The Dedication Council of Antioch of AD 341

Purpose

In 341, approximately 90 Eastern bishops met in Antioch and produced the Dedication Creed. The Eastern church previously exiled Athanasius and Marcellus, Athanasius in 335 for violence against the Melitians, and Marcellus for Sabellianism. However, in 340, the Western Church declared Athanasius blameless and Marcellus orthodox. Therefore, the Easteners met in 341 to discuss these events.

Both the Nicene and Dedication Councils were attended only by Eastern delegates, but the two creeds are very different.

While homoousios was the key term in the Nicene Creed, the Dedication Creed does not mention it at all.

While the Nicene Creed can be read as Sabellian, the Dedication Creed is strongly anti-Sabellian.

This article explains why these creeds differ. It also shows that, although the Easterners are accused of being Arians, the Creed is explicitly anti-Arian, describes the Son as God, but still presents the Son as subordinate to the Father.

In 341, approximately 90 Eastern bishops met in Antioch and produced the Dedication Creed. 

They produced four documents. The second, known as the Dedication Creed because the Council met to celebrate the dedication of a new church built by Emperor Constantius, is the most important.

This article quotes mainly from books published during the last 50 years by world-class Catholic scholars, specializing in the fourth-century Arian Controversy:

      • R.P.C. Hanson – The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987
      • Rowan Williams – Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987
      • Lewis Ayres – Nicaea and its legacy, 2004

Extracts from the Dedication Creed

Hanson provides the entire Creed (see below). Some important parts are as follows:

“We believe in one God Father Almighty,
artificer and maker and designer of the universe;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ his only-begotten Son, God,
Through whom are all things,
Who was begotten from the Father before the Ages,
God from God … Lord from Lord …
Unchanging and unaltering,
Exact image of the Godhead and the substance and will and power and glory of the Father,
First-born of all creation, who was in the beginning with God, God the Word according to the text in the Gospel [‘and the Word was God’, by whom all things were made, and in whom all things exist;]

And in the Holy Spirit

They are three in hypostasis but one in agreement.”

The Creed condemns all who say that:

“Either time or occasion or age exists or did exist before the Son was begotten.”

“The Son is a creature like one of the creatures” (Hanson, p. 286).

Purpose of the Council

The Council met to discuss the decision of the Western Church to vindicate Athanasius and Marcellus. 

The Eastern church previously exiled Athanasius and Marcellus, Athanasius in 335 for violence against the Melitians in his see (see here), and Marcellus for Sabellianism. [Show More]

However, in 340, the Western church, at a council in Rome, declared Athanasius blameless and Marcellus orthodox. Their vindication caused significant tension between the East and West. [Show More]

That tension was heightened by the letter that Julius, the bishop of Rome, wrote to the Eastern Church earlier in 341. In that letter, he accused the Eastern ‘Eusebians’ of Arianism, meaning that they are followers of Arius’ already discredited theology. The main purpose of the Dedication Council was to discuss these events. [Show More]

Like Nicaea, an Eastern Council

Both the Nicene Council of 325 and the Dedication Council were essentially councils of the Eastern Church.

The Dedication Council consisted exclusively of bishops from the Eastern part of the Empire. [Show More]

Similarly, almost all bishops attending Nicaea were from the East. [Show More]

But a Different Creed

Although the two meetings were held only 16 years apart and represented the views of the same people, there are significant differences between the Nicene and Dedication Creeds:

No Homoousios

While homoousios was the key term in the Nicene Creed, the Dedication Creed does not mention it at all.  

The Nicene Creed describes the Son using the terms ousia and homoousios. While these terms are viewed today as crucial, they are absent from the Dedication Creed.

The reason is that the term homoousios disappeared from the Controversy soon after Nicaea and was not mentioned for more than 20 years by anybody, not even Athanasius. [Show More]

Athanasius brought the Nicene Creed and the term homoousios back into the Controversy in the 350s. [Show More]

The Dedication Council of 341 and the Council of Serdica of 343 were both held during the period when nobody mentioned the term. 

Anti-Sabellian

While the Nicene Creed is pro-Sabellian, the Dedication Creed is anti-Sabellian.

The main difference between the two creeds is that, while the Nicene Creed is open to a Sabellian reading, the main purpose of the Dedication Creed is to oppose Sabellianism. Eminent recent scholars confirm the pro-Sabellian nature of the Nicene Creed. [Show More]

One indication of the Sabellian nature of the Nicene Creed is the use of the term homoousios. Before Nicaea, the term was preferred only by Sabellians. (See here) Sabellius himself, the Libyan Sabellians, Dionysius of Rome, and Paul of Samosata used it to say that Father and Son are one single Person. [Show More]

A second indication of the Sabellian nature of the Nicene Creed is that it states, in one of its anathemas, that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (a single individual existence), which is the hallmark of Sabellianism. [Show More]

Thirdly, after Nicaea, the Sabellians claimed the Nicene Creed as support for their theology. [Show More]

This is not to say that the Nicene Creed is clearly Sabellian, but at the least, it can be said that it does not exclude Sabellianism. Elsewhere, Hanson describes it as “a drawn battle. [Show More]

Note that Hanson above associates Sabellianism with a one-hypostasis theology. Sabellianism is one form of one-hypostasis theology, which is the teaching that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Person with a single Mind. Monarchianism and Modalism are other one-hypostasis theologies. The main dividing line in the fourth-century Controversy was between one- and three-hypostases theologies. In other words, the main dispute was whether the Son exists as a distinct Person (See here).

While the Nicene Creed seems to support Sabellianism, which is the denial of a distinction between the three within the Godhead, the main purpose of the Dedication Creed is to oppose Sabellianism. [Show More]

In contrast to the single hypostasis of Sabellianism, the Dedication Creed explicitly asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are “three in hypostasis but one in agreement” (Ayres, p. 118) “One in agreement” indicates the existence of three distinct ‘Minds’.

Why do these creeds differ?

The Nicene Creed is pro-Sabellian because Emperor Constantine sided with the Sabellians. 

Since almost all delegates at Nicaea were from the East and since almost all Easterners were ‘Arians,’ Alexander joined forces with the Sabellians. Similar to the Sabellians, Alexander believed that the Son is part of the Father and does not have an existence distinct from the Father. The Nicene Creed is pro-Sabellian because Emperor Constantine took Alexander’s part in the dispute. Consequently, the Sabellians were able to influence the wording of the Creed significantly. [Show More]

The Dedication Creed is strongly anti-Sabellian because the Nicenes were Sabellians. 

It is traditional to think that the Controversy was between the Nicenes and the Arians. However, both these terms are misleading:

Nicene theology was similar to Sabellianism. Both taught that the Son does not have a distinct existence but is part of the Father. Therefore, the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (one Person). [Show More]

The ‘Arians’ were not Arians because they did not follow Arius. They followed Origen. Since the Nicenes were accused of Sabellianism, which was already formally rejected, the Nicenes accused the Oigenists of Arianism, which was also already formally rejected (at Nicaea), but this was a false accusation. See here.

Anti-Arian

The Dedication Creed is anti-Arian.

Following Athanasius, the West accused the East of following Arius. For example, Julius, the bishop of Rome, in his letter to the Eastern Church, accused the Easterners of following Arius’ already discredited theology.

But the Easterners did not follow Arius. In the Dedication Creed, they said:

“We have not been followers of Arius.” (Ayres, p. 117-8)

“We have rather approached him as investigators and judges of his belief than followed him.” (Hanson, p. 285)

It is true that the Easterners did not follow Arius. Arius did not leave a school of followers. He was of little significance. [Show More]

Consequently:

“’Arianism’ as a coherent system, founded by a single great figure and sustained by his disciples, is a fantasy … based on the polemic of Nicene writers, above all Athanasius.” (Rowan Williams, p. 82) (Read More.)

Indeed, the Dedication Creed explicitly condemns some of Arius’ more extreme statements. [Show More]

The following describes the Dedication Creed:

It “represents the nearest approach we can make to discovering the views of the ordinary educated Eastern bishop who was no admirer of the extreme views of Arius but who had been shocked and disturbed by the apparent Sabellianism of N [the Nicene Creed], and the insensitiveness of the Western Church to the threat to orthodoxy which this tendency represented.” (Hanson, p. 290-1)

Subordinate

The Dedication Creed claims that the Son is subordinate to the Father. 

“The names of the Three signify the particular order and glory of each.” (Hanson, p. 287)

The Father alone is “Almighty.”

The Son is the Father’s agent in creation. The Father is “maker and designer of the universe,” but the Son is the One “through whom are all things” and “by whom all things were made.”

In contrast to the Father identified as the “one God,” the Son is the “one Lord.”

However, the subordination in the Creed is not a concession to Arius’ theology. At the time, all theologians, including the Nicenes, even Athanasius, regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father. Subordination was the orthodoxy at the time. [Show More]

Image of the Father’s substance

 The Dedication Creed interprets homoousios as meaning the Son is an image of the Father’s substance.

The Nicene Creed says that the Son is of the same substance as the Father (homoousios), which was understood by the Sabellians as means ‘one substance.’ The Dedication Creed claims that the Son is the image of the Father’s substance:

“The Son is ‘the exact Image of the Godhead, the ousia and the will and the power and the glory of the Father’.” (Hanson, p. 288)

This implies that the Son is distinct from the substance of the Father. Later in the fourth century, “image of the Father’s substance” became the catchphrase of the Homoiousians (meaning ‘similar substance’).

The Son is God.

 The Dedication Creed describes the Son as God.

The Creed regards the Son both as subordinate and as “God from God” (theos). However, the term theos in the Bible and in the 4th century was not equivalent to the modern word “God.” While we use the term “God” only for the Almighty, there were many theoi in ancient Greek:

“In the fourth century the word ‘God’ (theos, deus) had not acquired the significance which in our twentieth-century world it has acquired … viz. the one and sole true God. The word could apply to many gradations of divinity.” (Hanson, p. 456)

Commenting on the Council of Serdica in 343, where the ‘Arians’ issued a statement condemning “those who say … that Christ is not God,” Ayres says: “This reminds us of the variety of ways in which the term ‘God’ could be deployed at this point.” (Ayres, p. 124) 

See here for a more detailed discussion.

The Fourth Creed

The fourth creed avoids all non-Biblical language.

It was intended to serve as a means of reconciliation, and avoided all the terms derived from Greek philosophy, ousia and hypostasis. [Show More]

It condemns both Marcellus and Arius. “It has a special clause inserted against Marcellus” (Hanson, p. 292) and ends with an anathema against Arius:

“But those who say that the Son is from non-existence or of a different hypostasis, and not from God, and that there was once a time or age when he did not exist, these the holy Catholic Church recognizes as alien’.” (Hanson, p. 292)

It does not even address the crucial aspect of the number of hypostases in God. “it makes no attempt to establish the distinctness of the ‘Persons’ in an anti-Sabellian manner.” (Hanson, p. 292)

Full Dedication Creed

Hanson gives the Dedication Creed as follows:

“Following the evangelical and apostolic tradition, we believe in one God Father Almighty, artificer and maker and designer of the universe:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ his only-begotten Son, God,
through whom are all things,
who was begotten from the Father before the Ages,
God from God, whole from whole, sole from sole, perfect from perfect, King from King, Lord from Lord, living Wisdom, true Light, Way, Truth, unchanging and unaltering,
exact image of the Godhead and the substance and will and power and glory of the Father, first-born of all creation, who was in the beginning with God, God the Word according to the text in the Gospel [quotation of John 1:1, 3 and Col 1:17]

who at the end of the days came down from above and was born of a virgin, according to the Scriptures, and became man, mediator between God and men, the apostle of our faith, author of life, as the text runs [quotation of Jn 6:38], who suffered for us and rose again the third day and ascended into heaven and is seated on the right hand of the father and is coming again with glory and power to judge the living and the dead:

And in the Holy Spirit, who is given to those who believe for comfort and sanctification and perfection, just as our Lord Jesus Christ commanded his disciples, saying [quotation of Matt 28:19], obviously (in the name) of the Father who is really Father and the Son who is really Son and the Holy Spirit who is really Holy Spirit, because the names are not given lightly or idly, but signify exactly the particular hypostasis and order and glory of each of those who are named, so that they are three in hypostasis but one in agreement.

Since we hold this belief, and have held it from the beginning to the end, before God and Christ we condemn every form of heretical unorthodoxy.

And if anybody teaches contrary to the sound, right faith of the Scriptures, alleging that either time or occasion or age exists or did exist before the Son was begotten, let him be anathema.

And if anyone alleges that the Son is a creature like one of the creatures or a product like one of the products, or something made like one of the things that are made, and not as the Holy Scriptures have handed down concerning the subjects which have been treated one after another,

or if anyone teaches or preaches anything apart from what we have laid down, let him be anathema. for we believe and follow everything that has been delivered from the Holy Scriptures by the prophets and apostles truly and reverently.”


Other Articles

STANDARD BLOCK

. 

grys = #f5f5f5

 

[Show More]

. e4eff7

N5 Other Articles

[Show More]

Father, Son, and Spirit are each a distinct hypostasis 789aff

. #edf0c2

. f0efc2

. #fff2c9

The “divided kingdom” is a fragmentation of the fourth empire

The “divided kingdom” is a fragmentation of the fourth empire

. #FFE599 . The “divided kingdom” is a fragmentation of the fourth empir

. #FFE599. The “divided kingdom” is a 

. f0efc2 

LIGGROEN #E7FFE7

. f0efc2 

ORANJE FFD966

fff2c9

dddd

. fff2c9mentation of 

 

aaaaaaaaaa

ddddffffff

. #fce9ae. Thedivided kingdom” is a fragmentation of the fourth empir

f0ebd1 summary block

Donker oranje vir teks c24f02 or c75000 or C00000


 

.

 

. f2f2f2

 

 

[Show More]

[Show More]

This article is relatively complex because it requires understanding several parts of the Book of Revelation. The green blocks provide summaries of sections. To reduce complexity further, more detailed explanations are hidden in ‘read more’ blocks.

Read Article

[Show More]

[Show More]

[Show More]

 

[Show More]

 

Articles in this series

Other Articles

The Seven Seals

Other

  • I recommend Jon Paulien’s commentary on Revelation for further reading. For general theological discussions, I recommend Graham Maxwell, who you will find on the Pineknoll website.

Articles on Revelation 12

Other Articles

There is but one God,
the Father,
from whom are all things,
and we exist for Him;
And one Lord,
Jesus Christ,
By whom are all things,
And we exist through Him.

KORT S3 Authors Quoted

The fourth-century Arian Controversy resulted in the Church accepting the Trinity doctrine. However, during the 20th century, scholars have discovered that the traditional account of that Controversy, of how and why the church accepted the Trinity doctrine, is history according to the winner and a complete travesty[Show More]

This article series is based mostly on the writings of scholars of the last 50 years, reflecting the revised account of that Controversy. Although most quotes are hidden in ‘read more’ sections, given the controversial nature of this subject, these quotes form a crucial part of this article. [Show More]

, different articles in discuss different errors in the traditional narrative.

.

 

 

t

.

.

. #f5f5f5
.#edf0c2

Vier vlakke

      • Opsom – 2 reels – Groen blok
      • Moet lees
      • Quotes se dieselfde – Read more
      • Nice to haves – mfn

I am currently rewriting this article. Sorry for any inconvenience.

I am currently editing this article. Sorry for any inconvenience.

 

 

Daniel 2 Gold (Babylon) Silver Brass Iron
Daniel 7 Lion Bear Leopard Dreadful beast
Daniel 8 Ram
(Medo-Persia)
Goat (Greece)

 

The Nicene Council

Traditional Account True History

Purpose

The fourth-century ‘Arian’ Controversy produced the Trinity doctrine. However, recently scholars have discovered that the traditional account of that Controversy – of how and why the Church accepted that doctrine – is a complete travesty, casting doubt on its legitimacy. Different articles in this series discuss different aspects of the traditional account. [Show More]

The current article addresses the false belief that ‘homoousios’ was the key term in the Nicene Creed. It shows that the term was not mentioned by anybody for decades after the Council of Nicaea. It wasn’t until the 350s, some 30 years later, that it became an important part of the controversy. This article discusses why the term homoousios was not mentioned during the decades after Nicaea, and how and why it became part of the Controversy 30 years later.

LANG AUTHORS QUOTED LAQ1

AUTHORS QUOTED

Scholars explain the fourth-century Arian Controversy today very differently compared to 100 years ago.

A main barrier to understanding the fourth-century ‘Arian’ Controversy is the fragmentary nature of the ancient sources. However, a store of ancient documents has become available over the last 100 years.

Show Quotes

Due to this new information and research, 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. (Read More)

Show Quotes

Older books and authors who do not specialize in the Arian Controversy often still offer the 19th-century version. 

For example, in the traditional but flawed account, the Trinity doctrine was established orthodoxy but Arius caused the Controversy by developing a novel heresy, winning many supporters. While despotic emperors supported the Arians, Athanasius bravely defended orthodoxy, which ultimately triumphed at the Council of Constantinople in 381.

Unfortunately, many still accept the false account of the Arian Controversy because rejecting it would raise questions about the Trinity doctrine, which many regard as the mark of true Christianity, as opposed to the Mark of the Beast.

Show examples of the Traditional Account

This article series is based on books by world-class Trinitarian scholars of the last 100 years. 

Following the book by Gwatkin at the beginning of the 20th century, only a limited number of full-scale books on the fourth-century Arian Controversy were published, of which R.P.C. Hanson’s book published in 1988 is perhaps the most influential. This was followed in 2004 by a book by Lewis Ayres, which built on Hanson’s book. This series also quotes from the 2002 book by Rowan Williams, which focuses more specifically on Arius.

Show details of the books quoted

 

 

Show details

No Arians

Arius did not have followers. Athanasius invented the ‘Arian’ concept as a polemical device. 

Arius was already dead when Athanasius wrote. However, he used Arius as a stick to beat his opponents with. He called his opponents ‘Arians’, meaning followers of Arius, and then selectively quoted Arius as an attack on his opponents.

But his opponents were not followers of Arius. Arius did not leave behind a school of disciples. He had very few real followers. Nobody regarded his writings worth copying. His theology played no part in the Controversy after Nicaea. The term ‘Arian’, therefore, is a serious misnomer. The only reason so many Christians believe Arius was important is because they accept Athanasius’ distortions. (Read more)

In reality, Arius was part of a group we may call the ‘Eusebians’; followers of Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia. (Read more) Consequently, this article series often refers to the anti-Nicenes as the Eusebians rather than ‘Arians’.

 

4

The green blocks are summaries.

The articles in this series quote extensively from leading scholars. Since not all readers are interested in the technical details, the green blocks provide summaries. The reader might prefer to first only read these summaries.

This article series quotes extensively from leading scholars. Since not all readers are interested in detail, the green blocks summarize the longer sections. 

Reading only the green blocks should provide a sufficient overview of this article.

Reading only the green blocks should provide an adequate overview of this article.

The green blocks in the sections below are summaries. 

This email is sent to you as a subscriber of ‘From Daniel to Revelation’. The fourth-century Arian Controversy led to the formulation of the Trinity doctrine. Over the past few years, I have made an in-depth study of that Controversy to understand who made what decisions and why. Consequently, I have focused on revising many of my existing articles instead of publishing new content.

This email serves to notify you that I have thoroughly revised the article concerning the meaning of ‘homoousios’. The Nicene Creed employs this term to say that the Son is of the same substance as the Father, a central issue in the Arian Controversy. It is traditionally interpreted as meaning ‘one substance,’ asserting that the Father and the Son are a single Being. However, recent scholarship seem to agree that was not the meaning. This article explains what the term meant in the centuries before Nicaea, why it was included in the Nicene Creed, and the post-Nicaea repercussions.

This is a very long article (38 page) but begins with a 3-page summary.

To UNSUBSCRIBE from similar emails, please return this email with UNSUBSCRIBE in the header. 

 

SABELLIANS

This email is sent to you as a subscriber of ‘From Daniel to Revelation’. The fourth-century Arian Controversy led to the formulation of the Trinity doctrine. Over the past few years, I have made an in-depth study of that Controversy to understand who made what decisions and why. Consequently, I have focused on improving my existing articles instead of publishing new content.

This email serves to notify you that I have thoroughly revised the article on the fourth-century Sabellians. Sabellians taught a single divine Person with a single divine mind. Jesus is merely an inspired human being. This mere man suffered, died, was resurrected, and now sits at God’s right hand. The Sabellians significantly influenced the Nicene Creed, were rejected by the anti-Nicene East but were embraced as orthodox by the pro-Nicene West.

To unsubscribe from similar emails, please return this email, saying UNSUBSCRIBE. 

 

ORTHODOXY

This email is sent to you as a subscriber of ‘From Daniel to Revelation’. The fourth-century Arian Controversy led to the formulation of the Trinity doctrine. Over the past few years, I have made an in-depth study of that Controversy to understand who made what decisions and why. Consequently, I have focused on improving my existing articles instead of publishing new content.

This email serves to notify you that I have thoroughly revised the article on the orthodox view at the beginning of the Arian Controversy. In the traditional account, today’s Trinity doctrine was accepted orthodoxy when the Controversy began. However, before and during the fourth-century Controversy, until Basil of Caesarea, all theologians regarded the Son as subordinate. That was the orthodoxy.

To unsubscribe from similar emails, please return this email, saying UNSUBSCRIBE. 

 

DANIEL 7

To present an overview of world history, from the Babylonian Empire until Christ’s return, Daniel 7 uses four animals to symbolize four successive empires. From the fourth and last animal, 10 horns grew. After them, an 11th horn grew up by uprooting three of the previous horns. It was small at first but grew and eventually dominated the other horns. It is different from the others because it blasphemes God and persecutes His people. It will only be destroyed when Christ returns. This 11th horn is the main character in Daniel 7. The only reason that Daniel 7 mentions the preceding four empires and ten kingdoms is to enable the reader to identify the 11th horn.

COMPARE ANIMALS

Daniel 8 uses two animals as symbols, explicitly identified as the Medo-Persian and Greek empires. Daniel 7 uses four animals but does not identify them. Another article identifies them by comparing them to the animals in Daniel 8. It concludes that the main character in Daniel 7 and 8, symbolized as an evil horn-king, grew out of the Roman Empire.

THE DRAGON

The Beast, whose Mark in the time of the end will be put on the foreheads of people (Rev 13:15-16), receives its authority from the Dragon. The Dragon is one of three seven-headed beasts in Revelation. Another article shows first that these beasts are more detailed explanations of Daniel’s animals. It then shows that the Dragon and Daniel’s fourth animal are two symbols of the same power. Therefore, since a previous article already identified Daniel’s fourth animal as the Roman Empire, the Dragon symbolizes the Roman Empire. 

THRONE OF THE BEAST

The fifth plague angel pours his bowl out on the Throne of the Beast (Rev 16:10). A throne symbolizes the authority to rule. The Beast received its throne from the Roman Empire (Rev 13:2), but it was not military might. Neither was it the power of money. Another article provides evidence that the Throne of the Beast symbolizes Christian religious authority. This conclusion is based on the flow of thought in the plagues, the general nature of conflict in Revelation as a war of worship, the description of the persecuting powers as a woman, as lamb-like and as a false prophet performing wonders and signs, and the fact that it always is False Religion that persecutes true religion.

FOOTNOTES

  • 1
    Trevor Hart wrote about this book: “While contributions have not been wanting, nothing comparable in either scale or erudition exists in the English language … treating in considerable detail … the so-called ‘Arian controversy’ which dominated the fourth century theological agenda.”
  • 2
    Kermit Zarley described Hanson as “the preeminent authority on the development of the church doctrine of God in the 4th century.”
  • 3
    Lewis Ayres, Emory University, wrote that this book “has been the standard English scholarly treatment of the trinitarian controversies of the fourth century and the triumph of Nicene theology.
  • 4
    Lewis Ayres wrote that Williams’ book “offers one of the best recent discussions of the way scholarship on this controversy has developed. (Ayres, 12)
TABLE OF CONTENTS