Did Arius describe the Son as immutable?

Purpose

God alone is immutable.

Theologians generally agree, based mainly on the principles of Greek philosophy (See – Classical Theism), that God is immutable, meaning “unchanging over time.” All other beings are then thought of as subject to change. To say that God is immutable essentially means that He has never and will never do anything evil.

Is God’s Son immutable?

In the Nicene Creed, the Son is begotten from the substance of the Father and is of the same substance as the Father. This implies that He has the same attributes as the Father, including immutability.

In contrast, as discussed, Arius described the Son as a created being. At the time, the term ‘creature’ was used for any being whose existence was caused by another. Since the Father has begotten the Son, the Father alone exists without a cause.

If Jesus is a ‘creature’, as Arius claimed, and not God, then He must also be mutable. But this article shows that Arius described the Son as immutable:

Like the Father, ‘unchangeable’” (RW, 96).

The purpose of this article is to explain why Arius described the Son both as a ‘creature’ and as immutable. 

Summary

While Arius himself described the Son as immutable, both Alexander and Athanasius, Arius’ fierce opponents, claimed that Arius’ Son is mutable, for example:

Like all others … subject to change … because he is changeable by nature” (RW, 100).

Alexander claimed that Arius’ Son is mutable because He was promoted and received His divinity as a reward for his unswerving fidelity. But that was not Arius’ thinking. Arius said that the Son had His “divine dignity” right from the beginning. Arius’ thinking was as follows:

By nature, the Son is mutable. God GAVE Him His stability (immutability).

God did not override the Son’s freedom. God did not make it impossible for His Son to change or to sin.

The Son is free to sin but He does not sin because He loves righteousness and hates iniquity. He is not immutable because He cannot sin: He is immutable because He will not sin.

God could give the Son supremacy over all because things because He knew that His Son would never sin.

Please note that Athanasius directly contradicted what Arius himself wrote. As discussed, this is one example of how Athanasius misrepresented Arius.

– END OF SUMMARY –


Why must we take note of Arius?

Arianism is named after the fourth-century presbyter Arius. Traditionally, “Arius … came … to be regarded as a kind of Antichrist among heretics” (RW, 1). However, 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).

The point is that most of what we know about Arius comes from Athanasius’ criticism of Arius’ writings and “Athanasius, a fierce opponent of Arius … certainly would not have stopped short of misrepresenting what he said” (RH, 10). He applied “unscrupulous tactics in polemic and struggle” (RW, 239).

Since theologians generally accept Athanasius’ criticism, Arius’ views have traditionally been “represented as … some hopelessly defective form of belief” (RW, 2). But, more recently, Rowan Williams, after careful study of the ancient documents, described Arius as:

“A thinker and exegete of resourcefulness, sharpness and originality.” (RW, 116)

An important dimension in Christian life that was disedifyingly and unfortunately crushed.” (RW, 91)

For that reason, it would be appropriate for us to take note of what Arius wrote. See also – Who was Arius and why is he important?

Source / Authors

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 himself studied the ancient documents and is regarded as one of the specialists in this field. This article uses “RW” to refer to this book.

This article also twice refers to RH.1Bishop RPC Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987

Arius’ opponents claimed that Arius’ Son is mutable.

Both Athanasius & Alexander described Arius’ Son as mutable.

In Athanasius’ Writings

Athanasius claimed that Arius taught:

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 confirms that this “has no parallel in S, nor any in Arius’ letters” (RW, 104).2“S” stands for de synodis 15, the other work by Athanasius in which he seems to quote Arius’ actual words.

In Alexander’s Writings

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

Arius described the Son as immutable.

In contrast to Athanasius and Alexander, Arius, in his own writings, described the Son as immutable. In the three letters of Arius that have survived, he said:

“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).

The terms “stably and unalterably” indicate immutability.

The Son always had His divine dignity.

As quoted above, Alexander claimed that Arius’ Son is mutable because He was “promoted because of virtue” (RW, 113), namely, that His “divine dignity is a reward for his unswerving spiritual fidelity” (RW, 104). But this was not Arius’ view. According to Williams, Arius said that the Son had His “divine dignity” right 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).

The point is still that Arius did not describe the Son as not a mutable being: God did not change Him to give Him His “divine dignity;” He always was “creative Word and Wisdom.”

Arius’ thinking.

How could Arius describe the Son as both a creature and immutable? Rowan Williams explains Arius’ thinking on pages 113-116 of his book. In summary, he wrote:

By nature, the Son is mutable.

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 word “stability” indicates the Son’s immutability.

According to this quote, the Son has divine attributes but He does not have those attributes by nature. He receives them from the Father. For example, to have life in Himself and for all the fullness to dwell in Him (John 5:26; Col 1:19).

Therefore, unlike God, the Son is mutable by nature. For Him to be ‘stable’, as Arius said He is, God must have given it to Him.

God did not override the Son’s freedom.

In Arius’ view:

“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).

In other words, in Arius’ view, God did not make it impossible for His Son to change or to sin.

The Son does not sin because He hates iniquity.

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

In other words, He is not immutable because He cannot sin: He is immutable because He will not sin.

God knew that the Son would never sin.

So, while God cannot sin, the Son is able to sin. Furthermore, God has given His Son supremacy over all creation. Right from the beginning, He has given Him “all the gifts and glories God can give” (L, RW, 98). If the Son would sin, that would cause great unhappiness. However, in Arius’ thinking, God knew that His Son would never sin:

“God, in endowing the Son with this dignity of heavenly intimacy from the very beginning of his existence, is … 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).

Conclusions

Arius did not describe the Son as immutable because He cannot sin; He is immutable because He will not sin. 

In another article, I argue that the Son came to this world to be tested to test Him to see whether He would also sin under the ‘right’ circumstances. If it was impossible for Him to sin, His victory over sin would be meaningless.

Please note that, while Arius write that the Son is immutable, Athanasius, without an explanation, directly contradicted what Arius himself wrote. It is possible that Athanasius argued that, if the Son is a ‘created being’ then He must be mutable, irrespective of what Arius himself wrote. Nevertheless, as discussed, this is one example of how Athanasius misrepresented Arius. “Athanasius … certainly would not have stopped short of misrepresenting what he (Arius) said” (RH, 10). We must not blindly accept what Athanasius wrote.


Other Articles

 

  • 1
    Bishop RPC Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987
  • 2
    “S” stands for de synodis 15, the other work by Athanasius in which he seems to quote Arius’ actual words.

Historical Development of the Trinity Doctrine – Available articles

Origin of the Trinity Doctrine

These articles trace the development of the Trinity doctrine through the first about 800 years of the Church’s history, with an emphasis on the fourth century.

The Apologists

The Apologists were the theologians of the first 3 centuries who had to defend Christianity at a time when the Empire attempted to exterminate Christianity.

  • Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35-107) described the Son as our God but the Father as the only true God.
  • Polycarp (c. 69–155), a personal disciple of the Apostle John, made a clear distinction between the Almighty God and His subordinate Son.
  • Justin Martyr (c. 100–165) used Greek philosophy to explain the Son of God as a rational power that was begotten from the substance of God.
  • Irenaeus (c. 115-190) identified the Father as the only true God, alone Almighty, and the Head of Christ.
  • Theos – Did they describe Jesus as “god” or as “God?” 1Ignatius describes the Son as “our God” but the Father as “the only true God.”
    This confusion is caused by the translations. The ancient writers
    did not have a word (such as “God”) that refers only to the Almighty.
    They used the word theos which means “god” and describes the Son
    as “our god” (small “g”) and the Father as “the only true god”
    (small “g”).
  • Sabellius (fl. c. 217-220) – Was he the first Trinitarian? 2Sabellius taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three portions
    of the single divine essence. This represents a significant move away
    from the Logos-Christology of his day. He was declared to be a heretic
    but it is difficult to see the difference between what he taught and
    the Trinity Doctrine.
  • External resources:

Arius

The Arian Controversy was named after Arius.

  • Orthodoxy – When the Arian Controversy began, what was the ‘orthodox’ view of Christ? 3RPC Hanson states that no ‘orthodoxy’ existed when the controversy
    began but that is not entirely true.
  • Importance – Why is Arius important? 4The Arian Controversy was named after Arius because Athanasius referred
    to his opponents – the anti-Nicenes – as ‘Arians’. But the anti-Nicenes
    were not ‘followers’ of Arius. Athanasius called his opponents ‘Arians’
    simply to insult them by implying that they are followers of a person
    whose theology was already formally rejected by the church.
  • The name Arian – There is no such thing as an Arian. 5Little of Arius’ writings remained – not because Constantine
    destroyed his writings – but because Arius had very few followers.

Arius’ Teachings

  • Philosophy – Did Arius mix theology with pagan philosophy? 6Over the centuries, Arius was always accused of mixing philosophy
    with theology. This article shows that that is not true.
  • Origen – Was Origen the ultimate source of Arius’ heresy? 7There are significant differences between Origen and Arius. Where they
    agree, they agree because both followed the traditional Logos theology.
  • Created Being – Did Arius describe Jesus Christ as a created being? 8That is a distortion of the ‘Arian’ view. Arius described Christ as not part of
    this universe, as the only being ever to be brought forth directly by the
    Father, and as the only being able to endure direct contact with God.
  • Eternal – Did Arius teach that time existed before the Son? 9Arius wrote that the Son was begotten timelessly by the Father before
    everything. But Arius also said that the Son did not always exist.
    Did Arius contradict himself?
  • Immutable – Did Arius describe the Son as immutable? 10Arius himself wrote that the Son of God is unchangeable but Athanasius
    claimed that Arius taught the exact opposite, namely that the Son is
    “like all others … subject to change.”

The Nicene Creed (AD 325)

The most famous and influential creed in the history of the church

  • Core Issue – What was the core issue of the dispute? 11It is often said that the Council was called to determine whether Jesus is God.
    But that does not accurately describe the dispute prior to Nicaea.
  • The Emperor’s InfluenceThe emperor was the head of the church. 12Constantine called and presided over the meeting. He proposed and
    insisted on the key word Homoousios. At the end, he exiled all bishops
    who did not sign the creed.
  • The Creed – What is the core message of the Creed? 13The creed implies that the Son is equal to the Father in terms of substance, but subordinate to the Father in other respects.
  • Eusebius of Caesarea – Eusebius’ explanation of the Creed 14Eusebius of Caesarea, regarded as the most respected theologian at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, immediately afterward wrote to his church in Caesarea to explain why he accepted the Creed and how he understood the controversial phrases. Due to the pressure exerted by the emperor, the formulation of the Creed was really the work of a minority.
  • Protestants – Should Protestants accept the Nicene Creed? 15The Creed not only uses non-Biblical words; the concept of homoousios (that the Son is of the same substance as the Father) is not in the Bible.
  • Homoousios – origin – The word came from Egyptian Paganism. 16This word homoousios is not found in the Bible or in the orthodox Christian confession before Nicaea.
  • Ousia and Hypostasis – Why the Creed uses these words as synonyms 17By implication, the Creed says that the Father and the Son are one and the same hypostasis (Person). This is Sabellianism.
  • Of the Father’s substance – What does this mean? 18The Creed says that the Son is not “of another substance or essence.” Does this mean
    (1) that He has the same substance as the Father or
    (2) that He has been begotten out of the substance of the Father?

Fourth-Century ‘Arianism’

After Nicaea, for 50 years, ‘Arianism’ dominated the church.

  • Emperor Influence – on the Christology of the church 19This article re-iterates the decisive influence
    that emperors had on the beliefs of the church.
  • Arianism – What did fourth-century ‘Arianism’ believe? 20The Father is the only true God,
    the Son is our god,
    but the Father is His god and
    the Holy Spirit is not a Person, but a power; subject to the Son.
  • Long Lines Creed – An Arian Creed 21An example of the many creeds that were developed
    during the fourth century ‘Arian’ period

The End of Roman ‘Arianism’

In AD 380, Emperor Theodosius made the Trinity Doctrine Law and outlawed and brutally exterminated all forms of ‘Arianism’.

  • Edict of Thessalonica – The Trinity Doctrine became the official religion of the Roman Empire. 22Theodosius exiled Arian bishops, expropriated ‘Arian’ church buildings,
    forbid meetings of ‘Arian’ churches, and appointed a government official to
    chair the Council of 381, forcing that council to accept Nicene Christology.
  • The Creed of 381 – How does it differ from the 325-Creed? 23The creed formulated at the Council of Constantinople in AD 381 is
    often called the Nicene Creed. The wording of that creed is similar to
    that of the creed of 325, but the meaning is very different.

Later Developments

  • The fall of the Roman Empire – It did not fall; it transformed. 24Massive in-migration
    and top positions for barbarians in the Roman Army allowed them
    to progressively assume control of the Empire.
  • Why it fell
  • Arian Rule – After the Empire fell, Arians again ruled Europe. 25This article also provides an overview of the events
    of the fourth preceding century.
  • Justinian – He crushed the Arians and set up the Byzantine Papacy 26It was not the church but the Roman Empire that adopted the Trinity Doctrine.
    By subduing the ‘Arian’ nations, the religion of the Roman Empire
    became the church of the Middle Ages, symbolized by Daniel’s evil horn.
  • High Middle Ages 27The last horn to grow out of the Roman Empire became the church of the Middle Ages
    and dominated all other parts into which the Roman Empire fragmented.
  • Waldensians – The church of the Middle Ages had the spirit of Satan. 28The Waldensians were critical of Catholic beliefs. In return, the church
    called all to destroy them, causing centuries of massacres.

Authors on the Arian Controversy

Extracts from the writings of scholars who have studied the ancient documents for themselves:

  • RPC Hanson:
    • Lecture – A lecture on the Arian Controversy 29This is a copy of a very informative lecture by RPC Hanson, a famous
      fourth-century scholar, which I found on the Internet.
       
    • A Complete Travesty – The conventional account of the Arian Controversy is a complete travesty.
  • Fortman – Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God – Nicene Creed
  • Erickson  -Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons
  • Boyd – William Boyd, The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code

Trinity Doctrine – General

  • Modalism – How does it differ from the Trinity doctrine? 30In the Trinity Doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit ‘share’ one and the same
    substance, mind, and will. Does that mean they are one and the same Person,
    as in Modalism?

  • Monarchy of the Father – How does it differ from the Trinity Doctrine? 31In the Athanasian Creed, the “one God” is the Trinity.
    In Eastern Orthodoxy, the “one God” is the Father.
  • Eastern Orthodoxy – The Eastern Orthodox view of the Trinity 32A summary of a well-known talk on the Trinity by
    a respected Eastern Orthodox theologian, Father Thomas Hopko.
  • Elohim – Does this word mean that God is more than one? 33Elohim (often translated as God) is plural in form. Some argue that this means
    that
    the Old Testament writers thought of God as a multi-personal Being.
  • External Resources

Other Articles

  • 1
    Ignatius describes the Son as “our God” but the Father as “the only true God.”
    This confusion is caused by the translations. The ancient writers
    did not have a word (such as “God”) that refers only to the Almighty.
    They used the word theos which means “god” and describes the Son
    as “our god” (small “g”) and the Father as “the only true god”
    (small “g”).
  • 2
    Sabellius taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three portions
    of the single divine essence. This represents a significant move away
    from the Logos-Christology of his day. He was declared to be a heretic
    but it is difficult to see the difference between what he taught and
    the Trinity Doctrine.
  • 3
    RPC Hanson states that no ‘orthodoxy’ existed when the controversy
    began but that is not entirely true.
  • 4
    The Arian Controversy was named after Arius because Athanasius referred
    to his opponents – the anti-Nicenes – as ‘Arians’. But the anti-Nicenes
    were not ‘followers’ of Arius. Athanasius called his opponents ‘Arians’
    simply to insult them by implying that they are followers of a person
    whose theology was already formally rejected by the church.
  • 5
    Little of Arius’ writings remained – not because Constantine
    destroyed his writings – but because Arius had very few followers.
  • 6
    Over the centuries, Arius was always accused of mixing philosophy
    with theology. This article shows that that is not true.
  • 7
    There are significant differences between Origen and Arius. Where they
    agree, they agree because both followed the traditional Logos theology.
  • 8
    That is a distortion of the ‘Arian’ view. Arius described Christ as not part of
    this universe, as the only being ever to be brought forth directly by the
    Father, and as the only being able to endure direct contact with God.
  • 9
    Arius wrote that the Son was begotten timelessly by the Father before
    everything. But Arius also said that the Son did not always exist.
    Did Arius contradict himself?
  • 10
    Arius himself wrote that the Son of God is unchangeable but Athanasius
    claimed that Arius taught the exact opposite, namely that the Son is
    “like all others … subject to change.”
  • 11
    It is often said that the Council was called to determine whether Jesus is God.
    But that does not accurately describe the dispute prior to Nicaea.
  • 12
    Constantine called and presided over the meeting. He proposed and
    insisted on the key word Homoousios. At the end, he exiled all bishops
    who did not sign the creed.
  • 13
    The creed implies that the Son is equal to the Father in terms of substance, but subordinate to the Father in other respects.
  • 14
    Eusebius of Caesarea, regarded as the most respected theologian at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, immediately afterward wrote to his church in Caesarea to explain why he accepted the Creed and how he understood the controversial phrases. Due to the pressure exerted by the emperor, the formulation of the Creed was really the work of a minority.
  • 15
    The Creed not only uses non-Biblical words; the concept of homoousios (that the Son is of the same substance as the Father) is not in the Bible.
  • 16
    This word homoousios is not found in the Bible or in the orthodox Christian confession before Nicaea.
  • 17
    By implication, the Creed says that the Father and the Son are one and the same hypostasis (Person). This is Sabellianism.
  • 18
    The Creed says that the Son is not “of another substance or essence.” Does this mean
    (1) that He has the same substance as the Father or
    (2) that He has been begotten out of the substance of the Father?
  • 19
    This article re-iterates the decisive influence
    that emperors had on the beliefs of the church.
  • 20
    The Father is the only true God,
    the Son is our god,
    but the Father is His god and
    the Holy Spirit is not a Person, but a power; subject to the Son.
  • 21
    An example of the many creeds that were developed
    during the fourth century ‘Arian’ period
  • 22
    Theodosius exiled Arian bishops, expropriated ‘Arian’ church buildings,
    forbid meetings of ‘Arian’ churches, and appointed a government official to
    chair the Council of 381, forcing that council to accept Nicene Christology.
  • 23
    The creed formulated at the Council of Constantinople in AD 381 is
    often called the Nicene Creed. The wording of that creed is similar to
    that of the creed of 325, but the meaning is very different.
  • 24
    Massive in-migration
    and top positions for barbarians in the Roman Army allowed them
    to progressively assume control of the Empire.
  • 25
    This article also provides an overview of the events
    of the fourth preceding century.
  • 26
    It was not the church but the Roman Empire that adopted the Trinity Doctrine.
    By subduing the ‘Arian’ nations, the religion of the Roman Empire
    became the church of the Middle Ages, symbolized by Daniel’s evil horn.
  • 27
    The last horn to grow out of the Roman Empire became the church of the Middle Ages
    and dominated all other parts into which the Roman Empire fragmented.
  • 28
    The Waldensians were critical of Catholic beliefs. In return, the church
    called all to destroy them, causing centuries of massacres.
  • 29
    This is a copy of a very informative lecture by RPC Hanson, a famous
    fourth-century scholar, which I found on the Internet.
  • 30
    In the Trinity Doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit ‘share’ one and the same
    substance, mind, and will. Does that mean they are one and the same Person,
    as in Modalism?
  • 31
    In the Athanasian Creed, the “one God” is the Trinity.
    In Eastern Orthodoxy, the “one God” is the Father.
  • 32
    A summary of a well-known talk on the Trinity by
    a respected Eastern Orthodox theologian, Father Thomas Hopko.
  • 33
    Elohim (often translated as God) is plural in form. Some argue that this means
    that
    the Old Testament writers thought of God as a multi-personal Being.