Category: Arius

Summary

In the traditional account of the Controversy, Arius’ theology was an innovation opposing established orthodoxy. But this article shows that almost everything he said was said by somebody else before him.

Contrary to what most people seem to believe, Arius was not the founder of Arianism. The people of his day, whether they agreed with him or not, did not regard him as a particularly significant writer.

A very large number of names have been suggested as predecessors of Arius. The following discusses the possible predecessors chronologically:

Plato’s philosophy of the world’s origins, 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. He influenced many or all theologians in Arius’ day.

Philo of Alexandria (20 BC – 50 AD) was a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who interpreted Jewish scripture in terms of Greek philosophy. He was not the source of Arius’ idiosyncrasies. Philo contributed to the Alexandrian theological tradition, and Arius’s theology is firmly within that tradition. 

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

Clement of Alexandria (150-215) shared a common ethos with Arius but differed in some key respects from Arius. For example, Clement taught the eternity of the Son.

Origen (185-253) was the most influential theologian of the first three centuries. There were many similarities but also substantial differences between Origen and Arius. Both believed that the Son is a distinct Person, subordinate to the Father, but Origen emphasized the unity of the Father and Son much more than Arius.

Dionysius of Alexandria (bishop from 247 to 264), like Arius, described the Son as a creature, alien in ousia from the Father, and rejected homoousios. It is impossible to avoid seeing some influence from his work in the theology of Arius. If Arius formulated his theology from various authors before his time, Dionysius of Alexandria certainly contributed to it.

Paul of Samosata was bishop of Antioch from 260 to 268. He believed that Jesus did not exist before His birth. Arius strongly opposed this idea and said that the Son existed before time began. 

Theognostus of Alexandria (wrote 247-280) believed that the Son is part of the Father, namely, the Father’s Logos, that the Son is an issue of the Father, that the ousia of the Son was of the Father’s ousia, and explicitly rejected the theory that the Son was created out of nothing. 

Methodius of Olympia (died c. 311), like Arius, taught that the Father alone exists without cause, with the Son wholly dependent on the Father, and described the Son as the first of all created things, through whom He created all other things.

Lucian of Antioch died as a martyr in 312, the year before Christianity was legalized. Arius claimed to have followed Lucian, but we do not know what Lucian taught.  

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.

Conclusions

Arius did not cause the Controversy. The 4th-century controversy continued the Controversy of the preceding century.  

It seems as if Arius was particularly influenced by Dionysius of Alexandria and Methodius of Olympia. 

Arius did not say anything new but selected and reorganized traditional ideas.

---

Introduction

The 4th-century Arian Controversy began with a dispute between Arius, a presbyter, and his bishop, Alexander of Alexandria, Egypt. He confronted his bishop in 318 for ‘erroneous’ teachings concerning the nature of the Son of God. Their disagreement escalated to such an extent that Emperor Constantine called a council at Nicaea in the year 325, where Arius’ theology was presented, discussed, and soon rejected.

Purpose

This article identifies Arius’ antecedents: From whom did Arius receive his theology? In the traditional account of the Controversy, Arius’ theology was an innovation opposing established orthodoxy. Show More

In contrast, this article shows that almost everything Arius said was said by somebody else before him.

Arius and Arianism

In the traditional account, Arius was the founder of Arianism. In reality, he was of no great significance. Show More

He is regarded as important today because Athanasius falsely claimed that the anti-Nicenes followed Arius, calling them ‘Arians.’ For that purpose, Athanasius quoted at length from Arius, pretending that he was showing the faults of his opponents. Show More

But Athanasius’ opponents did not follow Arius. In fact, they opposed some of Arius’ more extreme statements. Show More

Authors Quoted

Following Gwatkin’s book on the fourth-century Arian Controversy at the beginning of the 20th century, only a handful of full-scale books on the subject have been published. This article series is largely based 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)

---

Arius’ Predecessors

“A very large number of names have been suggested as predecessors of Arius.” (Hanson, p. 60) “His enemies first associated him with Paul of Samosata and with Judaizing tendences in Christology; later on, after the reputation of Origen had been virtually ruined in the Church, Arius was regarded by some as an Origen redivivus. Some more modern scholars have been much preoccupied with the question of whether Antioch or Alexandria should be seen as his spiritual and intellectual home” (Williams, p. 116).

The next section discusses the possible predecessors chronologically:

Plato

All theologians in Arius’ time were influenced by Plato.

Plato’s philosophy of time and the origin of the universe still dominated in the fourth-century intellectual world and shaped what most influential writers of that time said about creation:

“Plato’s Timaeus served as the central text upon which discussions of the world’s origins focused, not only in late antiquity, but right up to the revival of Christian Aristotelianism in the thirteenth century. … There can be no doubt that for many of the most influential writers of the age, from Origen to Eusebius Pamphilus, the contemporary discussion of time and the universe shaped their conceptions of what could intelligibly be said of creation” (Williams, p. 181).

“Plato distinguishes between:

What exists without cause and, therefore, always exists and never comes into being, and

The universe as we perceive it, which had a beginning, is not eternal, and never exists stably” (Williams, p. 181).

Furthermore, Plato argues that, since the cosmos is beautiful, it must be modeled upon what is higher and better. The Creator made something like himself, reflecting order and beauty. To establish this order, God created time. The heavenly bodies are made in order to measure and regulate time. In other words, so to speak, time did not always exist. (Williams, p. 181-2)

Philo of Alexandria

All Alexandrian theologians were also influenced by Philo. He was not the source of Arius’ idiosyncrasies.

Philo (20 BC – 50 AD) was a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who interpreted Jewish scripture in terms of Greek philosophy, similar to how the Christian theologians of the second and third centuries interpreted the New Testament.

Wolfson claimed that Arius followed Philo. He wrote:

“Arius was responsible for ‘a reversion to the original view of Philo’ on the Logos, after the aberrations of a modalism which deprived the Logos of real subsistence” (Williams, p. 117).

But Hanson rejects this claim:

“Wolfson … suggested that Philo may have been a former of Arius’ thought because he too taught two Logoi, and the creation of one of them ex nihilo, and the incomparability of God. But then, Wolfson was obsessed to an excessive degree with the influence of Philo on the fathers; Philo’s Logos-doctrine is confused and obscure; he does not make the same division between the Logos and God as did the Arians. We cannot claim Philo as an ancestor of Arius’ thought” (Hanson, p. 60).

After discussing the evidence, Rowan Williams comes to a similar conclusion. He says:

The similarities between Philo and Arius “should not … mislead us into hastily concluding that Arius was an assiduous student of Philo. What all this shows is, rather, that Philo mapped out the ground for the Alexandrian theological tradition to build on, and that Arius’ theological problematic is firmly within that tradition” (Williams, p. 122-123).

Gnosticism

Arius also did not receive his theology from the Gnostics.

“There are some resemblances to Gnostic doctrines in Arius’ thought. … But these resemblances are either too general or refer to terms used for different things in the two authors. Furthermore, Arius several times rejects the favourite Gnostic concept of the ‘issue’ … of beings, from God” (Hanson, p. 60). 

Clement of Alexandria

Clement’s theology is significantly different from that of Arius.

Clément (150-215) was the bishop of Alexandria (the same city where Arius and his bishop lived) in the early third century.

His theology included one of the peculiar aspects of Arius’ theology, namely, “two Logoi.” (See the explanation below.) However, Clement’s “two Logoi are quite different from those of Arius” (Hanson, p. 60).

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

After showing that Clement’s theology is significantly different from that of Arius, Williams concludes:

“However, this is not to deny that Clement also passes on a positive legacy to Arius and his generation. … There are the numerous parallels in vocabulary between Arius’ Thalia and the language of Clement” (Williams, p. 126).  “It is less a question of a direct influence on Arius than of a common ethos … Arius begins from the apophatic tradition shared by Philo, Clement and heterodox Gnosticism … but his importance lies in his refusal to … (admit) into the divine substance … a second principle” (Williams, p. 131).

Origen

There were many similarities but also substantial differences between Origen and Arius.

Origen (185-253) was the most influential theologian of the first three centuries. “From very early on, there were those who saw Origen as the ultimate source of Arius’ heresy” (Williams, p. 131). The similarities and differences between Origen and Arius are discussed in a separate article. Both believed that:

• • • Only the Father exists without cause.
    • The Son does not know the Father fully.
    • The Son is a distinct Person with a distinct mind. 
    • The Son was produced by the Father’s will.

Both denied the Nicene teaching that the Son is from the Father’s substance and that the Son is homoousios (of the same substance) as the Father.

Although both described the Son as God, both also described the Son as a creature.  

There were also significant differences between them:

Both believed the Son to be subordinate to the Father. However, Origen had a much higher view of the Son than Arius. 

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. 

Hanson concluded:

“Arius probably inherited some terms and even some ideas from Origen, … he certainly did not adopt any large or significant part of Origen’s theology” (Hanson, p. 70). Arius “was not without influence from Origen, but cannot seriously be called an Origenist” (Hanson, p. 98).

Dionysius of Alexandria

Arius probably received his theology from Dionysius of Alexandria, who was the bishop when he was born.

“Dionysius was bishop of Alexandria from 247 to 264” (Hanson, p. 72). “The Arians … were adducing (offering) Dionysius of Alexandria as a great authority in the past who supported their doctrine” (Hanson, p. 73). For example, Dionysius wrote:

“The Son of God is a creature and generate, and he is not by nature belonging to but is alien in ousia from the Father, just as the planter of the vine is to the vine, and the shipbuilder to the ship; Further, because he is a creature he did not exist before he came into existence” (Hanson, p. 73).“Dionysius … rejected homoousios because it did not occur in the Bible” (Hanson, p. 75).

He opposed Sabellianism:

“Athanasius defends Dionysius, though he admits that he wrote these words, on the grounds that the circumstances, since he was combating Sabellianism, justified such expressions” (Hanson, p. 73). “Basil … says that Dionysius unwittingly sowed the first seeds of the Anhomoian error, by leaning too far in the opposite direction in his anxiety to correct wrong Sabellian views” (Hanson, p. 74).

Hanson concludes as follows:

“However Dionysius may have refined his later theology, it is impossible to avoid seeing some influence from his work in the theology of Arius. The later Arians and Basil were right. The damning passage quoted from his letter … is altogether too like the doctrine of Arius for us to regard it as insignificant” (Hanson, p. 75-76). “If, as seems likely, Arius put together an eclectic pattern of theology … Dionysius of Alexandria certainly contributed to that pattern” (Hanson, p. 76).

In conclusion, of the writers discussed thus far, Dionysius is the first one who could have been the source of Arius’ theology.

Paul of Samosata

Paul believed that Jesus did not exist before His birth, but Arius said that the Son existed before time began.

Paul was the bishop of Antioch (260-268). “Many scholars have conjectured that the views of Paul of Samosata, or at least of his school, must have influenced Arius” (Hanson, p. 70). However, Paul described Jesus as a mere man, though maximally inspired:

“Apparently for Paul the Son was Jesus Christ the historical figure without any preexistent history at all. And the stock accusation made against Paul by all ancient writers who mention him from the ivth century onward was that he declared Jesus to be no more than a mere man” (Hanson, p. 71). “Apart from his superiority to us in all things because of his miraculous generation, he is ‘equal to us’. Wisdom dwells in Jesus ‘as in a temple’: the prophets and Moses and “many lords’ (kings?) were indwelt by Wisdom, but Jesus has the fullest degree of participation in it” (Williams, pp. 159-160).

Arius strongly opposed this idea:

“This is an idea which all Arian writers after Arius (and, in my view, probably Arius himself) regularly rejected.” “Arius believed firmly in a pre-existent Son” (Hanson, p. 71). “Arius … ranges himself with those who most strongly opposed Paul” (Williams, p. 161).

Theognostus of Alexandria

Arius believed the Son to be a distinct Person. Theognostus believed that the Son is part of the Father.

“We cannot glean any satisfactory evidence that Theognostus was a predecessor of Arius” (Hanson, p. 79). Theognostus wrote between 247 and 280. In other words, he lived later than Dionysius. His view “echoes Arian concerns in insisting that the Father is not divided,” but he also had some quite un-Arian views, such as that:

The Son is an issue of the Father (Hanson, p. 78). “The ousia of the Son … was (not) introduced from non-existence, but it was of the Father’s ousia” (Hanson, p. 77). “Theognostus explicitly disowned the doctrine, which Arius certainly held, that the Son was created out of non-existence” (Hanson, p. 78). While Arius taught “that there are two Logoi (one immanent in the Father and one a name given somewhat inaccurately to the Son), … Theognostus insisted that there was only one Logos” (Hanson, p. 79).

To say there is only one Logos means that the Son is the Father’s only Logos, which further means that the Son is part of or an aspect of the Father. This is similar to the traditional Logos theology, in which the Logos always existed as part of God, but later became a distinct Person.

Methodius of Olympia

Like Arius, Methodius taught that the Father alone exists without cause, with the Son subordinate to Him.

Methodius of Olympia (died c. 311) was a bishop, ecclesiastical author, and martyr.

He was “the most vocal critic of Origen in the pre-Arian period” (Williams, p. 168). He “seems to assume that Origen’s doctrine of the eternity of creation implies the eternity of matter as a rival self-subsistent reality alongside God” (Williams, p. 168).

He “produces some views which interestingly resemble those of Arius. For example:

“God alone … is ingenerate [meaning, exists without a cause]; nothing else in the universe is so, certainly not, he implies, the Son.” (Hanson, p. 83) “God the Father is the ‘unoriginated origin’, God the Son the beginning after the beginning, the origin of everything else created” (Hanson, p. 83).  The Son is “the first of all created things” (Hanson, p. 83). “God the Father creates by his will alone. God the Son is the ‘hand’ of the Father, orders and adorns what the Father has created out of nothing” (Hanson, p. 83). “The Son … is wholly dependent on the Father” (Hanson, p. 83).

Lucian of Antioch

Arius followed Lucian, but we do not know what Lucian taught.

The authorities above are discussed in chronological sequence. Lucian was the last of them. He died as a martyr in 312, only 6 years before Arius and his bishop clashed.

“Jerome ... describes Lucian thus: ‘A very learned man, a presbyter of the church of Antioch” (Hanson, p. 81).

Arius followed Lucian:

“Arius describes Eusebius of Nicomedia, to whom he is writing, as ‘a genuine fellow-disciple of Lucian’” (Hanson, p. 80), implying that Arius himself was a “disciple of Lucian.” Philostorgius also described Eusebius of Nicomedia, one of Arius’ close friends, as “the _ disciple of Lucian the martyr” (Hanson, p. 81). Epiphanius identifies “the Arians” with “the Lucianists” (Hanson, p. 80).

Lucian, like the Arians, taught that the Logos, at the Incarnation, assumed a body without a soul. Therefore, the Logos directly experienced the pain and death of the cross.

“According to Sozomen, the second creed of the Dedication Council on Antioch in 341 was said to be a confession of faith stemming from Lucian” (Williams, pp. 163-4; cf. Hanson, pp. 80-81). “There is one fact, and one fact only, which we can with any confidence accept as authentic about Lucian’s doctrine. … Lucian taught that the Saviour at the Incarnation assumed a body without a soul” (Hanson, p. 83). “’Lucian and all the Lucianists’, he (Epiphanius) says, ‘deny that the Son of God took a soul [i.e., a human soul], ‘in order that, of course, they may attach human experiences directly to the Logos” (Hanson, p. 80).

But Arius deviated from Lucian in at least one respect:

“Philostorgius knew of a tradition that Arius and the Lucianists disagreed about the Son’s knowledge of the Father, (Williams, p. 165). While Arius maintained “that God was incomprehensible … also to the only-begotten Son of God” (Williams, p. 165), “the Lucianists … were remembered to have held that God was fully known by the Son” (Williams, p. 165).

Arius might have been a follower of Lucian, but we cannot confirm that because we do not know what Lucian taught. 

“We can be sure that Arius drew on the teachings of Lucian, but … we do not know what Lucian taught” (Hanson, p. 82, cf. 83). “Our witnesses to Lucian’s theology are fragmentary and uncertain in the extreme” (Williams, p. 163). “It is wholly unlikely that Arius was a vox clamantis in deserto [a lone voice calling in the desert]. He represents a school, probably the school of Lucian of Antioch, and the school was to some extent independent of him. Arianism did not look back on him later with respect and awe as its founder” (Hanson, p. 97).

Antioch or Alexandria?

Arius is unmistakably Alexandrian. We have no justification even for regarding him as an exegetical rebel.

“Some … modern scholars have been much preoccupied with the question of whether Antioch or Alexandria should be seen as his spiritual and intellectual home” (Williams, p. 116).

However, “the stark distinctions once drawn between Antiochene and Alexandrian exegesis or theology have come increasingly to look exaggerated (Williams, p. 158).

Nevertheless, “Arius is an unmistakable Alexandrian in his apophaticism [knowledge of God]. … We have no real justification even for regarding him as a rebel in the matter of exegesis” (Williams, p. 156). “Arius inherits a dual concern that is very typically Alexandrian” (Williams, p. 176).

---

Conclusions

Cause of the Controversy

Arius did not cause the Controversy. It continued the 3rd-century Controversy

The analysis above shows that the authors preceding Arius had conflicting views about the nature of the Son. Sabellian and his supporters are not even mentioned above because Arius was on the opposite end of the spectrum. Consequently, Arius did not cause the Controversy. It continued to Controversy that raged in the preceding century:

“We will find pre-existing deep theological tensions at the beginning of the fourth century. Controversy over Arius was the spark that ignited a fire waiting to happen, and the origins of the dispute do not lie simply in the beliefs of one thinker, but in existing tensions that formed his background” (Ayres, p. 20). “The views of Arius were such as in a peculiar manner to bring into unavoidable prominence a doctrinal crisis which had gradually been gathering … He was the spark that started the explosion, but in himself he was of no great significance” (Hanson, p. xvii-xviii).

Authors who influenced Arius

Arius was particularly influenced by Dionysius of Alexandria and Methodius of Olympia.

Arius opposed Gnosticism and Paul of Samosata.

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

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, bishop of Alexandria, and Methodius, bishop of Olympia:

It is likely that Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria contributed to Arius’ theology (Hanson, p. 76). Bishop Methodius of Olympia regarded the Father alone as ingenerate; the ‘unoriginated origin’ and the Son as the first of all created things and 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’ Theology

Arius did not say anything new but selected and reorganized traditional ideas.

Arius’ book (The Thalia) “is conservative in the sense that there is almost nothing in it that could not be found in earlier writers; it is radical and individual in the way it combines and reorganizes traditional ideas and presses them to their logical conclusions” (Williams, p. 177). 

“Arius … can no longer be regarded as the strange monster of heresy which Gwatkin, and even Harnack, depicted him to be” (Hanson, pp. 84-85). 

---

Specific Doctrines

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

Like Arius:

Origen, Dionysius, and Methodius described the Son as a ‘creature,’ and said that the Father alone exists without a cause. The term ‘creature’ describes any being that does not exist without cause. Show More

All theologians of the first three centuries believed that the Son is subordinate to the Father. Show More

Origen taught that the Son does not fully understand the Father.

Several authors taught that “the Son was produced by the Father’s will. Show More

Dionysius of Alexandria “rejected homoousios” (Hanson, p. 75) and Origen would not have accepted it (see here). Show More

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

Different from Arius:

However, nobody said, like Arius, that the Son was formed from nothing. However, that was simply the logical conclusion of saying that the Son did not exist before He was begotten. Show More

---

One or Two Logoi

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

To say there is only one Logos means that the Son is the Father’s only Logos, which further means that the Son is part of or an aspect of the Father. This is similar to the traditional Logos theology, in which the Logos always existed as part of God, but later became a distinct Person. Nicene theology also proclaimed one Logos:

“There is no need to postulate two Logoi” (Hanson, p. 431, quoting Athanasius). “In Alexander, and in Athanasius … Christ is the one power and wisdom of the Father” (Ayres, p. 54). “Alexander taught that … as the Father’s Word and Wisdom the Son must always have been with the Father” (Ayres, p. 16).

To say there are two Logoi means that the Son is not the Father’s only Logos, but that an additional Logos was created when the Son was begotten. This is what the Arians said:

“Arius also talks of two wisdoms and powers, speaking of a Logos that was not distinct from the Father’s hypostasis, after whom the Son is designated Word” (Ayres, p. 55). “There are … two Wisdoms, one God’s own who has existed eternally with God, the other the Son who was brought into existence. … There is another Word in God besides the Son” (Hanson, p. 13, cf. 16, Athanasius’ paraphrasing of Arius’ teaching).

---

The Core Issue

None of the issues above was the core issue in the Controversy. The core issue was whether the Son is a distinct Being (a distinct Existence) or part of the Father. That difference explains all other differences between theologians:

If they are a single Existence (one hypostasis), as the Nicenes claimed, then the Son is eternal and of the same substance as the Father, and only one Logos exists.

But if they are two distinct Existences (two hypostases), then:

• • • • The Father alone exists without a cause.
      • The Son did not always exist but is a ‘creature, produced by the Father’s will.
      • The Son does not fully understand the Father.

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.

---

Other Articles

• • • Origin of the Trinity Doctrine – Including the pre-Nicene Church Fathers and the fourth-century Arian Controversy
    • All articles on this website
    • Is Jesus the Most High God?
    • Trinity Doctrine – General
    • The Book of Daniel
    • The Book of Revelation
    • The Origin of Evil
    • Death, Eternal Life, and Eternal Torment