J
joclucsylv
Guest
HOMOOUSIOS AND THE NICENE CREED
(Homoousion to patri)
Many think that by the time of the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) the Monarchian doctrine had all but vanished. What we are about to see will show that thought is far from the truth.
The Arian controversy had reached a fervor, something had to be done, or it seemed the Church, indeed the Empire, would be split. Emperor Constantine ordered the first ecumenical council to take place at Nice, Turkey to address the problem (Arius was a deacon from Egypt that taught subordinationism of the Son [Jesus] to the Father - the fourth century champion of Justin’s and Origen’s teachings.) The council was called to forge a document that all the bishops could sign stating an orthodoxy for the church. Two things were apparent: the orthodox meant to formulate a document that would deliver the death blow once and for all to the Arians; second, the Arian bishops fully intended to remain in fellowship. Although they had neither the numbers or the influence to force an Arian document, they meant to force a creed that was ambiguous enough that they, too, could sign.
According to J.N.D. Kelly, “… it was in the fourth characteristic phrase of the Creed, the words ‘of one substance with the Father’ (Homoousion to patri), that the full weight of the Orthodox reply to Arianism was concentrated.” The word ‘HOMOOUSIOS’ asserted the full deity of the Christ. This word implied that Jesus shared the very being or essence of the Father. It was a strong word, to be sure; a word with which most were uncomfortable, but by its use subordinationism was defeated. The word ‘homoousios’ caused most of the bishops concern, because it had been, for generations, the watchword of the Modalistic Monarchians.
Proof that ‘homoousios’ was identified as Monarchian is seen from the account of the two Dionysii, a full sixty years before Nicaea. J.N.D. Kelly gives us the account: “… current interpretation of ‘homoousios’ was provided by the affair of the two Dionysii in the sixties of the third century. Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria, it will be recalled, had been put to much trouble by an outbreak of Sabellianism (Modalistic Monarchianism) in the Libyan Pentapolis. When he took forceful measures to eradicate it, the leaders of the … group made formal complaint to the Roman Pontiff, alleging among other things that the Bishop of Alexandria declined to say that the Son was homoousios with God. There’s little doubt that the Sabellians stood for that ancient and, in popular circles at any rate, widely established brand of Monarchianism which regarded Jesus Christ as the earthly manifestation of the divine Being. To them the Origenist approach, with its distinction of the three hypostases and its tendencies to subordinate the Son, was anathema. When they appealed to ‘homoousios’ as their watchword, they meant by it that the Being or substance of the Son was identical with that of the Father. The way in which they invoked ‘homoousios’ in their complaint to the Pope is thus highly significant. It suggests, first, but it was already becoming in certain circles a technical term to describe the relationship of the Father and the Son, and, secondly, that they expected it would be recognized and approved at Rome.” Kelly goes on to say that Pope Dionysius condemned the views reported to him, and that his reply took a markedly Monarchian line.
Along with this event of the two Dionysii, there is Paul of Somozata. In A.D. 268 Paul of Samozata was condemned by the Synod of Antioch on the strength of this very word. Paul invoked ‘homoousios’ as his explanation of the oneness between the Father and the Son. For this very word he was condemned. Now, the word that is so identifiable with Monarchianism is being employed in the Creed of Nicaea to protect orthodoxy from Arianism. According to J.N.D. Kelly only a “handful” of the bishops wholeheartedly welcomed the language of the Creed. These consisted of the Western bishops among whom were: Hosius of Cordova (the president of the council, whom most suppose was the author of the word “homoousios”), St. Alexander of Alexandria, St. Eustathius of Antioch, Marcellus of Ancyra and a few others. These bishops welcomed the language of the Creed because of the identity of substance between the Father and the Son which it emphasized. It is more than meaningful to me that these bishops mentioned were, themselves, Monarchians. This is a clear testimony of the Monarchian influence upon the Creed of Nicaea.
The Monarchian stamp is visible in at least two places in the Creed of Nicaea: first, in the body of the Creed itself, in the word ‘homoousios’ (of the same being or essence); secondly, in the anathema at the end of the Creed which states, “But for those who … assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, or is subject to alteration or change – these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.”
By both of these ‘characteristic phrases’ of the Creed of Nicaea the modern Trinitarian would be placed outside of orthodoxy. In the Hayes-Green debate of 1987 the Trinitarian, Mr. Green did three things:
1). denied the homoousios of Christ to the Father;
2). openly declared the Father, Son and Holy Ghost to be different hypostases; and
3). taught that the Son of God altered Himself to become a man. (See the book entitled The Godhead Discussion, by Bishop Jerry Hayes.)
If modern Trinitarianism is considered, the Creed of Nicaea is a Monarchian credo.
(This article has been adapted from the author’s book entitled The Godhead Discussion which may be acquired through JHM at: www.jerryhayesmin.org.)
(Homoousion to patri)
Many think that by the time of the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) the Monarchian doctrine had all but vanished. What we are about to see will show that thought is far from the truth.
The Arian controversy had reached a fervor, something had to be done, or it seemed the Church, indeed the Empire, would be split. Emperor Constantine ordered the first ecumenical council to take place at Nice, Turkey to address the problem (Arius was a deacon from Egypt that taught subordinationism of the Son [Jesus] to the Father - the fourth century champion of Justin’s and Origen’s teachings.) The council was called to forge a document that all the bishops could sign stating an orthodoxy for the church. Two things were apparent: the orthodox meant to formulate a document that would deliver the death blow once and for all to the Arians; second, the Arian bishops fully intended to remain in fellowship. Although they had neither the numbers or the influence to force an Arian document, they meant to force a creed that was ambiguous enough that they, too, could sign.
According to J.N.D. Kelly, “… it was in the fourth characteristic phrase of the Creed, the words ‘of one substance with the Father’ (Homoousion to patri), that the full weight of the Orthodox reply to Arianism was concentrated.” The word ‘HOMOOUSIOS’ asserted the full deity of the Christ. This word implied that Jesus shared the very being or essence of the Father. It was a strong word, to be sure; a word with which most were uncomfortable, but by its use subordinationism was defeated. The word ‘homoousios’ caused most of the bishops concern, because it had been, for generations, the watchword of the Modalistic Monarchians.
Proof that ‘homoousios’ was identified as Monarchian is seen from the account of the two Dionysii, a full sixty years before Nicaea. J.N.D. Kelly gives us the account: “… current interpretation of ‘homoousios’ was provided by the affair of the two Dionysii in the sixties of the third century. Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria, it will be recalled, had been put to much trouble by an outbreak of Sabellianism (Modalistic Monarchianism) in the Libyan Pentapolis. When he took forceful measures to eradicate it, the leaders of the … group made formal complaint to the Roman Pontiff, alleging among other things that the Bishop of Alexandria declined to say that the Son was homoousios with God. There’s little doubt that the Sabellians stood for that ancient and, in popular circles at any rate, widely established brand of Monarchianism which regarded Jesus Christ as the earthly manifestation of the divine Being. To them the Origenist approach, with its distinction of the three hypostases and its tendencies to subordinate the Son, was anathema. When they appealed to ‘homoousios’ as their watchword, they meant by it that the Being or substance of the Son was identical with that of the Father. The way in which they invoked ‘homoousios’ in their complaint to the Pope is thus highly significant. It suggests, first, but it was already becoming in certain circles a technical term to describe the relationship of the Father and the Son, and, secondly, that they expected it would be recognized and approved at Rome.” Kelly goes on to say that Pope Dionysius condemned the views reported to him, and that his reply took a markedly Monarchian line.
Along with this event of the two Dionysii, there is Paul of Somozata. In A.D. 268 Paul of Samozata was condemned by the Synod of Antioch on the strength of this very word. Paul invoked ‘homoousios’ as his explanation of the oneness between the Father and the Son. For this very word he was condemned. Now, the word that is so identifiable with Monarchianism is being employed in the Creed of Nicaea to protect orthodoxy from Arianism. According to J.N.D. Kelly only a “handful” of the bishops wholeheartedly welcomed the language of the Creed. These consisted of the Western bishops among whom were: Hosius of Cordova (the president of the council, whom most suppose was the author of the word “homoousios”), St. Alexander of Alexandria, St. Eustathius of Antioch, Marcellus of Ancyra and a few others. These bishops welcomed the language of the Creed because of the identity of substance between the Father and the Son which it emphasized. It is more than meaningful to me that these bishops mentioned were, themselves, Monarchians. This is a clear testimony of the Monarchian influence upon the Creed of Nicaea.
The Monarchian stamp is visible in at least two places in the Creed of Nicaea: first, in the body of the Creed itself, in the word ‘homoousios’ (of the same being or essence); secondly, in the anathema at the end of the Creed which states, “But for those who … assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, or is subject to alteration or change – these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.”
By both of these ‘characteristic phrases’ of the Creed of Nicaea the modern Trinitarian would be placed outside of orthodoxy. In the Hayes-Green debate of 1987 the Trinitarian, Mr. Green did three things:
1). denied the homoousios of Christ to the Father;
2). openly declared the Father, Son and Holy Ghost to be different hypostases; and
3). taught that the Son of God altered Himself to become a man. (See the book entitled The Godhead Discussion, by Bishop Jerry Hayes.)
If modern Trinitarianism is considered, the Creed of Nicaea is a Monarchian credo.
(This article has been adapted from the author’s book entitled The Godhead Discussion which may be acquired through JHM at: www.jerryhayesmin.org.)
