Purpose
The 4th-century Arian Controversy about the nature of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was the most dramatic internal struggle the Christian Church had so far experienced, and also the most important period in the history of the church because it produced the Trinity doctrine, its most fundamental doctrine. Show More
| “The crisis of the fourth century was the most dramatic internal struggle the Christian Church had so far experienced” (Williams, p. 1).
It “produced … the most important creed in the history of Christianity” (Ayres, p. 1).
“The trinitarian controversies of the fourth century constitute what is arguably the most crucially formative period in the development of the Christian doctrine of God” (Anatolios, p. 21).
“The doctrine of the Trinity … is the centerpiece of orthodox theology” (GotQuestions). |
However, R.P.C. Hanson, perhaps the most influential modern scholar on the Controversy, described the traditional account of the ‘Arian’ Controversy as “a complete travesty” and said that it can today be completely ignored.
| “The study of the Arian problem over the last hundred years has been like a long-distance gun trying to hit a target. The first sighting shots are very wide of the mark, but gradually the shells fall nearer and nearer. The diatribes of Gwatkin and of Harnack (published around the year 1900) can today be completely ignored” (Hanson, p. 95-96). |
The purpose of this article is to explain the revised account of the Controversy from the books and articles published by experts in the field over the last 50 years.
Sources
In the 4th century, Christianity was divided mainly between Nicene and Arian theology. However, over the many centuries, the Church had copied almost only the writings of the eventual victorious party – the Nicene theologians. Consequently, the traditional account was based on the writings of these Nicene theologians, mainly Athanasius. However, the writings of these Nicene writers are deeply biased:
“The accounts of what happened which have come down to us were mostly written by those who belonged to the school of thought which eventually prevailed and have been deeply coloured by that fact” (Hanson, p. xviii-xix). Show More
| “Athanasius, a fierce opponent of Arius … certainly would not have stopped short of misrepresenting what he said” (Hanson, p. 10).
Athanasius used “unscrupulous tactics in polemic and struggle” (Williams, p. 239).
“Athanasius is paraphrasing rather than quoting directly, and in places may be suspected of pressing the words maliciously rather further than Arius intended” (Hanson, p. 15). |
However, during the 20th century, a store of ancient documents became available. Show More
| “The fundamental problem in understanding the course of these controversies stems from the nature of our sources. … The documentary evidence from this period is, in many cases, fragmentary” (Ayres, p. 2).
“In the first few decades of the present (20th) century … seminally important work was … done in the sorting-out of the chronology of the controversy, and in the isolation of a hard core of reliable primary documents” (Williams, p. 11-12).
“Schwartz has established much of the chronology of the period more securely. Bell has published the papyrus which throws such a lurid light on the behaviour of Athanasius in his see. … so important for our estimation of Athanasius’ character. … The existence of the Synod of Antioch of 325 has now been brought to light. … A store of Arian literature hitherto unknown or little known has been made available by Turner, Gryson and others” (Hanson, p. xx). |
This new information encouraged research, through which scholars discovered that the traditional account is history written by the winner and deeply flawed. Show More
| “The four decades since 1960 have produced much revisionary scholarship on the Trinitarian and Christological disputes of the fourth century” (Ayres, p. 2).
“Since the time of Gwatkin and Harnack (at the beginning of the 20th century) … much important work upon the period has been done” (Hanson, p. xx). |
The writings of scholars of the 19th century still reflected the traditional account, but this article is based on the scholarly books and articles of the last 50 years, which, resulting from the research during the 20th century, reveal the truth of the origin of the Trinity doctrine. Show More
| “Gwatkin nearly a century ago in the last full-scale book written in English on the Arian Controversy” (Hanson Lecture). Following Gwatkin’s book at the beginning of the 20th century, only a few full-scale books on the Arian Controversy have been published.
Bishop RPC Hanson
The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God –
The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987
(This is perhaps the most influential book in modern history on the Arian Controversy. Ayres says that his book is “not intended to replace the standard large surveys by Richard Hanson and Manlio Simonetti [La Crisi Ariana nel IV secolo (1975)]” (Ayres, pp. 5, 12).
Rowan Williams (Archbishop) – Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987
Lewis Ayres – Nicaea and its legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004
Lewis is a Catholic theologian and Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology at Durham University in the United Kingdom.
Khaled Anatolios – Retrieving Nicaea, 2011
Professor of Theology, University of Notre Dame
|
What was the Orthodox View?
In the traditional account, the Trinity doctrine was orthodox when the Controversy began. Show More
| In the traditional account, these disputes are “understood as … the Church’s struggle against a heretic and his followers grounded in a clear Nicene doctrine established in the controversy’s earliest stages” (Ayres, pp. 11-12). |
But this is not true. But Hanson says there was no orthodoxy:
| The “Arian Controversy” “was not a history of the defence of an agreed and settled orthodoxy against the assaults of open heresy. … There was not as yet any orthodox doctrine” (Hanson, p. xviii-xix). |
It is commonly believed that the Trinity doctrine was orthodox because the pro-Nicene writers, particularly Athanasius, claimed that their view was orthodox. However:
| “The accounts of what happened which have come down to us were mostly written by those who belonged to the school of thought which eventually prevailed and have been deeply coloured by that fact. The supporters of this view wanted their readers to think that orthodoxy on the subject under discussion had always existed and that the period was simply a story of the defence of that orthodoxy against heresy and error” (Hanson, p. xviii-xix). |
In reality, the orthodox view, when the 4th-century Controversy began, was what we today call Arianism; the view was that the Son is distinct from the Being of the Father and subordinate to the Father:
“’Subordinationism’, it is true was pre-Nicene orthodoxy” (Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers p. 239.).
“With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement (end) of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy” (Hanson, p. xix). Show More
| “Almost all the Eastern theologians believed that the Son was in some sense subordinated to the Father before the Incarnation” (Hanson, p. xix).
In this quote, Hanson refers specifically to “the Eastern theologians.” Since, at Nicaea, the delegates were “drawn almost entirely from the eastern half of the empire” (Ayres, p. 19), almost all delegates at Nicaea believed that the Son was subordinated to the Father.
“In all the previous discussions (before Basil of Caesarea) of the term (homoousios) … a certain ontological subordination is at least implied” (Ayres, p. 206).
Ayres wrote that even Athanasius believed in a form of subordination. For example, he described the Son as the Father’s Wisdom, never the other way round, and he said that the Son is homoousios with the Father, never the other way round.
(See here for a detailed discussion of the orthodox view.) |
What caused the Controversy?
The title ‘Arian Controversy’ implies that Arius caused the Controversy by creating a novel heresy and by gaining many followers. Therefore, the Controversy was a struggle of an established orthodoxy against a newly developed heresy.
| For example, Britannica, defending the traditional account, defines Arianism as: “A heresy first proposed by Arius of Alexandria that affirmed that Christ is not divine but a created being.” |
But Arius did not cause the Controversy. Rowan Williams, who wrote a recent book specifically on Arius, described Arius as a committed Alexandrian conservative. In other words, Arius attempted to defend the theology that was traditional in Alexandria. He did not develop a new heresy:
“Arius was a committed theological conservative; more specifically, a conservative Alexandrian” (Williams, p. 175). Show More
| “In Alexandria he (Arius) represented … a conservative theology” (Williams, p. 233).
“A great deal of recent work … helped to demolish the notion of Arius and his supporters as deliberate radicals, attacking a time-honoured tradition” (Williams, p. 21).
“The theology of the Thalia (Arius’ book) … 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). |
If Arius did not cause the Controversy, who or what did? The answer is that the 4th-century Controversy was a continuation of the third-century Controversy. There were deep theological tensions about the nature of Christ in the Gentile church of the second and third centuries. Arius’ dispute with his bishop, Alexander, was the spark that re-ignited the third-century controversy:
“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). Show More
| “The views of Arius were such as … 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).
“The conflict in the fourth century was one between two theological traditions, both of which were well established by the beginning of the century” (Lienhard). |
Was Alexander Orthodox?
If Arius was conservative, his opponent, Alexander, must have been a liberal. However, it would be more accurate to say that Arius and Alexander represented two competing Alexandrian trajectories.
In the Greek language of the Controversy, the theologians used the term hypostasis for a distinct individual Existence.
| “Greek-speaking theologians of the early fourth century had three words for something that really exists, and exists in itself, as distinguished from an accident or a quality. The words are ousia, hypostasis, and hyparxis. … As the fourth century progressed, hypostasis became, more and more, the one term that was the center of controversy” (Lienhard). |
Therefore, when the theologians wrote: “There is only one hypostasis,” they meant that the Father and Son are a single Existence, a single Person.
In the third century, the main controversy was whether the Son is a distinct Person:
In Origen’s view, the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct Persons with three distinct minds (three hypostases). Show More
|
“Father and Son are distinct beings” (Ayres, p. 22).
“He taught that there were three hypostases [three distinct Existences] within the Godhead” (Hanson, p. 184).
|
Origen was opposed by Sabellius’ view that Father, Son, and Spirit are one single Person with one single mind (one hypostasis), which means that the Son does not have a distinct existence:
|
Sabellianism is the “refusal to acknowledge the distinct existence of the Persons” (Hanson, p. 844).
Sabellius believed “there is but one undivided person in God” (Von Mosheim).
|
In the third century, the ‘three hypostases’ view was victorious, and Sabellianism was rejected. The dispute between Arius and Alexander was the spark that re-ignited that fire. Similar to Origen, Arius defended the ‘three hypostases’ view:
| “We have to resist the anachronistic characterization of him (Arius) as an antitrinitarian theologian.” “He writes simply, ‘So there are three hypostaseis,’” meaning “the set of beings that form the object (or objects) of Christian confession. … the three hypostaseis seemingly form a certain unity” (Anatolios, pp. 47-48). |
Similar to the 4th-century Sabellians Eustathius and Marcellus, Alexander maintained the one hypostasis view:
| “The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and Athanasius. Eustathius insists there is only one hypostasis“ (Ayres, p. 69). |
In other words, for Alexander, similar to the Sabellians, the Logos (the Son) was not a distinct Person but an aspect of the Father:
| “[Rowan] Williams’ work is most illuminating. Alexander of Alexandria, Williams thinks, had maintained that the Son … is a property or quality of the Father, impersonal and belonging to his substance” (Hanson, p. 92). |
Specifically, in Alexander’s view, the Son is the Father’s Word or Wisdom:
| “In Alexander, and in Athanasius … Christ is the one power and wisdom of the Father” (Ayres, p. 54). |
However, to say that the Father and Son are a single Existence, a single hypostasis, is similar to Sabellianism, which was rejected in the third century as a heresy. For example, Alexander described the Son as idios to the Father, meaning the Son is a property or quality of the Father:
| “The statement then that the Son is idios to (a property or quality of) the Father is a Sabellian statement” (Hanson, p. 92, quoting Williams). |
Therefore, Alexander taught a version of Sabellianism. For that reason, Alexander was able to ally with the Sabellians at Nicaea:
| “Eustathius and Marcellus (the Eusebians) … certainly met at Nicaea and no doubt were there able to join forces with Alexander of Alexandria and Ossius” (Hanson, p. 234).
“Marcellus, Eustathius, and Alexander had worked together at Nicaea” (Ayres, p. 106). |
See here for a discussion of the theology professed by Athanasius and Alexander.
Was Athanasius a Trinitarian?
Athanasius
Athanasius was the main defender of Nicene theology during the Controversy. Most bishops in the West were Nicenes, and Athanasius was their “paragon” (Hanson, p. 304). Therefore, this article discusses both Nicene theology in general and Athanasius’ theology in particular.
Alexander
The 4th-century Controversy began with a dispute between Arius and Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, whose theology was similar to Athanasius’:
| “Alexander’s theology found its most famous advocate in his successor Athanasius” (Ayres, p. 45). |
Serdica Manifesto
The Serdica Manifesto, formulated in 343 by the Western Church, is an important example of Nicene theology. For much of the fourth century, Arian emperors forced the Western Church to accept Arian Creeds. The Serdica Manifesto is the only Western Creed that was formulated without the emperor’s interference. Show More
| Until Constantine died in 337, he ensured that the church remained united. After he died, the Eastern and Western Empires were divided between different emperors, with the Western emperor supporting the traditional Western theology and the Eastern Emperor supporting the traditional Eastern theology. This allowed the Western and Eastern Churches to formulate creeds with little or no emperor interference. In this period, the East formulated the Dedication Creed of 341 and the West the Serdica Manifesto of 343. Hanson confirms the importance of the Serdica Manifestation:
“The one Western theological statement which had appeared since the controversy began, the Formula accompanying the Encyclical of the Western bishops at Serdica …” (Hanson, 311).
|
Nicene Creed
The Nicene Creed was another important indicator of Nicene theology. However, Constantine strongly interfered in that council.
| “Constantine took part in the Council of Nicaea and ensured that it reached the kind of conclusion which he thought best” (Hanson, p. 850). |
Therefore, the Nicene Creed of 325 does not fully reflect Nicene theology. It was a drawn battle between the Eusebians and Nicenes. It does not present Nicene theology as clearly as the Serdica manifesto:
| “It is exceeding the evidence to represent the (Nicene) Council as a total victory for the anti-Origenist opponents of the doctrine of three hypostases. It was more like a drawn battle” (Hanson, p. 172).
“It is not quite accurate to say that the creed reflects the beliefs of those who held the initiative at Nicaea. Rather, the creed shows the extent to which those who held the initiative could push their perspective while still achieving sufficient support for victory at the council” (Ayres, p. 91). |
In the Father
In Athanasius’ theology, the Son is in the Father as part of the Father’s being:
“In the Father we have the Son: this is a summary of Athanasius’ theology” (Hanson, p. 426).
“Athanasius’ increasing clarity in treating the Son as intrinsic to the Father’s being” (Ayres, p. 113). Show More
| “The Son is in the Father ontologically” (Hanson, p. 428).
“Athanasius’ argument speaks not of two realities engaged in a common activity, but develops his most basic sense that the Son is intrinsic to the Father’s being” (Ayres, p. 114).
“For the Son is in the Father … because the whole being of the Son is idios to the Father’s essence, as radiance from light and stream from fountain” (Ayres, p. 115). |
The Father’s Wisdom
Specifically, in Athanasian and Nicene theology, the Logos is the Father’s only Reason, Wisdom, or Word:
“In Alexander, and in Athanasius … Christ is the one power and wisdom of the Father” (Ayres, p. 54).
Alexander stated that if, as Arius claims, there once was when the Son was not, then “there was once when God was without wisdom, power, brightness, and so on” (Anatolios, p. 87). Show More
| Athanasius:
The pre-existent Son is “present with Him (the Father) as his Wisdom and his Word” (Ayres, p. 46).
“There is no need to postulate two Logoi” (Hanson, p. 431, quoting Athanasius).
Athanasius criticized “the [Arian] idea that Christ is a derivative Wisdom and not God’s own wisdom” (Ayres, p. 116).
Alexander:
“Alexander taught that … as the Father’s Word and Wisdom the Son must always have been with the Father” (Ayres, p. 16).
Serdica
The Serdica manifesto described the Son as “the Father’s ‘true’ Wisdom and Power and Word” (Ayres, p. 125).
|
A Single Divine Mind
In other words, the Nicenes believed that the Father and Son share one single mind. This is perhaps easier to understand when compared to the Eusebian (Arian) view, in which the Son is distinct from the Father. Therefore, the Eusebians spoke about two Logoi (two Wisdoms or Words), meaning that the Son is something in addition to the Father, and that the Father and the Son have two distinct divine minds. In contrast, since the Nicenes taught that the Logos is part of the Father, only one divine mind exists:
| “He (Athanasius) is appalled at the Arian statement that the Son exercises his own judgment of free-will” (Hanson, p. 428).
The Western Serdica Manifesto responded to the Eusebian view of distinct minds that “differences and disputes could exist between God the Father Almighty and the Son, which is altogether absurd” (Hanson, p. 302). |
One Hypostasis
It follows that the Nicenes believed that the Father and Son are a single Existence (one hypostasis). Initially, the theologians used both hypostasis and ousia to indicate a distinct individual existence. Later, hypostasis became the main term for that purpose. Show More
| “Greek-speaking theologians of the early fourth century had three words for something that really exists, and exists in itself, as distinguished from an accident or a quality. The words are ousia, hypostasis, and hyparxis. … As the fourth century progressed, hypostasis became, more and more, the one term that was the center of controversy” (Lienhard). |
The Eusebians (Arians), following Origen, taught that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct divine hypostases with three distinct Minds, united in agreement. Show More
| Origen:
“Origen writes that ‘we are persuaded that there are three hypostases, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit’” (Ayres, p. 25).
Arius:
“We have to resist the anachronistic characterization of him (Arius) as an antitrinitarian theologian.” “He writes simply, ‘So there are three hypostaseis,’” meaning “the set of beings that form the object (or objects) of Christian confession. … the three hypostaseis seemingly form a certain unity” (Anatolios, pp. 47-48).
|
In Athanasian theology, since the Son is in the Father as the Father’s only reason, the Father and Son are a single individual Existence (one hypostasis):
| The “clear inference from his (Athanasius’) usage” is that “there is only one hypostasis in God” (Ayres, p. 48).
“During this same period [the 350s] the miahypostatic [one hypostasis] tradition is represented most fully by Athanasius” (Lienhard).
“Athanasius’ gut reaction is that there can be only one eternal reality and source, and that proposing more than one hypostasis would imply a dualism” (Ayres, p. 48). |
The statement formulated at Serdica describes ‘one hypostasis’ as the “catholic and apostolic tradition:”
“The doctrinal statement of the Western Council of Sardica (342 or 343), in which Athanasius and Marcellus participated, insisted even more belligerently that ‘We have received and been taught, and we hold this catholic and apostolic tradition and faith and confession: there is one hypostasis (which is termed ‘essence’ [ousia] by the heretics) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit’” (Lienhard). Show More
| “We have received and have been taught this … tradition: that there is one hypostasis, which the heretics (also) call ousia, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Hanson, p. 301, quoting the creed).
“The Western Council of Serdica of 343 produced a document … which opted clearly for Una substantia meaning one hypostasis” (Hanson, p. 201).
“He [Athanasius] had attended the Council of Serdica among the Western bishops in 343, and a formal letter of that Council had emphatically opted for the belief in one, and only one, hypostasis as orthodoxy. Athanasius certainly accepted this doctrine at least up to 359, even though he tried later to suppress this fact” (Hanson, p. 444). |
One Person
To say, as Athanasius did, that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis means that they are a single Person with a single mind. In other words, the Son is not a distinct Person. For example:
“Athanasius’ most basic language and analogies for describing the relationship between Father and Son primarily present the two as intrinsic aspects of one reality or person” (Ayres, p. 46). Show More
| “He (Athanasius) did not distinguish between the ‘Persons‘ of the Trinity” (Hanson, p. 444).
“Just what the Council intended this expression [homoousios] to mean is set forth by St. Athanasius as follows … That the Son is not only like to the Father, but inseparable from the substance of the Father, that he and the Father are one and the same” (Philip Schaff). |
Not One and Three
Today, the Trinitarian theology argues that God is one ousia (one Being) existing as three hypostases (Persons). However, such a distinction did not yet exist:
Firstly, the Nicenes did not say that God exists in three Persons. They claimed that the Logos is part of the Father.
Secondly, while Trinitarian theology claims three hypostases, the Nicenes explicitly identified the Father and Son as a single hypostasis.
Thirdly, the Nicenes used the terms Being (ousia) and Person (hypostasis) as synonyms. So, the Nicenes said that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person) and a single ousia (Being). Show More
| “Clearly for him (Athanasius) hypostasis and ousia were still synonymous” (Hanson, p. 440).
The Serdica manifesto also explicitly equates ousia and hypostasis: “We have received and have been taught this … tradition: that there is one hypostasis, which the heretics (also) call ousia, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Hanson, p. 301, quoting the Manifesto at the Council of Serdica). |
It was only late in the 4th century that some pro-Nicenes slowly began to accept the idea of three hypostases (three Persons):
“During these two decades (360-380) we also see the beginnings of an evolution of terminologies that will distinguish what in God is one from what is three” (Ayres, 434).Show More
| “In 362 a synod that Athanasius convoked in Alexandria marked the first time that he admitted that the phrase ‘three hypostaseis’ might be understood of God in an orthodox way, although he still preferred ‘one hypostasis’” (Lienhard).
Athanasius wrote his De synodis over the years 359–61. “For the first time we have considered a text that offers the logic of unity at one ‘level’ and distinction at another” (Ayres, 175). |
The Cappadocians in the 360s-370s were the first pro-Nicenes to teach three hypostases. For that purpose, they made a distinction between ousia and hypostasis so that ousia means ‘substance’ and hypostasis means ‘Person’:
| “Basil’s most distinguished contribution … was in his clarification of the vocabulary” (Hanson, p. 690). “Basil uses hypostasis to mean ‘Person of the Trinity’ as distinguished from ‘substance’ which is usually expressed as either ousia or ‘nature’ (physis) or ‘substratum’” (Hanson, pp. 690-691). |
However, in what is known as the Meletian Schism, this caused a huge conflict within the pro-Nicene camp between the Cappadocians and Athanasians (see here).
Holy Spirit
In Nicene theology, the Holy Spirit is an energy from God, not a distinct Person. For example, for Athanasius, just as the Son is part of the Father, the Holy Spirit is part of the Son and, therefore, not a distinct Person, but an energy from God:
| “Just as his (Athanasius’) account of the Son can rely heavily on the picture of the Father as one person with his intrinsic word, so too he emphasizes the closeness of Spirit to Son by presenting the Spirit as the Son’s ‘energy’” (Ayres, p. 214). |
For that reason, the Cappadocians concluded that Athanasius did not afford the Holy Spirit a distinct existence (a separate Person or hypostasis):
| “The language also shows Athanasius trying out formulations that will soon be problematic. … ‘The Cappadocians’ will find the language of ἐνέργεια [energy] used of the Spirit … to be highly problematic, seeming to indicate a lack of real existence” (Ayres, p. 214). |
Unitarians
In other words, Athanasius and the pre-Cappadocian Nicenes were not Trinitarians. Since they did not believe in three hypostases (Persons), they were Unitarians.
| Ayres refers to “Athanasius’ own strongly unitarian account” (Ayres, p. 435).
“Studer’s account [1998] here follows the increasingly prominent scholarly position that Athanasius’ theology offers a strongly unitarian Trinitarian theology whose account of personal differentiation is underdeveloped” (Ayres, p. 238). |
Since the Eusebians believed in three divine Persons (hypostases), one may argue that they were the Trinitarians of the 4th century. Show More
| “We have to resist the anachronistic characterization of him (Arius) as an antitrinitarian theologian.” “He writes simply, ‘So there are three hypostaseis,’” meaning “the set of beings that form the object (or objects) of Christian confession. … the three hypostaseis seemingly form a certain unity” (Anatolios, pp. 47-48). |
This conclusion should surprise most readers. However, the “conventional account of the Controversy, which stems originally from the version given of it by the victorious party, is now recognised by a large number of scholars to be a complete travesty” (Hanson).
Sabellians
Like the Nicenes, the Sabellians believed that the Son is intrinsic to the Father’s external existence and that there is only one hypostasis. Show More
| “Although Athanasius’ theology was by no means identical with Marcellus’, the overlaps were significant enough for them to be at one on some of the vital issues—especially their common insistence that the Son was intrinsic to the Father’s external existence” (Ayres, p. 106).
“The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and Athanasius. Eustathius insists there is only one hypostasis“ (Ayres, p. 69). [Eustathius and Marcellus were the leading Sabellians at Nicaea.] |
Therefore, like the Nicenes, the Sabellians were Unitarians. Show More
| Ayres refers to “supporters of Nicaea whose theology had strongly unitarian tendencies. Chief among these was Marcellus of Ancyra” (Ayres, p. 431). |
Allies – The similarity of their theologies allowed the Nicenes to ally with the Sabellians against the Arians. Alexander joined forces with Marcellus and the other Sabellians at Nicaea. A decade later, Athanasius allied with the leading Sabellian (Marcellus) against the Easterners. Show More
| Alexander
“Eustathius and Marcellus (the Eusebians) … certainly met at Nicaea and no doubt were there able to join forces with Alexander of Alexandria and Ossius” (Hanson, p. 234).
“Marcellus, Eustathius, and Alexander had worked together at Nicaea” (Ayres, p. 106).
Athanasius
“While exiled in Rome, he (Marcellus) joined forces with his fellow exile Athanasius in a polemical campaign against those whom they called ‘Arians’” (Anatolios, p. 23).
“In Rome during the 339–40 … the exiled Athanasius and Marcellus made common cause against their eastern opponents” (Ayres, p. 106).
“Though he (Athanasius) may temporarily at this period, when he was preparing to return from his second exile, have wished to place a distance between himself and Marcellus, he had no intention of making a final break with him. It is doubtful if he ever did this” (Hanson, p. 220).
|
Same Side – For that reason, the Nicenes and Sabellians were on the same side in the Controversy. In a letter in 341, the bishop of Rome included the Sabellians in a group he called ‘the Athanasians.’ The other side in the Controversy, he identified as the ‘Eusebians.’ Show More
| “The year 341 marks the rise of two clearly distinguishable parties, with the majority of the Eastern bishops on one side and Athanasius, Marcellus, and most of the Westerners on the other side” (Lienhard).
“In that year [341] Julius of Rome sent the Eastern bishops a letter that is crucial for understanding how the two opposing parties were formed and defined. … In the course of his letter Julius defined and clearly named two opposing parties: they were ‘the Eusebians’ (hoi peri Eusebion) and ‘the Athanasians’ (hoi peri Athanasion). … Further, Julius portentously identified the Eusebians as ‘Arians,’ and he linked Athanasius’ name with Marcellus of Ancyra’s, thus implying that there were two opposing parties” (Lienhard). |
Condoned – The Nicenes condoned Sabellianism:
A Council in Rome in 340 or 341 accepted Marcellus, who had earlier been deposed for Sabellianism by the Eastern Church, and who was the main Sabellian of the 4th century, as orthodox. Show More
| “That Julius and later the Westerners at Sardica should have declared him (Marcellus) orthodox was bound to appear to the Eastern theologians to be a condoning of Sabellianism” (Hanson). |
In the Meletian Schism, a few decades later, the Western Nicenes even supported a Sabellian candidate as bishop of Antioch against a Cappadocian candidate. Today, however, the Cappadocians are regarded as the architects of the Trinity doctrine. Show More
| “The opening of the year 375 saw the ironical situation in which the Pope, Damasus, and the archbishop of Alexandria, Peter, were supporting Paulinus of Antioch, a Sabellian heretic … against Basil of Caesarea, the champion of Nicene orthodoxy in the East” (Hanson Lecture).
Paulinus was a Sabellian.
Paulinus derived “his tradition in continuity from Eustathius who had been bishop (of Antioch) about forty years before” (Hanson, p. 800-1).
Athanasius supported Paulinus:
Paulinus “was recognized as legitimate bishop of Antioch by Athanasius. Later, Athanasius’ successor Peter extended the same recognition to him and persuaded Damasus to do the same” (Hanson, p. 801). |
Athanasius, more or less at the same time, condoned Sabellianism in writing. Show More
| “About the year 371 adherents of Marcellus approached Athanasius, presenting to him a statement of faith. … He accepted it and gave them a document expressing his agreement with their doctrine” (Hanson, p. 801). |
Conclusion
———-
The above is my best synthesis of the writings of the experts of the last 50 years. If I may add my own view:
As is discussed here, the core issue in the Controversy was whether the Son is a distinct divine Existence (a hypostasis or Person). The Old Testament seems to teach only one divine Being. Does the New Testament teach a second divine Being?
The so-called Arians said the Son is a distinct divine Being. Those who denied that He is distinct found various explanations for how they are distinguished:
-
-
- The Monarchians (Modalists) simply said that Father and Son are two names for the same Person.
- According to Von Mosheim, Sabellians maintained that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three parts of one Person.
- Another explanation was that they are three faces (prosopa) of one Person.
- Athanasius, perhaps following Tertullian, said that the Son is part of the Father.
But in all four these instances, there is only one Person. So, although there are differences between Athanasius and the Sabellians, they agreed that the Father and Son are single Person (hypostasis).
Did Arians describe the Son as created?
It is often claimed that Arianism described the Son of God as a created being. For example, Britannica defines Arianism as:
| “A heresy first proposed by Arius of Alexandria that affirmed that Christ is not divine but a created being.” |
However, this misrepresents Arian theology. They taught as follows:
Direct Creation – He is the only being brought forth by God directly. God produced all things through His Son. Show More
| Arius wrote: “This direct creation means that the Son has nobody like him” (Hanson, p. 102).
”The Son holds a unique status because he is a uniquely direct product of the Father’s will” (Ayres, p. 148).
“He has been produced directly without mediation by God, and everything else has come into being through his mediation” (Hanson, p. 102). |
Before Time – The Son was begotten “before times and before aeons” (RH, 7). In other words, the Son originates from beyond the time, space, and matter of this universe. Show More
| Was “begotten timelessly by the Father … before aeons … begotten timelessly before everything” (Hanson, p. 8). |
God’s Presence – The Son is the only Being able to endure God’s immediate presence. All other beings would be consumed. Show More
| “Demophilus, the last Arian bishop of Constantinople before the advent of Theodosius (AD 380), [says] God … ‘could not come in contact with the creation which he intended to make, for he would have been under the necessity either of making everything gods so as to be worthy of him, or else everything would have disintegrated by contact with him. So the Son of God had to become a mediator between God and the things created by him’” (Hanson, p. 101).
One prominent ‘Arian’ in Arius’ day (Asterius) explained that “when God desired that created nature should come into existence, he saw that nature could not endure his direct hand and so ‘he initially makes and created, himself sole, a sole Being, and calls this Son and Word’; consequently, once this mediating Being had come into existence, the rest could be created” (Hanson, p. 100). |
Creator – The Son is the Creator. He created this universe and everything in it. The Father created this universe and everything in it through the Son. Show More
| “The Father is the origin of everything made, but the Son brings everything into actual existence” (Hanson, p. 103).
“The Son creates the Spirit and then everything else” (Hanson, p. 101).
“The only-begotten Son … through whom also he made the aeons and everything” (Hanson, p. 7). |
God – For these reasons, for the beings of this universe, the Son is our Creator and our God. Show More
| Our Maker
“Eunomius [a leading Arian] does describe the Son as created, but he is concerned to show that the Son is distinct from the creation we inhabit: the Son is a product unlike other products and stands in the relationship of maker to all other things” (Ayres, p. 148).
Our God
The Son is “‘God’ as far as the rest of creation is concerned” (Williams, p. 177).
Arius described the Son as the “only-begotten God” (Hanson, p. 14), “the Mighty God [Isa 9:15]” (Hanson, p. 15), and as “full of truth and grace, God” (Arius, RH,6).
“The Creed which … Ulfilas, bishop of the Goths, uttered on his death-bed: There is one God the Father of all who is also God of our God (Hanson, p. 105).
“The Son is ‘God of everything that was made later than he and through Jesus (sic) by the providence of his God and Father, but the Father is God for the Son, whose origin he is, as he is of all’” (Hanson, p. 108).
|
Consequently, the Arians argued, the Son cannot be compared to the beings who were created by His hand. There is an infinite distinction between the Son and the created universe. For example, they said, the Son has life in Himself. No other Being, apart from God Himself, has life in himself. Show More
| “He does not exist in the same way … nor does he live a life comparable to those things which were produced through him, but he has been brought forth alone from the Father himself and is Life in himself” (Hanson, p. 56; quoting Eusebius, John 5:26).
Arius said that “His only-begotten Son … has nobody like him” (Hanson, p. 105).
“He is only-begotten God and he is different from any others” (Hanson, p. 14).
“A perfect creature of God … not like one of the creatures” (Hanson, p. 7). |
However, Athanasius and Alexander, the bitter theological enemies of Eusebians (Arians), distorted Eusebian teaching by saying that it presents the Son as a creature just like any other creature. Show More
| Alexander wrote:
“The Son is a creature.” “He is one of the products” (Hanson, p. 16).
“When he came into existence, he was then such as is every man” (Hanson, p. 17).
“We are able to become the sons of God as he is.” (Hanson, p. 17).
Athanasius wrote:
The Son is “like all others” and “He is ‘proper’ to [the class of] made and created things” (See A(ii-iii, v-vi), Williams, p. 100-101).
“There are many powers. … Christ is not the true power of God, but he is one of those who are called powers, among which are also the locust and the caterpillar” (Hanson, p. 13).
“The Son is truly a Son of the Father and not just the same as any other created thing” (Ayres, p. 142).
|
This was recognized as a distortion in Arius’ day. In a letter, Eusebius of Caesarea took Alexander “to task for unjustly accusing Arius and his friends of teaching that ‘the Son has come into existence from non-existence like one of the mass‘, whereas what they had actually said was that the Son was “a perfect creature, but not as one of the creatures” (Hanson, pp. 56-57).
Scholars today describe Athanasius’ misrepresentation of Eusebian theology as malicious, contemptuous, and unscrupulous. Show More
| Williams:
On pages 104-105, Rowan Williams discusses Athanasius’ quotes of Arius’ works and shows how Athanasius distorts Arius’ words. He concludes:
“The Son is repeatedly assimilated to the level of other creatures, and the phrases ‘like us’ and ‘like all others‘ recur.” In contrast, Arius wrote: “The Son was a ‘perfect creature, yet not as one among the creatures, a begotten being, yet not as one among things begotten” (Williams, p. 104).
Athanasius says that Arius described the Son as “some kind of being” (A(iii), Williams, p. 100). Williams describes this as “a deliberately contemptuous paraphrase” (Williams, p. 104).
Williams stated that Athanasius used “unscrupulous tactics in polemic and struggle” (Williams, p. 239).
Hanson:
“Athanasius … may be suspected of pressing the words maliciously rather further than Arius intended” (Hanson, p. 15).
Athanasius stated that, as Arius described Him, “the Son was no greater than the locust or caterpillar.” RPC Hanson describes this as a malicious distortion (Hanson, p. 20; cf. 13).
|
Unfortunately, however, Trinitarian Christianity accepted and continued Athanasius’ malicious distortion of Arian theology.
Did the Church end the Controversy?
In the traditional account, the Council of Constantinople in the year 381 finally rejected Arianism and put an end to that controversy. However, Hanson says:
| “Several Emperors had attempted to bring an end to the Arian controversy. Constantine, Constans, Constantius … All had failed … Theodosius succeeded” (Hanson Lecture). |
In other words, it was not the church that made an end to the Arian controversy, but the emperor:
Already in 380, the year before the Council, through a Roman Law (the Edict of Thessalonica), with the support of the Western emperor, Theodosius made the pro-Nicene version of the Christian faith the official religion of the Roman Empire. Show More
| “In February 380, when he was residing in Thessalonica, he issued an edict … which declared the pro-Nicene doctrine of the Trinity to be the official doctrine of the Roman Empire, and named Damasus of Rome and Peter of Alexandria as the two episcopal norms of doctrine” (Hanson, p. 402). |
This was not a church decree but applied to all Roman citizens. Show More
| “Theodosius made known by law his intention of leading all his subjects to the reception of that faith which was professed by Damasus, bishop of Rome, and by Peter, bishop of Alexandria” (Sozomen’s Church History VII.4). |
With that edict, Emperor Theodosius outlawed Arianism and promised that all who would contravene it would suffer the punishment which Roman authority shall decide to inflict. Show More
| “They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the punishment of our authority which in accordance with the will of Heaven we shall decide to inflict” (Henry Bettenson, editor, Documents of the Christian Church, 1967, p. 22, quoting the Edict of Thessalonica). |
Theodosius also unilaterally exiled the Arian bishop of Constantinople (Demophilus) and replaced him with a pro-Nicene (Gregory of Nazianzus). Show More
| “On November 24th 380 he entered Constantinople and instantly faced the Arian bishop of that city with the choice of either accepting the Nicene faith or being ejected from his see. Demophilus chose exile … and was driven out of the city” (Hanson, pp. 804-5).
Theodosius “accepted Gregory Nazianzen as de facto bishop” (Ayres, p. 253). |
Even worse, after Gregory resigned, Theodosius replaced him with one of his unbaptized government officials (Nectarius), both as chair of the Council and as the bishop of the Empire’s capital, Constantinople. Show More
| “His part in choosing an unbaptised layman, Nectarius, as bishop of Constantinople, an act to which the pro-Nicene party raised no objection” (Hanson, p. 322). |
In a second edict in January 381, still before the council, Theodosius forbade non-Nicenes from settling in and from meeting for worship in any city or town. Show More
| “In January of the following year (381), another edict forbade the heretics to settle in the cities” (Boyd, William Kenneth (1905)).
“On January 10 (381), Theodosius issued an edict … No church was to be occupied for worship by any heretics, no heretics were to gather together for worship within the walls of any town” (Hanson, p. 805). |
In the third edict, immediately after the Council in 381, Theodosius confiscated all Arian churches and gave them to Nicene bishops. Show More
| Theodosius instructed that “all churches shall immediately be surrendered to those bishops who confess that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are of one majesty and power” (Ayres, 252). |
Consequently, the Council was under the complete control of the Emperor. For example:
The first act of the Council was to affirm the appointment of Gregory of Nazianzus, whom the emperor unilaterally appointed, as the bishop of Constantinople. Show More
| “The first act of the Council was to affirm that Gregory of Nazianzus was the Catholic and legitimate bishop of Constantinople” (Hanson, p. 806; cf. Ayres, pp. 253-4). |
The Council accepted Theodosius’s unbaptized government official as bishop and as chair of the Council. Show More
| In the place of Gregory, “the bishops of the council chose an unbaptised catechumen, an imperial civil servant, Nectarius, who then became the presiding officer” (Hanson, p. 807). Nectarius was “an unbaptized civil official in Constantinople” (Ayres, p. 255). |
The Council was not representative. Since all other views were already outlawed, and only Nicene supporters were invited and admitted. Show More
| “It seems unlikely that this meeting was intended as a universal council to rival Seleucia/Ariminum or Nicaea itself. … Those present at the council initially came from a fairly restricted area and the majority from areas known to be favourable to Meletius” (Ayres, p. 253). |
See here for a more complete discussion.
COUNCIL OF NICAEA
Was Homoousios an orthodox term?
The Nicene Creed uses the term homoousios to say that the Son’s substance is the same as the Fathers’. In the traditional account, the term homoousios Show More
| In the “centuries-old account of the Council of Nicaea: … with one pronouncement the Church identified a term (homoousios) that secured its … beliefs against heresy” (Ayres, 11).
C.H. Turner stated that “the very existence of Christianity … was at stake over the Homoousion—” (Merriam-Webster). |
In reality, homoousios was a radical new term. Nothing comparable to this had been said in any creed or profession of faith before. Not even the pro-Alexander creed formulated earlier in 325 at Antioch mentioned this term. In the extant writings, Alexander never used this term. Show More
| “To say that the Son was ‘of the substance’ of the Father, and that he was ‘consubstantial’ with him were certainly startling innovations. Nothing comparable to this had been said in any creed or profession of faith before” (Hanson, p. 166-7).
Rowan Williams described it as “the radical words of Nicaea” (Williams, p. 236) and “conceptual innovation” (Williams, p. 234-5).
“We can detect no Greek-speaking writer before Nicaea who unreservedly supports homoousion as applied to the Son” (Hanson, p. 169).
It was one of “the new terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy of the day” (Hanson, p. 846). |
In fact, homoousios was a heretical, namely, Sabellian term. Before Nicaea, only Sabellians preferred homoousios. It was used by Sabellius himself, the Libyan Sabellians, the Bishop of Rome in the middle of the third century, and Paul of Samosata about a decade later. For them, Father and Son are a single Person with a single mind. The only non-Sabellian who accepted the term was Dionysius of Alexandria, but he accepted it only because the bishop of Rome forced him to, and he accepted it with a generic meaning. The term was formally rejected by a church council in 268.
Show More
| “It was impossible to rid the term in the minds of many of Sabellian, if not Gnostic associations” (Hanson, p. 437).
The Homoiousians rejected “homoousios as leading to Sabellianism” (Hanson, p. 439). “To them an acceptance of homoousios … would naturally appear to involve them in pure indiscriminate Sabellianism” (Hanson, p. 440).
(Read More) |
At Nicaea, the emperor proposed and insisted on the term because he saw that the Sabellians, with whom Alexander allied, preferred this term. Show More
| Alexander allied with the Sabellians.
Constantine took the Nicene side.
“Constantine had taken Alexander’s part” (Ayres, 89).
Constantine insisted on the term homoousios.
Constantine “pressed for its (homoousios’) inclusion.” (Hanson, 202)
In his letter to his church in Caesarea, written immediately after the Nicene Council in 325, Eusebius of Caesarea wrote that the word homoousios was inserted into the Nicene Creed solely at the insistence of Emperor Constantine (see here).
|
Constantine forced the Arians to accept the term, but they interpreted it figuratively (see here).
Did Homoousios mean ‘one Being?’
The Nicene Creed, as formulated at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, states that the Son was begotten from the substance (ousia) of the Father and that He is (therefore?) of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father.
‘Same substance’ (homoousios) has two possible meanings because the word “same” has two possible meanings. When I say that John and I drive the same car, it can mean that we drive one and the same car or two different cars of the same type. Similarly, ‘same substance’ can mean:
One substance – This is called numerical sameness because there is only one. Father and Son are seen as a single undivided substance (one Being).
Two distinct substances of the same type – This is called qualitative or generic sameness. Show More
| “A standard connotation of the term homoousios was membership in a class, a generic similarity between things that were, in some sense, co-ordinate [equal in rank or importance]. The term was used loosely to point to markers of commonality and did not at all exclude relationships between realities that were hierarchically distinct in other ways” (Ayres, p. 94-95). |
The Trinity doctrine asserts that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Being. In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, the Trinity doctrine was accepted as orthodox when that controversy began. It claims, therefore, that homoousios in the Nicene Creed meant that Father and Son ‘one substance’ (one Being).
But scholars conclude today that that is not what it meant. They say it had a much looser, more flexible, indeed less specific meaning. Show More
| “We can therefore be pretty sure that homoousios was not intended to express the numerical identity of the Father and the Son” (Hanson, p. 202).
“It was intended to have a looser, more ambiguous sense than has in the past history of scholarship been attached to it” (Hanson, p. 202).
“Eusebius’ discussion nicely demonstrates the extent to which the promulgation of homoousios involved a conscious lack of positive definition of the term” (Ayres, p. 91).
“Studor … notes that the term homoousios is not used with precision at Nicaea and that later arguments for homoousios always involve constructing accounts of its meaning” (Ayres, p. 238).
“While a large number of scholars have contended that the council used the term in this latter (numerical) sense, there are good grounds for questioning such a conclusion” (Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons – Nicene Creed, pp. 82-85). |
However, this website maintains that homoousios in the Nicene Creed did mean ‘one substance’:
Through their alliance with Alexander and the emperor’s support, the Sabellians were able to include the term in the Creed. In Sabellian theology, Father and Son are ‘one hypostasis’ (one Person). Therefore, they would have understood the term as meaning ‘one substance’.
The Eusebian majority at the Council accepted the emperor’s highly figurative explanation of the term, namely, that it only means that the Son is really from the Father. However, deep down, they understood that it signified ‘one substance.’
Is the Nicene Creed Trinitarian?
In the Trinity doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit are one Being with one mind. In that doctrine, since the Father, Son, and Spirit share a single mind, it is misleading to say that they are Persons (see here).
In the traditional account, the Trinity doctrine was established as orthodox when the Controversy began, and the Nicene Creed of 325 reflects this. However:
1. The Creed identifies the ‘one God’ as the Father alone. Show More
| It begins: “We believe in one God, the Father almighty.” |
2. The Creed does not describe the Holy Spirit as God or as homoousios. There is no indication of the unity or equality of the Spirit. Show More
| And while it says much about the Son, including that He is homoousios with the Father and “true God from true God,” it says of the Holy Spirit merely: “We believe in … the Holy Spirit.” |
3. The Creed says that the Father and Son are a single Person (hypostasis or ousia). Show More
| In one of the anathemas, the Creed condemns all who say that the Son is “of another hypostasis or ousia” (Ayres, p. 93). At the time, the terms hypostasis (Person) and ousia (substance) were synonyms, both meaning a single Existence (see here). In other words, the Father and Son are a single hypostasis and ousia: a single Person:
“The production of N … must have been deeply disturbing for many who could not seriously be described as Arian in sympathy but could not believe that God had only one hypostasis, as the creed apparently professed” (Hanson, p. 274).
|
4. Since the term homoousios was preferred before Nicaea only by Unitarians (Sabellianians), describing the Father and Son as homoousios implies Sabellianism, in which the Father and Son are a single Person.
To say that Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person) is Sabellianism. Show More
| “The Creed of Nicaea of 325 … ultimately confounded the confusion because its use of the words ousia and hypostasis was so ambiguous as to suggest that the Fathers of Nicaea had fallen into Sabellianism, a view recognized as a heresy even at that period” (Hanson’s Lecture).
“The condemnation … that the Son is ‘of another hypostasis or ousia’ from the Father … By the standard of later orthodoxy … it is a rankly heretical (i.e., Sabellian) proposition” (Hanson, p. 167).
“If we are to take the creed N at its face value, the theology of Eustathius and Marcellus was the theology which triumphed at Nicaea. That creed admits the possibility of only one ousia and one hypostasis. This was the hallmark of the theology of these two men.” (Hanson, p. 235) [Eustathius and Marcellus were the leading Sabellians at Nicaea. See here.] |
The Trinity doctrine of today is not equivalent to the Nicene Creed because pro-Nicene theology evolved after Nicaea as one way of explaining it. Show More
|
The century must be understood as “one of evolution in doctrine” (Ayres, p. 13).
“By ‘pro-Nicene’ I mean those theologies, appearing from the 360s to the 380s … of how the Nicene creed should be understood. … These theologies build closely on and adapt themes found earlier in the century, but none is identical with any original ‘Nicene’ theology apparent in the 320s or 330s” (Ayres, p. 6).
|
Was the Nicene Council Ecumenical?
The Creed approaches Sabellianism because the Sabellians allied with Alexander and because the emperor took their side:
At Nicaea, Alexander held to a minority view. Almost all delegates were from the East and believed that the Son is a distinct Person, subordinate to the Father. For that reason, Alexander joined forces with the Sabellians who, like him, believed that the Father and Son are a single Person.
Through the emperor’s support for them, they were able to influence the wording of the Creed significantly.
Was Homoousios the key term?
| After Nicaea, homoousios was not mentioned for more than two decades. It was regarded as important. |
By siding with Alexander and his Sabellian allies, Emperor Constantine forced the Nicene Council to include the Sabellian term homoousios in the Creed. (Read More)
In the decade after Nicaea, however, the church eradicated the term from its vocabulary by deposing the leading Sabellians. (Read More) After that, homoousios was not mentioned for two decades. During that period, there was no controversy around this term. For examples:
“What is conventionally regarded as the key-word in the Creed homoousion, falls completely out of the controversy very shortly after the Council of Nicaea and is not heard of for over twenty years.” (Hanson Lecture)
| The controversy around homoousios revived in the 350s when Athanasius began to defend it. |
For example:
“Athanasius’ decision to make Nicaea and homoousios central to his theology has its origins in the shifting climate of the 350s.” (Ayres, p. 144) (Read More)
| But it was quite some time before the Western church followed Athanasius in defending the term. |
Athanasius was very powerful; both in the church and politically.
“Towards the end of his life he had reached a position in which his power (in Egypt), not only ecclesiastical but also political, was virtually beyond challenge.” (Hanson, p. 421)
He was the “paragon” of the West (Hanson, p. 304) and, following him, the ‘West’ also began to defend homoousios, but not immediately:
“In most older presentations, ‘western’ bishops were taken to be natural and stalwart defenders of Nicaea throughout the fourth century. The 350s show how Nicaea only slowly came to be of importance in the west.” (Ayres, p. 135)
Even after Athanasius began to defend the term in the middle of the 350s, a Western Council in the year 357 still issued a clear Arian creed:
“This (the creed of 357) is a recognisably Arian creed, Arian according to the less subtle, less philosophically-minded Western mode, but still Arian.” (Hanson, p. 346)
Athanasius wrote that the term was included in the Nicene Creed to force the true Arians to reject the Creed so that the emperor could exile them. However, Athanasius was eager to present it as an anti-Arian term. This site proposes that it was a pro-Sabellian term.
ATHANASIUS
Athanasius’ defended Trinitarian orthodoxy.
| Athanasius was not a Trinitarian, he was a Unitarian. In his view, Father and Son are a single Person with one single mind. |
Athanasius is often acclaimed as the great defender of the Nicene Creed, which he was. However, a study of his theology shows that, in his view, the Son was ‘in’ the Father. In other words, they are a single Person with one single mind. (Read More) That was not the orthodox view but was what the Sabellians taught and was already rejected as heresy in the third century.
| The Sabellians believed that the Son is ‘in’ the Father. |
For example, they said:
“The Word … eternally is in the Father.” (Ayres, p. 63)
“The Word was in the Father as a power.” (Ayres, p. 63)
“To describe the relationship between Word and God he (Marcellus) deploys the analogy of a human person and her reason.” (Read More)
| Athanasius and Alexander also believed that the Son is ontologically ‘in’ the Father. |
They had the same view of Christ as the Sabellians, namely, that He is “in” the Father. Specifically, they thought of the Son as the Father’s one and only Wisdom. (See here) For example:
“In the Father we have the Son: this is a summary of Athanasius’ theology.” (Hanson, p. 426)
“The Son is in the Father ontologically.” (Hanson, p. 428)
“Athanasius’ increasing clarity in treating the Son as intrinsic to the Father’s being” (Ayres, p. 113)
“In Alexander, and in Athanasius … Christ is the one power and wisdom of the Father.” (Ayres, p. 54) (Read More)
| Since their views were similar, Athanasius was able to ally with Marcellus, who was the main Sabellian at the time. |
“Marcellus of Ancyra had produced a theology … which could quite properly be called Sabellian.” (Hanson, p. ix)
“Although Athanasius’ theology was by no means identical with Marcellus’, the overlaps were significant enough for them to be at one on some of the vital issues—especially their common insistence that the Son was intrinsic to the Father’s external existence.” (Ayres, p. 106)
“They considered themselves allies.” (Ayres, p. 106) At the time when both were exiled to Rome, “Athanasius and Marcellus now seem to have made common cause against those who insisted on distinct hypostases in God.” (Ayres, p. 106)
| Athanasius was a heretic. |
For the reasons above, it is valid to conclude that Athanasius was a Sabelian and that he and Alexander followed a theology that was already rejected as heresy in the third century.
Athanasius was deposed for opposing Arians.
| Athanasius was exiled for violence. |
In 335, a church council condemned and excommunicated Athanasius for violence against the Melitians in his see. The Melitians were a group of Christians who refused to receive back into communion any Christian who had denied Christ during the Great Persecution early in the fourth century. They accused Athanasius, by then archbishop of Alexandria, of preventing people from entering their church buildings, of burning their churches, imprisonments, beatings, and even murder.
In 335, a church council assessed Athanasius’ conduct, sent a commission to Egypt to investigate the charges, and deposed and excommunicated Athanasius for “tyrannical behaviour” (Ayres, p. 124) and “the unscrupulous use of strong-arm methods against his opponents” (Hanson, p. 255).
| Athanasius claimed that these allegations were false and that he was deposed for opposing Arianism. |
Athanasius claimed that these accusations were made by an Arian conspiracy to eliminate him as their theological opponent. However, these accusations were made by Melitians; not by Arians. Athanasius’ aggression was not aimed at ‘Arians’:
“It seems clear also that Athanasius’ first efforts at gangsterism in his diocese had nothing to do with difference of opinion on the subject of the Arian Controversy, but were directed against the Melitians.” (Hanson, p. 254)
| Papyrus letters discovered in the 20th century confirmed his guilt. |
Athanasius also claimed that the accusations were false. The church had traditionally accepted Athanasius’ explanation:
“We might dismiss the accusations against Athanasius retailed by Sozomenus and Epiphanius as the product of sheer partisanship and not worthy of credence, as, for instance, Gwatkin does, and many a church historian before and after him who was willing to take Athanasius’ protestations of his innocence at their face value.” (Hanson, p. 251)
Some accusations were indeed false. However:
“We have available to us contemporary evidence which we cannot possibly dismiss as invention or exaggeration or propaganda.” (Hanson, p. 251-2)
“This evidence consists of papyrus letters discovered (in the 20th century) by British archaeologists … They plunge us into the middle of the events which concerned Athanasius between the years 331 and 335.” (Hanson, p. 252)
“It is a factual account written for people under persecution, a private missive not intended for publication nor propaganda, and therefore all the more damning.” (Hanson, p. 252)
“It describes … the barbarous treatment which he (Athanasius) is meanwhile dealing out to those Melitians who have opposed him.” (Hanson, p. 252)
“We find Athanasius behaving like an employer of thugs hired to intimidate his enemies.” (Hanson, p. 254)
| Athanasius had been justly convicted. |
“He had been justly convicted of disgraceful behaviour in his see.” (Hanson, p. 254-5)
“It was beyond doubt that Athanasius had behaved with violence against the Melitians.” (Hanson, p. 272)
“He had not agreed with the arrangement made about the Melitians at Nicaea. Once he was in the saddle, he determined to suppress them with a strong hand, and was not at all scrupulous about the methods he used.” (Hanson, p. 254)
| Athanasius also defended by slandering his judges. |
“He represents the Council of Tyre, which was a properly constituted and entirely respectable gathering of churchmen, some of whom had been confessors in the Great Persecution, as a gang of disreputable conspirators, and brands all his opponents as favourers of heresy.” (Hanson, p. 262)
One wonders why. Did the Melitians know something about Athanasius we no longer know? Read More
Controversy raged the entire period.
| That is not true. Controversy raged about different things at different times. |
“At some times there was almost no controversy at all. If there was any controversy from 330 to 341, it was a controversy about the behaviour of Athanasius in his see of Alexandria. … There was a long period of confusion and uncertainty from 341 to 357 when it was far from clear what the controversy was about, if there was a controversy.” (Hanson, p. xviii)
| For most of the time, it was not an ‘Arian’ Controversy but a Sabellian Controversy. |
The following brief overview of the fourth-century Controversy shows that Controversy raged about different things at different times:
Arius/Alexander Dispute (318-325) – the Nicene Council made an end to the dispute between Alexander and Arius. After that, Arius was no longer a factor. This was the end of the true Arian Controversy.
Sabellian Controversy (325-335) – However, by introducing the Sabellian term homoousios, the Nicene Council created a Sabellian Controversy. By exiling the leading Sabellians in the years after Nicaea, the church resolved the Sabellian controversy, at least for a time. After that, the term homoousios disappeared from the debate and was not heard for more than 20 years.
Athanasian Controversy (335) – But there now developed a third controversy, namely, around Athanasius’ violence against the Melitians in his see, for which he was deposed in 335.
One Hypostasis Controversy (340s) – Athanasius and the leading Sabellian Marcellus now appealed to the West, who, up to this point, was not part of the Controversy. The West, the Sabellians, and Athanasius all believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single hypostasis – a single Person with a single mind. The West, therefore, accepted them as orthodox. This caused tensions with the Eastern church, where Athanasius and Marcellus were exiled. This controversy rages during the 340s.
Homoousian Controversy (350s) – During the 350’s Constantius, previously the Eastern emperor, became emperor of the entire empire and united the church around the Eastern three-hypostases theology. By this time, Athanasius was very powerful and the main stumbling block to unity. It was also in the 350s that he re-introduced homoousios into the Controversy to defend his position. This caused a ‘Homoousian Controversy’ in which the church divided into several views with respect to that term. But Constantius achieved unity in the church that lasted for the next two decades.
Meletian Schism (360s-370s) – In the 360s and 370s, a controversy developed between two pro-Nicene groups. While the Western pro-Nicenes taught one hypostasis, the Eastern pro-Nicenes (the Cappadocians) professed three (three Persons).
Theodosius (380) – When Theodosius became emperor in 379, the Homoian view dominated. The next year, Theodosius made Athanasius’ one hypostasis theology the state religion of the Roman Empire. He outlawed and persecuted other forms of Christianity into extinction within the Roman Empire. The Arian Controversy began soon after persecution ended and ended when persecution was resumed.
ARIANISM
The anti-Nicenes followed Arius.
The opponents of the Nicene Creed are today known as ‘Arians’, implying that Arius was their leader. But that title is a serious misnomer because Arius was only involved in the first few years. After Nicaea, Arius and his theology were no longer important. He did not leave behind a school of disciples. Arius was an insignificant writer. A better name for the anti-Nicenes would be ‘Eusebians’ because Eusebius of Caesarea was their real theological leader.
The only reason so many people still believe that Arius was important is that Athanasius invented the term ‘Arian’ to insult his opponents by tarring them as followers of Arius’ discredited theology. But Athanasius’ opponents – the anti-Nicenes – did not follow Arius. Unfortunately, the church has traditionally believed Athanasius. (Read More)
“The expression ‘the Arian Controversy’ is a serious misnomer.” (Hanson, p. xvii)
“’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.” (Williams, p. 82)
“The people of his (Arius’) day, whether they agreed with him or not, did not regard him as a particularly significant writer. … Neither his supporters nor his opponents thought them (his writings) worth preserving. … He virtually disappears from the controversy at an early stage in its course.” (Hanson, p. xvii)
“Arius was part of a wider theological trajectory; many of his ideas were opposed by others in this trajectory: he neither originated the trajectory nor uniquely exemplified it.” (Ayres, p. 2)
“No clear party sought to preserve Arius’ theology.” (Ayres, p. 14)
“It is virtually impossible to identify a school of thought dependent on Arius’ specific theology.” (Ayres, p. 2)
“Arius’ own theology is of little importance in understanding the major debates of the rest of the century (after Nicaea).” (Ayres, p. 56-57)
“Eusebius of Caesarea, the historian and theologian” (Ayres, p. 58) “was the most learned and one of the best-known of the 300-odd bishops present” at Nicaea. (Hanson, p. 159) He supported Arius but was not a follower of Arius. He “thought the theology of Alexander a greater menace than that of Arius.” (Williams, p. 173)
“The textbook picture of an Arian system … inspired by the teachings of the Alexandrian presbyter, is the invention of Athanasius’ polemic.” (Williams, p. 234)
“Heresiological labels enabled early theologians and ecclesiastical historians to portray theologians to whom they were opposed as distinct and coherent groups and they enabled writers to tar enemies with the name of a figure already in disrepute.” (Ayres, p. 2)
“Athanasius … was determined to show that any proposed alternative to the Nicene formula collapsed back into some version of Arius’ teaching, with all the incoherence and inadequacy that teaching displayed.” (Williams, p. 247)
It should not be called the ‘Arian’ Controversy because Arius’ theology was not the problem. It should be called the ‘Sabellian Controversy’.
Arian Theology is defective.
Traditionally, it is stated that the so-called ‘Arians’ proposed a defective theology. But Hanson says that all sides made mistakes. Concerning the pro-Nicene, for example, Hanson wrote:
“Hilary in order to defend his Trinitarian theology plunges wildly into Docetism. Pope Liberius signs a doctrinal formula which was widely believed in the West to be rankly Arian and certainly was not in accordance with pro-Nicene orthodoxy. Ambrose supports the Apollinarian Vitalian for some time after his unorthodoxy has been evident to Eastern theologians, and Damasus supports the near Sabellian Paulinus of Antioch.” (Hanson, p. xix)
Arians corrupted theology with philosophy.
| All theologians used philosophy. Arius was primarily a Biblical theologian and did not have much interest in philosophy. The pro-Nicene Cappadocians were the major culprits with respect to philosophy. |
In the past, Arius and the ‘Arians’ were often accused of using philosophy. However, all theologians used philosophy:
“It would of course be absurd to deny that discussion and dispute between 318 and 381 were conducted largely in terms of Greek philosophy. … The theologians of the Christian Church were slowly driven to a realization that the deepest questions which face Christianity cannot be answered in purely biblical language, because the questions are about the meaning of biblical language itself.” (Hanson, p. xxi)
Actually, the shoe is on the other foot. The theologians who were most indebted to philosophy were pro-Nicenes, specifically the three Cappadocian Fathers. (Read More)
Emperor Constantius was a tyrant.
| After Constantius became emperor of the entire empire in the early 350s, he united the church on the basis of Eastern theology. Athanasius was the main obstacle to unity and Constantius tried to isolate him. For that reason, Athanasius presented Constantius as a tyrant, but he was, by the standards of the late Roman Empire, a mild ruler. |
Constantine ruled the empire Empire and was able to maintain unity in the church. When he died in 337, his sons divided the Empire between them allowing the churches in the West and East to become divided. However, by 353, Constantius was again in control of the entire empire.
The 350s were “dominated by the figure of the Emperor Constantius II.”
He united the Western and Eastern churches, but he did it on the basis of the Eusebian theology that was widely accepted in the East. By now, Athanasius also had become extremely powerful and was the main obstacle to unity. For that reason, Constantius tried to isolate him. For that reason, Athanasius and his followers presented Constantius as a tyrant.
“The character of Constantius has mostly been painted by historians in dark colours.” (Hanson, p. 318)
However, he was a devout man with a reputation for mildness.
“Constantius was, by the standard of the late Roman Emperors, tolerant and even at times merciful.” (Hanson, p. 321).
“Constantius had a reputation for mildness.” (Hanson, p. 322)
“It is even possible to contrast Constantius’ relative mildness with the ferocious coercion more than twenty years later of the Emperor Theodosius.” (Hanson, p. 322)
“Constantius was a devout man.” (Hanson, p. 324) “Constantius was not lacking in integrity.” “We must credit him with sincerely desiring the welfare both of the church and of the Empire.” (Hanson, p. 324)
“Constantius’ conduct did indeed rouse some pro-Nicene writers, such as Athanasius and Ossius, to protest … that the Emperor had no authority over the church, and that people should be permitted to worship as they chose without interference from the State. But Ossius did not protest when Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea were exiled for doctrinal reasons, nor did Athanasius for a moment permit Arians freedom to worship as they chose, and both were quite ready to invoke imperial aid when it suited them.” (Hanson, p. 321-2)
TRANSVERSAL MATTERS
The West always supported Nicaea
It is often claimed that the Western Church always supported the Nicene Creed. However, the West was not involved in the Nicene Council. The West only became involved in the Controversy in the 330s when Athanasius and Marcellus, who the Eastern Church exiled, appealed to the Western church. But still, at this time, they did not support Nicaea as such. They supported the ‘one hypostasis’ theology of Athanasius and Marcellus. After the post-Nicaea Correction, the term homoousios disappeared from the debate. Athanasius brought it back into the Controversy in the 350s, 30 years after Nicaea and the West, following Athanasius, then began to support the term.
The issue was whether Jesus is God.
| The traditional account claims that the main dispute was whether Christ is God. That was not the issue. All sides agreed that He is divine. The issue was also not whether He is subordinate to the Father. All believed that He is. The real main issue was whether the Son is a distinct Person with a distinct mind. The opposing view was that Father and Son are a single Person. |
In the traditional account, the main issue was “whether or not Christ was divine.” (Ayres, p. 3) However: “it is misleading to assume that these controversies were about ‘the divinity of Christ’” (Ayres, p. 14) Even the so-called Arians described Christ as theos (translated as ‘God’). For example:
In the year 343, the anti-Nicenes (‘Arians’) at Serdica condemned those who said, “Christ is not God.” (Hanson, p. 298)
The creed of 357, which some regard as the high point of Arianism, describes the Son as “God from God.” (Hanson, p. 345)
The issue was also not “whether to place the Son on either side of a clear God/creation boundary.” All debate participants, including those who opposed the Nicene Creed, placed the Son on the ‘God’-side of the ‘God/creation’ boundary.
Today the term “God” has a specific meaning. It identifies one specific Being; the Ultimate Reality. In contrast, in the fourth century, the term ‘God’ was used very flexibly.
“At issue until the last decades of the controversy was the very flexibility with which the term ‘God’ could be deployed.” (Ayres, p. 14)
“Many fourth-century theologians (including some who were in no way anti-Nicene) made distinctions between being ‘God’ and being ‘true God’ that belie any simple account of the controversy in these terms.” (Ayres, p. 4)
Although the Eusebians described both the Father and the Son as “God” (theos or deus), they still described the Son as subordinate to the Father. Both were on the “God” side of the boundary but were not equal. (Read More)
It was the “late fourth-century theologians” who, by removing the distinction between ‘true God’ and ‘God’, and by admitting “no degrees” created “a clear distinction between God and creation.” (Ayres, p. 4)
The Son shares the Father’s being.
The core issue was also not whether the Son shared the Father’s being:
“Many participants supposedly on different sides … (insisted) that one must speak of the Son’s incomprehensible generation from the Father as a sharing of the Father’s very being.” (Ayres, p. 4-5)
Whether the Son is a distinct Person
The real main issue of the fourth-century ‘Arian’ Controversy was whether the Son is a distinct Person with a distinct mind.
A ‘one hypostasis’ or ‘one mind’ theology claims that Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Person (hypostasis) with a single mind. Consequently, the Son has no real distinct existence. This view was maintained by the second-century Monarchians, the third-century Sabellians, and also by the fourth-century pro-Nicenes. For example:
Athanasius, the main defender of the Nicene Creed in the fourth century, and his predecessor Alexander of Alexandria believed in a single mind. (Read More)
The Western church, which promoted and defended the Nicene Creed, in their declaration at Serdica in 343 explicitly teaches a single hypostasis (Person): “We have received and have been taught this … tradition: that there is one hypostasis, which the heretics (also) call ousia, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (Hanson, p. 301). (Read More.)
The fourth-century ‘Arians’, following the third-century church father Origen, maintained three hypostases (three Persons with three minds). For example:
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 (συμφωνία)” (Ayres, p. 118) “One in agreement” indicates the existence of three distinct ‘Minds’.
“The leadership of this alliance (the Homoians, the largest ‘Arian’ group) was always diverse. … It included bishops of different stripes united by the desire to find a solution to the ongoing controversy that would rule out any theologies seemingly tainted with Marcellan emphases.” (Ayres, p. 138) (The Sabellians were the most prominent ‘one hypostasis’ theologians. It would be valid to say that all ‘one hypostasis’ theologians are Sabellians.)
In the 360s and 370s, the Cappadocian fathers were the first pro-Nicenes to accept to teach three hypostases (three Persons with three minds). Consequently, in what is known as the Meletian Schism (see here), this brought them into conflict with Athanasius and his followers, including Damasus, bishop of Rome, and Peter, Athanasius’ successor as bishop of Alexandria. (Read More).
It is more appropriate to refer to the Sabellian Controversy.
-
-
- As discussed above, the fourth-century Cntroversy was a continuation of the Controversy during the third century, which was a Sabellian Controversy.
- If we define Sabelianism as the view that Father and Son are a single Person with a single mind, then Alexander and Athanasius of Alexandria and the Western pro-Nicene were Sabellians.
- At Nicaea, Sabellians dominated through their alliance with Alexander and the emperor’s preference for Alexander.
- Homoousios was a Sabellian term.
- It is known as the Arian Controversy only because the Sabellians, following Athanasius’ lead, insulted their opponents by falsely calling them followers of Arius.
The Councils were ecumenical.
| All general councils during the fourth century were called and dominated by emperors. The Council of Constantinople in 360 was even more ‘ecumenical than the councils in 325 and 381 but is not recognized by the church because it accepted an ‘Arian’ creed. |
The Council of Nicaea
The Council of Nicaea of 325, known as the first ecumenical council, was not a church meeting. It was the emperor’s meeting. He controlled the Council. He took Alexander’s side against Arius, called the Council on his own initiative, paid all expenses, appointed his agent Ossius as chair, actively guided the discussions, proposed, explained and enforced key word Homoousios despite great resistance, and and exiled those who refused to sign the Creed. In this way, Emperor Constantine ensured that Nicaea concluded what he thought best:
“Constantine took part in the Council of Nicaea and ensured that it reached the kind of conclusion which he thought best.” (Hanson, p. 850)
Eusebius of Caesarea wrote that “Constantine took the initiative in all the matters that the letter deals with, apparently regarding himself as qualified to deal with any discussion about the profound questions raised by the Christian doctrine of God.” (Hanson, p. 160) (Read More)
Before Nicaea, only Sabellians favored the term homoousios. Alexander’s theology was similar to the Sabellians. Like them, he believed that the Father and Son are a single Person (hypostasis). (Read More) Since Nicaea was a meeting of almost exclusively the Eastern Church, who believed that the Son is a distinct Person, Alexander’s view was a minority. For that reason, he allied with the Sabellians. This, and Constantine’s support for Alexander, allowed the Sabellians to dominate, allowing them to include the term homoousios in the creed. Consequently, the Nicene Creed was not a majority decision. (Read More)
To see what the delegates to Nicaea really believed, one can read the Dedication Council of the year 341. Similar to the Nicene Council, it consisted exclusively of bishops from the Eastern part of the Empire and “represents the nearest approach we can make to discovering the views of the ordinary educated Eastern bishop.” (Hanson, p. 290-1)
The Council of Constantinople in 360
In the year 359, Emperor Constantius called for twin councils in the East and West. He did not attend the meetings himself, but, just like his father Constantine before him, he ensured that these councils reached the kind of conclusion he thought best. These two councils were concluded at a small council in Constantinople where a Homoian (‘Arian’) creed was accepted. This creed remained the view of the church for the next two decades. If the Council of Nicaea is accepted as ecumenical, this series of councils was even more so.
The Council of Constantinople in 381
The Council of Constantinople in 381, known as the second ecumenical council, was a meeting of only a part of the Eastern Church:
“Only a hundred and fifty bishops were present, all of them Easterns. The West was not represented even by a Roman legate.” (H. M. Gwatkin)
Furthermore, only one faction of Christianity, namely the Nicene Christians, were allowed to attend. Already before the meeting, in the year 380, through the edict of Thessalonica, the Eastern Emperor Theodosius had made Trinitarian Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire:
“His subjects were ordered to believe ‘the single divinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit within an equal majesty and an orthodox Trinity’. Heretics would be punished.” (Hanson, p. 402)
He also outlawed all other forms of Christianity with threats of punishment:
“We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment, they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles (places of worship) the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the punishment of our authority which in accordance with the will of Heaven we shall decide to inflict.”
He then brutally eliminated all opposition, including the previously dominant Homoian faction.
“It is even possible to contrast Constantius’ relative mildness with the ferocious coercion more than twenty years later of the Emperor Theodosius.” (Hanson, p. 322)
Consequently, no ‘Arian’ was allowed to attend.
Furthermore, Theodosius controlled the council. For example, he appointed one of his unbaptized civil servants as bishop of the capital (Constantinople) and as chair of the meeting:
“His part in choosing an unbaptised layman, Nectarius, as bishop of Constantinople, an act to which the pro-Nicene party raised no objection.” (Hanson, p. 322)
Therefore, the Arian Controversy began after Christianity was legalized and came to an end when all non-Trinitarian Christianity was again outlawed and persecuted. But it now was Christian on Christian persecution. For further reading, see Theodosius and The Council of Constantinople.
The Trinity doctrine was the majority view.
Some claim that the Trinity doctrine was the majority view when Theodosius made it the state religion of the Roman Empire.
“The Homoian group came to dominance in the church in the 350s” (Hanson, p. 558–559.)
Jerome (c. 347–420), best known for his translation of most of the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate), in 359 remarked: “The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian” (The Dialogue Against the Luciferians).
“Homoian Arians … had obtained power under Constantius from 350 to 361 and under Valens from 364 onwards.” (Hanson, p. 575)
The church adopted the Trinity Doctrine
| The emperors controlled the councils and ensured that they made the decisions the emperors thought best. The decision, to adopt the Trinity doctrine, was taken by the Roman emperors. |
The reality is that the church inherited the Trinity doctrine from the Roman Empire. The church never decided to adopt the Trinity doctrine. What happened was that the church was divided into several factions. But the Empire was not a democracy. It was a dictatorship and the emperors used religion to rule the many nations of the vast empire. Consequently, the emperors decided which religions were legal, and, after Christianity was legalized, the emperors were the ultimate judges in doctrinal disputes.
In the Christian Roman Empire, there was no separation between Church and State. In reality, the emperor was the head of the church and decided and decreed what view of Christ the church should hold:
At Nicaea, Constantine supported the Sabellians but soon afterwards switched sides. After his death in 337, his sons divided the empire:
Traditionally, the Western Church, following Tertullian, believed that Father and Son are a single Person and the Western emperor supported that view.
But the Eastern Church, following Origen, believed that the Son is a distinct Person and the Eastern emperor supported that view.
In the 350’s the Eastern emperor (Constantius) became emperors of the entire empire and ensured that the entire church adopted the Eastern ‘three hypostases’ view.
After Constantius died in 360, no new creeds were developed. Generally, the emperors continued Constantius’ religious policy but also allowed a fair degree of freedom, which allowed the Western Church to return to its ‘one hypostasis’ roots.
Theodosius became the Eastern emperor in 379 and almost immediately, in January 380, made the Western view the state religion of the Roman Empire and ferociously exterminated the previous ‘Arian’ view.
In the fifth century, Arian tribes, who previously migrated into the Empire, became strong enough to assume control of the Western Empire and divide it into various ‘Arian’ nations. The Western Romans and the Western Roman Chuch were now subject to Arian rule. The Eastern Empire remained Trinitarian. (Read More)
In the sixth century, the Eastern Emperor Justinian sent troops West, conquered the Arian nations, liberated the Roman Church, and set up the Byzantine Papacy, a system through which the Eastern Empire ruled the West through the Roman Church. This continued for two centuries, converting the Roman Church into a powerful political organization. (Read More)
In the eighth century, Muslim conquests neutralized the Eastern Roman Empire but, by now, the Trinitarian Roman Church was strong enough to survive with the support of other protectors. (Read More)
The purpose of this brief overview is to show that the Church was part of the Roman Empire and the emperors decided what the church must believe. The church never decided to adopt the Trinity doctrine. It was the Roman Emperors who decided that the church must adopt the Trinity doctrine. For example:
“If we ask the question, what was considered to constitute the ultimate authority in doctrine during the period reviewed in these pages, there can be only one answer. The will of the Emperor was the final authority.” (Hanson, p. 849)
“The history of the period shows time and time again that … the general council was the very invention and creation of the Emperor. General councils … were the children of imperial policy and the Emperor was expected to dominate and control them.” (Hanson, p. 855)
“The fact of central importance in understanding this is that Eusebius Pamphilus and many others did not regard Constantine’s authority as secular. On the contrary, the emperor was a God-inspired man, a true philosopher, a teacher who directs his flock to heaven … Church conflict is resolved by the virtual redefinition of the empire itself as a ‘school’ gathered around a charismatic royal teacher.” (Williams, p. 88)
The Trinity doctrine teaches Three Persons.
It is often claimed that the Trinity doctrine teaches that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three Persons but one Being. That is a false claim. The Trinity doctrine does not teach three Persons. The term ‘Person’, in normal English, implies a distinct entity with a distinct mind. In contrast, in the Trinity doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit share a single mind because they are one Being.
One might respond and say, Yes, but I believe in three Persons with three distinct minds, which would be consistent with the Bible. But the problem with that view is that it has three Gods (tritheism), unless one is willing to admit that the Son and Spirit are subordinate to the Father.
Sometimes the Trinity doctrine is explained, using Greek terms from the fourth century, as one ousia (substance) and three hypostases. But the term hypostasis is also misleading because a hypostasis is an “individual existence.” (Hanson, p. 193) In contrast, in the Trinity doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit are essentially a single entity.
The reality of the Trinity doctrine is that it teaches three modes of one Being.
To substantiate the statements above, consider the following definitions of the Trinity doctrine by leading Catholic scholars:
“The champions of the Nicene faith … developed a doctrine of God as a Trinity, as one substance or ousia who existed as three hypostases, three distinct realities or entities (I refrain from using the misleading word’ Person’), three ways of being or modes of existing as God.” (Hanson Lecture)
“By the conventions of the late fourth century, first formulated in Greek by the ‘Cappadocian Fathers’, these three constituent members of what God is came to be referred to as hypostases (‘concrete individuals’) or, more misleadingly for us moderns, as prosōpa (‘persons’).” (Anatolios, xiii)
“By the last quarter of the fourth century, halting Christian attempts … had led … to what later generations generally think of as ‘the doctrine of the Holy Trinity’: the formulated idea that the God … is Father and Son and Holy Spirit, as one reality or substance, operating outward in creation always as a unity, yet always internally differentiated by the relationships of origin that Father and Son and Holy Spirit have with one another.” (Anatolios, xiii)
(Read More)
CONCLUSION
The church inherited the Trinity doctrine from the Roman Empire. Or, put differently, the Roman Church is the Church of the Roman Empire.
These are some of the false claims of the traditional account. Since the Trinity doctrine is the most important doctrine of the church, and since the Arian Controversy gave us that doctrine, every Christian should study that Controversy.
The Traditional Account
| This section briefly overviews the traditional account, and compares it with the true history. |
Ayres describes the Traditional Account as follows:
“Many summary accounts present the Arian controversy as a dispute over whether or not Christ was divine, initially provoked by a priest called Arius whose teaching angered his bishop, Alexander of Alexandria. Eventually, this traditional account tells us, the controversy extended throughout the century—even after the decisive statements of the Council of Nicaea—because a conspiracy of Arians against the Nicene tradition (represented particularly by Athanasius) perpetuated Arius’ views.” (Ayres, p. 13)
In this account, these disputes are “understood as … the Church’s struggle against a heretic and his followers grounded in a clear Nicene doctrine established in the controversy’s earliest stages.” (Ayres, p. 11-12)
The points in the left column of the table below reflect the traditional account. This article shows that the statements in the right column represent the true history:
Beginning of the Controversy
| Traditional Account |
True History |
When the Controversy began, the Trinity doctrine was already established orthodoxy.
|
The orthodox view was that the Son is subordinate to the Father. (More) |
| Arius was a deliberate radical, teaching a radical new heresy. |
Arius was a conservative. (More) |
| Arius caused the Controversy. |
It continued the Controversy in the third century. (More) |
| Arius had many followers. |
For most of the Controversy, Arius was irrelevant. (More) |
| Alexander was orthodox. |
Alexander’s view was already rejected in the preceding century. (More) |
The Nicene Council
| Traditional Account |
True History |
| Homoousios was an orthodox term. |
Homoousios was a heretical, namely, Sabellian term. (More) |
| Homoousios meant that the Father and Son are a single Being. |
Only the Sabellians understood the term that way. (More) |
| Homoousios was regarded as very important at Nicaea. |
After Nicaea, homoousios was not mentioned for more than two decades. (More) |
| The Nicene Creed reflects the orthodox Trinity doctrine. |
The Creed is more Unitarian than Trinitarian. (More) |
|
|
Arianism
| Traditional Account |
True History |
| The opponents of the Nicene Creed followed Arius. |
Athanasius attempted to convince all that his opponents were followers of Arius, which they were not. (More) |
| Arian Theology is defective. |
Arian theology is as good as any other. (More) |
| Arians corrupted theology with philosophy. |
The true philosophers were the Cappadocians. (More) |
| Tyrannical emperors, such as Constantius, supported the Arians. |
Constantius was mild compared to the Nicene emperor Theodosius. (More) |
|
|
Athanasius
| Traditional Account |
True History |
| Athanasius defended Orthodoxy. |
He taught that the Son is ‘in’ the Father. (More) |
| Athanasius was deposed for opposition to Arianism. |
He was justly deposed for violence. (More) |
General
| Traditional Account |
True History |
| The main issue in the Controversy was whether Jesus is God. |
The main question was whether He is a distinct Person or part of the Father. (More) |
The West always supported Nicaea.
|
They only began to support Nicaea 30 years after 325. (More) |
| Controversy raged throughout the century. |
For decades after Nicaea, nobody mentioned homoousios. (More) |
| An Arian Conspiracy suppressed Nicene theology. |
After Nicaea, the church reverted to its traditional theology. (More) |
End of the Controversy
| In the third century, Sabellianism was defeated but the emperor’s interference at Nicaea caused the Controversy. |
At the Nicene Council, the Emperor Constantine sided with Alexander and forced the council to accept a creed that is congenial to Alexander’s view, for example, the term homoousios. Before Nicaea, this term was preferred only by Sabellians. (Read more) This was the real cause of the Controversy. Arius and his theology played no role after Nicaea. It was a constant battle against Sabellianism. It should be called the Sabellian Controversy; not the Arian Controversy.
“Nicaea has been a catalyst for conflict between pre-existing theological trajectories.” (Ayres, p. 101)
The Sabellians at Nicaea were able to include the term in the Creed because they allied with Alexander and because the emperor took Alexander’s side. (Read More)
It also helped that Emperor Constantine was familiar with the term from Egyptian paganism. (Read More)
“Simonetti (a leading modern author but who did not write in English) estimates the Nicene Council as a temporary alliance for the defeat of Arianism between the tradition of Alexandria led by Alexander and ‘Asiatic’ circles (i.e. Eustathius, Marcellus) … Alexander … accepted virtual Sabellianism in order to ensure the defeat of Arianism.” (Hanson, p. 171)
381 Creed
| Emperor Theodosius’ Edict of Thessalonica in 380 was the first clear Trinitarian document. |
Theodosius’ edict, which made Trinitarian Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire and outlawed all other forms of Christianity, was the first to describe the Trinity as the ‘one God;’ a single ‘Being’. It reads:
“Let us believe in the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.”
The Creed of the Council in Constantinople of the next year (381) still identifies the Father alone as the ‘one God’:
“We believe in one God
the Father Almighty …” (Read more)
OTHER ARTICLES
