Saturday, May 25, 2019

Monoousios vs. Homoousios


Back on May 11th, a good friend of mine began posting again in the Terminology: trinitarianism, unitarianism, monotheism, polytheism... thread, after an extended hiatus. The conversation between the two us continued over the next few days; and then on the 22nd, Tom contributed three consecutive, interrelated posts that would have been a bit difficult to adequately address in the combox. As such, I have created this new thread in an attempt to do justice to the cogent concerns and questions that he raised in those posts.

Now, a bit of background information. For a number of years now, I have maintained that the Greek term homoousion in the Nicene Creed and Chalcedonian Definition was used in a generic sense and not a strict numeric sense—in other words, homoousion is to be understood as 'same essence' rather than 'one essence'. And so, on my May 21st post to Tom, I wrote:

The Greek of the Chalcedonian Definition (451) strongly suggests a generic sense for both. My studies indicate that the numeric sense was not adopted until much later when homoousia began to be interpreted as monoousia. [Note: I had quickly typed up the above response and posted it before realizing that I had misspelled both homoousia and monoousia—should read homoousios and monoousios—sorry Tom, I am getting old.]

Tom on the 22nd responded with:

I would agree that homoousia began to be interpreted as monoousia, but what scholars usually say is “homoousia in the numeric sense.” I have not seen folks who suggest that traditional Christian Trinitarian teachings are true use the term monoousia to describe what they believe. Folks like Plantinga might be inclined to point to the developed equivalence of monoousia and homoousia in the numeric sense, but I don’t see things like this from Father Don Davis or Phillip Schaff.

I first encountered the distinction between monoousios and homoousios in Dr. Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology. Dr. Hodge wrote:

The ambiguity of the word μοούσιος has already been remarked upon. As ούσια may mean generic nature common to many individuals, not unum in numero, but ens unum in multis, so μοούσιος (consubstantial) may mean nothing more than sameness of species or kind. (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981 reprint, 1.463.)

Dr. Hodge then provides two important quotes from the famous Christian historian, Philip Schaff:

It is therefore said, that “the term homoousion, in its strict grammatical sense differs from monoousion or toutoousion, as well as from heteroousion, and signifies not numerical identity, but equality of essence or community of nature among several beings.” “The Nicene Creed,” Dr. Schaff adds, “does not expressly assert the singleness or numerical unity of the divine essence (unless it be in the first article: ‘we believe in one God’), and the main point with the Nicene fathers was to urge against Arianism the strict divinity and essential equality of the Son and Holy Ghost with the Father. (Ibid.)

In the next paragraph, Hodge continues with:

Gieseler goes much further, and denies that the Nicene fathers held the numerical identity of essence in the persons of the Trinity. The Father, Son, and Spirit were the same in substance as having the same nature, or same kind of substance. This he infers was their doctrine not only from the general style of their teaching, and from special declarations, but from the illustrations which they habitually employed. The Father and the Son are the same in substance as among men father and son have the same nature; or as Basil says, Father and Son differ in rank, as do the angels, although they are the same in nature. Gieseler says that the numerical sameness of nature in the three divine persons, was first asserted by Augustine. It was he, according to Gieseler, who first excluded all idea of subordination in the Trinity. “Athanasius and Hilary understood the proposition, ‘There is one God’ of the Father. Basil the Great and the two Gregories understood by the word God a generic idea (Gattungsbegriff), belonging equally to the Father and the Son. (Ibid.)

Though Hodge and Schaff acknowledge that homoousios can be understood in a generic sense, they maintain—contra Gieseler—that it's use in the Nicene Creed should be interpreted in the numeric sense.

Moving from 19th century writers to those of the 20th century, we find the following from the pen of J.N.D. Kelly:

It is reasonable to suppose, pace Eusebius, that a similar meaning, viz. 'of the same nature', was read into the homoousion. But if this is granted, a further question at once arises: are we to understand 'of the same nature' in the 'generic' sense in which Origen, for example, had employed ὁμοούσιος, or are we to take it as having the meaning accepted by later Catholic [i.e. Western] theology, viz. numerical identity of substance? The root word ούσια could signify the kind of substance or stuff common to several individuals of a class, or it could connote an individual thing as such. (Early Christian Doctrine, 2nd ed. 1960, p. 234.)

And from Ivor J. Davidson:

Homoousios was, however, a word with a difficult history. For a start, it was not biblical, which meant that the council [i.e. Nicaea 325] was proposing to talk about the nature of the Godhead in terms that were philosophical or conceptual rather than in language drawn directly from the Scriptures. 

the outcome of the council was virtually unanimous. All but two of the bishops agreed to sign the creed. The dissenters, Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais, were both from Libya, where Arius had particularly loyal support. They suffered exile, as did Arius himself. The rest, it seemed, were at one, and Constantine had got his way; the church was united in its opposition to the teaching of Arius [i.e. that the Son was a created being, created ex nihilo, and that there was “a time he was not”].

The reality, however, was for more complex. The apparently all-important homoousios could in fact be understood in a variety of ways. Literally, it meant “same being.” But what was the “sameness” here? To be “the same as” can be “identical to” in a specific sense or “exactly like” in a generic sense. The “being” in question is also vague: a human and animal may both be described as “beings,” but one has on form of “being” (or “nature” or “substance”) and the other another. For staunch enemies of Arius, such as Eustanthius and Marcellus, homoousios meant “one and the same being.” For Eusebius of Caesarea, on the other hand, it meant “exactly like in being”—potentially a very significant difference. Is the Son, the same as God in his being, or is he exactly like God in his being? To Eusebius and many other Greek bishops it seemed better to say that he is like God.
(The Baker History of the Church, Vol. 2 – A Public Faith: From Constantine to the Medieval World, AD 312-600, 2005, pp. 35, 36.)

In the selections provided above, our esteemed authors identify four prominent 4th century Church Fathers who interpreted homoousios in the generic sense—Eusebius of Caesarea, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus. I would now like to introduce a fifth Church Father from the 4th century who affirmed the generic understanding, and also explicitly differentiated between monoousios and homoousiosAthanasius. From his Expositio Fidei we read:

For neither do we hold a Son-Father, as do the Sabellians, calling Him of one but not of the same essence, and thus destroying the existence of the Son. (Statement of Faith, 2.2 - A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers - Second Series, Vol. 4.84)

The phrase, "calling Him of one but not of the same essence", is a non-literal translation of the Greek, and a bit misleading. The Greek reads as follows:

λέγοντες μονοούσιον καὶ οὐχ ὁμοούσιον  (legontes monoousion kai ouch homoousion)

My translation: saying [he is of] one essence and not [of the] same essence

[Full Greek text of 2.2—οὔτε γὰρ υἱοπάτορα φρονοῦμεν ὡς οἱ Σαβέλλιοι λέγοντες μονοούσιον καὶ οὐχ ὁμοούσιον καὶ ἐν τούτῳ ἀναιροῦντες τὸ εἶναι υἱόνMigne, PG 25, 204.]

Athanasius identifies the strict numeric understanding of the relationship between the Father and the Son with the Sabellians, contrasting the term monoousion from that of homoousion to drive home his point.

This generic understanding found in Athanasius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (and other Church Fathers), is the dominant understanding of many Eastern Orthodox theologians—theologians who adamantly maintain that it is the only consistent understanding of the use of homoousion in the Nicene Creed and Chalcedonian Definition.

More later, the Lord willing...


Grace and peace,

David

6 comments:

Andrew L. Davis said...

Thanks for this post, David. Its interesting to see some later scholars like Hodge coming to some of the same conclusions I have about how the pro-nicene fathers initially intended 'homoousias' to be taken.

While I generally agree with your assessment, I'd add that while earlier on Hilary of Poitiers and Nazianzus seem to have agreed with taking homoousias in a strictly generic sense (Hilary is very clear on this in De Synodis), I think both later embraced the numerical sense. Compare, for example, how Hilary decries the numerical sense as heretical in De Synodis, but in On the Trinity seems to speak of the Father and Son as numerically one God; in my reading he contradicts his earlier writing on the matter. If this is correct, then not only can we say that the original champions of 'homoousias' intended it in a strictly generic sense, and denied the possible numeric meaning, but also that between 325 and 381 a sometimes un-noted but extremely significant shift took place within the pro-nicene camp, in which the preferred interpretation shifted from generic co-essentiality to numerical co-essentiality.

I'd also suggest that while Geisler is not far off in citing Augustine as the first to take 'homoousias' in a numerical sense, I think he is mistaken- aside from Hilary and Nazianzen, who seem to have changed their views, I think we can also see a numerical co-essentiality in Marius Victorinus, who Augustine learned from and seems dependent on in a lot of his ideas about the Trinity. This can also help explain why Augustine seems to regard his numerical understanding of homoousias as traditional, despite the fact that earlier pro-nicenes like Alexander of Alexandria, Athanasius, and Basil would have regarded this as Sabellian as you noted.

In the man Jesus Christ,

Andrew Davis

David Waltz said...

Hi Andrew,

Thanks much for taking the time to share some of your thoughts on my post. You wrote:

==While I generally agree with your assessment, I'd add that while earlier on Hilary of Poitiers and Nazianzus seem to have agreed with taking homoousias in a strictly generic sense (Hilary is very clear on this in De Synodis), I think both later embraced the numerical sense.==

It has been quite some time since I last read Hilary, so I do not feel competent enough at this time to comment on the change you mentioned. However, I am fairly up to date on the writings of Gregory of Nazianzus, and much of the current scholarship on him. I side with Dr. Christopher Beeley's assessments of Gregory's theology; as such, I do not discern the change you embrace. Gregory's emphatic acknowledgment of the Father as the cause/source of the Son prevents me from attaching some form of modalistic understanding to his theology.

Have you read Beeley's, Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity and the Knowledge of God ???

==I'd also suggest that while Geisler is not far off in citing Augustine as the first to take 'homoousias' in a numerical sense, I think he is mistaken- aside from Hilary and Nazianzen, who seem to have changed their views, I think we can also see a numerical co-essentiality in Marius Victorinus, who Augustine learned from and seems dependent on in a lot of his ideas about the Trinity. This can also help explain why Augustine seems to regard his numerical understanding of homoousias as traditional, despite the fact that earlier pro-nicenes like Alexander of Alexandria, Athanasius, and Basil would have regarded this as Sabellian as you noted.==

I would definitely add Marcellus of Ancrya to your list; and with some reservation, take Augustine off of it. More on Augustine in an upcoming post, the Lord willing.


Grace and peace,

David

TOm said...

Hello David (and Andrew),

Thank you for the post. I am hoping to mostly absorb what you are saying for now. It looks like you have more thoughts to add.

Would it be fair to say that before Nicea the modalist heretics embraced homoousian in the numeric sense. Was there a theologically accepted use of homoousian in the generic sense before Nicea. At Nicea most of the Fathers by a lot embraced homoousian in the generic sense, but Eustanthius and Marcellus were at least two bishops who embraced likely embraced homoousian in the numeric sense (after Nicea Eustanthius evidenced this at least and was called a heretic by the Semi-Arians because he embraced Sabellianism).

After Nicea, it seems there will be a great deal of movement. This change will include many individuals who come to claim that Nicea embraced Homoousian in the numeric sense. Does this change include individuals who were at Nicea and change what they believe from generic to numeric?

I mentioned Dr. Bryan Cross in one of my posts on your previous thread. I feel inclined to mention him in this thread, but I will wait for now. Does he read here still?

Charity, TOm

David Waltz said...

Hi Tom,

Thanks much for taking the time to comment. Yesterday, you wrote:

==Would it be fair to say that before Nicea the modalist heretics embraced homoousian in the numeric sense.==

The term homoouios was introduced into the Christian paradigm by Gnostic writers in the second century. Our knowledge of the pre-Nicene modalists comes from 'orthodox' sources. Some CFs indicate that Sabellius and his followers may have used homoouios in a strict/absolute sense; but those same CFs made it quite clear that was not the meaning intended by the Nicene Fathers. Athanasius seems to indicate that the modalists ended up replacing homoouios with monoouios.

==Was there a theologically accepted use of homoousian in the generic sense before Nicea.==

I believe that the extant evidences/s suggest that it was not.

Now, with that said, what we do know for sure is that Arius and his followers adamantly rejected the term.

Interesting enough, Eusebius of Caesarea was initially opposed to the term. but after it was fully explained to him how it was being used, he accepted it.

==After Nicea, it seems there will be a great deal of movement. This change will include many individuals who come to claim that Nicea embraced Homoousian in the numeric sense. Does this change include individuals who were at Nicea and change what they believe from generic to numeric?==

My research strongly indicates that the debates after the Nicene Council mainly focused on three issues: first, the defense of the term homoouios against Arian and Homoian opponents by adamantly maintaining that it was not to be understood in a Sabellian sense. Second, a clarification of the terms used to denote the 'persons' of the Godhead, making sure that such clarification affirmed an actual/real distinction of 'persons' in a non-modal sense. And finally, a denial of polytheism on the part of the Nicene supporters, which began with the affirmation of the Monarchy of God the Father.

For an interesting, first-hand look at the issues being debated in the post-Nicene period, I highly recommend reading Basil's 52nd letter. The following is a link to Deferrari's English translation, which also includes the Greek text:

Basil - Letters, Vol. 1

Letter 52 begins on page 327 (I recommend the PDF version). Note that Deferrari translates the various cases of homoouios—nominative, genitive, accusative—as "sameness of substance" or "likeness of substance".

I found the following to be of interest:

>>And since even then there were those who said that the Son was brought into being out of the nonexistent, to cut off this impiety also, the term "likeness of substance" ("homoousion") was added. For the union of the Son with the Father has to do with neither time nor space. And indeed the preceding words show this to have been the intention of these men. For after saying that the Son was light from light, and was born, though not created, from the substance of the Father, they then brought in also the doctrine of ''likeness of substance," thus intimating that whatever idea of Light is attributed to the Father, this will equally apply to the Son also. For true light in relation to true light, by the very conception we have of light, will have no variation. Since, therefore, the Father is light without beginning, and the Son is begotten light, yet one is light and the other is light, they rightly declared them "alike in substance," that they might set forth the equal dignity of their nature.>> (Pages 331, 333.)


As for Bryan Cross, it has been a least a couple of years since he lasted participated here.


Grace and peace,

David

TOm said...

David:
Interesting enough, Eusebius of Caesarea was initially opposed to the term. but after it was fully explained to him how it was being used, he accepted it.

TOm:
It would seem that the explanation was very clearly in the “generic” sense as Eusebius was among those who claimed God the Father and God the Son were homoousios as a human father and son are.

David:
And finally, a denial of polytheism on the part of the Nicene supporters, which began with the affirmation of the Monarchy of God the Father.

TOm:
This method of denying polytheism is consistent with LDS thought. It IMO is not consistent with the position Bryan Cross stakes out as he attacks the Social Trinity. It is not the defense against polytheism offered by modern Catholic and Protestant scholars who insist that homoousios is used in the “numeric” sense.


I hope to read Letter 52 over the next few days or so.
Charity, TOm

David Waltz said...

Hi Tom,

So good to see you back. From your last post we read:

==David:
And finally, a denial of polytheism on the part of the Nicene supporters, which began with the affirmation of the Monarchy of God the Father.

TOm:
This method of denying polytheism is consistent with LDS thought. It IMO is not consistent with the position Bryan Cross stakes out as he attacks the Social Trinity. It is not the defense against polytheism offered by modern Catholic and Protestant scholars who insist that homoousios is used in the “numeric” sense.==

I concur with your assessments. The difficulties of Bryan Cross's approach—as well as a good number of other Catholic and Protestant folk—are twofold: first, instead of affirming with the Bible and the Nicene Creed that there is a foundational sense wherein it is the Father who is "the one God", "the one God" is primarily identified with either the Trinity or the divine essence. Second, the adherence to a strict understanding of divine simplicity—i.e. absolute divine simplicity.

More on this, and related issues, in my upcoming sequel to this thread. (Given a number of chores and commitments on my plate over the next 3 days, I will not be able to work on the post until Friday.)


Grace and peace,

David