Category: Arius

Introduction

Purpose

The 4th-century Arian Controversy began with a dispute between Arius, a presbyter, and his bishop, Alexander of Alexandria, Egypt. Their disagreement escalated until Emperor Constantine called a council at Nicaea in 325, where Arius’ theology was presented, discussed, and rejected.

This article compares Arius’ theology with the views of the church fathers of the first three centuries.

Authors Quoted

This article series is based mainly on the following books, published over the past 50 years:

Hanson, R.P.C. – The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381 (1987) Williams, Rowan – Arius, Heresy & Tradition, (2002/1987) Ayres, Lewis – Nicaea and its legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (2004) Anatolios, Khaled – Retrieving Nicaea (2011)

The First Three Centuries

It is often thought that there was general agreement among the pre-Nicene church fathers. However, there was also significant disagreement, as the following high-level overview shows:

Logos-theology

Beginning with Justin Martyr, Logos-theology dominated the Gentile church. Based mainly on Greek philosophy, it taught that the Son (the Logos) always existed as an aspect of God but later became a distinct Person (a hypostasis), subordinate to the high God, as an intermediary between the high God and the physical creation. Logos-theologians, therefore, believed that the Son is a distinct divine Person. This remained the dominant view into the 4th century. Show More

Monarchianism

Monarchianism, also called Modalism, opposed Logos-theology. They objected that Logos-theology violated Biblical monotheism with an unbiblical division of God’s substance. While Logos-theology believed in two divine Persons, the Monarchians maintained that only one divine Person exists and that ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ are two names for the same Person. They denied that the Son has any identifiable distinct existence. It follows that the Father died on the Cross. Show More

Tertullian

In the 3rd century, Tertullian, also a Logos-theologian, attempted to address the Monarchian objections by teaching that God is a single substance and that the Son is a portion of the whole. In this way, he satisfied the demands for both monotheism and the distinct existence of the Son. However, as a Logos theologian, he taught that the Father was not always Father, that there was a time when the Son was not, and that the Son is subordinate to the Father, views for which Arius was later criticized. Show More

Origen

Also in the 3rd century, Origen, the most influential author of the first three centuries, taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct divine Persons (three hypostases), with the Son and the Spirit subordinate to the Father. (The Greek word hypostasis was the most important term in the Controversy, and meant a distinct existence.) Show More

Origen rejected the idea from Logos theology that the Son previously was an aspect of God and said that the Son has always existed as a distinct Person.

He presented “the Son’s generation as an intimate expression of the Father’s existence.” “The Son has no origin except the Father.” “The Son may not share the ousia of the Father, but the Son is constantly in the Father.” Show More

Sabellianism

Origen opposed the teachings of Sabellius, who was active during the first decades of the third century. Like the Monarchians, the Sabellians were Monotheists, teaching that the Father and Son are a single Person. However, while the Monarchians made no distinction between the Father and the Son, to address the objection that the Bible presents the Son as a distinct Person, Sabellius proposed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct forms, aspects, or portions of the one divine Person. Sabellius also claimed that the Son is homoousios with the Father. However, Sabellius was deposed in 220, and his follower Paul of Samosata was deposed in 268, at a council that also condemned the term homoousios. Show More

Rome vs Alexandria c. 260

This dispute between the theologies of Sabellian and Origen is illustrated by the conflict between Rome and Alexandria around the year 260. Like Sabellius, Rome believed in only one divine Person and defended homoousios. Alexandria rejected homoousios and maintained that the Father and Son are two distinct divine Beings. Rome had the upper hand in this dispute because it was able to compel Alexandria to accept the term homoousios. However, Alexandria accepted it as meaning two substances of the same type, rather than as meaning one substance. Show More

Council of Antioch c. 268

The Council of Antioch in 268, which deposed the Sabellian Paul of Samosata for teaching a ‘one hypostasis’ view and condemned the term homoousios, implying that Paul used it, also reflects the dispute between Sabellius’ ‘one hypostasis’ theology and Origen’s three hypostases. Show More

East/West Divide

So, already in the third century, this Controversy was an East/West divide: While Rome in the West defended the ‘one hypostasis’ view and the term homoousios, these concepts were denounced in Antioch, an important city in Eastern Christianity at the time. Generally, while the West had a Monarchian tradition, the East followed Origen. Show More

Possible Predecessors

In chronological sequence, this section discusses the theologians proposed by scholars in the past as possible predecessors of Arius. Many names have been suggested, including Paul of Samosata, who was deposed in 268, and Origen, after the Church in later centuries had excommunicated Origen posthumously. Show More

Plato

Plato’s philosophy of time and the origin of the universe, in which he distinguishes between that which exists without cause and the universe as we perceive it, which had a beginning, still dominated in the fourth-century intellectual world and shaped what the most influential writers of that time said about creation. It influenced all theologians in Arius’ time. Show More

Philo of Alexandria

Philo (20 BC – 50 AD) was a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who interpreted Jewish scripture in terms of Greek philosophy, similar to how the Logos-theologians of the second and third centuries interpreted the New Testament through Greek philosophy. Wolfson claimed that Arius followed Philo because both taught two Logoi, the creation of the one Logos ex nihilo, and the incomparability of the other Logos (God). However, Hanson and Williams reject this claim. Williams says that Philo mapped out the ground for the Alexandrian theological tradition to build on, and that Arius’s theology is firmly within that tradition. Show More

Gnostics

Gnosticism was also not the source of Arius’ theology. Arius repeatedly rejects the favourite Gnostic concept of the ‘issue’ of beings from God. Show More

Clement of Alexandria

Clement (150-215) was bishop of Alexandria in the early third century. There are numerous parallels between Arius and Clement. They shared a common ethos, but Clement differed in some key respects from Arius. For example:

Both Clement and Arius taught “two Logoi,” meaning that the Son or Logos is not an aspect of the Father but something in addition to the Father. However, Clement’s “two Logoi are quite different from those of Arius” (Hanson, p. 60).

While Arius taught ‘there was when He (the Son) was not, Clement taught “the eternity of the Son” (Hanson, p. 60). Show More

Origen of Alexandria

Some saw Origen (185-253) as the ultimate source of Arius’ heresy. There were many similarities. Like Arius, Origen denied the Nicene teaching that the Son is from the Father’s substance and that He is homoousios (of the same substance) as the Father. Both also believed that only the Father exists without cause and that the Son:

• • • Is a distinct Person with a distinct mind,
    • Was produced by the Father’s will, in contrast to Nicene theology, in which the Son exists essentially, not by the Father’s will,
    • Is a created divine Being, using the term ‘created’ for any being who does not exist without cause,
    • Is subordinate to the Father, and
    • Does not know the Father fully.

However, there are also substantial differences between Origen and Arius. Origen emphasized the unity of the Father and Son much more than Arius did. While Arius presented the Father and Son as two distinct and independent divine Beings, Origen regarded them as one, not literally or in terms of substance, but from our perspective. In other words, Origen had a much higher view of the Son than Arius. Show More

Dionysius of Alexandria

Dionysius was the bishop from 247 to 264 (Hanson, p. 72). Arius was probably born while he was the bishop of the city. The Arians claimed him as a great authority who supported their doctrine. Like Arius, in his view, the Son:

• • • Is a creature,
    • Not of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father, and
    • Did not exist before he came into existence.

For these reasons, it is impossible to avoid seeing a significant influence from Dionysius on Arius. If Arius had formulated his theology from various authors before his time, Dionysius would have contributed to it. Show More

Paul of Samosata

Paul was bishop of Antioch from 260 to 268. Many scholars have proposed that Paul influenced Arius. However, Paul believed that the Son did not exist before Jesus’ human birth, and that Jesus is a mere man, though maximally inspired, an idea which Arius strongly opposed. Arius claimed that the Son existed before time began. Show More

Theognostus of Alexandria

Theognostus wrote from 247 to 280. His views were in many respects the opposite of Arius’:

While Arius believed that the Son is a distinct Person, created out of nothing, Theognostus thought that the Son is an aspect of the Father, namely, the Father’s Logos, and that the Son is an issue from the Father.

Therefore, the Son’s ousia was from the Father’s substance. He explicitly rejected the view that the Son was created out of nothing.

While Arius proclaimed two Logoi, meaning the Son is one Logos and the Father also has His own Logos, Theognostus taught that only one Logos exists, namely, that the Son is the Father’s own and only Logos.

While Theognostus was a monotheist, Oigen, Dionysius, and Arius believed that the Son is a distinct divine Being.

Theonostus’ theology could have been a precursor of Nicene theology. Show More

Methodius of Olympia

Methodius (died c. 311), bishop, ecclesiastical author, and martyr, like Arius, taught that the Father alone exists without cause, that the Son is wholly subordinate to and dependent on the Father, that the Son is the first of all created things, and that God created all other things through the Son. In other words, his theology resembles that of Arius. Show More

Lucian of Antioch

The authorities in this section are discussed in chronological sequence. Lucian is the last of them. He died as a martyr in 312, the year before the emperors legalized Christianity, and only 6 years before Arius and his bishop clashed.

Lucian taught that the Logos, at the Incarnation, assumed a body without a soul (mind). In this way, the Logos directly experienced the pain and death of the cross. This was a typical Arian teaching and requires the Logos to be a distinct divine Person. Show More

Arius claimed to have followed Lucian, but we do not know what else Lucian taught. Show More

Antioch or Alexandria?

Some modern scholars have asked whether Antioch or Alexandria should be seen as Arius’ spiritual and intellectual home. In a recent book on Arius, Williams concluded that Arius is unmistakably Alexandrian. We have no justification even for regarding him as an exegetical rebel. Show More

Conclusions

Specific Doctrines

This section discusses specific doctrines that Arius might have received from his predecessors. It relies on both the discussion above and the article – Was Origen the ultimate source of Arius’ heresy?

Unbegotten – Origen, Dionysius, and Methodius said that the Father alone exists without a cause and, therefore, without a beginning.

A Divine Creature – Therefore, Origen, Dionysius, and Methodius also described the Son as a divine ‘creature,’ using the term ‘creature’ for any being who does not exist without cause, but whose existence was caused by another. Show More

Subordinate – “Origen, with Arius, can be said to have subordinated the Son to the Father” (Hanson, p. 64). However, Hanson also explains that Origen had a much higher view of the Son that Arius had. Nevertheless, Hanson adds that all theologians of the first three centuries regarded the Son to be subordinate to the Father. Show More

Knowledge of God – Like Arius, Origen taught that the Son does not fully understand the Father.

Produced by the Father’s will – In Nicene theology, since the Logos is an aspect of the Father, namely, His Wisdom (see here), the Logos exists essentially and not by the Father’s will. In contrast, several pre-Nicene authors agreed with Arius that “the Son was produced by the Father’s will.” Show More

Homoousios – Origen and Dionysius rejected the concept that the Son is homoousios (of the same substance) as the Father. Show More

Eternal – Dionysius of Alexandria said that the Son did not always exist. Show More

Ex nihilo – However, nobody said, like Arius, that the Son was formed from nothing. That was probably a rebuttal of the Nicene view that the Son was begotten from the substance of the Father. Show More

Who did Arius follow?

Arius opposed Gnosticism and Paul of Samosata. He was also not a Logos-theologian:

“Our mistake is to try to interpret him (Arius) in terms of a theology with which he was not at home, the Logos-theology he shares with his opponents” (Williams, p. 12).

Arius is unmistakably Alexandrian in his theology, and Plato, Philo, Clement, Origen, and Lucian shaped the general heritage of the church in Alexandria:

Arius’ theology was “clearly the result of a very large number of theological views” (Williams, p. 171).

The two authors whom Arius could rightly claim as his theological ancestors are Dionysius of Alexandria and Methodius of Olympia. Dionysius likely contributed to Arius’ theology (Hanson, p. 76), and Methodius of Olympia regarded the Father alone as ingenerate; the ‘unoriginated origin’ and the Son as the first of the created things, wholly dependent on the Father (Hanson, p. 83).

While Hanson said that “Arius … represents a school, probably the school of Lucian of Antioch” (Hanson, p. 97), Williams proposed that “it is perhaps a mistake to look for one self-contained and exclusive ‘theological school’ to which to assign him” (Williams, p. 115).

Arius was a conservative.

In the traditional account of the Controversy, Arianism was first proposed by Arius, opposing an established orthodoxy. Therefore, Arius was the founder of Arianism. Show More

However, in his recent book on Arius (Arius, Heresy & Tradition – 2002/1987), Rowan Williams described Arius not as a rebel but an Alexandrian conservative.

“A great deal of recent work seeking to understand Arian spirituality has, not surprisingly, helped to demolish the notion of Arius and his supporters as deliberate radicals, attacking a time-honoured tradition” (Williams, 21). “Arius was a committed theological conservative; more specifically, a conservative Alexandrian” (Williams, 175).

Arius did not say anything new. He merely selected and reorganized traditional ideas. Therefore, Arius can no longer be regarded as the strange monster of heresy that scholars of previous centuries depicted him as. Show More

Lewis Ayres identifies four trajectories at the beginning of the fourth century in his book on the Controversy (Nicaea and its legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology – 2004). None of the four is Arius’ theology. Instead, Ayres classifies Arius as one of the Eusebians, the trajectory that followed the two Eusebii. Show More

In 1987, Lienhard wrote that Arius was just another member of the dyohypostatic tradition, meaning the group who believed that the Father and Son are two distinct hypostases (Persons). Show More

Arius did not cause the Controversy.

The analysis above shows that the authors preceding Arius had conflicting views about the nature of the Son. Since Arius did not develop a new theology, but was an Alexandrian conservative, contrary to the traditional account, he did not cause the Controversy. The 4th-century Controversy was not new but continued the 3rd-century controversy. Show More

It was not an Arian Controversy.

It is traditional to believe that Arianism is equal to Arius’ theology. However, since Arius was a member of an existing theological trajectory, which Ayres refers to as the Eusebians (the followers of Eusebius), Arius was not the founder of Arianism:

The so-called Arians appealed to great names in the past, but never to Arius! On the contrary, they explicitly rejected some of his statements. See, for example, the Dedication Creed.

The people of his day, whether they agreed with him or not, did not regard his writings as worth preserving. He did not leave behind a school of disciples.

He had many supporters, not because they followed him, but because they were from the same theological trajectory and regarded Alexander’s theology as more dangerous.

Arius’ dispute with his bishop was the spark that ignited the Controversy, but Arius himself was not of any great significance.

Therefore, the term ‘Arian’ is a serious misnomer. The conflict of the fourth century was not about Arius’ theology. Show More

One vs Two Logoi

Some, like Philo and Clement of Alexandria, spoke about two Logoi. Others, like Theognostus of Alexandria, “insisted that there was only one Logos” (Hanson, p. 79):

One Logos – To say that only one Logos exists means that the Son is the Father’s own and only Logos, which further means that the Son is part of or an aspect of the Father. This is what Nicene theology proclaimed. Specifically, Nicene theology taught that the Son is the Father’s own and only Wisdom or Logos. Therefore, in Nicene theology, the Father and Son are a single Person (hypostasis). Show More

Two Logoi – To say two Logoi exist means that the Son is not the Father’s only Logos, but that an additional Logos was brought into being when the Son was begotten. That was the Arian view. Show More

The Core Issue

Created/Divine – Many think the core issue was whether the Son is a created being or divine. No, the Arians did believe that the Son is divine. For them, He was a created divine being. They called Him theos, which is often translated as “God.” Show More

Subordinate – Some think the core issue was whether the Son is subordinate to the Father. That was also not the core issue, for the Nicenes also described the Son as subordinate to the Father. Show More

Homoousios – Many think the core issue was whether the Son is homoousios with the Father. That was also not the core issue. One indication is that the term fell out of the Controversy soon after Nicaea and was only brought back into the Controversy in the 350s, 30 years after Nicaea. Show More

Furthermore, Athanasius’ explanation of the term was similar to that of Eusebius, the leader of the so-called Arians. Both interpreted the term highly figuratively, simply as meaning that the Son came forth from the being of the Father, although they had very different understandings of what that means. Show More

One or two Logoi – The core issue in the Arian Controversy was this distinction between one or two Logoi, or between one or two hypostases. In other words, the core issue was whether the Son is a distinct divine Person with a distinct mind.

One Logos – If only one Logos exists, as claimed by the Monotheists, including the Modalists, Sabellians, and the Nicenes, with Athanasius as the prime example, it follows that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person):

As stated, in Nicene theology, the Son is a feature or aspect of the Father. Therefore, only one divine Person exists. Show More

The two main Nicene creeds of the 4th century, the Nicene Creed and the Manifesto at Serdica, explicitly declared that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis. Show More

If the Father and Son are a single Person, then it further follows that the Son has the same substance as the Father and is, like the Father, eternal, immutable, and impassible.

Concerning the incarnation, in Nicene theology, since the Logos is immutable and impassible, He cannot become a human being. Rather, Jesus Christ is a human being with a human mind, inspired by God’s Word through the Holy Spirit (see here).

Two Logoi – If two Logoi exist, as Origen and the Arians believed, then the Father and Son are two distinct hypostases (two Persons). It follows that the Father alone exists without a cause, that the Son did not always exist but is a divine creature, produced by the Father’s will, and that the Son is subordinate to the Father. With respect to the incarnation, the Arians believed that Jesus Christ did not have a human mind. Rather, Jesus Christ is the eternal Logos in a human body. Show More

See here for a discussion of the core issue in the Controversy. That article identifies the core issue by analysing the various phases of the Controversy and by showing who opposed whom.

Did Athanasius accept three hypostases?

It is sometimes said that Athanasius accepted three hypostases in 362, but that requires qualification. A hypostasis is something that exists distinctly from other things. Athanasius wrote that ‘three hypostases’ would be acceptable if the phrase is used figuratively and not literally. To quote him, he stated that the phrase is acceptable if it does not mean that “each hypostasis was divided apart by itself” but only if the Son and Spirit are “inseparable from the ousia of … the Father.” Show More

The Arian Controversy is made to sound very complex, but it is really simple.

The Nicene believed that the Father and Son are a single Person with a single mind. The benefit of the Nicene view is that it retained Biblical monotheism. A disadvantage of the Nicene view is that the Son of God did not suffer or die. Contrary to the New Testament, a mere man suffered and died.

The ‘Arians’ believed that the Father and Son are two distinct Persons with distinct minds. The question for Protestants is, does the Bible present the Son as a distinct Being?

Variations within the main trajectories.

There were, of course, many variations within the two main categories.

The dyohopostatic (Eusebian) tradition divided into various views, such as the Homoians, Homoiousians, and Heterousians.

Monotheism also took different forms:

In Modalism (Monarchianism), the Son has no distinct existence.

In Sabellianism, the Son (the Logos) and the Spirit are distinct features of the Father, but they have only temporary existence.

In Nicene theology, the Son and Spirit are distinct aspects of the Father that exist eternally.

None of these views is exactly the same as the modern Trinity doctrine. Theology evolved during the 4th century and beyond.

Show More

Other Articles

• • • All Articles on this Website
    • The Book of Daniel
    • The Book of Revelation
    • The Mark of the Beast
    • Is Jesus the Most High God?
    • The Trinity Doctrine – Pandora’s Box
    • The Origin of the Trinity Doctrine
    • The Origin of Evil
    • Death, Eternal Life, and Eternal Torment