Fuller Theological Seminary

Analytical Paper for

Nazianzus, Third Theological Oration & Nyssa, Not Three Gods, To Ablabius

A Paper

Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Course

CH501 Patristic Theology

Dr. R.A. Muller

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

education in Caesera to engage in religious work he met Gregory of Nazianzus. They

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

God the consequences can be vital.5

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

and Eastern fathers and all anathema were removed.

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