Misplaced Pages

Homoiousian

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AndriesvN (talk | contribs) at 01:29, 9 July 2023 (→A Compromise). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:29, 9 July 2023 by AndriesvN (talk | contribs) (→A Compromise)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Christian theological theory on the nature of Jesus the Son of God and God the Father Not to be confused with Homoousian.
Part of a series on
Christology
Christ Pantocrator
Concepts
Doctrines
Christological doctrines
By denomination

Homoiousios (Template:Lang-el from ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" and οὐσία, ousía, "essence, being") is a Christian theological term, coined in the 4th century to identify a distinct group of Christian theologians who held the belief that God the Son was of a similar, but not identical, essence (or substance) with God the Father.

A Compromise

It is often claimed that Homoiousianism arose as an attempt to reconcile two opposing teachings, namely, Homoousianism and Homoianism:

  • Homoousios is a keyword in the Nicene Creed of the year 325 and means "same substance."  Homoousianism was a continuation of that concept and taught that the Son is of the same (ὁμός, homós, "same") substance as the Father. Consequently, the Son is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.
  • Homoianism, on the other hand, refused to use the term οὐσία (ousía, "essence"). Homoians believed that the Son is "like" or "similar" (ὅμοιος, hómoios) to the Father but subordinate to the Father.

It is then proposed that Homoiousian (similar substance) theology was an attempt to reconcile the Homoousian (same substance) theology with the Homoian notion of similarity.

A Persistent Strand

However, Homoiousianism was “most prominently associated with … Basil of Ancyra” and "the term homoiousios plays no role in Basil's surviving texts," implying that such a compromise was not the purpose. More recently, Lewis Ayres proposed that Homoiousianism was not merely a compromise but "a significant and persistent strand in earlier eastern theology."

“Ritter (described the group as) as the right wing of the Eusebian party.” This implies that it was a restatement of the theology of Eusebius of Caesarea.

“Basil … prefers the term 'image of the ousia' to define the Son's relationship to the Father; it is worth noting that this term was favoured by Eusebius of Caesarea … and also is found in the Second ('Dedication') Creed of Antloch 341.” This supports the view that Homoiousianism was a restatement or development of Eusebius' theology, as stated in his letter to his home church after the Nicene Council. Eusebius was “universally acknowledged to be the most scholarly bishop of his day.”

Cause

Both Lewis Ayres (pp. 149-150) and R.P.C. Hanson stated that the formulation of Homoiousian theology in 358 by a council at Ancyra was a response to "the emerging shape of Heterousian theology" in the form of Aetius' "Neo-Arianism:"

Hanson describes "Neo-Arianism" as “a new and radical theology” that first appears in the extant ancient records in the form of the “Second Creed of Sirmium of 357,” afterward approved by a larger synod at Antioch (probably in AD 358). It was first formulated by Aetius as “a development" of Arius' theology. Neo-Arianism very soon gave rise to "a very significant” reaction; “most prominently associated with … Basil of Ancyra." “Early in 358 … he summoned a council of bishops to Ancyra.” “The statement which emerged from this council … marks the emergence of a new and coherent theological point of view. This is the theology of those whom Epiphanius, quite undeservedly, calls 'Semi-Arians', but who are usually today thought of as Homoiousians, a designation which is more accurate.”

The End

By the First Council of Constantinople (381) homoiousianism was already marginalized.

Proponents of this view included Eustathius of Sebaste and George of Laodicea.

Background

During the period of the development of Christian doctrine and refinement of Christian theological language which ran from AD 360 to 380, the controversy between Arianism and what would eventually come to be defined as catholic orthodoxy provoked an enormous burgeoning of new movements, sects and doctrines which came into existence in the attempt to stabilize and consolidate a unique and universal position on complex and subtle theological questions. One of the central questions concerned the nature of God and the fundamental character of his relationship with his Son Jesus Christ as the preexistent Logos. This controversy was called the "trinitarian controversy" because it involved solving the riddle of how it was possible that God the Father, His Son Jesus the Word, and the Holy Spirit could be one God. The dominant position among Christian theologians at this point in history was the doctrine of homoousianism, articulated and fiercely defended by Athanasius of Alexandria, according to which Father and Son were identical in essence, divine identity, attributes and energies, and that any deviations from this orthodoxy were to be considered heretical departures from apostolic faith and worship. The Homoians, however, had a powerful ally on their side in the person of Emperor Constantius II.

Doctrine

The Homoiousians took a stance between that of the Homoousians, and heteroousians such as Aëtius and Eunomius. At a council in 358 at Sirmium, at the height of the movement's influence, the claim was made that the Son is "like in all " (ὅμοιον κατὰ πάντα, hómoion katà pánta), while the use of οὐσία (ousía) or any of its compounds in theological discussion was strongly criticized but not abandoned, 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 in the eyes of the pro-Nicenes as ever and Basil of Ancyra 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 somewhat hostile to the influence of all of the new movements which had sprung up after the Nicene council. The result was that the Homoiousians disappeared from the stage of history and the struggle to define Church dogma became a two-sided battle between the Homoousians and the Homoians.

The term "homoiousios" was also preferred by many Origenists over the term "homoousios" because they felt it left "more room for distinctions in the Godhead". Another consideration may have been the association of the latter term with Paul of Samosata and with Gnosticism's Platonic chain of being.

References

  1. Merriam-Webster, Inc. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003.
  2. Soanes, Catherine, and Angus Stevenson, eds. Concise Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
  3. ^ Hanson, R.P.C. (1987). The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God - The Arian Controversy 318-381. pp. 348–349.
  4. Ayres, Lewis (2004). Nicaea and its legacy. p. 150.
  5. Ayres, Lewis (2004). Nicaea and its legacy. p. 150.
  6. Hanson, R.P.C. (1987). The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God - The Arian Controversy 318-381. p. 353.
  7. Hanson, R.P.C. (1987). The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God - The Arian Controversy 318-381. p. 46.
  8. Hanson, R.P.C. (1987). The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God - The Arian Controversy 318-381. p. 348.
  9. ^ Cross, F. L., and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, eds. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Bibliography

External links

Categories: