Author name: Andries Van Niekerk

Homoousios

Meaning of Homoousios in the 4th-Century Controversy

/

This article re-examines the origin, development, and theological ambiguity of the Greek term homoousios (“of the same substance”) during the fourth-century Arian Controversy. Drawing on contemporary patristic scholarship—including works by R.P.C. Hanson, Lewis Ayres, Rowan Williams, and Khaled Anatolios—the text challenges traditional 19th-century accounts of early church history. It traces how homoousios evolved from non-biblical, pagan, and Sabellian contexts into a pivotal phrase forced into the Nicene Creed under the influence of Emperor Constantine. The study demonstrates that rather than denoting a fixed numerical identity of substance in 325 AD, the term initially carried a flexible, controversial, and largely non-material meaning that served as a catalyst for theological debate rather than an immediate consensus.

Dedication Council
Uncategorized

Why the Dedication Council (341 AD) avoided Homoousios

/

This article re-evaluates the 4th-century Trinitarian controversy by examining why the 341 Dedication Council of Antioch discarded the Nicene term homoousios (“same substance”) in favor of describing the Son as the “exact image of the Father’s substance.” Rather than viewing this shift as a victory for radical Arianism, the study argues that Eastern bishops sought to resolve the profound ambiguity left by the Council of Nicaea in 325. At Nicaea, an imperial mandate and an anti-Arian alliance between Alexander of Alexandria and Asiatic modalists led to the inclusion of homoousios—a term historically linked to Sabellianism and the collapsing of personal distinctions within the Godhead.

Following Nicaea, as Sabellian theologians cited homoousios to argue for a single hypostasis, Eastern traditionalists (the “Eusebians”) launched a theological counter-offensive to defend the distinct existence of the Son. The Dedication Creed of 341 represents this Eastern consensus. By framing the Son as the “exact image,” the council rejected Sabellian numerical identity (one hypostasis) in favor of qualitative identity (three hypostases united in agreement). Ultimately, the Dedication Council served as a critical historical pivot, establishing the multi-hypostasis framework that would later inform the Cappadocian settlement at the Council of Constantinople in 381.

Uncategorized

Basil of Caesarea’s View on the Three Divine Beings

/

This article explores the theological contributions of Basil of Caesarea, one of the prominent Cappadocian Fathers, regarding the doctrine of the Godhead. While mainstream Trinitarianism posits God as a single Being (one indivisible substance) existing in three Persons, the article argues that Basil originally conceptualized the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three distinct Beings (three substances), but with the same type of substance. The text highlights how Basil’s framework differed from both Sabellianism and earlier Nicene models, maintaining the unique priority of the Father while asserting ontological equality among the divine Persons.

4th-century debate
Arianism

Was the Arian Son Really a Creature? Rethinking Nicaea

/

Popular church history often characterizes fourth-century non-Nicene (“Arian”) theology as reducing the Son to a mere “creature” created out of non-existence. However, modern patristic scholarship (including Lewis Ayres, R.P.C. Hanson, Khaled Anatolios, and Rowan Williams) demonstrates that this binary distinction between uncreated God and created non-God was not a shared starting premise, but rather an outcome of the fourth-century debates. Non-Nicenes like Eusebius of Caesarea placed the Son within a unified divine hierarchy (trias), holding that He was uniquely begotten out of the Father’s divine being before all time. This post examines how the “Son as creature” framing originated as a brilliant polemical strategy by Athanasius to simplify his opponents’ nuanced subordinationism—a narrative that has persisted for over 1,500 years due to pedagogical convenience, apologetic utility, and historiographical inertia.

Jehovah's Witnesses
Arianism

Are Jehovah’s Witnesses Arians? A Historical Comparison

/

This article examines whether the theology of Jehovah’s Witnesses can accurately be classified as “Arian.” While both Watchtower doctrine and 4th-century Arianism reject the Nicene Trinity—viewing the Son as a generated, non-eternal being subordinate to God the Father—significant theological differences separate the two systems. By evaluating key criteria including the origin of the Son, substance categories (ousia), the identity of Michael the Archangel, the nature of Christ’s incarnation, the status of the Holy Spirit, and the legitimacy of worshipping Jesus, the author highlights where Jehovah’s Witness theology diverges from historical Arian and Eusebian traditions. The study concludes that while Jehovah’s Witnesses share notable subordinationist affinities with early anti-Nicene movements, their rejection of Christ’s worship, reduction of the Holy Spirit to an impersonal force, and unique angelic Christology place them outside classical Arianism, making “Arian-like” a far more accurate historical description.

Arianism

/

From ancient times, many writers believed that Arius inherited his heresy from the third-century theologian Paul of Samosata. Paul taught that Jesus Christ had no personal pre-existence. In his view, Jesus was a mere man whom God adopted as His Son. This teaching is commonly called Adoptionism. Paul was condemned for these views by a council at Antioch in 268.

Christology

/

Colossians 1:15 refers to the Son as the firstborn in a literal sense, namely that He literally was the first to exist, but He is also “firstborn” in the figurative sense of the most important Being in the universe. Since He was “born,” He was not created. Rather, He, Himself is “the Beginning” of all creation.

Christology

Does monogenēs mean “only-begotten?”

/

As the “only-begotten,” Jesus is the only being incomprehensibly generated from the Father’s being. But some argue that monogenēs should not be translated as “only begotten” but as “unique” or as “only.” That removes the implication that the Son was generated from the being of the Father.

Scroll to Top