Someone on TWeb said that Basil of Ancyra called the Son a "creature" with reference to his divinity and Athanasius accepted this individual, seemingly having no genuine problem with such language. The truth is that Basil of Ancyra was a semi-Arian, who advocated the formula homoiousia rather than homoousia. But he eventually rejected the term "creature" as an adequate description of the Son as God. A number of historians document this point.

Adios
Dan

**7** yo--

Someone on TWeb said that Basil of Ancyra called the Son a "creature" with reference to his divinity and Athanasius accepted this individual, seemingly having no genuine problem with such language.

**8** my point wasn't so much that Athanasius would have accepted that specific word, but rather, that words themselves could carry different connotations according to different persons (Basil certainly never intended "created" in an Arian sense), and that terminological clarification was so much indebted to a doctrinal debate spanning several generations that anyone approaching a theologian from any period--and that period especially--needs to exercise due caution lest he fall into severe anachronism, as G1 is so prone to do.
that Athanasius could accept him proves not that Athanasius would accept the word "created", but rather that different people could use different words to argue the same point during this specific period. Athanasius' own basic acceptance of Basil is to be found in his De Synodis 41, and J. Quasten asserts that "Homoiousian" theology "reproduces essentially the teaching of St. Athanasius" (Patrology, vol. 3, pg. 202).

The truth is that Basil of Ancyra was a semi-Arian, who advocated the formula homoiousia rather than homoousia.

**8** more proof of how badly G1 needs to do research on this era of Church history.
as R.P.C Hanson notes (The Search For the Christian Doctrine of God), to call Basil (and Co.) such is undeserved, and he also points out that "the members of this school do not use precisely the word homoiousios" (pg. 349).
alluding to Hilary, J.N.D. Kelly (Early Christian Creeds) notes that they distanced themselves from the word "homoousios" because, to them, it seemed to imply "that the Father and Son formed a single, undifferentiated being" (pg. 248), and Hanson (op. cit., 356) points at that, according to Basil's party, "spiritual substances could not be homoousios, only material substances could be that." in other words, they were cautious of modalism, not the essential affirmations of orthodoxy. finally, M.R. Barnes (The Power of God: Dynamis in the Trinitarian Theology of Gregory of Nyssa) summarizes Basil's Trinitarian Christology as being "anti anti-Nicene" (pg. 143, n. 48).
the rest of G1's post goes out the window as being irrelevant. J.P. Holding bases his Trinitarian Christology on Jewish Wisdom theology. some of the passages in this tradition speak of God's Wisdom as being (according to both he and myself) eternally "created". we understand the word "created" not as, within its original context, implying contingency, but rather, as having a much more vague sense of "generation/production" which is fully capable as regards meaning, in context, of coinciding with what the Nicenes meant to say when they asserted that the Son is "eternally begotten". alongside the Wisdom literature, certain ante-Nicenes clearly bring this point out. that a person who, during the mid-4th century, essentially agreed with the Nicenes, and fought against Arians, was capable of using the word "created" in a sense which didn't imply contingency further proves that the word itself doesn't imply heresy; we must take the word within and according to the context in which it is being used (which for J.P., is the Jewish Wisdom tradition).
G1's error is simply to load the word with a set of connotations that it can have, thenceforth treating it as univocal in all contexts. G1 probably is incapable of seeing the point here.
audi five.

[G1]
Someone on TWeb said that Basil of Ancyra called the Son a "creature" with reference to his divinity and Athanasius accepted this individual, seemingly having no genuine problem with such language.

**8** my point wasn't so much that Athanasius would have accepted that specific word, but rather, that words themselves could carry different connotations according to different persons (Basil certainly never intended "created" in an Arian sense), and that terminological clarification was so much indebted to a doctrinal debate spanning several generations that anyone approaching a theologian from any period--and that period especially--needs to exercise due caution lest he fall into severe anachronism, as G1 is so prone to do.

[G1]
I did not say that you argued Athanasius accepted the word, only the individual who used the term. Your exact words were:

<<on the side, it is also worth noting that certain anti-Arians, such as Basil of Ancyra, continued to use "create" in reference to the Son's deity (by which they meant no more than that the Father produced or generated the Son), and that Basil was ultimately accepted by Athanasius, alongside being something of a mentor to Basil of Caesarea.>>

What you failed to mention is that Basil of Ancyra was a semi-Arian, but eventually rejected the term "creature," viewing it as an unsuitable descriptive term for the preexistent Son.

[Phantaz]
that Athanasius could accept him proves not that Athanasius would accept the word &quot;created&quot;, but rather that different people could use different words to argue the same point during this specific period. Athanasius' own basic acceptance of Basil is to be found in his De Synodis 41, and J. Quasten asserts that &quot;Homoiousian&quot; theology &quot;reproduces essentially the teaching of St. Athanasius&quot; (Patrology, vol. 3, pg. 202).

[G1]
I never said that Athanasius accepted the word, only the individual using the term. At least, that is how you initially explained the matter. Furthermore, the nub of this debate is not whether homoiousian theology essentially reproduced Athanasius' teaching. The point is that Basil of Ancyra himself eventually rejected the term "creature" or "creation" as an adequate descriptive term referring to the preexistent Son. JND Kelly reports that "A party was formed under the leadership of Basil of Ancyra, and at the synod of Ancyra (358) published the first Homoeousian manifesto. This manifesto pronounced that Christ was not a creature but Son of the Father, for "creator and creature are one thing, Father and Son quite another; and it condemned other typical Arian theses" (Early Christian Doctrines, page 250).

Kelly also writes that the formula homoousios was condemned by the party of Basil of Ancyra in 358 CE. Subsequently (in 359 CE), a memorandum was drafted which revealed that "the gap between the new party and the Nicenes was narrowing" (ibid). The party of Basil eventually decided that the formula kat' ousian homoioths adequately expressed what they believed concerning the Logos. This move demonstrated that the party of Basil was now starting to approximate the "Athanasian point of view" (ibid).

**8** more proof of how badly G1 needs to do research on this era of Church history.
as R.P.C Hanson notes (The Search For the Christian Doctrine of God), to call Basil (and Co.) such is undeserved, and he also points out that &quot;the members of this school do not use precisely the word homoiousios&quot; (pg. 349).

[G1]
There is evidently room for debate because Kelly explicitly writes that the formula homoiousios was "deliberately taken up" by the part of Ancyra.

[Phantaz]
alluding to Hilary, J.N.D. Kelly (Early Christian Creeds) notes that they distanced themselves from the word &quot;homoousios&quot; because, to them, it seemed to imply &quot;that the Father and Son formed a single, undifferentiated being&quot; (pg. 248), and Hanson (op. cit., 356) points at that, according to Basil's party, &quot;spiritual substances could not be homoousios, only material substances could be that.&quot; in other words, they were cautious of modalism, not the essential affirmations of orthodoxy. finally, M.R. Barnes (The Power of God: Dynamis in the Trinitarian Theology of Gregory of Nyssa) summarizes Basil's Trinitarian Christology as being &quot;anti anti-Nicene&quot; (pg. 143, n. 48).

[G1]
We're not talking psychology here. It doesn't matter why Basil of Ancyra distanced himself from the formula homoousios. The mention of his rejection of this expression was a side point. The main point for now is that Basil in time refused to call the Son a creature. A point well borne out by historical sources. You, however, made it sound as if Basil continued to use the term as a descriptive word of the Son's deity with no problemo. That is simply not true.

[Phantaz]
alongside the Wisdom literature, certain ante-Nicenes clearly bring this point out. that a person who, during the mid-4th century, essentially agreed with the Nicenes, and fought against Arians, was capable of using the word &quot;created&quot; in a sense which didn't imply contingency further proves that the word itself doesn't imply heresy; we must take the word within and according to the context in which it is being used (which for J.P., is the Jewish Wisdom tradition).
G1's error is simply to load the word with a set of connotations that it can have, thenceforth treating it as univocal in all contexts. G1 probably is incapable of seeing the point here.

[G1]
You have already proved that it is a little hard for you to stay on task. But could you please try for five minutes? At this point, it is not important what the ANE or the ANF or even JP Holding thinks the verb of production "create" or "created" means. My concern is with the accuracy of your comments regarding Basil of Ancyra.

Another historian who backs what I'm saying is W.H.C. Frend. He notes that the bishops of Sirmium "clearly favored homoiousios as the correct definition of the Father-Son relationship and they condemned homoousios when used, as they feared, in a Sabellian sense" (The Rise of Christianity, page 540).

Yet, it wasn't only fear of Sabellianism that caused the party of Basil to reject the formula homoousios. Sozomen relates:

"The third formulary is of the same import as the others. It prohibits the use of the term "substance" on account of the terms used in Latin, while the Greek term having been used with too much simplicity by the Fathers, and having been a cause of offense to many of the unlearned multitude, because it was not to be found in the Scriptures, 'we have deemed it right totally to reject the use of it: and we would enjoin the omission of all mention of the term in allusion to the Godhead, for it is nowhere said in the Holy Scriptures, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are of the same substance, where the word person is written. But we say, in conformity with the Holy Scriptures, that the Son is like unto the Father' " (Ecclesiastical History 4.6).

Adios
Dan

**7** say hey G1, shouldn't you be working on your next response for the Wrestling Ring thing?

The main point for now is that Basil in time refused to call the Son a creature.

**8** wow--this is becoming more and more ridiculous. Kelly's brief quote isn't enough to tell us how, exactly, Basil used the word--it merely shows, by itself, that there is a sense in which he rejects it.
actually, the very work your citation from Kelly relies on is Epiphanius' Panarion, 72-73 (your copy of Kelly alludes to it in note 2 from the page you cite). in it, Basil is represented as both rejecting and accepting the word depending on how it is being used. Hanson (352-353) notes that the word is fine, for Basil, if it is qualified by affirming that the Father and Son are like in essence, and this in-line with the "if Father, then Son" argument (in which case "create" would describe nothing more than generation and "being from"). it is rejected if it denies the above mentioned and implies "contingency" (in the sense i've used it).
but even if you had managed to finally get something right here, this wouldn't matter. when discussing JP Holding's use of the word, we aren't speaking according to the language of Nicea--we are speaking according to the language of the ANE, Wisdom tradition, and NT; and the continuity in meaning (according to us) of both.
i am almost amazed that you can't "get" this.

A point well borne out by historical sources. You, however, made it sound as if Basil continued to use the term as a descriptive word of the Son's deity with no problemo.

**7** actually, when i said "continued" i meant that he continued an ante-Nicene tradition; not that he continued something throughout the course of his own life.
and to be honest, i'm not certain whether or not he continued to use the word--the only work of his that may have survived deals with virginity, and we are thus forced to be content with the scant reports and citations of others.

I did not say that you argued Athanasius accepted the word, only the individual who used the term.

**8** you said "seemingly having no genuine problem with such language" in your own quote of yourself. my provisional comment was thus warranted. i never intended to imply that Athanasius used or accepted the word--my point was that there isn't a one-one correspondence between word and meaning in this case.

What you failed to mention is that Basil of Ancyra was a semi-Arian,

**8** i see no use in saying as much, because, as Hanson points out, such a predication is unwarranted. it'd be like calling someone a "semi-Atheist" because they reject a confused definition of God. the word kicks up connotations that history won't back up.

but eventually rejected the term "creature," viewing it as an unsuitable descriptive term for the preexistent Son.

**7** you have provided nothing illustrating that the term was eventually "rejected"--Kelly doesn't talk about Basil "before and after accepting the word creature", he cites an instance of Basil's party rejecting it in the wrong sense, and everything beyond this is more proof of your sorry inability to not read what you want and need into a sufficiently vague text.

Furthermore, the nub of this debate is not whether homoiousian theology essentially reproduced Athanasius' teaching.

**8** insofar as Basil was a homoiousian who used the word "create" it does. maybe you should pause and consider the difference that seeking meaning would bring to your understanding of texts.

There is evidently room for debate because Kelly explicitly writes that the formula homoiousios was "deliberately taken up" by the part of Ancyra.

**7** Kelly's reference (though Kelly cites nothing here) is probably to Hilary's De Synodis 11. Hanson notes that Hilary here "does not clearly represent it as mentioning homoeousion" (pg. 350). while the word was used by others to describe the group, there is no evidence that the word itself was explicitly used by them, and still less that it was a "flag" for them in the same sense that Athanasius and Co. used the word "homoousios". Hanson's work is both more in-depth and more modern than Kelly's, interacting with far more sources, and thus deserves to weigh heavier in our considerations (in my opinion).
still, what they did affirm was identical with what the word "homoiousious" means (within the theological context of those in question).

We're not talking psychology here. It doesn't matter why Basil of Ancyra distanced himself from the formula homoousios.

**8** yes, G1, it actually does. there are too many theological topers out there, like yourself, who need such things pointed out to them so that they won't jump to all the wrong conclusions, as you yourself do.

The mention of his rejection of this expression was a side point.

**7** which was intended to do what, exactly?

At this point, it is not important what the ANE or the ANF or even JP Holding thinks the verb of production "create" or "created" means. My concern is with the accuracy of your comments regarding Basil of Ancyra.

**8** and my concern with Basil was brought up solely to illustrate a point within the context of your comments directed at JP Holding, and my comments regarding Basil are accurate in this regard.

Another historian who backs what I'm saying is W.H.C. Frend.

**7** what Frend says is fine by me, and it gets you no further than Kelly here.
i find it passing strange that you see fit to dwell upon something that is, according to you, "a side issue". but i suppose you're going where you need to in accordance with your need to try to score points.
every penny counts, as they say. though it does look bad when you bring funny money to deposit in the bank.

Yet, it wasn't only fear of Sabellianism that caused the party of Basil to reject the formula homoousios.

**7** its worth mentioning that you're getting something wrong here, for the same argument could just as easily been used regarding the word that you claim they used: homoiousia (which is never used by the Bible to describe the Father and Son and Spirit).
but yeah, other than that, your point is indeed true insofar as i've read on the Homoiousians. that Scripture didn't use the Nicene flag-word was a large reason for their rejecting it, though i think it more likely that fear of modalism was the whip-hand in the rejection, and the Biblical argument was used in its service.
please work on your response to me in the Gym. i'm not interested in you or your fumbling around the fathers and seeking to beat a source into your increasingly twisted attempts at backing up all of the bogus you vomit forth. if you request an extension i'll reject it.
audi five.

According to TWeb rules, I have until Friday to post a reply to you. I'll have it ready by then. I'm going to work on my reply to Joel today since I'm off work, but I will come back to this topic with you after I am finished with both debates.

Adios
Dan

**7** yo--

I will come back to this topic with you after I am finished with both debates.

**8** this topic is, essentially, done. your attempts at backing up your claims are pathetic and unworthy of being entertained. after our debate i'm done with TWeb as well (this has nothing especially to do with G1 himself--i've told several friends this month that i'm leaving on-line writing).
readers interested in Basil of Ancyra are advised to not trust anything G1 says, and to refer to the works i've cited in both this thread, and the Colossians 1:15 thread.
peace ouuuut.