Trinity Doctrine Archives » Page 23 of 31 » From Daniel to Revelation

2023-07-092024-04-16

The Rise and Fall of the Homoiousianism

Purpose

After Nicaea, the ‘Arian’ Controversy raged for another 55 years. During that period, ‘Arianism’ dominated the church. But ‘Arianism’ consisted of several strands. This article explains the theology of the Homoiousians, which was one of those strands. Homoiousian means ‘similar substance’ and was used to say that the Son’s substance is similar to the Father’s.

Sources

This article series is largely based on two books:

RH = Bishop RPC Hanson
The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God –
The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987

LA = Lewis Ayres
Nicaea and its legacy, 2004
Ayres is a Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology

A Compromise

It is often claimed that Homo-i-ousianism (similar substance theology) arose as an attempt to reconcile two opposing teachings, namely: and Homo-ianism:

Homo-ousianism, which comes from the word homo-ousios in the Nicene Creed of the year 325. It means “same substance” and was used to say that the Son’s substance is the ‘same’ (ὁμός, homós) as the Father’s. If the Son’s substance is the same as the Father’s, then the Son must be co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.

Homo-ianism, on the other hand, refused to use the term substance (οὐσία, ousía). It believes that the Son is “like” (ὅμοιος, hómoios) the Father but subordinate to Him.

It is then proposed that similar substance theology (Homo-i-ousian) was an attempt to reconcile the same substance theology (Homo-ousian) theology with the Homoian notion of similarity. For example, “Gwatkin described the group as a ‘Semi-Arian position modified by an Athanasian influence.” (RH, 349) (Athanasius was the great defender of the same substance theology.)

A Persistent Strand

However, recent scholarship does not accept that Homo-i-ousianism was an attempt to reconcile the two other theologies. Homo-i-ousianism was “most prominently associated with … Basil of Ancyra” (RH, 349) and “the term homoiousios plays no role in Basil’s surviving texts” (LA, 150). This implies that such a compromise was not the purpose. More recently, Lewis Ayres proposed that Homo-i-ousianism was not merely a compromise but “a significant and persistent strand in earlier eastern theology.” (LA, 150)

There are indications that this theology was a restatement or development of the theology of Eusebius of Caesarea, as stated in the letter he wrote to his home church after the Nicene Council, to explain why he accepted that Creed:

Ritter described Homoiousianism “as the right wing of the Eusebian party.” (RH, 349)

“Basil … prefers the term ‘image of the ousia’ to define the Son’s relationship to the Father; it is worth noting that this term was favoured by Eusebius of Caesarea … and also is found in the Second (‘Dedication’) Creed of Antioch 341.” (RH, 353)

Eusebius was “universally acknowledged to be the most scholarly bishop of his day.” (RH, 46) Eusebius was the most influential theologian present at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325.

A Response to Neo-Arianism

Both Lewis Ayres and R.P.C. Hanson stated that the formulation of Homoiousian theology in 358 by a council of bishops called by Basil of Ancyra was a response to, what Ayres calls, “the emerging shape of Heterousian theology” in the form of the creed of “Sirmium 357,” which was based on the teachings of Aetius. Hanson refers to this as “Neo-Arianism” and as “a new and radical theology” that appears for the first time in the extant ancient records in the form of the “Second Creed of Sirmium of 357,” afterward approved by a larger synod at Antioch (probably in AD 358). ‘Neo-Arianism’ may be an appropriate name because it was “a development” of Arius’ theology. (RH, 348; LA, 149-150)

“Basil’s council sent a delegation to the Emperor Constantius … and this embassy met with success.” The Emperor condemned “Aetius and his teaching” and exiled Aetius and his supporters. This supports the view that this formulation of homo-i-ousianism was particularly intended to oppose the Neo-Arians. (LA, 152-153)

Homo-i-ousian Theology

“The statement which emerged from this council … marks the emergence of a new and coherent theological point of view. This is the theology of those whom Epiphanius, quite undeservedly, calls ‘Semi-Arians’, but who are usually today thought of as Homoiousians, a designation which is more accurate.” (RH, 348-9)

This statement was written by Basil of Ancyra himself (LA, 150) and “is of the highest importance for an understanding of Homoiousian theology.” (RH, 350) It includes “nineteen anathemas which reveal more clearly the position which Basil is attacking.” (RH, 355)

Against Homoian Theology

Homoianism was a dominant Christology during the mid-fourth century. For example, the creeds of the councils of Sirmium in 358, Ariminum in 359, and the key council at Constantinople in 359 / 360 were homoian. It refused to use ousia (substance) language in the formulation of any statement of faith because the Bible does not say anything about God’s substance. Against them, Basil insisted that substance language is necessary to reflect the closeness of the Father and Son expressed by the concepts “Father/Son” and “begotten.” He wrote:

“God must be both Father and creator” (of His Son) (RH, 353). “If we remove this resemblance of ousia,” the Son is merely a created being; “not a Son.” (RH, 353, 354)

Since human sons are like their fathers, the Son of God is like His Father (RH, 352). “The salient irreducible element” in a father/son relationship is “the begetting of a living being that is like in ousia.” (RH, 352-3)

“If the Father gives the Son to have life in himself (John 5:26) … then the Son must have the same life and thus have ‘everything according to essence and absolutely as does the Father’.” (LA, 152)“

Against Homoousian Theology

It is often claimed that the term homo-ousios in the Nicene Creed means “one substance,” namely, that the substance of the Son is one and the same as the Father’s substance. It is on this basis alone that we can argue that the Son is co-eternal and co-equal with the Father. However:

Hanson concluded that “we can … be pretty sure that homoousios was not intended to express the numerical identity of the Father and the Son.” (RH, 202)

Philip Schaff stated: “The term homoousion … differs from monoousion. … and signifies not numerical identity, but equality of essence or community of nature among several beings. It is clearly used thus in the Chalcedonian symbol, where it is said that Christ is “homoousios with the Father as touching the Godhead, and homoousios with us [and yet individually distinct from us] as touching the manhood.”¹

The idea of “one substance,” therefore, developed later. In the Homo-ousianism of the Nicene Creed, the Son’s substance is identical with the Father’s, meaning two substances that are identical.

This is based on a material interpretation of the terms “Father,” Son,” and “only-begotten,” as if God has a body and bodily gave existence to the Son, comparable to how human sons are brought forth. Consequently, the Son’s substance is identical to the Father’s. For example:

“Anathema 13 links the error of thinking of the Father/Son relationship in corporeal terms with that of making the Son identical with the Father.” (RH, 356)

Homo-i-ousianism did not accept this notion. (RH, 352-3) In Homo-i-ousianism, the Son is subordinate to the Father. (RH, 355) If this is true, then the Son’s substance cannot be identical to the Father’s. Basil explained:

“The Son is like the Father in ousia but not identical with him.” (RH, 352-3).

“As He … was in the likeness of men (John 1:14) … yet not a man in all respects;” “not identical with human nature,” for example. He was not born through natural conception, “so the Son … is God in that he is Son of God,” was “in the form of God,” and is “equal to God (Phil 2:6, 7),” “but not identical with the God and Father.” (RH, 354)

Anathema 13 “damns him who declares … that the Son is identical with the Father … This is manifestly directed against N (the Nicene Creed).” (RH, 355)

Against Sabellian Theology

In Sabellianism, the Son is not a distinct Person. Rather, the Father and Son are parts of one Person. Basil responded:

“This argument that God must be both Father and creator and that the likeness in ousia is necessary … as a safeguard against Sabellianism: that which is like can never be the same as that to which it is like’.” (RH, 353)

The anathemas also attack the apparent Sabellianism of Marcellus of Ancyra. (RH, 355)

Against Neo-Arian Theology

In Neo-Arianism, which was “a new and radical” (RH, 348) adaptation of Arius’ theology, the terms “Father,” Son,” and “only-begotten” symbolize that the Son is the very image of the Father, but not in a corporeal (material) sense. For that reason, in this view, “the Son is ‘unlike‘ (anhomoios) in ousia to the Father” Ayres refers to this as “Heterousian (different substance) theology.” (LA, 149) For example, Basil’s “Anathema 12 strikes him who declares that the Son’s likeness to the Father consists in power but not in ousia.” (RH, 355)

Homo-i-ousianism was somewhere between the Homoousian (same substance) view and the Neo-Arian (different substance) view.

The End of this Theology

“In AD 359 Constantius decided to emulate his father’s action in calling Nicaea and summon a general council. … A small group of bishops met at Sirmium to draw up a draft creed for discussion. Those present included not only Basil, but also some who were far more suspicious of ousia language. The creed on which they finally agreed … asserts that all ousia language should be avoided. … … Thus, although Basil of Ancyra was influential with the imperial authorities at one point during 358–9, it was not for long, and he never seems fully to have overcome long-standing Homoian influence at court. (LA, 157-8)

Constantius was becoming somewhat hostile to the influence of all of the new movements which had sprung up after the Nicene council. The result was that the Homoiousians disappeared from the stage of history and the struggle to define Church dogma became a two-sided battle between the Homo-ousians and the Homo-ians.

Summary

The 55 years of Controversy after the Nicene Creed of 325 revolved specifically around the word homoousios. Since, in the Nicene Creed, this term was an interpretation of the term “begotten,” the differences between the various Christological views are essentially different interpretations of the terms “Father,” “Son,” and “only-begotten.” These interpretations result in different views with respect to the substance of the Son, on the basis of which the five views may be summarized:

- - Sabellianism = One and the same substance
  - Homoousian = Distinct but identical substance
  - Homoiousian = Similar in substance
  - Neo-Arianism or Heteroousians = Unlike in substance
  - Homo-ianism refuses to refer to substance.

Ignatius of Antioch described the Son as our God.

This is an article in the series on the historical development of the Trinity doctrine.

These first articles discuss the views of the church fathers in the first three centuries:

- Were they Trinitarians?
- Did they think of God as One Being but three Persons?

Previous articles discussed the views of Polycarp and Justin Martyr. The current article reflects the thoughts of Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117). All three of them were killed for their faith.

Triadic Passages

A Triadic passage is one in which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mentioned together. A famous example is Matthew 28:29:

“Baptizing them in the name of
the Father
and the Son
and the Holy Spirit”

Ignatius also mentioned the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together in a single sentence:

“In Christ Jesus our Lord,
by whom and with whom be glory and power
to the Father
with the Holy Spirit for ever” (n. 7; PG 5.988).

However, just mentioning them together does not mean that they are one Being or that they are equal. It only means that they are related. Take for example:

“One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God” (Eph 4:5)

Here, Paul mentions the Son as “Lord” and the Father as “God.” But he does not mention the Holy Spirit. He adds “faith” and “baptism.” This does not mean that these four are equal or one and the same. It only means that they belong together.

The Father alone is God.

That that triadic passage does not mean that the Persons of the Trinity are equal can be seen when Ignatius identifies the Father alone as God:

Thou art in error when thou callest
the daemons of the nations gods.
For there is but one God,
who made heaven, and earth, and the sea,
and all that are in them;
and one Jesus Christ,
the only-begotten Son of God,
whose kingdom may I enjoy. (Martyrdom of Ignatius 2)

Here, Ignatius refers to “gods,” “God,” and Jesus Christ. And he adds the word “one” before “God” and before “Jesus Christ.” This is similar to 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, which reads:

“Even if there are so-called gods
whether in heaven or on earth …
yet for us there is but one God, the Father,
from whom are all things and we exist for Him;
and one Lord, Jesus Christ,
by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.”

Both these statements explicitly identify the “one God” as someone distinct from the one Lord Jesus Christ. In other words, the Father alone is the “one God.”

The Only True God

Ignatius further wrote:

There is only one true God But our Physician is
the only true God,
the unbegotten
and unapproachable,
the Lord of all,
the Father and Begetter
of the only-begotten Son

We have also as a Physician
the Lord our God Jesus the Christ¹

The following discusses specific phrases from this quote:

Unbegotten

Ignatius describes the Father as “unbegotten” in contrast to the Son who is “begotten.” The ancients created the term “unbegotten” to indicate that the Father alone exists without a cause. See, for example, the Long Lines Creed. The Son received His existence from the Father.

Unapproachable

Ignatius also describes the Father as “unapproachable.” 1 Timothy 6:16 similarly says that the Father “alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light.” His unapproachability is related to His invisibility. The Bible often states that God is invisible. For example:

“His beloved Son … is the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:14-15).

Since the Son is both visible and approachable, He is not that “invisible” and “unapproachable” God.

Our God, Jesus the Christ

Ignatius describes the Son as “our God.” Trinitarians use such phrases to argue that the church fathers did believe that Jesus is God. Since many writers in the first 300 years referred to Jesus as “our god,” this is discussed in the article, Jesus, our god.

In summary, the ancient Greek language did not have a word exactly equivalent to the modern English word “God:”

In modern English, we use the word “God” as the proper name for the Ultimate Reality; for the One who exists without cause.

The ancients Greeks did not have such a word. They only had the word “god” (theos). This word was used for the Greek Pantheon, the gods of the nations, as well as for the One who exists without cause. Therefore, whether to translate theos as “God” or “god” depends on the context.

According to the translation above, Ignatius (and other church fathers) described Jesus as “our God” and the Father as “the only true God:”

The phrase “only true God” comes from John 17:3, where it describes the Father. This phrase is somewhat illogical because only one God (one Ultimate Reality) exists. The phrase is saying, similar to 1 Corinthians 8:6, that many gods exist but only one of them is truly “god.” So, to reflect the true meaning of the Greek, it might have been appropriate to translate it as “only true god.”

Similarly, the Greek says that the Son is “our god.” To translate theos, when it describes the Son, as “God,” is an application of the Trinity doctrine. It must not be taken as proof of that doctrine.

Basically, the Greek word “theos” means an immortal being with supernatural powers. That description certainly fits the One we know as Jesus Christ. For that reason, and since these church fathers maintained a strict distinction between the Almighty and Jesus Christ, they referred to Jesus as “our theos” as opposed to the “one true theos.” In that instance, “our theos” is better translated as “our god.”

For a further discussion, see – When referring to Jesus, how should theos be translated?

Incarnation

Ignatius continues to describe the Son:

The only-begotten Son and Word,
before time began,
but who afterward became also man, of Mary the virgin.
For ‘the Word was made flesh.’
Being incorporeal, He was in the body;
Being impassible, He was in a passible body;
Being immortal, He was in a mortal body;
Being life, He became subject to corruption,
that He might free our souls from death and corruption,
and heal them, and might restore them to health,
when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts.²

Specific phrases from this quote are discussed below:

Before time began

Ignatius says that the Son was begotten “before time began.” That means that the Son has ‘always’ existed; that He existed as long as time existed.

The ancients assumed, based mostly on Plato’s philosophy, that time began when all things were created. Outside time, there exists a timeless infinity, for God exists outside time. The Father begat the Son in that incomprehensible infinity beyond time. If we use the word “before” metaphysically (not in a literal time sense), then we can say that the Father existed “before” the Son. However, from the perspective of creation, the Father and Son are co-existent.

Afterward became also man

Not all Christians believe that Jesus existed before He became a human being. See, for instance, Dr. Tuggy’s Case Against Preexistence. But, with exceptions, the ancients did believe in Christ’s pre-existence.

Incorporeal

According to Ignatius, before the Son became a human being, He was incorporeal (intangible). This seems like speculation. Where does the Bible say this? He is the perfect image of the invisible God (Col 1:15). Does that not mean that He is visible?

Impassible

Ignatius also said that the Son, before He became a human being, was impassible (incapable of suffering or feeling pain). “Impassibility” is a concept from Greek philosophy and also seems to be speculation when applied to the God of the Bible or to the pre-existent Jesus Christ.

In Greek philosophy, only the High God is impassible. To say that the Son is also impassible puts a very high view on Him.

Ignatius is here consistent with the Nicene Creed of 325. That Creed condemns “those who say (that the Son) is alterable or changeable.” This shows the influence of philosophy on that Creed.

Immortal

The statement that the Son was immortal seems to contradict the Biblical statement that the Father “alone possesses immortality” (1 Tim 6:16). However, there are two kinds of immortality:

Only the Father exists without cause and is therefore essentially (unconditionally) immortal.

The Son received His immortality from the One who exists without cause. Even created beings will become immortal “when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality” (1 Cor 15:54). But this remains conditional immortality. We will be immortal, not because we cannot die, but because God will not allow us to die.

Human souls, therefore, are not essentially immortal. Souls can die. “Fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt 10:28). The immortality of human beings will always be conditional.

Being Life

The description of the Son as “being life” is perhaps explained by John 5:26:

“Just as the Father has life in Himself,
even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself.”

On the one hand, it means that, just like He received His existence from the Father, He also received “life in Himself” from the Father. Since the Father is the only Being who exists without cause, all other beings, including His only-begotten Son, are subordinate to Him.

On the other hand, there are only two Beings who have “life in Himself.” This testifies to a uniquely close relationship and makes the Son very similar to God. Again, He is the perfect (but visible?) image of the invisible God (Col 1:15).

Physician

Ignatius described both the Father and the Son as physicians. He also describes the sinner as “diseased” and God’s aim as to “heal … restore … to health.” “Physician” is a most appropriate description of God’s attitude towards sinners: He is not an independent Judge, but a passionate Father (or Mother, for those of us who did not experience a loving father).

CONCLUSIONS

For Ignatius, the Father is “the only true God” and the only Being who exists without a cause. He distinguished between the “one God” and the “one Jesus Christ.”

According to the English translation, he described Jesus Christ as “our God.” However, the phrase “our God” is an interpretation. The Greek text simply says “our god.” To translate it as “our God” is an application of the Trinity doctrine; not proof thereof.

On the other hand, Ignatius did say that the Son was begotten “before time began.” That means that the Son has ‘always’ existed; that He existed as long as time existed.

There is also no evidence in the quotes above that Ignatius thought of the Holy Spirit as a self-aware Person, or that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of one substance or one Being, as per the Trinity doctrine.

Category: Trinity Doctrine