Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Paper
By
Jack Hakimian
Summer 2007
Section 1
It appears that Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nysaa were part of a moderate
group of Eastern Bishops. This group felt that the term homoousios didn’t properly
communicate the “likeness of substance” of the Word with Father. They thought the term
“homoiousios” was more fitting. But, as time went on they began to agree with
Athanasius usage of homoousios and were able to persuade their Eastern colleagues to
unite with the Western church concerning this issue at the Council of Constantinople of
381.1
The relationship between Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa was based on their
common love for God and the state of the church. Gregory of Nyssa had a brother by the
name of Basil, who became the Bishop of Caesarea. When Basil was gaining his
developed a deep friendship and would engage them both in the work of defending the
faith against Eunomians. Ultimately, they labored to solidify the Nicene Creed and
articulate a clear formula for the trinity: Unity of God, in three modes or hypostases.2
1
Pg 23
2
24
Section 2
Clearly the documents are polemic in nature. For example, in Third Theolical Oratation,
Gregory of Nazianzus sets out to refute the Eunomius arguments presented in what we
call delimas. Firstly, they argued that if God begat the Son voluntarily or involuntarily
this creates two delimas. If he did this involuntary some being outside of Him forced Him
to do that, thus showing that God is subordinate to another being. But, if the Father did
this voluntarily then the “Son is the Son of the Will, and not of the Father”.3
Gregory of Nyssa in Not Three Gods, To Ablabius sets out to prove that there is only One
God in three substances, and not three distinct individuals or person with individual will,
emotions and substances. He even argues those human beings are really “one nature”
even though we speak of them as separate beings.4 We may use inexact language as a
figure of speech when it comes to people like Peter, James, and John, but in reference to
Section 3
Nazianzus deals with the language of government like his predescaro Tertullian.
Tertullian dealt with the issue in his book Againbst Praxeas where he argued against the
“Monarchians” who said there was no difference between the Son and the Creator God
who is father. If there was it wouldn’t be “monarchy” or one rule. Nazianzus seems to use
3
Pg 313
4
319
5
320
it in relation to the fact that monarch one rule is better than 1) anarchy 2) government
(many rulers).6 He argues that monarchies result in discipline. Yet God’s monarchy is
three hypostases who are “composed of an equality of honor or nature, concord mind,
indentity of movement, and convergence of things from to the one, which is impossible
for originated nature, so that it differs in number but there is no severance in substance.”7
The question of divine begetting is vital because if the Son was created at certain point of
time it meant that he was not one in essence with God, since God is unbegotten, and
eternally self-existent. If Jesus was begotten in time, then the question is “when”? Then
he argues to answer that question we have to ask, “When was the Father begotten?” The
only answer is that He always existed. If the Father always existed, then so did the Son
and the Holy Spirit. For Nazianzus the issue of time boils down to this conclusion: “Son
was not proceeding but was timelessly begotten and beyond reason”.8
In the council of Nicea the fathers agreed upon “homoousios” to describe the “same
substance" of Jesus and the Father. The word” persona” was used to describe the
individual character within the Godhead ( Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). The
Cappadocian fathers where not happy about this word “persona” because they translated
the word the same as “substantia”. Which for them would have had the connotation of
three separate Gods in the unified Godhead. But, when the Eastern fathers tried to
introduce the concept of the one ousia and three hypostasis the Western Fathers got
suspicious because both words were synonymous. Both sides, due to language barriers,
6
Pg 131
7
Pg 132
8
Pg 132
where having a hard time with the appropriation of certain words. Finally, when the
Capppadocian fathers came around they took the word hypostasis, which could be
rendered synonymous with ouisa, and made clear distinctions. The word hypostasis now
referred to the individual substance of a thing, and ouisia referred to the essence that is
common to the various members of a species.9 This eventually satisfied both the Western
Section 4
When the Emperor called together the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 the
Cappadocian formula was upheld by the Eastern fathers. When the Western Bishops
heard this they accepted this new articulation of the “trinity” and affirmation of the
Nicene Creed. After the Council of Constantinople, the influence of Arianism was
forever destroyed in the middle east, Africa and Asia Minor. The Northern barbarians
areas still had the influence of Arainism, but that was soon weeded out as the superior
academic influence of the Nicene fathers won over the populace and shaped their
theology.
9
Pg 287 Gonzales