Arius Archives » Page 3 of 4 » From Daniel to Revelation

2024-11-082025-05-20

Arians claimed there was when the Son was not.

Overview

As indicated by the Nicene Creed, Arius claimed:

‘There was when the Son was not.’

Arius’ opponents added the word ‘time’ and said that Arius said there was time when the Son was not. But Arius always said that the Son existed before time and the creation existed. In his view, since the Son was begotten by the Father, the Father existed before the Son. But if there was literal time before the Son existed, it was only an instant. Arius believed that time began when God made the universe, that God exists beyond our universe, where no time exists, and that there was before the Son existed, but only in the timeless infinity beyond the time of our universe, not in a literal time sense. From the perspective of the Creation, the Son has always existed.

Very little of Arius’ writings survived. Almost everything we know of him comes from the writings of his critics, particularly Athanasius. Athanasius wanted all to believe that his enemies – the anti-Nicenes – followed Arius, which was not true. But, for that purpose, Athanasius ‘quoted’ extensively from Arius and presented him in the most negative light possible. See Article

When I began this article series, I thought that Arius was important. Consequently, I wrote several articles analyzing his theology. I have since learned that Arius was not important. He had no followers, and the people of his time did not regard him as an important writer (see here). The only reason that so many today regard him as important is that Athanasius claimed he was the leader of the so-called Arians. Therefore, I no longer regard these articles on Arius as important to understand the ‘Arian’ Controversy. However, this article highlights an important aspect of Arian theology.

Authors

This article is based mainly on the books of three world-class scholars who are regarded as specialists in the fourth-century Arian Controversy, namely R.P.C. Hanson, Rowan Williams, and Lewis Ayres. Show More

The Arian View

The Son existed before Time.

As is also taught by the Bible (e.g., Col 1:16; Heb 1:2), Arius maintained that God created all things through His Son (RH, 13). Therefore, the Son must have existed before all things, even before time itself. Show More

Eusebius of Caesarea, regarded as the most scholarly bishop of Arius’ time, and who supported Arius all his life, similarly taught that the Son was “begotten before all ages” (RH, 56).

He did not always exist.

Arius also argued that the Son did not always exist but that God existed before His Son. Arius argued that, if the Son is co-eternal with the Father, there would be “two unoriginated ultimate principles,” meaning, two Beings who exist without cause and who caused all else, which is impossible. Show More

Eusebius of Caesarea also referred to God as “prior to the Logos” (RH, 48).

He had a beginning.

Since He did not always exist, He had a beginning, in contrast to the Father who had no beginning of existence. Show More

There was no ‘time’ before the Son

Arius never said there was ‘time’ before the Son. That is what his enemies said he said.

Very little of Arius’ own writings have survived but, in what has survived, Arius never used the word “time” to say that there was “time” before the Son was begotten. However, according to Arius’ two main enemies – Athanasius and Alexander – Arius did add that word. Show More

So, according to Athanasius and Alexander, Arius apparently wrote that there was literal time before the Son existed. On the other hand, Arius himself wrote that the Son was “begotten timelessly before everything.” Many commentators have thought that Arius contradicted himself. However, the Trinitarian Bishop Rowan Williams, after writing a recent book about Arius, concluded that Arius “is a thinker and exegete of resourcefulness, sharpness and originality” (RW, 116). Show More

Explanation

This apparent contradiction may be explained as follows:

God exists ‘outside’ time.

The theologians of the fourth century believed that time began when God made the world (today, we would say “the cosmos”). Therefore, time is limited to our universe. Beyond this cosmos, where God exists, there is no time.

We cannot use the words ‘always’ and ‘before’ to describe that incomprehensible and timeless reality beyond our universe because those words assume the existence of time. Still, if we use these terms metaphysically, we can say that the Father ‘always’ existed and, therefore, He existed ‘before’ He created the cosmos. In other words, there was something like a timeless gap between God and creation (RW, 188-9).

Co-eternal implies two First Principles.

In the Nicene View, the Son is co-eternal with the Father, meaning that He has ‘always’ existed in that timeless reality beyond our universe; there was no timeless gap between Father and Son (RW, 189). The Arians opposed this because it would mean that both the Father and Son are “unoriginated ultimate principles” – two Beings who exist without cause – which is not possible. Show More

The Son has always existed.

Alexander and Athanasius, by adding the word “time,” implied that Arius taught that the Son did not always exist in the literal time of our universe. (RW, 189) However, in the ‘Arian’ view, the Son has always existed in literal time but, in the timeless reality beyond time, the Father ‘preceded’ the Son. Arius said that the gap between Father and Son “may be temporal or logical:”

If it is temporal (time), then it may be “an instant of time or an infinitesimal reality” (RW, 189).

If there is no literal time gap between the Father and Son, the gap between Them is only “logical,” meaning a gap in the timeless reality beyond our universe. Show More

Arius described the Son as mutable but unchangeable.

Summary

Following ancient Greek philosophy, theologians generally accept that God is immutable, meaning, unable to change. The question arises, Is God’s Son also immutable? Can He change? In particular, can He become evil?

Arius’ opponents Alexander and Athanasius believed that the Son is part of the Father. (See here) As such, the Son is as immutable as the Father.

The Nicene Creed similarly anathematizes those who say, “The Son of God is … subject to alteration or change.”

Arius described the Son as “Like the Father, ‘unchangeable’.” (RW, 96) However, his enemies Alexander and Athanasius claimed that Arius taught the exact opposite, namely, that the Son is, “like all others … subject to change.” (Athanasius in Contra Arianos(v), RW, 100) Arius’ thinking was as follows:

By nature, the Son is mutable. His enemies preferred to emphasize this point.

God did not override the Son’s freedom (mutability). God did not make it impossible for His Son to change or to sin.

The Son does not sin because He loves righteousness and hates iniquity. He is “unchangeable” because He will not sin; not because He cannot sin.

God had always given the Son all authority in heaven and earth because He always knew His Son would never sin.

Note how Arius’ enemies emphasize the one part of Arius’ thinking, that the Son is mutable by nature, and omits that Arius also said the Son will never change. This is one example of how Athanasius misrepresents Arius. (Read more)

The Son came to this world to be tested to see whether He would also sin under the ‘right’ circumstances. (See here) If He couldn’t sin, His victory over sin would be meaningless.

Purpose

Since Athanasius wrote that Arius taught the Son is mutable, why did Arius say the Son is unchangeable?

Theologians generally agree, based mainly on the principles of Greek philosophy (See – Classical Theism), that God is immutable, meaning “unchanging over time.” All other beings are then thought to be subject to change.

Ancient Greek philosophers thought that God cannot change. For example, Plato argues that God is perfect and cannot and does not change. (Wikipedia) Aristotle called God ‘The Unmoved Mover’.

Origen said: “The divine (is) distinguished from the rest by possessing immutable existence not subject to the change.” (RH, 67).

The question arises, Is God’s Son also immutable?

Arius’ opponents Alexander and Athanasius believed that the Son is part of the Father. (See here) Consequently, the Son is as immutable as the Father.

In the Nicene Creed, the Son is begotten from the substance of the Father and is of the same substance as the Father. This implies that He is as immutable as the Father. The Creed anathematizes those who say, “The Son of God is … subject to alteration or change.”

Arius argued that, since the Father has begotten the Son, the Father has caused His existence and the Father alone exists without a cause. Therefore, the Son could be thought of as created. As such, He must also be mutable. But Arius described the Son as:

“Like the Father, ‘unchangeable’” (RW, 96).

The purpose of this article is to explain why Arius described the Son both as a ‘creature’ and unchangeable.

Arius is important.

Arius is traditionally regarded as the mother of heretics but Trinitarian scholars now say he was a good theologian.

The term ‘Arian’ is derived from the name of the fourth-century presbyter Arius. Traditionally, “Arius … came … to be regarded as a kind of Antichrist among heretics” (RW, 1). However, scholars have recently said: “Once we stopped looking at him from Athanasius’ perspective, we shall have a fairer picture of his strength” (RW, 12-13).

The point is that most of what we know about Arius comes from Athanasius’ criticism of Arius’ writings and “Athanasius, a fierce opponent of Arius … certainly would not have stopped short of misrepresenting what he said” (RH, 10). Athanasius used “unscrupulous tactics in polemic and struggle” (RW, 239).

Since most theologians over the centuries had taken Athanasius at his word, Arius’ theology has traditionally been “represented as … some hopelessly defective form of belief” (RW, 2). But Rowan Williams recently, after careful study of the ancient documents, described Arius as:

“A thinker and exegete of resourcefulness, sharpness and originality.” (RW, 116)

“An important dimension in Christian life that was dis-edifyingly and unfortunately crushed.” (RW, 91)

For that reason, it would be appropriate for us to take note of what Arius wrote. Read more

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 in particular quotes from:

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

‘Arian’ is a misnomer.

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’.

Alexander and Athanasius

Athanasius claimed that Arius described the Son as “changeable by nature” “like all others.”

Athanasius, in his paraphrasing of Arius’ writings, claimed that Arius wrote:

The Son is “like all others … subject to change … because he is changeable by nature” (Contra Arianos(v), RW, 100; cf. RH, 13).

“God foresaw that the Son was going to be good, and so exempted him from evil in advance, i.e., deprived him of the possibility of earning merit” (RH, 21; cf. RH, 13).

This quote is from Contra Arianos in which Athanasius paraphrases Arius’ theology. Williams confirms this “has no parallel in S, nor any in Arius’ letters” (RW, 104). (“S” stands for de synodis 15, the other work by Athanasius in which he seems to quote Arius’ actual words.)

Alexander also claimed that Arius described the Son as “of a mutable nature.”

Alexander was Arius’ bishop. The Arian Controversy began as a dispute between them. Two of Alexander’s letters “emphasize very strongly that Arius taught a mutable Logos, whose divine dignity is a reward for his unswerving spiritual fidelity” (RW, 104). Alexander described Arius as saying that the Son “is of a mutable nature” (RH, 16-17) and “mutable and alterable in his nature as are all rational beings” (RH, 16; cf. RW, 104-5).

Arius

In his own writings, Arius said that the Son is and always was unchangeable.

In the three letters of Arius that have survived, he described the Son as:

- - “Like the Father, ‘unchangeable’” (RW, 96).
  - “Stably and inalienably” (L, RW, 97).
  - “Unchangeable and unalterable” (RH, 7; cf. RH, 6, 8).
  - “By the will of God, the Son is stably and unalterably what he is” (RW, 98).

While Alexander claimed that Arius’ Son is mutable because He was “promoted because of virtue” (RW, 113), namely, that His “divine dignity is a reward for his unswerving spiritual fidelity” (RW, 104), Arius said that the Son always had His “divine dignity:”

“Arius’ scheme depends upon the fact that God bestows power and glory upon the Son from the beginning” (RW, 113).

“The Son (was) creative Word and Wisdom and the image of the Father’s glory from before the world was made” (RW, 114).

There was no “sort of change in his status … (no) time when he is not Wisdom and Word” (RW, 114).

Arius’ Rationale

Rowan Williams explains how Arius could describe the Son as both a creature and as immutable on pages 113-116 of his book:

By nature, the Son is mutable. The Son has divine attributes, not by nature, but because He receives them from the Father.

For Arius, the Son “does not by nature possess any of the divine attributes … his godlike glory and stability [immutability] … and so must be given them” (RW, 113-114).

For example, the Son has life in Himself and all the fullness to dwell in Him, but He received those things (John 5:26; Col 1:19).

God did not override the Son’s freedom. God did not make it impossible for His Son to change or to sin:

“As a rational creature he is mutable according to his choice and what is to be avoided here is the suggestion that God overrules the Son’s freedom by his premundane [before the creation of the world] gifts and graces” (RW, 114).

The Son does not and will not sin because He hates iniquity, not because He cannot sin. In that sense, He is immutable:

In Arius’ view, “the Son, in his pre-incarnate state and in his life on earth voluntarily ‘loved righteousness and hated iniquity’” (RW, 114).

God always knew that His Son would never sin. Even though the Son can sin, God has given Him all authority in heaven and on earth and “all the gifts and glories God can give” (L, RW, 98) right from the beginning. If the Son would sin, that would cause great unhappiness. However:

“God, in endowing the Son with this dignity of heavenly intimacy from the very beginning of his existence, is … acting not arbitrarily but rationally, knowing that his firstborn among creatures is and will always be worthy of the highest degree of grace, a perfect channel for creative and redemptive action, and so a perfect ‘image’ of the divine” (RW, 114-5).

Conclusions

Arius did not describe the Son as immutable because He cannot sin; He is immutable because He will not sin.

The Son came to this world to be tested to see whether He would also sin under the ‘right’ circumstances. (See here) If it was impossible for Him to sin, His victory over sin would be meaningless.

While Arius wrote that the Son is immutable, Athanasius, without an explanation, stated that Arius taught the exact opposite. This is one example of how Athanasius misrepresented Arius. “Athanasius … certainly would not have stopped short of misrepresenting what he (Arius) said” (RH, 10). We must not blindly accept what Athanasius wrote.

Category: Arius