Homoousion Stoicism

The Irony is I began my flirtation with Christian Stoicism by considering certain assumptions all sides of the Nicene V Arian controversy agreed on regarding the Usias of God possibly wrong in my God and the Universe post.  But I have since found that the Stoics did sometimes use the word Usias in defining their distinction between God as the Active Matter and the visible material world as Passive Matter.  Meaning in that sense even Stoic Christians could agree that Humans other then Jesus are not exactly Homousian with God in the same way Jesus is.

However my argument was never that the Nicene Creed was wrong, and I still consider the fixation on various forms of Usias a partial distraction from the original point of the Arian heresy.  And what I've learned reading Early Arianism shows that Arius and Athanasius arguments did hinge a lot on both agreeing with Divine Immutability.

The reason why I'm making this new post on the subject is Tertullian.  Many Scholars have observed a degree of Stoicism in Tertullian including his willingness to argue that God is in a sense Corporeal.

https://williamhemsworth.com/2017/11/28/tertullian-and-stoic-materialism/

https://www.tertullian.org/articles/roberts_theology/roberts_04.htm

https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2005/07/tertullian-and-stoicism.html

Now Tertullian's Stoicism is definitely tainted a bit by later Roman Stoicism when it comes to things like Sexual Morality so he's still fallen away from the New Testament in that sense.  But the Metaphysics is the point of discussion here.

He was still critical of some Stoic ideas just like I am, but what baffles me is how he thought Marcion who was more Gnostic then the Gnostics in his attitude towards the material world owed anything to the Stoics?

Tertulian is also famously cited as the only Pre-Nicene Father who even comes close to defining the Trinity in Nicene-Homousian terms with his use of Substantia which is arguably the Latin equivalent of Usias. So could even Tertulian's use of Substantia be influenced by Stoic uses of Usias?

According to Eusebius of Caesarea it was Constantine himself who insisted on the Homousian thermology.  But we also know that at Nicaea Constantine didn't know Greek very well, he was a firmly Western Latin in his language.  And since Tertullian was the first Latin Church Theologian, I'm sure I'm not the first to suggest Constantine got this Homousian idea from Tertullian's Trinitarian use of Substantia.

So it could be that in-spite of how much Platonism was already running strong in the Fourth Century Church that Homoousionism was one final win for the Stoic Theology.

God and The Universe

The more I've thought about the issues I first discussed in Semi-Arianism and the Second Ecumenical Council the more I've come to think that the Homoousion controversy became a distraction from the actual point of the Arian Heresy.  But that's not me saying Homoousionism is wrong, per se.

So first we need to ask the question of why even did the full Arians (and even many Semi-Arians) object to the Homoousion formula so strongly?  It was not relevant to Arius's original explanation of his Theology at all.  And Arians did believe Jesus was the Son of God.  Aren't most children made from the Substance of their parents?

It's because of how by this time the Pythagorean and Platonic understanding of The Divine had influenced all schools of thought in the Greco-Roman world.  To them no Created Being could be described as being of the same Substance as the True Original God.  The Demiurge of Timaeus could be considered in some sense Homousian with the matter it was merely rearranging, but even the Demiurge was not Homousian with the True God (at least during this later post Numenius of Apamea period of Platonism and Pythagoreanism).  And the Arians were essentially Platonists who identified The Logos/Jesus with the Demiurge not the ultimate Supreme Being.  However what the Arians and Athanasians and Trinitarians who were iffy on Homoousianism like Eusebius of Caesarea all agreed on was that Creation itself is not Homousian with The Father.

I am making this post to suggest that this assumption everyone at Nicaea agreed on is actually something that The Bible maybe doesn't agree with.

I know that many Christians are used to thinking God must be completely outside The Universe in order to be it's Creator.  But if you know what you're doing, you can construct a circular wall in such a way that you are within it when you are done making it.  And maybe the Substance of God is Infinite enough that He could create the Universe from His own Substance without lessening Himself at all?

When The Bible says that The Heavens are His Throne and The Earth His Footstool, that imagery tells me He's within The Universe not outside of it.  Remember both the Ancient Hebrew and Greek words for "Heaven" at their core just meant The Sky and what we would call Outer Space.  I already made a post arguing that the Light that lightened the Universe before the Sun, Moon and Stars were created was the same Light that Jesus is identified with.  And then there is the fact that Adam became a Living Soul when God Breathed Life into him.  Breath in that verse is also a word for Spirit.  To me that is pretty strong support for at least our Spirits and/or Souls being homousian with The Holy Spirit.

InspiringPhilosophy in his video on Panentheism said there is supposed to be a strong distinction between Creator and Creation, but the only verse he cited was what Paul said in Romans 1.  First of all that verse was only about what we're supposed to Worship and nothing else.  And also Romans 1:18-32 is Paul quoting the beliefs of the Platonic Hellenized Jews of Rome he spent the rest of the Epistle refuting.  In Romans 11 Paul tells us what God is doing in grafting Gentiles into Israel is "Para phusis" thus utterly destroying the world view of Romans 1 where being "Para Phusis" is presented as inherently evil.

Materialism is often assumed to be inherently Atheistic.  However the Theology of the Ancient Stoics was a Materialist Monotheism.  (IP for some reason defined Soticism completely wrong in the Panentheism video), and so was the Theology of Dutch Jewish Philosopher Spinoza.

God being in The Universe doesn't mean He would be in it in a way that our currently limited ablity to perceive it could detect.  We now know there are at least 10 dimensions but we live in or perceive only 4 of them, the 3 spatial dimensions and time.  "Dark matter" is just a term for matter scientists are pretty sure exists but we are not currently capable of detecting with any of our 5 senses, and it's estimated to make up 85% of all matter.  The 6 colors our eyes can see are only a small piece of the Electromagnetic Spectrum, and it's the same with the other senses.

In other words No I'm not arguing that God and His Angels simply live on a Planet orbiting Polaris that we could fly a space ship to.

[Update November: See this post which is kind of a follow up.]

[The below digression into Stoicism I am more iffy on now, I don't want to erase it, it should have maybe always been a separate post.]

John 1:3 refutes Arianism regardless of John 1:1

Even if you can justify an "a god" translation of John 1:1, John 1:3 says The Word created everything that was created, therefore The Word can't be a created being.

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

That's the KJV translation.

I've been looking into the Coptic texts of the Gospel attributed to John for various reasons.  And I've found JWs will use Coptic Texts of John 1:1 to support their translation of that verse.  But the same Coptic texts have this same implication in John 1:3.

Everything came into being through him, and without him nothing came into being. That which came into being

https://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text_archive/coptic/coptjohn.shtml

Even the JWs own translation doesn't solve this implication of John 1:3.

 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/1/

When discussing the Nicene Creed it's often made out as if in that Creed only the word Homousias makes Arianism incompatible with it.  (Of course that word only conflicts with Arianism in an Ancient Greek Platonic conception of what Divine Substance meant, to us every Son is made of the Substance of their parents.)  In fact full Proper Arianism is incompatible with the Creed simply from saying "begotten, not made", Arius and JWs see Jesus as a Created Being.

Now Semi-Arianism may accept the "begotten, not made" part, but some Semi-Arians were fine with Homousias as well.

Early Christian Schisms on the Nature of Christ

This blog Post is partly my thoughts on Extra Credits series of YouTube videos on the Subject of Early Christian Schisms.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhyKYa0YJ_5A2WfrnfPglTL_ZCPDN_rDT

They made that series partly to provide background for their earlier series on Justinian and Theodora.  My own opinion on Justinian isn't nearly so positive as theirs.

They covered this subject from a Secular perspective, not really interested in which position in these disputes The Bible agrees with.  And that's fine, an outsider perspective on Christianity can be very useful.  So I'm going to take it on myself to provide my Biblically influenced personal perspective.  Though the issue central to the last episode, episode IV, is primarily what I'll be talking about.

The first three episodes are all about disputes where who won in the end I feel is pretty strongly agreed to be the Biblically supported position.  Most Christians speaking negatively of the Council of Nicea do so from not knowing what that Council actually debated.  Last month I did posts on The Council of Nicea and the Homoousion Doctrine partly in preparation for this post.

I feel they should have had another episode between the Council of Nicea episode and the Nestorian controversy episode (Episodes III and IV) on the Pelegian controversy.  The chief opponent of Pelagius was Augustine of Hippo, a man I have little fondness for.

Some people think what Pelagius taught has been misrepresented by his opponents.

Recent analysis of his thinking suggests that it was, in fact, highly orthodox, following in the tradition established by the early fathers and in keeping with the teaching of the church in both the East and the West. ... From what we are able to piece together from the few sources available... it seems that the Celtic monk held to an orthodox view of the prevenience of God's grace, and did not assert that individuals could achieve salvation purely by their own efforts...^{[ Bradley, Ian (1993) The Celtic Way. London: Darton, Longman and Todd; p. 62]}

Free Will is definitely a Biblically supported Doctrine.  Theodore of Mopsuestia wrote "two tomes against him who asserts that sin is inherent in human nature." Which was no doubt an attack on Augustine of Hippo.

The controversy central to the final video of this series was a three way dispute about how Jesus Divine and Human natures relate to each other.

1. The Chalcedonian position, that Jesus had two different but unified or mixed natures, a Divine Nature and a Human Nature.

2. The Nestorian position, that Jesus had two distinct and separate natures, a Divine Nature and a Human Nature.

3.  The Monophysite position, that Jesus had one single Nature that was both Divine and Human.
   (Monophysite was often used broadly to include other groups that wouldn't have called themselves that.  I personally find the best form of Monophysitism to be Miaphysitism.)

All three agree that Jesus was both Divine and Human, and not in a Greek demigod half-god/half-man sense, but fully Divine and Fully Human.  I personally find the differences between these three views to be quite semantical and not a big deal.  Especially since I'm not sure what my own view is.  But it seems in Christianized Rome is was a pretty big deal.

Last month I expressed support for Traducianism on the issue of how most Human Soul/Spirits are created. Even that doesn't settle the issue.  At fist glance it would seemingly help the Chalcedonian position, a Human Nature inherited from Mary mixed with a Divine Nature provided by the Holy Spirit.  But a Monophysite or Miaphysite would retort that we don't refer to most Humans as having two natures, a Paternal one and a Maternal one, but as having one.  Perhaps the Nestorian position would be the hardest to make compatible with Traducianism, but I don't think impossible.

Pretty much all major Christian denominations in the West are considered nominally Chalcedonian (Catholicism, Greek Orthodox, all major Protestants denomination as well as Baptists, Pentecostals, and Evangelicals).  Even though I don't think most average Christians or even Pastors in America have ever actually thought about what their position on this debate would be.

One reason why I think Protestants and Evangelicals should take a second look at this History is because of how much the inciting incident was Nestorius (and it seems even some Monophysites) objected to calling Mary "Theotokos" (God Bearer) a Title that definitely plays into her quasi-Deification.  And it seems Nestorius may have inherited this from his mentor Theodore of Mopsuestia.

As someone who likes to draw attention to overlooked Historically important Women, I wish the Extra Credits video on his controversy had talked about some of the Women who were important to these events.  Theodosius II's sister Pulcheria worked with Cyril of Alexandria strongly supporting the Chalceodnian position, and was a strong supporter of calling Mary Theotokos.  While his wife Aelia Eudocia was a Monophysite who opposed calling Mary Theotokos.

I'm not sure why the Monophosytes would oppose that title for Mary, I mean as an Evangelical I can see why even some Cahcledonians wouldn't like it.  But as far as it being used as a rallying point in this dispute, I don't really get it.

If the Chalcedonian position is correct, it's unfortunate it had such horrible representatives during this time period.  Cyril of Alexandria was very Anti-Semtic and generally in support of persecuting non-Believers.  However as I expressed before, I blame these negative traits more on his belief in Eternal Damnation.

So again I'm not entirely sure what my position is.  I'll stick with being Nominally Chalcedonian for the time being.  Nesotrianism can be the most interesting historically to look into, and I may definitely have more to say about that subject on this Blog in the future.

The Godhead, what does that mean?

Godhead is a word that appears three times in the KJV, and in all three it is a different word in the Greek (though all of them were derived from Theos, meaning God or god).  But first we need to discus the English word itself.

Originally, Godhead was just a variant spelling and pronunciation of Godhood before modern English spellings were fully standardized.  You may sometimes similarly see the spelling Maidenhead used where the author clearly means Maidenhood, probability as a synonym for Virginity.  And so Godhead originally carried the exact same meaning as Godhood, referring to the status of divinity.  It seems to be a coincidence that it looks like it has the word "head" in it.

But that's not how it's usually used today.

I've seen people who agree with the doctrine of The Trinity as it's usually defined, but don't like the word "Trinity" for whatever reason, say we should say The Godhead instead.  And even others not suggesting we use it as a synonym for Trinity, still seem to mean something similar by it.

Let's look at all three verses it is used in and their corresponding Greek words.

Acts 17:29

"Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device."

Godhead here is Theion, Strong Number 2304.  This is the only of the three words used more then once, though the others is a slightly different form, Theios in 2 Peters 1 verses 3 and 4, there it is translated "divine".  And I think likewise "the divine" is how it should be rendered in Acts 17.

Romans 1:20

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

Here it is Theiotes, Strong Number 2305, I agree with the Strongs that it should be rendered "Divinity".  And so it would be here that the "Godhood" meaning would be accurate.

Colossians 2:9

"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

Here the Greek word is Theotes, Strong Number 2320.  This word is a bit more mysterious.  One website says it also means divinity but with "abstractly" in parentheses.  I've also seen it defined as "The substance of being God".

In this case it is useful to talk about some of the Greek words around it.

The word for "fulness" is Pleroma.  Because the Gnostics used Pleroma a certain way, it suits some people to say Paul is using it that way here.  But this is the same word for "fulness" used when he refers to the "fulness of the gentiles" in Romans 11:25.  It just means fullness.

The word translated "Bodily" is Somatikos Strong Number 4985.  It's a variation of Strong Number 4984.  It could also equally accurately be translated Corporeally or Physically.

The term Homoousion "of the same substance" was a key focus of controversy at the First Council of Nicea in defining The Trinity.  While I can sympathies with those who objected to the word because it was not used in The Bible and seems to have been coined by Modalists.  The point of the Nicene Homoousion doctrine is supported by Colossians 2:9.

If I were to make my own Bible translation, Colossians 2:9 might likely be the only place where "The Godhead" is used.

Update November 2018: Luke 15.

The Greek word Ousias is used in Scripture twice, in the Parable of the Prodigal Son, Luke 15: 11-32, specifically in verses 12 and 13.

"And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.  And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living."

The Father is typologically God in this parable, now being a Father doesn't necessarily mean he represents only the first person of the Trinity, the full Godhead is a Father to all Humanity as our Creator, we just individually refer to the First Person as The Father while The Son.

So this Father's Ousias is divided into thirds because the older brother gets a Double Portion in Hebrew Custom.  The Ousias of God is in three parts.  Perhaps we could say the portion that was squandered is The Son who was made sin for us and died for our Sins.

You shouldn't build doctrine on parables, but it's still an interesting observation.