| Revision as of 18:22, 3 February 2006 editLacatosias (talk | contribs)8,348 editsm added author name← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:51, 3 February 2006 edit undoLacatosias (talk | contribs)8,348 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| '''Homoiousianism''' (from the Greek ομολοζ |
'''Homoiousianism''' (from the Greek ομολοζ κατˈοισιαυ) was a 4th century ACE movement which arose in the early period of the ] out of a wing of ]. It was an attempt to reconcile the seemingly irreconcibale views of the ] ], who believed that God the father and Jesus his son were ] in substance with the neo-Arian ] position that God the father is "incomparable" and therefore the Son can not be described in any sense as "like in substance or attributes" but only "like" (ομολοζ) the Father in some suborbinate sense of the term. | ||
| ==Background== | ==Background== | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| ==Doctrine== | ==Doctrine== | ||
| The |
The Homoiousians took a moderate stance between that of the ] such as ] and ] and the ]s. At a council in 358 at ], at the height of the movement's influence, the claim was made that the Son is "like the Father in all respects" (ομολον Καταˈ παˈντα), the use of ''οισια'' or any of its compounds in theological discussion was strongly critized but not abadoned and the Anomoeans were anathematized. This compromise solution, which was satisfying to both the Homoians and the Homoiousians, deliberately set out to alienate the more extreme Neo-Arians. It was successful in this intent but it remained as illegitimate to the pro-Nicenes as ever and Basil of Ancrya declared that "that which is like can never be the same as that to which it is like". On the other side, Constantius was becoming somehat hostile to the influence of all of the new movements which had sprung up after the Nicene councel. The result was that the Homoiousians disappeared from the stage of history and the struggle to define Church dogma became a two-sided battle between the Nicenes and the | ||
| Homoians. | Homoians. | ||
Revision as of 19:51, 3 February 2006
Homoiousianism (from the Greek ομολοζ κατˈοισιαυ) was a 4th century ACE movement which arose in the early period of the Christian religion out of a wing of Aryanism. It was an attempt to reconcile the seemingly irreconcibale views of the pro-Nicene homoousians, who believed that God the father and Jesus his son were identical in substance with the neo-Arian homoisian position that God the father is "incomparable" and therefore the Son can not be described in any sense as "like in substance or attributes" but only "like" (ομολοζ) the Father in some suborbinate sense of the term.
Background
During the period of the development of Christian doctrine which ran from 360 to 380 ACE, the controversy betwen Arianism and what would eventually come to be Catholic dogma saw an enormous burgeoening of new movements, sects and doctrines come into existence in the attempt to stabilize and consolidate a unique and universal position on complex and subtle theological questions. One of the main questions concerned the nature of God and the nature of his relationship with his Son, Jesus Christ. This controvesy was called the Trinitarian controversy because it involved solving the riddle of how it was possible that God could be three (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) and yet one at the same time. The dominant position among Church theologians at this point in history was the doctrine of homoousianism, according to which Father and Son were identical in subtance and in attrubutes and any deviations from this orthodoxy were to be considered heresy. The Aryans (or Homoians), however, had a powerful ally on their side in the person of Emperor Constantius.
Doctrine
The Homoiousians took a moderate stance between that of the heterousians such as Aetius and Eunomius and the Homoians. At a council in 358 at Sirmium, at the height of the movement's influence, the claim was made that the Son is "like the Father in all respects" (ομολον Καταˈ παˈντα), the use of οισια or any of its compounds in theological discussion was strongly critized but not abadoned and the Anomoeans were anathematized. This compromise solution, which was satisfying to both the Homoians and the Homoiousians, deliberately set out to alienate the more extreme Neo-Arians. It was successful in this intent but it remained as illegitimate to the pro-Nicenes as ever and Basil of Ancrya declared that "that which is like can never be the same as that to which it is like". On the other side, Constantius was becoming somehat hostile to the influence of all of the new movements which had sprung up after the Nicene councel. The result was that the Homoiousians disappeared from the stage of history and the struggle to define Church dogma became a two-sided battle between the Nicenes and the Homoians.
References
- Steenberg, M.C. A World Full of Arians: A Study of the Arian debate and the Trinitarian Controversy from AD 360-380. 2000.