Tag: Arian Controversy

OVERVIEW

In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, it was a struggle between Nicenes and Arians, and the main issue was whether Jesus is God or a created being.

The serious study of the Arian Controversy began in the 19th century. In that century, scholars relied largely on Athanasius. However, Athanasius distorted the history. Based on new information and research over the last 100 years, scholars have discovered that the traditional account is a complete travesty.

The issue was not whether the Son is divine or whether He is subordinate. The Arians agreed that He is divine and the Nicenes agreed that He is subordinate. There things were not in dispute.

The Controversy was also not about Arius’ theology. He did not develop a new theology, as traditionally stated. He was a conservative. He was also not important. He had few real followers and did not leave behind a school of disciples.

Lienhard proposed that the main issue was the number of divine hypostases (Persons). In other words, the issue was whether the Son is a distinct Person, as the Arians believed, or part of the Father, as the Nicenes believed.

It is important to understand that the idea that God is both one and three (one Being but three Persons) did not yet exist. Athanasius and his followers believed that the Father and Son are a single Person. The idea of God being both one and three followed from the theology of the Cappadocians, much later in that century.

Lienhard classifies the Sabellians with the Nicenes. For example, while Alexander allied with the Sabellians at Nicaea, Athanasius allied with the Sabellians in later decades. The primary identification of Sabellian theology is ‘one hypostasis’; that the Father and Son are a single Person. Since that is also what Alexander and Athanasius believed, they may be classified as Sabellians.

One disadvantage of Lienhard’s classification is that it puts the Cappadocians with the Arians because both these groups taught three hypostases. To address this anomaly, Anatolios proposed that the main issue was whether the Son is homoousios with the Father. The benefit of this classification is that it groups the Cappadocians with the other Nicenes. The disadvantage of the homoousios classification is that it does not explain the severe conflict that existed between the Athanasians and the Cappadocians.

This article identifies the real main issue by providing an overview of the Controversy, showing who opposed who and who allied with who in each of its phases.

It concludes that the real main issue was the number of divine hypostases. This applies even to the Cappadocians. It shows further that the two opposing groups were the Sabellians (not Nicenes) and the Eusebians (not Arians).

Furthermore, since it is called the ‘Arian’ Controversy on the assumption that Arius formulated a new heresy that threatened orthodoxy, it should rather be called the Sabellian Controversy because it was Sabellianism that threatened orthodoxy in the fourth century.

PURPOSE

The fourth-century ‘Arian’ Controversy was the most dramatic internal struggle the Christian Church had experienced so far. It resulted in the Trinity doctrine, which some regard as “the centerpiece of orthodox theology” (GotQuestions), and formed the church that dominated the Middle Ages.

In the traditional account of that struggle between the Nicenes and the Arians, the main issue was whether Jesus is God. However, over the last 100 years, based on new information and research, scholars have described the Controversy very differently. The question arises, what was the fundamental issue that divided the Nicens and Arians?

This article begins by explaining what the Controversy was NOT about. For example, it shows that, when the Controversy began, even the Arians described Jesus as divine. On the other hand, even the pro-Nicenes, even Athanasius, regarded Him as subordinate to the Father. Those issues did not divide the Arians and Nicenes.

This article evaluates different proposals of what the real main issue was:

In the Nicene Creed, it seems as if the main issue was out of what the Son was begotten; out of nothing, or out of the substance of the Father.

In 1987, Lienhard proposed that the real main issue was the number of divine hypostases. In other words, whether the pre-incarnate Son is a distinct Person, as the Arians believed, or whether He and the Father are a single Person, as the Nicenes believed.

In 2011, Anatolios proposed that the main issue was whether the Son is homoousios with the Father.

This article evaluates these alternatives by providing an overview of the main phases of the Arian Controversy, showing in each phase who allied with whom, and who opposed who, indicating what the core issue was.

AUTHORS QUOTED

The Traditional Account

The serious study of the Arian Controversy began in the 19th century. In that century, scholars relied largely 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.

The Revised Account

Scholars today explain the fourth-century Arian Controversy very differently from 100 years ago:

The following are a few examples of how the explanation changed:

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. (More)

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

In the traditional account, Arius was important. In reality, he did not leave behind a school of disciples, had very few real followers, and nobody regarded his writings worth copying. (More)

In the traditional account, Athanasius defended orthodoxy. In reality, Athanasius was a Unitarian, not a Trinitarian. Like the Sabellians, he believed that the Son is an aspect or part of the Father. (More)

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

Unfortunately, many “elementary textbooks” (Lienhard) or “summary accounts” (Ayres, p. 13) still present the 19th-century version of the Arian Controversy. Rejecting that older versions would raise questions about the Trinity doctrine, which many regard as the mark of true Christianity, as opposed to the Mark of the Beast.

Authors Quoted

This article series is based on the books of the last 50 years written by world-class Trinitarian scholars.

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 comprehensive and influential. That 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 (2011):

The author of the current article did not study the ancient documents; only the books published over the last 50 years. For that reason, those books serve as the ‘Bible’ as far as this topic is concerned and this article probably provides too many quotes. But most quotes are hidden in ‘show more’ blocks.

THE FALSE MAIN ISSUE

Whether Jesus is God

In the traditional account, the main issue was whether or not Jesus is divine. However, that is misleading. The Arians agreed that He is divine. They believed in a trinity of three divine Beings.

The issue was also not whether to place the Son on either side of the Creator/creation boundary. Although the Arians did not regard the Son as equal to the Father, they did regard the Son as on the ‘God’ side of the God/creation boundary.

Since the Arians believed Jesus to be divine, they described Him as theos (usually translated as ‘God’). However, since many different beings may be called theos, when there is the risk of ambiguity, the Bible and the ancients added words, such as “one” or “true” or “only” to identify the one true God (e.g., John 17:3). The Arians were careful to say that Jesus is not the ‘one true God’.

The translation of the Greek term theos is difficult. The Greek word theos (Latin deus) had a much wider meaning than the modern term ‘God’: 

The modern term “God” identifies one specific Being; the Ultimate Reality, the One who exists without cause.

The Greek of the Bible and the fourth century did not have an exact equivalent word. It only had the term theos. Originally, theos was the word for the Greek gods; thought to be immortal beings with supernatural powers, but it was used for beings with different levels of divinity.

When the Bible or fourth-century authors refer to Jesus as theos, it is typically translated as “God.” However, the Arians did not think of the Son as the Ultimate Reality but as subordinate to the Father. Therefore, when they refer to Jesus as theos, it should not be translated as “God.” Such instances should also not be translated as “god” for, in modern English, that term is typically reserved for false gods. That was not the Arian view. They regarded Him as truly divine. I would propose that theos be translated as ‘divine’ or left untranslated.

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’. What Thomas meant depends on the context. (Read Article)

All the fourth-century theologians (Nicene and Arian) used theos for Beings with different levels of divinity. Only the late fourth-century Nicene theologians eliminated such degrees of divinity and made a “clear God/creation boundary.”

For further discussion, see – Did the church fathers describe Jesus as God? and The meaning of the term theos.

Whether the Son is subordinate

The main issue was also not whether the Son is subordinate to the Father. In the traditional account, the Trinity doctrine was ‘orthodox’ when the Controversy began and the pro-Nicenes regarded the Father and Son as equally divine. That is false. Before Nicaea, all church fathers described the Son as subordinate. 

Therefore, when the Controversy began and for most of the fourth century, even the Nicenes regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father.

Even Athanasius regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father. For him, the Son is part of the Father (Read Article) and, therefore, subordinate. Basil of Caesarea was the first to insist on full equality.

Therefore, whether the Son is subordinate to the Father was also not the real main issue. (Read Article) The traditional account claims that the pro-Nicenes always believed that the Son is equal to the Father because that is what Athanasius claimed and because, before the 20th century, scholars had accepted Athanasius’ account.

Not about Arius

In the traditional account, it was the ‘Arian’ Controversy, implying that Arius caused the Controversy by developing a novel heresy that became the main issue in the Controversy. That is also not true. Arius did develop a new theology. He was a conservative.

The traditional account further claims that Arius was able to win many converts due to his eloquence and persuasiveness. The reality is that Arius was not of any great significance. He had few real followers and did not leave behind a school of disciples. Nobody regarded his writings worth copying. His theology played no part in the Controversy after Nicaea:

So, the Controversy was not about Arius. The anti-Nicenes are misleadingly called ‘Arians’ and it should not be called the ‘Arian’ Controversy.

Nevertheless, this article continues to refer to the anti-Nicenes as Arians because that is the term most people know.

Whether He is a Created Being

The issue was also not whether the Son is a created being. Arius described the Son as made out of nothing. In his view, perhaps, the Son was created. But Arius was an extremist. The mainstream ‘Arians’ believed that the Son was begotten from the being of the Father. For example, Eusebius of Caesarea, the theological leader of the ‘Arians’, said: “He alone was born of the Father himself” (LA, 58). The Arians consequently believed that the Son shares the Father’s being.

Although the Eusebians agreed that the Son was begotten from God’s being and shares the Father’s very being, they did not agree that He has the same uncreated substance as the Father. Therefore, in their view, He is not eternal or immutable.

THE REAL MAIN ISSUE

Divine Hypostases

Joseph Lienhard (Marquette University) published an article in 1987 proposing that the real main issue, that divided the Nicenes and Arians, for most of the Controversy, was the number of divine hypostases.

“The way of using the word hypostasis characterized the two opposing parties for much of the fourth century; one preferred to speak of one hypostasis in God, the other of two (or three, if the Holy Spirit is considered).” (Lienhard)

Hypostasis Defined

Fourth-century theologians used the Greek term hypostasis for a distinct individual existence.

Therefore, to say that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases implies “three distinct existences within the Godhead.” (Litfin) In other words, Lienhard proposed that the real main issue was whether the Son is a distinct existence. In the opposing (one hypostasis) view, the Father and Son are a single existence. (Initially, the Holy Spirit was not part of the dispute.)

Other differences are consequences.

If this was the main issue, all other differences between Arian and Nicene theologies are consequences of this fundamental difference:

In the Nicene view, since the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person), the Son is eternal, immutable, and invisible. 

In contrast, the Arians taught that the Father alone exists without a cause and caused the Son to exist. Consequently, the Son is dependent on and subordinate to the Father.

The Athanasians – One Hypostasis

Lienhard identifies the two opposing groups as the Athanasians and the Eusebians. The Athanasians included Athanasius, Alexander, the Sabellians, and most Western bishops.

They believed that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis, meaning that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three aspects or modes of a single Being. Consequently, the Son also exists without cause but it also means that He is not a distinct Being. He does not have a real distinct existence.

Athanasius’ Theology

Hanson refers to Athanasius as the “paragon” (norm) of the West. (RH, 304) That is presumably why Lienhard refers to the ‘one hypostasis’ group as the Athanasians. What he believed, therefore, is critically important for this article. Possibly following Tertullian, who said that the Father is the whole, and the Son is part of the whole, Alexander and Athanasius believed that the Son is the Father’s only Wisdom and Word. Therefore, He is in the Father and part of the Father. Consequently, the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (a single existence).

Sabellians

The Sabellians were part of the ‘Athanasians’. The leading Sabellians in the early fourth century were Eustathius and Marcellus. They believed in a single hypostasis.

Eusebians – Three Hypostases

Following Origen in the third century, the Eusebians, traditionally called the Arians, but including Arius, believed that the pre-incarnate Son is a distinct hypostasis.

The Eusebians believed in a trinity of three distinct divine Beings, with the Son and Spirit subordinate to the Father.

The Father alone exists without cause and is the Source and Cause of all things, including the Son and Spirit.

Not Three and One

It is critically important to understand that the idea that God is both one and three (one Being but three Persons), did not yet exist when the controversy began and did not exist for most of the fourth century. For the first 40 years of the Controversy, the Arians said three and the Nicenes said one. Nobody said that God is both one and three. Only in the 360s did Athanasius begin to reluctantly accept the possibility of “three hypostases.” 

But Athanasius defended ‘one hypostasis’ to the end. The idea that God is one ousia (substance) but three hypostases (Persons) began with the Cappadocians in the 360-370s. We see proof of this in how the terms ousia and hypostases were used. In the Trinity doctrine, God is one ousia but three hypostases (Persons). Before the 360s, Athanasius and most others used these terms as synonyms. In other words, when Athanasius said that God is one ousia, he also said that God is one hypostasis. It was mainly Basil of Caesarea who made the distinction between the two terms that we today have in the Trinity doctrine, where ousia means substance and hypostasis means Person.

However, the Cappadocian view of three divine hypostases brought Basil of Caesarea into severe conflict with the Western pro-Nicenes (Athanasius and his supporters, including the bishop of Rome), who defended one hypostasis. This is known as the Meletian Schism because it was particularly manifested in the controversy over who the bishops of Antioch must be; Meletius or the Sabellian Paulinus. (Read more)

Ayres

In his book, Ayres identified four ‘trajectories’ when the Controversy began:

• • • The ‘Eusebians’, including Arius,
    • Alexander and Athanasius,
    • Marcellus (representing Sabellianism), and
    • The Western (Latin) theologists (See here)

However, this article will show the following:

Alexander and Athanasius allied with the Sabellians. For example, at Nicaea, Alexander joined forces with the Sabellians, and, later, Athanasius allied with Marcellus, the main fourth-century Sabellian. So, perhaps Marcellus must be grouped with Alexander and Athanasius.

Although both Athanasius and Basil of Caesarea defended the Nicene Creed, as stated, Athanasius aggressively opposed Basil, the first Cappadocian. So, perhaps the Cappadocians must be a separate category.

Note that both Lienhard and Ayres included Arius under the Eusebians. As stated, Arius was not a leader or an important writer. He was an Eusebian with some extreme tendencies.

Ayres confirmed that a deeper issue existed behind the four categories he identified. Similar to Lienhard, he identified the main issue as whether the Son is a distinct Being or part of the Father:

“Behind the original controversy lie conflicting approaches to the Word’s generation’. To what extent can we think of it as the emergence of one distinct thing from another? How does one understand the distinction between God and Word, Father and Son: is this the distinction of two separate beings? Or is this distinction analogous to that of a person who speaks his or her word (the word being here only a dependent and temporary product of the speaker)?” (Ayres, p. 3)

A Distinct Person

In this quote, Ayres comes to the same conclusion as Lienhard, he replaces the Greek term hypostasis with the English terms ‘thing’, ‘being’, and ‘person’. Hanson also uses the term ‘Person’ for a hypostasis.

Therefore, the core issue can also be stated as whether the Father and Son are a single Person, as the Athanasians claimed, or whether the Son is a distinct Person, as the Eusebians proposed.

A Distinct Mind

In normal usage, the term ‘person’ implies a distinct mind. However, while superficial descriptions of the Trinity doctrine sometimes claim that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three Persons or three hypostases, in the traditional Trinity doctrine, the three ‘Persons’ share a single mind. Therefore, the term ‘Person’ in the Trinity doctrine is misleading. (See here)

In contrast, in the fourth century, the terms hypostasis and ‘Person’ were used in the normal sense of a being with a distinct mind. Therefore, in the ‘three hypostases’ view, the three divine Persons have distinct minds.

In the Athanasian ‘one hypostasis’ view, the Father and Son share a single mind. Both Alexander and Athanasius claimed that the Son is the Father’s only Logos (Word, Wisdom). Consequently, the Son is part of the Father, and Father and Son are a single hypostasis.

Therefore, an alternative for Lienhard’s classification is the Athanasian ‘one mind’ vs the Eusebian ‘three minds’.

Anatolios

In his 2011-book, Anatolios opposed Lienhard’s classification and proposed that the main question was whether the Son is homoousios with the Father. He calls it “unity of substance.”

However, Anatolios qualifies this by saying that “unity of substance” (homoousios) can mean both that the Father and Son are one single substance (one hypostasis), as Athanasius claimed, or two distinct substances of the same type, as Basil of Caesarea claimed.

Anatolios identifies Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, Alexander of Alexandria, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Apollinaris of Laodicea as ‘unity of being’ theologians. (Anatolios, p. 82-3)

While the Nicenes taught “unity of substance,” the Arians taught “unity of will.” In other words, the Father and Son are two distinct substances (two hypostases) of different types of substances that are united in will.

Anatolios adds that “unity of will” includes teaching that the Son is subordinate to the Father.

Comparing the Classifications

The Lienhard and Anatolios systems are very similar. ‘One hypostasis’ always means homoousios and homoousios, before Nicaea, only meant one hypostasis because it was preferred only by Sabellians, who taught one hypostasis. (See here)

The only type of theology that would be classified differently by the two systems is a theology that teaches three hypostases of the same type of substance. The only example is the Cappadocians. Lienhard stated that his system is valid only until 360. After that, it fails to distinguish between Nicenes and Arians because the Cappadocians, like the Arians, taught three hypostases. In other words, in Lienhard’s classification, the Cappadocians are classified with the Arians.

Objections to Anatolios’ classification

1. The meaning of ‘unity of being’ is too flexible. – While the Cappadocians proposed two Beings of the same type of substance, Athanasius defended one Being. ‘One hypostasis’ theology is profoundly different from ‘three hypostases’ theologies, even if the three hypostases are equal, but Anatolios’ classification lumps them together.

2. Anatolios’ classification, but putting the Western pro-Nicenes (‘one hypostasis’ theologians – Athanasians) and the Eastern pro-Nicenes (‘three hypostases’ theologians – Basil of Caesarea) together, fails to explain the severe conflict between them. (See here)

3. ‘Unity of being’ and ‘unity of will’ are not mutually exclusive. The Cappadocian taught both ‘unity of being’ and ‘unity of will’.

4. The term homoousios (unity of substance) was not the core issue because it disappeared soon after Nicaea and was only revived in the 350s. (See here) In that period, as shown below, the focus was on the more fundamental issue; the number of hypostases.

Proposal

This article proposes that Lienhard is correct that the real main issue was the number of hypostases. 

It further proposes that a classification system must make a distinction between Athanasius’ ‘one hypostasis’ and the Cappadocian ‘three hypostases’ theologies because of the profound differences between these two theologies, as evidenced by the war that erupted between these two groups. 

A possible objection might be that both Athanasius and Basil of Caesarea were Trinitarians and must, therefore, be categorized similarly. However, Athanasius was in reality not a Trinitarian. He was a Unitarian. He did not defend any form of threeness in God.

This article proposes further that the opposing groups during the Controversy must not be described as the Nicenes and Arians, but as the Sabellians and the Eusebians. Firstly, ‘one hypostasis’ was not only an aspect of Sabellian theology, it was the main identification of Sabellian theology. Hanson describes ‘one hypostasis’ as the “hallmark” of Sabellianism. 

Secondly, while the Eusebians insisted on three hypostases, the Nicenes (Alexander, Athanasius, and most of the Western delegates) may be classified as Sabellians because they also taught that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (a single Person).

The next section will support these proposals with an overview of the Controversy, asking who opposed who and who allied with whom in each of its phases.

FIRST THREE CENTURIES

Not a new Controversy

The term ‘Arian Controversy’ implies that Arius caused the controversy. However, to identify the real main issue, it is important to understand that the fourth-century controversy was not new but continued the third-century controversy. The dispute between Arius and his bishop was merely the spark that re-ignited an existing fire. For that reason, this discussion begins with the second century.

The Main Phases

This article identifies the main phases of the Controversy according to the reigns of the various emperors, mostly due to the decisive influence the emperors had. The emperors were the final judges in doctrinal disputes.

The following are the main phases:

• • • Second century: Logos theologians vs Monarchains
    • Third century: Origenists vs Sabellians
    • Arius vs Alexander
    • Nicene Council
    • The remainder of Constantine’s reign
    • The Divided Empire (340s)
    • Constantius’ reign (350s)
    • Meletian Schism (360-370s)
    • Theodosius’ reign (380-)

Jewish Church

In the first century, most Christians were Jews and the church professed “one sole God and in addition that Jesus Christ was a very important person.” (Hanson) In other words, the Church thought of the Father and Son as two distinct Beings with the Son subordinate to the Father. 

Logos Theology – Two Hypostases

The church became Gentile-dominated in the second century. The Gentile theologians did not replace Greek philosophy with the Bible but absorbed the Bible into their existing system of beliefs. With respect to Christology, in what is known as Logos theology, they explained Jesus 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 that philosophy, the Logos always existed as an aspect of God but became a second hypostasis (a distinct Being alongside and subordinate to God) when God decided to create.

Monarchians – One Hypostasis

The second-century Monarchians (also called Modalists) opposed the Logos theology. They criticized the Logos theologians for teaching two Gods and an unscriptural division of God’s substance. Their view was that the Logos is not a distinct hypostasis but that ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ are simply two names for the same Person.

Therefore, already in the second century, the dispute was whether the Son has a real distinct existence, as per Lienhard’s classification. While Logos theology taught two hypostases, the Monarchians believed one. This dispute does not fit Anatolios’ classification because both sides taught that the Son is homoousios with the Father:

• • In Logos theology, the Son always existed as an aspect of God that later became separated. Therefore, the Son is presumably of the same unoriginated substance (homoousios) as the Father.
  • In Monarchianism, Father and Son are one hypostasis.

Tertullian – One Hypostasis

The Latin theologian Tertullian wrote at the beginning of the third century. 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. (Read article)

However, 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. In other words, like the Monarchians, he taught that Father and Son are a single Person (hypostasis). 

Sabellius – One Hypostasis

Sabellius wrote more or less the same time as Tertullian but in the Greek East. He refined Monarchianism but still taught 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 proposed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three parts of one hypostasis. He said that just like man is body, soul, and spirit, the Father, Son, and Spirit are three parts of one Person. (Read Article) He used the term homoousios in his theology. 

Origen – Three hypostases

Origen wrote a decade or two later. He was the most influential theologian of the first three centuries. He was a Logos theologian but rejected the two-stage theory and taught the eternal existence of the Son. 

In opposition to the Monarchians, Sabellius, and Tertullian, he taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases; three Persons with three distinct minds. 

Third-Century Controversy

The controversy between the one- and three-hypostases views continued for the rest of the third century. For example, in the middle of the third century, the bishops of Rome and Alexandria (both named Dionysius) were in dispute about the term homoousios. While the bishop of Rome supported the term and taught one hypostasis, the bishop of Alexandria rejected it and supported the ‘three hypostases’ view.

A few years later, in 268, a council at Antioch, probably the most important city in the early Eastern Gentile Church, condemned both Paul of Samosata’s one-hypostasis-theology and the term homoousios. (Read Article)

FOURTH CENTURY

During the first three centuries, Christianity was illegal and persecuted by the Roman Empire. Many Christians lost their lives. The most severe phase of persecution was the Diocletian persecution at the beginning of the fourth century. 

Arius vs Alexander

The Eastern Emperor Constantine became a Christian and legalized Christianity in 313. Only five years later, in 318, a dispute arose between bishop Alexander of Alexandria and Arius, one of his presbyters. As stated, this was not a new dispute but continued the controversy of the third century. Like Origen, Arius taught three hypostases. He said that the pre-incarnate Son is a distinct Person with a distinct mind.

In opposition to Arius, but similar to the Sabellians, Alexander claimed that the Son is the Father’s only Wisdom or Word. In other words, the Son is part of the Father. Consequently, the Father and Son are one single Person with a single Mind; a single hypostasis.

The Eusebians, since they also believed in ‘three hypostases’, supported Arius against Alexander’s one-hypostasis theology. However, the Eusebians disagreed with Arius’ more extreme views, such as that the Son came into existence from nothing. Arius had only a few real followers. (Read Article)

Nicene Council

After Constantine had become emperor of the entire Empire in 324, he (not the church) called the Nicene Council to end the dispute between Alexander and Arius because it threatened the unity of his empire. He was not particularly interested in finding ‘the truth’. 

The delegates were almost exclusively from the Eastern Church and the Eastern Church were Eusebians, who believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases. Consequently. most delegates believed that the Father and Son are three hypostases.

Since Alexander’s view, that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one single Person (hypostasis), was in the minority, Alexander allied with the other one-hypostasis theologians; the leading Sabellians Eustathius and Marcellus. Although this ‘one hypostasis’ alliance was in the minority, it was supported by the emperor. This gave the Sabellians significant influence at the council.

Before Nicaea, only Sabellians preferred the term homoousios, including Sabellius himself, the Libyan Sabellians, Dionysius of Rome, and Paul of Samosata. At Nicaea, Homoousios was accepted because the Sabellians preferred it.

Another indication of a Sabellian ‘one hypostasis’ dominance at the Council is the anathema in the Nicene Creed which explicitly states that Father and Son are a single hypostasis and substance.

Given these indications of a strong Sabellian ‘one hypostasis’ influence at the Council, the Creed may be described as Sabellian.

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

After that, the term homoousios also disappeared from the debate. 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. 

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. One of the three brothers died in 340. This left the empire in the hands of Constans in the West and Constantius in the East. The empire remained divided until the early 350s.

Since the emperors were the final arbiters in doctrinal disputes, the division of the empire created the potential for division in the church also. In this period, the church became divided. While the East continued a ‘three hypostasis’ view, the West taught one hypostasis.

Marcellus was the leading Sabelian at this time. He and Athanasius were both exiled by the Eastern church, more or less at the same time during Constantine’s reign. Both also had a ‘one hypostasis’ theology. During the ‘divided empire’, they met in Rome and joined forces against their eastern opponents. 

The church originated in the East and, as stated, initially, the West was not part of the Arian Controversy. However, in the late 330s, Athanasius and Marcellus appealed to the Western Church, represented by the bishop of Rome (Julius). This appeal brought the West into the Controversy.

The Western (Latin) Church, similar to the Eastern Sabellians, traditionally taught one hypostasis. For example, the Western Manifesto at Serdica in 343 explicitly declared a single hypostasis. 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 caused friction and division between East and West. Julius, the bishop of Rome, then (in 341) made the situation worse by writing a letter to the Eastern church. Using Athanasius’ polemical strategy, Julius accused the Easterners of being ‘Arians’ (followers of Arius). In the letter, he identified the two opposing parties as the Eusebians (Arians) and the Athanasians, with the Sabellians part of the ‘Athanasians’.

In response, the Eastern (Eusebian) Church formulated the Dedication Creed in the same year (341). It condemns some of Arius’ extreme statements but is mainly anti-Sabellian. It explicitly rejected ‘one hypostasis’ and explicitly insisted that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are ‘three in hypostasis, one in agreement’ (Ayres, p. 118), implying three distinct Persons with distinct minds.

Two years later, the Council of Serdica in 343 was supposed to be a joint council of East and West but the two groups never met as one because they could not agree about the participation of Athanasius and Marcellus in the council. However, meeting by themselves, the Western delegation, including Athanasius and Marcellus, formulated a Manifesto that spells out the pro-Nicene view at this stage. It regarded the Son as the Father’s Wisdom and, therefore, as part of the Father. Consequently, the Father and Son are a single 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)

As stated above, ‘one hypostasis’ is the “hallmark” of Sabellianism. Therefore, for the Western Church to say that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single hypostasis means the Western Church was Sabellian in its theology.

The East answered the next year (344) with another creed, the Macrostich or Long-Lined Creed. 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’.The East answered the next year (344) with another creed, the Macrostich or Long-Lined Creed. 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’.

In conclusion, during the Divided Empire, the main dispute was whether the Father and Son are ‘one hypostasis’, as the Sabellian West claimed, or ‘three hypostases’, as the Eusebian East insisted. It is important to mention again that the West was not Trinitarian. It did not confess the Father and Son as distinct Persons or hypostases. They insisted that the Father and Son are a single Person and hypostasis.

Constantius

During the 350s the empire was united again under Constantius, Constantine’s son. Theology evolved considerably on both sides over the fourth century. As stated, soon after Nicaea, the term homoousios disappeared from the debate but Athanasius re-introduced it in the mid-350s, during Constantius’ reign. This caused the Eusebians to divide into a few factions. Constantius wavered somewhat between these views but eventually settled on Homoianism. This theology refused to use the new terms from Greek philosophy (hypostasis, ousia, homoousios). They declared the Son to be subordinate to and distinct from the Father. Constantius forced the church, both East and West, through a series of councils, which Constantius manipulated to reach his desired outcome, to accept a Homoian creed.

Constantius died in 361. No new creeds were issued after Constantius before Theodosius’ reign. The emperors between them mostly maintained the Homoian Creed.

Cappadocians

In the 360s and 370s, the Cappadocian Basil of Caesarea was the first to accept both the term homoousios and ‘three hypostases’. While the Western pro-Nicenes, Athanasius, and the Sabellians believed that Father and Son are a single substance or hypostasis with one single mind, the Eastern pro-Nicenes (the Cappadocians), understood homoousios as saying that Father and Son are two distinct substances (two Beings with two distinct minds). However, while the Son is subordinate to the Father in the Eusebian ‘three hypostases’ view, the Cappadocians taught that the three hypostases are equal in all respects.

The traditional Trinity doctrine makes a distinction between the terms ousia and hypostasis. It says that God is one ousia (Being) but three hypostases (Persons). In contrast, Athanasius and most other pro-Nicenes in that century used the terms ousia and hypostasis as synonyms. They believed that God is both one ousia and one hypostasis. Since the Cappadocians were the first pro-Nicenes to accept three hypostases, they proposed a distinction between the terms ousia and hypostasis.

The Meletian Schism

However, Basil’s view of three hypostases, while the Athanasians (including Damasus, bishop of Rome, and Peter, Athanasius’ successor as bishop of Alexandria) supported only one, caused severe friction between them. This is called the Meletian Schism after Meletius, bishop of Antioch, who was opposed by a Sabellian faction in Antioch, led by Paulinus, who was supported by the Western pro-Nicenes. (Read more).

So, does the Cappadocian phase of the Controversy fit the hypostasis or the homoousios classification?

The homoousios system classifies both Athanasius and Basil as ‘unity of substance’. In other words, it does not explain the severe friction between them or the large difference in doctrine. To teach three Beings with three divine minds is vastly different from one Being with one mind, even if the three Beings are equal.

The hypostasis schema classifies Athanasius as ‘one hypostasis’ and Basil as ‘three hypostases’, which does explain that conflict.

However, both Basil and Athanasius opposed the Arians, who regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father. That conflict is better explained by homoousios schema.

I propose that the Cappadocians must not be classified with either the Arians or the Athanasians. It was a third category. 

Theodosius

In 380, Theodosius, the new emperor in the East, issued an edict in which he made Western pro-Nicene (one hypostasis) theology the official religion of the Roman Empire. In the subsequent year, he ruthlessly exterminated all other versions of Christianity. For example, he prohibited them from meeting or teaching, or from settling in the cities, and confiscated their church buildings. This was a time of crisis in the Empire, after a large part of its army had been wiped out, and drastic action was required.

He called the council of Constantinople the next year (381). However, since all other forms of Christianity had already been outlawed and their leaders exiled, only pro-Nicenes were allowed to attend. 

CONCLUSION

Enemies Defined

‘Who opposed who’ identifies the Real Main Issue.

“The choice of categories to designate the two opposing sides in the fourth-century theological controversy is crucially important, for the categories color the whole interpretation of the controversy.” (Lienhard)

Traditionally, the opposing parties are called the Nicenes and the Arians. In his 341-letter to the East, Julius of Rome identified the two opposing parties as the Athanasians and the Eusebians. But he was biased. For example, he described the Eusebians as ‘Arians’, meaning followers of Arius, which we today know was false. The term ‘Arian’ was coined by Athanasius to insult. (Read Article)

The Eusebians had a different classification system. They described the Nicenes not as Athanasians but as Sabellians.

Furthermore, throughout the Controversy, we see Sabellians opposing the Eusebians:

– Sabellianism evolved in the third century in opposition to Logos theology but was opposed by Origen and declared a heresy.

– At Nicaea, Sabellians dominated because they allied with Alexander and because the emperor took Alexander’s part. 

– In the decade after Nicaea, Constantine allowed the Eusebians to dominate again, and they exiled the leading Sabellians.

– In 341, a council in Rome (the Western Church) accepted Marcellus, the main Sabellian at that time, as orthodox.

– In response, the Eastern Church formulated the Dedication Creed which was mainly anti-Sabellian.

– In 343, the Western Church, together with Athanasius, and Marcellus, formulated an explicit ‘one hypostasis’ manifesto.

– Eight years later, the purpose of the Council of Sirmium of 351 was specifically to stamp out Sabellianism.

– In the 350s, the Eusebians divided into several factions but formed a united front against Sabellianism.

Athanasius and the Western Church also opposed the Eusebians. However, like the Sabellians, they believed that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis. (Article) In summary:

“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)

Athanasius was not a great theologian but he was a very powerful and dangerous politician.

Since the “hallmark” of Sabellianism was ‘one hypostasis’, as stated above, for the Eusebians, the main enemy was ‘one hypostasis’ theologies. For Nicenes, on the other hand, the main enemy was theologies with more than one hypostasis.

This analysis confirms that the real main issue was whether the pre-incarnate Son is a distinct Person:

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

The Eusebians and the Eastern pro-Nicenes (the Cappadocians) believed that the Son is a distinct Person with a distinct mind.

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

In the Nicene/Sabellian ‘one hypostasis’ view, the Son cannot become incarnate, suffer, or die because He is one Being with the Father. Consequently, at the birth of Jesus, a new being, with a human body and mind, came into existence. He was inspired by God’s Word through the Holy Spirit. It was a mere human being who died, was resurrected, and now sits at God’s right hand. 

In the Eusebian ‘three hypostasis’ view, the Son is divine but with a reduced divinity that allowed Him to become a human being, suffer, and die. Consequently, the incarnation did not result in a new person or a new mind. Rather, the Son took on a human body without a human mind. The eternal Logos takes the place of the human mind. Therefore, Christ is the same Person as the pre-existent Son of God. Jesus is subordinate because the pre-incarnate Son is subordinate. To become incarnate was also not a new experience for Him. He was also temporarily incarnate when he wrestled with Jacob. All appearances of Yahweh in the Old Testament were really the Son.

(Read Article).

The Sabellian Controversy

It is called the ‘Arian’ Controversy on the assumption that Arius formulated a new heresy that threatened orthodoxy for most of the fourth century. However, Arius did not develop a new heresy. He was a lone Eusebian voice in North Africa. He had few followers and did not leave behind a school of disciples. The Controversy is misleadingly called ‘Arian’.

If the term ‘Arian Controversy’ implies that Arius’ theology was a threat to orthodoxy, then it should rather be called the ‘Sabellian Controversy’ because Sabellianism was already rejected as heresy in the third century but, in the fourth century, remained the main threat to the traditional Eusebian theology.

Three Broad Phases

The entire Controversy can be divided into three broad phases:

1. In the second-century war between the Logos theologians and the Monarchians, both sides believed that the Son is homoousios.

2. The anti-Sabellians Controversy began in the third century and continued for most of the fourth. In this war, both the Lienhard and Anatolios classifications are able to explain the opposing parties. While the Eusebians taught that the Son is distinct Person, which also means that He is not of the same unoriginated substance as the Father, the Sabellians taught that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis and, therefore, of the same substance.

3. The intra-Nicene conflict between the Athanasians and the Cappadocians.

The Truth is Carefully Guarded.

Finally, in the year 380, Emperor Theodosius made Western ‘one hypostasis’ theology the State Religion of the Roman Empire. (Read More) His Edict explicitly mentioned Damasus and Peter, the bishops of Rome and Alexandria respectively.

With the protection of the Roman Military, that State Religion, with Sabellianism as its founding decree, became the Roman Church (the Church of the Roman Empire) that dominated the Middle Ages.

Sabellianism became what is known today as the Trinity doctrine. The nature of the Trinity doctrine is carefully hidden. It is camouflaged Sabellianism. Superficial accounts claim that the Trinity doctrine teaches that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one God existing as three hypostases or three Persons, implying three distinct minds. However, in the Trinity doctrine, the terms hypostases and Persons are misleading because it teaches that Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Being with a single mind. They are not real ‘persons’ as the term is used in modern English. The ‘Persons’ are mere ‘modes of existing as God’. In reality, the Trinity doctrine continues Athanasius’ one-hypostasis theology. (Read Article)

In the same way, the true origin of the Trinity doctrine is a carefully guarded secret. The victorious party had control of the recorded history for many centuries and had corrupted history. The truth has only been discovered over the last 100 years.

OTHER ARTICLES

• • • Origin of the Trinity Doctrine – Including the pre-Nicene Church Fathers and the fourth-century Arian Controversy
    • All articles on this website
    • Is Jesus the Most High God?
    • Trinity Doctrine – General
    • The Book of Daniel
    • The Book of Revelation
    • The Origin of Evil
    • Death, Eternal Life, and Eternal Torment

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”)