{"id":36434,"date":"2015-10-27T17:12:30","date_gmt":"2015-10-27T21:12:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/?p=36434"},"modified":"2016-03-20T20:19:21","modified_gmt":"2016-03-21T00:19:21","slug":"10-steps-towards-getting-less-confused-about-the-trinity-6-same-ousia-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/10-steps-towards-getting-less-confused-about-the-trinity-6-same-ousia-part-1\/","title":{"rendered":"10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity \u2013 #4 &#8220;same ousia&#8221; &#8211; Part 1"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The innovative and (then) controversial language introduced at a meeting of catholic bishops in the year 325 was <strong>that the Father and the Son are <em>homoousion<\/em><\/strong>, literally \u201csame <em>ousia<\/em>.\u201d But <strong>what is an <em>ousia<\/em>?<\/strong> This question continues to haunt\u00a0trinitarian theology. Until we understand the meaning of a sentence, we can\u2019t agree or disagree with it, or even go looking for evidence for our against it. The thing is, the Greek word <em>ousia<\/em> was a technical term in philosophy, with a number of somewhat related meanings. In English it is usually translated as <strong>\u201cessence\u201d or \u201csubstance.\u201d<\/strong> Starting at the 325 council at Nicea, and continuing through a long series of bitter controversies right up through the council in 381, a certain party of catholic bishops took a philosophers\u2019 word and made it the centerpiece of their theology, which then was enforced by church and state as the one permitted catholic theology. Laying aside issues of procedure, the problem with this is that it wasn\u2019t clear then, and it isn\u2019t clear now, how to interpret that key term, and thus the key claim. So, to reduce your confusion about the Trinity, you must<strong> consider the possible various meanings<\/strong> of the term <em>ousia<\/em>, and decide which the bishops meant, or at any rate, which is the relevant meaning for trinitarians today.<\/p>\n<p>Rather than lecture you on Greek philosophy, I\u2019ll now give you a outline-chart where at the first level\u00a0I\u2019ll put a plausible philosophical claim which employs the word <em>ousia<\/em> in one of its meanings, and in next level (marked by a small circle), I\u2019ll say what the creed would be saying about the Father and the Son given that meaning of <em>ousia<\/em>, when it says they are the same <em>ousia<\/em>. The last level (little squares)\u00a0lists one or more obvious difficulties with a Christian affirming Father and Son to be one <em>ousia<\/em> in the sense of that row. Note that I confine problems in the third column to theological problems. In fact, most of the meanings of <em>ousia<\/em> involve controversial philosophical claims as well, which various metaphysicians will\u00a0object to for various reasons.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Meaning illustrated<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>Applied to Father and Son\n<ul>\n<li>Problems<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>1 You are the same <em>ousia<\/em> (being, entity) as yourself.<\/strong> Anything there is, of course,\u00a0is the same <em>ousia<\/em> as itself.<img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-36440 alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/labrador-805838-sm.jpg\" alt=\"labrador-805838 sm\" width=\"400\" height=\"356\" srcset=\"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/labrador-805838-sm.jpg 400w, https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/labrador-805838-sm-300x267.jpg 300w, https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/labrador-805838-sm-90x80.jpg 90w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 400px) 100vw, 400px\" \/>\n<ul>\n<li>The Father and Son are the same being \/ entity.\n<ul>\n<li>Problem: the Father and Son have qualitatively differed. But <a href=\"http:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/a-formulation-of-leibnizs-law-the-indiscernibility-of-identicals\/\" target=\"_blank\">nothing can, at one time, or eternally, qualitatively differ from itself<\/a>. This proves the Father and Son to not be numerically identical, i.e. one and the same being \/ entity.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>2 You are the same <em>ousia<\/em> (universal essence) as me.<\/strong> All humans are or have the same <em>ousia<\/em>, which is <em>humanity<\/em>. Similarly, all dogs share <em>caninity<\/em>, and all gods (were there to be many) would share <em>divinity<\/em>.\n<ul>\n<li>The Father and Son are both divine; each has the universal essence: divinity.\n<ul>\n<li>Problem: to be divine is to be a god. Thus, given that they are not numerically identical to one another, the Father and Son are two different gods.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>3<\/strong> Although you and I have the same universal kind essence, we do not have<strong> the same individual kind <em>ousia<\/em>. You have your own individual <em>humanity<\/em>, and I have another <em>humanity<\/em>.<\/strong> In principle, an <em>individual<\/em> kind essence can\u2019t be shared by two. Anyone with your individual kind essence is just you (numerically identical to you).\n<ul>\n<li>The Father and Son have between them but one individual essence of divinity.\n<ul>\n<li>Problem: This implies that the Father just is the Son, and vice-versa (i.e. that Father and Son are numerically one).\u00a0See the Problem under meaning 1.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>4 You have the same <em>ousia<\/em> (haecceity) as yourself<\/strong>, which is the property of being you, the individual entity that you are, or the property which explains why you are the individual that you are.\n<ul>\n<li>The Father and Son share the property of being the one God himself.\n<ul>\n<li>Problem: The Father and Son share a haecceity, a property which implies that they are the same individual being \/ entity. This implies that the Father just is the Son, and vice-versa (i.e. that Father and Son are numerically one).\u00a0See the Problem under meaning 1.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>5 A pure gold ring is the same <em>ousia<\/em> (i.e. is constituted by the same kind of matter) as a pure gold idol<\/strong>.\n<ul>\n<li>Father and Son are constituted by the same kind of matter.<img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignright size-medium wp-image-36438\" src=\"http:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/caryatids-515919-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"caryatids-515919\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\" srcset=\"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/caryatids-515919-300x200.jpg 300w, https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/caryatids-515919-1024x681.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/caryatids-515919-420x279.jpg 420w, https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/caryatids-515919-460x306.jpg 460w, https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/caryatids-515919-90x60.jpg 90w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/>\n<ul>\n<li>Problem: Are the Father and Son both material beings \/ entities, that they are constituted by any sort of matter at all?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>6<\/strong> Think of the Greek Parthenon, which features pillars shaped like maidens. Consider one such. One may think that there are actually two co-located objects there, a statue of a maiden (which wouldn\u2019t survive being sanded smooth), and a pillar (which would survive being sanded smooth). If there are two such objects in the same space at the same time, it is plausible that both are one <em>ousia<\/em> in the sense of <strong>being constituted by the same portion of matter<\/strong>, i.e. a certain batch of marble.\n<ul>\n<li>The Father and Son are constituted by some one portion of matter.\n<ul>\n<li>Problem: Are the Father and Son both material beings \/ entities, that they are constituted by any portion of matter at all?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>7<\/strong> You\u2019ve built a small tower out of Lego bricks A, B, and C. Those bricks are one <em>ousia<\/em> in the sense that they are beings which are<strong> parts of one whole<\/strong> being. The whole tower is composed of A, B, and C.\n<ul>\n<li>The Father and Son are parts of a whole, i.e. two of the three parts of the Trinity.\n<ul>\n<li>Problem: The ancient trinitarian traditions firmly deny that the triune God is composed of any parts.<img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-36441 alignright\" src=\"http:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/lego-297773sm.png\" alt=\"lego-297773sm\" width=\"350\" height=\"301\" srcset=\"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/lego-297773sm.png 350w, https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/lego-297773sm-300x258.png 300w, https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/lego-297773sm-90x77.png 90w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 350px) 100vw, 350px\" \/><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>8 Imagine that you meet your \u201cdoppleganger,\u201d i.e. a person unrelated to you who looks almost exactly like you. You and he or she are one <em>ousia<\/em> (one being, as it were) in the sense that you are<strong> similar in some respect(s)<\/strong>, in this case visual appearance. If you\u2019ve seen one, you\u2019ve seen the other, so to speak.\n<ul>\n<li>The Father and Son are very qualitatively similar. (This leaves it as an open question whether they share any essence, or whether or not they\u2019re numerically one, though usually when we observe the similarity of things we\u2019re presupposing that they are indeed two, not the same thing observed twice.)\n<ul>\n<li>Problem: While this it seems to be a straightforward New Testament teaching that the Son of God is qualitatively like the god whose son he is, in respect of character and action (John 14:8-11; Hebrews 1:3), this does not imply the trinitarian claim that they are \u201cequally divine,\u201d or even that the Son is literally divine in any way beyond being in some sense God\u2019s unique \u201cSon.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>We see <strong>eight\u00a0options<\/strong> here. I\u2019m not sure that these are all the options, but I\u2019m sure that these are different options. And we should not think that this just a matter of individual taste, like picking a favorite flavor of ice cream, or that we\u2019re dealing merely with different emphases. No, each claim is different, though they are related.<\/p>\n<p><em><a href=\"http:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/10-steps-towards-getting-less-confused-about-the-trinity-4-same-ousia-part-2\/\">Next time: ruling out some of the options<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The innovative and (then) controversial language introduced at a meeting of catholic bishops in the year 325 was that the Father and the Son are homoousion, literally \u201csame ousia.\u201d But what is an ousia? This question continues to haunt\u00a0trinitarian theology. Until we understand the meaning of a sentence, we can\u2019t agree or disagree with it,&hellip;&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/10-steps-towards-getting-less-confused-about-the-trinity-6-same-ousia-part-1\/\" rel=\"bookmark\">Read More &raquo;<span class=\"screen-reader-text\">10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity \u2013 #4 &#8220;same ousia&#8221; &#8211; Part 1<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":36438,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[6,58,4,14,9,3,43],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-36434","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-complaints","category-creeds","category-heresy-orthodoxy","category-history","category-philosophy","category-theories","category-unitarianism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36434","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=36434"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36434\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":37259,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36434\/revisions\/37259"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/36438"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36434"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36434"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36434"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}