Tag: Arian Controversy

Arius produced his Thalia in Alexandria in 318 or 319 before he left that city for Nicomedia and Palestine. (Hanson, 138) 

That largely eliminated ‘Arianism’ among the Roman elite but the Germanic nations – both inside and outside the Empire – remained ‘Arian’.

Read Article

He was about 60 years old when the Controversy began (Hanson, 3, 5; cf. Williams, 30). Epiphanius described him as “very tall in stature, with downcast countenance … always garbed in a short cloak and sleeveless tunic; he spoke gently, and people found him persuasive and flattering.” (Williams, 32) 

“Arius … came more and more to be regarded as a kind of Antichrist among heretics, a man whose superficial austerity and spirituality cloaked a diabolical malice.” (Williams, 1)

“By the early medieval period, we find him represented alongside Judas in ecclesiastical art.” (Williams, 1)

“No other heretic has been through so thoroughgoing a process of ‘demonization’.” (Williams, 1) 

“The four decades since 1960 have produced much revisionary scholarship on the Trinitarian and Christological disputes of the fourth century.” (Ayres, p. 11)

“A vast amount of scholarship over the past thirty years (i.e., as from 1970) has offered revisionist accounts of themes and figures from the fourth century.” (Ayres, 2)

Complete Travesty

R.P.C. Hanson, perhaps the foremost modern scholar on the fourth-century Arian Controversy, described the traditional account as a complete travesty. 

Orthodoxy:
Traditional Account: The Trinity doctrine was established as orthodoxy when the Controversy began.
Reality: Subordination was orthodox. (See Article)

Arius
Traditional Account: Arius caused the Controversy by developing a novel heresy. ²For example, Britannica defines: “Arianism, a heresy first proposed by Arius of Alexandria that affirmed that Christ is not divine but a created being.”
Reality: Arius was a conservative. (See Article)

Athanasius
Traditional Account: Athanasius bravely defended orthodoxy.
Reality: Athanasius believed that the Father and Son are a single Person, similar to Sabellianism, which was already rejected as heresy in the third century. (See Article)

Head of the Church
Traditional Account: The Church finally adopted Nicene theology at the Council of Constantinople in 381.
Reality: The emperors functioned as the head of the Church, and they decided what the church should believe. (See Article)

R.P.C. Hanson (Bishop) – The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987 ³Trevor Hart wrote about this book: “While contributions have not been wanting, nothing comparable in either scale or erudition exists in the English language … treating in considerable detail … the so-called ‘Arian controversy’ which dominated the fourth century theological agenda.” ⁴Kermit Zarley described Hanson as “the preeminent authority on the development of the church doctrine of God in the 4th century.” ⁵Lewis Ayres, Emory University, wrote that this book “has been the standard English scholarly treatment of the trinitarian controversies of the fourth century and the triumph of Nicene theology.

Rowan Williams (Archbishop) – Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987 ⁶Lewis Ayres wrote that Williams’ book “offers one of the best recent discussions of the way scholarship on this controversy has developed. (Ayres, 12)

Lewis Ayres – Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004. (Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology, Durham University)

Khaled Anatolios – Retrieving Nicaea, 2011 (Professor of historical theology, Boston College School of Theology and Ministry)

“The controversy had spread from Alexandria into almost all the African regions and was considered a disturbance of the public order by the Roman Empire.” (Eusebius of Caesarea in The Life of Constantine)

“The Thalia appears … to have circulated only in Alexandria; what is known of him elsewhere seems to stem from Athanasius’ quotations.” (Ayres, 56-57)

His supporters opposed his extreme statements.

“Holger Strutwolf (1999) … concludes that Eusebius initially misunderstood Arius as saying something similar to himself, and then distanced himself more and more from the Alexandrian as he realized his error, while still opposing the theology … advanced by Alexander” (Williams, 261).

Eusebius wrote: “Anyone could justly censure those who have presumed to affirm that he is a Creature made of nothing, like the rest of the creatures; for how then would he be a Son?” (Socrates)

On the same side

“Arius … represents a school … and the school was to some extent independent of him. Arianism did not look back on him later with respect and awe as its founder.” (Hanson, 97)

“If some of these … agreed with him, then the explanation is to be sought rather in the fact that both he and they were drawing upon a common theological heritage.” (Hart) 

Anti-Alexander

They “thought the theology of Alexander a greater menace than that of Arius.” (Williams, 173)

“Over the next few years Arius gained support from some bishops in Palestine, Syria, and North Africa, especially Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine and Eusebius of Nicomedia, near Constantinople. … Although these supporters may have been wary of some aspects of Arius’ theology … they joined in opposition to Alexander. For all of them Alexander’s theology seemed to compromise the unity of God and the unique status of the Father.” (Ayres, p. 17)

“Many of Arius’ earliest supporters appear to have rallied to him because they, like him, opposed Alexander’s theology.” (Ayres, p. 14)

Arius had a “strong commitment to belief in three distinct divine hypostases.” (Williams, p. 97) [In other words, that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct existences.]

Arius believed in a Trinity.

“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, p. 47-48) 

“Alexander argues that as Word or Wisdom the Son must be eternal or the Father would, nonsensically, have been at one time bereft of both.” (Ayres, p. 44)

“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.]

“[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. … The statement then that the Son is idios to (a property or quality of) the Father is a Sabellian statement.” (Hanson, p. 92)

Alexander’s Theology

Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia “was a supporter of Arius as long as Arius lived.” (Hanson, 30-31)

“A council of bishops inspired by Eusebius of Nicomedia met in Bithynia, and vindicated the orthodoxy of Arius and his supporters.” (Hanson, 130) It “declares Arius’ views orthodox and demands his restoration by Alexander.” (Hanson, 135)

Eusebius of Caesarea supported Arius:

Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea “was certainly an early supporter of Arius” (Hanson, 46).

“Arius’ activity achieves success; many bishops beyond Egypt join his side, including Eusebius of Caesarea.” (Hanson, 135)

“Another council met afterwards in Caesarea in Palestine, chaired no doubt by Eusebius of Caesarea, which again acquitted the accused Arians of heresy, but urged them to submit themselves to Alexander and seek reconciliation with him.” (Hanson, 130)

“Eusebius of Caesarea, having had conversations with Arius, wrote to Alexander protesting at the way in which Arius had been treated.” (Hanson, 135) 

The two most important church leaders:

“Many eastern bishops rallied around the Eusebii even while differing among themselves.” (Ayres, 52)

“The conventional picture of Eusebius (of Nicomedia) is of an unscrupulous intriguer.” (Hanson, 27) “This is of course because our knowledge of Eusebius derives almost entirely from the evidence of his bitter enemies [Athanasius].“ (Hanson, 27)

He was influential with the emperors.

“Was … influential with the Emperors Licinius, Constantine, and Constantius.” (Ayres, 52) It was this Eusebius who baptized Emperor Constantine on his deathbed.

Missionary Efforts

The version of the Christian faith that the missionaries spread was that favored by Eusebius and not by Athanasius. This is evidence of his zeal. (Hanson, 29)

“Eusebius of Caesarea, the historian and theologian” (Ayres, 58) “was made bishop of Caesarea about 313 (and) attended the Council of Nicaea in 325.” (Hanson, 47)

He was “the most learned and one of the best-known of the 300-odd bishops present” at the Nicene Council (Hanson, 159).

“Neither Arius nor anti-Arians speak evil of him.” (Hanson, 46)

“Arius was a committed theological conservative; more specifically, a conservative Alexandrian.” (Williams, 175)

“In Alexandria he (Arius) represented … a conservative theology.” (Williams, 233)

“A great deal of recent work seeking to understand Arian spirituality has, not surprisingly, helped to demolish the notion of Arius and his supporters as deliberate radicals, attacking a time-honoured tradition.” (Williams, 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, 177) 

“Arius had perceived the necessity … of a critical and logical defence of tradition in the face of increasingly dangerous theological ambiguities in the teaching of his day [i.e., Alexander].” (Williams, 235)

“Arius … thought that Alexander compromised the biblical insistence on the Father’s being alone God and alone immortal (1 Tim. 6:16). For Arius, any talk about Father and Son as coeternal ignored the hierarchy involved in the very language of Father and Son.” (Ayres, p. 16)

Harnack (1909) describes Arius’ teaching as “novel, self-contradictory and, above all, religiously inadequate.” (Williams, 7)

“Gwatkin (c. 1900) characterizes Arianism as … a crude and contradictory system.” (Williams, 10)

Arius was a good theologian.

Arius … is confronted with a bewildering complexity of conventions in Scripture for naming the mediator … and he seeks to reduce this chaos … to some kind of order.” (Williams, 111)

“Arius may stand for an important dimension in Christian life that was dis-edifyingly and unfortunately crushed.” (Williams, 91)

“Arianism was not, as some of its critics have claimed, a juxtaposition of incongruous doctrines.” (Hanson, 99)

“There is no theologian in the Eastern or the Western Church before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy, who does not in some sense regard the Son as subordinate to the Father.” (Hanson, 63)

The initial debate

“The initial debate was not about the rightness or wrongness of hierarchical models of the Trinity, which were common to both sides.” (Williams, 109)

The end of the debate

“Subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement (end) of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy.” (Hanson, xix)

Athanasius

Athanasius always described the Word “as proper to the Father, as the Father’s own wisdom,” namely, as being part of the Father, never the other way round. (Ayres, p. 206)

Basil

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

Read Article

“Alexander summons a council of bishops which results in his putting a Confession of Orthodoxy before Arius and requiring him to sign it. He refuses to do so and he, along with many, including bishops, who followed his example, is excommunicated.” (Hanson, 134)

Constantine’s Motive

“Constantine desired that the church should contribute to the social and moral strength of the empire.” (Boyd) ⁷W.K. Boyd, The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code (1905)

Therefore, “religious dissension was (regarded as) a menace to the public welfare.” (Boyd)

Constantine interceded “for the settlement of the Arian controversy,” not for “the protection of any creed or interpretation of Christian doctrine,” but “to preserve unity within the church.” (Boyd)

“In 324 the Emperor Constantine … (who) assumed control of the whole empire, took an interest in the dispute. Constantine wrote to Alexander and Arius telling them to stop quarrelling about what seemed to him to be such a small matter. Soon, however, Constantine began to see their dispute as more serious.” (Ayres, p. 17-18)

He dismissed the theological question of the relationship of Father and Son as “intrinsically trifling and of little moment” and as “small and very insignificant questions.” ⁸Drake, 4. Constantine and Consensus

He told the opposing parties that they are “not merely unbecoming, but positively evil, that so large a portion of God’s people which belong to your jurisdiction should be thus divided.” ⁹Davis, Leo Donald. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology. Vol. 21. Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 1990. 55

Commanded them to be Reconciled

“At the end of 324” (Hanson, 137), “Constantine sent a letter to both Arius’ and Alexander dismissing the controversy as trivial and commanding them to be reconciled. This letter was carried to Alexandria by Ossius bishop of Cordova, Constantine’s chief adviser and agent in matters concerning the Christian church.” (Hanson, 130, 137)

“The people of his day, whether they agreed with him or not, did not regard him (Arius) as a particularly significant writer.” (Hanson, xvii)

“He did not write anything worth preserving.” (Hanson, xvii-xviii) 

A misleading term

“The expression ‘the Arian Controversy’ is a serious misnomer.” (Hanson, xvii)

“Scholars continue to talk as if there were a clear continuity among non-Nicene theologians by deploying such labels as Arians, semi-Arians, and neo-Arians. Such presentations are misleading.” (Ayres, 13)

Athanasius coined it.

“’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, 82).

See – Athanasius invented Arianism.

Athanasius used “unscrupulous tactics in polemic and struggle” (Williams, 239).

The extracts in the writings of Arius’ enemies “are … very far from presenting to us the systematic thought of Arius.” (Williams, 92)

“The quotations from the Thalia in Orationes con. Arianos I.5-6 are full of derogatory and hostile editorial corrections clearly emanating from Athanasius.” (Hanson, 11)

“Athanasius is paraphrasing rather than quoting directly, and in places may be suspected of pressing the words maliciously rather further than Arius intended.” (Hanson, 15) 

“Elliger argues that the consensus of earlier scholarship has radically misunderstood Arius, largely as a result of reading him through the spectacles of his opponents.” (Walter Elliger, 1931) (Williams, 12)

“Once we stopped looking at him from Athanasius’ perspective, we shall have a fairer picture of his strength.” (Williams, 12-13)

See also: Athanasius misrepresented Arius.