Tag: Arianism

Posted on

Arius was not important. Why, then, is it called the ‘Arian’ Controversy?

Gooi Why is Arius still misunderstood? oor na ander

bring demonization hier in

 

The term ‘Arian’ implies that Arius was important.

The terms “Arian,” “Arianism” and “Arian Controversy” were derived from Arius’ name. This implies that Arius was the cause of that Controversy and the leader of the ‘Arians’. And if we remember that ‘Arianism’ dominated the church during most of the fourth century, that would mean that Arius was a very important person during the fourth century.

However, the purpose of this article is to explain that Arius really was unimportant in the context of the wider Arian Controversy.

Authors / Sources

This article series is based largely on the books of three world-class scholars who are regarded as specialists in the fourth-century Arian Controversy, namely:

RH = Bishop RPC 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

LA = Lewis Ayres
Nicaea and its legacy, 2004
Ayres is a Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology

Little of Arius’ writings survived.

This is one indication of Arius’ unimportance.

Arius’ Own Writings

“As far as his own writings go, we have no more than three letters, (and) a few fragments of another” (RH, 5-6). The three are:

      1. The confession of faith Arius presented to Alexander of Alexandria,
      2. His letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, and
      3. The confession he submitted to the emperor. (RH, 5-6; RW, 95)

The Thalia

“The Thalia is Arius’ only known theological work” (RH, 10) but “we do not possess a single complete and continuous text.” (RW, 62) We only have extracts from it in the writings of Arius’ enemies, “mostly from the pen of Athanasius of Alexandria, his bitterest and most prejudiced enemy.” (RH, 6)

If Arius was such an important person that the whole Fourth Century Controversy was named after him, why did so few of his writings survive?

Why did so little survive?

Constantine destroyed Arius’ writings.

The usual explanation is that, a few years after the Nicene Council in 325, when Emperor Constantine thought that Arius threatened to split the church, he gave orders that all copies of the Thalia be burned so that “nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him.” He even commanded that those who do not immediately destroy Arius’ writings must be put to death (Constantine’s Edict)1Fourthcentury.com. 23 January 2010.

Arius was not a great theologian.

But that is not the real reason. The church remained ‘Arian’ for about 55 years after the Nicene Council. If Arius had that much support that his teachings would continue to dominate the church for another 55 years, then his supporters would have kept copies of his writings despite Constantine’s severe warnings.

The real reason is that Arius was not a great theologian and not his fellow ‘Arians’ regarded his writings as worth preserving. For example:

“It may be doubted … whether Arius ever wrote any but the most ephemeral works.” (RH, 6)

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

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

The Arian Controversy had two phases.

To explain Arius’ relevance in the Arian Controversy, we must realize that what happened at the Nicene Council divided the Arian Controversy into two parts:

The first phase focused on Arius.

The first part began with the dispute between Alexander and Arius in the year 318 and came to an end in the year 325 at the Council of Nicaea, where Arius’ theology was presented, discussed, and very soon rejected.

“It became evident very early on (during the council meeting) that the condemnation of Arius was practically inevitable.” (RW, 68)

The second phase focused on the word Homoousios.

But then the Nicene Council, by inserting words from pagan philosophy into the Nicene Creed, particularly the word homoousios, created a new and different problem and caused the second and main phase of the Arian Controversy:

“The radical words of Nicaea became in turn a new set of formulae to be defended” (RW, 236).

These words were heard in debates before Nicaea but very infrequently. They were not part of the standard Christian language or confession and they were never before used in any Christian profession of faith. However, they were key words in Greek philosophy. Hanson describes them as:

“New terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy of the day.” (RH, 846)

Williams, as a good Trinitarian, wants to accept these words but he admits that these words were not used before Nicaea and they are an untraditional innovation:

“It was … impossible … to pretend that the lost innocence of pre-Nicene trinitarian language could be restored. … to reject all innovation was simply not a real option; and thus the rejection of homoousios purely and simply as unscriptural or untraditional could no longer be sustained.” (RW, 234-5)

The word Homoousios divided the church into four main branches.

To show further that Arius was irrelevant in the second and main phase of the Arian Controversy, we need to understand that, in the 50+ years of the second phase of the Arian Controversy, there was no single Arian movement. The church was divided into a number of branches; similar to our denominations today:

The homo-ousians were the pro-Nicenes. They accepted the statement in the Nicene Creed that the Son is homoousios (of the same substance) as the Father. The anti-Nicenes were divided as follows:

The homo-i-ousians claimed that the Son’s substance is similar to the substance of the Father but not the same.

The hetero-ousians said that the substance of the Son is different from the Father’s.

The homo-eans banned all uses of the word substance, including homoousios and homoiousios because these words are not Scriptural. For example:

The Homoeans made “attempts in the credal statements of conservative synods in the 350s’ to bracket the whole Nicene discussion by refusing to allow ousia-terms of any kind into professions of faith” (RW, 234).

Arius’ theology approximated that of the hetero-ousians. But the homo-i-ousians and the homo-ians dominated in the years after Nicaea. Several councils were held in which homo-i-ousian or homo-ian creeds were accepted to replace the Nicene Creed. See, for example, the Long Lines Creed.

Arius was unimportant for most of the Controversy.

So, Arius was important in the first 7 year of the Controversy, but in the second and main part of the Controversy, that raged for another 55 years, the focus was on the new words from pagan philosophy. In this phase, Arius was irrelevant. The following is further evidence of this:

His theology was irrelevant.

“Arius’ own theology is of little importance in understanding the major debates of the rest of the century.” (LA, 56-57)

The ‘Arians’ never quoted Arius:

“We have no knowledge of later Arian use of the Thalia … which suggests that it was not to the fore in the debates of the mid-century, and represented a theological style no longer acceptable in Arian circles.” (RW, 65)

“Those who follow his theological tradition seldom or never quote him.” (RH, xvii)

“We also even have only sporadic evidence of his texts being used by later ‘Arians’.” (LA, 56-57)

He was not the leader of a group.

“We are not to think of Arius as dominating and directing a single school of thought to which all his allies belonged.” (RW, 171)

“Those who suspected or openly repudiated the decisions of Nicaea had little in common but this hostility … certainly not a loyalty to the teaching of Arius as an individual theologian.” (RW, 233)

“The bishops at Antioch in 341 declare … that they were not ‘followers of Arius … they … did not look on him as a factional leader, or ascribe any individual authority to him.” (RW, 82-83)

“Arius … was not an obvious hero for the enemies of Nicaea.” (RW, 166)

Arius was an academic; not a leader.

“Arius, like his great Alexandrian predecessors, is essentially an ‘academic’.” (RW, 87)

“He (Arius) is not a theologian of consensus, but a notably individual intellect.” (RW, 178)

He did not leave a school of disciples.

“Arius evidently made converts to his views … but he left no school of disciples.” (RW, 233)

“Arius’ role in ‘Arianism’ was not that of the founder of a sect. It was not his individual teaching that dominated the mid-century eastern Church.” (RW, 165)

“Arius was not accepted as leader of a new movement.” (RH, xvii-xviii)

Arius was only the spark.

“Arius was only the spark that started the explosion. He himself was of no great significance.” (RH, xvii-xviii)

If Arius was only the spark, the fuel for the fire of the Controversy has been gathering before the Controversy began:

“In the fourth century there came to a head a crisis … which was not created by … Arius.” (RH, XX)

“Many of the issues raised by the controversy were under lively discussion before Arius and Alexander publicly clashed” (RH, 52).

The dispute between Alexander and Arius spread quickly because of “existing theological trajectories and tensions present in the early years of the fourth century.” (LA, 41, cf. LA, 85)

“The views of Arius were such as … 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.” (RH, xvii)

The fuel for the Controversy has been gathering over the previous centuries as writers expressed conflicting views about how the Son relates to the Father. Before Christianity was legalized, Christians were simply too busy just trying to stay alive to do much wrestling on this topic. But, as soon as the persecution came to an end, this explosion was inevitable. And Arius, as Hanson stated, was only the spark that ignited the fire.

Why, then, the name ‘Arian’?

If the word “Arian” is derived from Arius’ name, and if Arius “in himself … was of no great significance” (RH, xvii) during the second and main phase of the ‘Arian Controversy’, why is it called the ‘Arian Controversy’?

Athanasius created this term.

The reason we use the terms “Arian” and “Arianism” today is that Athanasius created the term and applied it to his opponents:

“‘Arianism’ is the polemical creation of Athanasius above all.” (RW, 247)

“The textbook picture of an Arian system … inspired by the teachings of the Alexandrian presbyter, is the invention of Athanasius’ polemic.” (RW, 234)

“’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.” (RW, 82)

There was no single ‘Arian’ party.

But Athanasius’ enemies (the anti-Nicenes) were not ‘Arians’ in the strict sense of the term because they did not support Arius’ theology. Athanasius lived a generation later than Arius. He wrote during the second phase of the Arian Controversy when Arius’ theology was irrelevant. Arianism, therefore, was not “a coherent system, founded by a single great figure” (RW, 234) as Athanasius wanted all to believe. Our authors conclude as follows:

“There was no single ‘Arian’ agenda, no tradition of loyalty to a single authoritative teacher. Theologians who criticized the Creed of Nicaea had very diverse attitudes to Arius himself.” (RW, 247)

“There was no such thing in the fourth century as a single, coherent ‘Arian’ party.” (RW, 233)

“’Arianism’ as a coherent system, founded by a single great figure and sustained by his disciples, is a fantasy.” (RW, 82)

Athanasius used the term to counter accusations of Sabellianism.

After Nicaea, the anti-Nicenes described Alexander, Athanasius, and the Nicene Creed as submitting to Sabellianism, which was already formally rejected during the previous century. For example:

“The so-called Semi-Arians in particular objected to this Greek term homoousios on the grounds that it has a Sabellian tendency.”2St. Athanasius (1911), “In Controversy With the Arians”, Select Treatises, Newman, John Henry Cardinal trans, Longmans, Green, & Co, p. 124, footn.

It was to counter this accusation, and to tar his opponents with the name of another theology that was already rejected, that Athanasius called his opponents ‘Arians’.

Athanasius’ purpose was to insult his opponents.

“Athanasius … was determined to show that any proposed alternative to the Nicene formula collapsed back into some version of Arius’ teaching, with all the incoherence and inadequacy that teaching displayed.” (RW, 247)

Athanasius “relies on such texts being a positive embarrassment to most of his opponents.” (RW, 234)

“’The Arians’, (and a variety of abusive names whereby he [Athanasius] distinguishes them.” (RH, 19)

“The anti-Nicene coalition did not see themselves as constituting a single ‘Arian’ body: it is the aim of works like Athanasius’ de synodis to persuade them that this is effectively what they are, all tarred with the same brush.” (RW, 166)

The church accepted Athanasius’ version.

Unfortunately, after emperor Theodosius, in the year 380, made the Trinitarian version of Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire and brutally eliminated all other versions of Christianity from the Roman people, the victorious party, being Athanasius’ spiritual children, continued to refer to any person who opposed the Trinity doctrine as an ‘Arian’, irrespective of what the person believes:

“The accounts of what happened which have come down to us were mostly written by those who belonged to the school of thought which eventually prevailed and have been deeply coloured by that fact.” (RH, xviii-xix).

It was only after the ancient documents became more readily available in the 20th century that scholars realized that the textbook account of the Arian Controversy is a complete travesty. But this realization is slow to work its way through to the rank and file of Christianity. 

Why is Arius still misunderstood?

If the evaluation of Arius by these scholars is correct, why do so many people still regard Arius and his theology as “crude and contradictory?” Williams is surprised by “the way in which the modern study of Arius and ‘Arianism’ has often continued to accept … the image of this heresy as the radically ‘Other’.” (RW, 2)

Little of his writings survived.

One major reason is, as already stated, that very little of his writings have survived. The letters written by Arius that we have today only provide his summary conclusions with no clear explanations of how he came to those conclusions:

“The Arian controversy is essentially about hermeneutics … the principles of exegesis … Unfortunately, however, we have very little evidence for Arius’ own exegesis.” (RW, 108)

Athanasius misrepresents Arius.

Secondly, most of what we know about Arius are from the writings of his enemies – particularly Athanasius and:

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

“Athanasius, a fierce opponent of Arius, certainly would not have stopped short of misrepresenting what he said.” (RH, 10)

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

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

This is the main reason why scholars still misunderstand Arius:

“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) (RW, 12)

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

Subordination was orthodoxy when Arius wrote.

Another reason we fail to understand Arius is that we do not adequately consider his context.

For example, Arius is often accused of introducing a ‘new’ teaching that the Son is subordinate to the Father. However, in Logos-Theology, which was ‘orthodoxy’ when the Arian Controversy began, the Logos is subordinate to the supreme Being. Therefore, when Arius wrote, all Christians regarded the Son to be subordinate to the Father:

“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.” (RH, 63)

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

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

Arius has been demonized for a long time.

Rowan Williams adds two more reasons why Arius is misunderstood. The first is “Nicaea’s traditional and liturgical importance.” The second is “the long history of what I have called the ‘demonizing’ of Arius is extraordinarily powerful” (RW, 2).

‘Arianism’ is a serious misnomer.

Since Arius was a relatively unimportant person in the ‘Arian’ Controversy, our authors concluded that:

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

“There is the growing sense that ‘Arianism’ is a very unhelpful term to use in relation to fourth-century controversy.” (RW, 247)

This is one example of the more general principle that, as Hanson stated, the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, which stems originally from the version given of it by the victorious party, is now recognized by a large number of scholars to be a complete travesty. Ayres confirms:

The “older accounts (of the Arian Controversy) are deeply mistaken.” (LA, 11)

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

This message, however, has yet to fully reach the level of preachers and ordinary Christians because, as Williams indicated, the prejudice caused by the long history of ‘demonizing’ Arius is extraordinarily powerful. (RW, 2)

Other Articles

 

 

 

Introduction

Arius became regarded as a kind of Antichrist.

The “crisis of the fourth century was the most dramatic internal struggle the Christian Church had so far experienced.” (RW, 1)

‘Arianism’ “has often been regarded as … aimed at the very heart of the Christian confession.” (RW, 1)

‘Arianism’ is named after Arius, who was in charge of one of the churches in Alexandria, and whose dispute with his bishop Alexander began the Arian Controversy. (See – Who was Arius?) Arius himself became regarded by the church “as a kind of Antichrist … a man whose superficial austerity and spirituality cloaked a diabolical malice, a deliberate enmity to revealed faith.” (RW, 1)

The term ‘Arian’ implies that Arius was important.

Since the terms “Arian,” “Arianism” and “Arian Controversy” were derived from the name Arius, it is implied that Arius was the cause of the Controversy and the leader of the ‘Arians’. And if we remember that ‘Arianism’ dominated the church during most of the fourth century, that would mean that Arius was a very important person during the fourth century.

Purpose: Arius really was unimportant.

However, the purpose of this article is to explain that Arius really was unimportant in the context of the Arian Controversy. He did not write much, his writings were not known outside Egypt, and not even his supporters regarded him as a great theologian. Hanson adds:

“Arius was only the spark that started the explosion. He himself was of no great significance.” (RH, xvii-xviii)

Authors / Sources

This article series is based largely on the books of three world-class scholars who are regarded as specialists in the fourth-century Arian Controversy, namely:

RH = Bishop RPC 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

LA = Lewis Ayres
Nicaea and its legacy, 2004
Ayres is a Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology

Little of Arius’ writings survived.

Arius’ Own Writings

“As far as his own writings go, we have no more than three letters, (and) a few fragments of another” (RH, 5-6). The three are:

      1. The confession of faith Arius presented to Alexander of Alexandria,
      2. His letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, and
      3. The confession he submitted to the emperor. (RH, 5-6; RW, 95)

The Thalia

“The Thalia is Arius’ only known theological work” (RH, 10) but “we do not possess a single complete and continuous text.” (RW, 62) We only have extracts from it in the writings of Arius’ enemies, “mostly from the pen of Athanasius of Alexandria, his bitterest and most prejudiced enemy.” (RH, 6)

Why did so little survive?

If Arius was such an important person that the whole Fourth Century Controversy was named after him, why did so few of his writings survive?

Constantine destroyed Arius’ writings.

The usual explanation is that, a few years after the Nicene Council in 325, when Emperor Constantine thought that Arius threatened to split the church, he gave orders that all copies of the Thalia be burned so that “nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him.” He even commanded that those who do not immediately destroy Arius’ writings must be put to death (Constantine’s Edict)3Fourthcentury.com. 23 January 2010.

But that is not the real reason. The church remained ‘Arian’ for about 55 years after the Nicene Council. If Arius had that much support that his teachings would continue to dominate the church for another 55 years, then his supporters would have kept copies of his writings despite Constantine’s severe warnings.

Arius was not a great theologian.

The real reason is that Arius was not a great theologian and not even his supporters regarded his writings as worth preserving. For example:

“It may be doubted … whether Arius ever wrote any but the most ephemeral works.” (RH, 6)

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

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

The Arian Controversy had two phases.

To explain Arius’ relevance in the Arian Controversy, we must realize that what happened at the Nicene Council divided the Arian Controversy into two parts:

The first, which focused on Arius, was concluded at Nicaea.

The first part began with the dispute between Alexander and Arius in the year 318 and came to an end in the year 325 at the Council of Nicaea, where Arius’ theology was presented, discussed, and very soon rejected.

“It became evident very early on (during the council meeting) that the condemnation of Arius was practically inevitable.” (RW, 68)

The second phase was caused by the word Homoousios.

But then the Nicene Council, by inserting words from pagan philosophy into the Nicene Creed, particularly the word homoousios, created a new and different problem and caused the second and main phase of the Arian Controversy:

“The radical words of Nicaea became in turn a new set of formulae to be defended” (RW, 236).

These words were heard in debates before Nicaea but very infrequently. They were not part of the standard Christian language or confession and they were never before used in any Christian profession of faith. However, they were key words in Greek philosophy. Hanson describes them as “new terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy of the day.” (RH, 846)

Williams, as a good Trinitarian, wants to accept these words but he admits that these words were not used before Nicaea and are an untraditional innovation:

“It was … impossible … to pretend that the lost innocence of pre-Nicene trinitarian language could be restored. … to reject all innovation was simply not a real option; and thus the rejection of homoousios purely and simply as unscriptural or untraditional could no longer be sustained.” (RW, 234-5)

So, the controversy continued to rage after Nicaea, but now the focus was on these new words; no longer on Arius.

The word Homoousios divided Christianity into four branches.

To show further that Arius was irrelevant in the second and main phase of the Arian Controversy, we need to understand that, in the 50+ years of the second phase of the Arian Controversy, there was no single Arian movement. The church was divided into a number of branches; similar to our denominations today:

The homo-ousians were the pro-Nicenes. They accepted the statement in the Nicene Creed that the Son is homoousios (of the same substance) as the Father. The anti-Nicenes were divided as follows:

The homo-i-ousians claimed that the Son’s substance is similar to the substance of the Father but not the same.

The hetero-ousians said that the substance of the Son is different from the Father’s.

The homo-eans banned all uses of the word substance, including homoousios and homoiousios because these words are not Scriptural. For example:

The Homoeans made “attempts in the credal statements of conservative synods in the 350s’ to bracket the whole Nicene discussion by refusing to allow ousia-terms of any kind into professions of faith” (RW, 234).

Arius’ theology approximated that of the hetero-ousians. But the homo-i-ousians and the homo-ians dominated in the years after Nicaea. Several councils were held in which homo-i-ousian or homo-ian creeds were accepted to replace the Nicene Creed. See, for example, the Long Lines Creed.

There was no single ‘Arian’ party.

Our authors, therefore, conclude as follows:

“There was no single ‘Arian’ agenda, no tradition of loyalty to a single authoritative teacher. Theologians who criticized the Creed of Nicaea had very diverse attitudes to Arius himself.” (RW, 247)

“There was no such thing in the fourth century as a single, coherent ‘Arian’ party.” (RW, 233)

“’Arianism’ as a coherent system, founded by a single great figure and sustained by his disciples, is a fantasy.” (RW, 82)

In the second phase, Arius was irrelevant.

His theology was irrelevant.

“Arius’ own theology is of little importance in understanding the major debates of the rest of the century.” (LA, 56-57)

The ‘Arians’ never quoted Arius:

“We have no knowledge of later Arian use of the Thalia … which suggests that it was not to the fore in the debates of the mid-century, and represented a theological style no longer acceptable in Arian circles.” (RW, 65)

“Those who follow his theological tradition seldom or never quote him.” (RH, xvii)

“We also even have only sporadic evidence of his texts being used by later ‘Arians’.” (LA, 56-57)

He was not the leader of a group.

“We are not to think of Arius as dominating and directing a single school of thought to which all his allies belonged.” (RW, 171)

“Those who suspected or openly repudiated the decisions of Nicaea had little in common but this hostility … certainly not a loyalty to the teaching of Arius as an individual theologian.” (RW, 233)

“The bishops at Antioch in 341 declare … that they were not ‘followers of Arius … they … did not look on him as a factional leader, or ascribe any individual authority to him.” (RW, 82-83)

“Arius … was not an obvious hero for the enemies of Nicaea.” (RW, 166)

Arius was an academic; not a leader.

“Arius, like his great Alexandrian predecessors, is essentially an ‘academic’.” (RW, 87)

“He (Arius) is not a theologian of consensus, but a notably individual intellect.” (RW, 178)

He did not leave a school of disciples.

“Arius evidently made converts to his views … but he left no school of disciples.” (RW, 233)

“Arius’ role in ‘Arianism’ was not that of the founder of a sect. It was not his individual teaching that dominated the mid-century eastern Church.” (RW, 165)

“Arius was not accepted as leader of a new movement.” (RH, xvii-xviii)

Arius was only the spark.

“Arius was only the spark that started the explosion. He himself was of no great significance.” (RH, xvii-xviii)

The Controversy had been smoldering before Arius.

If Arius was only the spark, the fuel for the fire of the Controversy already existed when the Controversy began:

“In the fourth century there came to a head a crisis … which was not created by … Arius.” (RH, XX)

“Many of the issues raised by the controversy were under lively discussion before Arius and Alexander publicly clashed” (RH, 52).

The dispute between Alexander and Arius spread quickly because of “existing theological trajectories and tensions present in the early years of the fourth century.” (LA, 41, cf. LA, 85)

“The views of Arius were such as … 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.” (RH, xvii)

The fuel for the Controversy has been gathering over the previous centuries as writers expressed conflicting views about how the Son relates to the Father. Before Christianity was legalized, Christians were simply too busy just trying to stay alive to do much wrestling on this topic. But, as soon as the persecution came to an end, this explosion was inevitable. And Arius, as Hanson stated, was only the spark that ignited the fire.

Why, then, the name ‘Arian’?

If the word “Arian” is derived from Arius’ name, and if Arius “in himself … was of no great significance” (RH, xvii) during the second and main phase of the ‘Arian Controversy’, why is it called the ‘Arian Controversy’?

Athanasius created this term.

The reason we use the terms “Arian” and “Arianism” today is that Athanasius created the term and applied it to his opponents:

“‘Arianism’ is the polemical creation of Athanasius above all.” (RW, 247)

“The textbook picture of an Arian system … inspired by the teachings of the Alexandrian presbyter, is the invention of Athanasius’ polemic.” (RW, 234)

“’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.” (RW, 82)

But the Anti-Nicenes were not ‘Arians’.

But Athanasius’ enemies (the anti-Nicenes) were not ‘Arians’ in the strict sense of the term because they did not support Arius’ theology. Athanasius lived a generation later than Arius. He wrote during the second phase of the Arian Controversy when Arius’ theology was irrelevant.

Athanasius used the term to counter accusations of Sabellianism.

After Nicaea, the anti-Nicenes described Alexander, Athanasius, and the Nicene Creed as submitting to Sabellianism, which was already formally rejected during the previous century. For example:

“The so-called Semi-Arians in particular objected to this Greek term homoousios on the grounds that it has a Sabellian tendency.”4St. Athanasius (1911), “In Controversy With the Arians”, Select Treatises, Newman, John Henry Cardinal trans, Longmans, Green, & Co, p. 124, footn.

It was to counter this accusation, and to tar his opponents with the name of another theology that was already rejected, that Athanasius called his opponents ‘Arians’.

Athanasius used the term as an abusive name.

“Athanasius … was determined to show that any proposed alternative to the Nicene formula collapsed back into some version of Arius’ teaching, with all the incoherence and inadequacy that teaching displayed.” (RW, 247)

Athanasius “relies on such texts being a positive embarrassment to most of his opponents.” (RW, 234)

Athanasius’ purpose was to insult his opponents: “’The Arians’, (and a variety of abusive names whereby he [Athanasius] distinguishes them.” (RH, 19)

“The anti-Nicene coalition did not see themselves as constituting a single ‘Arian’ body: it is the aim of works like Athanasius’ de synodis to persuade them that this is effectively what they are, all tarred with the same brush.” (RW, 166)

The church accepted Athanasius’ version.

Unfortunately, after emperor Theodosius himself accepted the Trinity doctrine and, in the year 380, promulgated the Trinity doctrine as the Roman law and outlawed all other forms of Christianity, the victorious party, being Athanasius’ spiritual children, continued to refer to any opponent of the Trinity doctrine as ‘Arians’:

“The accounts of what happened which have come down to us were mostly written by those who belonged to the school of thought which eventually prevailed and have been deeply coloured by that fact.” (RH, xviii-xix).

‘Arianism’ is a serious misnomer.

Since Arius was a relatively unimportant person in the ‘Arian’ Controversy, our authors concluded that:

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

“There is the growing sense that ‘Arianism’ is a very unhelpful term to use in relation to fourth-century controversy.” (RW, 247)

Other Articles

  • 1
    Fourthcentury.com. 23 January 2010.
  • 2
    St. Athanasius (1911), “In Controversy With the Arians”, Select Treatises, Newman, John Henry Cardinal trans, Longmans, Green, & Co, p. 124, footn.
  • 3
    Fourthcentury.com. 23 January 2010.
  • 4
    St. Athanasius (1911), “In Controversy With the Arians”, Select Treatises, Newman, John Henry Cardinal trans, Longmans, Green, & Co, p. 124, footn.
Posted on

Did Arius describe the Son as immutable?

Introduction

It is generally taught, based on principles of Greek philosophy but also based on the Bible, that God is immutable, meaning “unchanging over time.”

Arianism is named after the fourth-century presbyter Arius. Traditionally, “Arius … came … to be regarded as a kind of Antichrist among heretics” (RW, 1). But more recently voices have gone up saying:

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

Unfortunately, most of what we know about Arius comes from the writings of Athanasius. But three letters that Arius himself wrote have survived.

Traditionally, also, Arius’ views have always been “represented as … some hopelessly defective form of belief” (RW, 2). But, more recently, Rowan Williams described Arius as “a thinker and exegete of resourcefulness, sharpness and originality” (RW, 116)

For that reason, it would be appropriate for us to take note of what Arius wrote. The purpose of this article is to explain why Arius described the Son as a created being but also as immutable.

Summary

Arius himself wrote:

“The Son of God … is, like the Father, ‘unchangeable’” (RW, 96).

But Athanasius claimed that Arius taught the exact opposite, namely:

The Son is “like all others … subject to change” (RW, 100).

Arius’ bishop Alexander, in his letters, similarly stated “that Arius taught a mutable Logos, whose divine dignity is a reward for his unswerving spiritual fidelity” (RW, 104).

Explanation

In the Nicene Creed, the Son is begotten from the substance of the Father, implying that the Son has the same attributes as the Father, including immutability. Arius opposed this view but still described the Son as immutable. Rowan Williams explains Arius’ thinking as follows:

By nature, the Son does not possess any of the divine attributes (RW, 113-114). (These attributes would include immutability.) All the divine attributes that the Son has, He has received from the Father.

He did not receive those divine attributes “because of virtue,” as Alexander suggested (RW, 113). Instead, he had those attributes “from the beginning” (RW, 113). There was no time when He was “not Wisdom and Word” (RW, 114).

However, “as a rational creature he is mutable according to his choice.” And God did not overrule the Son’s freedom by the divine attributes God gave Him in ‘the beginning’ (RW, 114). Consequently, the Son, in his pre-incarnate state and in his life on earth, voluntarily remained faithful to God (RW, 114).

Therefore, when God endowed the Son with dignity “from the very beginning of his existence,” He did that because He knew that the Son “is and will always be worthy of the highest degree of grace” (RW, 114-5).

So, to conclude, why did Arius write that the Son is immutable while Athanasius claimed that Arius taught the opposite?

In Athanasius’ view, only God is immutable. Since Arius taught that the Son is distinct from God, Athanasius concluded that that means that Arius described the Son as mutable.

Arius, on the other hand, did not describe the Son as immutable because He cannot change; He is immutable because He will not change.

But this question remains: Should we trust Athanasius’ version of Arius’ theology? Without explanation, he has directly contradicted what Arius himself wrote and presented that as Arius’ teaching

– END OF SUMMARY –

Source

This article is largely based on the book “Arius Heresy & Tradition,” revised edition 2002, by Archbishop Rowan Williams. Williams is a world-class scholar and a trinitarian. Many authors have a section on Arius in their books but rely on what others have said about Arius. Williams, in contrast, has studied the ancient materials and must be regarded as a specialist in this field. This article uses “RW” to refer to this book.

The Contradiction

In the three letters of Arius that have survived, he wrote:

“The Son of God … is, like the Father, ‘unchangeable’” (RW, 96).

He exists “stably and inalienably” (L, RW, 97).

“By the will of God, the Son is stably and unalterably what he is” (RW, 98).

But Athanasius claimed that Arius taught the exact opposite of what he wrote in his letter, namely that:

The Son is “like all others … subject to change … because he is changeable by nature” (Contra Arianos(v), RW, 100).

This quote is from Contra Arianos in which Athanasius paraphrases Arius’ theology. Wlliams said that this “has no parallel in S, nor any in Arius’ letters” (RW, 104). “S” stands for de synodis 15, the other work by Athanasius in which he seems to quote Arius’ actual words.

At the time, Alexander was Arius’ bishop and the Arian Controversy began as a dispute between these two. Williams mentions that two of the letters which Alexander wrote also “emphasize very strongly that Arius taught a mutable Logos, whose divine dignity is a reward for his unswerving spiritual fidelity” (RW, 104).

Explanation

Rowan Williams explains this apparent contradiction on pages 113-116 of his book. In summary, he wrote as follows:

For Arius, the Son “does not by nature possess any of the divine attributes … his godlike glory and stability … and so must be given them” (RW, 113-114).

The question then is whether Jesus was “promoted because of virtue” (RW, 113), as Alexander claimed,  or whether He had those divine attributes from the ‘beginning’.

“Arius’ scheme depends upon the fact that God bestows power and glory upon the Son from the beginning” (RW, 113): “The Son (was) creative Word and Wisdom and the image of the Father’s glory from before the world was made” (RW, 114). There was no “sort of change in his status … (no) time when he is not Wisdom and Word” (RW, 114).

However, “as a rational creature he is mutable according to his choice and what is to be avoided here is the suggestion that God overrules the Son’s freedom by his premundane (before the creation of the world) gifts and graces” (RW, 114).

“We can conclude that Arius argued” (RW, 114) as follows:

(i) “The Son, in his pre-incarnate state and in his life on earth voluntarily ‘loved righteousness and hated iniquity’” (RW, 114).

(ii) “Such an exercise of rational freedom is normally what fits us for transfiguring grace, the ‘glory’ of familiarity with God, so far as any creature can be familiar with the unapproachable mystery of the Father” (RW, 114).

(iii) “God, in endowing the Son with this dignity of heavenly intimacy from the very beginning of his existence, is therefore acting not arbitrarily but rationally, knowing that his firstborn among creatures is and will always be worthy of the highest degree of grace, a perfect channel for creative and redemptive action, and so a perfect ‘image’ of the divine” (RW, 114-5).

Conclusion

So, in conclusion, why did Arius write that the Son is immutable while Athanasius claimed that Arius taught the exact opposite?

In Athanasius’ view, only God is immutable. Since Arius taught that the Son is distinct from God, Athanasius concluded that that means that Arius described the Son as mutable.

Arius, on the other hand, did not describe the Son as immutable because He cannot sin; He is immutable because He will not sin. Arius described the Son as the only being ever to be produced directly by God (RPC Hanson, 7)1The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381 and that He received “all the gifts and glories God can give” (L, RW, 98). Therefore, “He is different from any others” (De Synodis 15, RH, 14).

In another article, I argue that the Son came to this world to be tested. He was really tested. If it was impossible for Him to sin, His victory over sin would have been meaningless. See – Why did Jesus have to die?

But this question remains: Should we trust Athanasius’ version of Arius’ theology? Without explanation, he has directly contradicted what Arius himself wrote and presented that as Arius’ teaching.

Other Articles

  • 1
    The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381