In
the previous AF thread which dealt with the topic of monoousios vs. homoousios (link),
I provided selections from Christian theologians and historians who
acknowledged that the term homoousion, used in the Nicene Creed and by a
number of subsequent Church Fathers, was most likely understood in a generic sense,
rather than an absolute numeric sense. In this new post, I hope to establish
beyond any reasonable doubt that the generic understanding is the most viable
option.
At the end of the opening
post of the above referenced thread, I mentioned that the generic understanding
of homoousios, "is the dominant understanding of many Eastern
Orthodox theologians". Interestingly enough, a LDS author back in 2004
provided substantial support for my reflections—the following quote is from
the book, Prelude to the Restoration (2004):
Christos Yannaras proposes that “schematically: God
is a Nature and three Persons; man is a nature and ‘innumerable’ persons. God
is consubstantial and in three hypostases, man is consubstantial and in
innumerable hypostases.” Essence could thus be characterized as that nature
which, for the Trinity, is divinity, and that nature which, for humans, is
humanity. (J. B. Haws, "Defenders of the Doctrine of Deification", p.
77) [The quote that Haws provided from the EO
theologian Yannaras, is from the book Elements of Faith, p, 36.]
Haws' understanding of the Yannaras quote, brings
to mind the Christology delineated in the Chalcedonian Definition (451)—the
germane portion is provided below:
Following therefore the holy Fathers, we all with one accord teach men to confess one and
the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Divinity (theotēti)
and also perfect in humanity (anthrōpotēti); truly God and truly man, of
a rational soul and body; same essence (homoousion) with the Father
according to the Divinity (theotēta), and same essence (homoousion)
with us according to the humanity (anthrōpotēta) ...
Ἑπόμενοι τοίνυν τοῖς ἁγίοις πατράσιν ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν
ὁμολογεῖν υἱὸν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν συμφώνως ἅπαντες ἐκδιδάσκομεν,
τέλειον τὸν αὐτὸν ἐν θεότητι καὶ τέλειον τὸν αὐτὸν ἐν ἀνθρωπότητι, θεὸν ἀληθῶς
καὶ ἄνθρωπον ἀληθῶς τὸν αὐτὸν, ἐκ ψυχῆς λογικῆς καὶ σώματος, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρὶ
κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, καὶ ὁμοούσιον τὸν αὐτὸν ἡμῖν κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα ...
Clearly we have before us
an application of the term homoousion in a generic sense. As such, we
can add the Chalcedonian Definition to the list of examples wherein the term homoousion
is used in the generic sense—e.g. Nicene Creed, numerous post-Nicene Church
Fathers and EO theologians.
The concept that "man is consubstantial and in innumerable hypostases" means all the
members of mankind share one and the same nature/essence. When the same type of
concept is applied to the Godhead, it means that all members of the Godhead
share one and the same nature/essence; or as Haws states it:
Essence could thus be characterized as that nature
which, for the Trinity, is divinity, and that nature which, for humans, is
humanity.
For one to be human from human, one has to be fully
human—possessing the nature of humanity in its fullness—not partially human, or
even mostly human. For one to be God from God, one has to be fully
God—possessing the nature of divinity in its fullness—not partially God, or even
mostly God.
To end, I would like to submit that when the
related concepts of 'God from God', 'homoosion with the Father', and
'begotten not made' are applied to Jesus Christ, two early theological errors
are avoided: first, modalism, which changed the understanding of homoosios into
monoousios, and denied the causality of the Son from the Father; and
second, Arianism, which denied that the Son of God was fully God.
Grace and peace,
