What was the Real Main Issue of the Arian Controversy?

PURPOSE

I am currently editing this article. Sorry for any inconvenience.

This article provides an overview of the Arian Controversy by identifying the main issue in each of its phases. See here for a more complete description of the Arian Controversy. 

The fourth-century ‘Arian’ Controversy was the most dramatic internal struggle the Christian Church had experienced so far. It ended when Emperor Theodosius, in the year 380, through Roman Law, made Nicene (Trinitarian) Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire and persecuted all other views into extinction.

The phrase ‘real main issue’ implies a false main issue. In the traditional account, the main issue was whether Jesus is God. This article shows that all fourth-century theologians described the Son as theos (God), as on the God side of the God/creation divide, but as subordinate to the Father. These issues did not divide the parties.

This article identifies the real issue by identifying the golden thread that ran through all the different phases of the Controversy. It shows that the real main issue was whether the second Person of the Godhead (the Son) has an existence distinct from the Father: 

The Nicenes (including Athanasius, the Sabellians, and the Western Church) believed that the Son is part of the Father. 

The Arians believed that He is a distinct divine Being. 

These two views result in very different views of the Incarnation.

In the Nicene view, the Son cannot suffer of die. Consequently, it was a mere human being who died, was resurrected, and now sits at God’s right hand.

In the Arian view, the Son is divine but with a reduced divinity that allowed Him to suffer and die. (Read more)

AUTHORS QUOTED

The serious study of the Arian Controversy began in the 19th century. At that time, scholars put much reliance on Athanasius. During the 20th century, a store of additional ancient documents became available. Based on this and research, scholars today conclude that the traditional account of the Controversy – of how and why the church accepted the Trinity doctrine – is history written by the winner and fundamentally flawed. For example:

In the traditional account, the Trinity doctrine was already established as orthodoxy when the Controversy began. In reality, the orthodox view was that the Son is subordinate to the Father.

In the traditional account, Arius caused the Controversy by developing a novel heresy. In reality, Arius was a conservative and the Controversy continued the controversy of the third century.

In the traditional account, tyrannical emperors supported the Arians. In reality, the Arian emperors were mild compared to the Nicene Emperor Theodosius.

In the traditional account, Athanasius bravely defended orthodoxy. In reality, Athanasius’ theology was similar to the Sabellians, believing that the Son is part of the Father.

In the traditional account, Nicene orthodoxy ultimately triumphed at the Council of Constantinople in 381. In reality, already in the previous year (380), Emperor Theodosius made Nicene theology the state religion of the Roman Empire and outlawed Arianism.

Unfortunately, many “elementary textbooks” (Lienhard) still present the false account of the Arian Controversy because rejecting it would raise questions about the Trinity doctrine, which many regard as the mark of true Christianity, as opposed to the Mark of the Beast.

Following the book by Gwatkin at the beginning of the 20th century, only a limited number of full-scale books on the fourth-century Arian Controversy were published, of which R.P.C. Hanson’s 1988 book was perhaps the most influential. This was followed in 2004 by a book by Lewis Ayres, which built on Hanson’s book. This series also quotes from the 2002 book by Rowan Williams, which focuses more specifically on Arius, and from Khaled Anatolios:

MS = Manlio Simonetti, La Crisi Ariana nel IV secolo, 1975 (Only available in Latin)

RH = Bishop R.P.C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987

RW = Archbishop Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987 (This book focuses specifically on Arius.)

LA = Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004 – Ayres’ book is based on the books by Hanson and Simonetti and “in some measure advances on their texts.” (Ayres, p. 5)

“Richard Hanson’s The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (1988) and Manlio Simonetti’s La Crisi Ariana nel IV secolo (1975) remain essential points of reference.” (Ayres, p. 12)

KA = Khaled Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea, 2011

THE FALSE MAIN ISSUE

The phrase ‘real main issue’ implies a false main issue.

Is Jesus God?

In the traditional account, the real main issue was whether the Son is God.

“Many summary accounts present the Arian controversy as a dispute over whether or not Christ was divine.” (Ayres, p. 13) 

But that was not the issue.

“It is misleading to assume that these controversies were about ‘the divinity of Christ’” (Ayres, p. 14) 

“We should avoid thinking of these controversies as focusing on the status of Christ as ‘divine’ or ‘not divine’.” (Ayres, p. 3)

All sides, including the Arians, agreed that He is God. The Arians believed in a trinity of three divine Beings and described Christ as theos (translated as ‘God’). For example:

The Arian Dedication Creed of 341 describes the Son as “God” and as “God from God.”

Two years later (in 343) the same people – the Arian Easterners at Serdica – condemned those who say, “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 the Creator/creation boundary.

“A second approach that we need to reject treats the fourth-century debates as focusing on the question of whether to place the Son on either side of a clear God/creation boundary.” (Ayres, p. 4) 

“Suggestions that the issue was one of placing Christ (and eventually the Spirit) on either side of a well-established dividing line between created and uncreated are particularly unhelpful.” (Ayres, p. 14)

The core issue was also not whether the Son shared the Father’s being. All believed that He does:

“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)

“For some the position entailed recognizing the coeternity of the Son, for many it did not.” (Ayres, p. 5)

The Title ‘God’

The modern word “God” identifies one specific Being; the Ultimate Reality. The Greek of the Bible and the fourth century did not have an exact equivalent word. It only had the word theos, used for beings with different levels of divinity. Originally, it was the word for the Greek gods; immortal beings with supernatural powers. Used in that sense, all agreed that Jesus is theos (God). For example:

Commenting on the Council of Serdica in 343, where the Easterners (the anti-Nicenes) issued a statement condemning “those who say … that Christ is not God,” Ayres says: “This “reminds us of the variety of ways in which the term ‘God’ could be deployed at this point.” (Ayres, p. 124)

“At issue until the last decades of the controversy was the very flexibility with which the term ‘God’ could be deployed.” (Ayres, p. 14)

“In the fourth century the word ‘God’ (theos, deus) had not acquired the significance which in our twentieth-century world it has acquired … viz. the one and sole true God. The word could apply to many gradations of divinity.” (Hanson, p. 456)

“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, 14)

In other words, although the Arians described Jesus as “God” (theos), they still described the Son as subordinate to the Father. 

The same principle applies to the Bible. For example, when Thomas said, my Lord and my God,” he used the same flexible Greek word ‘theos’. For more details, see:

• • • • Did the church fathers describe Jesus as “God?” or
      • Did Thomas address Jesus as “God”?

“The achievement of a clear distinction between God and creation (such that ‘true God’ is synonymous with God) was the increasing subtlety and clarity with which late fourth-century theologians (the Cappadocian) shaped their basic rules or grammar … (which) admits of no degrees.” (Ayres, p. 4)

Is the Son subordinate?

One might counter and say, yes, the ‘Arians’ did describe the Son as God but, while the pro-Nicenes regarded the Father and Son as equally divine, the ‘Arians’ described Him as less divine and as subordinate to the Father. That, however, is also not true. As discussed in the article on the ‘Orthodoxy’ when the Controversy began, all regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father. For example: 

Firstly, before Nicaea, all church fathers described the Son as subordinate.

“’Subordinationism’, it is true was pre-Nicene orthodoxy” (Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers p. 239.)

“There is no theologian in the Eastern or the Western Church before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy [in the fourth century], who does not in some sense regard the Son as subordinate to the Father.” (Hanson, p. 64)

When the Controversy began, all described the Son as subordinate:

The “conventional Trinitarian doctrine with which Christianity entered the fourth century … was to make the Son into a demi-god … a second, created god lower than the High God” (Hanson Lecture).

“The initial debate (i.e., between Arius and Alexander) was not about the rightness or wrongness of hierarchical models of the Trinity, which were common to both sides” (RW, 109).

During the Controversy, even the pro-Nicenes continued to regard the Son as subordinate to the Father:

“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) 

“Until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism.” ¹RPC Hanson, “The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD” in Rowan Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy (New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989) p. 153.

Even Athanasius described the Son as subordinate to the Father. For him, the Son is part of the Father and, therefore, subordinate:

Athanasius said that the Son is homoousios with the Father but was unwilling to say that the Father is homoousios with the Son.

He always described the Son “as proper to the Father, as the Father’s own wisdom,” meaning that the Son is part of the Father, never the other way round. (Ayres, p. 206) (Read more)

Basil of Caesarea was the first theologian to insist on full equality:

“In all the previous discussions (before Basil of Caesarea) of the term (homoousios) … a certain ontological subordination is at least implied.” (Ayres, p. 206)

“In Basil, the Father’s sharing of his being involves the generation of one identical in substance and power.” (Ayres, p. 207) 

Continued Controversy

The term ‘Arian Controversy’ implies that Arius caused the controversy. However, to identify the real main issue, it is critical to understand that the fourth-century controversy was not a new controversy but continued the third-century controversy. The dispute between Arius and his bishop was the spark that re-ignited an existing fire:

“We will find pre-existing deep theological tensions at the beginning of the fourth century. Controversy over Arius was the spark that ignited a fire waiting to happen, and the origins of the dispute do not lie simply in the beliefs of one thinker, but in existing tensions that formed his background.” (Ayres, p. 20).

“The views of Arius were such as in a peculiar manner to bring into unavoidable prominence a doctrinal crisis which had gradually been gathering … He was the spark that started the explosion, but in himself he was of no great significance.” (Hanson, p. xvii-xviii)

“This controversy is a complex affair in which tensions between pre-existing theological traditions intensified as a result of dispute over Arius.” (Ayres, p. 11-12)

For that reason, the identification of the Real Main Issue begins in the second century.

Arius was insignificant.

Arius did not leave behind a school of disciples. He had very few real followers. Nobody regarded his writings worth copying. His theology played no part in the Controversy after Nicaea:

“The 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)

“It is virtually impossible to identify a school of thought dependent on Arius’ specific theology.” (Ayres, p. 2)

Consequently:

“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.” (Williams, p. 82)

THE REAL MAIN ISSUE

The Son is a distinct Person.

Below, this article identifies the Real Main Issue by providing an overview of the Controversy. It shows that the golden thread that ran through the controversy from the second to fourth centuries was whether the Son of God is a distinct Person with a distinct mind.

It shows that this view was opposed by the view that the Father and Son are a single Person. In the technical language of the fourth-century Greek, the opposing view was that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis. A hypostasis is something that has distinct existence.

The ‘one hypostasis’ view was primarily held by the Sabellians but Alexander, Athanasius and the Western church had the same view.

A Person has a mind.

In normal usage, the term ‘person’ implies a being with a distinct mind. However, while superficial descriptions of the Trinity doctrine sometimes describe the Father, Son, and Spirit as three Persons, in the official Trinity doctrine, the three ‘Persons’ share a single mind. Therefore, scholars confirm that the term ‘Person’ in the Trinity doctrine is misleading. (Read more) In contrast, this article uses the term ‘Person’ in the normal sense of a being with a distinct mind. For that reason, it often adds the phrase ‘with a distinct mind’. 

“More recent and more thorough examination of Arianism has brought a more realistic estimate of it. Simonetti sees it as an extreme reaction against a Sabellianism which was at the time rife in the East.” (Hanson, p. 95)

Greek-speaking theologians of the early fourth century used the terms ousia and hypostasis (plural hypostases) as synonyms to indicate that something has a distinct existence. Later, they used primarily the term hypostasis.

You and I are hypostases. So, the question was whether the Father, Son, and Spirit are one or three hypostases.

There were variations of the ‘one hypostasis’ view in all such views, there is only one hypostasis (Person), meaning that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit share one single mind or consciousness. Consequently, the Son does not have a real distinct existence.

The anti-Nicenes (the Arians, or more correctly, the Eusebians), held this view. For example, the Dedication Creed of 431 says, “They are three in hypostasis but one in agreement.” (Hanson, p. 286) “Agreement” implies distinct minds. (Read more) Arius was one of the Eusebians. (Read more) 

The Cappadocians were Eastern pro-Nicenes. They believed in three hypostases. In their view, Father, Son, and Spirit are three equal hypostases or substances (three beings), meaning three distinct minds. (Read more) For example:

Basil of Caesarea said that the Son’s statements that he does the will of the Father “is not because He lacks deliberate purpose or power of initiation” but because “His own will is connected in indissoluble union with the Father.” ²“When then He says, ‘I have not spoken of myself,’ and again, ‘As the Father said unto me, so I speak,’ and ‘The word which ye hear is not mine. but [the Father’s] which sent me,’ and in another place, ‘As the Father gave me commandment, even so I do,’ it is not because He lacks deliberate purpose or power of initiation, nor yet because He has to wait for the preconcerted key-note, that he employs language of this kind. His object is to make it plain that His own will is connected in indissoluble union with the Father. Do not then let us understand by what is called a ‘commandment’ a peremptory mandate delivered by organs of speech, and giving orders to the Son, as to a subordinate, concerning what He ought to do. Let us rather, in a sense befitting the Godhead, perceive a transmission of will, like the reflection of an object in a mirror, passing without note of time from Father to Son.” (Basil in his treatise, “De Spiritu Sancto”)

In the same treatise (De Spiritu Sancto), he indicates the existence of two wills: “The Father, who creates by His sole will … the Son too wills.” In other words, the Father has a “sole will” that He does not share with the others.

While, in the ‘Arian’ ‘three hypostases’-view, the Son is subordinate to the Father, in the Cappadocian view, the three hypostases are equal. However, this view is open to the criticism of Tritheism.

FIRST THREE CENTURIES

Not a new Controversy

This analysis begins in the second century because the fourth-century Controversy continued the controversy of the preceding centuries. The dispute between Arius and his bishop was the spark that re-ignited an existing fire:

“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).

Jewish Church

It professed “one sole God and in addition that Jesus Christ was a very important person.” (Read More) The Jewish church did not speculate about the nature of God beyond what the Bible explicitly states. It did not use “the new terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy of the day.” (Hanson, p. 846) by the later Gentile-dominated church. It simply repeated the words of the Scriptures.

Logos Theology

To some extent, the early Gentile church fathers did not replace their existing philosophy with the Bible but absorbed the Bible into their existing beliefs. For example, they explained Christ as “the nous or Second Hypostasis of contemporary Middle Platonist philosophy, and also borrowed some traits from the divine Logos of Stoicism (including its name).” (Hanson Lecture) In this view, the Son had always existed as part of God but became a distinct and subordinate Being (hypostasis) when God decided to create. (Read More)

Monarchians

The second-century Monarchians opposed the Logos-theologians. They criticized the Logos theologians for teaching two Gods and an unScriptural division of God’s substance. They claimed that the Logos is not a separate hypostasis but that ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ are two names for the same Person. For example:

“This ‘monarchian’ view was … suggesting the Father and Son were different expressions of the same being, without any personal distinctions between them. In other words, the Father is himself the Son, and therefore experiences the Son’s human frailties.” (Litfin) (Read More)

Consequently, the dispute between the Logos theologians and the Monarchians was whether the Son has an actual distinct existence. This was a dispute between one- and three-hypostases views.

Tertullian

The Latin theologian Tertullian wrote at the beginning of the third century. As discussed here, he was also a Logos-theologian. As such, he believed that the Son is subordinate to the Father and that the Father existed before the Son.

To counter the Monarchian criticism that Logos-theologians teach two Gods, he revised the standard Logos-theology, saying that the Son did not separate from the Father’s substance but remained part of the Father. He said, for example:

“For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole” (Against Praxeas, Chapter 9).

In other words, like the Monarchians, he taught that Father and Son are a single Person (hypostasis). But different from the Monarchians, he distinguished between Father and Son within the one hypostasis. Furthermore, since the Son is part of the Father, Tertullian described the Son as subordinate to the Father. (Read More).

Origen

Also at the beginning of the third century, the famous African theologian Origen expanded and adapted Logos-theology to say that Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases, meaning three distinct Persons with three distinct minds. 

Sabellius

More or less at the same time as Tertullian, in opposition to Origen, Sabellius refined Monarchianism but maintained the view that the Father and Son are a single Person (a single hypostasis). While the Monarchians said simply that Father and Son are two names for the same Entity, Sabellius, like Tertullian, distinguished between Father and Son within the one hypostasis. He proposed that the Father and Son are two parts of the same Entity. He said that just like man is body, soul, and spirit, the Father, Son, and Spirit are three parts of one Person.

Third-Century Controversy

For example, in the middle of the third century, the bishops of Rome and Alexandria (both named Dionysius) disagreed about the term homoousios. While the bishop of Rome supported the term homoousios and taught one hypostasis, the bishop of Alexandria rejected the term and supported the ‘three hypostases’ view.

A few years later, in 268, a council at Antioch, a major city for the Christian movement, condemned both Paul of Samosata’s one-hypostasis-theology and the term homoousios. (See – Antioch 268)

“The Council of Antioch of 268 …  did repudiate the word homoousios.” (Hanson, p. 694)

FOURTH CENTURY

All of the above happened while Christianity was illegal and persecuted by the Roman Empire. Many lost their lives. The most severe phase of persecution was the Diocletian persecution at the beginning of the fourth century. 

Arius vs Alexander

In 313, the Eastern Emperor Constantine became a Christian and legalized Christianity. Only five years later, in 318, a dispute broke out between bishop Alexander of Alexandria and Arius, one of his presbyters. This was not a new controversy but continued the controversy of the third century:

“We will find pre-existing deep theological tensions at the beginning of the fourth century. Controversy over Arius was the spark that ignited a fire waiting to happen, and the origins of the dispute do not lie simply in the beliefs of one thinker, but in existing tensions that formed his background.” (Ayres, p. 20)

It was a dispute over whether the Son of God is a distinct Person with a distinct mind. Arius believed that He is. Like Origen, he taught three hypostases. He said that Father and Son have two distinct Persons and minds, united in agreement. 

In contrast to Arius, Alexander claimed that the Son is the Father’s only Wisdom or Word. In other words, the Son is part of the Father, and the Father and Son only have a single mind. (Read More). 

Nicene Council

Emperor Constantine (not the church) called the Nicene Council. His purpose was to end the dispute between Alexander and Arius because it threatened the unity of his empire. He was not particularly interested in ‘the truth’. 

The delegates were almost exclusively from the Eastern Church.

The Eastern Church followed the two Eusebii.

The Eusebians believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases (three distinct Persons), meaning that the eternal Son pf God is a distinct Person. (Read More)

Since the Eusebians were in the majority, Alexander’s view, which was that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one single Person (hypostasis), was in the minority. At the council, Alexander allied with the other one-hypostasis theologians; the leading Sabellians Eustathius and Marcellus.

Although the ‘one hypostasis’ alliance was in the minority, it was supported by the emperor because he had taken Alexander’s side.

Before Nicaea, the term homoousios was preferred only by Sabellians, including Sabellius himself, the Libyan Sabellians, Dionysius of Rome, and Paul of Samosata. They used it to say that Father and Son are one single Person.

At Nicaea, Homoousios was accepted because the Sabellians preferred it. 

Another indication of a Sabellian ‘one hypostasis’ influence is that one of the anathemas explicitly says that Father and Son are a single hypostasis.

Post-Nicaea Correction

In the decade after Nicaea, the Sabellians claimed Nicaea as a victory, namely, that the term homoousios means that the church had formally adopted a Sabellians one-hypostasis theology.

The Creed was associated “with the theology of Marcellus of Ancyra. … The language of that creed seemed to offer no prophylactic (prevention) against Marcellan doctrine, and increasingly came to be seen as implying such doctrine.” (Ayres, p. 96, 97)

This caused an intense struggle in the church. The Sabbellians lost this battle and all leading Sabellians were deposed. (Read More) 

“Within ten years of the Council of Nicaea all the leading supporters of the creed of that Council had been deposed or disgraced or exiled – Athanasius, Eustathius and Marcellus, and with them a large number of other bishops who are presumed to have belonged to the same school of thought.” (Hanson, p. 274)

After that, the term homoousios disappeared from the debate and the Controversy subsided.

“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)

For that reason, the creeds of the 340s (Dedication, the Council of Serdica, and Macrostich Councils) do not mention the term. It simply was not an issue. (Read More).

The Divided Empire

While Constantine was still alive, he maintained unity in the church. But when he died in 337, his three sons divided the empire between them, creating the potential for division in the church also. The empire remained divided until the early 350s.

Athanasius and the leading Sabellian Marcellus were both exiled by the Eastern church during Constantine’s reign. They joined forces.

Both of them maintained a ‘one hypostasis’ theology.

The “clear inference from his (Athanasius’) usage” is that “there is only one hypostasis in God.” (Ayres, p. 48)

“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)

After Constantine had died, they appealed to the Western Church (the bishop of Rome – Julius). The Western (Latin) Church, similar to the Eastern Sabellians, traditionally taught one hypostasis. For example:

“The Western bishops … their traditional Monarchianism …” (Hanson, p. 272)

Therefore, the Council of Rome in 340/1 accepted Marcellus and Athanasius as orthodox. Since both were previously formally assessed and exiled by the Eastern Church, this decision caused major friction and division between East and West.

In response, the East formulated the Dedication Creed in 341 which explicitly asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are “three in hypostasis but one in agreement.” (Ayres, p. 118) The phrase “one in agreement” implies three distinct minds.

Referring to the Dedication creed, Hanson says: “Its chief bête noire is Sabellianism, the denial of a distinction between the three within the Godhead.” (Hanson, p. 287)

This was followed by the Council of Serdica in 343 where the Western delegation produced a manifesto that explicitly confesses one 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)

In response, the East, in the next year (344), formulated the Macrostich or Long-Lined Creed, confessing three hypostases. Attempting to avoid all the new terms borrowed from Greek philosophy, it does not mention “three hypostases” explicitly (Hanson, p. 311) but uses the phrase ‘three realities or persons’.

Constantius

Homoian Dominance

“The Homoian group came to dominance in the church in the 350s” (Hanson, p. 558–559.) “Homoian Arianism is a much more diverse phenomenon (than Neo-Arianism), more widespread and in fact more longlasting.” Than heterousians?

The Meletian Schism

“Paulinus was a rival of Basil’s friend and ally Meletius. … Basil suspected that Paulinus was at heart a Sabellian, believing in only one Person (hypostasis) in the Godhead. Paulinus’ association with the remaining followers of Marcellus and his continuing to favour the expression ‘one hypostasis‘ … rendered him suspect.” (Hanson, p. 801)

“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) For a further discussion, see – Meletian Schism.

“Basil goes on to defend the application of homoousios to the Son (as we shall see, he never applies this term to the Holy Spirit).” (Hanson, p. 694)

“This expression (homoousios) also corrects the fault of Sabellius for … (it keeps) … the Persons (prosopon) intact, for nothing is consubstantial with itself.” (Hanson, p. 694-5) Note that Basil here interprets homoousion generically.

“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, p. 690-691)

“In the DSS he discusses the idea that the distinction between the Godhead and the Persons is that between an abstract essence, such as humanity, and its concrete manifestations, such as man.” (Hanson, p. 698)

Theodosius

Majority

“The very wide spectrum of non-Nicene believers thought of themselves as mainstream Christians, and regarded Athanasius and his allies as isolated extremists – though increasingly they also looked on the more aggressive anti-Nicenes (Aetius, Eunomius, and the like) as no less alien to the mainstream of Catholic tradition.” (Williams, p. 82)

Trinity Doctrine

Must be effected by Affected

The Controversy is misleadingly called ‘Arian’. Arius was not the real problem. Since the second century, the real problem was Sabellianism, a version of which was defended by Athanasius and, in the year 380, became the official State religion of the Roman Empire, after which all other versions of Christianity within the Roman Empire were ruthlesslessly exterminated. So, the ‘Sabellian’ Controversy should be a more apt description. However, since a version of Sabellianism was the eventual winner and became what is known as the Trinity doctrine, this fact is carefully hidden from believers.

CONCLUSION

“More recent and more thorough examination of Arianism has brought a more realistic estimate of it. Simonetti sees it as an extreme reaction against a Sabellianism which was at the time rife in the East.” (Hanson, p. 95)

The Answer

Below, this article identifies the Real Main Issue by providing an overview of the Controversy. It shows that the Real Main Issue was whether Jesus is a distinct Person:

The Sabellians, Alexander, Athanasius, and the Western pro-Nicenes claimed that the Father and Son are a single Person with a single mind.

The Eusebians, misleadingly called ‘Arians’, and the Eastern pro-Nicenes (the Cappadocians) believed that the Son is a distinct Person with a distinct mind.

It should be called the Sabellian Controversy:

In the third century, Sabellianism – the teaching that the Father and Son are a single Person with a single mind – evolved but was declared a heresy.

People do not know this or do not want to know this but it is very clear from their writings that Alexander and Athanasius were Sabellians. Like the Sabellians, they believed in a single hypostasis (one Person). (Read More)

Following Tertullian, the Western Latin church also predominantly believed in a single Person. (Read More)

Finally, in the year 380, Emperor Theodosius made Sabellianism the state religion of the Roman Empire. (Read More)

The state religion became the Roman Church – the Church of the Roman Empire. That is why nobody says or knows today that it was a Sabellian Controversy. The victorious party had control of recorded history for many centuries. The truth has only been discovered over the last 100 years.

The Trinity doctrine is camouflaged Sabellianism. Formally, it claims three hypostases or three Persons but, if one delves a bit deeper, it teaches that Father, Son, and Spirit share a single mind. The Persons are mere ‘modes of existing as God. (Read More)

was whether the Son is a distinct Being; distinct from the Father

Hypostases in the Trinity doctrine

The Trinity doctrine claims that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one God existing as three hypostases (three Persons), implying three distinct Entities with three distinct minds. However, in the Trinity doctrine, the terms hypostases and Persons are misleading. In that doctrine, they are a single Entity with one single mind (see here). We must, therefore, not derive the meaning of the term hypostasis from the Trinity doctrine. In the fourth century, each hypostasis had a unique mind.

The traditional Trinity doctrine, as taught by the Roman Church, retained Basil of Caesarea’s verbal formula of three hypostases but without Basil’s idea of three distinct minds. In reality, the Trinity doctrine continues Athanasius’ one-hypostasis theology, describing the Father, Son, and Spirit as one single Being (see here).

FOOTNOTES

• 1
  RPC Hanson, “The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD” in Rowan Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy (New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989) p. 153.
• 2
  “When then He says, ‘I have not spoken of myself,’ and again, ‘As the Father said unto me, so I speak,’ and ‘The word which ye hear is not mine. but [the Father’s] which sent me,’ and in another place, ‘As the Father gave me commandment, even so I do,’ it is not because He lacks deliberate purpose or power of initiation, nor yet because He has to wait for the preconcerted key-note, that he employs language of this kind. His object is to make it plain that His own will is connected in indissoluble union with the Father. Do not then let us understand by what is called a ‘commandment’ a peremptory mandate delivered by organs of speech, and giving orders to the Son, as to a subordinate, concerning what He ought to do. Let us rather, in a sense befitting the Godhead, perceive a transmission of will, like the reflection of an object in a mirror, passing without note of time from Father to Son.” (Basil in his treatise, “De Spiritu Sancto”)