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 ὁμοούσιος 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 ὁμοούσιος (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.)
…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 homoousios—Athanasius.
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 υἱόν—Migne, 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,
