Category: Trinity Doctrine

Posted on

Is Homoousios the main word in the Nicene Creed?

The Key Word in the Creed

The Nicene Creed of AD 325 says that the Son is homoousios (of the same substance) as the Father. In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, homoousios is “the key word of the Creed.” (Beatrice)

In the “centuries-old account of the Council of Nicaea,” “the whole power of the mysterious dogma is at once established by the one word homoousios;” “with one pronouncement the Church identified a term that secured its … beliefs against heresy.” (LA, 11)

Not mentioned for 25+ years

But this traditional view is in startling contrast to the views of the delegates at Nicaea. Referring specifically to the view that homoousios was of fundamental importance, Ayres says that “such older accounts are deeply mistaken.” (LA, 11) For about 25 years after Nicaea, nobody mentions homoousios:

“What is conventionally regarded as the key-word in the Creed homoousion, falls completely out of the controversy very shortly after the Council of Nicaea and is not heard of for over twenty years.” (Hanson Lecture)

“During the years 326–50 the term homoousios is rarely if ever mentioned.” (LA, 431)

Not even Athanasius, who is traditionally regarded as the great hero of the Arian Controversy and defender of the Nicene Creed, mentions the term:

“Even Athanasius for about twenty years after Nicaea is strangely silent about this adjective (homoousios) which had been formally adopted into the creed of the Church in 325.” (RH, 58-59)

“In most older presentations, ‘western’ bishops were taken to be natural and stalwart defenders of Nicaea throughout the fourth century.” (LA, 135) However:

“Even the Western bishops at Serdica in 343 did not mention the word.” (RH, 436) That council, 18 years after Nicaea, “opted clearly for Una substantia meaning one hypostasis, (rather than consubstantial).” (RH, 201)

The events of the Council of Serdica in AD 343 show that the main drivers of the Nicene Creed, “such as Ossius, Athanasius, and Marcellus” were “willing to turn to an alternative statement of faith, just as many of their eastern counterparts had done at Antioch two years before.” (LA, 126)

Even a decade later, “the 350s show how Nicaea only slowly came to be of importance in the west.” (LA, 135)

The word homoousios “has left no traces at all in the works of … the leaders of the anti-Arian party such as Alexander of Alexandria, Ossius of Cordova, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Eustathius of Antioch, who are usually considered Constantine’s theological advisers and the strongest supporters of the council.” (P.F. Beatrice)

“It is not until he (Athanasius) writes the De Decretis (356 or 357) that Athanasius again mentions the word and begins to defend it.” (RH, 436)

Nobody attacked homoousios.

Since nobody defended homoousios, nobody attacked it during those 25 years after Nicaea:

“Many of the theologies we have considered so far are non-Nicene more than anti-Nicene: only in the 350s do we begin to trace clearly the emergence of directly anti-Nicene accounts.” (LA, 139)

Purpose

The purpose of this article is two-fold:

      • Why was the term not mentioned during the decades after Nicaea, and
      • How and why did it become part of the Controversy 30 years later?

Authors

The main authors quoted in this article are:

LA = Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its legacy, 2004, Ayres is a Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology at Durham University in the United Kingdom.

RH = Bishop R.P.C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987

RW = Archbishop Rowan Williams Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987

Beatrice – Pier Franco Beatrice is a professor of Early Christian Literature at the University of Padua, Italy.

Why Not Mentioned

Not Important

This absence of the term homoousios in the 20 or more years after Nicaea means that the term was not regarded as important:

“For nearly twenty years after Nicaea nobody mentions homoousios, not even Athanasius. This may be because it was much less significant than either later historians of the ancient Church or modern scholars thought that it was.” (RH, 170)

“After Nicaea homoousios is not mentioned again in truly contemporary sources for two decades. … It was not seen as that useful or important.” (LA, 96)

In fact, some even say that the term was a problem for most delegates:

“Homoousios was in fact a foreign body or stumbling block for all the people attending the council, without distinction, Arians and anti-Arians, and for this very reason it soon disappeared in the following debates.” (P.F. Beatrice)

To Oust Arius

“The choice of the term homoousios seems to have been motivated in large part because Arius was known to reject it. Athanasius …  tells us that those running the council originally proposed describing the Son as ‘like’ the Father or ‘exactly like the Father in all things’ and as being ‘from God’. But these terms would not serve because everyone could agree to them. … Hence, homoousios and ‘from the essence of the Father’ were chosen specifically to exclude Arius’ supporters.” (LA, 90)

Hanson concludes similarly that “the most satisfactory explanation of why it was put there is that it was certainly a word … which serious and wholehearted Arians could not stomach.” (RH, 167; cf. RH, 172)

Ayres agrees with Hanson that “the homoousion was probably not a flag to be nailed to the masthead, a word around which self-conscious schools of theology could rally. But it was an atropopaic formula for resisting Arianism.” (LA, 92) (Atropopaic means to avert evil influences.)

In other words, the term homoousion was inserted in the Creed, not because it was considered to be an important Christian word or concept, but merely as a means to force Arius and his supporters to reject the Creed. The meeting knew that the emperor would exile all who refused to sign the Creed and “desired to secure the condemnation of Arius.” (LA, 91)

The Work of a Minority

The delegates to the Nicene Council of 325 were “drawn almost entirely from the eastern half of the empire” (LA, 19), and the Dedication Creed of 341 “represents the nearest approach we can make to discovering the views of the ordinary educated Eastern bishop.” (RH, 290-1) “Loofs comes nearest to the truth when he says that it (the Dedication Creed) is both anti-Marcellan and anti-homoousian.” (RH, 287-8) The dedication Creed also “deliberately excludes the kind of Arianism professed by Arius.” (RH, 290)

So, the Nicene Creed did not reflect die views of the majority. The majority was anti-Marcellan, anti-homoousian, and anti-Arius:

“The decisions of Nicaea were really the work of a minority.” (Henry Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church, 2nd Ed 1963, p 41)

“We will grant … that a majority opposed the Nicene creed. … The majority who opposed the creed were not aligned with Arius!” (bible.ca)

“Homoousios was … (a) stumbling block for all the people attending the council, without distinction, Arians and anti-Arians.” (Beatrice)

Constantine Insisted

A minority was able to dominate the proceedings because Constantine had taken Alexander’s part:

“Tension among Eusebian bishops was caused by knowledge that Constantine had taken Alexander’s part.” (LA, 89) “This imperial pressure coupled with the role of his advisers in broadly supporting the agenda of Alexander must have been a powerful force.” (LA, 89)

“Once he (Constantine) discovered that the Eustathians (extreme anti-Arians) were in favour of it [the term homoousios], and that, when he had insisted that it did not have the objectionable meaning which Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia had attached to it, the favourers of Arius in the Council could accept it, he pressed for its inclusion.” (RH, 202)

Did Ossius propose the term?

“According to the Arians … the Nicene Creed was presented by Ossius of Cordova in his capacity as president of the assembly.” (P.F. Beatrice) However, Ossius did not preside because of his position in the church. He was the bishop of the “obscure” see of Cordova (RH, 155). He presided in his capacity “as the Emperor’s representative” (RH, 154) and represented “the Emperor’s interest.” (RH, 156) If he did propose the term, he did it on the instruction of the Emperor.

Constantine Explained

Emperor Constantine not only imposed, by his authority, the inclusion of the word homoousios; he also had the audacity to explain what the word meant. He did his best to overcome the objection of Arians that the word implies that God has a material body. He said:

“The Son subsisted from the Father
neither according to division, nor severance:
for the immaterial, and intellectual, and incorporeal nature could not be the subject of any bodily affection,
but … in a divine and ineffable manner.’ (P.F. Beatrice)

The Final Authority

Given the modern culture of religious freedom, the reader might find it strange that an emperor is able to insist on the inclusion of a keyword in a church decree. However, as RPC Hanson stated:

“If we ask the question, what was considered to constitute the ultimate authority in doctrine (during the Arian Controversy), there can be only one answer. The will of the Emperor was the final authority.” (RH, 849)

The so-called ‘ecumenical’ church councils of the fourth century were “the very invention and creation of the Emperor” (RH, 855). “Everybody recognised the right of an Emperor to call a council, or even to veto or quash its being called” (RH, 849-50). “The Emperor was expected to dominate and control them” (RH, 855).

In conclusion, religious freedom did not exist. Since the Nicene Creed was the work of a minority under the protection of the emperor, the majority was uncomfortable with this term. It was for that reason that the term was not mentioned for some decades after Nicaea.

Nicaea not Binding

Furthermore, at the time, the Nicene Creed was not regarded as binding:

“Many modern readers assume that the Nicene creed was intended at its promulgation to stand as a binding and universal formula of Christian faith.” (LA, 85) However, “by the time Nicaea met, Church leaders … had no precedent for the idea of a council that would legislate for the Church as a whole.” (LA, 87) “Councils were not expected to produce precise statements of belief.” (LA, 87) “All the bishops at Nicaea would have understood their local ‘baptismal’ creed to be a sufficient definition of Christian belief.” (LA, 85)

For a further discussion of this point, see Ayres – 4.1 The Nicene Creed as a Standard of Faith.

Objections to Homoousios

The previous section explains that the Eusebians were uncomfortable with the term homoousios. This section explains why they opposed it:

Not in the Bible

First, the term homoousios “is not to be found in the Holy Scripture” (P.F. Beatrice). “Nobody could pretend that it was Scriptural” (RH, 167). The Bible does not say anything about the substance of God or of His Son.

Material

Second, the Eusebians understood the term as saying that God is material:

“Williams points out that the objection based on the Manichean tendency of the word assumed that it implied that the Son was a component or extension of God, thus representing God as composite, perhaps as material, and suggesting that there is a kind of common ‘God-stuff’ shared by Father and Son.” (RH, 197)

The Eusebians argued that we should not understand the terms “Father,” “Son,” and “begotten” in a literal, material sense, as if the Son was begotten like humans are by breaking off a part of the parent.

Begotten

Third, Eusebius of Nicomedia rejected the term homoousios because, if one says that the Son has the same substance as the Father, then one is saying that the Son has the same unoriginated substance as the Father, which contradicts the statement that the Son is begotten. (RH, 197)

Sabellian

Fourth, during the preceding century, the term was used by the Sabellians. Therefore:

“It was impossible to rid the term in the minds of many of Sabellian, if not Gnostic associations.” (RH, 437)

The Homoiousians rejected “homoousios as leading to Sabellianism.” (RH, 439) “To them an acceptance of homoousios … would naturally appear to involve them in pure indiscriminate Sabellianism.” (RH, 440)

Athanasius wrote that their objection to the term “homoousios” was that it was considered to be “un-Scriptural, suspicious, and of a Sabellian tendency.” 1Athanasius (1911), “In Controversy With the Arians”, Select Treatises, Newman, John Henry Cardinal trans, Longmans, Green, & Co, p. 124, footn

Untraditional

Fifth, that the term was not used during the decades after Nicaea also means that it was not used during the decades before Nicaea:

“To say that the Son was ‘of the substance’ of the Father, and that he was ‘consubstantial’ with him were certainly startling innovations. Nothing comparable to this had been said in any creed or profession of faith before.” (RH, 166-7)

Rowan Williams described it as “the radical words of Nicaea” (RW, 236) and “conceptual innovation” (RW, 234-5).

The Arians objected that these words are both “unscriptural” and “untraditional” (RW, 234-5).

A meeting was held in Antioch a few months before the Nicene Council which formulated a draft creed. “This text makes no use of the ousia language that we see in Nicaea’s creed.” (LA, 51)

“The word homoousios is not to be found in the extant writings of Alexander of Alexandria.” (Beatrice)

“We can detect no Greek-speaking writer before Nicaea who unreservedly supports homoousion as applied to the Son.” (RH, 169)

Pagan

Sixth, the terms ousia and homoousion were borrowed from pagan philosophy:

“The pro-Nicenes are at their worst, their most grotesque, when they try to show that the new terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy of the day were really to be found in Scripture.” (RH, 846)

Already Condemned

Last, the fathers of Antioch (the headquarters of the entire church at the time) who condemned Paul of Samosata during the preceding century also condemned the use of homoousios, to describe the Son’s relation to the Father, as heretical (RH, 198).

How the Controversy Began

So, if the term was not regarded as important before, at, or after Nicaea, how did it become part of the ‘Arian’ Controversy? This section explains the history chronologically and shows that the Nicene Creed and the term homoousios were introduced into the Controversy in the 350s; about 30 years after Nicaea:

The West not part of the Controversy

At first, the West was not part of the Controversy. For example, at Nicaea in 325, “around 250–300 attended, drawn almost entirely from the eastern half of the empire.” (LA, 19)

“The Westerners at the Council represented a tiny minority.” “The Eastern Church was always the pioneer and leader in theological movements in the early Church.” (RH, 170)

No Controversy after Nicaea

As discussed, for more than 25 years after Nicaea, the Nicene Creed and Homoousios were not part of the Controversy. In fact, there was no controversy:

“At some times there was almost no controversy at all. If there was any controversy from 330 to 341, it was a controversy about the behaviour of Athanasius in his see of Alexandria.” (RH, xviii)

“There was a long period of confusion and uncertainty from 341 to 357 when it was far from clear what the controversy was about, if there was a controversy.” (RH, xviii)

In other words, the dispute between Arius and his bishop Alexander came to an end at Nicaea. The Real Controversy began only decades later, as explained below:

Athanasius’ Polemical Strategy

During those decades after Nicaea, while nobody thinks about homoousios, Athanasius and Marcellus were both exiled from the East and sent to the West (Rome). There they met and joined forces against the East:

“Athanasius and Marcellus now seem to have made common cause against those who insisted on distinct hypostases in God.” (LA, 106)

In Rome, Athanasius developed his polemical strategy:

“Athanasius’ engagement with Marcellus in Rome seems to have encouraged Athanasius towards the development of” “an increasingly sophisticated account of his enemies;” “the full flowering of a polemical strategy that was to shape accounts of the fourth century for over 1,500 years;” “a masterpiece of the rhetorical art.” (LA, 106-7)

What was his polemical strategy?

“Athanasius’ account begins by presenting Arius as the originator of a new heresy.” (LA, 107) In contrast, “Athanasius presents himself as the preserver of the one theological tradition that is equivalent with scriptural orthodoxy.” (LA, 107)

Athanasius described “his enemies as ‘Arians’ seeking to perpetuate a theology stemming from Arius.” (LA, 106) “To this end Athanasius quotes extensively from Arius’ Thalia.” (LA, 107) See also – Athanasius invented Arianism.

This polemical strategy is discussed further in – The Creation of ‘Arianism’. It presents a misleading picture of that Controversy:

“If Athanasius’ account does shape our understanding, we risk misconceiving the nature of the fourth-century crisis.” (RW, 234)

“Once we begin to grasp the problems with Athanasius’ rhetorical unmasking of ‘Arians’ then we need to look beyond the Athanasian terminology of an ‘Arian’ conspiracy to get a more accurate sense of how to understand non-Marcellan and non-Athanasian eastern theologies during this period.” (LA, 432)

Rome accepted Athanasius’ Polemics.

“Athanasius appealed to Julius of Rome in 339–40 by using his strategy of narrating a theological conspiracy of ‘Arians’. His success had a profound impact on the next few years of the controversy.” (LA, 108)

Julius of Rome held a council in Rome which “quickly vindicated Marcellus and Athanasius.” (LA, 109)

“Julius wrote to the east in 341 in a letter which shows the strong influence of the emerging Athanasian account of ‘Arianism’.” (LA, 109)

At this stage, homoousios was not yet part of this strategy.

Caused division between East and West

It is traditionally thought that the West has always supported Nicaea, just as it is traditionally taught that Athanasius has always supported Nicaea. However, in Ayres’ discussion of the Western (Latin) Theologists at the time of Nicaea, he concludes that they believed more or less the same as the theologians in the East:

“These Latin theologians have as far to travel towards later pro-Nicene theology as the eastern trajectories.” (LA, 75)

“Ironically, an anti-monarchian, anti-‘modalist’ polemic fundamentally shapes these early Latin theologians, and that is taken so often to be determining the future course of a unitary western theology!” (LA, 74)

This last quote is important. It says that the West opposed the idea that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one Being.

So, at this stage, there was unanimity between East and West. It was only the acceptance of Athanasius’ polemical strategy that caused division between East and West:

“Once Julius had acted we begin to see divisions between the Church in the eastern and western halves of the empire emerging.” (LA, 109)

This was the real beginning of the ‘Arian’ Controversy; beginning after Rome, at the beginning of the 340s, had accepted Athanasius’ polemical strategy. However, the bishop of Rome’s acceptance of Athanasius’ strategy did not mean that the entire West accepted it.

“We should … be cautious in our reading of these divisions. The divisions we initially observe are between one group of eastern bishops taking their lead from Eusebius of Nicomedia and Julius and his immediate associates. We must be wary of reading this as reflecting a simple division between eastern and western theology. Even when just such a division appears to come clearly into the open at the Council of Serdica in 343, even there the participants cannot usefully be divided in purely geographic terms.” (LA, 109-110)

Note also that, as explained below, the Nicene Creed and homoousios were not yet part of the Controversy.  

Opposition to Constantius

In the same year that Julius wrote his letter to the East (AD 341), the East formulated the Dedication Creed which says that the Father, Son, and Spirit “are three in hypostasis but one in agreement.” Two years later the West formulated a Creed at Serdica in 343 which “opted clearly for Una substantia meaning one hypostasis.” (RH, 201) The two parts of the empire continued to oppose one another but they were ruled by different emperors. So, there was not much impetus to reconcile these differing views.

However, in the early 350s, Constantius became emperor of the entire Roman Empire:

“Over the period AD 351–3, and after a complex civil war, the eastern Emperor Constantius achieved complete control of the whole empire.” (LA, 133)

“At this point Constantius found himself sole ruler of the Roman world and with the ability to push for a unified religious policy throughout his domains in a way no emperor had been able to do since the death of his father in 337.” (LA, 133)

“As his control over the west grew Constantius increased his attempts to get bishops to agree to the key eastern decisions of the previous few years.” (LA, 135)

Constantius’ greatest enemy politically and ecclesiastically was Athanasius:

“Athanasius had a desire for power; he suppressed ruthlessly whenever he could any opposition to him within his diocese … towards the end of his life he had reached a position in which his power (in Egypt), not only ecclesiastical but also political, was virtually beyond challenge.” (RH, 421)

Therefore, the emperor “attempted to get the condemnation of Athanasius and probably some sort of theological statement accepted throughout the west.” (LA, 135) With that double goal in mind, “the council of Sirmium in 351 set the trend for a series of councils.” (LA, 135) But the West resisted:

“Through the 350s … we seem to see a growing opposition to Constantius’ attempts to force western councils to agree to the decrees of Sirmium 351.” (LA, 136)

For a discussion of the Creed of 351, see – 6.1 Constantius and the Rise of the Homoians.

Athanasius introduced Homoousios.

It was in response to the emperor’s attack on him that Athanasius took the significant step of incorporating the Nicene Creed and homoousios into his polemical strategy. Since that polemical strategy was the basis for the dispute between the East and the West, by incorporating homoousios into his polemical strategy, homoousios also became part of the dispute between the East and the West. But only happened in the mid-350s:

“He began to use it first in the De Deeretis and thereafter regularly in his theological works, defending it fiercely against all criticism of it. If we place De Deeretis in 356 or 357, we can perhaps see the reason for this change of policy. By then it had become abundantly clear not only that Constantius was everywhere trying to isolate Athanasius himself from ecclesiastical support both in the East and the West, but, if we assume, as seems likely, that at Aries in 353 and Milan in 355 a doctrinal formula which did nothing at all to forward the doctrine of the unity of Father and Son regarded by Athanasius as the only orthodox one, was forced upon those who attended these councils, we can imagine that Athanasius decided that he must begin a policy of defending the very words of N as a slogan or banner round which to gather.” (RH, 438)

“Athanasius’ decision to make Nicaea and homoousios central to his theology has its origins in the shifting climate of the 350s.” (LA, 144)

“In most older presentations, ‘western’ bishops were taken to be natural and stalwart defenders of Nicaea throughout the fourth century. The 350s show how Nicaea only slowly came to be of importance in the west.” (LA, 135)

A Turn to Nicaea

Athanasius and the West did not defend Nicaea because they have always defended Nicaea. Rather, to strengthen themselves in their resistance to the emperor’s efforts, they turned to Nicaea:

“It seems unlikely that previous adherence to Nicaea motivated their (the West’s) growing opposition (to Constantius’ efforts): it is much more likely that events in the second half of the decade prompted a turn to Nicaea as a focus for their already strong opposition.” (LA, 136)

In the ‘West’ there were, already before 357, “the beginnings of attempts on the part of a few to turn to Nicaea as a standard against the direction of Constantius’ policies. Events of 357 deeply shaped this movement.” (LA, 139)

Athanasius’ Own Theology

But it is also important to understand that Athanasius did not defend the Nicene Creed as such, but used Nicaea to defend his own theology, which was different:

“Athanasius’ theology in the 340s and 350s is not the ‘original’ Nicene theology, but a development from one of the original theologies that shaped Nicaea.” (LA, 239)

For a further discussion, see – Athanasius was a Sabellian.

Anti-Nicene Accounts Emerged.

Anti-Nicene theologies emerged in the late 350s; only after Athanasius introduced homoousios into his polemical strategy:

Homoian theology is specifically anti-Nicene. Particularly, it opposes ousia-language. For example, they were “refusing to allow ousia-terms of any kind into professions of faith.” (RW, 234)

“Though Homoian Arianism derived from the thought both of Eusebius of Caesarea and of Arius, we cannot with confidence detect it before the year 357, when it appears in the Second Sirmian Creed.” (RH, 558)

“Many of the theologies we have considered so far are non-Nicene more than anti-Nicene: only in the 350s do we begin to trace clearly the emergence of directly anti-Nicene accounts.” (LA, 139)

The Sides in the Controversy

As a result of the introduction of homoousios into the Controversy, the church divided into various factions:

‘One Reality’ Homo-ousians (Sabellians), such as Athanasius and Marcellus, interpreted homoousios as “one substance,” namely, as saying that Father and Son are one Being. See above the council of Sardica in 343, where they used the term ‘one hypostasis’.

Three Reality’ Homo-ousians, such as Basil of Caesarea and Meletius of Antioch interpreted homoousios as “same substance,” namely, that Father and Son are two beings with the same type of substance. See – Basil’s Early Theology: Problems With Homoousios.

The Homoi-ousians said that the Father’s substance is like the Father’s, but not the same.

The Heter-ousians said that the Son is like the Father but His substance is unlike the Father’s.

The Homo-ians, who remained the dominant emperor-supported faction, rejected all use of ousia-terms. They held that Jesus Christ is like the Father, without reference to ousia (essence or substance).

Conclusions

When the Nicene Creed was formulated, the term homoousios was not regarded as important. Arius had already said that he rejected that term and the Council included the term in the Creed merely to force the true Arians to reject the Creed so that the emperor could exile them.

The Nicene Creed was the work of a minority, supported by the emperor. After Christianity became legalized in 313, the emperor became the ultimate authority in doctrine. Religious freedom did not exist.

A majority objected to the term homoousios because it:

    • Is not in the Bible,
    • Represents God as composite, perhaps as material,
    • Implies that the Son was not begotten but has the same unoriginated substance as the Father,
    • Was a Sabellian term,
    • Was not part of the standard Christian language before Nicaea, but
    • Was borrowed from the pagan philosophy of the day, and
    • Was already condemned as heretical during the previous century.

Athanasius’ Polemical Strategy distorts the nature of the Arian Controversy. Since it later became accepted by the church, scholars maintain that the traditional account of the Arian Controversy is a Complete Travesty.

At first, there was no schism between East and West. Such a division only developed after Rome had accepted Athanasius’ polemical strategy, around the year 340.

The term homoousios was not part of the Arian Controversy during the first 30 years after Nicaea. Homoousios only became part of that controversy after Athanasius, in the 350s, made it part of his polemical strategy.

Related Articles

Church Fathers

Arian Controversy

Arius

The Nicene Creed

Arianism

    • Athanasius invented Arianism. 15The only reason we today refer to ‘Arians’ is that Athanasius invented the term to falsely label his opponents with a theology that was already formally rejected by the church.
    • Did Arians describe the Son as a creature? 16‘Arians’ described Christ as originating from beyond our universe, the only being ever brought forth directly by the Father, and as the only being able to endure direct contact with God.
    • Homoian theology 17In the 350s, Athanasius began to use homoousios to attack the church majority. Homoian theology developed in response.
    • Homoi-ousian theology 18This was one of the ‘strands’ of ‘Arianism’. It proposed that the Son’s substance is similar to the Father’s, but not the same.
    • How did Arians interpret Colossians 2:9? 19Forget about Arius. He was an isolated extremist. This article quotes the mainstream anti-Nicenes to show how they understood that verse.

The Pro-Nicenes

Authors on the Arian Controversy

Extracts from the writings of scholars who have studied the ancient documents for themselves:

Trinity Doctrine – General

    • Elohim 24Elohim (often translated as God) is plural in form. Does this mean that the Old Testament writers thought of God as a multi-personal Being?
    • The Eternal Generation of the Son 25The Son has been begotten by the Father, meaning that the Son is dependent on the Father. Eternal Generation explains “begotten” in such a way that the Son is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.

All articles on this Site

  • 1
    Athanasius (1911), “In Controversy With the Arians”, Select Treatises, Newman, John Henry Cardinal trans, Longmans, Green, & Co, p. 124, footn
  • 2
    The pre-Nicene fathers described the Son as “our God” but the Father as “the only true God,” implying that the Son is not “true” God. This confusion is caused by the translations.
  • 3
    Sabellius taught that Father, Son, and Spirit are three portions of one single Being.
  • 4
    RPC Hanson states that no ‘orthodoxy’ existed but that is not entirely true. This article shows that subordination was indeed ‘orthodox’ at that time.
  • 5
    The term “Arianism” implies that Arius’ theology dominated the fourth-century church. But Arius was not regarded in his time as a significant writer. He left no school of disciples.
  • 6
    Over the centuries, Arius was always accused of this. This article explains why that is a false accusation.
  • 7
    There are significant differences between Origen and Arius.
  • 8
    Arius wrote that the Son was begotten timelessly by the Father before everything. But Arius also said that the Son did not always exist. Did Arius contradict himself?
  • 9
    New research has shown that Arius is a thinker and exegete of resourcefulness, sharpness, and originality.
  • 10
    The word theos, which is translated as “God” in John 1:1 is not equivalent to the modern English word “God.”
  • 11
    Eusebius of Caesarea, the most respected theologian at the Council, immediately afterward wrote to his church in Caesarea to explain why he accepted the Creed and how he understood the controversial phrases.
  • 12
    The Creed not only uses non-Biblical words; the concept of homoousios (that the Son is of the same substance as the Father) is not in the Bible.
  • 13
    The term homoousios was not mentioned by anybody during the first 30 years after Nicaea. It only became part of that controversy in the 350s.
  • 14
    The word is not found in the Bible or in any orthodox Christian confession before Nicaea.
  • 15
    The only reason we today refer to ‘Arians’ is that Athanasius invented the term to falsely label his opponents with a theology that was already formally rejected by the church.
  • 16
    ‘Arians’ described Christ as originating from beyond our universe, the only being ever brought forth directly by the Father, and as the only being able to endure direct contact with God.
  • 17
    In the 350s, Athanasius began to use homoousios to attack the church majority. Homoian theology developed in response.
  • 18
    This was one of the ‘strands’ of ‘Arianism’. It proposed that the Son’s substance is similar to the Father’s, but not the same.
  • 19
    Forget about Arius. He was an isolated extremist. This article quotes the mainstream anti-Nicenes to show how they understood that verse.
  • 20
    Eustathius and Marcellus played a major role in the formulation of the Creed but were soon deposed for Sabellianism.
  • 21
    Athanasius presents himself as the preserver of Biblical orthodoxy but this article argues that he was a Sabellian.
  • 22
    A summary of this book, which provides an overview of the fourth-century Arian Controversy. Lewis Ayres is a Catholic theologian and Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology.
  • 23
    A very informative lecture on the Arian Controversy by RPC Hanson, a famous fourth-century scholar
  • 24
    Elohim (often translated as God) is plural in form. Does this mean that the Old Testament writers thought of God as a multi-personal Being?
  • 25
    The Son has been begotten by the Father, meaning that the Son is dependent on the Father. Eternal Generation explains “begotten” in such a way that the Son is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.
Posted on

Was Athanasius a Sabellian?

Purpose

“Athanasius presents himself as the preserver of the one theological tradition that is equivalent with scriptural orthodoxy.” (LA, 107) In contrast, this article argues that Athanasius was a Sabellian; a theology that was already rejected as heretical during the preceding century.

Much less of Alexander’s writings survived but this article concludes that he was also a Sabellian.

What does a Sabellian believe?

To determine whether Athanasius was a Sabellian, one needs to know what Sabellians believed. Sabellianism is described in the article – The Sabellians of the Fourth Century. In summary:

Concerning the Godhead, Sabellians believed that “before the world existed the Word was IN the Father.” (LA, 63) In their view, the Logos is part of the Father as His only rational capacity.

Sabellianism falls into the category of views in which Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one single hypostasis, “meaning distinct reality” (RH, 190) or “distinct individuality” (RH, 53). “Later theology would not have said … (one single) Person.” (RH, 190)

(On page 801, Hanson refers to “a Sabellian, believing in only one Person (hypostasis) in the Godhead.” This article, similarly, refers to any theology with only one Person (hypostasis) as Sabellian.)

This means that the Logos has no real distinct existence. Rather, the preexistent Logos was merely “a power or aspect” of the Father and “not in any serious sense distinct from him.” (RH, 237)

If that is true, then the incarnated Jesus Christ would be a mere man. He may be a maximally inspired man, but he remains essentially a man, meaning:

Firstly, Christ did not exist before He was born from Mary.

Secondly, the Logos dwells in the man Jesus merely as an energy or an activity or as inspiration.

Thirdly, God did not suffer or die. In Sabellian view, Christ is a complete human being with a human soul (mind). That soul or mind absorbed all human suffering so that God did not suffer at all. It was that human being that suffered, died, was resurrected, and now sits at God’s right hand.

Summary

The Son is part of the Father.

Similar to the Sabellians, Athanasius regarded the Son (the Logos) as part of the Father:

(A) “In the Father we have the Son: this is a summary of Athanasius’ theology.” (RH, 426)

(B) Athanasius often used the Greek term idios, which was used to indicate that certain qualities and activities are intrinsic to a being, to describe how the Son relates to the Father. For example: “The Word and Son is idios to the Father’s essence.” (LA, 114)

(C) While the Eusebians* postulated two Logoi in the Godhead – the Logos that became incarnated and the Father’s own Logos – Athanasius, similar to the Sabellians, said that there is only one Logos, namely, the Father’s own internal Logos (rational capacity).

(D) For Athanasius, the Holy Spirit is also part of the Father. “Just as his account of the Son can rely heavily on the picture of the Father as one person with his intrinsic word, so too he emphasizes … the Spirit as the Son’s ‘energy’.” (LA, 214)

[*As discussed, the term Arian is a complete misnomer. This article refers to the anti-Nicenes as Eusebians because Eusebius of Caesarea was their real leader.]

Only one Hypostasis (One Reality or Person)

(A) While the Eusebians taught that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct hypostases, the “clear inference from his (Athanasius’) usage” is that “there is only one hypostasis in God.” (LA, 48)

(B) Athanasius opposed the concept of “three hypostases.” He regarded the phrase as “unscriptural and therefore suspicious.” (LA, 174; RH, 440) “Athanasius and Marcellus … made common cause against those who insisted on distinct hypostases in God.” (LA, 106)

(C) Athanasius “defends constantly … the ontological unity of the Father and the Son.” (RH, 422, cf. 428) This may sound as if he was a Trinitarian, believing that Father and Son are one single Being (substance). But “clearly for him hypostasis and ousia were still synonymous.” (RH, 440) In other words, when he argues for “ontological unity,” meaning that Father and Son are one ousia (substance), he is really saying that they are one single hypostasis (Person).

(D) While the Eusebians regarded the Logos as Mediator between God and creation both during His incarnation and beyond, Athanasius, because he does not recognize the Logos as a distinct hypostasis, limited the Son’s role as mediator to the incarnation.

Athanasius was a Sabellian.

Thus far, this article has shown that Athanasius believed that the Son is part of the Father and that Father and Son are one single hypostasis. Both are clear indications of Sabellianism. Further indications of this include the following:

(A) The similarity of their theologies allowed Athanasius to form an alliance with Marcellus, who was the main Sabellian of the fourth century. “They considered themselves allies.” (LA, 106)

(B) At the time, their beliefs were seen as similar. “The perception that these two trajectories (Athanasius and Marcellus) held to very similar beliefs would help to shape widespread eastern antipathy to both in the years after Nicaea.” (LA, 69)

(C) The Meletian Schism also identifies Athanasius as a Sabellian. That schism was a dispute between two factions within the pro-Nicene camp, namely, between the ‘one hypostasis’ and the ‘three hypostasis’ factions. The leaders of the ‘one hypostasis’ faction (the Sabellians) were bishop Damasus of Rome and Athanasius. Basil of Caesarea and Meletius of Antioch led the ‘three hypostasis’ faction.

(D) In conclusion, “until he could come to terms with a theology which admitted the existence of three hypostases, and no longer regarded the word hypostasis as a synonym for ousia, he could not fail to give the impression that he was in danger of falling into Sabellianism.” (RH, 444)

Alexander

Alexander, similar to Athanasius and the Sabellians:

      • Maintained that the Son is a property or quality of the Father, 
      • Taught that the Logos in Christ is the Father’s intrinsic Word and Wisdom, and
      • Never spoke about hypostases (plural for hypostasis).

Scholars conclude that “the fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and Athanasius. Eustathius insists there is only one hypostasis.“ (LA, 69) Since “Alexander’s theology found its most famous advocate in his successor Athanasius” (LA, 45), this is further evidence that Athanasius was a Sabellian.

Conclusion

There is no real difference between the theology of Alexander and Athanasius and the main Sabellians of his day; Eustathius and Marcellus.

– END OF SUMMARY –

AUTHORS

This article is largely based on the following recent writings of world-class scholars:

Hanson – An informative lecture by R.P.C. Hanson in 1981 on the Arian Controversy.

RH = Bishop R.P.C. Hanson
The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God –
The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987

LA = Lewis Ayres
Nicaea and its legacy, 2004
Ayres is a Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology at Durham University in the United Kingdom.

The Son is Part of the Father.

Alexander and Athanasius used the terms “Son” and “Logos” as synonyms. For example:

    • “The original Logos and Wisdom … is the Son.” (RH, 427).
    • “The Word and Son is idios to the Father’s essence.” (LA, 114)

There are several indications that Athanasius regarded the Son (the Logos) as part of the Father:

(A) The Son is IN the Father.

Athanasius described the Son, not as in God generally, but as IN the Father specifically. For example:

“In the Father we have the Son: this is a summary of Athanasius’ theology.” (RH, 426) “The Son is in the Father ontologically.” (RH, 428)

“Athanasius’ increasing clarity in treating the Son as intrinsic to the Father’s being” (LA, 113)

“Athanasius’ argument speaks not of two realities engaged in a common activity, but develops his most basic sense that the Son is intrinsic to the Father’s being.” (LA, 114)

“The Son’s existence is intrinsic to the Father’s nature.” (LA, 116)

“Although Athanasius’ theology was by no means identical with Marcellus’, the overlaps were significant enough for them to be at one on some of the vital issues—especially their common insistence that the Son was intrinsic to the Father’s external existence.” (LA, 106)

(B) The Son is Idios to the Father.

Athanasius often used the Greek term idios to describe how the Son relates to the Father. For example:

“The Word and Son is idios to the Father’s essence.” (LA, 114)

“For the Son is in the Father … because the whole being of the Son is idios to the Father’s essence, as radiance from light and stream from fountain.” (LA, 115)

He “insisted continually that the Son was the Father’s own (idios).” (RH, 425)

Idios means “pertaining to one’s self, one’s own, belonging to one’s self” (Bible Study Tools). Ayres comments as follows on the meaning of idios:

“Initially used to indicate that certain qualities and activities are intrinsic to being human, the use of the term to indicate that the Son is idios to the Father’s ousia serves to reinforce his tendency to present the Father/Son relationship as most like that of a person and their faculties.” (LA, 115)

So, to say that the Son (the Logos) is idios to the Father means that He is part of the Father. Ayres says that “it probably served only to reinforce his opponents’ sense that the use of ousia language could only serve to confuse the clear distinction between Father and Son.” (LA, 115)

(C) The Son is God’s Internal Wisdom.

While Eusebians postulated two Logoi in the Godhead – the Logos that became incarnated and the Father’s own Logos – Athanasius, similar to the Sabellians, said that there is only one Logos. The Logos in Christ must then necessarily be the Father’s own internal Logos (wisdom, rational capacity, or mind); not a separate hypostasis (reality).

Athanasius wrote: “There is no need to postulate two Logoi.” (RH, 431)

He argued that the pre-existent Son is “present with Him (the Father) as his Wisdom and his Word.” (LA, 46)

He criticized “the [Arian] idea that Christ is a derivative Wisdom and not God’s own wisdom.” (LA, 116)

(D) The Holy Spirit is also part of the Father.

For Athanasius, just as the Son is part of the Father, the Holy Spirit is part of the Son and, therefore, not a distinct Reality:

“Just as his (Athanasius’) account of the Son can rely heavily on the picture of the Father as one person with his intrinsic word, so too he emphasizes the closeness of Spirit to Son by presenting the Spirit as the Son’s ‘energy’.” (LA, 214)

The Cappadocians concluded that Athanasius did not afford the Holy Spirit a distinct existence (a separate hypostasis):

“The language also shows Athanasius trying out formulations that will soon be problematic. … ‘The Cappadocians’ will find the language of ἐνέργεια [superhuman activity] used of the Spirit … to be highly problematic, seeming to indicate a lack of real existence.” (LA, 214)

One Hypostasis
(One Reality or Person)

(A) Only one hypothesis in God

Following Origen, Eusebians taught that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct hypostases. The previous section has shown in several ways that Athanasius regarded the Son as part of the Father; similar to the Sabellians. This section reinforces that conclusion by showing that Athanasius believed that Father and Son are one single hypostasis (one single Reality):

The “clear inference from his (Athanasius’) usage” is that “there is only one hypostasis in God.” (LA, 48)

“Athanasius’ most basic language and analogies for describing the relationship between Father and Son primarily present the two as intrinsic aspects of one reality or person.” (LA, 46)

“The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and Athanasius. Eustathius insists there is only one hypostasis.“ (LA, 69)

“He had attended the Council of Serdica among the Western bishops in 343, and a formal letter of that Council had emphatically opted for the belief in one, and only one, hypostasis as orthodoxy. Athanasius certainly accepted this doctrine at least up to 359, even though he tried later to suppress this fact.” (RH, 444)

(B) Opposed three Hypostases

This is also indicated by Athanasius’ opposition to the concept of “three hypostases:”

He regarded the phrase as “unscriptural and therefore suspicious.” (LA, 174; RH, 440)

“He clearly approves of the sentence of … that it is wrong to divide the divine monarchy into ‘three powers and separate hypostases and three Godheads’, thereby postulating ‘three diverse hypostases wholly separated from each other’.” (RH, 445)

Another article argues that the real issue and the fundamental dispute in the entire Arian Controversy was whether God is one or three hypostases. For Athanasius, the enemy was those who taught more than one hypostasis (Person) in God:

“Athanasius and Marcellus now seem to have made common cause against those who insisted on distinct hypostases in God.” (LA, 106)

(C) Opposed Logos-theology

Athanasius’ insistence on one single hypostasis in God is further illustrated by his opposition to the two hypotheses in Logos-theology:

In the traditional Logos-theology of the previous centuries, based mostly on principles from Greek philosophy, which says that God cannot interact directly with matter, the church fathers developed the Logos-theology. In it, God’s Logos always existed inside Him but, when God decided to create, God’s Logos became a separate hypostasis (reality) with a lower divinity which enabled Him to create and interact with matter. Through the Logos, God created all things and, through the Logos, God reveals Himself to the creation. Since this was based mostly on Greek philosophy, Hanson refers to this Logos as “a convenient philosophical device.” But Athanasius rejected the idea of the pre-existent Logos as a distinct reality (hypostasis). He said:

“He (the Father) was no remote God who required a lesser god (the Logos) to reveal Him.” (RH, 423)

“He refused to use the pre-existent Christ as a convenient philosophical device.” (RH, 423)

“He never accepted the Origenistic concept of the Logos as a mediating agent within the Godhead.” (RH, 425)

The point is that, for Athanasius, in the Godhead, there was only one hypostasis.

(D) Ontological Unity

Athanasius “defends constantly … the ontological unity of the Father and the Son.” (RH, 422, cf. 428)

This may sound as if he was a Trinitarian, believing that Father and Son are one single Being (substance). But “clearly for him hypostasis and ousia were still synonymous.” (RH, 440) In other words, when he argues for “ontological unity,” meaning that Father and Son are one ousia (substance), he is really saying that they are one single hypostasis (Person).

(E) No Mediator outside the Incarnation

The Bible describes Christ as the Mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5). In the Eusebian view, the Son always had this role; also before His incarnation. But Athanasius, since he did not believe in the Logos as a distinct hypostasis in God, limited Christ’s role as Mediator to the incarnation:

“God needed no mediator to create the world. … The Logos/Son is a redemptive, not a cosmic principle.” (RH, 423)

“When he comes to interpret the crucial text, Proverbs 8:22 ff, [The Lord made me at the beginning of His ways] he insists that its terms apply to the incarnate, not the pre-existent Christ … it shows that Athanasius placed the mediating activity of the Son, not in his position within the Godhead, but in his becoming incarnate.” (RH, 424)

“Athanasius firmly places the mediating activity of the Logos, not within the Godhead, but in the Incarnation.” (RH, 447)

In other words, apart from the Incarnation, there is no Mediator.

(F) Unitarian

Ayres refers to “Athanasius’ own strongly unitarian account.” (LA, 435) The term “unitarian” is used for ‘one hypostasis’ or ‘one reality’ theologies, with Marcellus of Ancyra as the prime example. For example:

“… supporters of Nicaea whose theology had strongly unitarian tendencies. Chief among these was Marcellus of Ancyra.” (LA, 431)

“Studer’s account [1998] here follows the increasingly prominent scholarly position that Athanasius’ theology offers a strongly unitarian Trinitarian theology whose account of personal differentiation is underdeveloped.” (LA, 238)

Athanasius was a Sabellian

Thus far, this article has shown that Athanasius believed that the Son is part of the Father and that Father and Son are one single hypostasis; both clear indications of Sabellianism. This section provides additional support for this conclusion:

(A) Alliance with Marcellus

The similarity of their theologies allowed Athanasius to form an alliance with the main Sabellian of the fourth century; Marcellus:

“They considered themselves allies.” (LA, 106) At the time when both were exiled to Rome, “Athanasius and Marcellus now seem to have made common cause against those who insisted on distinct hypostases in God.” (LA, 106)

“At the Council of Jerusalem and the Council of Tyre in the same year he (Marcellus) had supported Athanasius.” (RH, 217)

“Athanasius … continued to defend the orthodoxy of Marcellus.” (RH, 220) “Though he (Athanasius) may temporarily at this period, when he was preparing to return from his second exile, have wished to place a distance between himself and Marcellus, he had no intention of making a final break with him. It is doubtful if he ever did this.” (RH, 220)

Contrary to the traditional account, “it is … no longer clear that Athanasius ever directly repudiated Marcellus, and he certainly seems to have been sympathetic to Marcellus’ followers through into the 360s.” (LA, 106)

(B) Similar Beliefs

Their beliefs were seen at the time and are still seen today as similar:

“Athanasius and Marcellus could come together in Rome. The perception that these two trajectories held to very similar beliefs would help to shape widespread eastern antipathy to both in the years after Nicaea.” (LA, 69)

“The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and Athanasius. Eustathius insists there is only one hypostasis.“ (LA, 69) (Eustatius was the other important Sabellian in the fourth century. See – The Sabellians of the Fourth Century).

“Athanasius and Marcellus can and should both be counted as ‘original Nicene’.” (LA, 99) This again implies a strong similarity between their theologies.

(C) Meletian Schism

Hanson’s discussion of the Meletian schism also identifies Athanasius as a Sabellian.

That schism was a dispute between two factions within the pro-Nicene camp, namely, between the ‘one hypostasis’ and the ‘three hypostasis’ factions. The leaders of the ‘one hypostasis’ faction (the Sabellians) were bishop Damasus of Rome and Athanasius. Basil of Caesarea and Meletius of Antioch led the ‘three hypostasis’ faction:

In a letter to Basil, “Damasus sent a very cool reply … deliberately avoided making any statement about the three hypostases. It was the adhesion of Basil, Meletius and their followers to this doctrine of the hypostases which caused Damasus … to suspect them of heresy.” (RH, 798)

The Bishop of Antioch

One of the main issues in this dispute was about the rightful bishop of Antioch. Damasus and Athanasius supported Paulinus because Paulinus taught ‘one hypostasis’:

In 375, Damasus wrote a letter that “constituted also an official recognition of Paulinus, not Meletius, as bishop of Antioch.” (RH, 799) 

Paulinus “was recognized as legitimate bishop of Antioch by Athanasius.” (RH, 801)

Paulinus was “Marcellan/Sabellian.” (RH, 799) He derived “his tradition in continuity from Eustathius who had been bishop about forty years before” (RH, 800-1). (Eustathius and Marcellus were the two famous Sabellians of the fourth century.)

Basil, on the other hand, opposed Paulinus:

“Paulinus was a rival of Basil’s friend and ally Meletius. … Basil suspected that Paulinus was at heart a Sabellian, believing in only one Person (hypostasis) in the Godhead.” (RH, 801)

Note that the previous quote confirms that:

    • A person who believes in one hypostasis is a Sabellian.
    • Basil believed in three hypostases.

Support for the Marcellans

The theologies of Damasus, Athanasius, and Basil are also reflected in their support or opposition to the Marcellans. The ”watch-word” of “these disciples of Marcelius … had always been ‘only one hypostasis in the Godhead’.” (RH, 802)

Damasus and Athanasius supported the Marcellans:

“Basil was never sure in his own mind that Athanasius had abandoned Marcellus of Ancyra and his followers.” (RH, 797)

“About the year 371 adherents of Marcellus approached Athanasius, presenting to him a statement of faith. … He accepted it and gave them a document expressing his agreement with their doctrine.” (RH, 801)

But Basil opposed the Marcellians:

Basil wrote a letter that “contained some shafts directed at Damasus because of his toleration of Eustathius and the Marcellans.” (RH, 799)

“In a letter written to Athanasius he (Basil of Caesarea) complains that the Westerners have never brought any accusation against Marcellus.” (RH, 802)

(D) Conclusions

So, was Athanasius a Sabellian? Hanson concludes:

“Athanasius, not through lack of good intention but through lack of vocabulary, verges dangerously close to Sabeilianism.” (RH, 429)

“Loofs in his earlier work said that Athanasius swung between the Sabellian and the anti-Sabellian tendencies in his thought.” (RH, 443)

“The evidence that for Athanasius hypostasis was the same as ousia is unmistakable.” (RH, 445) “He could not fail to give many the impression that he did not distinguish between the ‘Persons’ of the Trinity. This was not his intention; he was not a Sabellius, not even a Marcellus. But until he could come to terms with a theology which admitted the existence of three hypostases, and no longer regarded the word hypostasis as a synonym for ousia, he could not fail to give the impression that he was in danger of falling into Sabellianism.” (RH, 444)

All the people I quote are Trinitarians and, naturally, defend Athanasius. But, from an independent perspective, in my opinion, the evidence is quite clear that Athanasius was a Sabellian.

Alexander of Alexandria

“Alexander’s theology found its most famous advocate in his successor Athanasius.” (LA, 45) Alexander’s theology, therefore, should provide additional information on the question of whether Athanasius was a Sabellian.

RPC Hanson wrote:

“[Rowan] Williams’ work is most illuminating. Alexander of Alexandria, Williams thinks, had maintained that the Son … is a property or quality of the Father, impersonal and belonging to his substance. Properties or qualities cannot be substances …; they are not quantities. The statement then that the Son is idios to (a property or quality of) the Father is a Sabellian statement.” (RH, 92)

Both Athanasius and Alexander, therefore, described the Son as idios to the Father. Furthermore, similar to the Sabellians and Athanasius, Alexander taught that the Logos in Christ is the Father’s intrinsic Word and Wisdom:

“Alexander taught that … as the Father’s Word and Wisdom the Son must always have been with the Father.” (LA, 16)

“Alexander argues that as Word or Wisdom the Son must be eternal or the Father would, nonsensically, have been at one time bereft of both.” (LA, 44)

“In Alexander, and in Athanasius … Christ is the one power and wisdom of the Father.” (LA, 54)

Alexander never spoke about hypostases:

With respect to both Alexander and Athanasius, Ayres concludes, “This trajectory … is also resistant to speaking of three hypostases.” (LA, 43)

“We never find him (Alexander) using hypostasis as a technical term for the individual existence of one of the divine persons, and he never speaks of there being two or three hypostases.” (LA, 45)

Both Alexander and Athanasius, therefore, believed, since He is God’s only Wisdom or Word, that the Son is part of the Father. In their view, there is only one hypostasis in God. Consequently, scholars conclude that their theologies were close to that of the ‘one hypostasis‘ theology of the Sabellians:

“The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and Athanasius. Eustathius insists there is only one hypostasis.“ (LA, 69)

Incarnation

If Athanasius was a Sabellian, we would also see that in his theory of the incarnation. If he was a Sabellian, the incarnated Christ would be a maximally inspired man, but still a mere man with a human soul (mind).

However, Athanasius refused to admit that Jesus had a human mind. He describes Jesus as the Logos dwelling in a human body. Since, in his view, the Logos is part of the Father, it is really the Father that dwells in the human body.

But he completely ignored the human side of Jesus Christ, so much so that scholars “conclude that whatever else the Logos incarnate is in Athanasius’ account of him, he is not a human being.” (RH, 451) In other words, he described Jesus as God in a human body.

When he discusses Jesus’ ignorance and fears, Athanasius says that God only pretended to be ignorant and to fear. For such reasons, scholars say:

“The chief reason for Athanasius’ picture of Jesus being so completely unconvincing is of course that, at least till the year 362, it never crossed his mind that there was any point in maintaining that Jesus had a human soul or mind.” (RH, 451)

“Athanasius involves himself in the most far-fetched explanations to explain away some of the texts which obviously represents Jesus as having faith.” (RH, 450)

See – The Incarnation for a discussion of Athanasius’ view on the subject.

Conclusion

There is no real difference between the theology of Alexander and Athanasius and the main Sabellians of their time; Eustathius and Marcellus. As ‘One Reality’ theologians, Alexander and Athanasius were part of a minority in this church. And since both Sabellius’ theology and the term homoousios were already formally rejected as heretical by the church during the preceding century, they followed an already discredited theology.

The Western Council of Serdica in 343, where Athanasius played a dominant part, is devastating evidence. It explicitly describes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one hypostasis and Athanasius approved and supported this creed. People struggle with this conclusion is that it shows that Athanasius, who is regarded as the hero of the Arian Controversy, was a Sabellian; not a Trinitarian. Remember, as Hanson stated, the traditional account of the Arian Controversy is a Complete Travesty.

Related Articles

Church Fathers

Arian Controversy

Arius

The Nicene Creed

Arianism

    • Athanasius invented Arianism. 14The only reason we today refer to ‘Arians’ is that Athanasius invented the term to falsely label his opponents with a theology that was already formally rejected by the church.
    • Did Arians describe the Son as a creature? 15‘Arians’ described Christ as originating from beyond our universe, the only being ever brought forth directly by the Father, and as the only being able to endure direct contact with God.
    • Homoian theology 16In the 350s, Athanasius began to use homoousios to attack the church majority. Homoian theology developed in response.
    • Homoi-ousian theology 17This was one of the ‘strands’ of ‘Arianism’. It proposed that the Son’s substance is similar to the Father’s, but not the same.
    • How did Arians interpret Colossians 2:9? 18Forget about Arius. He was an isolated extremist. This article quotes the mainstream anti-Nicenes to show how they understood that verse.

The Pro-Nicenes

Authors on the Arian Controversy

Extracts from the writings of scholars who have studied the ancient documents for themselves:

Trinity Doctrine – General

    • Elohim 23Elohim (often translated as God) is plural in form. Does this mean that the Old Testament writers thought of God as a multi-personal Being?
    • The Eternal Generation of the Son 24The Son has been begotten by the Father, meaning that the Son is dependent on the Father. Eternal Generation explains “begotten” in such a way that the Son is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.

All articles on this Site

  • 1
    The pre-Nicene fathers described the Son as “our God” but the Father as “the only true God,” implying that the Son is not “true” God. This confusion is caused by the translations.
  • 2
    Sabellius taught that Father, Son, and Spirit are three portions of one single Being.
  • 3
    RPC Hanson states that no ‘orthodoxy’ existed but that is not entirely true. This article shows that subordination was indeed ‘orthodox’ at that time.
  • 4
    The term “Arianism” implies that Arius’ theology dominated the fourth-century church. But Arius was not regarded in his time as a significant writer. He left no school of disciples.
  • 5
    Over the centuries, Arius was always accused of this. This article explains why that is a false accusation.
  • 6
    There are significant differences between Origen and Arius.
  • 7
    Arius wrote that the Son was begotten timelessly by the Father before everything. But Arius also said that the Son did not always exist. Did Arius contradict himself?
  • 8
    New research has shown that Arius is a thinker and exegete of resourcefulness, sharpness, and originality.
  • 9
    The word theos, which is translated as “God” in John 1:1 is not equivalent to the modern English word “God.”
  • 10
    Eusebius of Caesarea, the most respected theologian at the Council, immediately afterward wrote to his church in Caesarea to explain why he accepted the Creed and how he understood the controversial phrases.
  • 11
    The Creed not only uses non-Biblical words; the concept of homoousios (that the Son is of the same substance as the Father) is not in the Bible.
  • 12
    The term homoousios was not mentioned by anybody during the first 30 years after Nicaea. It only became part of that controversy in the 350s.
  • 13
    The word is not found in the Bible or in any orthodox Christian confession before Nicaea.
  • 14
    The only reason we today refer to ‘Arians’ is that Athanasius invented the term to falsely label his opponents with a theology that was already formally rejected by the church.
  • 15
    ‘Arians’ described Christ as originating from beyond our universe, the only being ever brought forth directly by the Father, and as the only being able to endure direct contact with God.
  • 16
    In the 350s, Athanasius began to use homoousios to attack the church majority. Homoian theology developed in response.
  • 17
    This was one of the ‘strands’ of ‘Arianism’. It proposed that the Son’s substance is similar to the Father’s, but not the same.
  • 18
    Forget about Arius. He was an isolated extremist. This article quotes the mainstream anti-Nicenes to show how they understood that verse.
  • 19
    Eustathius and Marcellus played a major role in the formulation of the Creed but were soon deposed for Sabellianism.
  • 20
    Athanasius presents himself as the preserver of Biblical orthodoxy but this article argues that he was a Sabellian.
  • 21
    A summary of this book, which provides an overview of the fourth-century Arian Controversy. Lewis Ayres is a Catholic theologian and Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology.
  • 22
    A very informative lecture on the Arian Controversy by RPC Hanson, a famous fourth-century scholar
  • 23
    Elohim (often translated as God) is plural in form. Does this mean that the Old Testament writers thought of God as a multi-personal Being?
  • 24
    The Son has been begotten by the Father, meaning that the Son is dependent on the Father. Eternal Generation explains “begotten” in such a way that the Son is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father.