Homoousios

We fondly look back at the Council of Nicea as a solution to the problem of Arianism, and see the homoousios as the key to this solution. Things are not nearly so tidy.

Robert Letham neatly summarizes the problems associated with the term in his recent book on Orthodoxy: “As for homoousios (of the same substance), this term had been used by the gnostics, never to mean equality or identity. Even worse, it was associated with Paul of Samosata and cited in his condemnation by the Council of Antioch in 268. Athanasius, who championed the term later, was forced to recognize this unpalatable fact and tried to extricate himself by saying that Paul used the word in a different sense than Nicaea. The problem for us is that it is impossible to know how Paul used the term . . . .Moreover, it does not seem to have acquired a steady and recognized meaning. It hardly means ‘shared being,’ let alone ‘identity of being.’ Hanson suggests it is inserted because Arius disliked it, but people like Eusebius of Caesarea – who had been favorable to signed Nicaea, so we can be reasonably sure it was not intended to teach the numerical identity of the Father and the Son. In fact, it may not have been intended to say very much other than to unite all opposed to Arius, by denying that the Son came from a source other than God.”