What did homoousios mean to the Nicene Council?

Introduction

Authors Quoted

Due to ancient documents that have become available, stimulating significant progress in research, scholars today explain the fourth-century Arian Controversy very differently. In fact, R.P.C. Hanson described the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, as was taught in the 19th century, as a complete travestyShow More

This article is based on books published during the last 50 years by specialists in the field. Show More

This article quotes extensively from these authors. However, to simplify reading, almost all quotes are hidden in ‘Show More’ sections. Nevertheless, since the scholarly view of the Controversy has changed so much, and since this is a highly controversial subject, these quotes are a crucial part of this article. 

Nicene Creed

The Nicene Creed, as formulated at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, is accepted by most denominations. It states that the Son was begotten from the substance (ousia) of the Father, therefore He is of the same substance (homoousios).

The word homoousios consists of two parts: homós = same + ousia = substance (see The Free Dictionary or GotQuestions). Via the Latin, it is sometimes translated as ‘consubstantial’.

Two Possible Meanings

Homoousios (same substance) has two possible meanings because the word “same” has two possible meanings. For example, when I say that John and I drive ‘the same car,’ it can mean that we drive one and the same car or two different cars of the same type. Similarly:

Homoousios (same substance) can mean that the Son is a distinct Being with the same type of substance as the Father, just like a human father and son have the same type of substance. This is called qualitative or generic sameness. Show More

Or it can mean that the Father and Son are a single substance (one Being). This is called numerical sameness because there is only one substance. Show More

Alternative Interpretations

Arius rejected both of these possible meanings. In his view, the Son’s substance is different from the Father’s:

“No doubt he (Arius) believed that the Father and the Son were of unlike substance, but he did not say so directly” (Hanson, p. 187). 

The Trinity doctrine teaches that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Being. In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, the Trinity doctrine has existed from the beginning of that controversy, and homoousios in the Nicene Council also meant ‘one substance’. However, the Trinity doctrine did not exist at the beginning but evolved over the fourth century. ‘Pro-Nicene’ theology only emerged after 360:

“The century is understood as one of evolution in doctrine” (Ayres, p. 13).

“This is not the story of a defence of orthodoxy, but of a search for orthodoxy” (Hanson, p. xix-xx).

“In the period after 360, we also begin to see the emergence of what I have termed throughout the book so far ‘pro-Nicene’ theology” (Ayres, p. 167). (See here for a discussion.) 

In reality, the view that the Son is distinct from and subordinate to the Father, which is today called Arianism, was orthodox when the Controversy began:

“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).

The “conventional Trinitarian doctrine with which Christianity entered the fourth century … was to make the Son into a demi-god … a second, created god lower than the High God” (Hanson Lecture). (See here for a discussion.)

Purpose

This article analyses what homoousios meant (1) before, (2) during, and (3) after Nicaea. It will show that scholars today conclude that homoousios at Nicaea did not mean ‘one substance’:

“We can therefore be pretty sure that homoousios was not intended to express the numerical identity of the Father and the Son” (Hanson, p. 202). Show More

Scholars conclude that it had a much looser, more flexible, and less specific meaning:

“Recent studies on the word homoousios have tended to show, not that it can be reduced to two meanings, one identifying two ousiai as one, and the other conveying a ‘generic’ sense of ‘God-stuff’ (Loofs), but that it was of a much looser, more flexible, indeed less specific and therefore less controversial significance” (Hanson, p. 170).

“Eusebius’ discussion nicely demonstrates the extent to which the promulgation of homoousios involved a conscious lack of positive definition of the term” (Ayres, p. 91). Show More

The Term Arian

As discussed here, the term ‘Arian’ is a complete misnomer because Arius did not develop a new heresy, had only a few real followers, did not leave behind a school of disciples, and was of no real significance after Nicaea. Scholars propose that the term ‘Eusebians’ would be more appropriate to describe the anti-Nicenes because Arius was a member of the group that followed Eusebius of Caesarea. Nevertheless, this article sometimes still uses the term ‘Arian’ because that is the term most people are familiar with.

Before Nicaea

Greek Philosophy and Egyptian Paganism used the term homoousios, not to say that two things are really one thing, but to compare distinct things. In other words, in these systems, it did not mean ‘one substance. Show More

As shown below, at Nicaea, Emperor Constantine insisted on the term. Beatrice suggests that Emperor Constantine proposed the term at Nicaea partly because he was familiar with it from Egyptian paganism (see article).


The Bible never refers to God’s substance and never says that the Son is homoousios with the Father. Show More


The second-century Gnostics used the term, not to say that two beings are one or even equal, but to describe distinct beings as “belonging to the same order of being” (Beatrice). Specifically, they used homoousios to say that lower deities are of ‘a similar kind’ as the highest deity from whom they emanated. However, the word homoousios in the Nicene Creed is not due to a Gnostic influence because “by the fourth century the Gnostic threat to the Christian faith was over” (Hanson, p. 856). Show More


Tertullian (155-220), writing in Latin, nowhere used a term equivalent to the Greek homoousios. However, he did use the term “substance,” and believed that God has a body (is a substance) and that the Son is part of God’s substance. In other words, he did believe that Father and Son are ‘one substance’ and a single hypostasis; a single “individual existence.” This would mean that the Father and Son are homoousios (of the same substance). Show More


Sabellius (fl. ca. 215) wrote in the early 3rd century. Sabellianism is named after him. He and his followers used homoousios to say that Father and Son are ‘one substance’ (a single hypostasis or Person). As discussed here, according to Von Mosheim, for Sabellius, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three parts of God. By the time of the Nicene Council, the church had formally rejected Sabellianism. Show More


Origen of Alexandria (c. 185 – c. 253), the most influential theologian of the first three centuries, did not use the term, despite claims to the contrary. He believed that the Son’s substance is different from the Father’s and was anxious to avoid the idea that the Father and the Son were of the same material. Show More

In opposition to Tertullian and Sabellius, who taught that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis, Origen believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases; three distinct Existences or Persons. Show More


Dispute between Rome and Alexandria – Around the year 260, there was a dispute between Rome and Alexandria about the term homoousios. It began when some Libyan Sabellians described the Son as homoousios with the Father. Show More

The bishop of Alexandria (Dionysius), overseeing the church in Libya, believing in three hypostases, rejected the term homoousios because Sabellius, who claimed that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis, used it. Show More

The Libyan Sabellians then appealed to the bishop of Rome (also named Dionysius). Like the Sabellians, Rome believed that Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person) and described the Son as homoousios with the Father. Show More

It seems as if Rome had some authority over Alexandria because it was able to persuade Alexandria to accept the term. However, Alexandria accepted it reluctantly and only as meaning two substances of the same type. In other words, in Alexandria, the term did not mean that Father and Son are one Being or equal. In the Alexandrian view, Father and Son were two distinct hypostases, with the Son subordinate to the Father. Show More


Condemned in 268 – More or less at the same time, Paul of Samosata used homoousios to describe Father and Son as a single hypostasis (Person). In 268, a council at Antioch condemned both Paul and the term homoousios as Sabellian. This fact caused the 4th-century pro-Nicenes considerable embarrassment. Show More


In conclusion, before Nicaea, only Sabellians favored the term. They include Sabellius himself, the Libyan Sabellians, Dionysius of Rome, and Paul of Samosata. For them, it meant that Father and Son are a single Person. 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 (two hypostases) of the same type. Therefore, when the Arian Controversy began, the term homoousios was regarded as Sabellian. Show More


Wikipedia – It is interesting to note that Wikipedia’s article on Homoousios (see here) avoids all discussion of the use of the term before Nicaea. It only mentions that the Gnostics used the term, but the Gnostics cannot be regarded as Christians. I attempted to add to Wikipedia’s article, but was banned from editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia reflects the version of the Arian Controversy which scholars still believed in the 19th century, and which was designed to bolster the Trinity doctrine, but which specialists in the field today describe as a complete travesty.


At Nicaea

The majority opposed Homoousios.

The term homoousios was a surprising innovation in the Nicene Creed

It is not found in the Holy Scriptures, did not appear in any precious creed, was not part of the standard Christian language of the day, was already condemned in 268 at a Council in Antioch as associated with Sabellianism, and was borrowed from pagan philosophy. Not even Alexander favoured the term. For example, a pro-Alexander meeting in Antioch a few months before the Nicene Council formulated a draft creed that “makes no use of the ousia language that we see in Nicaea’s creed” (Ayres, p. 51). Show More

Furthermore, ‘same substance’ implies that God has a body and that there is a kind of common ‘God-stuff’ shared by Father and Son. This made many theologians uncomfortable. Show More

For these reasons, the term homoousios seemed especially objectionable to most delegates at Nicaea

Almost all delegates to Nicaea were from the East, and we do not know of anybody in the East who unreservedly supports the concept that the Son is homoousion with the Father. Eusebius of Caesarea, the leader of the Easterners, accepted homoousion with “obvious reluctance” (Hanson, p. 165). Show More

Emperor Constantine enforced homoousios.

Given these strong objections, some powerful force must have caused its inclusion in the Creed. That powerful force was the emperor. As astounding as it might sound to people who grew up in a culture of separation of Church and State, in the Christian Roman Empire, the emperors were the final arbiters in doctrinal disputes:

“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, the Nicene Council, like all fourth-century general councils, was called and dominated by the emperor. It was not a church meeting. It was the Emperor’s meeting. He dominated it and ensured an outcome consistent with what he thought best:

“The history of the period shows time and time again that … the general council was the very invention and creation of the Emperor. General councils … were the children of imperial policy and the Emperor was expected to dominate and control them” (Hanson, p. 855). 

“Constantine took part in the Council of Nicaea and ensured that it reached the kind of conclusion which he thought best” (Hanson, p. 850). This included that he not only proposed the term, but he also used his position to enforce its inclusion, despite the reservations of most delegates. Show More

Emperor Constantine even dared to explain the term to that assembly of the church’s leaders

The Creed says that the Son is of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father because He is begotten from the Father’s substance. As stated, the Eusebians objected that this is unbiblical and untraditional language and sounds as if the Son was begotten like humans through a material, bodily process. Show More

To counter such objections and to enable the Eusebians (Arians) to accept these new terms, Constantine insisted that these terms must be understood without material connotation. That he was able to explain the term and that the meeting accepted his explanation show his dominant role in the council. Show More

Constantine interpreted the ousia terms figuratively. 

Constantine explained that these phrases merely mean that the Son is not out of any other substance, but out of the Father alone. “The creed’s technical terms are all interpreted to mean that the Son is like the Father, and is truly from the Father” (Ayres, 91). Show More

That figurative explanation of the contentious terms allowed almost all delegates to agree to the Creed. But the main point remains that these untraditional terms were included in the Creed due to the emperor’s domination of the council. For more details, see the discussion of Eusebius’ letter.

Why did Constantine insist on homoousios?

Another article argues that Constantine found the term agreeable because he was familiar with it through his contact with Egyptian paganism. But even if that is true, he would not have proposed the term without support from at least some of the delegates. This section shows that he insisted on this term because he had taken Alexander’s part in his dispute with Arius and because Alexander allied with the Sabellians, who preferred the term.

Like the Sabellians, Alexander believed that the Father and Son are a single Person (one hypostasis). 

The term hypostasis, meaning a distinct individual Existence, was the key term in the Arian Controversy. The core of the Controversy was whether the Son is distinct from the Father or part of the Father. The Eusebians (Arians) believed that the Son is a distinct hypostasis (a distinct Person). They believed that the Father, Son. and Spirit are three hypostases. In opposition to them, the Nicenes and Sabellians agreed that the Father and Son are one hypostasis (a single Person). Show More

Alexander’s one-hypostasis theology was in the minority

The delegates were drawn almost entirely from the eastern half of the empire, and, following Origen, the Easterners believed in three hypostases, meaning the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct Beings. Show More

Alexander joined forces with the Sabellians. 

Since he was opposed by a ‘three hypostases’ majority, and since his theology was similar to the Sabellians, Alexander joined forces with the leading Sabellians, Eustathius and Marcellus, against the Eusebians. Show More

The Emperor took Aleander’s part. 
“Constantine had taken Alexander’s part” (Ayres, p. 89). “This imperial pressure coupled with the role of his advisers in broadly supporting the agenda of Alexander must have been a powerful force” (Ayres, p. 89). 

It was probably Ossius, whom Constantine appointed as chair of the Nicene Council, and who was also his religious advisor, who advised the Emperor to take Alexander’s side. His humble position in the church, as bishop of the small city of Cordova, did not qualify him as chair of that assembly. He also believed in one hypostasis, similar to Alexander and the Sabellians. Show More

This made the Sabellians very powerful. 

Since the emperor had taken Alexander’s side, this alliance made the Sabellians influential at the council. Eustathius and Marcellus were both influential at the council and may have significantly influenced the wording of the Nicene Creed. Show More

Constantine did not insist on the term because Alexander preferred it.

This point was already made above. In his extant utterances, “Alexander never uses homoousios and indeed seems to be avoiding homoousios. Furthermore, just a few months earlier, the draft statement prepared by the pro-Alexander council at Antioch did not mention ousia or homoousios. Show More

Constantine insisted on homoousios because the Sabellians preferred the term

Since the 3rd-century Sabellians used and preferred the term homoousios, the Sabellians Marcellus and Eustathius seem likely to have endorsed homoousios, understood as meaning ‘one substance’. Once Emperor Constantine discovered that the Sabellians were in favour of homoousios, he pressed for its inclusion. Show More

Another indication of Sabellian domination in the Council is the anathema that confesses one hypostasis.  

The anathema in the Nicene Creed against all “who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance” implies that Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person) and substance. This is the hallmark of Sabellianism, implying that the Nicene Creed was a Sabellian victory. Show More

Therefore, the Creed was the work of a Minority

The decisions of Nicaea were really the work of a minority. A majority opposed the Nicene creed, and that majority also opposed some of Arius’ extreme statements. Show More

The emperor’s authority and support allowed the one-hypostasis minority to include the term homoousios in the Creed, despite the Sabellian history of the term and despite the objections raised by the majority.

The Eusebian (Arian) majority accepted the emperor’s figurative explanation.

The emperor’s figurative explanation allowed the Eusebian majority to accept the term, albeit reluctantly. They were able to reconcile that explanation with their view that the Son is distinct from and subordinate to the Father. Like Dionysius of Alexandria in the 3rd century, the Eusebians at Nicaea were forced to accept the term, but accepted it only with a generic meaning. Therefore, if we take the majority view of the term homoousios, it had a rather vague meaning, namely, that the Son was truly from the Father. Show More

But the Sabellian minority understood homoousios as meaning ‘one substance.’

The Sabellians, on the other hand, who preferred the term in the first place, understood it very differently, namely, as saying that the Father and Son are ‘one substance’; a single hypostasis (a single Person). Show More

Therefore, after the Council, the Sabellians claimed the Nicene Creed as a victory for their theology:

“In the controversies which erupted over Eustathius of Antioch and Marcellus after Nicaea, both thought their theologies faithful to Nicaea—and they had good grounds for so assuming. Both were influential at the council, and Nicaea’s lapidary formulations were never intended to rule out their theological idiosyncrasies” (Ayres, p. 99). 
However, the Eusebians (Arians) knew that this term implies Sabellianism

For that reason, the same church mainstream (the Eusebians) opposed the Creed after Nicaea:

“It was impossible to rid the term in the minds of many of Sabellian, if not Gnostic associations” (Hanson, p. 437).

“The language of that creed seemed to offer no prophylactic (prevention) against Marcellan doctrine, and increasingly came to be seen as implying such doctrine” (Ayres, p. 96, 97). Show More

The Nicene Creed was a Sabellian victory. 

There are several indications in the Creed that the Son is subordinate to the Father. For example, the Father alone is called “Almighty,” and the Son is God’s agent in creation (see here).

On the other hand, since homoousios was known to be a Sabellian term and given the anathema which implies a single hypostasis, perhaps it was a Sabellian victory.

Hanson says that Nicaea was a drawn battle. Simonetti says that the Creed includes a hint of opposition to the three hypostases theory, in favour of the Sabellian ‘one hypostasis’ theology. Ayres says that it is not an openly Sabellian creed. Since the Nicene Creed is known as the most important creed in the history of the church, perhaps our Trinitarian authors are hesitant to admit that it was a Sabellian victory:

“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). Show More

After Nicaea

Arius’ specific theology was also no longer at issue after Nicaea

He had some extreme views, such as that the Son was made out of nothing, but almost the entire Nicene Council rejected his theology:

“Arius’ own theology is of little importance in understanding the major debates of the rest of the century” (Ayres, p. 56-57).

“He virtually disappears from the controversy at an early stage in its course” (Hanson, xvii). Show More

Alexander was also not a main player after Nicaea. He died soon after Nicaea

“The Index to the Festal Letters of Athanasius dates the death of Alexander firmly to April 27th, 328” (Hanson, p. 175).

By reviving Sabellianism, Nicaea rekindled the Controversy. 

The Controversy after Nicaea was not caused by an an Arian Conspiracy, as is often claimed, but by the Sabellian elements in the Nicene Creed. In the 3rd century, Sabellianism was rejected, but the Nicene Council gave it new life.

“Nicaea has been a catalyst for conflict between pre-existing theological trajectories” (Ayres, p. 101). Show More

The conflict in the decade after Nicaea was specifically about the meaning of the term homoousios. The Sabellians claimed that the Nicene Council had accepted Sabellianism as its formal religion, but the Eusebians (Arians) insisted that the term does not imply Sabellianism. Show More

The Nicene Creed was abandoned after Nicaea. 

The same war that raged between the followers of Origen and the Sabellians in the third century and at Nicaea continued in the decade after Nicaea between the Eusebians (Arians) and the Sabellians. Again Origen’s theology triumphed. All leading pro-Nicenes were deposed. This decade may be called the ‘Post-Nicaea Correction’ because it closed the door to Sabellianism that was opened at Nicaea. Show More

Consequently, the term homoousios disappeared

Since the dispute between the Eusebians and Sabellians focused on the meaning of the term homoousios, the rejection of the Sabellians after Nicaea was also a rejection of the term homoousios. After the Sabellians were removed from their positions, the term homoousios also disappeared from the debate. Nobody mentioned homoousios for about two decades:

“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). Show More

For example, respectively 16 and 18 years after Nicaea, the Easteners formulated the Dedication Creed in 341 and the Westerners a Manifesto at the Council at Serdica in 343. Since both these creeds were formulated during the period when nobody mentioned homoousios, they do not mention the term. However, these councils focused on the more fundamental issue, of which homoousios was only a symptom, namely, whether the Son is a distinct Person. Show More

Athanasius did not defend homoousios in the 330s-340s

During the years 335-6, Athanasius and Marcellus were deposed by the Eastern Church. Meeting in Rome, they joined forces. At that time, Athanasius also developed his polemical strategy; his “masterpiece of the rhetorical art” (Ayres, pp. 106-7). However, in the 330s and 340s, Athanasius’ polemical strategy said nothing about homoousios. Show More

Athanasius revived homoousios in the 350s

By the time Constantius became emperor of the entire Empire in the early 350s, Athanasius had become extremely powerful, and Constantius attempted to isolate Athanasius. Show More

In this time of crisis for Athanasius, in the mid-350s, 30 years after Nicaea, he revived homoousios to strengthen his polemical strategy. In this way, homoousios came back into the Controversy. Athanasius had become the West’s “paragon” (model) (Hanson, p. 304). Following Athanasius, the West also began to support homoousios. Show More

Athanasius revised homoousios because his theology was similar to the Sabellians. 

Athanasius re-introduced the term into the Controversy because, as discussed here, like the Sabellians, he believed that the Father and Son are a single Person (one hypostasis). Specifically, he believed that the Son is part of the Father:

“In the Father we have the Son: this is a summary of Athanasius’ theology” (Hanson, p. 426).

“The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and Athanasius. Eustathius insists there is only one hypostasis“ (Ayres, p. 69). Show More

In response, the Eusebians united, not against Athanasius as such, but against Sabellianism. 

In the late 350s, after Athanasius had reintroduced homoousios into the Controversy, the Eusebians (the so-called Arians) opposed the term but had differing views about the Son’s substance. Nevertheless, they were united against Sabellianism. This confirms that homoousios was a Sabellian term and that Sabellianism remained the main enemy. Show More

Since Arius’ theology did not cause the Controversy, it should not be called the ‘Arian’ Controversy. Rather, since Sabellianism was already rejected in the third century but continued to oppose the Eusebian majority in the fourth, it could more appropriately be called the ‘Sabellian Controversy’.

The Cappadocians accepted homoousios but opposed traditional Nicene theology. 

Basil of Caesarea, the first Cappadocian father, who wrote in the 360s-370s. was the first to accept both the term homoousios and the view that the Son is a distinct Person. He did not follow Athanasius and did not base his theology on the Nicene Creed. He began as an Arian (a Homoiousian), but later also accepted that the Son is homoousios with the Father. However, while Athanasius and other traditional pro-Nicenes explained homoousios as meaning one substance and one hypostasis, Basil, like most other Easterners, taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct substances (three hypostases or Persons or Beings). Show More

Where Basil differed from the other Easterners is that he said that the three Persons have exactly the same type of substance. Show More

In other words, Basil opposed the traditional Nicene theology, as represented, for example, by Athanasius, in which the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (a single Person). Show More

In the 360s and 370s, in what is known as the Meletian Schism, Basil’s view of three hypostases brought him to oppose Athanasius and Westerners, who taught one hypostasis. Show More


The Core Issue

One or three Hypostases?

The core issue in the Controversy was whether the Son is a distinct Person. In the Greek of the fourth century, the core issue was whether the Son is a hypostasis (a distinct existence):

This controversy began in the second century. While the Monarchians said that ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ are two names for the same Person, Logos theology dominated, claiming that the Son is a distinct hypostasis.

In the third century, while the Sabellians confessed one hypostasis, Origen’s view dominated, teaching three hypostases.

In the fourth century, the Sabellians, Alexander, Athanasius, and the West continued teaching one hypostasis. With the emperor’s assistance, that view dominated at Nicaea, but the Eusebian three hypostases dominated for most of the century.

Later in that century, the Cappadocians taught three equal hypostases but were opposed by Athanasius and the Western pro-Nicenes, who taught one hypostasis (see here).

However, in 380, Emperor Theodosius made Western ‘one hypostasis’ theology the State Religion of the Roman Empire (see here).

(See here for a discussion of the Real Main Issue in the Controversy.)

Related to Homoousios

The term homoousios was not the core issue. For example, the term disappeared from the Controversy soon after Nicaea and only surfaced again in the 350s. But the term homoousios relates directly to the question of whether the Son is a distinct Person:

If the Father and Son are a single Person, then they are one substance (homoousios). It also follows that the Son, like the Father, is eternal and immutable. These theologians included Tertullian, the Sabellians, Paul of Samosata, Alexander, Athanasius, and the Western Church generally. Show More

But if the Son is a distinct Person, as Origen, Arius, and the Eusebians believed, then the Father alone exists without cause, which implies that the Son’s substance is different from the Father’s. At Nicaea, almost all Eusebians (Arians) accepted the term homoousios but not as meaning ‘same substance’. They had accepted the emperor’s figurative explanation of the term.

Ways of understanding the Bible

The core issue relates to two ways of understanding the Bible:

In the Old Testament, God is one. There is little indication of a second divine Being.

But the New Testament reveals a second divine Being, namely, the Son of God, who is also called ‘I am’ and ‘the First and the Last’, who is God’s Agent in the creation of all things and maintains all things. So, the question arose, how does the Son relate to the Father?

‘One hypostasis’ theology argues from the Old Testament and claims that, since the Old Testament asserts only one divine Being, the ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ must be one Person.

Three hypostases’ theology accepts the evidence from the New Testament that the Son is indeed a distinct divine Person. It identifies three divine Persons (three hypostases): the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.


Overview

The fourth-century Controversy continued the controversy of the preceding century, which was mainly between Sabellius’ one-hypostasis theology, which adopted the term homoousios, and Origen’s three hypostases, which rejected the term. In that century, Sabellianism was defeated.

However, at Nicaea, through the emperor’s support, a Sabellian ‘one hypostasis’ minority had the upper hand and was able to insert the term homoousios in the Creed, despite the majority’s objections. Emperor Constantine appeased the majority’s fears by explaining the terms ousia and homoousios highly figuratively, saying that it only means that the Son is truly from the Father. This enabled the Eusebian majority to accept the Creed.

After Nicaea, the Sabellians claimed that the term homoousios means that the church had accepted a one-hypostasis theology. This caused a few years of intense strife during which all leading Sabellians were exiled.

After that, nobody mentioned homoousios for more than two decades. For example, neither Athanasius nor the councils in the 340s mention homoousios. Rather, the focus was now on the more fundamental issue: whether the Son is a distinct Person (a hypostasis).

In the mid-350s, 30 years after Nicaea, Athanasius, who also had a ‘one hypostasis’ theology, brought the term back into the Controversy, causing the Eusebians to divide into three major views with respect to the Son’s substance.

In the 360-370s, Basil of Caesarea, the first Cappadocian father, was the first pro-Nicene to explain homoousios as three hypostases. This caused some fierce conflict between Basil and Athanasius.

In the end, the church was divided into at least the following factions:

Western pro-Nicenes defended homoousios and explained it as saying that Father and Son are a single hypostasis (one Person). (For example, at the Council of Serdica)

Eastern pro-Nicenes (the Cappadocians) also accepted homoousios but interpreted it in a generic sense, meaning three distinct but equal hypostases (see here).

Homoians Eusebians, who dominated the church for much of the 350s to 370s, rejected all talk of God’s substance, including the term homoousios (see here).

Homoiousian Eusebians claimed that the Son’s substance is similar to the Father’s, but not the same (see here).

Heterousian Eusebians taught that the Son’s substance is different from the Father’s.

In the year 380, Emperor Theodosius made the Western pro-Nicene view the State Religion of the Roman Empire and destroyed Arianism among the Romans through violent persecution (see here).

However, the other European nations remained ‘Arians.’ Consequently, after these other nations had taken control of the Western Empre in the fifth century, and divided it into various Arian kingdoms, Europe was Arian once again.

In the sixth century, the Eastern Emperor Justinian subjected the Arian kingdoms and set up the Byzantine Papacy, a system through which the Eastern Empire ruled the West through the Papacy. This continued for two centuries. During this period, the dominance of the Eastern Empire and the Roman Church converted all the Arian kingdoms to Nicene theology.

After the influence of the Eastern Empire dwindled in the West in the 8th century, the Roman Church managed to survive as a distinct organization and grew in power to become the Church of the Middle Ages. 

In conclusion, throughout the Controversy, the only people who regarded homoousios as saying that Father and Son are one substance, as the Trinity doctrine also claims, were the one-hypostasis (Sabellian) theologians. In reality, the Trinity doctrine continues ancient Sabellianism. (See here for a discussion of the Trinity doctrine.)


Other Articles

The doctrine of the Trinity deviates from the Nicene Creed.

This article series quotes extensively from leading scholars. Since not all readers are interested in detail, the green blocks summarize the longer sections. 

PURPOSE

The church adopted the Trinity doctrine at the conclusion of the fourth-century ‘Arian’ Controversy. However, discoveries of ancient documents and research over the past century have revealed that the traditional account of how and why the church accepted that doctrine is grossly distorted. Different articles in this series discuss different errors in the traditional narrative.

The current article addresses the false belief that the Trinity doctrine is consistent with the Nicene Creed of 325. For example, while the Creed uses hypostasis and ousia as synonyms, the Trinity doctrine uses these terms for contrasting concepts; Person and Being. And while the Creed asserts that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis, the Doctrine proclaims three hypostases. See here for a general discussion of the Trinity doctrine.

The New Terms in the Nicene Creed

To describe the Son of God, the Nicene Creed of 325 uses the terms hypostasis and ousia in three statements:

      • The Son is begotten “of the ousia of the Father,”
      • Father and Son are “homoousios,” meaning ‘same ousia’, and 
      • The Son is not “of another hypostasis or ousia.” (Ayres, p. 93)

These terms were not used in any previous Christian creed. A pro-Alexander pre-meeting was held in Antioch just a few months before Nicaea and not even the draft creed produced at that meeting used these terms. (Ayres, p. 92)

The Anathema …

This article focuses on the third instance, which is one of the Creed’s anathemas. Early Church Texts translates it as:

“But as for those … who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance [ousia] … these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.”

With the double negative removed, it says that the Son is of the same hypostasis and ousia as the Father. This seems to deviate from the Trinity doctrine in two ways:

Uses Hypostasis and Ousia as Synonyms.

Firstly, the traditional Trinity doctrine makes a distinction between the terms ousia and hypostasis, saying that God is one ousia (one Being) existing in three hypostases (three Persons); the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For example, the following is one possible definition of the Doctrine:

“The champions of the Nicene faith … developed a doctrine of God as a Trinity, as one substance or ousia who existed as three hypostases, three distinct realities or entities (I refrain from using the misleading word’ Person’), three ways of being or modes of existing as God.” (Hanson Lecture)

In contrast, the Anathema uses ousia and hypostasis as synonyms:

Ayres refers to “the seeming equation of ousia and hypostasis. (Ayres, p. 88)

R.P.C. Hanson says the Nicene Creed “apparently (but not quite certainly) identifies hypostasis and ousia.” (Hanson, p. 188)

Says that Father and Son are One Person.

A second difference between the Anathema and the Trinity doctrine is that, while the Trinity doctrine says that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases, the Anathema says they are a single hypostasis:

“The production of N … must have been deeply disturbing for many who could not seriously be described as Arian in sympathy but could not believe that God had only one hypostasis, as the creed apparently professed.” (Hanson, p. 274)

“That creed admits the possibility of only one ousia and one hypostasis.” (Hanson, p. 235)

A hypostasis is something that exists distinctly. When used for intelligent beings, it is often translated as ‘person’.

Purpose of this article

Therefore, the purpose of this article is to determine whether the Anathema:

    • Uses ousia and hypostasis as synonyms and 
    • Describes Father and Son as a single hypostasis.

Both the translation of the Anathema and the definition of the Trinity doctrine quoted above explain ousia as ‘substance’. Today, we generally understand ‘substance’ as “the real physical matter of which a person or thing consists.” However, the main purpose of the current article is to determine whether that was how the compilers of the Nicene Creed understood the term.

AUTHORS

This article is largely based on the following recent writings of world-class catholic scholars who are regarded as specialists in the fourth-century Arian Controversy:

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

Hanson, Bishop RPC
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

Anatolios, Khaled,
Retrieving Nicaea, 2011
Ebook edition

BEFORE NICAEA

Etymologically, they are synonyms.

In the earliest uses of these words known to scholars today, ousia and hypostasis were synonyms. 

Etymologically (i.e., relating to the origin and historical development of words and their meanings), hypostasis and ousia are direct cognates (See – Ousía and hypostasis from the philosophers to the councils). That means they have the same linguistic derivation, just like the English father, the German Vater and the Latin pater are cognates. In other words, originally, hypostasis and ousia had the same meaning.

Philosophy: Synonyms for Fundamental Reality

The compilers of the Nicene Creed borrowed these terms from Greek philosophy and that philosophy used these terms as synonyms for the fundamental reality that supports all else.

The authors of the Nicene Creed derived these terms from Greek philosophy. For example, Hanson refers to “the new terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy of the day.” (Hanson, p. 846) Show More

In Greek Philosophy:

Hypostasis is the underlying state or underlying substance and is the fundamental reality that supports all else.” (Wikipedia)

Note that both the terms hypostasis and ousia (substance) appear in this definition. In philosophy, a hypostasis was also a substance. Ancient Greek philosophers used these terms as synonyms for the primary, fundamental kind of being, in contrast to the objects in the sensible world which are mere shadows. In a Christian context, we might refer to “the fundamental reality” or Ultimate Reality as ‘God’.

Only one instance in the Bible

The compilers of the Creed did not obtain these terms from the Bible. The Bible never refers to God’s ousia and only once to God’s hypostasis. In that one instance, it is not clear whether hypostasis refers to God’s nature or His entire ‘Person’ (hypostasis). 

The word hypostasis “occurs five times in the New Testament.” (Hanson, p. 182) Four instances do NOT refer to God and are translated as ‘confidence’ and ‘assurance’ (2 Cor 9:4; 11:17; Heb 3:14; 11:1). The only instance where the term hypostasis describes God is Hebrews 1:3. 1“The only strictly theological use (of the word hypostasis) is that of Hebrews 1:3, where the Son is described as ‘the impression of the nature’ [hypostasis] of God.” (Hanson, p. 182) 2“The word also occurs twenty times in the LXX (the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament), but only one of them can be regarded as theologically significant. … At Wisdom 16:21 the writer speaks of God’s hypostasis, meaning his nature; and no doubt this is why Hebrews uses the term ‘impression of his nature’.” (Hanson, p. 182) In Hebrews 1:3, “the Son is described as the impression [exact image] of the Father’s hypostasis.” (Hanson, p. 187, 182) This is variously translated (BibleHub):

      • The exact representation of his being (NIV);
      • The exact imprint of his nature (ESV);
      • The express image of his person (King James & New King James);
      • The exact representation of His nature (NASB);
      • The very image of his substance (ASV);
      • The exact likeness of God’s own being (Good News)
      • The exact likeness of his being (ISV)
      • The very imprint of his being (New American)
      • The exact imprint of God’s very being (NRSV)

The three instances in red translate hypostasis as a characteristic or aspect of God but most versions translate it as referring to God as a distinct Individual or Person, meaning that the Son is the exact image of the Person of God, rather than of an aspect of God.

Hypostasis also occurs twenty times in the LXX (the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament), but only one instance uses this term to describe God. “At Wisdom 16:21 the writer speaks of God’s hypostasis … and no doubt this is why Hebrews uses the term ‘impression of his nature’.” (Hanson, p. 182)

Since the Bible never refers to God’s ousia and only once refers to His hypostasis, the use of the terms ousia and hypostasis in the Nicene Creed was not based on the Bible:

“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)

Origen: Synonyms for distinct Individual

Origen wrote at the beginning of the third century. He used these terms as synonyms. While ousia is today often understood as “substance,” Origen used both terms for the Persons of the Trinity as distinct Individuals, as opposed to their substance.

For example:

He “used hypostasis and ousia freely as interchangeable terms to describe the Son’s distinct reality within the Godhead.” (Hanson, p. 185) “He can say … that the Son is ‘different in ousia’ from the Father, meaning that he is a distinct entity from the Father.” (Hanson, p. 66-67)

“For Origen the words hypostasis … and ousia are … synonyms for … distinct individual entity.” (Hanson, p. 66-67)

While Origen wrote that the Son is “separate in hypostasis or ousia from the Father” (Hanson, p. 66-67), the Nicene Creed states the exact opposite and condemns those who say that He “is of a different hypostasis or substance.”

The vast majority of the delegates to Nicaea were from the Eastern church and were followers of Origen, implying that they used these terms in the same way.

For example:

At Nicaea, “around 250–300 attended, drawn almost entirely from the eastern half of the empire.” (Ayres, p. 19)

“The great majority of the Eastern clergy [at Nicaea] were ultimately disciples of Origen.” (Bible.ca, quoting W.H.C. Frend)

This implies that most delegates to Nicaea regarded these terms as synonyms for the ‘Person’ of God.

Williams refers to “the respectable pre-Nicene usage of ousia for primary (individual) substance.” (Williams, p. 164)

WHEN THE CONTROVERSY BEGAN

Used differently by different people

When the Controversy began, considerable confusion existed as different people used these terms differently.

Hanson discusses how several ancient theologians used these terms. Did they use these terms to describe the Father and Son as Individuals (Persons) or their substance?

      • “Eusebius of Nicomedia” used ousia to mean Person. He said, “there are two ousiai and two facts.” (Hanson, p. 185)
      • “Eusebius of Caesarea … uses ousia to mean substance.” (Hanson, p. 185)
      • “Alexander of Alexandria … does not use the word ousia, but instead uses hypostasis for both ‘Person’ and ‘substance’.” (Hanson, p. 186)
      • Arius used hypostasis for Person. He “spoke readily of the hypostases of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” (Hanson, p. 186)
      • Asterius, a leading anti-Nicene, “said that there were three hypostases.” In other words, he used hypostasis for ‘Person’. “But he also described the Son as ‘the exact image of the ousia and counsel and glory and power’ of the Father.” In other words, he used ousia for substance. “Once again we find a writer who clearly did not confuse ousia and hypostasis.” (Hanson, p. 187) What Hanson means is that Asterius made a distinction between the two terms and used them as we use them today.

Therefore, considerable confusion existed.

“Considerable confusion existed about the use of the terms hypostasis and ousia at the period when the Arian Controversy broke out.” (Hanson, p. 181)

“Several alternative ways of treating these terms were prevalent.” (Hanson, p. 184)

“That continuing terminological confusion is reflected in the seeming equation of ousia and hypostasis [in the Nicene Creed].” (Ayres, p. 98)

Synonyms for many

Although different people used these terms differently, many used these terms as synonyms.

For example:

“For many people at the beginning of the fourth century the word hypostasis and the word ousia had pretty well the same meaning.” (Hanson, p. 181)

Importantly, Athanasius, the paragon of the West, also used these terms as synonyms: “Clearly for him hypostasis and ousia were still synonymous.” (Hanson, 440)

“For at least the first half of the period 318-381, and in some cases considerably later, ousia and hypostasis are used as virtual synonyms.” (Hanson, p. 183)

MEANING CHANGED

Much later in the Century

The fourth century was a search for orthodoxy; not the defense of orthodoxy. The outcome of that Controversy, the Trinity doctrine, did not yet exist when the Nicene Creed was formulated. As a key part of that search for the doctrine of God, theologians changed the meanings of the terms ousia and hypostasis.

As confirmation that the Nicene Creed does not teach the Trinity doctrine, Lewis Ayres explains that ‘pro-Nicene theology’, which is what we today understand as the Trinity doctrine, was developed later in that century and differs from the theology of the Nicene Creed:

“By ‘pro-Nicene’ I mean those theologies, appearing from the 360s to the 380s … of how the Nicene creed should be understood. … These theologies build closely on and adapt themes found earlier in the century, but none is identical with any original ‘Nicene’ theology apparent in the 320s or 330s.” (Ayres, p. 6)

Consistent with the idea that theology evolved over the fourth century, the meanings of these two terms changed over that period:

“It is only much later in the century that the two are more clearly distinguished by some.” (Ayres, p. 98)

“When at last the confusion was cleared up and these two distinct meanings were permanently attached to these words,” hypostasis and ousia respectively meant “’person’ and ‘substance’.” (Hanson, p. 181)

By the Cappadocians

Some of the ‘Arians’ were the first to distinguish between hypostasis and ousia but the Cappadiocian fathers were the first pro-Nicenes to make that distinction. Based on their authority, the distinction became accepted in the Trinitarian church.

The Cappadocian fathers are traditionally credited for being the first to make a clear distinction between ousia and hypostasis:

“The first person to propose a difference in the meanings of hypostasis and ousía … was Basil of Caesarea.”3Johannes, “Ousía and hypostasis from the philosophers to the councils”

“Basil’s most distinguished contribution towards the resolving of the dispute about the Christian doctrine of God was in his clarification of the vocabulary.” (Hanson, p. 690)

Basil “is often identified” with the “distinction between a unitary shared nature at one level, and the personal distinctions of Father, Son, and Spirit at another.” (Ayres, p. 190-191)

In reality, some of the Eusebians, the so-called Arians, right at the beginning of the Controversy, already made a distinction between hypostasis and ousia and used ousia for ‘substance’; the material a Being consists of:

Arius used hypostasis for ‘Person’. For example, he “spoke readily of the hypostases of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And he said that the hypostases of Father, Son and Holy Spirit “were different in kind and in rank.” (Hanson, p. 187) But he used ousia for “substance.“ He wrote, for example, “The Logos is alien and unlike in all respects to the Father’s ousia.” (Hanson, p. 186) “It seems likely that he was one of the few during this period who did not confuse the two.” (Hanson, p. 187)

Asterius, another leading ‘Arian’, “clearly did not confuse ousia and hypostasis.” He used hypostasis for ‘Person’. For example, he “said that there were three hypostases” and “certainly taught that the Father and the Son were distinct and different in their hypostases.” But he used ousia for ‘substance’. For example, “he also described the Son as ‘the exact image of the ousia and counsel and glory and power’ of the Father.” (Hanson, p. 187)

What we can say is that the Cappadocians were the first pro-Nicenes to make that distinction. While Basil was a three-hypostasis theologian (see here), Athanasius and the earlier pro-Nicene theologians believed in one hypostasis (see here) and did not need a distinction between hypostasis and ousia.

THE CREED

Uses these terms as synonyms.

The fact that, at the time, many people used the two terms as synonyms supports our conclusion above that the Anathema uses them as synonyms. That confirms that the Nicene Creed deviates from the Trinity doctrine in which the distinction between ousia and hypostases is foundational, saying that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases but one ousia.

It would furthermore mean that, in the Nicene Creed, these two terms “did not mean, and should not be translated, ‘person’ and ‘substance’, as they were used when at last … these two distinct meanings were permanently attached to these words.” (Hanson, p. 181) In other words, the translation of the Anathema as quoted above mistakenly translates ousia as ‘substance’. 

Teaches only one hypostasis.

Since the Anathema, with the double negatives removed, says that the Son is of the same hypostasis or substance as the Father, it claims that Father and Son are one single hypostasis. This deviates from the Trinity doctrine which asserts three hypostases.

Is Sabellian.

However, to say that Father and Son are a single hypostasis (a single Person) is Sabellianism.

Sabellianism was already condemned as heresy in the third century. Scholars confirm that the Anathema implies Sabellianism:

“By the standard of later orthodoxy, as achieved in the Creed of Constantinople of 381, it is a rankly heretical (i.e. Sabellian) proposition, because the Son must be of a different hypostasis (i.e. ‘Person’) from the Father.” (Hanson, p. 167)

“The Creed of Nicaea of 325 … ultimately confounded the confusion because its use of the words ousia and hypostasis was so ambiguous as to suggest that the Fathers of Nicaea had fallen into Sabellianism, a view recognized as a heresy even at that period.” (Hanson’s Lecture)

“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) Eustathius and Marcellus were the most famous Sabellians of the fourth century. (See here.)

Confirmed by Sabellian domination

A Sabellian statement was included in the Creed because Sabellians dominated at Nicaea through their alliance with Alexander and through the emperor’s support for Alexander.

The reader may question why the Creed would include a Sabellian statement. This is explained in the article on the meaning of the term Homoousios. (See here.) In brief:

During the Arian Controversy, theologians were divided into ‘one hypostasis’ and ‘three hypostasis’ camps. Following Origen, the Eusebians (the so-called Arians) said that Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases (three distinct Persons), each with his distinct ousia. In opposition to them, Sabellians said that Father, Son, and Spirit are one single hypostasis (Person).

Alexander and Athanasius, similar to the Sabellians, maintained that Father, Son, and Spirit are one single hypostasis. (See here.) For that reason, at Nicaea, they were able to join forces with the Sabellians. Emperor Constantine took Alexander’s side in his dispute with Arius. This gave the Sabellians the upper hand at Nicaea.

It is, therefore, no surprise that the Creed presents Father and Son as one single hypostasis. However:

“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)

AGREES WITH THE ANATHEMA

However, if one goes beyond the formal wording of the Trinity doctrine to its essence, it does agree with the Anathema in two respects. Firstly, both describe the Father and the Son as a single hypostasis. Secondly, both use the terms ousia and hypostasis as synonyms.  

1. A Single Hypostasis

1a ‘Hypostases’ (Persons) are misleading.

Formally, the Trinity doctrine confesses the Father, Son, and Spirit to be three hypostases (Persons). However, that is misleading. A hypostasis is a distinct being with a unique mind but, in the Doctrine, the Trinity is a single Being with a single mind.

The Trinity doctrine says that the Father, Son, and Spirit are “one substance or ousia who existed as three hypostases [Persons].” This leads the reader to think of three distinct Entities because, in normal English, each ‘person’ is a distinct entity with his or her own mind. A hypostasis is also defined as an “individual existence” (Hanson, p. 193) or “distinct existences” (Litfin); something that exists distinctly from other things.  

However, in the Doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit do not exist distinctly. They are a single Being with a single mind. For example, the leading Catholic scholar Karl Rahner (The Trinity) wrote:

“The element of consciousness … does not belong to it [the Person] in our context [the official doctrine of the {Catholic} Church].” “But there exists in God only one power, one will, only one self-presence. … Hence self-awareness is not a moment which distinguishes the divine “persons” one from the other.”

“When today we speak of person in the plural, we think almost necessarily, because of the modern meaning of the word, of several spiritual centers of activity [minds], of several subjectivities [biases, views] and liberties [freedoms]. But there are not three of these in God. … There are not three consciousnesses; rather the one consciousness subsists in a threefold way. There is only one real consciousness in God, which is shared by the Father, Son, and Spirit, by each in his own proper way.”

In other words, the Father, Son, and Spirit share one single will, consciousness, and self-awareness.

“Each Person shares the Divine will … that come from a mind. … Each Person’s self-awareness and consciousness is not inherent to that Person (by nature of that Person being that Person) but comes from the shared essence.” (Rahner) 4“We must, of course, say that Father, Son, and Spirit possess self-consciousness and that each one is aware of the other two ‘persons’. But precisely this self-consciousness … comes from the divine essence, is common as one to the divine persons.” (Rahner) 

If the traditional Trinity doctrine taught three equal Minds, that would have been Tritheism. Other Catholic scholars confirm that the term ‘Person’ is misleading:

“The champions of the Nicene faith … developed a doctrine of God as a Trinity, as one substance or ousia who existed as three hypostases, three distinct realities or entities (I refrain from using the misleading word’ Person’), three ways of being or modes of existing as God.” (Hanson Lecture)

“By the conventions of the late fourth century, first formulated in Greek by the ‘Cappadocian Fathers’, these three constituent members of what God is came to be referred to as hypostases (‘concrete individuals’) or, more misleadingly for us moderns, as prosōpa (‘persons’).” (Anatolios, xiii) 5In contrast to the traditional Trinity doctrine, some modern theologians propose a ‘Social Trinity’ with “three Centres of Consciousness” (Hanson, p. 737), i.e., three ‘minds’, but this article only considered the standard, traditional Doctrine.

Rather than the word ‘Person’, Hanson above explains the hypostases in the Trinity doctrine as “three ways of being or modes of existing” of the same one God. This reminds us of Modalism, the name Von Harnack gave to second-century Monarchianism; the teaching that Father, Son, and Spirit are merely three names for the same Entity.

1b Origins do not make them distinct.

In the Doctrine, the only distinction between the ‘Persons’ is their origins, but that is an internal and invisible distinction within the one Being. It does not make them three ‘Persons’. So, the three-ness of God is a verbal formula without any practical implications. For us, in the Doctrine, God is only one Person.

In the Doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit differ only in their “relationships of origin;” the Son is begotten from the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father (and from the Son in Western theology). 6 For example, Karl Rahner, a leading Catholic scholar, in his book – The Trinity – says: “It follows that we must say that the Father, Son, and Spirit are identical with the one godhead and are ‘relatively’ distinct from one another. These three as distinct are constituted only by their relatedness to one another … in God everything is one except where there is relative opposition.”

However, that does not mean that they exist distinctly because, firstly, the Son did not separate from the Father when He was begotten and the Spirit also does not separate when He proceeds:

“The eternal generation of the Son occurs within the unitary and incomprehensible divine being;” “within the unitary and simple Godhead.” (Ayres, p. 236)

Secondly, that distinction is invisible to created beings:

“By the last quarter of the fourth century, halting Christian attempts … had led … to … ‘the doctrine of the Holy Trinity’: the formulated idea that the God … is Father and Son and Holy Spirit, as one reality or substance, operating outward in creation always as a unity, yet always internally differentiated by the relationships of origin that Father and Son and Holy Spirit have with one another.” (Anatolios, xiii)

Therefore, in the Doctrine, from the perspective of the created universe, the Father, Son, and Spirit are one single Being. That agrees with the Anathema.

We also see the one-ness of God reflected in how the Doctrine interprets the term homoousios. Literally, it means ‘same substance’, implying two Entities with the same kind of substance. (See here.) But the Doctrine interprets it as ‘one substance’, which depicts Father and Son God as a single Entity, which we can describe as one hypostasis or one Person.

1c Conclusion

So, despite the evolution of theology in the fourth century and despite the change in the meanings of the terms ‘ousia’ and ‘hypostasis,’ in reality, the Doctrine of the Trinity continues to explain God as the Anathema and Athanasius explained Him; a single hypostasis.

As discussed here, Athanasius believed in one hypostasis. Above we concluded that the Anathema also implies one hypostasis. In its essence, despite its formal wording, the Trinity doctrine is still one-hypostasis theology.

2. Ousia and Hypostasis as synonyms

The Doctrine does not interpret the term ousia in the Creed as ‘substance’ but as referring to the Being of God. In other words, similar to the Anathema, it interprets ‘ousia’ as an individual existence, which is what hypostasis means.

We argued above that the Anathema uses hypostasis and ousia as synonyms. 7Ayres refers to “the seeming equation of ousia and hypostasis. (Ayres, p. 88) We also noted that Athanasius used them as synonyms. 8“Clearly for him hypostasis and ousia were still synonymous.” (Hanson, 440)

The Doctrine uses the same two terms but, as already stated, by asserting three hypostases (three Persons) and one ousia (one Being), the Doctrine seems to give different meanings to the two terms. 

However, if ‘substance’ means “the real physical matter of which a person or thing consists,” note that the Doctrine does not interpret ousia as ‘substance’. It interprets it as a ‘Being’ – an individual existence, another way of saying Person or hypostasis.

In other words, similar to Athanasius and the Anathema, the Doctrine uses hypostasis and ousia as synonyms; both meaning an individual existence.


OTHER ARTICLES

FOOTNOTES

  • 1
    “The only strictly theological use (of the word hypostasis) is that of Hebrews 1:3, where the Son is described as ‘the impression of the nature’ [hypostasis] of God.” (Hanson, p. 182)
  • 2
    “The word also occurs twenty times in the LXX (the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament), but only one of them can be regarded as theologically significant. … At Wisdom 16:21 the writer speaks of God’s hypostasis, meaning his nature; and no doubt this is why Hebrews uses the term ‘impression of his nature’.” (Hanson, p. 182)
  • 3
    Johannes, “Ousía and hypostasis from the philosophers to the councils”
  • 4
    “We must, of course, say that Father, Son, and Spirit possess self-consciousness and that each one is aware of the other two ‘persons’. But precisely this self-consciousness … comes from the divine essence, is common as one to the divine persons.” (Rahner)
  • 5
    In contrast to the traditional Trinity doctrine, some modern theologians propose a ‘Social Trinity’ with “three Centres of Consciousness” (Hanson, p. 737), i.e., three ‘minds’, but this article only considered the standard, traditional Doctrine.
  • 6
    For example, Karl Rahner, a leading Catholic scholar, in his book – The Trinity – says: “It follows that we must say that the Father, Son, and Spirit are identical with the one godhead and are ‘relatively’ distinct from one another. These three as distinct are constituted only by their relatedness to one another … in God everything is one except where there is relative opposition.”
  • 7
    Ayres refers to “the seeming equation of ousia and hypostasis. (Ayres, p. 88)
  • 8
    “Clearly for him hypostasis and ousia were still synonymous.” (Hanson, 440)