Homoousion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with Homoiousion.
Part of a series on
Christianity
Principal symbol of Christianity
  • Bible
  • Foundations
hide
Theology
  • Denominations
  • Groups
Related topics
Christian cross Christianity portal
  • v
  • t

Homoousion (ὁμοούσιον), the accusative case form of homoousios (ὁμοούσιος), meaning "consubstantial"[1] or "of the same substance,"[2][3][4] was used in the Nicene Creed, formulated at the First Council of Nicaea (325) in order to say that the Son of God is of the same substance as the Father.

This notion became the cornerstone of theology in Nicene Christianity, and is also one of the most important theological concepts within the Trinitarian doctrinal understanding of God.[5]

The Gnostics were the first to use this word.[6] Origen seems to have been the first ecclesiastical writer to use the word homoousios but it is evident in his writings that he considered the Son's divinity lesser than the Father's.[7]

Terminology[]

Homoousion (Greek: ὁμοούσιον, lit. 'same in being, same in essence', from ὁμός, homós, "same" and οὐσία, ousía, "being" or "essence")[8][1] was most notably used in the Nicene Creed for describing Jesus (God the Son) as "same in substance" or "same in essence" with God the Father (ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί). The Nicene Creed is accepted as official doctrine by most Christian churches.

The same term was later also applied to the Holy Spirit in order to designate him as being "same in essence" with the Father and the Son.

Since the term ousia[9] was commonly translated in Latin as essentia (essence) or substantia (substance),[10] the Greek term homoousios was translated into Latin as coessentialis or consubstantialis.[11] Hence the English terms coessential and consubstantial. The Book of Common Prayer renders the term as "being of one substance with the Father."[12]

Numerical and Qualitative Sameness[]

Edmund J. Fortman[13] wrote that, for a long time, it had been widely assumed that the statement in the Nicene Creed, that the Son is homoousios with the Father, means “His numerical identity of substance with the Father.” In other words, that the Father and the Son share one single substance.

He adds, “but in recent years there has developed a growing tendency to question and reject this assumption.” The alternative of homoousion in the creed is that the Father and the Son have exactly the same TYPE of substance (qualitative sameness). This article discusses various considerations for choosing between these options.

Pre-Nicene usage[]

The term homoousios had been used before its adoption by the First Council of Nicaea. While Aristotle was known for using the term οὐσία to describe his philosophical concept of Primary Substances, the Gnostics were the first to use this word ὁμοούσιος (Homooúsios)[6][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][excessive citations], namely, to describe their doctrine of Emanations, a concept that supported the idea of Aeons - a Panentheistic idea that we all worship the same God which simply appears in different forms (but these gods are also ὁμοούσιος [homooúsios] or of the same substance as God). In Gnostic texts, the word homoousios is used with the following meanings:

  • Identity of substance between generator and generated.
  • Identity of substance between things generated of the same substance.
  • Identity of substance between the partners of a syzygy.

For example, Basilides, the first known Gnostic thinker to use homoousios in the first half of the 2nd century AD, speaks of a threefold sonship consubstantial with the god who is not.[23][24] The Valentinian Gnostic Ptolemy says in his letter to Flora that it is the nature of the good God to beget and bring forth only beings similar to and consubstantial with, himself.[25]

The early church theologians were probably made aware of this concept, and thus of the doctrine of emanation, taught by the Gnostics.[26] Origen seems to have been the first ecclesiastical writer to use the word homoousios (The first book of the Apology for Origen by Pamphilus and Eusebius),[a] but it is evident in his writings that Origen was a subordinationist, meaning he believed that the Father to be superior to the Son.[28][29] He even calls the Son a creature.[7]

While it is common to find statements that Origen and other early apologist Church fathers held subordinationist views, Ilaria Ramelli discussed the "anti-subordinationism" of Origen.[30]

In New Testament usage, in Luke 15:12-13, οὐσία (substance) is translated as:

      • "goods" (KJV),
      • "substance" (KJV),
      • "property" (RSV, ESV),
      • "estate" (NASB, NIV), and as
      • "wealth" (NIV).

Adoption in the Nicene Creed[]

The Nicene Creed is accepted as official doctrine by most Christian churches – the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox churches, Church of the East, and Anglican Communion, as well as Lutheran, Reformed, Evangelical, and most mainline Protestant churches – with regard to the ontological status of the three persons or hypostases of the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The Nicene Creed uses homoousian to say that the Son of God is "of the same substance" as the Father. The Nicene Creed also was declared the Son to be as immutable as his Father.

Meaning in the Nicene Creed[]

Edmund J. Fortman, a Jesuit priest and teacher of philosophy and theology[31] in his book, The Triune God, p 66-70, discusses the meaning of the word homoousios in the Nicene Creed.[13]

Fortman wrote that, for a long time, it had been widely assumed that the statement in the Nicene Creed, that the Son is homoousios with the Father, means “His numerical identity of substance with the Father.” In other words, that the Father and the Son share one single substance. In this interpretation of the word homoousios, the Nicene Creed supports the Trinity Doctrine in which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three different Persons with three different minds, but one and the same substance or being. Consequently, in this interpretation, “same substance” is understood to mean “one substance.”

However, Fortman continues, “but in recent years there has developed a growing tendency to question and reject this assumption.”

He describes the alternative interpretation as follows:

“When it said the Son was 'consubstantial with the Father,' it meant at least that He is 'utterly like the Father in substance,' 'utterly unlike creatures in substance.”

In this alternative interpretation, therefore, the Father and the Son have exactly the same TYPE of substance (qualitative sameness) but they do one share one and the same substance (numerical sameness).

In considering these two possible meanings, the following may be considered:

The Meaning before Nicaea[]

Fortman wrote, “the word consubstantial up to Nicea had only meant generic identity or likeness of substance.” Fortman uses the example of Origen. Erickson also stated:

The usual meaning of the word homoousios, as used by Origen, for example, was generic, namely, "of the same nature." In that sense, it could signify the kind of substance or stuff common to several individuals of a class, as would be true of a collection of humans, for example.[32]

No Sabellianism[]

Both Fortman and Erickson mention the apparent absence of the thought that homoousion implies Sabellianism. To quote Erickson:

If Eusebius and his allies had thought that homoousios was being used to teach the doctrine of numerical unity of substance, they would have seen this as a concession to Sabellianism and would have vigorously resisted it.

The Main Issue at Nicaea[]

Both Fortman and Erickson mention that the main issue before the council was not the numerical sameness of the substance of the Father and the Son. To quote Erickson:

The issue before the council, it is virtually universally agreed, was not the unity of the Godhead but rather the coeternity of the Son with the Father, and his full divinity, as contrasted with the creaturehood that the Arians attributed to him.

Numerical Sameness worked out later[]

Both the Nicene[33] and Athanasian[34] creeds open with Unitarian language that was the standard opening phrase for creeds of that century and that makes a distinction between the Father and the Son:

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty ... And in one Lord Jesus Christ" (cf. 1 Cor 8:6).

Since the creed distinguishes between the Father and Son as different Persons but as homoousios (of the same substance), to understand homoousios as meaning the same substance numerically requires a distinction in meaning between person (hypostasis) and substance (ousia). But, as Lienhard showed, the distinction in meaning between ousia and hypostasis (both of which mean ‘something that subsists’) did not yet exist when the Nicene Creed was formulated and was worked out only in the late fourth century.[35] This is confirmed by the Nicene Creed itself. In the condemnations, it uses hypostasis (person) and ousia (substance) as synonyms:

"But as for those who say … that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis [ὑπόστασις] or substance [οὐσία] (than the Father) … these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes."

In his discussion of this phrase, Fr. Michael Pomazansky describes it as "a lack of clarity" and explains that:

"This circumstance hindered mutual understanding. Finally, following the authoritative example of St. Basil the Great (329-379), it became accepted to understand by the word Hypostasis the Personal attributes in the Triune Divinity."[36]

In other words, Pomazansky confirms that the distinction between ousia (substance) and hypostasis (person) was only developed later through Basil the Great. Fortman confirms that the distinction between ousia and hypostasis and, therefore, the concept of numerical identity, were only acknowledged later:

“Later on when the numerical identity of substance was fully acknowledged, some orthodox theologians still used the word consubstantial in the sense of generic unity.”

And as Erickson affirm:

"Most orthodox theologians continued to use the term in the sense of generic unity (qualitative sameness)."[37]

Despite these considerations, the creed is commonly interpreted to affirm the Son as equal to His Father. That interpretation assumes, although the language of the creed does not reflect it, that the concept of the Trinity has already existed when the creed was formulated while the specific language used to affirm the doctrine continued to develop.[38][39][40][41]

Two Almighty Beings?[]

The creed identifies the Father as "one God ... Almighty." To say that the Father and Son have exactly the same type of substance (qualitative sameness), but two distinct ousiai (substances), may imply the existence of two Almighty Gods. However, as Fortman stated, "it would seem to be unnatural for monotheists to admit two divine ousiai."

The possible counter-argument is that the creed describes the Son as subordinate to the Father. In that case, only the Father is “God” in the strict sense of the word. Indications that the creed may describe the Son as subordinate include:

While the creed describes the Son as “one Lord,” it describes the Father with higher titles, namely as the “one God” and as the “Almighty.”

The creed identifies the Father as the primary Creator and the Son as the secondary Creator.

The creed describes the Lord Jesus as the “Son” of as “begotten” by the Father.

If homoousion in the creed means that the Son is of the same substance as the Father numerically, that implies equality. However, since homoousion could also mean that the Son is of the same substance qualitatively, the word homoousion, as such, does not prove equality.

On the other hand, the creed describes the Son as “true God from true God,” but that does not mean that He is equal to the Father for the Greek word translated as “God” (theos) has a range of meanings.[42] For example, Origen, and perhaps all theologians before Nicaea, referred to the Son of God as theos (translated as god or as God) but, as Fortman indicates, Origen described “the Son and the Holy Spirit … (as) 'diminished gods,' inferior to the Father who alone was God in the strict sense.”

A New Meaning for an Old Term[]

Fortman wrote:

“Why should the Fathers be unready to accept a new meaning instead of the traditional meaning of this term, if they were ready to use this 'new' term itself instead of a traditional Biblical term?”

Assumable, this “new term” is homoousios. However, the council did not accept this term willingly. The Emperor presided over the proceedings and proposed and even insisted on the word homoousios.[43][44] Most of the delegates did not agree with the word homoousios.[45]

After Nicaea[]

As indicated by the large number of creeds that were developed in the 50 years after Nicaea that proposed alternatives for the Nicene Creed, particularly for the word homo-ousios (see the discussion below), the church reacted strongly against this word. (See the Council of Sardica (341), the Council of Ariminum (358), and a number of others (see Arian Creeds). The Fourth Century website[46] lists 17 councils, from the Nicene Creed of 325 to the Constantinople creed of the year 381.

The strong reaction against the word homoousios in the decades following Nicaea, and the alternative views proposed (see the discussion below of the Branches of Christianity after Nicaea), are strong evidence that the representatives at the council did not agree that the Father and the Son share the same substance numerically (“one substance”).

Subordination to the Father[]

If the Father and Son have the same substance numerically (one being), the Son must be equal with the Father. Conversely, if the Creed describes the Son as subordinate to the Father, they cannot be of the same substance numerically.

A critical question, then, is whether the Nicene Creed describes the Son as subordinate to the Father, as the theologians of the centuries before Nicaea did (e.g., Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus and Origen).

The description of the Son as homoousios with the Father is the only or perhaps the main indication in the creed that the Son is equal to the Father. However, as discussed, homoousios may also indicate qualitative sameness. Furthermore, above indications are listed that the creed describes the Son of God as subordinate to the Father. If that is true, they cannot be of the same substance numerically.

Unnecessary Repetition[]

The creed describes the Son as “begotten … of the essence of the Father” and also as “consubstantial (homo-ousios) with the Father.” Fortman argues as follows: The first phrase already implies qualitative sameness of substance. If the second phrase has the same means, that seems like unnecessary repetition.

On the other hand, firstly, whether “begotten … of the essence of the Father” implies qualitative sameness of substance is debatable. Secondly, the creed often repeats concepts in an emphasized manner, without a change of meaning:

“Begotten” is repeated and emphasized as “the only-begotten.” “God of God” is repeated and emphasized as “very God of very God.”

On the other hand, the creed often repeats concepts in an emphasized manner, without a change of meaning:

“Begotten” is repeated and emphasized as “the only-begotten.” “God of God” is repeated and emphasized as “very God of very God.”

Acceptance of the Nicene Creed[]

One of the alternative formulation that have been developed in the decades after Nicaea, as replacement for "same substance," is "similar substance" [homoioúsios). (See the discussion below.) This phrase emphasizes the distinction between the Father and the Son. However, the term homoousion, as contained in the Nicene Creed, eventually became accepted in both East and West and became interpreted to mean that Jesus Christ is the physical manifestation of Logos (or the Word), and consequently possesses all of the inherent, ineffable perfections which religion and philosophy attribute to the Supreme Being. In the language that became universally accepted after the First Council of Constantinople in AD 381, three distinct and infinite hypostases, or divine persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, fully possess the very same (numerically the same, as opposed to qualitatively the same) divine ousia.

Branches of Christianity after Nicaea[]

The branches of Christianity, which existed during the half a century after Nicaea, can be roughly classified as follows:

Homo-ousian - Same Substance[]

Homoousion is "a theological doctrine holding that Christ is of one substance with God."[47] Homoousion is most notably used in the Nicene Creed for describing Jesus as "same in being" or as "same in essence" with God the Father.

A Homoousian is "a Christian who believes that the Son is of the same substance as the Father."[48]

Homo-ian - Avoid the word Substance.[]

Homoian Arianism (from gr. hómoios), also called Homoean Arianism (Homoeanism), avoided the use of the word ousia on the grounds that "there is nothing written about them in divine Scripture and that they are above men's knowledge and above men's understanding".[49] The Homoians separated themselves from the Nicene Creed, by the rejection of the word "homoousios"; from the Semi-Arians by their surrender of the "homoiousios"; and from the Aetians[50] by their insistence upon the term homoios. Homoianism declared that the Son was like or similar to God the Father, without reference to essence or substance.

Hanson lists twelve creeds that reflect the Homoian faith.[51]

This view was adopted by the third Council of Sirmium, in 357, which is regarded as the high point of Arianism. That creed, similar to the Nicene Creed, professes "one God, the Father Almighty" and, quoting John 10:29 and 14:28, explicitly says that "the Father is greater"[52] The bishops of the Western portion of the Empire met at Ariminum towards the end of May 359, and those of the East at Seleucia Isauria in the month of September of the same year. In both councils, as the result of an unscrupulous use of intimidation by the emperor, the Homoian formula ultimately prevailed. The Son was declared to be similar to God the Father.

The Free Dictionary defines Arianism as "the doctrines of Arius, denying that Jesus was of the same substance as God and holding instead that he was only the highest of created beings."[53] Although Homoians refused to become involved in the debate about the substance of God, it is referred to as Arianism because Arianism is also used to mean any doctrine about the nature of Christ that is inconsistent with Nicene Christianity.[54]

Homo-i-ousian - Similar Substance[]

A Semi-Arian or homoiousian is “an adherent of the Christian doctrine, formulated in the fourth century ad, that Jesus the Son and God the Father are of similar but not of the same substance.”[55]

Homoiousianism (from ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar substance", as opposed to "same substance") maintained that the Son was "similar in substance" to the Father but not of "the same substance" as the Father.

The so-called Semi-Arians objected to the Greek term homoousios, which was used by the Nicene Creed because it was a term reported to also be used and favored by the Sabellians in their Christology. Sabellius described the Father and the Son as "homoousios" (one substance), but what he meant by that is that the Father and Son are "one essential Person", though operating as different faces, roles, or modes. The Semi-Arians objected that the term "homoousios" was "un-Scriptural, suspicious, and of a Sabellian tendency."[56] By describing the Father and Son as distinct, the Council of Nicaea rejected Sabellianism.

Hetero-ousian - Different Substance[]

Heteroousianism (also called Anomoeanism) held that God the Father and the Son were different in substance and/or attributes.

Anomoeans (ἀνόμοιος , dissimilar), the name by which the stricter Arians, who denied the likeness of the Word to the Father, were distinguished from the Semi- Arians, who merely denied his consubstantiality. — Gieseler, Ch. Hist. 1, 198.[57]

Duration of the Arian Controversy[]

Legal History Sources[58] identifies the beginning of the Arian Controversy as 318 or 319 when a dispute arose between Bishop Alexander and his presbyters, Arius. After Nicaea in 325, the anti-Nicene Christologies, as discussed above, and the almost innumerable variations on them, were developed and dominated in the church. These positions were strongly and tenaciously opposed by Athanasius and other pro-Nicenes, who insisted on the doctrine of homoousion or consubstantiality.

Nicene Christology eventually prevailed when the Roman Emperor Theodosius published the Edit of Thessalonica in the year 380 - prior to the Council of Constantinople of 381 - declaring that the Nicene Creed was the only legitimate doctrine and that those who opposed it were heretics and are to be punished.[59] In 381 the church finally accepted a non-Arian statement of faith that went uncontested by further Arian confessions. This defined Nicene Christology as a dogma of the still-united Western and Eastern Roman churches. However, the Germanic nations, who took control of the Western Empire during the next century, (see, Fall of the Western Roman Empire) were still Arians. It was not until emperor Justinian significantly weakened the Arian nations, followed by the Byzantine Empire, during which the Arian nations converted to Nicene Christology, that Homoousian Christology became generally accepted.

See also[]

  • Consubstantiality
  • From ὁμοούσιος (coessential),the theological term ὁμοουσιότης (coessentiality) was also derived. It was used by Greek-speaking authors, like Didymus of Alexandria and other theologians.[60]

Notes[]

  1. ^ In an exegetical comment on Heb. 1:3, cited in the first book of the Apology for Origen by Pamphilus and Eusebius, Origen explains the special relationship of Christ, the Wisdom of God (Wisd. 7:25), with the Father:

    Vaporis enim nomen inducens hoc ideo de rebus corporalibus assumpsit, ut vel ex parte aliqua intelligere possimus quomodo Christus, qui est Sapientia, secundum similitudinem eius vaporis qui de substantia aliqua corporea procedit, sic etiam ipse ut quidem vapor exoritur de virtute ipsius Dei. Sic et Sapientia ex eo procedens ex ipsa substantia Dei generatur; sic nilominus, et secundum similitudinem corporalis aporrhoeae, esse dicitur aporrhoea gloriae Omnipotentis, pura et sincera. Quae utraeque similitudines manifestissime ostendunt communionem substantiae esse Filio cum Patre. Aporrhoea enim ὁμοούσιος videtur, id est unius substantiae, cum illo corpore ex quo est vel aporrhoea, vel vapor.[27]

References[]

  1. ^ Jump up to: a b ὁμοούσιος, ὁμοιούσιος, ὅμοιος, ὁμός in Liddell and Scott.
  2. ^ "Definition of HOMOOUSIAN". www.merriam-webster.com. Retrieved 2021-09-14.
  3. ^ "Homoousios". Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry. Retrieved 2021-09-14.
  4. ^ "homoousios | Definition, History, & Importance". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2021-09-14.
  5. ^ Bethune-Baker 2004.
  6. ^ Jump up to: a b von Harnack, Adolf, Dogmengeschichte (in German), 1:284–85, n. 3; 2:232–34, n. 4.
  7. ^ Jump up to: a b Pelikan, Jaroslav (1971), The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, 1, The Chicago University Press, p. 191.
  8. ^ οὐσία. Liddell, Henry George; Scott, Robert; A Greek–English Lexicon at the Perseus Project.
  9. ^ Loux 2008.
  10. ^ Weedman 2007.
  11. ^ consubstantialis. Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short. A Latin Dictionary on Perseus Project.
  12. ^ Baskerville, John. "The Book of Common Prayer" (PDF). Society of Archbishop Justus. Charles Wohlers. Retrieved 21 January 2018.
  13. ^ Jump up to: a b "Trinity: The role of Constantine in the Nicene creed". www.bible.ca. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  14. ^ Ortiz de Urbina, Ignacio (1942), "L'homoousios preniceno" [The prenicene homoousios], Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 8: 194–209.
  15. ^ Ortiz de Urbina, Ignacio (1947), El Simbolo Niceno [The Nicene symbol] (in Spanish), Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, pp. 183–202.
  16. ^ Mendizabal, Luis M (1956), "El Homoousios Preniceno Extraeclesiastico" [Ecclesiastical studies], Estudios Eclesiasticos (in Spanish), 30: 147–96.
  17. ^ Prestige, George Leonard (1952) [1936], God in Patristic Thought (2d ed.), London: SPCK, pp. 197–218.
  18. ^ Gerlitz, Peter (1963), Aufierchristliche Einflilsse auf die Entwicklung des christlichen. Trinitatsdogmas, zugleich ein religions- und dogmengeschichtlicher Versuch zur Erklarung der Herkunft der Homousie, Leiden: Brill, pp. 193–221.
  19. ^ Boularand, Ephrem (1972), L'heresie d'Arius et la 'foi' de Nicke [The Arius’ heresy and the ‘faith’ of Nicke] (in French), 2, La "foi" de Nicee, Paris: Letouzey & Ane, pp. 331–53.
  20. ^ Kelly, John Norman D (1972), Early Christian Creeds (3d ed.), London: Longman, p. 245.
  21. ^ Dinsen, Frauke (1976), Homoousios. Die Geschichte des Begriffs bis zum Konzil von Konstantinopel (381) (Diss) (in German), Kiel, pp. 4–11.
  22. ^ Stead, Christopher, Divine Substance, pp. 190–202.
  23. ^ of Rome, Hippolytus, Refutatio omnium haeresium [Refutation of all heresies] (in Latin), 7:22, Υἱότης τριμερής, κατὰ πάντα τῷ οὐκ ὄντι θεῷ ὁμοούσιος.
  24. ^ For the Gnostic use of the term, Marcovich, Miroslav (1986), Patristische Texte und Studien [Patristic texts & studies] (in German), 25, Berlin: W de Gruyter, pp. 290f. V, 8, 10 (156), V, 17, 6.10 (186 f.).
  25. ^ of Salamis, Epiphanius, Panarion (in Greek), 33:7,8, Τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ φύσιν ἔχοντος τὰ ὅμοια ἑαυτῷ καὶ ὁμοούσια γεννᾶν τε καὶ προφέρειν.
  26. ^ Grillmeier, Aloys (1975), Christ in Christian Tradition, 1, From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451), London: Mowbrays, p. 109.
  27. ^ PG, 14:1308; 17:580, 581.
  28. ^ La Due, William J. (2003), Trinity Guide to the Trinity, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, ISBN 978-1-56338-395-3 p. 38.
  29. ^ Olson, Roger E.; Hall, Christopher A. (2002), The Trinity, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Co., ISBN 978-0-8028-4827-7 2002, p. 25.
  30. ^ Ramelli, Llaria (2011). "Origen's Anti-Subordinationism and Its Heritage in the Nicene and Cappadocian Line". Vigiliae Christianae. Brill. 65 (1): 21–49. doi:10.1163/157007210X508103. JSTOR 41062535.
  31. ^ Heise, Kenan. "REV. EDMUND J. FORTMAN; TAUGHT PHILOSOPHY, THEOLOGY". chicagotribune.com. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  32. ^ God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85
  33. ^ Nicene, Creed. "Nicene Creed". Reformed.org. Retrieved 31 May 2017.
  34. ^ Athanasian, Creed. "Athanasian Creed". Reformed.org. Retrieved 31 May 2017.
  35. ^ Lienhard, Joseph T. Ousia and Hypostasis: The Cappadocian Settlement and the Theology of ‘One Hypostasis’. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0199246122.001.0001/acprof-9780199246120-chapter-5. ISBN 978-0-19-160053-1.
  36. ^ "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology". St. Herman Press. Retrieved 2021-09-15.
  37. ^ Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons, p82-85
  38. ^ Pavao, Paul. "The Trinity: Doctrine Development and Definition". Christian-History.org. Retrieved 1 June 2017.[self-published source]
  39. ^ Pavao, Paul. "Orthodoxy: An Ironic Side Note on Heresy, and the Trinity". Christian-History.org. Retrieved 1 June 2017.[self-published source]
  40. ^ P. "Holy Trinity and Modern Arians Part 2". BiblicalCatholic.com. Retrieved 1 June 2017.
  41. ^ Barnard, L.W. (1970). "The Antecedents of Arius". Vigiliae Christianae. 24 (3): 172–188. doi:10.1163/157007270X00029. JSTOR 1583070.
  42. ^ "Strong's Greek: 2316. θεός (theos) -- God, a god". www.biblehub.com. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  43. ^ Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386
  44. ^ God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85
  45. ^ "Trinity: The role of Constantine in the Nicene creed". www.bible.ca. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  46. ^ "Fourth Century Christianity » Conciliar Creeds of the Fourth Century". Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  47. ^ "Definition of HOMOOUSION". www.merriam-webster.com. Retrieved 2021-09-13.
  48. ^ "Homoousion", The Free Dictionary, retrieved 2021-09-13
  49. ^ (Athan., De Syn., xxviii; Soz., ii, xxx; Hil., De Syn., xi)
  50. ^ "Aetians - Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature -". StudyLight.org. Retrieved 2021-09-13.
  51. ^ Hanson, R. P. C. (2005). The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381 AD. A&C Black.ISBN 978-0-567-03092-4. pp. 558–559
  52. ^ "Fourth Century Christianity » Second Creed of Sirmium or "The Blasphemy of Sirmium"". Retrieved 2021-09-13.
  53. ^ "Arianism", The Free Dictionary, retrieved 2021-09-13
  54. ^ "Arianism". Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  55. ^ "Homoiousian", The Free Dictionary, retrieved 2021-09-13
  56. ^ St. Athanasius (1911), "In Controversy With the Arians", Select Treatises, Newman, John Henry Cardinal trans, Longmans, Green, & Co, p. 124, footn.
  57. ^ "Anomoeans - Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature -". StudyLight.org. Retrieved 2021-09-13.
  58. ^ "A Chronology of the Arian Controversy". legalhistorysources.com. Retrieved 2021-09-05.
  59. ^ Theodosian Code 16:2, 1 Friell, G., Williams, S., Theodosius: The Empire at Bay, London, 1994.
  60. ^ Florovsky 1987.

Bibliography[]

External links[]

Retrieved from ""