Summary
In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, the Trinity doctrine was established orthodoxy when the fourth-century Arian Controversy began and is reflected in the Nicene Creed of 325. Consequently, the later Nicene theology was simply a clearer restatement of the Nicene Creed.
However, the Nicene Creed was a drawn battle. On the one hand, there are several indications in it of the Arian view that the Son is subordinate to the Father. (See here) On the other hand, the inclusion of the term homoousios implies a strong Sabellian influence. (See here)
In reality, Nicene theology, as we know it today, did not exist when the Controversy began or when the Nicene Creed was formulated:
“Orthodoxy on the subject of the Christian doctrine of God did not exist at first.” (RH, 870)
“There is no one original Nicene theology that continues unchanged through the century.” (LA, 237)
The ‘orthodoxy’ as we know it today was worked out through that struggle as one way of interpreting the Nicene Creed:
“The century is understood as one of evolution in doctrine.” (LA, 13)
“This is not the story of a defence of orthodoxy, but of a search for orthodoxy.” (RH, xix-xx)
“In the period after 360, we also begin to see the emergence of what I have termed throughout the book so far ‘pro-Nicene’ theology.” (LA, 167)
One important aspect in which Nicene theology evolved was the number of Persons (hypostases) in God. For the first 40 years after Nicaea, the Nicenes taught that the Father and Son are a single Person (hypostasis). (Read more) Only in the 360-370s, following the Cappadocians, did Nicenes accept that God exists as three Persons.
Athanasius wrote his De synodis over the years 359–61. “For the first time we have considered a text that offers the logic of unity at one ‘level’ and distinction at another.” (LA, 175)
“During these two decades (360-380) we also see the beginnings of an evolution of terminologies that will distinguish what in God is one from what is three.” (LA, 434)
“The Cappadocian Fathers presented the Church with the doctrine of the Trinity.” (Hanson).
In conclusion, pro-Nicene theology deviated from the orthodoxy of the first three centuries.
“The break with the past which the evolution of the doctrine of the Trinity made … that it was a change can hardly be denied” (RH, 871-2).
“Those whose views finally prevailed … what was a bold and creative new formulation of the truth” (RH, 873).
Authors Quoted
| This article series is based on books by world-class scholars of the last 50 years. |
Due to research and a store of ancient documents that have become available over the last 100 years, scholars today conclude that the traditional account of the Controversy – of how and why the church accepted the Trinity doctrine – is history written by the winner and fundamentally flawed. In some instances, it is the opposite of the true history.
Following the last full-scale book on the fourth-century Arian Controversy in English, written by Gwatkin at the beginning of the 20th century, only a handful of full-scale books on the Arian Controversy have been published. This article series is largely based on the following books:
RH = Bishop RPC 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)
LA = Lewis Ayres
Nicaea and its legacy (2004)
Ayres is a Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology
KA = Khaled Anatolios
Retrieving Nicaea (2011)
Purpose
There were many different views of the nature of Christ during the fourth-century Arian Controversy but we can group them into two broad categories: Arian and Nicene.
Since the second option is tri-theism, the main battle was between the Nicene and Arian views. While the Arians objected that, in the Nicene view, the Son is not a distinct person, the Nicene objected that the Arians regarded the Son as subordinate.
Essentially, there are three options for who Christ is:
The term ‘Arian’ is a serious misnomer because Arius did not have followers, was not regarded as an important writer, and was irrelevant after the Council of Nicaea. (See here) Nevertheless, this article uses the term ‘Arian’ for the anti-Nicenes because most readers are familiar with that term.
The purpose of this article is to show that Nicene theology evolved during the Controversy, meaning that the Nicene Creed is not equivalent to what eventually became accepted as orthodox.
The purpose of this article is to show that Nicene theology evolved during the Controversy, meaning that the Nicene Creed is not equivalent to what eventually became accepted as orthodox. For this purpose, in the quotes below, Lewis Ayres distinguishes between Nicene and pro-Nicene theology:
-
- Nicene refers to the theology of the Nicene Creed.
- Pro-Nicene is the form of Nicene theology that became accepted at the end of that century.
The Meaning of ‘pro-Nicene’
| In pro-Nicene theology, the three Persons are one Being. |
Ayres explains pro-Nicene theology as teaching that the Father, Son, and Spirit not only have the same type of nature; they are one undivided nature or Being and work as one. Since they are one Being, the generation of the Son and the Spirit did not divide the one divine Being. This is more or less the traditional Trinity doctrine.
Ayres takes “three central principles to identify a theology as fully pro-Nicene:”
Traditional Account
| In the traditional account, pro-Nicene theology is simply the clearer restatement of an original Nicene theology. |
In the older account, “a clear Nicene doctrine (was) established in the controversy’s earliest stages.” (LA, 11-12)
“My use of the term pro-Nicene is initially defined against those accounts that present the fourth-century Trinitarian controversies as having one solution: the clearer restatement of an original Nicene theology.” (LA, 236)
“This (original Nicene) theology is understood as defended (if not defined) by Athanasius (and) taken up and given more precision by the Cappadocians.” (LA, 236-7)
Pro-Nicene theology evolved.
| In reality, ‘pro-Nicene’ theology, as defined, did not exist when the Nicene Creed was formulated. |
The ‘orthodox view’ as we know it today did not exist at the beginning of the Arian Controversy but evolved over the 62 years of that struggle. There was no one original Nicene theology that continued unchanged through the century:
“There is no doubt, however, that the pro-Nicene theologians throughout the controversy were engaged in a process of developing doctrine and consequently introducing what must be called a change in doctrine” (RH, 872).
“In the period after 360, we also begin to see the emergence of what I have termed throughout the book so far ‘pro-Nicene’ theology: theologies which contain new arguments for or pro Nicaea.” (LA, 167)
“There is undeniably a development of a theology of the triune being of God from Alexander to the Cappadocians and Augustine, as there is a development of the theology of the divine will from Arius to Eunomius.” (Anatolios, p. 35)
“This is not the story of a defence of orthodoxy, but of a search for orthodoxy.” (RH, xix-xx) [That is why Hanson named his book, ‘The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God’.] “The century is understood as one of evolution in doctrine.” (LA, 13) “The Arians failed just because they were so inflexible, too conservative, not ready enough to look at new ideas” (RH, 873). “Orthodoxy on the subject of the Christian doctrine of God did not exist at first. The story is the story of how orthodoxy was reached, found, not of how it was maintained.” (RH, 870) “It was only very slowly, as a result of debate and consideration and the re-thinking of earlier ideas that the doctrine which was later to be promulgated as orthodoxy arose.” (RH, 870) “The conflict that resulted eventually led to the emergence of a series of what I will term pro-Nicene theologies.” (LA, 12) “Original Nicene theology was a fluid and diverse phenomenon, and one that kept evolving.” (LA, 99) “It was to be many years before … (it) evolved into what I shall term pro-Nicene theology” (LA, 99) “There is no one original Nicene theology that continues unchanged through the century.” (LA, 237)
Aspects that changed
| These include the Holy Spirit, the distinction between ousia and hypostasis, and the Persons of God. |
Holy Spirit – The Nicene Creed does not describe the Holy Spirit as God or as homoousios. In the beginning, the Controversy focused on the Son of God.
Hypostasis and Ousia – At the time of the Creed, and in the Creed itself, the terms hypostasis and ousia functioned as synonyms. The Cappadocians, in the 360s and 370s, proposed a distinction. (Read more) Without this distinction the Trinity doctrine does not exist for it describes God as three hypostases (Persons) but one ousia (Being).
Persons of God – For the first 40 years after Nicaea, the Nicenes, including Alexander, the Sabellians, and Athanasius, taught that the Father and Son are a single Person (hypostasis) with a single mind. (Read more) The final form of Nicene theology, to which the Cappadocians in the 360s and 370s contributed significantly, was that God is one Being but three Persons.
An Explanation of Nicaea
| Pro-Nicene theology is one possible interpretation of the Nicene Creed. |
“By ‘pro-Nicene’ I mean those theologies, appearing from the 360s to the 380s … of how the Nicene creed should be understood. … All of these theologies build closely on and adapt themes found earlier in the century, but none is identical with any original ‘Nicene’ theology apparent in the 320s or 330s.” (LA, 6)
“… the emergence of a series of what I will term pro-Nicene theologies interpreting the Council of Nicaea in ways that provided a persuasive solution to the conflicts of the century” (LA, 12) “The theologies which came during the 360–80 period … to interpret Nicaea within the context of confessing God to be mysteriously one and three we can refer to as ‘pro-Nicene’.” (LA, 434)
Athanasius was not a Trinitarian.
| Athanasius was Trinitarian at first. He was a Unitarian. |
“I also use pro-Nicene to refer to theologians who seem to be the direct precursors of that later orthodoxy but whose theology still falls short of it in some respects. The most important Greek example is the later Athanasius while in Latin we might point to Hilary.” (LA, 239)
Athanasius wrote his De synodis over the years 359–61. “For the first time we have considered a text that offers the logic of unity at one ‘level’ and distinction at another.” (LA, 175)
This is important. During the previous decades, Alexander, Athanasius, the Sabellians, and the Western Church argued that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single hypostasis. In other words, they explained God as only a single Person. (Read more) But Ayres says that, around the year 360, Athanasius for the first time explained God as both one and three. This was the first time anybody did this, preparing the way for the development of the Trinity doctrine. It was to support this notion that the Cappadocians proposed a distinction between hypostasis and ousia:
“During these two decades (360-380) we also see the beginnings of an evolution of terminologies that will distinguish what in God is one from what is three: a statement that God is one in nature, power, glory, or essence is combined with a statement that there are three persons, hypostases, or ‘things’. This balance of statements is understood as the context for interpreting Nicaea’s terminology, and marks the full emergence of ‘pro-Nicene’ theology.” (LA, 434)
The Cappadocians were pro-Nicene.
| Ayres describes the Cappadocians as pro-Nicenes. |
“The theologies of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory Nazianzen are three key examples of pro-Nicene theologies.” (LA, 434)
A previous article concluded that the Cappadocians described the Persons as three distinct Beings with three distinct minds but with the same type of substance, like three human persons also have the same type of substance. (See here) This is not consistent with the Trinity doctrine in which the three ‘Persons’ are one Being with a single mind and will. Such a theology is also open to the accusation of tri-theism.
However, other carefully worded evaluations of Cappadocian theology emphasize the one-ness of the three Persons more.
For God to be both three and one is a contradiction but is explained (see Ayres above) by saying that humans cannot understand God. But is it not a contradiction itself to have a contradictory explanation of God, which is certainly not based on Biblical exegesis alone, and then to defend that explanation by saying that humans cannot understand it?
“These theologies were not identical, but shared a common commitment to the beliefs that:
Pro-Nicene deviates from Tradition.
| In conclusion, pro-Nicene theology deviates from the orthodoxy of the first three centuries. |
“In order to perceive the full genius and drive of the Christian faith it was necessary for them to some extent to emancipate [liberate] themselves from the tradition, even from the orthodoxy of the past” (RH, 873).
“The break with the past which the evolution of the doctrine of the Trinity made … that it was a change can hardly be denied” (RH, 871-2).
“Those whose views finally prevailed … what was a bold and creative new formulation of the truth” (RH, 873).
“The theologians who contributed to form the doctrine of the Trinity were carrying out, whether they knew it or not, a kind of theological revolution, and one that left to the next century the task of squaring this new understanding of God with a belief in the Incarnation” (RH, 875).