SBT Strives
to bring YOU 1-Pet 2:2 (open-1&-2:2-Pure
spiritual milk (No GPP mixed in SBT
articles open SbtCN). This SBTPage is for-Homoousion-C.E. The word
that made Jesus God--Homoousion Worship/Theology A Pro Nicene--Creed--Word-- Homoousion
Is Not Used
By Bible writers–Compare-2 Tim 3-16-17-& Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A
New Look at Today's Evangelical Church in the Light of Early Christianity, by David W. Bercot (Scroll Pub,
1989, excerpts from pages
129-132, 135, 93-94, 97-98) open [book review] CatholiCity - Simplified From the Catholic Encyclopedia and sbt
links for Comparison (Gr. homoousion - from homos, same, and
ousia, essence; Lat. consubstantialem, of one essence or
substance),Sbt Notes-Know Man Knows GOD’s (-J-or-Y)- substance.That
is an Imaginary Concept.-Open A-Fact.htm-Also See TRL2.htm
& T-Simplified.htm
The-Word- used
by the Council of Nicaea (325) to
express the Divinity of Christ. Arius had taught that the Son, being, in the language of
Philo(Philo.htm), the Intermediator between God and the world, was not
eternal, and therefore not of the Divine substance, but a creature brought
forth (Prov8-22)-by the Free-Will of GOD -J-or-Y (See ARIANISM F-M-P & 58.htm ) Homoousion was indeed used by philosophical writers (Not
Bible writers 2 Tim 3-16-17 TL2 P N-C-) to signify "of
the same or similar substance"; but as the unity of the Divine nature
wasn't questioned, the Word carried the fuller meaning: "of one and the same
substance". However, not only is homos ambiguous; the word ousia itself
was often taken as equivalent to hypostasis (person), as apparently is the case in the anathema
attached to the Nicene Symbol. And therefore the affirmation of the identity of
nature might be taken in the heretical sense of the Sabellians, who denied the
distinction of person. It was only after many years of controversy that the two
words acquired their distinct meanings, and the orthodox were able to describe
the Trinity as one in ousia and three in hypostasis or persona. Previously to the Council of Nicaea, Tertullian had
already used the Latin equivalent of Homoousion, conceding to Praxeas the
Sabellian that the Father and the Son were unius substantiae, of one substance, but adding duarum personarum, of two persons (Adv. Prax., xiii). And Dionysius of
Alexandria used the actual word in a letter to Dionysius of Rome (Athan.,
"De dec. Syn. Nic.", xxv, 26) and again in his letter to Paul of
Samosata. On the other hand, Origen, who is, however, inconsistent in his
vocabulary, expressed the anti-Sabellian sense of Dionysius of Alexandria by
calling the Son "Heteroousion". The question was brought into
discussion by the Council of Antioch (264-272); and the Fathers seem to have
rejected Homoousion, even going so far as to propose the phrase heteras ousias, that is, Heteroousion, "of other or different
ousia". Athanasius and Basil give as the reason for this rejection of
Homoousion the fact that the Sabellian Paul of Samosata took it to mean
"of the same of similar substance". But Hilary says that Paul himself
admitted it in the Sabellian sense "of the same substance or person",
and thus compelled the council to allow him the prescriptive right to the
expression. Now, if we may take Hilary's explanation, it is obvious that when,
half a century afterwards, Arius denied the Son to be of the Divine ousia or
substance, the situation was exactly reversed. Homoousion directly contradicted
the heretic. In the conflicts which ensued, the extreme Arians persisted in the
Heteroousion Symbol. But the Semi-Arians were more moderate, and consequently
more plausible, in their Homoiousion (of like substance). When one considers
how the four creeds formulated at Antioch (341) by the Semi-Arians approached
the Nicene Creed as nearly as possible without the actual word Homoousion,
there may be a temptation to think that the question was one of words only; and
the Councils of Rimini and Seleucia (359) may seem to have been well advised in
their conciliatory formula "that the Son was like the Father in all
things, according to the Holy Writ". But this very formula was forced from
the Fathers by the Emperor Constantius; and the force and fraud which the
Semi-Arians used throughout the greater part of the fourth century, are proof
sufficient that the dispute was not merely verbal. The dogma of the Trinity was
at stake, and Homoousion proved itself to be in the words of Epiphanius
"the bond of faith", or, according to the expression of Marius
Victorinus, "the rampart and wall of orthodoxy." (See
ARIANISM; TRINITY.)
JAMES BRIDGE
About Us : Support Us : Contact Us
CatholiCity.com © 1996-2008 The Mary
Foundation
CatholiCity - The Catholic Church
Simplified