{"id":36446,"date":"2015-10-29T11:03:49","date_gmt":"2015-10-29T15:03:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/?p=36446"},"modified":"2016-03-20T20:21:04","modified_gmt":"2016-03-21T00:21:04","slug":"10-steps-towards-getting-less-confused-about-the-trinity-4-same-ousia-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/10-steps-towards-getting-less-confused-about-the-trinity-4-same-ousia-part-2\/","title":{"rendered":"10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity \u2013 #4 “same ousia” – Part 2"},"content":{"rendered":"

In this post – what did the bishops mean<\/strong> when they declared for the first time that Father and Son were the same ousia<\/em>?<\/strong> You’ll want to have this list of interpretations from part 1<\/a> in front of you. Importantly, some of possible\u00a0interpretations of ousia<\/em> imply\u00a0others, most notably, the problematic 1. 3 and 4\u00a0imply 1 (though not vice-versa). But 1 should be unacceptable to any Christian, and we should be wary of attributing such claims to intelligent believers, as we must assume the attending bishops at the 325 council to be.<\/p>\n

Put perhaps this seems too quick to you. Let’s focus then on 1, since 3 and 4 imply it. \u00a0Did these bishops assume or assert the Father and Son to be numerically the same<\/strong>, to bear the relation to one another that you bear only to yourself? It would seem not, as they start by professing belief in \u201cone God the Father all powerful… And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God…\u201d That “and”<\/strong> seems important; these are different objects of Christian faith.<\/p>\n

And they clearly imply differences between<\/strong> the Father and the Son. The Son is \u201cthe only-begotten begotten from the Father, that is from the substance of the Father,\u201d but the Father, they are surely assuming, is not begotten at all, much less from himself, or from his own ousia<\/em>, whatever that could mean. They go on to describe the Son as \u201ctrue God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father.\u201d Note that there are two here being described as \u201ctrue God,\u201d and the assertion is that one is, eternally, from the other<\/strong>. The second \u201ctrue God,\u201d they go on to say, became human, suffered (on the cross), was raised from the dead and exalted, and is destined to be our judge. All in all, it is clear that they assume differences between the Father and Son; only the latter was<\/strong> eternally begotten, became human, died, and was raised and exalted. Only the Father<\/strong>, meanwhile, was unbegotten, remained non-human, and never died, rose, or was exalted by himself. Even though these bishops weren\u2019t metaphysicians, we must charitably assume that their central claim that Father and Son are one ousia<\/em> doesn\u2019t have a meaning which implies the numerical identity of Father and Son. Thus, we should rule out 1, 3, and 4, leaving only 2 and 5-8.<\/p>\n

\"vergilius-st-statue-116881sm\"Which of these might those bishops have meant, in deciding to renounce the christology of Arius in 325?\u00a0They must mean at least 8.<\/strong> It is surely because of their similarities that both can be called “true God,” and they assume both to be eternal, and as they go on to say, both are incapable of “change or alteration.” (This raises obvious problems in the case of the Son, but let those slide for now.) Are similarities properties which the Father and Son just so happen to possess, or are they essential, defining properties? It would seem, the latter, as there’s a background assumption in the philosophy of this time that what is divine (“true God”) is so by its very essence or nature. Thus, they seem to commit not only to 8, but also to 2<\/strong>. Presumably, they don’t mean the Son to be “true God” using those words non-literally, and I suggest that they don’t mean him to be so “accidentally” (i.e. non-essentially). Rather, they mean the Son to be essentially divine, to have a divine essence (ousia<\/em>), just like his Father, and also because of his Father, because of his Father’s mysterious act of eternally begetting him. And this is why the Son can’t change; divine beings can’t change, they assume.<\/p>\n

What about 5-7?<\/strong> Would they add that the divine beings are composed of the same sort of matter, or even very same portion of matter? I assume not. It is true that some earlier catholics like Tertullian held God to be composed of a spiritual sort of matter, and that he generated the Son by sharing a portion of his matter with him, so that it simultaneously constituted\u00a0the Son and partially constituted the Father. And it is true that Athanasius, the tireless polemicist on behalf of this Nicene creed often talked as if he had in mind an analogy with human reproduction, which was then understood to involve the man introducing the matter necessary for a baby into the woman, who provided only a suitable environment for it to develop. Similarly, Athanasius seems to imagine, God eternally produces the Son not ex nihilo<\/em> (out of nothing, not by modifying any material or previously existing thing) but rather from his own substance<\/em> (stuff?),<\/em> making the to be a “true Son” of his Father. But these bishops, I have to assume, thought that anything composed of matter was subject to change, whereas God was not. And given the influence of Platonism, and its assumption that the ultimate reality is utterly simple, without parts or different components in any sense, I don’t suppose that most of them would have thought the Father to have any sort of matter at all. I suggest then that they could not have been asserting 5-7, and that the majority would deny all three if given the chance. But these points were not at issue between the majority and the minority\u00a0“Arian” party.<\/p>\n

What do you think about this? The scheme has two “Gods,”<\/strong> that is, two who are each called “God” and “true God.” But itself, this is compatible with monotheism. Monotheism<\/strong> is the claim that there’s only one god, not the claim that only one being can be properly addressed or described as “a god” or “God” or “true God.” But if I’m right that not only 8 but also 2 was meant, then we also have two beings with are by their essence divine, which is to say two gods<\/strong>. They seem to be implying that the Father is a god, and the Son is another god.<\/p>\n

\"HolyAnd yet they explicitly<\/em> say, “We believe in one God the Father<\/strong> all powerful, maker of all things…” where as the Son is only the one “through whom all things came to be.” And they end their official document with, “Pray for us all that our decisions may remain secure through almighty God<\/strong> and our lord Jesus Christ in the holy Spirit, to whom is the glory for ever and ever. Amen.” The “to whom”<\/strong> here at the end is singular; their thought is that all the glory goes ultimately to the Father, who is the one God himself. It would be anachronistic to imagine here that “to whom” refers to the Trinity, to a god who is supposed to be tripersonal; there’s no mention of such a being anywhere here.<\/p>\n

So, in this creed, at its beginning and end, we find explicit Christian unitarian monotheism<\/a><\/strong>, asserting the identity of the one god with the Father only, the only “Almighty,” and the unique ultimate source of all else, including the Son. But the creed seems, unclearly, also to imply\u00a0<\/strong>that the Son too is by his essence divine, which is to say that he is not only called “God” but is in truth a god, and not<\/em> the same god as the Father. Polytheism, then, seems to be implied, unless we back off on 2 and read the creed as only asserting 8.<\/p>\n

Can you see now why this creed caused some much controversy<\/strong> from 325 until it was forcibly stopped in 381? It carries forward then traditional language<\/a>, but combines it with other claims which seem<\/em> inconsistent with it.<\/p>\n

As best I can tell, by the 381 meeting<\/strong>, where this creed was ostensibly re-affirmed, but also revised, a majority was assuming that being “the same ousia<\/em>” implied that Father and Son were (or were “in”) the same god. But wouldn’t the creed, read in that way, also imply 1? If so, it would pit itself against the New Testament, which assumes and asserts many differences between the two. But some sophisticates urge that Father and Son be the same god without being the same being<\/strong>\/entity (that is, without being numerically identical). Some, for philosophical reasons we can’t go into here, dismiss our concerns about 1, and others now stump for trinitarianism now being understood in senses 5 and 6 above, whatever may have been meant in 325.<\/p>\n

As observers of the United States Supreme Court know all too well, legislation may be passed under the assumption of one interpretation<\/strong>, yet a clashing interpretation<\/strong> may later be imposed on it and made into the official, statutory meaning of the old law. Once birthed, a law\u00a0has a life of its own.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In this post – what did the bishops mean when they declared for the first time that Father and Son were the same ousia? You’ll want to have this list of interpretations from part 1 in front of you. Importantly, some of possible\u00a0interpretations of ousia imply\u00a0others, most notably, the problematic 1. 3 and 4\u00a0imply 1… Read More »10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity \u2013 #4 “same ousia” – Part 2<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":36442,"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":[6,58,4,14,38,9,43],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-36446","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-complaints","category-creeds","category-heresy-orthodoxy","category-history","category-monotheism","category-philosophy","category-unitarianism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36446","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=36446"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36446\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":37258,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36446\/revisions\/37258"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/36442"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36446"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36446"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36446"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}