Homoousion

Homoousion (/ˌhɒmoʊˈuːsiən/ HOM-oh-OO-see-ən; Greek: ὁμοούσιος, translit. homooúsios, lit. 'one in being', from ὁμός, homós, "same" and οὐσία, ousía, "being") is a Christian theological doctrine pertaining to the Trinitarian understanding of God. The Nicene Creed describes Jesus as being ὁμοούσιος, "one in being" or "of single essence", with God the Father. It is one of the cornerstones of theology in Nicene Christianity.

The term was adopted at the First Council of Nicaea to clarify the ontology of Christ. In Latin, which is lacking a present participle of the verbum substantivum, the translation consubstantialis is used (substantia being the traditional Latin translation of the Aristotelian term ousia).

Pre-Nicene usage

The term ὁμοούσιος had been used before its adoption by the First Council of Nicaea. The Gnostics were the first to use the word ὁμοούσιος, while before the Gnostics there is no trace at all of its existence.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] The early church theologians were probably made aware of this concept, and thus of the doctrine of emanation, taught by the Gnostics.[11] In Gnostic texts the word ὁμοούσιος is used with the following meanings:

For example, Basilides, the first known Gnostic thinker to use ὁμοούσιος in the first half of the 2nd century AD, speaks of a threefold sonship consubstantial with the god who is not.[12][13] The Valentinian Gnostic Ptolemy claims in his letter to Flora that it is the nature of the good God to beget and bring forth only beings similar to, and consubstantial with, himself.[14] The term ὁμοούσιος was already in current use by the 2nd-century Gnostics, and through their works it became known to the orthodox heresiologists, though this Gnostic use of the term had no reference to the specific relationship between Father and Son, as is the case in the Nicene Creed.

Adoption in the Nicene Creed

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

Origen seems to have been the first ecclesiastical writer to use the word ὁμοούσιος in a nontrinitarian context,[lower-alpha 1] but it is evident in his writings that he considered the Son's divinity lesser than the Father's, since he even calls the Son a creature.[16] It was by Athanasius of Alexandria and the Nicene Council that the Son was taken to have exactly the same essence with the Father, and in the Nicene Creed the Son was declared to be as immutable as his Father.[17]

While it is common to find assertions that Origen and other early apologist Church fathers held subordinationist views, some researchers emphasize the "anti-subordinationism" of Origen.[18][19] For example, Origen himself wrote:

And that you may understand that the omnipotence of Father and Son is one and the same, as God and the Lord are one and the same with the Father, listen to the manner in which John speaks in the Apocalypse: "Thus saith the Lord God, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." For who else was "He which is to come" than Christ? And as no one ought to be offended, seeing God is the Father, that the Saviour is also God; so also, since the Father is called omnipotent, no one ought to be offended that the Son of God is also called omnipotent. For in this way will that saying be true which He utters to the Father, "All Mine are Thine, and Thine are Mine, and I am glorified in them." Now, if all things which are the Father's are also Christ's, certainly among those things which exist is the omnipotence of the Father; and doubtless the only-begotten Son ought to be omnipotent, that the Son also may have all things which the Father possesses.[20]

And also says:

As therefore the Son in no respect differs from the Father in the power of His works, and the work of the Son is not a different thing from that of the Father, but one and the same movement, so to speak, is in all things, He therefore named Him a stainless mirror, that by such an expression it might be understood that there is no dissimilarity whatever between the Son and the Father.[20]

And again:

This is most clearly pointed out by the Apostle Paul, when demonstrating that the power of the Trinity is one and the same, in the words, "There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit; there are diversities of administrations, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God who worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit: withal." From which it most clearly follows that there is no difference in the Trinity, but that which is called the gift of the Spirit is made known through the Son, and operated by God the Father.[20]

Both the Nicene[21] and Athanasian [22] creeds affirm the Son as both begotten of, and equal to, His Father. If so, many concepts of the Holy Trinity would appear to have already existed relatively early while the specific language used to affirm the doctrine continued to develop.[23][24][25][26]

Some theologians preferred the use of the term ὁμοιούσιος (homoioúsios, from ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar", rather than ὁμός, homós, "same") in order to emphasize distinctions among the three persons in the Godhead, but the term ὁμοούσιος became a consistent mark of Nicene orthodoxy in both East and West. According to this doctrine, Jesus Christ is the physical manifestation of Logos (or the Word), and consequently possesses all of the inherent, ineffable perfections which religion and philosophy attribute to the Supreme Being. In the language that became universally accepted after the First Council of Constantinople in AD 381, three distinct and infinite hypostases, or divine persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, fully possess the very same divine ousia.

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

All of these positions and the almost innumerable variations on them which developed in the 4th century were strongly and tenaciously opposed by Athanasius and other pro-Nicenes, who insisted on the doctrine of homoousion or consubstantiality, eventually prevailing in the struggle to define this as a dogma of the still-united Western and Eastern churches for the next two millennia when its use was confirmed by the First Council of Constantinople. The struggle over the understanding of Christ's divinity was not solely a matter for the Church. The Roman Emperor Theodosius had published an edict, prior to the Council of Constantinople, declaring that the Nicene Creed was the legitimate doctrine and that those opposed to it were heretics.[27]

It has also been noted that this Greek term ὁμοούσιος, which Athanasius favored and which was ratified in the Nicene Council and Creed, was actually a term reported to also be used and favored by the Sabellians in their Christology. It was a term with which many followers of Athanasius were actually uncomfortable. The so-called Semi-Arians in particular objected to the word ὁμοούσιος. Their objection to this term was that it was considered to be "un-Scriptural, suspicious, and of a Sabellian tendency."[28] This was because Sabellius also considered the Father and the Son to be "one substance," meaning that, to Sabellius, the Father and Son were "one essential Person", though operating as different faces, roles, or modes. This notion, however, was also rejected at the Council of Nicaea, in favor of the Athanasian Creed, which holds the Father and Son to be distinct yet also coequal, coeternal, and consubstantial divine persons.

Notes

  1. ↑ In an exegetical comment on Heb. 1:3, cited in the first book of the Apology for Origen by Pamphilus and Eusebius, Origen explains the special relationship of Christ, the Wisdom of God (Wisd. 7:25), with the Father:
    Vaporis enim nomen inducens hoc ideo de rebus corporalibus assumpsit, ut vel ex parte aliqua intelligere possimus quomodo Christus, qui est Sapientia, secundum similitudinem eius vaporis qui de substantia aliqua corporea procedit, sic etiam ipse ut quidem vapor exoritur de virtute ipsius Dei. Sic et Sapientia ex eo procedens ex ipsa substantia Dei generatur; sic nilominus, et secundum similitudinem corporalis aporrhoeae, esse dicitur aporrhoea gloriae Omnipotentis, pura et sincera. Quae utraeque similitudines manifestissime ostendunt communionem substantiae esse Filio cum Patre. Aporrhoea enim ὁμοούσιος videtur, id est unius substantiae, cum illo corpore ex quo est vel aporrhoea, vel vapor.[15]

References

  1. ↑ von Harnack, Adolf, Dogmengeschichte (in German), 1:284–85, n. 3; 2:232–34, n. 4.
  2. ↑ Ortiz de Urbina, Ignacio (1942), "L’homoousios preniceno" [The prenicene homoousios], Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 8: 194–209.
  3. ↑ Ortiz de Urbina, Ignacio (1947), El Simbolo Niceno [The Nicene symbol] (in Spanish), Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, pp. 183–202.
  4. ↑ Mendizabal, Luis M (1956), "El Homoousios Preniceno Extraeclesiastico" [Ecclesiastical studies], Estudios Eclesiasticos (in Spanish), 30: 147–96.
  5. ↑ Prestige, George Leonard (1952) [1936], God in Patristic Thought (2d ed.), London: SPCK, pp. 197–218.
  6. ↑ Gerlitz, Peter (1963), Aufierchristliche Einflilsse auf die Entwicklung des christlichen. Trinitatsdogmas, zugleich ein religions- und dogmengeschichtlicher Versuch zur Erklarung der Herkunft der Homousie, Leiden: Brill, pp. 193–221.
  7. ↑ Boularand, Ephrem (1972), L'heresie d'Arius et la ‘foi’ de Nicke [The Arius’ heresy and the ‘faith’ of Nicke] (in French), 2, La "foi" de Nicee, Paris: Letouzey & Ane, pp. 331–53.
  8. ↑ Kelly, John Norman D (1972), Early Christian Creeds (3d ed.), London: Longman, p. 245.
  9. ↑ Dinsen, Frauke (1976), Homoousios. Die Geschichte des Begriffs bis zum Konzil von Konstantinopel (381) (Diss) (in German), Kiel, pp. 4–11.
  10. ↑ Stead, Christopher, Divine Substance, pp. 190–202.
  11. ↑ Grillmeier, Aloys (1975), Christ in Christian Tradition, 1, From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451), London: Mowbrays, p. 109.
  12. ↑ of Rome, Hippolytus, Refutatio omnium haeresium [Refutation of all heresies] (in Latin), 7:22, Υἱότης τριμερής, κατὰ πάντα τῷ οὐκ ὄντι θεῷ ὁμοούσιος.
  13. ↑ For the Gnostic use of the term, Marcovich, Miroslav (1986), Patristische Texte und Studien [Patristic texts & studies] (in German), 25, Berlin: W de Gruyter, pp. 290f. V,8, 10 (156); V,17,6.10 (186 f.).
  14. ↑ of Salamis, Epiphanius, Panarion (in Greek), 33:7,8, Τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ φύσιν ἔχοντος τὰ ὅμοια ἑαυτῷ καὶ ὁμοούσια γεννᾶν τε καὶ προφέρειν.
  15. ↑ PG, 14:1308; 17:580, 581.
  16. ↑ Pelikan, Jaroslav (1971), The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, 1, The Chicago University Press, p. 191.
  17. ↑ Fulton, W (1921), "Trinity", Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics, 12, T&T Clark, p. 459.
  18. ↑ Ramelli, Llaria. "Origen's Anti-Subordinationism and Its Heritage in the Nicene and Cappadocian Line". jstor.org. Brill. Retrieved 31 May 2017.
  19. ↑ Shamoun, Sam. "Origen's Christology: A Response to the Cults". Answering-islam.org. Retrieved 1 June 2017.
  20. 1 2 3 Admantius, Origen. "De Principiis, Book 1". EarlyChristianWritings. Retrieved 31 May 2017.
  21. ↑ Nicene, Creed. "Nicene Creed". Reformed.org. Retrieved 31 May 2017.
  22. ↑ Athanasian, Creed. "Athanasian Creed". Reformed.org. Retrieved 31 May 2017.
  23. ↑ Pavao, Paul. "The Trinity: Doctrine Development and Definition". Christian-History.org. Retrieved 1 June 2017.
  24. ↑ Pavao, Paul. "Orthodoxy: An Ironic Side Note on Heresy, and the Trinity". Christian-History.org. Retrieved 1 June 2017.
  25. ↑ P. "Holy Trinity and Modern Arians Part 2". BiblicalCatholic.com. Retrieved 1 June 2017.
  26. ↑ Barnard, L.W. "The Antecedents of Arius". jstor.org. Retrieved 1 June 2017.
  27. ↑ Theodosian Code 16:2, 1 Friell, G., Williams, S., Theodosius: The Empire at Bay, London, 1994.
  28. ↑ St. Athanasius (1911), "In Controversy With the Arians", Select Treatises, Newman, John Henry Cardinal trans, Longmans, Green, & Co, p. 124, footn.

Bibliography

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.