Comments on: The Trinity Revisited: On Coequality

By: Zach Kagley

Zach Kagley — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 01:53:46 +0000

I love facts like that as well. The early church is indeed a fascinating topic.

By: thrica

thrica — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 00:04:26 +0000

That’s exactly what I mean by equal but separate – Peter and Paul are equal in gender, but they do not share the same substance of gender (unless you ask Plato, but that’s a different matter).

Interesting point about the Arians, by the way. I love facts like that.

By: Zach Kagley

Zach Kagley — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 23:42:55 +0000

Homoousian can indeed be seen to be the Greek equivalent of coequal, consubstantial, of the same substance, in one substance (since the word coequal itself does not appear in scripture, with only ‘equal’ or ‘equality’ being used). This is to be contrasted with the homoiousian, ‘of like substance,’ which the Arians posited for describing Christ. Hence Gibbons quip that the intellectual activity of the fourth century revolved around the question of a single ‘iota.’

There is a sense in which one can predicate one thing of many things, such as justice being predicated of all just actions; and as Peter, Paul, and John are all men, with man being predicated of them all. Is this what you mean by equal but separate? If this is so, then I think you rightly point out a mistake in the interpretation of Trinitarian theology, and I’d be inclined to agree with you.

By: thrica

thrica — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 22:15:11 +0000

Is Homoousian the word from which we get Coequal? If that’s the case it seems a very inexpedient translation, because in English at least, there’s an ambiguity in its meaning which tends towards the wrong side. What I said about coequality in authority could very well be said for coequality in substance: in English, “equal” tends to be taken as “identical but separate” rather than “one in substance”. It’s this ambiguity I’m trying to expose, since one of these is clearly correct and the other clearly wrong.

The literal translation of Homoousian “One in substance” would be a much better substitute for “coequal”.

By: Zach Kagley

Zach Kagley — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:40:52 +0000

In terms of function, it does seem odd to describe the Son as coequal with the Father when it is he the Son who is sent from the Father. In this case, I think you have a point. As for the term coequal itself, do you find specific objection to the adjective homoousian — of the same substance (as the Father) — or is there something more to your objection? In logical terms, it makes no sense to argue that one thing is the same as another, unless it is so in a qualified sense. That there are no accidents in the Godhead is a principle most Christians would agree to, I think; therefore, there can be no differences between Father and Son in terms of accidents. That there is no distinction between the Son and the Father in substance is a direct claim of Nicene theology, which would lead to the direct claim of coequality in substance.

What differentiates the Son and the Father are their distinctions of hypostases (personhoods), and this, I believe, is a distinct mode of existence from substance and accident. The Son and the Father, therefore, are distinguished by their relations in their persons. The claim that Christ is coequal with the Father is meant, I believe, in terms of substance rather than in their relations. And in the nature of Christ, this is shown even more clearly, as one must distinguish between Christ in his humanity and Christ in his divinity. “My God, my God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?” (Matthew 27:46), is a good proof text for demonstrating this dichotomy.