Purpose
In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, the main issue was whether the Son is God or a created being. That is false. The Arians agreed that the Son is divine and that He was begotten from the being of the Father, and the Nicenes agreed that the Son is subordinate to the Father. Show More
By comparing Logos-theology to Nicene theology and to Arianism, the current article helps to explain what the core issue in the Controversy was.
Logos-theology
In the first century, the Church was Jewish-dominated. In the second century, it became Gentile-dominated. At that time, the Roman Empire outlawed Christianity but held Greek philosophy in high regard. Therefore, the Gentile apologists (the Christian leaders who had to defend Christianity before the Roman authorities) found it convenient to explain Jesus Christ as the Logos of Logos-theology. This is called Logos-theology:
| “Ever since the work of Justin Martyr, Christian theologians had tended to use the identification of the pre-existent Son with some similar concept in contemporary Middle Platonism as a convenient philosophical device” (Hanson, p 22-23). |
In Greek philosophy, and therefore in Christian Logos-theology, God’s Logos (God’s Word or Wisdom) had always existed as part of God but later became a hypostasis (a distinct Person). Nothing was added when the Logos became a distinct Person. The two Persons (the high God and His subordinate Logos) functioned as one, sharing a single divine Mind. It is one God with a single mind, existing as two Persons, if that makes any sense:
| “The Son or Logos was eternally within the being of the Father, he only became distinct or prolated or borne forth at a particular point for the purposes of creation, revelation and redemption” (Hanson, p. 872). |
This remained the dominant view of the Church into the 4th century:
| “The theological structure provided by the Apologists lasted as the main, widely-accepted, one might almost say traditional framework for a Christian doctrine of God well into the fourth century” (Hanson). |
Arianism
The 4th-century ‘Arians’ followed the influential 3rd-century theologian Origen, who revised Logos-theology. They taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three divine Persons (three hypostases). For example:
| “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). |
To speak of the Son as a distinct divine Being would be consistent with Logos-theology. However, in contrast to Logos-theology, the Arians also spoke about two wisdoms: The Son is spoken of as Wisdom, but the Father has his own Wisdom. For example:
| “Arius also talks of two wisdoms and powers, speaking of a Logos that was not distinct from the Father’s hypostasis, after whom the Son is designated Word” (Ayres, p. 55).
“There are … two Wisdoms, one God’s own who has existed eternally with God, the other the Son who was brought into existence. … There is another Word in God besides the Son” (Hanson, p. 13, quoting Asterius, a prominent early Arian). |
In other words, while Logos-theology claimed that, when the Son was begotten, the one God merely divided into two Persons, without adding anything new, the Arians said that something new was created when the Son was begotten. Consequently, in Arianism, the Persons have distinct wills and, therefore, can potentially disagree. For example:
| The Dedication Creed, a statement of the (Arian) Eastern Church, says: “They are three in hypostasis but one in agreement.” (Hanson, p. 286) “One in agreement” implies three minds and wills. |
Western Nicene Theology
Athanasius was the “paragon” (norm) of the West” (Hanson, p. 304). In Western Nicene theology, the Son is part of the Father. For example:
| “Athanasius’ increasing clarity in treating the Son as intrinsic to the Father’s being” (Ayres, p. 113).
“[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. Properties or qualities cannot be substances …; they are not quantities” (Hanson, p. 92). |
Consequently, in Western Nicene theology, the Father and Son are a single Person (one hypostasis):
| “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 |
In other words, the Western Nicenes deviated from the Logos-theology, which taught two hypostases. On the other hand, if the Father and Son are a single Person, with the Son part of the Father, as the Western Nicenes claimed, then, consistent with Logos-theology, only one Mind or Wisdom exists, which is what the Nicenes claimed:
|
“In Alexander, and in Athanasius … Christ is the one power and wisdom of the Father” (Ayres, p. 54). The Western manifesto described the Son as “the Father’s ‘true’ Wisdom and Power and Word” (Ayres, p. 125). 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). |
See here for a discussion of Western Nicene theology.
Eastern Nicene Theology
Eastern Nicene theology, which refers to the Cappadocians, opposed Western Nicene theology. As discussed here, the Cappadocians were Easterners, where Arianism dominated. They began their careers as Arians (specifically Homoiousians), believing that the Son is a distinct Person, subordinate to the Father. After they had accepted the Nicene Creed, they continued to understand the term homoousios in an Arian way as meaning two distinct substances that are alike in all respects, meaning two distinct minds. For example:
| Adolf von Harnack “argued that Basil and all the Cappadocians interpreted homoousios only in a ‘generic’ sense … that unity of substance was turned into equality of substance” (Hanson, p. 696).
“Basil still seems to view the relationship between Father and Son in a fundamentally Homoiousian way” (Ayres, p. 190). |
For Basil, the Persons are instances of divinity, just like people are instances of humanity. For example:
| Basil assumed “that human persons are particularly appropriate examples” of “the nature of an individual divine person” (Ayres, pp. 207-8). |
Basil described the Father and Son as having distinct minds and wills, implying distinct Beings. For example:
| “Basil … speaks of the Father choosing to work through the Son—not needing to. Similarly, the Son chooses to work through the Spirit, but does not need to” (Ayres, p. 208). |
Basil maintained a certain order among the Persons, implying the Persons are distinct Existences. For example:
|
“The Spirit is third in order and even rank” (Hanson, p. 689). “Basil seems … to find a way to speak of the unity of divine action while still preserving the priority of the Father” (Ayres, p. 196). |
For them, the Son has a distinct mind:
| “Basil … speaks of the Father choosing to work through the Son—not needing to. Similarly, the Son chooses to work through the Spirit, but does not need to” (Ayres, p. 208). Show More |
The belief of the Eastern Nicenes (the Cappadocians) that the Son is a distinct divine Being with His own will also differs from Logos-theology. It is similar to Arianism, but the difference is that Basil’s hypostases are ontologically the same. The Eastern Nicene view caused a major conflict between Athanasius and Basil (see Meletian Schism).
Summary
In the Logos-theology, which was the dominant explanation of the Son of God in the 2nd, 3rd, and into the 4th centuries, the Father and Son are two Persons (hypostases) sharing a single mind.
(Greek theologians used the term hypostasis to describe a distinct individual existence. To say that the Son is a distinct Person, they said He is a hypostasis.) Show More
The 4th-century ‘Arians’ claimed that the Father and Son are two Persons with two distinct minds.
The Nicenes, led by Athanasius, taught that the Father and Son are a single Person with a single mind.
Therefore, both the Nicenes and the Arians deviated from Logos-theology.