Arius Archives » Page 2 of 8 » From Daniel to Revelation

The Question

Colossians 2:9 says:

“The entire fullness of God’s nature dwells bodily in Christ” (HCSB).

“In Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (NASB).

Somebody asked: How did Arius interpret this verse? And how did Arius view the Greek word Θεότητος, sometimes translated as “God’s nature” and “Deity” in this verse?

The Answer

Arius was not important.

To answer this question, we must firstly forget about Arius:

In the Traditional Account of the Arian Controversy, Arius was important. He developed a new heresy, gained many converts, and his theology dominated the church for much of the fourth century.

But none of that is true. Arius was not important. Not even his fellow ‘Arians’ regarded his writings as worth preserving and he did not leave a school of disciples.

For example, the scholars say:

“Arius’ own theology is of little importance in understanding the major debates of the rest of the century” (after Nicaea). (LA, 56-57) ¹

“We are not to think of Arius as dominating and directing a single school of thought to which all his allies belonged.” (RW, 171) ²

“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 title ‘Arian’ is a misnomer.

We still refer to the ‘Arian’ Controversy because Athanasius coined the term to insult his opponents by tarring them with a theology that was already rejected:

After Athanasius was exiled for violence against the Egyptian Melitians, he developed “a masterpiece of the rhetorical art,” “the full flowering of a polemical strategy that was to shape accounts of the fourth century for over 1,500 years” (LA, 106-7).

“One key technique in his polemic was to offer an account of Arius’ theology and then present later credal decisions and the writings of his enemies as those of ‘Arians’.” (LA, 431)

In other words, Athanasius used the straw man tactic. He said that his opponents were followers of Arius – which they were not – and then he attacked Arius, pretending that he was attacking his opponents.

Unfortunately, for 1500 years, the church had accepted Athanasius’ polemical strategy. It was only during the last about 100 years that scholars, with better access to ancient documents and much progress in research, can see what really happened. For example, around the year 2000, Lewis Ayres wrote:

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

“The four decades since 1960 have produced much revisionary scholarship on the Trinitarian and Christological disputes of the fourth century. It is now commonplace that these disputes cannot simply be understood as … the Church’s struggle against a heretic and his followers grounded in a clear Nicene doctrine established in the controversy’s earliest stages. Rather, this controversy is a complex affair in which tensions between pre-existing theological traditions intensified as a result of dispute over Arius, and over events following the Council of Nicaea.” (LA, 11-12)

The Eusebian View

Since Arius was unimportant, Ayres refers to the anti-Nicenes as ‘Eusebians’. Eusebius of Caesarea is a famous historian and was the leader of the theological mainstream. Therefore, to answer the question above, we must ask how the Eusebians understood Colossians 2:9. In this regard, I quote as follows:

“It is perhaps possible to speak of a broad insistence on the part of many eastern theologians during these years that there is a basic distinction between Father and Son that must be protected in theological formulation. However, at the same time, we consistently see an insistence that there is an ineffable closeness between Father and Son such that the Son’s being can be said to be from the Father in some indescribable sense, and that the Son is (to use one prominent phrase cf. Wisd 7:25; Heb 1:3) ‘the exact image of the Father’s substance’.” (LA, 432)

Ayres describes this as “the broad eastern tradition.” (LA, 432, 5) The majority of the Easterners were anti-Nicenes (Arians). The Dedication Creed of 341, which was formulated by an Eastern Council, will help to explain how the ‘Arians’ understood Col 2:9. Firstly, they opposed Arius’ views. But they also opposed the Nicene Creed because they regarded it as modalist:

“Many of those who … were able to sign up to the ‘Dedication’ creed of 341 at Antioch … probably found both Arius’ language and the Athanasian/Marcellan theology unacceptable. Nicaea appears to have seemed dangerously modalist to many of them.” (LA, 432) ³

That creed said that the Son is “exact image of the Godhead and the ousia and will and power and glory of the Father.” (Read more) Note particularly the word “ousia,” which means ‘substance’. In other words, the Son is the image even of the Father’s substance. Nevertheless, the title ‘Image’ means He is distinct from and subordinate to the Father. The following are further quotes to explain how the ‘Arians’ interpreted Col 2:9:

“The Son is theos because he is image, because the Father has given to him an unparalleled share in his own godhead.” (Eusebius of Caesarea – RW, 171)

“The Son enjoys the most perfect participation imaginable in the life of the Father, and so too the fullest degree of access to the unknowable Father, but this results from the Father’s decision” (Eusebius – RW, 172).

“Many participants supposedly on different sides … (insisted) that one must speak of the Son’s incomprehensible generation from the Father as a sharing of the Father’s very being.” (Ayres, p. 4-5)

So, to summarize the above, and to explain how the Eusebians understood Colossians 2:9, they believed that the Son is ineffably close to the Father, that His being is from the Father in some indescribable sense, that He is the exact image of the Father’s Godhead, and that He shares in the Father’s own Godhead and life.

But they also believed that the Son received all of this from the Father. It is important to note that Col 2:9 says “the entire fullness of God’s nature dwells bodily in Christ” but Col 1:19 says that He received that fullness from the Father:

“It was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him.” (Col 1:19)

In conclusion, forget about Arius. That approach simply perpetuates Arius’ straw man tactic.

Above I quote:

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

For more information, see – Athanasius invented Arianism

Summary

Following ancient Greek philosophy, theologians generally accept that God is immutable, meaning, unable to change. The question arises, Is God’s Son also immutable? Can He change? In particular, can He become evil?

Arius’ opponents Alexander and Athanasius believed that the Son is part of the Father. (See here) As such, the Son is as immutable as the Father.

The Nicene Creed similarly anathematizes those who say, “The Son of God is … subject to alteration or change.”

Arius described the Son as “Like the Father, ‘unchangeable’.” (RW, 96) However, his enemies Alexander and Athanasius claimed that Arius taught the exact opposite, namely, that the Son is, “like all others … subject to change.” (Athanasius in Contra Arianos(v), RW, 100) Arius’ thinking was as follows:

By nature, the Son is mutable. His enemies preferred to emphasize this point.

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

The Son does not sin because He loves righteousness and hates iniquity. He is “unchangeable” because He will not sin; not because He cannot sin.

God had always given the Son all authority in heaven and earth because He always knew His Son would never sin.

Note how Arius’ enemies emphasize the one part of Arius’ thinking, that the Son is mutable by nature, and omits that Arius also said the Son will never change. This is one example of how Athanasius misrepresents Arius. (Read more)

The Son came to this world to be tested to see whether He would also sin under the ‘right’ circumstances. (See here) If He couldn’t sin, His victory over sin would be meaningless.

Purpose

Since Athanasius wrote that Arius taught the Son is mutable, why did Arius say the Son is unchangeable?

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 to be subject to change.

Ancient Greek philosophers thought that God cannot change. For example, Plato argues that God is perfect and cannot and does not change. (Wikipedia) Aristotle called God ‘The Unmoved Mover’.

Origen said: “The divine (is) distinguished from the rest by possessing immutable existence not subject to the change.” (RH, 67).

The question arises, Is God’s Son also immutable?

Arius’ opponents Alexander and Athanasius believed that the Son is part of the Father. (See here) Consequently, the Son is as immutable as the Father.

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 is as immutable as the Father. The Creed anathematizes those who say, “The Son of God is … subject to alteration or change.”

Arius argued that, since the Father has begotten the Son, the Father has caused His existence and the Father alone exists without a cause. Therefore, the Son could be thought of as created. As such, He must also be mutable. But Arius described the Son as:

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

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

Arius is important.

Arius is traditionally regarded as the mother of heretics but Trinitarian scholars now say he was a good theologian.

The term ‘Arian’ is derived from the name of the fourth-century presbyter Arius. Traditionally, “Arius … came … to be regarded as a kind of Antichrist among heretics” (RW, 1). However, scholars have recently said: “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). Athanasius used “unscrupulous tactics in polemic and struggle” (RW, 239).

Since most theologians over the centuries had taken Athanasius at his word, Arius’ theology has traditionally been “represented as … some hopelessly defective form of belief” (RW, 2). But Rowan Williams recently, 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 dis-edifyingly and unfortunately crushed.” (RW, 91)

For that reason, it would be appropriate for us to take note of what Arius wrote. Read more

Authors Quoted

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

Due to research and a store of ancient documents that have become available over the last 100 years, 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. In some instances, it is the opposite of the true history.

Following the last full-scale book on the fourth-century Arian Controversy in English, written by Gwatkin at the beginning of the 20th century, only a handful of full-scale books on the Arian Controversy have been published. This article in particular quotes from:

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

‘Arian’ is a misnomer.

Arius did not have followers. Athanasius invented the ‘Arian’ concept as a polemical device.

Arius was already dead when Athanasius wrote. However, he used Arius as a stick to beat his opponents with. He called his opponents ‘Arians’, meaning followers of Arius, and then selectively quoted Arius as an attack on his opponents.

But his opponents were not followers of Arius. Arius did not leave behind a school of disciples. He had very few real followers. Nobody regarded his writings worth copying. His theology played no part in the Controversy after Nicaea. The term ‘Arian’, therefore, is a serious misnomer. The only reason so many Christians believe Arius was important is because they accept Athanasius’ distortions. (Read more)

In reality, Arius was part of a group we may call the ‘Eusebians’; followers of Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia. (Read more) Consequently, this article series often refers to the anti-Nicenes as the Eusebians rather than ‘Arians’.

Alexander and Athanasius

Athanasius claimed that Arius described the Son as “changeable by nature” “like all others.”

Athanasius, in his paraphrasing of Arius’ writings, claimed that Arius wrote:

The Son is “like all others … subject to change … because he is changeable by nature” (Contra Arianos(v), RW, 100; cf. RH, 13).

“God foresaw that the Son was going to be good, and so exempted him from evil in advance, i.e., deprived him of the possibility of earning merit” (RH, 21; cf. RH, 13).

This quote is from Contra Arianos in which Athanasius paraphrases Arius’ theology. Williams confirms 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.)

Alexander also claimed that Arius described the Son as “of a mutable nature.”

Alexander was Arius’ bishop. The Arian Controversy began as a dispute between them. Two of Alexander’s letters “emphasize very strongly that Arius taught a mutable Logos, whose divine dignity is a reward for his unswerving spiritual fidelity” (RW, 104). Alexander described Arius as saying that the Son “is of a mutable nature” (RH, 16-17) and “mutable and alterable in his nature as are all rational beings” (RH, 16; cf. RW, 104-5).

Arius

In his own writings, Arius said that the Son is and always was unchangeable.

In the three letters of Arius that have survived, he described the Son as:

- - “Like the Father, ‘unchangeable’” (RW, 96).
  - “Stably and inalienably” (L, RW, 97).
  - “Unchangeable and unalterable” (RH, 7; cf. RH, 6, 8).
  - “By the will of God, the Son is stably and unalterably what he is” (RW, 98).

While 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), Arius said that the Son always had His “divine dignity:”

“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).

Arius’ Rationale

Rowan Williams explains how Arius could describe the Son as both a creature and as immutable on pages 113-116 of his book:

By nature, the Son is mutable. The Son has divine attributes, not by nature, but because He receives them from the Father.

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

For example, the Son has life in Himself and all the fullness to dwell in Him, but He received those things (John 5:26; Col 1:19).

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

“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).

The Son does not and will not sin because He hates iniquity, not because He cannot sin. In that sense, He is immutable:

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

God always knew that His Son would never sin. Even though the Son can sin, God has given Him all authority in heaven and on earth and “all the gifts and glories God can give” (L, RW, 98) right from the beginning. If the Son would sin, that would cause great unhappiness. However:

“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.

The Son came to this world to be tested to see whether He would also sin under the ‘right’ circumstances. (See here) If it was impossible for Him to sin, His victory over sin would be meaningless.

While Arius wrote that the Son is immutable, Athanasius, without an explanation, stated that Arius taught the exact opposite. 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.

Tag: Arius

How did Arians interpret Colossians 2:9?