Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in
All Questions
Question 6
The council made “homoousia” (a term “nowhere” in Scripture) the “primary touchstone of orthodoxy,” even though “ousia” is never used in Scripture with reference to God; what do you think is gained and what is lost when the Church requires non-biblical technical terms to define who counts as Christian?
Another way to ask: What do we gain and what do we lose when the Church makes non-Bible technical words required to decide who is a real Christian?

Direct Answer From the transcript, what is “gained” is an effective mechanism to exclude the Arians; what is “lost” is the principle that Scripture is the adequate standard and the freedom to remain within biblical language. Bercot frames this as a major shift: being Christian becomes tied to assenting to a non-scriptural term.

Support from Transcript:

  • Constantine’s creed “would force the Arians out of the Church,” and it did—accepted by nearly all “except Arius and a few… supporters.”
  • To accomplish this, Constantine “had to insert language in the creed that is not found in Scripture.”
  • Bercot faults the creed for introducing “homoseia/homoousia… being of the same substance,” explaining “homo” = same and “ousia” = substance.
  • After Nicaea, “homo ousian became the primary touchstone of orthodoxy.”
  • “It nowhere appears in Scripture,” and even “ousia… is never used in the Bible with reference to God.”
  • Therefore the council was saying, “to be a Christian, you now had to subscribe to a theological term that nowhere appears in the Bible.”
Discussion Follow-ups Bercot concedes the creed’s meaning is orthodox, but his concern is the precedent: when technical terms become the gate, what happens to humility about Scripture’s boundaries and to the church’s focus?

Jumpstarter 6 of 10
Back Questions Next