A similar question has been asked here , but no details have been asked other than how Trinitarians interpret this verse. The top answer of the linked question talks about the Son being "eternally begotten" by the Father, and the Son *proceeding from the Father* (something I have not found in any of the Chalcedonian Creeds). My question is less about the Son's origin, but about the Father and the Son **sharing the same divine essence**. Thus, here is a more detailed question for this bible passage. Let me quote it first in its immediate context: > 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and > believeth on him that sent me, hath **everlasting life**, and shall not > come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. > > 25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, > when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that > hear shall **live**. > > 26 *For* as **the Father hath life in himself**; so hath he ***given*** to the Son > to have life in himself; > > **John 5:24-26** (*KJV - emphasis mine*) **How is it that in light of John 5:26, the Father has "*everlasting life*" in Himself that has to be GIVEN (greek: edoken - other translations also say GRANTED) to the Son, so that the Son has that life in himself?** The type of life being talked about in John 5:26 is "everlasting life" (verse 24). So God the Father has this eternal life in Himself **inherently**, because he has no beginning and thus must have it inherently in Himself, otherwise He would not have been able to live for eternity past. Nobody gave the Father this life - he inherently has it in Himself! The Athanasian Creed says: > "The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And > yet they are not three eternals; but **one eternal**. So likewise the > Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty... > The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is > of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy > Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor > begotten; but proceeding... > And in this Trinity **none is before, or after another**; none is > greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are > **coeternal**, and **coequal**." It is hence clear that, according to the Chalcedonian Creeds, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit share the same essence of being, the same nature. In order to be an eternal living being (past, present and future), as God Almighty is, you have to have life in yourself, **always**. If you have to be GIVEN or GRANTED that life, it means you didn't have it. Life itself (being alive) is an inherent part of the nature of a living being! According to Philipp Schaff who analyzed the works of St. Augustin , John 5:26 is explained as follows in the light of the Trinity: > For it is not, as with the creature so with the Son of God before the > incarnation and before He took upon Him our flesh, the Only-begotten > by whom all things were made; that He is one thing, and has another: > but He is in such way as to be what He has. And this is said more > plainly, if any one is fit to receive it, in that place where He says: > “For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son > to have life in Himself.”[John 5:26] For He did not give to Him, > already existing and not having life, that He should have life in > Himself; inasmuch as, in that He is, He is life. Therefore “He gave to > the Son to have life in Himself” means, He begat the Son to be > unchangeable life, which is life eternal" Put in simpler terms: God the Father gave the Son life in Himself, which is life eternal. It means that the Son is eternal life, because what he has been given is what he became - it has become part of his essence! God the Father is the cause and the source of life. All Christian denominations I know of, that believe in the creation by God agree to this. **How can it be maintained that Jesus shares the same divine essence with the Father, but had to be GIVEN "everlasting life" that was never given to the Father, who apparently inherently had it in Himself, whereas it had to be GRANTED/GIVEN to Jesus (the Son)?** The act of the Father having granted and/or given (greek: ἔδωκεν ) Jesus eternal life in Himself, is an act that has temporal implications - *in the 68 occurrences of this form of the verb "edoken" in the Aorist Indicative Active , which expresses the simple occurrence of an action in past time, none appear atemporal/eternal* - which means that there was a point in time where Jesus did NOT have this type of life in Himself, which would mean that he does not share exactly the same essence with God. **How do Trinitarians explain this apparent contradiction?**

The word homoousios is not in the Bible. It also was not a standard part of the Christian confession immediately before Nicaea. Rowan Williams described it as “the radical words of Nicaea” (RW, 236) and “conceptual innovation” (RW, 234-5). The Arians objected that these words are both “unscriptural” and “untraditional” (RW, 234-5). In contrast to these “radical words,” Williams refers to “the lost innocence of pre-Nicene trinitarian language” (RW, 234-5). [Rowan Williams - Arius, Heresy & Tradition, 2001] In the third century, the word homoousios was associated with Sabellian Monarchianism which taught that God is one person as well as one being. The word was used by some Libyan bishops to say that Christ and the Father are one and the same God, by Sabellius to abolish the distinction of the three hypostases, and by Paul of Samosata to describe Father and Son as a primitive undifferentiated unity. This was one of the reasons why the Arians did not like the word. But the anti-Arians did not like the word either: > 1. Eusebius of Caesarea unambiguously stated that it was Constantine, and nobody else, not even the anti-Arians, who wanted the word > homoousios. > > 2. After Nicaea, the word falls completely out of the controversy very shortly after the Council of Nicaea and is not heard of for over > twenty years (See - Homoousios ). > > 3. At the Council of the Western Bishops at Sardica in the year 343, where they rephrased the Nicene Creed, the pro-Nicene theologians > omitted the word. > > 4. At the end of his life Ossius gave his unconditional consent to the so-called "blasphemy" of Sirmium (AD 357), which states that neither > homoousios nor homoiousios are Biblical. > > 5. Eustathius, archbishop of Antioch in the 4th century, whose anti-Arian polemic made him unpopular among his fellow bishops in the > East, openly expressed his dissatisfaction with the formula approved > at Nicaea. So, if the word homoousios is not found in the Holy Scriptures or in the orthodox Christian confession before Nicaea, why was it included in the Nicene Creed?

In connection with the term "God", mainstream Christology often uses the term “nature of God” or “divine nature”, especially when it comes to describing the triune God’s essence or substance, as it is found in Christ who is said to be the "God-man" in the hypostatic union , having both a fully human and a fully divine nature. Considering myself a human, I think to understand what is meant by "human" nature, as being part of the human species/lifeform. The term “divine nature” however seems quite abstract, and is found **only once** in the Bible, in **2 Peter 1:4** > by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious > promises, that through these you may be partakers of the **divine > nature**, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through > lust. Re-born Christians have the “great and precious promise” of being “partakers of the divine nature”. The same Christians „shall be like Him (God)“ according to the Bible (1. John 3:2). One could conclude from this that Christians who become "partakers of the divine nature", fully inherit the "divine nature" when they go to heaven, and thus become fully God, if the term "God" is to be understood as a lifeform. On this point, I think most mainstream Christians would agree, that this is not the case - heavenly resurrected Christians don't become the "God" lifeform, but the "spirit" lifeform, as they receive a **spiritual body**. > It is sown a natural body, it is raised a **spiritual body**. There is a > natural body, and there is a **spiritual body**. > As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as > is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. And as we > have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image > of the heavenly Man. (1. Corinthians 15:44,48-49) Some Trinitarian Bible commentators agree: > **the Divine nature** may be understood of **the glory and immortality of > the other life**, wherein we shall be conformed to God, and whereof by > the promises we are made partakers. - Matthew Poole's commentary > **that by these you might be partakers of the divine nature;** not > essentially, or of the essence of God, so as to be deified, this is > impossible, for the nature, perfections, and glory of God, are > incommunicable to creatures; nor, hypostatically and personally, so as > the human nature of Christ, in union with the Son of God, is a > partaker of the divine nature in him; but by way of resemblance and > likeness, the new man or principle of grace, being formed in the heart > in regeneration, after the image of God, and bearing a likeness to the > image of his Son, and this is styled, Christ formed in the heart, into > which image and likeness the saints are more and more changed, from > glory to glory, through the application of the Gospel, and the > promises of it, by which they have such sights of Christ as do > transform them, and assimilate them to him; and which resemblance will > **be perfected hereafter, when they shall be entirely like him, and see > him as he is** - Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible **“God is a spirit” (John 4:24)** A spirit is a (for humans) invisible supernatural lifeform. Thayer's Greek Lexicon describes the lifeform as: > 3. "a spirit, i. e. a simple essence, devoid of all or at least all grosser matter, and possessed of the power of knowing, desiring, > deciding, and acting"; Hence the question: the only time the Bible speaks of the "divine nature" it appears that from a biblical standpoint it means the lifeform of "incorruptible spiritual bodies". What other meaning can be drawn of the unique term "divine nature" from a biblical perspective? What is the biblical exegesis behind this term often used to describe God's essence? That the Almighty God is a unique person/being is out of the question, but is God a unique type of **lifeform** as appears to be the understanding and intermittent use of the term by people believing in the homoousion ? If so, what is the biblical basis for this claim? If not, what does the biblical term "God" really mean?

I’m looking at this from a purely biblical perspective. “God is a spirit” (John 4:24) A spirit is a (for humans) invisible supernatural lifeform. Thayer's Greek Lexicon describes the lifeform as: > 3. "a spirit, i. e. a simple essence, devoid of all or at least all grosser matter, and possessed of the power of knowing, desiring, > deciding, and acting"; In connection with God, however, mainstream Christology often uses the term “nature of God” or “divine nature”, especially when it comes to describing the triune God’s essence or substance, as it is found in Christ who is said to be the "God-man" in the hypostatic union , having both a fully human and a fully divine nature. Considering myself a human, I think to understand what is meant by "human" nature, as being part of the human species/lifeform. The term “divine nature” however seems quite abstract, and is found only once in the Bible, in 2 Peter 1:4 > by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious > promises, that through these you may be partakers of the **divine > nature**, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through > lust. Re-born Christians have the “great and precious promise” of being “partakers of the divine nature”. They „shall be like Him (God)“ (1. John 3:2). One could conclude from this that Christians who become "partakers of the divine nature", inherit the divine nature when they go to heaven, and thus become fully God, if the term "God" is to be understood as a lifeform. On this point, I think most mainstream Christians would agree, that this is not the case - heavenly resurrected Christians don't become the "God" lifeform, but the "spirit" lifeform. > It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a > natural body, and there is a spiritual body. > As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as > is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. And as we > have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image > of the heavenly Man. (1. Corinthians 15:44,48-49) Hence the question: the only time the Bible speaks of the "divine nature" it is clear that from a biblical standpoint it means the lifeform of "incorruptible spiritual bodies". So is "God" a type of lifeform as appears to be the understanding and intermittent use of the term by people believing in the homoousion , or is it a general title that the one Almighty God carries in the highest possible sense?

“’Subordinationism’, it is true was pre-Nicene orthodoxy” [Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers p. 239.]. RPC Hanson (The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, p. xix.) even wrote: > “With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and > West, accepted some form of subordinationism **at least up to the year** > **355.**” If Hanson is right, then the delegates at Nicaea, who accepted the Nicene Creed, must have read that creed as consistent with their subordinationist views. The creed starts with the words: > “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty ... And in one Lord Jesus > Christ.” This seems to exclude the Son as that “one God” and as “Almighty.” But the creed goes on to describe the Son as: > "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God … homoousion with > the Father" This seems to describe the Son as equal with the Father and would be inconsistent with Hanson’s statement that the delegates at Nicaea were subordinationists. For that reason, I ask: What evidence is there that the original framers of the 325 Nicene Creed intended it to be read in subordinationist ways?

**Hebrews 1:2 (KJV)** says about the Son of God: > [God] hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath > appointed **heir of all things**, by whom also he made the worlds; So God (the Father I suppose) has appointed his Son (Jesus) as heir of all things. How is this possible though, when Jesus is fully God, as the OT says about God in **1 Chronicles 29:11 (KJV)**: > Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the > victory, and the majesty: **for all that is in the heaven and in the > earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as > head above all.** How can God the Son be appointed heir of „all things“ if “all that is in the heaven and in the earth“ belongs to Him already? How can God the Son be exalted if God is already „exalted as head above all“? Does 1 Chronicles 29:11 speak about God the Father or about the triune God? If it’s speaking about God the Father only, does that mean that God the Son is below God the Father in authority, power and „wealth“ so that God the Father could appoint Him heir? If so, why wasn’t Jesus already appointed heir before „these last days“?

In the “centuries-old account of the Council of Nicaea: … The whole power of the mysterious dogma is at once established by the one word homoousios … with one pronouncement the Church identified a term (homoousios) that secured its … beliefs against heresy. ... Such older accounts are deeply mistaken ” (LA, 11) “What is conventionally regarded as the key-word in the Creed homoousion, falls completely out of the controversy very shortly after the Council of Nicaea and is not heard of for over twenty years.” (Hanson Lecture ) “For nearly twenty years after Nicaea nobody mentions homoousios, not even Athanasius. This may be because it was much less significant than either later historians of the ancient Church or modern scholars thought that it was.” (RH, 170) “During the years 326–50 the term homoousios is rarely if ever mentioned.” (LA, 431) “After Nicaea homoousios is not mentioned again in truly contemporary sources for two decades. … It was not seen as that useful or important.” (LA, 96) “During the years 325–42 neither Arius nor the particular technical terminology used at Nicaea were at the heart of theological controversy.” (LA, 100) The word homoousios appears only once in Athanasius’ the Orations. This is understood as “evidence of Athanasius’ lack of commitment to Nicaea's terminology at this stage of his career.” (LA, 115) “Athanasius' decision to make Nicaea and homoousios central to his theology has its origins in the shifting climate of the 350s and the structure of emerging Homoian theology.” (LA, 144) > LA = Lewis Ayres Nicaea and its legacy, 2004 Ayres is a Professor of > Catholic and Historical Theology at Durham University in the United > Kingdom. > > RH = Bishop R.P.C. Hanson The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God > – The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987 Question: Why was the term homoousios not part of the controversy during the 25 years from 325-350 and when and why did this change, so that it is today regarded as the key term in the Nicene Creed?

"One substance" means that Father and Son are one single substance. That is known as numerical sameness. But if homoousios in the Nicene Creed is translated as "same substance," it means that Father and Son are two distinct substances that are the same qualitatively. That is known as generic sameness. For a further discussion, see Homoousion in the Nicene Creed . The current question is based on the Wikipedia article on the Cappadocian fathers and on the book - Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004, by Lewis Ayres; a Catholic theologian and Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology at Durham University in the United Kingdom. All LA-references are to his book. My question is, did the Cappadocians teach numeric or generic sameness? This question is important because the Cappadocians are said to have given us the Trinity doctrine: > “In some accounts Basil (of Caesarea - the first and main Cappadocian) is the architect of the pro-Nicene triumph:” > He “develops an account of the distinctions between persons and > essence of such power that the final victory of pro-Nicene theology > under the Emperor Theodosius is inevitable.” (LA, 187) This question is also important because, in the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, the Nicene Creed uses the term homoousios to say that the Father and Son are one single substance. But that would be unlikely if the Cappadocians taught two distinct substances. The Wikipedia article states that the Cappadocians in their writings "made extensive use of the (now orthodox) formula **one substance** (ousia) in three persons (hypostases)". "One substance" implies numeric sameness; one and the same substance. However, if I read what the Cappadocians wrote, as quoted in that article and by Lewis Ayres, it does not sound to me as if they taught numerical sameness: > Firstly, Basil did not base his theology on the Nicene Creed. He began > his theological life as a Homoiousian, meaning 'similar in substance'. > Homoiousians believed, in other words, in two distinct substances: > > - “It has been traditional to speak of Basil as initially a Homoiousian.” (LA, 188) > - He has a “preference for Homoiousian-sounding language.” (LA, 189) > - “Throughout Contra Eunomium 1–2 Basil continues to speak of essential ‘likeness’, and does not yet treat the language of Nicaea as > a fundamental point of departure for his theology.” (LA, 204) Secondly, Basil said that the Son is "identical in substance and power" to the Father. (LA, 207) I assume “identical” here means two distinct substances and powers that are the same: > “In Basil, the Father's sharing of his being involves the generation > of one identical in substance and power.” (LA, 207) Thirdly, one might argue that the views above were Basil's early views and later changed. However: > “Basil himself eventually adopted” the principle that “homoousios > implying the very picture of coordinate realities (equal in rank, > quality, or significance) ... while a robust conception of the Father > as source would protect against unacceptable consequences,” namely, > that there are “three equal principles in the universe.“ (LA, 207) > Again, Basil taught two or three distinct substances. Fourthly, Basil used humans as examples to explain the relationship between the Father and the Son. For example: - “Basil's possible use of an analogy between the three divine ‘persons’ and three human persons.” (LA, 207) - “Basil discusses the individuation of Peter and Paul as analogous to the individuation of Father and Son.” (LA, 207) - Basil assumed “that human persons are particularly appropriate examples” of “the nature of an individual divine person” (LA, 207-8) In other words, the Cappadocians said that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of the same substance but different hypostases **just like humans**. Fifthly, Basil describes Father as Son as if they have two distinct minds: - “At On the Holy Spirit 16.38 Basil … speaks of the Father choosing to work through the Son—not needing to. Similarly, the Son chooses to work through the Spirit, but does not need to.” (LA, 208) If the Cappadians did not teach numerical sameness of substance, then the 325 creed most certainly also did not. My further question is then also, if the Cappadocians taught generic sameness, who gave us the Trinity doctrine in which the Father, Son and Spirit are one single substance? Was that a later development?

The views that are condemned in the last part of the Nicene Creed may be divided as follows: 1. There was a time when he was not (Wikipedia ). Or probably more literally, “There was when He was not” (Earlychurchtexts ). 2. He was not before he was made. 3. He was made out of nothing. 4. He is of another substance or essence, 5. The Son of God is created, or changeable, or alterable. The first two anathemas are about WHEN He began to exist. Apart from stating that all things came to be through Him, the affirmations earlier in the creed do not say anything specific in this regard. If we assume that “all things” include time, then there was no literal “time when he was not.” The third anathema is about OUT OF WHAT He came to exist. Rather than “out of nothing,” as in the anathemas, the affirmations say that He is “begotten of the Father … that is, of the essence (ousia) of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God.” My question relates to the fourth anathema. What is the meaning of the Greek word or phrase that is translated as “of?" Stated differently, is this condemnation: - About OUT OF WHAT substance He came to be, or is it - About the substance HE CONSISTS OF? Just reading the English, the following seems to indicate that this condemnation is about OUT OF WHAT substance He came to be: > (a) Just like the first two anathemas form a pair, it seems as if > the third and fourth anathemas also form a pair. (See above.) > > (b) The phrase “He is of another substance” seems to be the opposite > of the affirmation, He is “begotten … of the essence of the Father” > > > (c) Earlier in the creed, it is said that the Son is “God of God” > (Wikipedia). In this phrase, "God" describes WHAT the Son is and "of" > describes OUT OF WHAT He came to exist. If the word “of” has the same > meaning in the fourth anathema, then that anathema may be about OUT OF > WHAT He came to exist. Alternatively, this anathema could be an elaboration of the word homoousion in the body of the creed. In that case, it would be a statement about the substance HE CONSISTS OF. Why do I ask this question? =========================== I ask this question because I am trying to work out what exactly the main issue of the debate was at Nicaea. Given that 80% of the words of the creed are about Christ, they did not argue about the Father or about the Holy Spirit. The dispute was only about Christ. But what was the core issue in that dispute? I can think of at least three possible core issues: 1. Whether the Son always existed, 2. Out of what the Son was begotten, and 3. What the substance of the Son now is. 1. Always existed -------------- The anathemas state that He ALWAYS EXISTED, but that is not explicitly mentioned in the body of the creed. So, I assume that that was not the main point of dispute. 2. Out of what the Son was begotten -------------------------------- Most of the text about Christ in the affirmations is about HOW HE CAME TO EXIST, namely: > “Begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance > of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, > begotten not made.” These words do not seem to refer to what Christ’s substance now is. It seems to describe only the substance OUT OF WHICH He was begotten. The third anathema contains a similar statement, namely that He did not come into existence out of nothing. Given the emphasis on this point in the creed, I would assume that this was the main matter of dispute. 3. What the substance of the Son now is. ------------------------------------- The affirmations say that He is homoousion with the Father. This refers to His own substance; not to the substance out of which He was begotten. But this statement seems quite isolated. **Unless the fourth condemnation relates to the word homoousion, nothing else in the creed refers directly to His own substance.** It is for that reason that I am trying to work out what the statement, that "He is (not) of another substance or essence," means. Does it mean: - That He is begotten out of the substance of the Father, or - That he has the same substance as the Father?

Is consubstantiality and homoousis the same thing? Or are they different concepts?

There seems to be a logical sequence in the Nicene Creed of 325: 1. The Son is “begotten from the Father, only-begotten,” 2. Therefore, He is “from the substance of the Father,” 3. Therefore, He is “of one substance with the Father” 4. Therefore, He is “true God from true God.” But the revised creed of 381 omits the phrase “from the substance of the Father.” That seems to break the link between "begotten" in (1) and homoousios in (3). Any idea why and what the implications are?

In chapter 24.1 of his authoritative book on the fourth century Arian Controversy - The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God - Bishop RPC Hanson discusses how the various parties in that controversy used the Bible to defend their positions. He concludes with an overview of the approach to Scripture of these parties. Tradition --------- Concerning tradition, Hanson notes: > “There is some truth in [the] assertion” that “Arians clung blindly > and woodenly to **Scripture** whereas the pro-Nicenes were ready to accept > Scripture within the context of **tradition** and a broad philosophical > outlook” (RH, 827). This comment reveals something about Hanson’s own hermeneutical preferences. As a bishop in the Church of Ireland, he condones reading Scripture “within the context of tradition.” But, to cling to Scripture as the only basis for doctrine, he rejects as a blind and wooden approach to Scripture. If we then remove Hanson’s own hermeneutical preferences from the comment above, we see that the Arians clung to Scripture while the pro-Nicenes were ready to accept Scripture within the context of tradition. Hanson explains why the pro-Nicenes appealed to tradition: > “The pro-Nicenes were always a little apprehensive of entering the > ground of Scripture in encounter with the Ariansm ‘because … their > language tended to support the archaising theology of the Arian'. The > pro-Nicenes were in consequence much readier to appeal to tradition.” > (RH, 847) He also explains what "tradition" means in this context: > "The pro-Nicenes did indeed appeal to 'the tradition of the Fathers', > very often meaning the creed N [the Nicene Creed]” (RH, 828) The pro-Nicene were unable to appeal to ‘tradition’ earlier than the Nicene Creed because the controversy was essentially about the words ousia, homoousios, and hypostasis in the Nicene Creed and, as Hanson states, these were “**new** terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy” (846) and, therefore, not supported by earlier ‘tradition’. Sola Scriptura -------------- While the pro-Nicenes appealed to ‘tradition’, the Arians insisted on Scripture as the only norm of faith. For example: > “The pro-Nicenes often remark on the invariable demand of the Arians > for Scriptural proof, and how they accuse the champions of Nicaea of > introducing the non-Scriptural term homoousios into the creed!” (RH, > 827) > > “'We do not call the Holy Spirit God' says an Arian writer, 'because > the Bible does not say so, but subservient to God the Father and > obedient in all things to the commands of the Son as the Son is to the > Father.” (RH, 830) > > Maximinius - a famous later ‘Arian’, “is more explicit: 'the divine > Scripture does not fare badly in our teaching so that it has to > receive improvement from us.” (RH, 831) But the pro-Nicenes also at least attempted to find their theology in the Bible: > “The pro-Nicene writers are equally insistent upon the unique > position of Scripture as a norm of faith.” (RH, 827) > > “A number of passages from pro-Nicene writers can be produced which > make them seem as devout observers of the text of the Bible as any > Arian. … Earnest but futile attempts are made to prove that the Bible > really does use the word ousia or substantia.” (RH, 829) > > “The pro-Nicenes are at their worst, their most grotesque, when they > try to show that the **new terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy** of > the day were really to be found in Scripture. The Greek speakers > cannot pretend that ousia appears in either Septuagint or New > Testament, but they rack the Bible to find examples of hypostasis, and > when they find it do their best to make the context appear relevant.” > (846) Hanson concludes: > “The best that can be said for this kind of juggling is that it showed > the almost desperate desire of the theologians to base their doctrine > on Scripture.” (847) > > The pro-Nicenes attempted “to read their doctrine into the Bible by > hook or by crook” (848). So, both sides in the Controversy accepted the principle of sola scriptura. Hanson explains: > “In this matter they were of course only reproducing the > presuppositions of all Christians before them, of the writers of the > New Testament itself, of the tradition of Jewish rabbinic piety and > scholarship.” (849) Sola scriptura, therefore, is one of the principles which all sides of the Controversy inherited and accepted. The difference was that the pro-Nicenes were less successful in showing that their doctrine is Biblical. The Problem ----------- Hanson explains what the pro-Nicenes did wrong. He refers to both sides of the Controversy when he says: > “The impression made on a student of the period [Hanson himself] that > the expounders of the text of the Bible are incompetent and > ill-prepared to expound it.” (RH, 848) > > “It was … the presuppositions with which they approached the Biblical > text that clouded their perceptions.” (RH, 849) > > “It was … the tendency to treat the Bible … apart from … the > 'oracular' concept of the nature of the Bible.” (RH, 849) > > ”The very reverence with which they honoured the Bible as a sacred > book stood in the way of their understanding it.” (RH, 849) The Solution ------------ Hanson also offers a solution: > “The defenders of the creed of Nicaea … were themselves engaged in > forming dogma … pro-Nicenes recognized that in forming their doctrine > of God they **could not possibly confine themselves to the words of > Scripture**, because the debate was about the meaning of the Bible, and > any attempt to answer this problem in purely Scriptural terms > inevitably leaves still unanswered the question 'But what does the > Bible mean?'” (848) > > “If the long and involved dispute > resulted in leading figures like Athanasius to some extent **standing > back from the Bible** and asking what was its intention, its drift (or > skopos), instead of plunging into a discussion of its details based on > an imperfect understanding of them, this was a gain and not an > unworthy attempt to **evade [avoid, dodge] the strict meaning of > Scripture**.” (849) Partisanship ----------------- This analysis of the arguments from Scripture during the fourth century Arian Controversy may surprise many readers. Hanson begins chapter 24 by saying that, thus far in the book, he had refused to take sides. He is hesitant to take sides because “the subject of the Arian controversy has suffered from a great deal too much partisanship [bias] at the hands of those who have written about it” (page 824). Hanson states that the “conventional account of the Controversy ... is … a complete travesty.” He concludes: “The diatribes of Gwatkin and of Harnack can today be completely ignored” (page 95). This is confirmed by the 2001 book by Archbishop Rowan Williams (Arius, Heresy & Tradition). It shows, due to new information about the fourth-century Arian Controversy that has become readily available during the 20th century, that the latest books on this subject paint a very different picture of that Controversy. The Question ------------ Following the principles mentioned above, I propose that Christian doctrines may be categorized as follows: > (1) Doctrines that explain the Bible using the Bible’s own words; > > (2) Doctrines that use non-Biblical words to describe things stated by > the Bible; > > (3) Doctrines that say things that are not in the Bible but that do > not necessarily contradict the Bible; and > > (4) Doctrines that contradict the Bible. I would assume that scholars would be able to significantly improve on my proposed categories, but if we accept these four, my question is twofold: > (a) Which of these categories of doctrines would be allowed by the > Protestant principle of sola scriptura? > > (b) Given the analysis above of the role of Scripture on the > development of the Trinity doctrine, to which category should we > allocate the Nicene Creed? And, consequently, would the Nicene Creed be acceptable within the > principle of sola Scriptura? See here for a copy of chapter v24.1 of Hanson's book.

Perhaps Trinitarianism's most defining feature is the idea of God being '3 persons'. Typically this is described as '3 persons in 1 substance'. Yet some say God is **a** person, such as Is God a person? Yet they clarify, saying > We mean that God possesses “personality” So according to Trinitarians, strictly speaking is it only correct to say God **has 'personality'** or that God **is a person**, given that Trinitarians hold God is **3** persons?

Literally, homoousion means "same substance" from homos (same) and ousia (essence) (The Free Dictionary ). But it is often translated as “one substance” (e.g., Merriam-Webster ). The word “same” has more than one possible meaning. An article on "Identity " in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, states that a distinction is customarily drawn between qualitative and numerical sameness: Things are **qualitatively the same** if they share properties. Therefore, things can have different levels of qualitative sameness. The article provides the following examples: - Poodles and Great Danes are qualitatively the same because they share the property of being a dog, and such properties as go along with that. - But two poodles will have greater qualitative sameness. On the other hand, things are **numerical the same** if they have absolute, or total, qualitative sameness. In that case, the two things actually are one thing; therefore the term “numerical.” So, two perfectly manufactured identical rubber balls on a production line are homoousion but still are two because they do not have total or complete qualitative sameness. They differ, for example, in terms of space occupied. To apply this to the word "homoousion" in the Nicene Creed: - “One substance” implies that the Father and Son share one single (numerically the same) substance while - “Same substance” can mean both qualitatively or numerically the same substance. The question is, what did the authors of the creed mean? Tertullian also described the Father and the Son as of the same substance. He wrote: "For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole" (Against Praxeas, Chapter 9 ). In Tertullian, the substance of the Father and the Son are qualitatively the same. They are not numerically the same because the substance of the Son is only a portion of the substance of the Father. I also know that during the years of intense controversy after the Nicene Creed, many concepts were developed that did not exist in the year 325. So, the question is, how would we know whether the Nicene Creed uses homoousion in the sense of numerical or qualitative sameness?

The Bible does not describe God and His Son in terms of substance. The closest we get is Hebrews 1:3, where the Son is described as the mirror image of the hypostasis of God. At the time, hypostasis still had the same meaning as ousia (substance), as it also had in the 325 AD Nicene Creed. Therefore the NASB translates hypostasis as "substance" in Hebrews 1:3. The Wikipedia page Sabellianism states that the Gnostics were the first to use the word in connection with their doctrine of emanation in which the generator and the generated have the same substance. Were these people also Christians? Did they perhaps bring substance language into the church debate? The dates of the theologians that used the word substance, as I could gather from Wikipedia, in their apparent chronological sequence, are as follows: - Praxeas lived at the end of the 2nd century/beginning of the 3rd century. - Tertullian (155-220) - In Against Praxeas, Tertullian often refers to substance. Did he get it from Praxeas? - Sabellius flourished about AD 215 - Prof Ninan stated that Sabellius used the word homoousian. - Noetus was a presbyter around AD 230 - Origen (184-253) - According to his Wikipedia page, he rejected the belief that the Son and the Father were one hypostasis as heretical. But that implies that somebody was using that language before him. That would include Tertullian. So, these people all lived more or less at the same time but given the early date for Tertullian, and since he wrote Against Praxeas, I assume Praxeas was the first of the authors. Is it possible that he was one of the gnostics and that he introduced the word substance into the debate?