The Eucharist/Lord’s Supper – is it just a sign/symbol?

During the last couple of months, my personal studies have focused on the Eucharist and liturgy. After publishing three posts on the Eucharist, I have been pondering over what my next post should be. Last Wednesday, in the combox of the previous AF thread (link), Ian Miller suggested to me that I, "could look at his [Kauffman’s] claims about the tithe being the sacrifice, or how some Fathers (Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian for instance) use the word 'symbol.'"

There is no question that some of the Church Fathers spoke of the Eucharist as a sign/symbol. This fact has led some anti-Catholic apologists to conclude that the CFs who employed such terminology to describe the Eucharist believed the Eucharist was ONLY a sign/symbol; and as such, did not believe in the real, substantial presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. This understanding is an all too common misreading of the CFs by anti-Catholic polemicists.

Last year, this issue was competently addressed by Tim Staples (link to bio) in a contribution published by Catholic Answers (link)—from Tim’s “Is the Eucharist a Symbol, or Is It Real?” we read:

In the introduction to his classic Catholic Catechism, Fr. John Hardon describes well the perennial challenge of the Catholic Church to strike a balance between the manifold and false “either/or” propositions that constitute the great heresies and errors of Church history and what Fr. Hardon called the truth of “the eternal and.” For example, the pantheist says the universe consists of God alone. The material is mere illusion. The materialist says it is all and only matter. The truth is, it’s both. The Protestant says we are saved by “faith alone”; the various Pelagian sects say it is by “works alone.” The truth is, it’s both. The Monophysite says Jesus is God alone; the Arian (or the Jehovah’s Witness today) says he is man alone. The truth is, he’s both. The list could go on and on.

So it is with the Eucharist. For many, there are only two options. Either it is a symbol or it is Jesus. I know this was my thinking when I was Protestant. “When Jesus says, ‘This is my body,’ or ‘Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man,’ it is obvious he is speaking symbolically,” I would say. “Bread and wine were to nature what Jesus Christ is to our super-nature. Bread and wine are obviously excellent symbols of Jesus Christ.” In my mind as a Protestant, if I could show communion to be symbolic, I had proved my point. The idea of “both/and” was never even a consideration.

In the rest of his treatment, Tim goes on to prove that the correct reading of the Church Fathers concerning the Eucharist is NOT an ‘either or proposition’, but a ‘both/and' one; the Eucharist is a sign/symbol and truly is what it symbolizes—i.e. the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

In an older online posting (link), Joe Heschmeyer focuses on Tertullian’s reflections concerning the Eucharist. Before delving into Tertullian’s affirmations of the real presence, Joe writes:

When Protestants talk about Sacraments being symbolic, they typically mean that they’re only symbols. And of course, as Catholics, we think that’s false. But we don’t deny that the Sacraments are symbols.

Joe proceeds to point out that all the sacraments are "efficacious signs of grace", and then writes:

So we can readily affirm that the Eucharist is both a symbol and the Body and Blood of Christ. Jesus could have consecrated something else: say, a melon. But He didn’t. He chose bread and wine...

In section "II. Tertullian on the Real Presence", Joe provides selections from Tertullian's corpus that demonstrate he clearly believed in the Real Presence. He summarizes those quotes with the following:

1. Marcion denied that Christ had a true Body of Flesh and Blood. If that were true, then we would have to believe that the Eucharist was just bread, and that Christ on the Cross was just bread.

2. He says that Christ explained exactly what He meant by “Bread” when He described it as His Body. According to Tertullian, the question now is why Christ referred to His Body as “Bread,” rather than something else (like a melon). He answers this by saying that Christ’s Body is referred to throughout Scripture as Bread.

3. He quotes a passage from the Septuagint version of Jeremiah to show that Christ’s Crucified Body is rightly called “Bread.”

4. The Eucharistic Bread and Wine affirm the reality of Christ’s Flesh, since He couldn’t give us His Body or Blood if He didn’t have actual Flesh. Christ’s Flesh, in turn, proves that He had a true Body.

5. Christ consecrates the wine, fulfilling the Old Testament typology.

Tertullian’s understanding of the Eucharist is the same as the official teaching of the RCC; the Eucharist truly is what it symbolizes—i.e. the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Shall conclude this post with links to Joe Heschmeyer’s three compilations of quotes from the CFs on the Eucharist:

Very Early Church Fathers on the Eucharist - LINK

Early Church Fathers on the Eucharist (c. 200 – c. 300 A.D.) - LINK

Early Church Fathers on the Eucharist (c. 300 – 400 A.D.) – LINK

 

Grace and peace,

David

The Eucharist/Lord’s Supper and the development of doctrine

...there was no formal acknowledgment on the part of the Church of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity till the fourth [century]. No doctrine is defined till it is violated. (John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, sixth edition-1878, p. 151 – bold emphasis mine)

The dictum that, “No doctrine is defined till it is violated", is masterfully applied by Newman to the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. Earlier in the book, he wrote:

...the statements of a particular father or doctor may certainly be of a most important character ; but one divine is not equal to a Catena. We must have a whole doctrine stated by a whole Church. The Catholic Truth in question is made up of a number of separate propositions, each of which, if maintained to the exclusion of the rest, is a heresy. (Ibid., p. 14)

He then added that it is, “not enough to prove that one has held that the Son is God, (for so did the Sabellian, so did the Macedonian), and another that the Father is not the Son, (for so did the Arian), and another that the Son is equal to the Father, (for so did the Tritheist), and another that there is but One God, (for so did the Unitarian),” (Ibid. p.15). [I would add to Newman's list that is not enough to prove the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are 'one God’, for so did the Modalists.]

The developed doctrine of the Trinity, as defined by two Ecumenical Creeds and numerous Church Fathers in the fourth century, was being ‘violated’ in many varying degrees and forms since apostolic times. It is notable the apostle Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write, “there must be also heresies (αἱρέσεις) among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you”—1 Cor. 11:19.

Unlike the doctrine of the Trinity—which was openly attacked and violated since apostolic times—the doctrine of the Eucharist had no serious opponents and violations until the ninth century. It is worth reflecting once again on the following:

The Patristic period was full of controversy over many weighty doctrines, such as the Incarnation, the Trinity, original sin and the necessity of grace, and the use of images. Surprisingly, however, Eucharistic doctrines concerning Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist and the substantial conversion of bread and wine into His Body and Blood were not key topics of controversy. Dispute began in the ninth century in France and returned in heightened form in the eleventh century in the dispute with Berengarius. This controversy and the effort to refute the doctrine of Berengarius enabled the Church to reach greater clarity on the doctrine of the real presence of Christ and the substantial conversion of the Eucharistic species. (Lawrence Feingold, The Eucharist - Mystery of Presence, Sacrifice, and Communion, 2018, p. 233)

The fact that, “greater clarity on the doctrine of the real presence of Christ and the substantial conversion of the Eucharistic species”, was reached after the controversies/violations of the ninth and eleventh centuries, should not lead one to surmise that no development concerning the doctrine of the Eucharist took place in the preceding centuries. History clearly reveals that minor developments began after the passing of the apostles. However, what one will not find are direct, explicit denials of nonnegotiable affirmations found in the fully developed doctrine of the Eucharist—e.g. the Real Presence, substantial conversion of the bread and wine, and the sacrificial aspect.

Unlike the doctrines of God and Christology, one will not find extensive treatments on the Eucharist before the ninth century. Irenaeus and Epiphanius briefly mention a few bizarre eucharistic rites performed by some of the Gnostic sects, but none of those aberrations found any acceptance in the Catholic churches (i.e. churches that could trace their origins via apostolic succession). History forces one to conclude that exhaustive works on the Eucharist were not needed in the centuries that preceded the Eucharistic controversies of the ninth and eleventh centuries. This fact must be kept in mind when one examines the relatively few mentions of the Eucharist as found in the writings of the Church Fathers.

I began this post with Newman's thoughts on the development of doctrine, with the formulation of the dogma of the Trinity functioning as the primary model for his thesis. I shall end with some of his assessments on the Eucharist; from his esteemed pen we read:

One additional specimen shall be given as a sample of many others: —I betake myself to one of our altars to receive the Blessed Eucharist ; I have no doubt whatever on my mind about the Gift which that Sacrament contains ; I confess to myself my belief, and I go through the steps on which it is assured to me. "The Presence of Christ is here, for It follows upon Consecration ; and Consecration is the prerogative of Priests ; and Priests are made by Ordination ; and Ordination comes in direct line from the Apostles. Whatever be our other misfortunes, every link in our chain is safe ; we have the Apostolic Succession, we have a right form of consecration: therefore we are blessed with the great Gift." Here the question rises in me, "Who told you about that Gift?" I answer, "I have learned it from the Fathers : I believe the Real Presence because they bear witness to it. St. Ignatius calls it 'the medicine of immortality :' St. Irenaeus says that ' our flesh becomes incorrupt, and partakes of life, and has the hope of the resurrection,' as 'being nourished from the Lord's Body and Blood ;' that the Eucharist ' is made up of two things, an earthly and an heavenly :' perhaps Origen and perhaps Magnes, after him, say that It is not a type of our Lord's Body, but His Body: and St. Cyprian uses language as fearful as can be spoken, of those who profane it. I cast my lot with them, I believe as they." (John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, sixth edition-1878, p. 23 – bold emphasis mine)

Grace and peace,

David

The Eucharist/Lord’s Supper – polemical musings by Timothy F. Kauffman

As mentioned in my previous post (link), the postings of two anti-Catholic controversialists concerning the Eucharist were brought to my attention. I shared some thoughts on Brian Culliton, and shall now concentrate on Timothy F. Kauffman.

Tim is an anti-Catholic Reformed Baptist whom I have interacted with in the past here at AF concerning the topic of baptismal regeneration in the early Church Fathers (the germane 4 posts are found under this label). Back on June 27, 2020 (link) Tim began a number of posts under the subject heading of 'EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE'. The June 27, 2020 post was titled: THE APOSTOLIC “AMEN”. From that post we read:

The disagreement over celebrating the Resurrection is easily resolved, as there is no prescriptive mandate from the Scripture on whether the Resurrection should even be celebrated. There is no Scriptural imperative to commemorate it in the first place, much less to do so on a certain date...Regarding the consecration, the Scriptures give no explicit direction. The Gospel writers make no mention of a formal consecration, and Paul simply refers to the cup “which we bless” and the bread “which we break” (1 Corinthians 10:16).

But when it comes to the matter of the sacrifice, the Apostle Paul has left to us an elegant means by which we may not only establish a unified, biblical, apostolic liturgy but also utterly dispose of the abominable Roman Catholic liturgical sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood. Once Paul’s Eucharistic liturgy is understood from the Scriptures, we find from the historical evidence that the early Church readily embraced and practiced it for three centuries, until a new liturgy emerged in the late 4th century, paving the way for the abominations and idolatries of Roman Catholicism. The elegant Pauline precept that separates the Christian liturgy from the Roman Catholic one is the Apostolic “Amen” (1 Corinthians 14:16) immediately following the Eucharist, or “giving of thanks.” Roman Catholicism places the Eucharist after the Consecration so that Christ’s body and blood is alleged to be offered to God, but the Scriptures place the Eucharist before the Consecration, making the liturgical offering of Christ’s body and blood impossible. And Paul’s “Amen” prevents any and all attempts to combine them.

Tim’s foundational premise concerning the Eucharist was explicitly presented in the following statement:

The elegant Pauline precept that separates the Christian liturgy from the Roman Catholic one is the Apostolic “Amen” (1 Corinthians 14:16) immediately following the Eucharist, or “giving of thanks.”

A bit later in the post we read:

Paul describes the liturgical “Amen” as a common expression of the gathered participants immediately following the Eucharist:

“…when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks (εὐχαριστίᾳ, eucharistia), seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?” (1 Corinthians 14:16)

When I first read the above from Tim's pen I was literally dismayed; I had never heard of, or read, such an interpretation of 1 Cor. 14:16. I instinctively knew it was time to consult the commentaries I have in my library on Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians; note the following:

It is obvious that εὐχαριστία here cannot mean the Eucharist. The minister at that service would not speak in a Tongue. Nor is it probable that in ‘the Amen’ there is indirect reference to the Eucharist. The use of the responsive Amen at the end of the prayers, and especially of the reader’s doxology, had long been common in the synagogues (Neh. v. 13, viii. 6; 1 Chron. xvi. 36; Ps. cvi. 48), and had thence passed into the Christian Church, where it at once became a prominent feature (Justin M. Apol. i. 65; Tertul. De Spectac. 25 ; Cornelius Bishop of Rome in Eus. H.E. vi. xliii. 19; Chrys. ad loc.), especially at the end of the consecration prayer in the Eucharist. So common did it become at the end of every prayer in Christian worship that the Jews, it is said, began to abandon it; Jerome says that it was like thunder...It is evident from this passage that a great deal of the service was extempore, and both the Didache and Justin show that this continued for some time. Apparently the prophets had more freedom in this respect than others. (Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 1911, p. 313)

To bless and to give thanks are related in thought to pray and to sing (vs. 15); the former also refer to the adoration and the thanksgiving which are implied in the speaking of tongues. The words "to bless" and "to thank" are not used in the same sense as in 10:15. Paul does not speak about Holy Communion in our verse; (F. W. Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1953, p. 326)

At thy giving of thanks (epi tēi sēi eucharistiāī). Just the prayer, not the Eucharist or the Lord's Supper, as is plain from verse 17. (Archibald Thomas Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Volume IV - The Epistles of Paul, 1931, p. 183)

The setting of 1 Cor. 14:16 is one of spontaneity. The early worship services—when the brethren come together— were “extempore,” with demonstrations of a number of varying spiritual gifts by the brethren. Paul is emphasizing that in order for one to give a proper “Amen” to a psalm (ψαλμὸν), doctrine (διδαχὴν), revelation (ἀποκάλυψιν), a tongue (γλῶσσαν), an interpretation (ἑρμηνείαν), one must be able to understand them. Paul is arguing that uninterpreted tongues have no place in congregational settings. Note the following:

Praying or singing in tongues could serve no purpose, and Paul would not do it. Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the "Amen" at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? Ungifted (idiōtēs) is, I believe, better translated in its usual sense of ignorant, unlearned, or unskilled. A person who is ignorant of a language being spoken cannot possibly understand what he hears. In a worship service, for example, he could not know when to say the "Amen" at your giving of thanks. Prayers of songs of thanks could not include anyone else if they were given in unintelligible sounds.

Amen is a Hebrew word of agreement and encouragement, meaning "So let it be," and was commonly used by worshippers in the synagogue. The practice carried over into some early Christian churches and, in fact, is common in many churches today. A person cannot know when to "Amen," however, if he does not know what is being said. (John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary - 1 Corinthians, 1984, p. 377)

It sure seems to me (and the commentators listed above), that the “elegant Pauline precept that separates the Christian liturgy from the Roman Catholic one is the Apostolic ‘Amen’ (1 Corinthians 14:16)”, does not exist. The setting of 1 Cor. 14:16 is clearly not what Tim thinks it is. Borrowing a term from Tim’s playbook, his interpretation is "abominable".

 

Grace and peace,

David

The Eucharist/Lord’s Supper - Introduction

I am currently engaged in an extensive study of the Eucharist and liturgy. I began this study a month ago after a number of comments were posted in two older threads here at AF. [See comments by posted by Noah here; and comments by Ian Miller here]

In their posts, Noah and Ian brought to my attention the polemical efforts by two anti-Catholic gents whose goal is to disprove the material/substantial real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist—i.e. that the Eucharistic bread and wine are in no real sense converted into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Such polemical efforts are not new. The first known attempt to challenge the centuries old interpretation that the Eucharist is materially and substantially the body and blood of Jesus Christ was put forth by the Frankish monk Ratramnus in the ninth century. The controversy raised by Ratramnus was localized and short lived, but reemerged two centuries later via the French theologian Berengar (Latin: Berengarius).

Interestingly enough, prior to Ratramnus and Berenger, teachings by the Church Fathers concerning the Eucharist precipitated no controversy. Note the following:

The Patristic period was full of controversy over many weighty doctrines, such as the Incarnation, the Trinity, original sin and the necessity of grace, and the use of images. Surprisingly, however, Eucharistic doctrines concerning Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist and the substantial conversion of bread and wine into His Body and Blood were not key topics of controversy. Dispute began in the ninth century in France and returned in heightened form in the eleventh century in the dispute with Berengarius. This controversy and the effort to refute the doctrine of Berengarius enabled the Church to reach greater clarity on the doctrine of the real presence of Christ and the substantial conversion of the Eucharistic species. (Lawrence Feingold, The Eucharist - Mystery of Presence, Sacrifice, and Communion, 2018, p. 233)

The controversial efforts of Berengar and his followers were effectively negated by two contemporary Catholic theologians—Lanfranc of Canterbury and Guitmund of Aversa. Controversy over the Eucharist became virtually nonexistent until the 16th century. The Protestant reformation/revolt created discord over a wide range of doctrines, with the Eucharist being no exception. Disputations over the Eucharist emerged quite early. Calvin, Luther and Zwingli each held opposing views, views which created even further fragmentation amongst Protestants as time went on.

The numerous doctrines/variants concerning the Eucharist can be broadly classified under two competing concepts. First, those who maintain that Jesus Christ is materially/substantially present in Eucharistic elements—the bread and wine have become the body and blood of Jesus Christ in a real sense—a concept known as the Real Presence. The other concept denies the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, interpreting the Biblical statements that the Eucharistic bread "is my body", and the cup/wine "is my blood", in a figurative sense only.

The doctrine of the Real Presence can be divided into two categories: those who believe that the Real Presence is 'spiritual' only—i.e. only the divinity of Jesus Christ is present, and those who maintain that the Real Presence includes both the 'spiritual' and material/substantial presence of Jesus Christ—i.e. both of Christ’s two natures are present.

With the above, brief introduction in place, I would now like to move forward to our two 21st century controversialists: Brian Culliton and Timothy F. Kauffman.

Brian Culliton (initially posting under the pseudonym 'onefold') began a series concerning a few early Church Fathers and the "real presence doctrine" back on January 26, 2008. He started with Clement of Alexandria and Origen (link). In February 2008 he added Tertullian, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and Ignatius (link). In the late spring of 2008 he combined his January and February posts, adding a "Conclusion" that displays the anti-Catholic, polemical nature of his contributions (link).

Since June of 2008, Brian has made numerous, though minor, modifications to the 'Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence' post (see this link). Interest in the thread has continued up to February 28, 2024, with the last comment bringing the total to 21,680—an impressive total!

One of the major problems I have with 'Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence' post is that it ignores the extremely important issue of doctrinal development. It is a historical fact that doctrine/s develop. If Brian were to examine the doctrines of God and Christology as found in the Church Fathers he references in his 'Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence' post, comparing them with the developed doctrines of God and Christology as found in the creeds and confessions of the major historical churches, he would have to conclude that all of those Church Fathers were heretical! But, if one allows for the organic develop of doctrine, one will discover that those Church Fathers provided the 'seeds' for positive growth in what became the orthodox doctrines of God and Christology as found in the Ecumenical Creeds. The same holds true concerning the doctrines of the Eucharist and Real Presence. In later posts I will provide solid evidence that the early Church Fathers provided the core elements for the formulation of the doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

Another problem that I have with the 'Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence' post is that it seems to limit its criticisms of the Real Presence doctrine to just the Catholic tradition. Fact is, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, Lutherans, and many Anglicans also embrace the doctrine. Interestingly enough, one Anglican apologist has provided some solid critiques of Brian's musings. I highly recommend that interested folk take the time to investigate the following posts:

Early Church Refutes real presence? An introduction

https://cooperscorner338720667.wordpress.com/2018/05/08/early-church-refutes-real-presence-an-introduction/

Early Church evidence refutes real presence?-A reply to Brian Cullition Part 1: Ignatius of Antioch

https://cooperscorner338720667.wordpress.com/2018/05/12/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence-a-reply-to-brian-cullition-part-1-ignatius-of-antioch/

Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence?-Origen’s Exegesis and the Eucharist

https://cooperscorner338720667.wordpress.com/2021/05/14/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence-origens-exegesis-and-the-eucharist/

Early Church Evidence Refutes Real Presence: Dialogue with Culliton

https://cooperscorner338720667.wordpress.com/2020/05/22/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence-dialogue-with-culliton/

Shall end here for now. In my next post, the Lord willing, I will begin my examination of our second 21st century controversialist, Timothy F. Kauffman.

 

Grace and peace,

David

Current day Levites and a possible third Temple

Earlier this morning, I received via email David Cloud's 'Friday Church News Notes', which included the following entry:

>>LEVITES TUNE UP FOR THE THIRD TEMPLE (Friday Church News Notes, May 3, 2024, www.wayoflife.org fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) - “Levites Tune up for the Third Temple” is the title of a report in Israel365News for May 3, 2024. Following is an excerpt: “On Thursday, the third intermediary day of Passover, Levites gathered in Jerusalem to reenact their musical role in the Temple. A group of about two dozen Levites gathered in the Old City to practice their singing while wearing garments designed for use by the Temple musicians in the Third Temple. ... The Gaon of Vilna (an 18th-century Torah sage) said that the Temple music would be the last secret to be revealed before the Messiah.” We know from Bible prophecy that the Third Temple will be built, and it will be occupied by the Antichrist, who will declare himself to be God and demand the worship of the entire world (2 Thessalonians 2:3-9; Revelation 13:4-8, 16-17). His entrance into the temple will mark the beginning of the great tribulation (Matthew 24:15-22). The preparations for the Third Temple is a major sign of the times. The hour is very, very late, and if the redeemed saints are going to serve Christ, we must do it now and not allow ourselves to be sidetracked to lesser things.>>[Link]

I knew that descendents of the tribe of Levi have survived to our day, but did not know that some of them were actually engaged in priestly duties. The following is from the Israel365News site mentioned by David Cloud:

Traditionally, Temple musicians were selected from the tribe of Levi. The Zohar explains that the Levites were selected to sing in the Temple because the name Levi means to accompany, and their music would cause others to come close to God. In the days that the Temples stood in Jerusalem, the Levites sang on the 15 steps— corresponding to the 15 Songs of Ascent in Psalms 15 —that led from the Ezrat Nashim (“Court of Women”) to the Ezrat Yisrael(“Court of Israelites”). The Mishna states that there were never less than 12 Levites standing on the platform, but their number could be increased indefinitely. While ordinarily, no minor was permitted to enter the Azarah (“Courtyard”) to take part in the service, the young Levites were permitted to join in the singing to “add sweetness to the sound” but were not permitted to stand on the same platform with the adult Levites (Talmud Erchin 2:6).

In the Bible, the tribe of Levi included Moses and Aaron. Kohanim (priests) are descendants of Aaron and his descendants became a subset of the tribe of Levi. The other members of the tribe were chosen by God to forfeit their portions of land in Israel and to serve in the Temple. The Levites performed various functions in the Temple including guarding and serving all the musical needs.

Jewish communities are scrupulous about perpetuating the status of the Levites, which is passed from father to son. Only Jewish men whose fathers were Levites are considered eligible. Comprising about 4% of the total Jewish population, they are recognized for conspicuous honors in religious services and their status as Levites is inscribed on their gravestones. [Link]

Levite priests, a third temple in Jerusalem, and the Antichrist  ???

Food for thought…

 

Grace and peace,

David

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