The Arian Controversy
Importance
The 4th-century Arian Controversy was a struggle about the nature of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. It was the most dramatic internal struggle the Christian Church had ever experienced, and produced the Trinity doctrine, the most important doctrine of the Church. Show More
Since this website expects the Controversy to flare up again in the end-time crisis predicted in Revelation 13, and since the Trinity doctrine is the most fundamental doctrine of the church, every Christian should be aware of the issues in this Controversy.
Brief History
Cause
In the traditional account, Arius caused the Controversy by developing a new heresy, and by gaining many followers. Show More
In reality, the Controversy continued the Controversy that raged during the 3rd century. The dispute between Arius and Alexander re-ignited a fire that was smoldering during the severe persecution of the first two decades of the 4th century. Show More
The controversy of the 3rd century was between the views of Origen and Sabellius and can be seen in the dispute between Rome and Alexandria around the year 260. The dispute was about the term homoousios:
Alexandria defended Origen’s view that the Son is a hypostasis (a distinct Existence or Person). Therefore, Alexandria believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases and rejected the term homoousios. Show More
In opposition, Rome believed that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (a single existence, meaning that the Son is not a distinct Existence) and defended the term homoousios. Show More
In 318, only five years after Christianity was legalized in 313, a dispute broke out between Arius and his bishop, Alexander:
By this time, Alexandria had moved away from its previous position and had adopted the position defended by Rome in the 260s. Alexander, representing the Alexandrian majority view, believed that the Son is a property or quality of the Father. Therefore, the Father and Son are a single hypostasis. Show More
In opposition to Alexander, Arius resisted the shift to a ‘one hypostasis’ theology. He was a conservative Alexandrian, teaching three hypostases. Show More
This dispute culminated in the Nicene Council of 325, where Arius was rejected, mainly because Emperor Constantine took Alexander’s part. Show More
The so-called ecumenical councils of the 4th century were not church meetings. They were meetings of the Roman Empire, called and controlled by the emperors. The purpose of these meetings was to force the church to comply with the emperor’s wishes. Therefore, in the 4th century, the emperor was the ultimate judge in Christian religious disputes. Show More
However, in the decade after Nicaea, the decisions at Nicaea were effectively reversed. All leading Nicenes were deposed, and all exiled Arians were allowed to return. After that, the key Nicene term homoousios also disappeared. Show More
In the late 330s, Athanasius and Marcellus, who were both deposed by the Eastern Church, joined forces and developed Athanasius’ polemical strategy, which in later centuries became the traditional explanation of the Controversy. Athanasius claimed that Arius developed a novel heresy and caused the Controversy by gaining many followers. In reality, Arius had few real followers. He did not leave behind a school of disciples. He had many supporters, not because they accepted all his views, but because they were all on the same side, opposing Alexander’s ‘one hypostasis’ theology. Show More
Athanasius also coined the term ‘Arian’ to label his opponents as followers of Arius, which they were not. Consequently, the terms ‘Arian’ and ‘Arianism’ are serious misnomers. Show More
In the late 330s, Athanasius and Marcellus appealed to the Western Church, which up to this time was on the periphery of the Controversy. The Western Church then entered the controversy by declaring Athanasius and Marcellus innocent and orthodox. Show More
While Constantine was alive, he enforced unity in the church. After he died in 337, the Empire was divided between Eastern and Western emperors. In the 340s, the absence of a single emperor seeking to unify the church allowed the Eastern and Western Churches to return to their traditional views, opposing one another. The Councils of this decade are very important because they show what the Western and Eastern Churches really believed:
The Eastern Dedication Council of 341 asserts three hypostases. Show More
In opposition, the Western Manifesto at Serdica in 433 proclaims a single hypostasis. Show More
The church was now divided between the Greek East and Latin West, but there were also many in the East who had adopted the ‘one hypostasis’ view. For example, Eustathius, who was the bishop of the key city of Antioch, was one of the main drivers of the ‘one hypostasis’ view at the Nicene Council. Similarly, in the West, many held the ‘three hypostases’ view. Show More
In the 350s, the Empire was again united under a single emperor (Constantius), and he ensured unity in the Church by forcing the Western Church to agree to an Eastern (Arian) creed. Show More
For much of the 360s-370s, the Empire was divided between Eastern and Western emperors, allowing the West to return to its traditional Nicene position, while the East remained mainly Eusebian (Arian). Show More
However, in those decades, the Cappadocian fathers, who were Eastern theologians, accepted the Nicene Creed as well. However, they did not follow Athanasius. While Athanasius taught one hypostasis, Basil and the Cappadocians taught three hypostases. Show More
This caused a fairly severe conflict between Athanasius and Basil, the first of the Cappadocians.
In 379, Theodosius became emperor in the East. He was a Nicene supporter and outlawed Arianism in 380, prohibited Arians from settling and worshiping in the towns, and confiscated Arian churches.
In 381, he called the Council in Constantinople, but invited only Nicene supporters. The Council revived and revised the Nicene Creed. These actions converted the Roman nation to Nicene theology by force.
After the fall of Rome in the fifth century, Europe was divided between several Germanic nations, and, since they were converted to Christianity during the 4th century while Arianism dominated, Europe was ‘Arian’ once again. However, they allowed the Roman Church to remain.
In the sixth century, the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire liberated the Roman Church by subjecting the Arian kingdoms. In the next two centuries, the Arian kingdoms converted one after the other to Roman (Nicene) theology.
Books Quoted
This article series is based on books published by experts over the last 50 years, including:
| R.P.C. Hanson – The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (1988)
Rowan Williams – Arius: Heresy and Tradition (2002/1987) Lewis Ayres – Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (2004) Khaled Anatolios – Retrieving Nicaea (2011) |
Lewis confirms the importance of the books by Hanson and Simonetti (Ayres, pp. 5, 12). Although this article series is based on these books, the conclusions are my own and are certainly not all shared by these authors.
The Traditional Account
In the traditional account of the Controversy, the Trinity doctrine was accepted as orthodox when the 4th century began, but Arius caused the Controversy by formulating a new heresy and gaining many followers. This is incorrect in several ways:
1) Arianism was orthodox.
Arianism was the orthodox view when the Controversy began:
All Christians of the first three centuries and more regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father. However, subordination does not define Arianism because the Nicenes also regarded the Son as ontologically subordinate to the Father. Nicenes regarded the Son as an aspect or feature of the Father (His Word, Power, Wisdom). Therefore, even though the Logos is ontologically equal to the Father, He is subordinate in Person. Show More
What really defines Arianism is the view that the Son is a hypostasis (a distinct Person). This is what Origen taught during the early third century, and most Christians at the beginning of the 4th century followed Origen.
The view that the Father and Son are a single Person did exist in the second century as Monarchianism (Modalism) and was refined by Sabellius, also at the beginning of the third century. But that view was formally rejected. A council in Antioch, an important city for the Christian faith at the time, in 268 deposed the Sabellian Paul of Samosata and denounced the term homoousios.
2) The Trinity doctrine did not exist when the 4th-century Controversy began:
At first, the Nicenes taught that the Father and Son are a single Person (one hypostasis). Only in the 360s did the Nicenes begin to teach three Persons (three hypostases).
3) Arius did not formulate a new heresy.
Arius was an Alexandrian conservative. For example, his theology was similar to that of Dionysius, who was bishop of Alexandria when Arius was born.
4) It was also not a new controversy, but continued the controversy that raged in the third century.
In the middle of that century, there was a dispute between Rome and Alexandria. At that time:
Rome had a Monarchian theology which described the Father and Son as a single hypostasis (Person) and preferred the term homoousios.
Alexandria believed that the Father and Son are two distinct divine Persons and resisted the term homoousios.
By the 4th century, Alexandria had come to accept the Roman position. Alexander believed that the Son is an aspect of the Father, namely His Word and Wisdom. Therefore, the Father and Son are a single Person. But Arius defended the traditional Alexandrian position.
The traditional account of the Controversy was how the Nicenes, particularly Athanasius, explained the Controversy. They claimed that their view was orthodox (#CLOR) and that Arius developed a new heresy. And since Arius’ theology was already formally rejected at Nicaea, Athanasius claimed that all his enemies – all who opposed the Nicene Creed – are followers of Arius. However:
5) Athanasius’ view was extremely partisan.
6) The anti-Nicenes did not follow Arius.
Arius did not gain many followers. He did not leave behind a school of followers. His theology was of little or no importance after Nicaea. He had many supporters, not because they followed him or accepted all his views, but because the larger church regarded Alexander’s theology as more dangerous.
Several creeds were formulated after Nicaea, mostly by the Arian Eastern Church, and some of these creeds explicitly condemned Arius’s more extreme teachings. Arius taught an extreme form of subordination that distanced him from other Eusebians. For example, while the Eusebians generally believed that the Son was begotten from the being of the Father, without reference to substance, Arius taught that the Son was made of nothing, like the rest of the creatures. #ARDE
7) The term ‘Arian’ is a serious misnomer. #MISN
Athanasius invented the term ‘Arian’ to label his opponents with an already-rejected theology. For that purpose, Athanasius quoted him at length to create a straw man which he could easily shoot down, all the while pretending to be shooting down the anti-Nicenes. #ATAR
Ayres refers to the so-called Arians as Eusebians, meaning followers of the two Eusebii:
-
-
-
- Eusebius of Caesarea, who was the theological leader, and
- Eusebius of Nicomedia, who provided operational leadership.
-
-
For such reasons, 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. The fundamental problem in understanding the Controversy is the fragmentary nature of the documentary evidence from this period. Based on ancient documents that have become more available and research over the last 100 years, the scholars of the last 50 years explain the Controversy very differently.
This article is a work in progress.