Jump to content

Homoousion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AndriesvN (talk | contribs) at 04:59, 31 October 2024 (→Adoption in the Nicene Creed: Added a paragraph on homoousios not mentioned after Nicaea.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Not to be confused with Homoiousian.
Part of a series on
Christology
Christ Pantocrator
Concepts
Doctrines
Christological doctrines
By denomination

Homoousion is a Christian theological term, most notably used in the Nicene Creed, formulated at the First Council of Nicaea (325), for describing Jesus (God the Son) as "same in being" or "same in essence" with God the Father (ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί).

Terminology

The term ὁμοούσιον (homoousion) (/ˌhɒmoʊˈuːsiɒn, ˌhoʊm-/ HO(H)M-oh-OO-see-on; Ancient Greek: ὁμοούσιον, lit. 'same in being, same in essence', from ὁμός, homós, 'same' and οὐσία, ousía, 'being' or 'essence')[1][2] is the accusative case form of ὁμοούσιος (homoousios, 'consubstantial').[2] From its Greek original, the term was translated into other languages.[3] In Latin, which is lacking a present participle of the verb 'to be', two main corresponding variants occurred. Since the Aristotelian term ousia[4] was commonly translated in Latin as essentia (essence) or substantia (substance),[5] the Greek term homoousios was consequently translated into Latin as coessentialis or consubstantialis,[6] 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.[7] The Book of Common Prayer renders the term as "being of one substance with the Father."[8]

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.[9]

Pre-Nicene usage

Some interpret a few sayings of Jesus as that he claimed to be of a similar nature to God the Father[10] but the Bible never refers to God's substance and never says that the Son is homoousios with the Father.[11]

The term homoousios had been used before its adoption by the First Council of Nicaea. The Gnostics were the first to use the word.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][excessive citations] The early church theologians were probably made aware of this concept, and thus of the doctrine of emanation, as taught by the Gnostics.[22] 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.[23][24] 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.[25] 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.[26] 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.[27]

Tertullian (155–220), writing in Latin, nowhere uses any term corresponding exactly to the Greek word homoousios.[28] However, in his theology, Father and Son are a single substance and a single hypostasis.[29][30] That implies not only homoousios (same substance) but, more specifically, 'one substance'.

Origen did not use the term[31][32] despite claims to the contrary.[33] He may have rejected the term.[34] In opposition to Tertullian and Sabellius, he believed that Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases,[35] 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),[36][37][38] the bishop of Alexandria believed that the Son is a distinct Person and, initially, denied the term.[39][40][41] 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'.[42]

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.

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.

The Nicene Council states that the Son was begotten from the substance of the Father and, therefore, has the same essence as the Father. Consequently, He is as eternal and immutable as his Father.[43]

The inclusion of the term homoousion in the Nicene Creed must be regarded as a surprising innovation.[44] It is not found in the Holy Scriptures,[45] was borrowed from pagan philosophy,[46] did not appear in any precious creed,[47] was not part of the standard Christian language of the day,[48] and was already condemned in 268 at a Council in Antioch as associated with Sabellianism.[49] Furthermore, orthodox theologians agree that subordination was the orthodoxy during the first three centuries[50][51][52] and for most of the fourth.[53][54] The Eusebians (traditionally but misleadingly called Arians)[55] also objected that 'same substance' implies that God has a body, which nobody was willing to grant.[56]

In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, this term is the key word of the Creed.[57] However, soon after Nicaea, it disappeared from the debate. For more than 20 years, nobody mentioned it,[58][59] not even Athanasius,[60] the great hero of the Arian Controversy and defender of the Nicene Creed, nor the Western church,[61] which is often described as the stalwart defender of Nicaea throughout the fourth century.[62] In other words, it was not regarded as important at Nicaea.[63]

The Nicene Creed[64] affirms the Son as both begotten of, and equal to his Father. However, this does not mean that that Creed is fully Trinitarian. For example, it describes the Father alone as Almighty, one of its anathemas seems to say that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person),[65] and the Creed does not describe the Holy Spirit as God or homoousios or equal with the Father. Pro-Nicene theology continue to evolve after Nicaea:

“There is undeniably a development of a theology of the triune being of God from Alexander to the Cappadocians and Augustine, as there is a development of the theology of the divine will from Arius to Eunomius.” (Anatolios, p35)[66]

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.[67][68][69][70] The dispute between Arius and Alexander was a continuation of the controversy that raged during the fourth century.[71][72] Arius and Alexander represented two of the trajectories that existed when the fourth century began.[73] Hanson described the Nicene Creed as "a drawn battle"[74] between the Eusebian 'three hypostases' trajectory, of which Arius was an extreme representative, and Sabellian 'one hypostasis' theology,[75] which Alexander represented.[76]

During 350s, some non-Nicene (Arian) theologians preferred the use of the term homoioúsios meaning 'similar substance', rather than 'same substance'[77][2] in order to emphasize distinctions among the three persons in the Godhead. However, at the end of that decade, Emperor Constantius ensured that Homoian theology (another 'Arian' theology) became dominant. However, after Emperor Theodosius made Nicene theology the State Religion of the Roman Empire in 380, the term homoousion became a consistent mark of Nicene orthodoxy in both East and West.

According to Nicene (homoousian) theology, the incarnated 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. However, since the Father and Son are a single Person, the Son is as immutable as the Father and cannot and did not suffer and die. It was the "the man whom he put on, whom he assumed from the Virgin Mary" that suffered and died.[78][79][80]

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.

The 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" to the Father but not 'same in substance'.
  • Homoeanism (also from ὅμοιος), which declared that the Son was similar to God the Father, without reference to substance or essence. They held that the Father was like the Son in some sense but that even to speak of ousia was impertinent speculation. 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.
  • Heteroousianism held that God the Father and the Son were different in substance and/or attributes.
  • Anomoeanism means that the Son is unlike the Father. It is unlikely that anybody held this view. This was probably simply a polemical title, intended to insult.

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. However, in what is known as the Meletian Schism,[81] the pro-Nicenes were also fiercely divided. While the Western pro-Nicenes (including Athanasius) believed that the Son is part of the Father,[82][83][84][85] the Eastern pro-Nicenes (the Cappadocians) held that the Son is a distinct Person (hypostasis).[86][87]

Pro-Nicene theology prevailed in the struggle to define this as a dogma of the still-united Western and Eastern churches for the next two millennia when Emperor Theodosius and the other two emperors,[88] in 380, made it the State Religion of the Roman and outlawed all other form of Christianity.[89][90][91] The First Council of Constantinople of the next year (381) was a mere formality, as only pro-Nicene from a part of the Eastern Empire were allowed to attend,[92][93] and as the emperor made one of his unbaptized civil servants the bishop of Constantinople and the chair of the Council.[94][95]

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.[96]

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."[97] 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.[98]

After Nicaea

The view that homoousios was of fundamental importance is deeply mistaken.[99] 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."[100][101]

Not even those who defended the term at Nicaea,[102][103] nor Athanasius,[104] the main defender of the term, nor the Western church,[105] 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,[106][107] but it took some time before the Western church adopted it.[108] Since homoousios was first defended in the 350s, we see attacks on it only in the 350s.[109]

This absence of the term homoousios in the 20 or more years after Nicaea means that it was not regarded as important.[110][111] The term was a problem even for anti-Arians.[112]

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.[113][114][115]

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.[116][117] 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.

See also

Notes

References

  1. ^ οὐσία. Liddell, Henry George; Scott, Robert; A Greek–English Lexicon at the Perseus Project.
  2. ^ a b c ὁμοούσιος, ὁμοιούσιος, ὅμοιος, ὁμός in Liddell and Scott.
  3. ^ Beatrice 2002, p. 243-272.
  4. ^ Loux 2008.
  5. ^ Weedman 2007.
  6. ^ consubstantialis. Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short. A Latin Dictionary on Perseus Project.
  7. ^ Pásztori-Kupán 2006, p. 59.
  8. ^ 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,
  9. ^ Florovsky 1987.
  10. ^ Matthew 11:27, John 17:21
  11. ^ 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).
  12. ^ von Harnack, Adolf, Dogmengeschichte (in German), 1:284–85, n. 3; 2:232–34, n. 4.
  13. ^ Ortiz de Urbina, Ignacio (1942), "L'homoousios preniceno" [The prenicene homoousios], Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 8: 194–209.
  14. ^ Ortiz de Urbina, Ignacio (1947), El Simbolo Niceno [The Nicene symbol] (in Spanish), Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, pp. 183–202.
  15. ^ Mendizabal, Luis M (1956), "El Homoousios Preniceno Extraeclesiastico" [Ecclesiastical studies], Estudios Eclesiasticos (in Spanish), 30: 147–96.
  16. ^ Prestige, George Leonard (1952) [1936], God in Patristic Thought (2d ed.), London: SPCK, pp. 197–218.
  17. ^ 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.
  18. ^ 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.
  19. ^ Kelly, John Norman D (1972), Early Christian Creeds (3rd ed.), London: Longman, p. 245.
  20. ^ 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).
  21. ^ Stead, Christopher, Divine Substance, pp. 190–202.
  22. ^ Grillmeier, Aloys (1975), Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. 1, From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451), London: Mowbrays, p. 109.
  23. ^ of Rome, Hippolytus, Refutatio omnium haeresium [Refutation of all heresies] (in Latin), 7:22, Υἱότης τριμερής, κατὰ πάντα τῷ οὐκ ὄντι θεῷ ὁμοούσιος.
  24. ^ 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.).
  25. ^ of Salamis, Epiphanius, Panarion (in Greek), 33:7,8, Τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ φύσιν ἔχοντος τὰ ὅμοια ἑαυτῷ καὶ ὁμοούσια γεννᾶν τε καὶ προφέρειν.
  26. ^ 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.
  27. ^ "The term was adopted in the second century by Gnostics, probably to indicate ‘same ontological status’ or ‘of a similar kind’." (Ayres, p. 93)
  28. ^ Tertullian, “writing in Latin, nowhere uses any term corresponding to homoousios.” (Hanson, p. 190)
  29. ^ “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)
  30. ^ 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)
  31. '^ “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)
  32. ^ 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)
  33. ^ “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)
  34. ^ “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)
  35. ^ "He (Origen) taught that there were three hypostases within the Godhead.” (Hanson, p. 184)
  36. ^ "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)
  37. ^ “Dionysius of Rome … found homoousios acceptable but could not tolerate a division of the Godhead into three hypostases.” (Hanson, p. 192, quoting Loofs)
  38. ^ “His doctrine could only with difficulty be distinguished from that of Sabellius!” (Hanson, p. 193)
  39. ^ “It seems … likely that Dionysius of Alexandria, in a campaign against some local Sabellians, had denied the term.” (Ayres, p. 94)
  40. ^ According to Basil of Caesarea, “Dionysius of Alexandria … sometimes rejected homoousios because Sabellius used it … in rejecting the distinction of hypostases.” (Hanson, p. 192)
  41. ^ Ayres, Lewis (2004). Nicaea and its legacy.
  42. ^ 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).
  43. ^ Fulton, W (1921), "Trinity", Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, vol. 12, T&T Clark, p. 459.
  44. ^ Rowan Williams described it as “the radical words of Nicaea” (Williams, p. 236) and “conceptual innovation” (Williams, p. 234-5).
  45. ^ 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).
  46. ^ “The pro-Nicenes are at their worst, their most grotesque, when they try to show that the new terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy of the day were really to be found in Scripture.” (Hanson, p. 846)
  47. ^ “To say that the Son was 'of the substance' of the Father, and that he was 'consubstantial' with him were certainly startling innovations. Nothing comparable to this had been said in any creed or profession of faith before.” (Hanson, p. 166-7)
  48. ^ Anti-Nicenes objected that these words are “untraditional.” (Williams, p. 234-5) “We can detect no Greek-speaking writer before Nicaea who unreservedly supports homoousion as applied to the Son.” (Hanson, p. 169)
  49. ^ “The council that deposed Paul of Samosata in 268 condemned the use of homoousios.” (Ayres, p. 94; cf. Hanson, p. 193-194) 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)
  50. ^ "There is no theologian in the Eastern or the Western Church before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy [in the fourth century], who does not in some sense regard the Son as subordinate to the Father." (Hanson, p. 64)
  51. ^ “’Subordinationism’, it is true was pre-Nicene orthodoxy”[Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers p. 239.]
  52. ^ "Virtually all orthodox theologians prior to the Arian controversy ... were subordinationists to some extent." [Badcock, Gary D. (1997), Light of Truth and Fire of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit]
  53. ^ “Indeed, until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism. It could, about the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of catholic theology.” [RPC Hanson, “The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD” in Rowan Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy (New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989) p. 153.]
  54. ^ Ayres argued that even Athanasius believed in a form of subordination. For example, he described the Son as the Father's Wisdom, never the other way round, and he said that the Son is homoousios with the Father, never the other way round. (Read More) Since Athanasius regarded the Son as part of the Father (Read more), his view was obviously that the Son is subordinate.
  55. ^ "The expression 'the Arian Controversy' is a serious misnomer.” (Hanson, xvii-xviii) “This controversy is mistakenly called Arian.” (Ayres, p. 13) Rowan Williams concluded, “I was still, in 1987, prepared, even with reservations, to use the adjective 'Arian’ in a way I should now find difficult” (Williams, p. 248). And Lewis Ayres said, “Some scholars now simply refrain from using the term Arian other than as an adjective to describe Arius' own theology and I shall follow that practice.” (Ayres, p. 14)
  56. ^ “For Christian writers such notions seemed irredeemably materialist, and made it easy for them to suppose that the mere use of homoousios implies a certain materiality.” (Ayres, p. 93) “This word (substance) was thought, as it was always thought by Arians, to introduce corporeal notions into the Godhead.” (Hanson, p. 346)
  57. ^ In the “centuries-old account of the Council of Nicaea," "the whole power of the mysterious dogma is at once established by the one word homoousios;" "with one pronouncement the Church identified a term that secured its … beliefs against heresy.” (Ayres, p. 11)
  58. ^ “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.” (Hanson Lecture)
  59. ^ “During the years 326–50 the term homoousios is rarely if ever mentioned.” (Ayres, p. 431)
  60. ^ “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)
  61. ^ However, “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)
  62. ^ “In most older presentations, ‘western’ bishops were taken to be natural and stalwart defenders of Nicaea throughout the fourth century.” (Ayres, p. 135)
  63. ^ Referring specifically to the view that homoousios was of fundamental importance, Ayres says that “such older accounts are deeply mistaken.” (Ayres, p. 11)
  64. ^ Nicene, Creed. "Nicene Creed". Reformed.org. Archived from the original on 6 June 2017. Retrieved 31 May 2017.
  65. ^ “If we are to take the creed N at its face value, the theology of Eustathius and Marcellus was the theology which triumphed at Nicaea. That creed admits the possibility of only one ousia and one hypostasis. This was the hallmark of the theology of these two men.” (Hanson, p. 235)
  66. ^ “There is no doubt, however, that the pro-Nicene theologians throughout the controversy were engaged in a process of developing doctrine and consequently introducing what must be called a change in doctrine” (Hanson, p872).
  67. ^ Pavao, Paul. "The Trinity: Doctrine Development and Definition". Christian-History.org. Retrieved 1 June 2017.
  68. ^ Pavao, Paul. "Orthodoxy: An Ironic Side Note on Heresy, and the Trinity". Christian-History.org. Retrieved 1 June 2017.
  69. ^ P. "Holy Trinity and Modern Arians Part 2". BiblicalCatholic.com. Retrieved 1 June 2017.
  70. ^ Barnard, L.W. (1970). "The Antecedents of Arius". Vigiliae Christianae. 24 (3): 172–188. doi:10.1163/157007270X00029. JSTOR 1583070.
  71. ^ “We will find pre-existing deep theological tensions at the beginning of the fourth century. Controversy over Arius was the spark that ignited a fire waiting to happen, and the origins of the dispute do not lie simply in the beliefs of one thinker, but in existing tensions that formed his background.” (Ayres, p. 20)
  72. ^ “This controversy is a complex affair in which tensions between pre-existing theological traditions intensified as a result of dispute over Arius, and over events following the Council of Nicaea.” (Ayres, p. 11-12)
  73. ^ Ayres identifies four ‘trajectories' in the early fourth century: §  Alexander, Athanasius, and friends (chapter 2.2) §  The ‘Eusebians’, of which Arius was an extreme example (chapter 2.3). §  Marcellus (chapter 3.1), namely, of a Sabellian type, and §  Western theology (chapter 3.2).
  74. ^ It is not "an openly Sabellian creed." “It is going too far to say that N is a clearly Sabellian document. … It is exceeding the evidence to represent the Council as a total victory for the anti-Origenist opponents of the doctrine of three hypostases. It was more like a drawn battle.” (Hanson, p. 172) Ayres says that his conclusions are close to Hanson’s. (Ayres, p. 92)
  75. ^ “If we are to take the creed N at its face value, the theology of Eustathius and Marcellus was the theology which triumphed at Nicaea. That creed admits the possibility of only one ousia and one hypostasis. This was the hallmark of the theology of these two men.” (Hanson, p. 235)
  76. ^ “Alexander taught that … as the Father’s Word and Wisdom the Son must always have been with the Father.” (Ayres, p. 16) “[Rowan] Williams’ work is most illuminating. Alexander of Alexandria, Williams thinks, had maintained that the Son … is a property or quality of the Father, impersonal and belonging to his substance. … The statement then that the Son is idios to (a property or quality of) the Father is a Sabellian statement.” (Hanson, p. 92)
  77. ^ ὁμοιούσιος, 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'
  78. ^ The Western pro-Nicene manifesto formulated at Serdica in 343 shows the Nicene view of the incarnation. It declares: “We believe in and hand down the Comforter the Holy Spirit which the Lord promised and sent to us. And we believe that he was sent. And he (the Spirit) did not suffer, but the man whom he put on, whom he assumed from the Virgin Mary, the man who was capable of suffering, because man is mortal but God immortal.” (Hanson, p. 302) Reading this, “it is hard to avoid the impression that the Incarnation consisted of the Spirit taking a body which did the suffering, and that the Son is not distinguishable from the Spirit.” (Hanson, p. 303)
  79. ^ Asterius, one of the leading 'Arians', said his opponents’ “interpretation of the person of the incarnate Son … (did) remove the Godhead from the act of redemption.” (Hanson, p. 40)
  80. ^ “The Arians understood' very well the necessity of allowing that in some sense God suffered in the course of saving mankind; the pro-Nicenes consistently tried to avoid this conclusion.” (Hanson, p. 870)
  81. ^ “It was the adhesion of Basil, Meletius and their followers to this doctrine of the hypostases which caused Damasus [bishop of Rome] … to suspect them of heresy.” (Hanson, p. 798) “A council headed by Athanasius at Alexandria in 362 … met to address a schism between followers of two pro-Nicene bishops at Antioch: Paulinus, who confessed the one hypostasis, and Melitius, who confessed three hypostaseis.” (Anatolios, p. 26-27)
  82. ^ “[Rowan] Williams’ work is most illuminating. Alexander of Alexandria, Williams thinks, had maintained that the Son … is a property or quality of the Father, impersonal and belonging to his substance. … The statement then that the Son is idios to (a property or quality of) the Father is a Sabellian statement.” (Hanson, p. 92)
  83. ^ “In Alexander, and in Athanasius … Christ is the one power and wisdom of the Father.” (Ayres, p. 54)
  84. ^ “In the Father we have the Son: this is a summary of Athanasius' theology.” (Hanson, p. 426) “The Son is in the Father ontologically.” (Hanson, p. 428) “Athanasius’ increasing clarity in treating the Son as intrinsic to the Father’s being” (Ayres, p. 113)
  85. ^ The Western manifesto at Serdica in 343 also described the Son as “the Father’s ‘true’ Wisdom and Power and Word.” (Ayres, p. 125), meaning He is part of the Father. It said, “We have received and have been taught this … tradition: that there is one hypostasis, which the heretics (also) call ousia, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (Hanson, p. 301)
  86. ^ Basil “discusses the idea that the distinction between the Godhead and the Persons is that between an abstract essence, such as humanity, and its concrete manifestations, such as man.” (Hanson, 698) “Basil discusses the individuation of Peter and Paul as analogous to the individuation of Father and Son.” (Ayres, 207)
  87. ^ Basil talks of distinct minds: “Basil … speaks of the Father choosing to work through the Son—not needing to. Similarly, the Son chooses to work through the Spirit, but does not need to.” (Ayres, 208) See more
  88. ^ “The Edict of Thessalonica was jointly issued by Theodosius I, emperor of the East, Gratian, emperor of the West, and Gratian's junior co-ruler Valentinian II, on 27 February 380.” (Ehler, Sidney Zdeneck; Morrall, John B (1967). Church and State Through the Centuries: A Collection of Historic Documents with Commentaries. p. 6-7.)
  89. ^ The Edict said: “They will suffer … the punishment of our authority which … we shall decide to inflict.” “Heretics would be punished.” (Hanson, p. 402)
  90. ^ “On November 24th 380 he entered Constantinople and instantly faced the Arian bishop of that city with the choice of either accepting the Nicene faith or being ejected from his see. Demophilus chose exile … and was driven out of the city.” (Hanson, p. 804-5) “At about the same time the Arian Lucius was chased out of Alexandria.” (Hanson, p. 805) [Lucas was installed as Patriarch of Alexandria somewhere before 380, competing with Peter II of Alexandria.
  91. ^ “On January 10 (381), Theodosius issued an edict … No church was to be occupied for worship by any heretics, no heretics were to gather together for worship within the walls of any town.” (Hanson, p. 805)
  92. ^ “It seems unlikely that this meeting was intended as a universal council to rival Seleucia/Ariminum or Nicaea itself. … Those present at the council initially came from a fairly restricted area and the majority from areas known to be favourable to Meletius.” (Ayres, p253)
  93. ^ “Only about 150 bishops attended and they appear to have been carefully chosen from areas which would be friendly to Meletius, who was its president, that is areas under the influence of the see of Antioch.” (RH, 806)
  94. ^ “In Gregory's place Nectarius, an unbaptized civil official in Constantinople, was chosen” (LA, 255), “who then became president of the council” (RH, 807).
  95. ^ After Gregory had resigned, “the Council found itself in a quandary over the choice of a new bishop of the capital city. … They finally picked … an unbaptised layman, Nectarius, who had been praetor urbanus in Constantinople. It was as if today the cardinals had chosen as Pope … the mayor of Rome." (Hanson, p811)
  96. ^ Theodosian Code 16:2, 1 Friell, G., Williams, S., Theodosius: The Empire at Bay, London, 1994.
  97. ^ St. Athanasius (1911), "In Controversy With the Arians", Select Treatises, Newman, John Henry Cardinal trans, Longmans, Green, & Co, p. 124, footn.
  98. ^ Norwich, John Julius (1988). Byzantium: The Early Centuries. London: Guild Publishing. p. 55.
  99. ^ Referring specifically to the view that homoousios was of fundamental importance, Ayres says that “such older accounts are deeply mistaken.” (Ayres, p. 11)
  100. ^ 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)
  101. ^ “During the years 326–50 the term homoousios is rarely if ever mentioned.” (Ayres, p. 431)
  102. ^ 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)
  103. ^ 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.)
  104. ^ “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)
  105. ^ “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)
  106. ^ “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)
  107. ^ “Athanasius’ decision to make Nicaea and homoousios central to his theology has its origins in the shifting climate of the 350s.” (Ayres, p. 144)
  108. ^ “The 350s show how Nicaea only slowly came to be of importance in the west.” (Ayres, p. 135) (For more detail, see here.)
  109. ^ “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)
  110. ^ “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)
  111. ^ “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)
  112. ^ “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)
  113. ^ “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)
  114. ^ 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)
  115. ^ 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)
  116. ^ “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)
  117. ^ 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

Further reading

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homoousion&oldid=1254480046"