Talk:Homoousion

Untitled

ACE = ? ... I'm guessing the intent is to use CE (as opposed to AD) but I'm not sure. I checked the main page for ACE as an acronym and got nothing that makes sense. (I raised the same question under "Homoiousian" as it needs to be either replaced or clarified on both.

Yes, like most human beings, I do make errors. On the other hand, there is no excuse and no logical justification for your wise-ass tone and complete disregard for polite standards of discourse which require that you sign you name when making comments on talk pages. --Lacatosias 07:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it necessary or wise to use "CE" when we're talking about something this specifically Christian?--T. Anthony 11:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

...What? 05:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.155.48 (talk)

heteroousios

heteroousios should be redirected to this page, i would but not sure how 66.68.208.245 03:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Why here? Why not towards Arianism? Jacob Haller 04:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Is heteroousios a neologism? Arianism was homoiousian (like substance). 75.0.4.78 22:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Arianism" describes several different theologies. IIRC, Arius used both "hetero-" and "homoiousios" and even accepted "homoousios" with certain reservations.

Philostorgius book 3, chapter 5 and book 6, chapter 5, refer to "different substance." Other expressions from the period include, forgive my ignorance of Greek, "homoios" (?) or "similar" and "dissimilar" (the latter found in the term "anomean" or "anomoean"). Jacob Haller 01:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

clarity vs. partisan position

In the statement "The term, officially adopted by the First Council of Nicaea, was intended to add clarity to the relationship between Christ and God the Father within the Godhead" the phrase "was intended to add clarity" presupposes the correctness of the Homoousian and later Trinitarian views. I suggest it be modified to present a more impartial view. Jnelsonleith (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Relatedly, the line "It is one of the cornerstones of theology in the true Christian Churches which are the ones that adhere to the Nicene Creed." seems a little chauvinistic. - Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.148.52 (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Any truth to this passage from Arthur Conan Doyle's The Coming of the Huns?

Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople were centres of theological warfare. The whole north of Africa, too, was rent by the strife of the Donatists, who upheld their particular schism by iron flails and the war-cry of "Praise to the Lord!" But minor local controversies sank to nothing when compared with the huge argument of the Catholic and the Arian, which rent every village in twain, and divided every household from the cottage to the palace. The rival doctrines of the Homoousian and of the Homoiousian, containing metaphysical differences so attenuated that they could hardly be stated, turned bishop against bishop and congregation against congregation. The ink of the theologians and the blood of the fanatics were spilled in floods on either side, and gentle followers of Christ were horrified to find that their faith was responsible for such a state of riot and bloodshed as had never yet disgraced the religious history of the world. Many of the more earnest among them, shocked and scandalized, slipped away to the Libyan Desert, or to the solitude of Pontus, there to await in self-denial and prayer that second coming which was supposed to be at hand. Even in the deserts they could not escape the echo of the distant strife, and the hermits themselves scowled fiercely from their dens at passing travellers who might be contaminated by the doctrines of Athanasius or of Arius.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Coming_of_the_Huns

Fxm12 (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Better title: "homoousios" or "homoousion"?

As the recently inserted note indicates, this article is wrongly named at the moment. A check on the indices of standard reference works by authorities such as Frend, Chadwick, Kelly and Bettenson shows that this subject appears under either "homoousios" (Frend, Chadwick) or "homoousion" (Kelly, Bettenson & Ox. Dict. Chn. Church). The first is the masculine nominative singular of the adjective, the second is the accusative form which actually appears in the Creed of Nicea. Purists would probably opt for the later since the phrase 'to homoousion' would function as an acceptable noun to refer to the concept and its use at Nicea, but my impression is that "homoousios" is probably more widespread in general use and would be the more convenient key-word for the general reader. I would settle for either alternative and shall delay a formal proposal to move the art. until other editors have expressed an opinion.

I have found the words "anomeans" and "homoeans" used in technical works and the Oxford Dictionary and presume that the term "homoousians" would refer to the supporters of "homoousion/s" rather than the central concept itself. Jpacobb (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Some additional sources: A Concise Dictionary of Theology (2003), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology and Westminster Dictionary of Theology have "homoousios", Global Dictionary of Theology has no entry, but refers to "homoousios". Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy has homoousion. I'm torn, but I think I prefer "homoousios". --JFH (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Homoousion/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Considering that Homoousia is one of the key concepts by which majority Trinitarian Christians judge whether or not they believe other churches are technically "Christian" or not, it seems odd for this subject to receive such a low Importance ranking. Jnelsonleith (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 13:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 18:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Use of "nature"

I think editors have just used "nature of [Christ, God, etc.]" colloquially in the sense of "quality of", "essence of". But "nature" is a very loaded term here because it implies creation. Try to avoid the term unless you are able to attribute it directly to a source, and/or you are consciously using it in its dictionary sense of "being born/created/made", otherwise you will just introduce further complications by accident. --dab (𒁳) 15:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Article Name

The article, at least imo, should be renamed from the accusative to the nominative case form of the word. I have replaced in the article, excluding obviously the title and hence the lead and only once more when explaining the cases, all ACC instances with NOM ones. Even if no renaming takes place, it's one thing to quote sometimes the ACC form because that's how it's in the various Credos (being the object of the verb), therefore that's how some people not speaking Greek have come to know it; it's on the other hand ridiculous to e.g. translate a Greek ACC to Latin NOM or not to explain why books/sources about the subject, cited herein, use a seemingly different word/form. Thanatos|talk|contributions 08:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support move to nominative case in the title. Sorabino (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment @Jpacobb and Jfhutson: Given this exchange you once had I think that you'd be interested, if possible, if still present/active, to comment and/or vote. Thanatos|talk|contributions 20:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I have only just seen this. Homoousios is an adjective and the nominative singular of the neuter is homoousion. When dealing with concepts Greek usage allowed, even favoured, the formation of nouns by putting the neuter article to before the neuter form of the adjective. At least in British academic circles the concept of "of the same substance" is refered to as "the homoousion". Prestige has a chapter with this title in God in Patristic Thought, Bettenson refers repeatedly to "the homoousion" in his introductory remarks to his The Later Christian Fathers. Kelly (Early Christian Doctrines ch. x) has a series of section headings: "The Return to the Homoousion"; "The Homoousion of the Spirit: Athanasius" ... The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church has the corresponding entry under the head of "homoousion". While world-wide usage may favour "homoousios" there is no grammatical argument in favour of a change of title. — Jpacobb (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the grammatical gender, it is proper to say that Christ is "homoousios" with the Father, but no one would say that Christ is "homoousion" (nominative singular of the neuter), because noun "Christ" is a masculine noun, and in accordance with that corresponding adjective must be "homoousios" (nominative singular of the masculine). Sorabino (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jpacobb: That would be the case if this homoousion in English is evidently a direct translation from such an attested Greek use of the form (and not simply the possibility thereof) (still usable btw in -modern- Greek though not common) on this subject or an English neologism, an indirect translation (say, by a classicist) evidently inspired by such a possible use in Greek and not simply a verbatim copy of the relevant masc. acc. sg. of the pisteuo/credo text.
The latter case is in my view the very probable one; the former, i.e. what you're claiming doing, in my view, a rationalisation after the fact, seems far, far, far, far,... fetched.* If so, then it seems to me that retaining this name could only be justified if it has become de facto predominantly, prevalently standard and even then the error/"error" would have to be explicitly and boldly mentioned and explained in the article.
*Though evidence to the contrary could easily change my mind.
Thanatos|talk|contributions 02:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 4 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move as proposed - it seems like the biggest consensus is to move/merge this to/into consubstantiality, which is an existing article already. A merge proposal might not be a bad idea, but that's not the same thing as a requested move. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 17:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Homoousion → Homoousios – Transliterations of Greek adjectives are normally put in the masculine form, not the neuter. Bealtainemí (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. buidhe 20:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Interstellarity (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Article titles are normally nouns. Dekimasuよ! 04:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The main interest in the term (because of its most important and most discussed use) derives from its inclusion in the Nicene Creed (ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί, "consubstantial with the Father"). There it is an adjective, masculine gender, accusative case, but when discussed elsewhere the grammatical case is different. The noun corresponding to ὁμοούσιος is not ὁμοούσιον but ὁμοούσία (homoousia) ὁμοουσιότης (homoousiotes); cf. Liddell and Scott. Bealtainemí (talk) 08:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Transliteration, etymology, or grammar are only secondary here, and can/shloud be explained in the article. The name of the article should reflect the predominant usage of the term describing the concept in English schorlarly literature, as exemplified by User:Jpacobb in the section above (more examples welcome, of course). WikiHannibal (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry, @WikiHannibal: I don't see where User:Jpacobb is supposed to have shown that in English scholarly literature "homoousion" is used rather than "homoousios". Google Books shows that both are used. If in those that Google Books gives for "homoousion" you search for "homoousios", you find that, in perhaps nearly all, the nominative form "homoousios" is present also, in general almost as frequently. In those that Google Books gives for "homoousios" a search for "homoousion" generally gives "Did you mean homousios". To me this seems to indicate that in scholarly literature, "homoousios" is normal rather than "homoousion". Am I mistaken? Jpacobb, who has been inactive on Wikipedia for most of a year, actually wrote: "my impression is that "homoousios" is probably more widespread in general use and would be the more convenient key-word for the general reader".Bealtainemí (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I do not want to discuss individual opinions of editors; I meant his comment from 12 December 2018 (= "in the section above") with examples of titles of chapters etc., which is in fact one of the methods how to establish preferred usege (as you say, both terms are used; indexes, searches and counts/comparisons would not help; titles of chapter, books, articles, where the author has to choose one version or another may provide a lead. WikiHannibal (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, WikiHannibal. I missed that, and your interpretation is correct. I disagree with his view. Bealtainemí (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support, per New Catholic Encyclopedia. Colin Gerhard (talk) 09:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
• In that case, Oppose, as that is only one example and not much evidence of the predominance of one term or another has been presented so far. However, cf. homoousion at the same New Catholic Encyclopedia, which seems to distinguish between the two terms (to put it simply, homoousion being more or less limited to Nicaea), making our search for the proper name fitting the content of the wiki article more problematic; also note the number of views of the two articles. (If more entries with similar relation as those in the Encyclopedia are found, I would be happy to use homoousios as the name of the wiki article. I just say that at present, we do not know.) WikiHannibal (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Your link is to Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, not to NCE. The Encyclopedia site spins together various reference works. "Homoousios" seems to be more common overall, according to this ngram. Colin Gerhard (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I stand corrected. That makes the "distinction" I saw between the two definitions irrelevant. On the other hand, both are probably high-ranking sources; btw Oxford English Dictionary entry is also [www.oed.com/view/Entry/88095 Homoousion]. The n-gram is, I think, of no use, for reasons I tried to explain above. WikiHannibal (talk) 08:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I checked Onelook, which spins together over 40 online dictionaries. The only relevant entry they have is Merriam-Webster, which gives "homoousion." The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917 does the same. Colin Gerhard (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (1994) uses homoousios, as does the Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity (2018) in its article "Nicaea, Council of". The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3 rev. ed.) (2009) uses "homoousion", the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (2 rev. ed.) gives "homoousion (homousion)" and the Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (2003) has "homoousion". I don't think there's much basis for choosing one over the other. On a separate note, I would argue Consubstantiality is the same topic; several of these sources translate homoousios this way. GPinkerton (talk) 03:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• Merge into Consubstantiality. GPinkerton's remark deserves serious consideration. If the Wikipedia practice of using nouns, rather than adjectives, as article titles is to be followed, then either the title of this article should be changed to the Greek noun homoousiotes or all its material should be merged into the article that has for title the correesponding English noun "consubstantiality". This article itself states that "the term ὁμοούσιον" is "the accusative case form of ὁμοούσιος homoousios 'consubstantial'". Discussion here has shown that there is no clear scholarly preference for using the adjective in this regard either in the nominative form homousios or in the accusative form (or nominative neuter form?) homoousion. I think therefore that the best solution is to merge the material under consubstantiality. Bealtainemí (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

This is primarily not about naming convention and translations but about concepts/notions; Consubstantiality, as a notion, is substantially different from Homoousion in terms of meaning/context/usage, so merging would be possible but for the worse. It would be better to find a WP:COMMONNAME for it, which is what is being discussed here. WikiHannibal (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Is "consubstantiality" (ïn Latin, consubstantialitas) certainly a different notion from "consubstantiality" (in Greek, ὁμοουσιότης)? Bealtainemí (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:TITLECHANGES, and shifting transliterations from neuter to masculine is not what we do in English in modern times, quite the opposite actually. Support the English word consubstantiality, if it can be made to work. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Support, in which I join, may be emerging for a change from the Greek adjective "homoousios"/homoousion" to the English noun "consubstantiality". Bealtainemí (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reversion of recently added Pre-Nicene section

@AndriesvN: I have reverted the section you added on Pre-Nicene usage, not because it is not pertinent, but because it has what I see as the following problems:

1. Some of the wording in non-encyclopedic. Phrases such as "in conclusion" are appropriate to argumentation in an academic paper, but not in an encyclopedia, because it makes it look like the encyclopedia is taking a stand.
2. There are too many subsections that have only one sentence.
3. Much of the material was already talked about at least briefly in the existing text. I think that existing material would better be placed in a Pre-Nicene usage section, but what you added should be integrated with it, not just added without regard to it.
4. The citation style is inconsistent, not only within the section itself, but also with regards to the rest of the article.

Indyguy (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know.

I can try to fix the "in conclusions".

I am not sure what "too many subsections that have only one sentence" means. Can you give an example?

"Much of the material was already talked about at least briefly in the existing text." No, definitely not. The "existing text" only address the Gnostics. It does not address any Christian usage, such as Tertullian, Origen, Paul, or the Dionysii. The Gnostics are fairly irrelevant for this topic. If you want, I can leave the existing section on the Gnostics like it is and add discussions of the Christian uses of the term.

"The citation style is inconsistent" I am not sure what this means. Can you be more specific?

It will be much appreciated if you can put back what I did. I will then work on it to address your concerns.

Regards, Andries AndriesvN (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi

Do you have a response for me on my previous message?

I want to direct your attention to the last sentence under "Pre-Nicaea Usage," namely, " though this Gnostic use of the term had no reference to the specific relationship between Father and Son, as is the case in the Nicene Creed." In other words, the Gnostic uses are not related to Christology. As it stands, the section on "Pre-Nicaea Usage" is, in my view, completely inadequate.

Regards AndriesvN (talk) 10:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I undid your reversion but will work on your criticisms. Thanks AndriesvN (talk) 06:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I have attempted to address your comments. Your further views will be appreciated. AndriesvN (talk) 07:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Lack of source diversity and possible plagiarism in "Adoption in the Nicene Creed"

This article, most notably the Adoption in the Nicene Creed section, relies on 2-3 sources for citations. One of these sources -- https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/homoousion -- is used as the framework for the entire "Adoption..." section. After reviewing this website, it appears this article copies the aforementioned site's framework and language in many instances. Putting aside the obvious plagiarism issues in this article, the author in https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/homoousion cites selectively chosen sources to come to a narrative that is vaguely based on primary and secondary sources and portrays this narrative as fact. The author of this wiki article then passes off this information as it was factually accurate. For instance, this article states as fact that Constantine pressured the bishops into adopting the Creed as he wanted it to be. However, there is no evidence indicating this happened. Additionally, there is no mention of Vicentius and Vito as papal legates. This claim that Constantine coerced in someway the bishops at Nicaea is also subverted by the fact that the Creed in question was upheld at the Second Ecumenical Council, 40 years after the death of Constantine. I don't know why the author decided to essentially copy and paste from the source linked to above, but this is poor authorship and presents one author's narrative as fact. I would suggest a recomposition of this section at least, along with more reliable sources that aren't driven by personal motives. 69.132.119.33 (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

You are correct, and I decided to Be_bold and revert all the offending edits. Not only do they blatantly plagiarize an unreliable source (EDIT: It's clear that the user is quoting his own blog, which is original research) but the user also has a history of inserting Fringe_theories into edits on other articles. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Multiple problems

It appears there was an editor with a strong distaste for saint Athanasius of Alexandria who cited fringe websites and tried to paint Arius as a hidden hero and Athanasius as the big bad evil guy. These edits violate Wikipedia's neutral POV and also are just bad and poorly sourced. Looking over some of the sources the editor provided, such as one under the website "revelationbyjesuschrist.com" it appears these sources believe in an Alexander Hislop-style "great apostasy" myth and also make claims about the Bible and saint Athanasius that are unsourced. There are also reliable sources mentioned, such as Hanson, Lewis Ayres and Rowan Williams, they are horribly quote-mined and distorted to support the position presented.

It might be better to lock this article for a few weeks to prevent further disruptive edits. Oogalee Boogalee (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Oogalee Boogalee

This user has been doing this for years now. Someone ought to bring it up on WP:ANI.

Nautical Mongoose (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Holy Spirit Homoousios

Arsenic-03 deleted part of my edits saying that the Creed of 381 declared the Spirit to be homoousios. He wrote: Deleted misleading section; the primary verdict of the Second Ecumenical Council that formulated the 381 edition of the Creed was declaring the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and Son

I don't see it. The Creed : And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.

Remember that the 381 Creed was influenced by Basil of Caesarea: “C’s article on the Holy Spirit … summarizes very nicely the doctrine of Basil of Caesarea; it does not directly call the Holy Spirit God and it does not apply the word homoousion to him, but it does clearly declare that he is an object of equal (not inferior) worship with the other two Persons.” (Hanson, p818)

And he refused to say that the Spirit is homoousios:

“Basil showed himself reluctant to apply homoousios to the Holy Spirit. … Homoousios was a word which applied particularly to the relation of the Son to the Father.” (Hanson, p. 698)

“The On the Holy Spirit of 375 is notoriously reticent about using homoousios of the Spirit.” (Ayres, p. 211)

“Basil goes on to defend the application of homoousios to the Son … he never applies this term to the Holy Spirit.” (Hanson, p. 694)

I would like to understand how this editor could say "the primary verdict of the Second Ecumenical Council that formulated the 381 edition of the Creed was declaring the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and Son." AndriesvN (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The fifth canon of Constantinople I reads: "In regard to the tome of the Western [Bishops], we receive those in Antioch also who confess the unity of the Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." The author of the article suggests that this canon was produced in a following council, but lack of certainty aside, it's bundled together with the rest of the canons of Constantinople I. At any rate, it's basic knowledge that Constantinople I was explicitly convened to condemn Pneumatomachianism.

Secondly, regarding your discussion of Basil of Caesearea: The tenth chapter of Basil's *On the Holy Spirit* is a polemic "against those who say that it is not right to rank the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son." He doesn't need to use the exact term to indicate the same exact doctrine, nor does the Nicene Creed need to. The Creed and Basil both, furthermore, enumerate the consequences of the Holy Spirit being consubstantial with the Father.

Hanson also thus describes Basil in p.699 of his The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: "We need not be surprised if he was not entirely consistent. He was in a sense a pioneer in theology. Though he came from what might be called an ‘Homoiousian’ background, he had never been an Arian;°° his intellectual roots lay in Gregory Theodorus and in a modified version of Origen’s theology. Faced with the task of coping with the doctrine of Eunomius at a period when few could effectively answer him, and later with the unexpected phenomenon of a party which apparently renounced Arianism but refused to take the logical step of extending divinity from the Son to the Holy Spirit, Basil produced a doctrine of God as a single ousia with three distinct sets of recognizable proprieties or peculiarities (γνωριστικαί ιδιότητες (Adv. Eunom. II.28 (637)), each set forming an authentically existing hypostasis, the whole bound together inseparably in a common ousia or nature, no hypostasis being subordinate to or less than the others, but the Second and Third deriving from the First as their source or ultimate principle. It was well designed to bring about theological consensus. It was open to modification and refinement by the other two of the Cappodocian trio. In Basil’s lifetime no such consensus appeared, but shortly after his untimely death the fruits of his work were gathered." Arsenic-03 (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your response.

That they received “those in Antioch also who confess the unity of the Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” means to me simply that they accepted Paulinus and his followers. That is logical because Emperor Theodosius had already made Western ‘one hypostasis’ theology the State religion of the Roman Empire, and Paulinus also taught one hypostasis. But that does not change the Creed and it does not mean that the Creed must be interpreted as consistent with 'one hypostasis' theology.

My main point was your statement was that “the primary verdict of the Second Ecumenical Council that formulated the 381 edition of the Creed was declaring the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and Son.” That claim seems to be contradicted by the fact that the Creed describes the Son as homoousios but omits to say the Spirit is homoousios. Since the Creed does not explicitly say it, it is very unlikely that that was “the primary verdict.”

With respect to your argument concerning Basil, I argued that Basil never referred to the Spirit as homoousios and that the Creed was consistent with Basil’s theology. Your quote from Hanson refers to “each set forming an authentically existing hypostasis, the whole bound together inseparably in a common ousia or nature.” It is indeed strange that Basil described the Spirit as “identical in substance” but refused to say that the Spirit is homoousios. One can speculate about his reasons. But the fact remains that the Creed does not describe the Spirit as homoousios. Since this Wikipedia article is about the term, it should say something about the Holy Spirit and homoousios. At the moment, as far as I can see, it says nothing. What I added and you deleted was the following:

Neither the 325- or 381-versions of the Nicene Creed describe the Holy Spirit as homoousios but the term was in later centuries also applied to the Holy Spirit in order to designate him as being "same in essence" with the Father and the Son. Those notions became cornerstones of theology in Nicene Christianity, and also represent one of the most important theological concepts within the Trinitarian doctrinal understanding of God.

I agree that the quote from Hanson was not directly applicable but I believe my paragraph was fairly accurate. Nevertheless, I would request that you put something in the article about the Spirit and homoousios.

Regards AndriesvN (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable secondary source (see WP:RS), we can add something. We cannot include original research, which analyzing the verbiage of the Creed would fall under. TypistMonkey (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

That they received “those in Antioch also who confess the unity of the Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” means to me simply that they accepted Paulinus and his followers.... But that does not change the Creed and it does not mean that the Creed must be interpreted as consistent with 'one hypostasis' theology. There's no mention of Paulinus here, only "those in Antioch"-- if it's improper to assert that the Creed and Basil do not teach that the Holy Spirit is homoousios with the Father by way of describing the consequences of that consubstantiality (such that the Hanson you cite describes Basil as being in continuity with Athanasius elsewhere in his The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God), it's even more improper to read this canon as strictly applying to any Paulinus despite not mentioning him by name. Furthermore, it makes no sense for a council to admit into communion those who profess the doctrine of the Trinity and also create a new edition of the Creed, if the Creed the council produced isn't advancing the doctrine of the Trinity. It also makes no sense to restrict the relevance of this canon to the Antiochians being referenced, as if it doesn't necessarily imply the position of the council. Lastly, Canon I explicitly condemns the Pneumatomachi alongside the Eunomians, semi-Arians, and Sabellians. They aren't advancing Pneumatomachianism, heteroousios, homoiousios, or Sabellianism by their account, and their reiteration of the Creed (that uses homoousion) means that they aren't advancing homoianism. Nobody entertains the idea that the council is advancing a theology that doesn't predate it.

The council necessarily advances the doctrine of the Trinity as per Nicaea I, more explicitly describing the Holy Spirit in response to the Pneumatomachians that seized on the lack of verbiage about the Holy Spirit in the 325 edition of the Creed.

What I added and you deleted was the following.... I deleted it because it misrepresents the Second Ecumenical Council by implying that it didn't teach that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father, without describing that it materially equates the Holy Spirit with the Father in every way implied by the term, that the council was convoked in the first place to condemn the Pneumatomachians (done in Canon I) who refused to equate the Holy Spirit with the Father, that the council was convoked by the Nicaea-sympathetic Theodosius and the explicitly Trinitarian Gregory of Nazianzus, and that the council produced its fifth canon which conditionally offers communion with those who assent to the doctrine of the Trinity. Furthermore, the citation you provided (for that statement, as well as several other statements in this article) was to your own website. You've rewritten this page and multiple other ones (especially the one for the Arian Controversy) as though you were writing articles for your blog.

I added the "Disputed" tag (really, there should also be a Essay-like tag) to the article because your contributions are so extensive that merely rolling back all of your changes would be drastic. Manually cutting away the non-NPOV, poorly formed citations that don't even cite a book's name, citations that misrepresent the content or thesis of a book or book section, etc. would be no less drastic. Arsenic-03 (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Deleted incomplete citations

Arsenic-03 deleted quite a number of my edits:

·       In conclusion, before Nicaea, homoousios was preferred only by Sabellians, including Sabellius himself, the Libyan Sabellians, Dionysius of Rome, and Paul of Samosata. For them, Father and Son are a single Person with a single mind.

·       "The word homousios had not had … a very happy history. It was probably rejected by the Council of Antioch, and was suspected of being open to a Sabellian meaning. It was accepted by the heretic Paul of Samosata and this rendered it very offensive to many in the Asiatic Churches." (Philip Schaff)

·       The only non-Sabellian who accepted the term was Dionysius of Alexandria, but he accepted it reluctantly and only as meaning that the Father and Son are two distinct substances of the same type.

·       "We can detect no Greek-speaking writer before Nicaea who unreservedly supports homoousion as applied to the Son." (Hanson, p. 169)

·       “The council that deposed Paul of Samosata in 268 condemned the use of homoousios.” (Ayres, p. 94; cf. Hanson, p. 193-194)

·       “In using the expression ‘of one substance', Paul declared that Father and Son were a solitary unit;" “a primitive undifferentiated unity.” (Williams, p. 159-160)

·       According to Hilary, “Our fathers (the 268-council) … repudiated homoousion” because “the word to them spelt Sabellianism.” (Hanson, p. 194)

·       “The word homoousios, at its first appearance in the middle of the third century, was therefore clearly connected with the theology of a Sabellian or monarchian tendency.” (P.F. Beatrice)

I would like to ask this editor in what respect citations are incomplete. Some are not citation but summaries in my own words. Or are there other reasons? AndriesvN (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)