Posted on by Andries van Niekerk

Homoian theology rejected Nicaea’s new terms.

The Nicene Creed of AD 325 said that the Son was begotten from the substance (ousia) of the Father and that He is of the same substance as the Father. The word in the Creed for “same substance” is homoousios (homo = same, ousia = substance).

In the fourth century, this was opposed by several church groups. Some said that the Son is homoi-ousios (of a similar substance) to the Father. Others said that He is heter-ousios (of a different substance). The Homoians (or Homoeans) were one of those groups that opposed the Nicene Creed but their approach was to avoid all uses of ousia-words on the grounds that “there is nothing written about them in divine Scripture and that they are above men’s knowledge and above men’s understanding.”

In particular, they opposed the term homoousios. They simply said that the Son is ‘like’ the Father, without reference to substance. From the Greek word for ‘like’ (hómoios), we get the name Homoian.

In “Homoian teaching … the Son … (and) the Father … were alike in energy or power or activity.” (Hanson, p. 574)

Summary

Origin of Homoian Theology

Homoian theology specifically opposed the word homoousios. However, during the first 20-25 years after Nicaea, nobody mentioned homoousios. Therefore, nobody also argued against it. Consequently, the Homoian theology did not yet exist

In the early 350s, after Constantius had become emperor of the entire Roman Empire and attempted to force Western councils to agree to the Eastern decrees, Athanasius resurrected homoousios to resist the emperor’s effort. It was only after Athanasius included homoousios in his polemical strategy that the West began to defend that term and that Homoian theology emerged.

To explain in a bit more detail:

Homoian theology is specifically anti-Nicene; particularly anti-ousia-language. They were “refusing to allow ousia-terms of any kind into professions of faith.” (Williams, p. 234)1Archbishop Rowan Williams Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987 It specifically opposes the word homoousios in that Creed.

However, “for nearly twenty years after Nicaea, nobody mentions homoousios, not even Athanasius.” (Hanson, p. 170)2Bishop R.P.C. Hanson The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987

And since nobody argued for homoousios, nobody also argued against it. Consequently, during those 25 years after Nicaea, the Homoian theology did not yet exist. “Only in the 350s do we begin to trace clearly the emergence of directly anti-Nicene accounts.” (Ayres, p. 139)3Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its legacy, 2004. Ayres is a Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology at Durham University in the United Kingdom.

During those 20-25 years after Nicaea, Athanasius developed “the full flowering of a polemical strategy that was to shape accounts of the fourth century for over 1,500 years;” “a masterpiece of the rhetorical art.” (Ayres, p. 106-7)

“Athanasius appealed to Julius of Rome in 339–40 by using his strategy of narrating a theological conspiracy of ‘Arians’. His success had a profound impact on the next few years of the controversy.” (Ayres, p. 108) At this stage, homoousios was not yet part of this strategy.

“Over the period AD 351–3 … the eastern Emperor Constantius achieved complete control of the whole empire.” He pushed “for a unified religious policy throughout his domains.” (Ayres, p. 133) “Through the 350s … we seem to see a growing opposition to Constantius’ attempts to force western councils to agree to the decrees of Sirmium 351.” (Ayres, p. 136)

In response, Athanasius resurrected homoousios and included it in his polemical strategy. “Athanasius’ decision to make Nicaea and homoousios central to his theology has its origins in the shifting climate of the 350s.” (Ayres, p. 144)

“In most older presentations, ‘western’ bishops were taken to be natural and stalwart defenders of Nicaea throughout the fourth century. The 350s show how Nicaea only slowly came to be of importance in the west.” (Ayres, p. 135) The West only began to support Nicaea after Athanasius included homoousios in his polemical strategy.

Thereafter, in the late 350s, Homoian theology emerged. “We cannot with confidence detect it (Homoian Arianism) before the year 357, when it appears in the Second Sirmian Creed.” (Hanson, p. 558)

The Dominant View

The Homoian view dominated during much of the Arian Controversy:

Homoian theology “was a development of the theology of Eusebius of Caesarea” (Hanson, p. 557). “Eusebius of Caesarea, the historian and theologian” (Ayres, p. 58) “was the most learned and one of the best-known of the 300-odd bishops present” at Nicaea. (Hanson, p. 159) Therefore, Homoian theology really already existed before the Nicene Creed was formulated.

“The Homoian group came to dominance in the church in the 350s” (Hanson, p. 558–559.) “Homoian Arians … had obtained power under Constantius from 360 to 361 and under Valens from 364 onwards.” (Hanson, p. 575) Homoian theology continued to dominate until Theodosius became emperor and immediately outlawed all non-Trinitarian branches of Christianity.

However, Marta Szada concluded that “the Latin Homoian Church survived long into the fifth century and had an active role in the process of converting the Goths into the Homoian Christianity.”

Theology

The main pillar of Homoian doctrine is “the incomparability of God the Father.” (Hanson, p. 563) For example, only the Father is Invisible, Immortal, and Ingenerate (exists without cause).

It also opposed Arius’ theology which said that the Son was created by the Father ‘out of non-existence’.”

“A drastic subordination of the Son to the Father had been the keynote of this school of thought.” (Hanson, p. 567) “It is characteristic of this type of Arianism to teach that the Father is the God of the Son.” (Hanson, p. 568)

But they did refer to the Son as “God.” (Hanson, p. 570) “The Son was God or divine while not being fully equal to the Father.” (Hanson, p. 574) See – Did the church fathers describe Jesus as “god” or as “God?”

“The status of the Spirit in Homoian teaching is emphatically short of divine.” The Spirit “is … not to be worshipped nor adored.” (Hanson, p. 571)

Sola Scriptura

“They prided themselves on their appeal to Scripture. … they pointed out that homoousios and ousia did not occur in the Bible.” (Hanson, p. 559) “The Homoian Arians … were not particularly interested in philosophy:” (Hanson, p. 568) They were, therefore, the Protestants of the fourth century.

Objections to Homoousios

Those Pro-Nicenes who view the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as Three were accused of “Tritheism.” (Hanson, p. 576)

But those who view Them as One were accused by the Homoians of “Sabellianism.” (Hanson, p. 575, 576)

Homoian Creeds

As stated, Homoian theology is particularly anti-Nicene and anti-ousia-language. Since, during the first 25 years after Nicaea, nobody used or defended ousia language, we find the first Homoian creeds in the 350s.

“The confession of 357 [the third Council of Sirmium] … text demonstrates … the emergence of ‘Homoian’ theology.” (Ayres, p. 138)

The two main Homoian Creeds are “the Second Sirmian Creed of 357” and “the Creed of Nice (Constantinople) (of 360).” (Hanson, p. 558-9)

– END OF SUMMARY –

Authors

This article is largely based on the following recent writings of world-class scholars:

Hanson – A lecture by R.P.C. Hanson in 1981 on the Arian Controversy.

Hanson, Bishop R.P.C.
The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God –
The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987

Williams, Archbishop Rowan
Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987

Ayres, Lewis
Nicaea and its legacy, 2004
Ayres is a Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology at Durham University in the United Kingdom.

Origin of Homoian Theology

Anti-Ousia

Homoian theology is specifically anti-Nicene. Particularly, it opposes all ousia-language. They were “refusing to allow ousia-terms of any kind into professions of faith.” (Williams, p. 234)4Archbishop Rowan Williams Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987 For example, the Sirmian Manifesto (AD 357) said, concerning the ousia-terms:

There “ought to be no mention of any of them at all, nor any exposition of them in the Church, and for this reason and for this consideration that there is nothing written about them in divine Scripture and that they are above men’s knowledge and above men’s understanding.” (Athan., De Syn., xxviii; Soz., ii, xxx; Hil., De Syn., xi)

Nobody mentioned homoousios.

Nobody mentioned homoousios during the first 20-25 years after Nicaea:

“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)5Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its legacy, 2004. Ayres is a Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology at Durham University in the United Kingdom.

Nobody attacked homoousios.

Since nobody argued for homoousios, nobody also argued against it during those 25 years after Nicaea:

“There is no single theology of opposition to Nicaea. 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)

Athanasius’ Polemical Strategy

During those 25 years, Athanasius developed his polemical strategy:

“Athanasius’ engagement with Marcellus in Rome seems to have encouraged Athanasius towards the development of” “an increasingly sophisticated account of his enemies;” “the full flowering of a polemical strategy that was to shape accounts of the fourth century for over 1,500 years;” “a masterpiece of the rhetorical art.” (Ayres, p. 106-7)

Athanasius did not describe the Arian Controversy truthfully but misrepresented it:

“If Athanasius’ account does shape our understanding, we risk misconceiving the nature of the fourth-century crisis” (Williams, p. 234).

“Once we begin to grasp the problems with Athanasius’ rhetorical unmasking of ‘Arians’ then we need to look beyond the Athanasian terminology of an ‘Arian’ conspiracy to get a more accurate sense of how to understand non-Marcellan and non-Athanasian eastern theologies during this period.” (Ayres, p. 432)

See The Creation of ‘Arianism’ for a discussion of that strategy.

Rome accepted this strategy.

Athanasius was able to sell his polemical strategy to the bishop of Rome:

“Athanasius appealed to Julius of Rome in 339–40 by using his strategy of narrating a theological conspiracy of ‘Arians’. His success had a profound impact on the next few years of the controversy.” (Ayres, p. 108)

Julius of Rome held a council in Rome which “quickly vindicated Marcellus and Athanasius.” (Ayres, p. 109)

“Julius wrote to the east in 341 in a letter which shows the strong influence of the emerging Athanasian account of ‘Arianism’.” (Ayres, p. 109)

At this stage, homoousios was not yet part of this strategy.

Constantius pushed for a unified policy.

In the early 350s, after Constantius had become emperor of the entire empire in the early 350s, he attempted to force Western councils to agree to the creed of Sirmium 351, which had become the standard in the East:

“Over the period AD 351–3, and after a complex civil war, the eastern Emperor Constantius achieved complete control of the whole empire.” “At this point Constantius found himself sole ruler of the Roman world and with the ability to push for a unified religious policy throughout his domains in a way no emperor had been able to do since the death of his father in 337.” (Ayres, p. 133)

“Through the 350s … we seem to see a growing opposition to Constantius’ attempts to force western councils to agree to the decrees of Sirmium 351.” (Ayres, p. 136)

Athanasius resurrected homoousios.

In the 350s, Athanasius decided to make Nicaea and homoousios central to his theology:

“During the 350s Athanasius honed his polemic.” (Ayres, p. 140)

“Athanasius’ decision to make Nicaea and homoousios central to his theology has its origins in the shifting climate of the 350s.” (Ayres, p. 144)

It was only after Athanasius included homoousios in his polemical strategy that the West began to defend that term:

“In most older presentations, ‘western’ bishops were taken to be natural and stalwart defenders of Nicaea throughout the fourth century. The 350s show how Nicaea only slowly came to be of importance in the west.” (Ayres, p. 135)

Athanasius and the West did not defend Nicaea because they have always defended Nicaea. Rather, after Constantius attempted to force them to accept the Eusebian Creeds, they turned to Nicaea to strengthen their existing opposition:

“It seems unlikely that previous adherence to Nicaea motivated their growing opposition: it is much more likely that events in the second half of the decade prompted a turn to Nicaea as a focus for their already strong opposition.” (Ayres, p. 136)

In the ‘West’ there were, already before 357, “the beginnings of attempts on the part of a few to turn to Nicaea as a standard against the direction of Constantius’ policies. Events of 357 deeply shaped this movement.” (Ayres, p. 139)

Homoian theology emerged.

In response to Athanasius’ decision to rely on homoousios to strengthen his polemical strategy, Homoian theology, which directly opposed ousia-language, emerged in the late 350s:

“Though Homoian Arianism derived from the thought both of Eusebius of Caesarea and of Arius, we cannot with confidence detect it before the year 357, when it appears in the Second Sirmian Creed.” (Hanson, p. 558)

The Dominant View

The Homoian view dominated during much of the Arian Controversy:

Eusebius of Caesarea

Homoian theology “was a development of the theology of Eusebius of Caesarea” (Hanson, p. 557):

“Homoian Arianism derived from the thought both of Eusebius of Caesarea and of Arius.” (Hanson, p. 558)

“Akakius of Caesarea is usually regarded as the leader of the Homoian Arians par excellence. … He was clearly a devoted disciple of his predecessor.” (Hanson, p. 579-580) Hanson refers to Eusebius of Caesarea as “Akakius’ master.” (Hanson, p. 583)

“Eusebius of Caesarea, the historian and theologian” (Ayres, p. 58) “attended the Council of Nicaea in 325” (Hanson, p. 47), was “universally acknowledged to be the most scholarly bishop of his day” (Hanson, p. 46; cf. 153), and “was the most learned and one of the best-known of the 300-odd bishops present” at Nicaea. (Hanson, p. 159)

Lewis Ayres identifies “the Eusebians” (the followers of Eusebius of Caesarea) as one of the four “trajectories” within Christianity when the Arian Controversy began. Therefore, since Homoian theology was a development of the Eusebians’ theology within the context of an attack on Eusebian theology on the basis of the Nicene Creed, Homoian theology really already existed before the Nicene Creed was formulated.

Dominated as from the 350s.

“The Homoian group came to dominance in the church in the 350s” (Hanson, p. 558–559.) “Homoian Arianism is a much more diverse phenomenon, more widespread and in fact more longlasting.” (Hanson, p. 557)

Throughout the Arian Controversy, the church’s Doctrine of God was decided by the Roman Emperors:

“If we ask the question, what was considered to constitute the ultimate authority in doctrine during the period reviewed in these pages, there can be only one answer. The will of the Emperor was the final authority.” (Hanson, p. 849)

Similarly, Homoian theology continued to dominate under emperors Constantius and Valens:

“Homoian Arians … had obtained power under Constantius from 360 to 361 and under Valens from 364 onwards.” (Hanson, p. 575)

“By 366 Valens the supporter of Homoian Arianism ruled in the East and Valentinian, the Western Emperor, was keeping as far as possible neutral in religious matters.” (Hanson, p. 595)

“The Emperor in the East, Valens, … was a fanatical opponent of the pro-Nicenes, as also of the Eunomians, and a supporter of the Homoian creed.” (Hanson, p. 582, 588)

Homoian theology continued to dominate until, in 380, Theodosius became emperor and immediately outlawed all non-Trinitarian branches of Christianity with the Edict of Thessalonica:

“When Theodosius had entered Constantinople in November 380 he had given the Homoian Demophilus the chance to remain as bishop if he subscribed to Nicaea. When he did not he was exiled.” (Ayres, p. 253)  

Continued after 381

Marta Szada wrote:

“Frequently, studies focusing on the fourth-century Trinitarian controversy stop at the 380s and emphasize the importance of the Council of Constantinople and the Council of Aquileia in 381, and the end of Italian rule of the last Homoian emperor, Valentinian II. In very common interpretation, these events mark the virtual end of the Latin Homoianism … In the present paper … I argue that the Latin Homoian Church survived long into the fifth century and had an active role in the process of converting the Goths into the Homoian Christianity.”6Marta Szada, The Missing Link: The Homoian Church in the Danubian Provinces and Its Role in the Conversion of the Goths, Published 1 December 2020, Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum / Journal of Ancient Christianity)

Theology

The incomparability of God

The main pillar of Homoian doctrine is “the incomparability of God the Father.” (Hanson, p. 563) They had “a long list of texts … to demonstrate the incomparability of the Father.” (Hanson, p. 560) For example:

Invisible – “Christ is the visible God (the Father being the invisible God).” (Hanson, p. 569)

Immortal – “Christ is not the immortal God (for he is mortal, that is capable of in some sense encountering death, in contrast to the Father who is immortal).”

Ingenerate (exists without cause) – ‘We confess … one God, not two gods, for we do not describe him as two ingenerates.” (Hanson, p. 570)

Anti-Arius

Homoian theology also opposed Arius because it opposed the key aspect of Arius’ theology “that the Son was created by the Father ‘out of non-existence‘.” For example, the creed of the council of Ariminum anathematized those who say “that the Son is from nothing, and not from God the Father.” (Hanson, p. 564-5)

A Suffering God

The Homoian system was designed to avoid “the risk of saying that the Father suffered.” (Hanson, p. 566) “But they were perfectly ready to say that God the Son suffered. Indeed, their Christology was specifically designed to do so.” (Hanson, p. 565) “Here, they were on stronger ground than the pro-Nicenes, whose Christology … always wanted to avoid of concluding that the full, authentic Godhead suffered.” (Hanson, p. 566)

Christ is subordinate.

“A drastic subordination of the Son to the Father had been the keynote of this school of thought.” (Hanson, p. 567)

“The Son is eternally … subordinated to the Father,” even after everything is completed that must be done for our salvation. (Hanson, p. 567)

“It is characteristic of this type of Arianism to teach that the Father is the God of the Son.” Therefore, the Son “worships the Father.” (Hanson, p. 568)

Christ is divine.

But they did refer to the Son as “God.” For example, they described Him as “God from God.” (Hanson, p. 570) However, “they pointed out that the word ‘god’ in the Bible was in several places applied to beings much inferior to God Almighty (and was therefore applicable in a reduced sense to Christ), e.g., Exod 7:1, Ps 82(81):6.” (Hanson, p. 560)

“In the intellectual climate of the fourth century, it was quite logical to maintain that the Son was God or divine while not being fully equal to the Father.” (Hanson, p. 574) For a further discussion, see – Did the church fathers describe Jesus as “god” or as “God?”

The Holy Spirit

“The status of the Spirit in Homoian teaching is emphatically short of divine.” “The Holy Spirit is created, and this certainly implies that, unlike the Son, he is not God.” (Hanson, p. 571) The Spirit “is … not to be worshipped nor adored.” (Hanson, p. 571)

Sola Scriptura

The Homoians claimed that their theology is based on the Bible alone:

“The Arians tended … to avoid allegorising. … They tend to take Scripture literally.” (Hanson, p. 559)

“They prided themselves on their appeal to Scripture. … they pointed out that homoousios and ousia did not occur in the Bible. ‘We do not call the Holy Spirit God … because Scripture does not call him (so)’.” (Hanson, p. 559)

“Truth is discovered not from argument but is proved by reliable proof-texts.” (Hanson, p. 561)

“The Homoian Arians … were not particularly interested in philosophy:” (Hanson, p. 568)

“The theologians of the fourth century … use the terminology of Greek philosophy. … It was never accepted by the Homoian Arians).” (Hanson, p. 871)

They were, therefore, the Protestants of the fourth century. They rejected all ousia-terms, including homoousion (same in substance), homoi-ousion (similar substance), and heter-ousion (different substance).

Objections to Homoousios

“In their attack on the Nicene doctrine, Homoian Arians take several different lines.” (Hanson, p. 575) For example:

“This talk of ‘substance’ is corporeal, material.” (Hanson, p. 576)

“If you argue that the Holy Spirit is of the same substance as the Son you are making him a Son of the Father also.” (Hanson, p. 576)

The Pro-Nicenes “sometimes worships the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as if they were Three, and sometimes worships them as One” (Hanson, p. 576)

Pro-Nicenes who view the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as if they were Three were accused by the Homoians of “Tritheism.” (Hanson, p. 576): “Three Eternals … Three without origin” (Hanson, p. 575); “Three Almighty Gods” (Hanson, p. 577).

Pro-Nicenes who view the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as if they were One were accused by the Homoians of “Sabellianism.” (Hanson, p. 575, 576) “The term homoousion is in effect to say that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are identical.” (Hanson, p. 575-6) “Teaching that the Three are inseparable and equal identify them.” (Hanson, p. 576) (Sorry for the ambiguous words “identical” and “identify.” In these quotes, they mean that three are really one.)

See the discussion of the Meletian Schism for the two views in the homoousian camp.

Homoian Creeds

As stated, Homoian theology is particularly anti-Nicene and anti-ousia. Since, during the first 25 years after Nicaea, nobody mentioned or used or defended the Nicene Creed or ousia language, there were also no anti-Nicene creeds or statements during that period.

Sirmium 351

The first sign of an anti-Nicene doctrine was the creed of Sirmium 351:

“Sirmium 351 had not only omitted ousia language, but positively condemned some uses of that language.” (Ayres, p. 138)

“Most significant of all, perhaps, is the appearance of anathemas directly and explicitly aimed at N.” (Hanson, p. 328) “This creed marks a definite shift towards a more sharply anti-Nicene doctrine.” (Hanson, p. 329)

Sirmium 357

“The confession of 357 [the third Council of Sirmium] even more strongly argues against ousia language, condemning use of it,” saying, “there should be no mention of it whatever, nor should anyone preach it.” “This text demonstrates … the emergence of ‘Homoian’ theology.” (Ayres, p. 138)

Constantinople 360

The two main Homoian Creeds are “the Second Sirmian Creed of 357” and “the Creed of Nice (Constantinople) (of 360).” (Hanson, p. 558-9) “The creed of Nice-Constantinople … was temporarily registered as ecumenical in 360.” (Hanson, p. 557)

OTHER ARTICLES

FOOTNOTES

Your comment is important.

Proudly powered by WordPress

Table of Contents

→ TABLE OF CONTENTS