The Homoiousians: are they 'Arians'—correcting some misreprentations

Last week, I received the book, How and What You Worship - Christology and Praxis in the Revelations of Joseph Smith, which contains the papers delivered at the 49th Annual Brigham Young University Sidney B. Sperry Symposium, and published in 2020 by the BYU Religious Studies Center (full book and PDFs available online HERE; videos of the presentations HERE.)

Two of the papers in particular stood out to me: Frederick’s, “Incarnation, Exaltation, and Christological Tension in Doctrine and Covenants 93:1–20”, and Lane's, “Choosing Divinity, Choosing Christ.” Both of these papers contain a misrepresentation of those Christian folk of the fourth century who utilized the Greek term ὁμοιούσιος (homoiousios) to describe the relationship between God the Father and His Only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ. Frederick's wrote:

Debates such as these over the relationship between the Father and Son have deep roots, dating back to the fourth century CE. A similar controversy, which became quite heated and for a time divided the Roman Empire, centered around the question of whether Jesus Christ was homoousia (of the same substance) or simply homoiousia (of a similar substance) with the Father. The latter position was termed Arianism after one of its most prominent proponents, a fourth-century bishop named Arius. (Page 15 - link to paper HERE)

And from Lane we read:

Much of this view of Christ and human beings as agents that choose is different than the Christology of historical Christianity. To connect it with traditional christological and soteriological discussion, one could say that, like the Arians, members of the Church of Jesus Christ see the unity of God the Father and the Son as coming from the perfection of Christ’s will rather than from divine essence or substance. While we would use the Arian term homoiousios, being like God rather than being “of one substance with the Father” (homoousios), for us this does not result in Christ being a creature (that is, not divine) because we do not believe in an ontologically distinct divine substance or essence. (Pages 58, 59 - link to paper HERE)

Neither of the two above authors seem to be aware that the term ὁμοιούσιος (homoiousios) was not an “Arian term”. In fact, the folk of the fourth century who held beliefs that emulated those of Arius (i.e. Homoians and Anhomians), repudiated the term. Perhaps even more importantly, two of the most prominent defenders of the Nicene Creed of 325 A.D. in the fourth century—Athanasius of Alexandria and Hilary of Poitiers—embraced those Christians who preferred the term ὁμοιούσιος (homoiousios) over ὁμοούσιος (homoousios) as brothers in Christ, and as fellow defenders against Arianism. Note the following:

Those who deny the Council altogether, are sufficiently exposed by these brief remarks ; those, however, who accept everything else that was defined at Nicaea, and doubt only about the Coessential [ὁμοούσιον], must not be treated as enemies ; nor do we here attack them as Ariomaniacs, nor as opponents of the Fathers, but we discuss the matter with them as brothers with brothers [ἀδελφοὶ πρὸς ἀδελφοὺς], who mean what we mean, and dispute only about the word. For, confessing that the Son is from the essence of the Father, and not from other subsistence [ὑποστάσεως], and that He is not a creature nor work, but His genuine and natural offspring, and that He is eternally with the Father as being His Word and Wisdom, they are not far from accepting even the phrase, 'Coessential [ὁμοούσιου].' Now such is Basil, who wrote from Ancyra concerning the faith. For only to say 'like according to essence,' is very far from signifying 'of the essence,' by which, rather, as they say themselves, the genuineness of the Son to the Father is signified. Thus tin is only like to silver, a wolf to a dog, and gilt brass to the true metal ; but tin is not from silver, nor could a wolf be accounted the offspring of a dog'. But since they say that He is 'of the essence' and 'Like-in-essence [ὁμοιοούσιον],' what do they signify by these but 'Coessential [ὁμοούσιον]?' (Athanasius, De Synodis 41 – NPNF-2, 4.472 - bold emphasis mine)

And:

Holy brethren, I understand by ὁμοούσιον God of God, not of an essence that is unlike, not divided but born, and that the Son has a birth which is unique, of the substance of the unborn God, that He is begotten yet co-eternal and wholly like the Father. I believed this before I knew the word ὁμοούσιον, but it greatly helped my belief. Why do you condemn my faith when I express it by ὁμοούσιον while you cannot disapprove it when expressed by ὁμοιούσιον ? For you condemn my faith, or rather your own, when you condemn its verbal equivalent. Do others misunderstand it? Let us join in condemning the misunderstanding, but not deprive our faith of its security. Do you think we must subscribe to the Samosatene Council to prevent any one from using ὁμοούσιον in the sense of Paul of Samosata? Then let us also subscribe to the Council of Nicaea, so that the Arians may not impugn the word. Have we to fear that ὁμοιούσιον does not imply the same belief as ὁμοούσιον ? Let us decree that there is no difference between being of one or of a similar substance. The word ὁμοούσιον can be understood in a wrong sense. Let us prove that it can be understood in a very good sense. We hold one and the same sacred truth. I beseech you that we should agree that this truth, which is one and the same, should be regarded as sacred. Forgive me, brethren, as I have so often asked you to do. You are not Arians: why should you be thought to be Arians by denying the ὁμοούσιον ? (Hilary pf Poitiers, De Synodis – On the Councils, 88 – NPNF-2, 9.28 - bold emphasis mine)

Shall end this post with the assessments from two patristic scholars that are germane to our topic at hand:

It is certainly true that in the later chapters of the De Synodis Athanasius accepts that those who teach that the Son is homoiousios to the Father are ‘orthodox’, although he continues to maintain the superiority of homoousios to define the relationship of the Father and the Son. This argument is highly significant in the development of Athanasius’ polemic, as for the first time he acknowledges the possibility that a Christian might hold a different theology to his own, and yet not be ‘Arian’. (Gwynn, The Eusebians, p. 43)

In 360 Athanasius realized that Basil of Ancyra and he were basically fighting for the same cause, and held out a proposal of an alliance even if Basil and his friends retained their scruples about the keyword of the Nicene formula, 'identical in essence' (homoousios) : 'Those who accept the Nicene creed but have doubts about the term homoousios must not be treated as enemies ; we discuss the matter with them as brothers with brothers; they mean the same as we, and dispute only about the word.' The eirenic words introduce Athanasius' longest and best discussion of the meaning of the Nicene formula. The consequent rapprochement between Athanasius and the party of Basil of Ancyra was to contribute much to the ultimate defeat of Arianism. (Chadwick, The Early Church, 1967, p. 144)

 

Grace and peace,

David

Athanaius: did he teach Sabellianism (i.e. modalism) ???

I have recently encountered the proposition that Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373) was not a Trinitarian, but rather, that he was a Sabellian (i.e. modalist).

The first instance of connecting Athanasius with Sabellianism that I came across occurred back on 11-26-2023 via my reading of a post published by Andries van Niekerk on his blog From Daniel to Revelation under the title, 'The Sabellians of the Fourth Century'. Andries wrote:

Note that the West also vindicated Athanasius. His theology was similar to the Sabellians...

And:

Another article provides further evidence of the Sabellian leaning of the theologies of Alexander and Athanasius. For example, “Studer’s account here follows the increasingly prominent scholarly position that Athanasius’ theology offers a strongly unitarian Trinitarian theology whose account of personal differentiation is underdeveloped.” (LA, 238) The question is, why did the West vindicate these two Sabellians?

The 'Another article' mentioned (and linked to) by Andries was published under the title, 'Was Athanasius a Sabellian?' From that post we read:

There is no real difference between the theology of Alexander and Athanasius and the main Sabellians of their time; Eustathius and Marcellus. As ‘one hypostasis’ theologians, Alexander and Athanasius were part of a minority in this church. And since both Sabellius’ theology and the term homoousios were already formally rejected as heretical by the church during the preceding century, they followed an already discredited theology.

The Western Council of Serdica in 343, where Athanasius played a dominant part, is devastating evidence. It explicitly describes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one hypostasis and Athanasius approved and supported this creed. People struggle with this conclusion is that it shows that Athanasius, who is regarded as the hero of the Arian Controversy, was a Sabellian; not a Trinitarian.

Before moving on to my second recent encounter with the notion that Athanasius was a Sabellian, I would like to mention I have been following Andries blog for over two years now. It began shortly after Andries posted a few comments back in late November 2021 in an old thread here at AF [LINK]. (Interestingly enough, earlier this week during some online research I discovered that Andries had also published the material from the two above mentioned threads at the Christianity Stack Exchange [LINK].)

With this background information in place, I suspect that folks reading this post will be as surprised as I was that in a mere seven days after reading Andries’ posts on Athanasius and Sabellianism, I began receiving emails from a knowlegable member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who has embraced the proposition that Athanasius was a modalist/Sabellian. (My December 10, 2023 AF post  was inspired by our email exchanges.)

Prior to all this, I was involved in an email exchange—beginning on August 30th—with an advocate of neo-modalism who had questions concerning my AF post, James White's (mis)use of Melito of Sardis as an early witness to the incarnation of God (the Son) [December 5, 2011 - LINK].

There is one more connection that warrants mentioning: the LDS gent mentioned above is a friend with Errol Amey. Errol has a keen interest in patristics, and has contributed a number of informative comments in a few threads here at AF. And so, we have four gents mentioned above, that have at least three interests in common—patristics, theology, and challenging/respectful dialogue—who are in one way or another linked to this current post.

It is now time to delve into why I maintain Athanasius was not a Sabellian/modalist. One of Andries’ arguments—which initially seems quite strong and compelling—is that,"Athanasius opposed the concept of 'three hypostases'" and taught the "Father and Son are only one Hypostasis". (LINK)

Though Athanasius wrote in at least two extant documents that the Father and Son are 'one hypostasis', he also acknowleged that they are 'three hypostases'. Note the following:

And how do the impious men venture to speak folly, as they ought not, being men and unable to find out how to describe even what is on the earth? But why do I say 'what is on the earth?' Let them tell us their own nature, if they can discover how to investigate their own nature? Rash they are indeed, and self-willed, not trembling to form opinions of things which angels desire to look into (i Pet. i. 12), who are so far above them, both in nature and in rank. For what is nearer [God] than the Cherubim or the Seraphim? And yet they, not even seeing Him, nor standing on their feet, nor even with bare, but as it were with veiled faces, offer their praises, with untiring lips doing nought else but glorify the divine and ineffable nature with the Trisagion. And nowhere has any one of the divinely speaking prophets, men specially selected for such vision, reported to us that in the first utterance of the word Holy the voice is raised aloud, while in the second it is lower, but in the third, quite low,—and that consequently the first utterance denotes lordship, the second subordination, and the third marks a yet lower degree. But away with the folly of these haters of God and senseless men. For the Triad [Τριὰς], praised, reverenced, and adored, is one and indivisible and without degrees (ἀσχηματιστός). It is united without confusion, just as the Monad also is distinguished without separation. For the fact of those venerable living creatures (Isa. vi. ; Rev. iv. 8) offering their praises three times, saying 'Holy, Holy, Holy,' proves that the Three Subsistences [τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις] are perfect, just as in saying 'Lord,' they declare the One Essence. They then that depreciate the Only-begotten Son of God blaspheme God, defaming His perfection and accusing Him of imperfection, and render themselves liable to the severest chastisement. For he that blasphemes any one of the Subsistences [τῶν ὑποστάσεων] shall have remission neither in this world nor in that which is to come. But God is able to open the eyes of their heart to contemplate the Sun of Righteousness, in order that coming to know Him whom they formerly set at nought, they may with unswerving piety of mind together with us glorify Him, because to Him belongs the kingdom, even to the Father Son and Holy Spirit, now and for ever. Amen. [Athanasius, In Illud ‘Omnia’, Mihi Tradita – On Luke x. 22 (Matt. Xi. 27) - NPNF 4.90]

And:

And prohibit even the reading or publication of the paper, much talked of by some, as having been drawn up concerning the Faith at the synod of Sardica. For the synod made no definition of the kind. For whereas some demanded, on the ground that the Nicene synod was defective, the drafting of a creed, and in their haste even attempted it, the holy synod assembled in Sardica was indignant, and decreed that no statement of faith should be drafted, but that they should be content with the Faith confessed by the fathers at Nicaea, inasmuch as it lacked nothing but was full of piety, and that it was undesirable for a second creed to be promulged, lest that drafted at Nicaea should be deemed imperfect, and a pretext be given to those who were often wishing to draft and define a creed. So that if a man propound the above or any other paper, stop them, and persuade them rather to keep the peace. For in such men we perceive no motive save only contentiousness. For as to those whom some were blaming for speaking of three Subsistences [τρεῖς λέγοντας ὑποστάσεις], on the ground that the phrase is unscriptural and therefore suspicious, we thought it right indeed to require nothing beyond the confession of Nicaea, but on account of the contention we made enquiry of them, whether they meant, like the Arian madmen, subsistences [τριοουσίους] foreign and strange, and alien in essence [οὐσίας] from one another, and that each Subsistence [ὑπόστασιν] was divided apart by itself, as is the case with creatures in general and in particular with those begotten of men, or like different substances, such as gold, silver, or brass ;—or whether, like other heretics, they meant three Beginnings and three Gods, by speaking of three Subsistences [τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις λέγωσι].

They assured us in reply that they neither meant this nor had ever held it. But upon our asking them 'what then do you mean by it, or why do you use such expressions?' they replied. Because they believed in a Holy Trinity [ἁγίαν Τριάδα], not a trinity [Τριάδα] in name only, but existing and subsisting in truth, 'both a Father truly existing and subsisting, and a Son truly substantial and subsisting, and a Holy Spirit subsisting and really existing do we acknowledge,' and that neither had they said there were three Gods or three beginnings, nor would they at all tolerate such as said or held so, but that they acknowledged a Holy Trinity [ἁγίαν μὲν Τριάδα] but One Godhead [μίαν δὲ θεότητα], and one Beginning, and that the Son is coessential [ὁμοούσιον] with the Father, as the fathers said; while the Holy Spirit is not a creature, nor external, but proper to and inseparable from the Essence [τῆς οὐσίας] of the Father and the Son. (Athanasius, Tomus ad Antiochenos - Tome to the People of Antioch, Paragraph 5 - NPNF 4.484)

Having accepted then these men's interpretation and defence of their language, we made enquiry of those blamed by them for speaking of One Subsistence, whether they use the expression in the sense of Sabellius, to the negation of the Son and the Holy Spirit, or as though the Son were non-substantial, or the Holy Spirit impersonal. But they in their turn assured us that they neither meant this nor had ever held it, but 'we use the word Subsistence thinking it the same thing to say Subsistence or Essence [ὑπόστασιν μὲν λέγομεν ἡγούμενοι ταὐτὸν εἶναι εἰπεῖν ὑπόστασιν καὶ οὐσίαν];' 'But we hold that there is One, because the Son is of the Essence of the Father [ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας], and because of the identity of nature [τὴν ταυτότητα τῆς φύσεως]. For we believe that there is one Godhead [μίαν γὰρ θεότητα], and that it has one nature [φύσιν],  and not that there is one nature of the Father, from which that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit are distinct.' Well, thereupon they who had been blamed for saying there were three Subsistences [τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις] agreed with the others, while those who had spoken of One Essence, also confessed the doctrine of the former as interpreted by them. And by both sides Arius was anathematised as an adversary of Christ, and Sabellius, and Paul of Samosata, as impious men, and Valentinus and Basilides as aliens from the truth, and Manichasus as an inventor of mischief. And all, by God's grace, and after the above explanations, agree together that the faith confessed by the fathers at Nicaea is better than the said phrases, and that for the future they would prefer to be content to use its language. (Athanasius, Tomus ad Antiochenos - Tome to the People of Antioch, Paragraph 6 - NPNF 4.484, 485)

Clearly, Athanasius used the term 'hypostasis/hypostases' in two, distinct senses. In one sense, he equated 'hypostasis' with 'ousia' and 'theotēs', and in a second sense, with the personal distinctions of the three members of the Trinity. He also made it quite clear that he separated himself from those folk who embraced a Sabellian sense of the term. With these facts in place, I must conclude that Athanasius did not embrace Sabellianism.

Grace and peace,

David