Chapter 4 God of God Light of Light Footnotes 57-79

Home / Chapter 4 God of God Light of Light Footnotes 57-79

The Trinitarian Faith

Homoousios (ὁμοούσιος), however, has another important nuance. If the Son is eternally begotten of the Father within the being of the Godhead, then as well as expressing the oneness between the Son and the Father, ὁμοούσιος expresses the distinction between them that obtains within that oneness. ‘for nothing can be ὁμοούσιος with itself, but one thing is ὁμοούσιος with another.’ As we have seen, it implies that while the Father and the Son are the same being they are eternally distinct for the Father is unchangeably the Father and not the Son and the Son is unchangeably the Son and not the Father. The homoousion was thus the bulwark against Sabellianism and Arianism, against unitarianism and polytheism, alike. This internal reference of ὁμοούσιος to eternal distinctions within the one being of the Godhead, will come before us later when we consider its application by Athanasius to the Holy Spirit, which enabled him and the other theologians in the fourth century to clarify the Church’s understanding of the Holy Trinity.”

Page 125

57. Basil Ep., 52.3 A distinction is already implied, of course, in the derivation of the compound word ὀμοούσιος from ὁμοῦ and οὐσία. 

58. Athanasius De decr., 23Con Ar., 3.4; 4.2De syn., 34, 45; Basil  Ep., 52.1ff; Epiphanius Anc., 6.4; Haer., 65.8; 69.72; 76.7

59. Cf. Athanasius Ad Ser., 1.27; 3.2; and Ad Jov., 4Ad Ant., 6Con Apol., 1.9

60. Epiphanius, Anc., 6.4; cf. Haer., 69, 70; Ambrose De Fide 3.15

Page 126

61. Recall that for Irenaeus ‘the kerygma of truth’ and ‘the canon of truth’, were equivalent. Adv. haer., 1.20, vol. 1, p. 87f (1.9.4); 1.15, pp.188f (1.22.1); 2.8.1, p. 272 (2.9.1); 2.40f, pp. 347f (2.27.1); 3.1-5, vol. 2, pp. 2-20 (3.1.1); 3.11.7, pp. 41 (3.10.1); 3.12.6f, pp. 58ff (3.12.6); 3.15.1, p. 79 (3.15.1); 3.38.1f, pp. 131f (3.24.1); 4.57.2ff, pp. 273ff (4.35.2); 5 pref., p. 313f (5.preface); 5.20.1f, pp. 377f (5.20.1); and Dem., 1-6. Recall also Origen’s conception of ‘the canon of godliness’ which enables the Church to interpret Scriptures in accordance with ‘the mind of Christ’ – De princ., praef. 1-2; 1.5.4; 2.6.2; 3.1.17, 23; 3.3.4; 3.5.3; 4.2.2f; 4.3.14f. This must be distinguished from Tertullian’s rather legalist notion of regula fideiDe praescr. her., 13f, 20-28, 31fAdv., Prax., 2; De virg. vel., 1De an., 2de spect., 4.

62. Cf. again my essay ‘The Deposit of Faith’, SJT, 1983, vol. 36.1, pp. 1-28

63. Athanasius Ad Afr., 4.

Page 127

64. It was rightly pointed out by Alfred Robertson that the conception of a general council as the supreme expression of the Church’s mind did not give rise to Nicaea, but vice versa – Introduction to St Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, pp. xvii and lxxv

65. Athanasius Fest Ep.(of 367), 39.1-7; cf. Eusebius Hist Eccl., 4.26.14

Page 128

66. Athanasius Con. Ar., 1.55; 2.44; 3.28ffDe decr., 10f, 14, 19-22De syn., 38-45Ad Afr., 4-9Ad Ser., 2.8. Cf. also Ep. Euseb., 5 – appended to the De decr.

67. Athanasius De decr., 24Ad episc., 4, 9, 12f; De syn., 39, 42, 45Con Ar., 1.1, 8ff, 15, 37, 53; 2.1ff, 33, 72; 3.18f, etc.

68 Athanasius De decr., 18f, 32; Hilary De syn., 88, 91. In any case, Athanasius pointed out, the non-biblical terms were actually taken from the earlier fathers, De decr., 18, 25De syn., 43; cf. 33ff. See C. Stead’s examination of the use of οὐσία and ὁμοούσιος before the Council of Nicaea, op. cit. pp. 199-232.

Page 129

69. Athanasius De decr., 18, 21De syn., 39, 41, 45Con Ar., 2.3Ad Afr., 9Ad episc., 4, 8Ad Ant., 8.

70. Athanasius De decr., 10f. This applies for example, to ‘create’ and ‘make’ – De decr., 11De syn., 51. Cf. Hilary De syn., 17; Basil Con Eun., 2.23; Gregory Naz., Or., 20.9 (N/A). See further my essay ‘The Hermeneutic of St Athanasius’ (this whole essay is available in Divine Meaning: Studies in Patristic Hermeneutics, try your local theological library), Ekklesiastikos Pharos, vol 52, 1970, pp. 446-468; 89-106; 237-49; vol. 53, 1971, pp. 133-149.

71. Athanasius Con Ar., 2.3.Cf. also Gregory Naz., Or., 42.16; Gregory Nys., Con Eun., 1.37, and Hilary De Trin., 4.14.

72. In view of the variable use of terms, found even in the Scriptures, Athanasius declared that attention should be given to the fact that ‘each council has a sufficient reason for its own language’ – De syn 45.

Page 130

73. Athanasius De decr., 10f, 20-24Con Ar., 1.20, 55ff; 3.19ff.

74. Athanasius De decr., 4

75. Athanasius Con. Ar., 2.11; 3.1ffAd Ser., 1.14-17, 20f, 30f; 2.2; 3.1f; 4.6

Page 131

76. G L Prestige. Fathers and Heretics, 1954, p. 88God in Patristic Thought. pp. 168f, 188ff. See also T F Torrance, Theology in Reconciliation, 1975, 243ff; and Methodius Fouyas, The Person of Jesus Christ in the Decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, 1976, pp. 65ff.

77. Athanasius, Ad Ant., 5-6.

Page 132

78. Athanasius, De syn., 51.

Page 133

79. Athanasius, De syn., 45

Chapter 4 God of God Light of Light Footnotes 80-100