Doctrine Development and Definition|url=http://www.christian-history.org/the-trinity.html|website=Christian-History.org|access-date=1 June 2017}}</ref><ref name="Orthodoxy: An Ironic Side Note on Heresy, and the Trinity">{{cite web|last1=Pavao|first1=Paul|title=Orthodoxy: An Ironic Side Note on Heresy, and the Trinity|url=http://www.christian-history.org/orthodoxy.html|website=Christian-History.org|access-date=1 June 2017}}</ref><ref name="Holy Trinity and Modern Arians Part2">{{cite web|last1=P|title=Holy Trinity and Modern Arians Part 2|url=http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/debate5.htm|website=BiblicalCatholic.com|access-date=1 June 2017}}</ref><ref name="The Antecedents of Arius">{{cite journal|last1=Barnard|first1=L.W.|title=The Antecedents of Arius|journal=Vigiliae Christianae|year=1970|volume=24|issue=3|pages=172–188|doi=10.1163/157007270X00029|jstor=1583070}}</ref>