Comparing Heron's Homoousios With The Son

864 Words2 Pages

The doctrine of incarnation is a fundamental teaching in traditional Christianity, stating that Jesus Christ and God are one, as the Son is the Father incarnated in human flesh. This affirms that Jesus is paradoxically both fully God and fully human. While there is abundant evidence in the Bible to support the belief in the doctrine, and it is the widely accepted view, still opposition has come against incarnation, branding it intrinsically contradictory. In “Homoousios with the Father” Heron discusses the necessity of incarnation through the study of the word ‘homoousios’; the word provides basic understanding of Jesus’ oneness and equality with God. This sameness is not something that can be comprehended; the attempt to convey the relationship …show more content…

Heron chooses to first outline the positive side of Nicene teaching: “the Son of God is authentically God… his being derives from the being of the Father himself and is therefore shared with the father.” Heron sets this against the negativity of Arian insistence that the Father and the Son should be distinguished as separate entities: “for fathers are before their sons in time, and so if Christ is ‘Son’ he must be later than the Father, and therefore not God.” By calling Jesus ‘the Son’ human constraints are placed on the relationship within the Trinity; our understanding can only fathom this relationship as Jesus coming from the Father, rather than him being the Father incarnate. It is with homoousios that Arius finds an issue; he sees Jesus as “secondary, inferior, creaturely” , so while He surely is appointed by God for a divine purpose, ‘homoousios’ must be rejected as “the Father is ‘different in being’ from the Son.” Believing otherwise, that the Trinity is indistinguishable rather than coeternal aspects, would adopt a Sabellian view, which lessens the importance of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Heron disregards Arian arguments as material and superficial “rehashing of ancient heresy” which is “characterized by… shallowness.” Arius is not alone in finding fault in the term; towards the end of the 350s many variations of ‘homoousios’ emerged in the hopes of more accurately describing the relationship between God the Father and Christ – these did however, ironically, take form due to Arius literalistic interpretation being

Open Document