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