Tag: Athanasius

I am currently editing this article. Sorry for any inconvenience. A more up-to-date version of this article is available here in PDF format. I01 Origin of the Trinity Doctrine

INTRODUCTION

Purpose

This article provides an overview of several aspects of the fourth-century Arian Controversy.

The period of 62 years, from 318 to 380, is known as “the Arian Controversy.” It was “the most dramatic internal struggle the Christian Church had so far experienced.” (Williams, p. 1) It was perhaps also the most important period in the church’s history because it produced the Trinity doctrine. As an introduction to this series on that Controversy, this article summarizes the conclusions of several other articles.

Ancient Document Sources

Over the last 100 years, a store of ancient documents has become available.

 “The fundamental problem in understanding the course of these controversies stems from the nature of our sources. … The documentary evidence from this period is, in many cases, fragmentary.” (Ayres, p. 2)

However, over the last 100 years, a store of previously unknown documents has become available. For example:

“In the first few decades of the present (20th) century … seminally important work was … done in the sorting-out of the chronology of the controversy, and in the isolation of a hard core of reliable primary documents.” (Williams, p. 11-12)

“Schwartz has established much of the chronology of the period more securely. Bell has published the papyrus which throws such a lurid light on the behaviour of Athanasius in his see. … so important for our estimation of Athanasius’ character. … The existence of the Synod of Antioch of 325 has now been brought to light. … A store of Arian literature hitherto unknown or little known has been made available by Turner, Gryson and others.” (Hanson, p. xx)

A Complete Travesty 

Following this and research, scholars now conclude that the traditional account of the Controversy is a complete travesty.

Over the last 100 years, research has shown that the traditional account of the Controversy is history written by the winner, fundamentally flawed, and, in some respects, the opposite of true history. R.P.C. Hanson, perhaps the foremost scholar on the fourth-century Arian Controversy, described the traditional account as a complete travesty. He said:

“The study of the Arian problem over the last hundred years has been like a long-distance gun trying to hit a target. The first sighting shots are very wide of the mark, but gradually the shells fall nearer and nearer. The diatribes of Gwatkin and of Harnack, can today be completely ignored.” (Hanson, p. 95-96)

Ayres refers to “revisionary scholarship” by which he means that the explanation of the Controversy has changed: 

“The four decades since 1960 have produced much revisionary scholarship on the Trinitarian and Christological disputes of the fourth century.” (Ayres, p. 2)

“A vast amount of scholarship over the past thirty years (written in 2004) has offered revisionist accounts of themes and figures from the fourth century” (Ayres, p. 2).

The books by Gwatkin and Harnack were written around the year 1900. Unfortunately, many still accept these books as factual. The church is slow to accept the revised explanation.

Authors Quoted 

This article series quotes from the latest books by world-class Trinitarian scholars, reflecting the revised explanation.

Following the book published by Gwatkin at the beginning of the 20th century,¹“Gwatkin nearly a century ago in the last full-scale book written in English on the Arian Controversy” (Hanson Lecture) only five full-scale books on the Arian Controversy were published by scholars:

Manlio Simonetti
La Crisi Ariana nel IV secolo, 1975

Bishop RPC Hanson
The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God –
The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987²This is perhaps the most influential book in modern history on the Arian Controversy.

Archbishop Rowan Williams
Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987

Lewis Ayres
Nicaea and its legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004

Khaled Anatolios 
Retrieving Nicaea, 2011

Ayres confirmed the importance of Simonetti and Hanson’s books:

“Richard Hanson’s The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (1988) and Manlio Simonetti’s La Crisi Ariana nel IV secolo (1975) remain essential points of reference.” (Ayres, p. 12)

The Traditional Account

This section briefly overviews the traditional account, and compares it with the true history.

Ayres describes the Traditional Account as follows:

“Many summary accounts present the Arian controversy as a dispute over whether or not Christ was divine, initially provoked by a priest called Arius whose teaching angered his bishop, Alexander of Alexandria. Eventually, this traditional account tells us, the controversy extended throughout the century—even after the decisive statements of the Council of Nicaea—because a conspiracy of Arians against the Nicene tradition (represented particularly by Athanasius) perpetuated Arius’ views.” (Ayres, p. 13)

In this account, these disputes are “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.” (Ayres, p. 11-12)

The points in the left column of the table below reflect the traditional account. This article shows that the statements in the right column represent the true history:  

Beginning of the Controversy

Traditional Account	True History
When the Controversy began, the Trinity doctrine was already established orthodoxy.	The orthodox view was that the Son is subordinate to the Father. (More)
Arius was a deliberate radical, teaching a radical new heresy.	Arius was a conservative.  (More)
Arius caused the Controversy.	It continued the Controversy in the third century. (More)
Arius had many followers.	For most of the Controversy, Arius was irrelevant. (More)
Alexander was orthodox.	Alexander’s view was already rejected in the preceding century. (More)

The Nicene Council

Traditional Account	True History
Homoousios was an orthodox term.	Homoousios was a heretical, namely, Sabellian term. (More)
Homoousios meant that the Father and Son are a single Being.	Only the Sabellians understood the term that way. (More)
Homoousios was regarded as very important at Nicaea.	After Nicaea, homoousios was not mentioned for more than two decades. (More)
The Nicene Creed reflects the orthodox Trinity doctrine.	The Creed is more Unitarian than Trinitarian. (More)

Arianism

Traditional Account	True History
The opponents of the Nicene Creed followed Arius.	Athanasius attempted to convince all that his opponents were followers of Arius, which they were not. (More)
Arian Theology is defective.	Arian theology is as good as any other. (More)
Arians corrupted theology with philosophy.	The true philosophers were the Cappadocians. (More)
Tyrannical emperors, such as  Constantius, supported the Arians.	Constantius was mild compared to the Nicene emperor Theodosius. (More)

Athanasius

Traditional Account	True History
Athanasius defended Orthodoxy.	He taught that the Son is ‘in’ the Father. (More)
Athanasius was deposed for opposition to Arianism.	He was justly deposed for violence. (More)

General

Traditional Account	True History
The main issue in the Controversy was whether Jesus is God.	The main question was whether He is a distinct Person or part of the Father. (More)
The West always supported Nicaea.	They only began to support Nicaea 30 years after 325. (More)
Controversy raged throughout the century.	For decades after Nicaea, nobody mentioned homoousios. (More)
An Arian Conspiracy suppressed Nicene theology.	After Nicaea, the church reverted to its traditional theology. (More)

End of the Controversy

Traditional Account	True History
The Councils of 325 and 381 were ecumenical.	All general councils were called and dominated by emperors. (More)
The Trinity doctrine was the majority view when Theodosius made it the state religion.
The church adopted the Trinity Doctrine.	That decision was made by the emperors. (More)

THE BEGINNING

The Trinity Doctrine was Orthodox.

In the traditional account, the Trinity doctrine was orthodoxy when the Controversy began. But Hanson says there was no orthodoxy:

The “Arian Controversy” “was not a history of the defence of an agreed and settled orthodoxy against the assaults of open heresy. … There was not as yet any orthodox doctrine.” (Hanson, p. xviii-xix) 

It is commonly believed that the Trinity doctrine was orthodoxy because the pro-Nicene writers, particularly Athanasius, falsely claimed that their view was orthodox:

“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. The supporters of this view wanted their readers to think that orthodoxy on the subject under discussion had always existed and that the period was simply a story of the defence of that orthodoxy against heresy and error.” (Hanson, p. xviii-xix)

The fourth century controversy resulted in what is today regarded as orthodox. But that was not the orthodoxy at the beginning of that period:

“This is not the story of a defence of orthodoxy, but of a search for orthodoxy.” (Hanson, p. xix-xx) That is why Hanson named his book, ‘The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God’. (Read More)

Hanson says that an orthodoxy did not yet exist when the Controversy began. It is true that what is today regarded as orthodox did not yet exist. But there was an ‘orthodoxy’. At the beginning of that century, and for much of the fourth century, the orthodox view was that the Son is subordinate to the Father:

“Almost all the Eastern theologians believed that the Son was in some sense subordinated to the Father before the Incarnation.” (Hanson, p. xix)

In this quote, Hanson refers specifically to “the Eastern theologians.” Since, at Nicaea, the delegates were “drawn almost entirely from the eastern half of the empire” (Ayres, p. 19), almost all delegates at Nicaea believed that the Son was subordinated to the Father.

“With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement (end) of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy.” (Hanson, p. xix)

“’Subordinationism’, it is true was pre-Nicene orthodoxy”³Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers p. 239.

Ayres wrote that even Athanasius believed in a form of subordination. For example, he described the Son as the Father’s Wisdom, never the other way round, and he said that the Son is homoousios with the Father, never the other way round. (Read More)

Arius was a radical.

Arius was a conservative. He did not develop a new heresy.

The title ‘Arian Controversy’ implies that Arius caused it by creating a new heresy that opposed the existing orthodoxy and was able to convince many Christians of his views. But that is not what happened. Rowan Williams, who wrote a recent book specifically on Arius, concluded:

“A great deal of recent work … helped to demolish the notion of Arius and his supporters as deliberate radicals, attacking a time-honoured tradition.” (Williams, p. 21)

“The theology of the Thalia (Arius’ book) … is conservative in the sense that there is almost nothing in it that could not be found in earlier writers; it is radical and individual in the way it combines and reorganizes traditional ideas and presses them to their logical conclusions.” (Williams, p. 177)

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

Alexander was orthodox.

Alexander taught that the Son is part of the Father, a view that was already rejected in the preceding century.

If Arius was a ‘conservative, his opponent, Alexander must have been a liberal.

The Controversy ‘began’ in 318 with a dispute between Alexander and Arius in Alexandria. Since Alexander taught that the Son is part of the Father, he taught that Father and Son are a single Person. In the Greek language of the fourth-century debate, he taught that Father and Son are a single hypostasis, which was similar to the Sabellianism that was rejected during the preceding century:

“[Rowan] Williams’ work is most illuminating. Alexander of Alexandria, Williams thinks, had maintained that the Son … is a property or quality of the Father, impersonal and belonging to his substance. Properties or qualities cannot be substances …; they are not quantities.” (Hanson, p. 92)

“The (Alexander’s) statement then that the Son is idios to (a property or quality of) the Father is a Sabellian statement.” (Hanson, p. 92) (Read more) 

Arius caused the Controversy.

It is often stated that Arius caused the controversy. That is not true. There were deep theological tensions about the nature of Christ in the Gentile church of the second and third centuries. Arius’ dispute with his bishop Alexander was the spark that re-ignited the third-century controversy.

“We will find pre-existing deep theological tensions at the beginning of the fourth century. Controversy over Arius was the spark that ignited a fire waiting to happen, and the origins of the dispute do not lie simply in the beliefs of one thinker, but in existing tensions that formed his background.” (Ayres, p. 20)

Arius and Alexander continued the third-century dispute was whether the Son is a distinct Person.

In the third century, the main controversy was between Origen’s view that Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct Persons with three distinct minds (three hypostases) and Sabellius’ ‘one hypostasis’ theory (that they are a single Person with a single mind), which means that the Son does not have distinct existense. In that century, the ‘three hypostases’ view was victorious and Sabellianism rejected. 

However, while Arius defended the traditional ‘three hypostases’ view (see here), his bishop Alexander propagated the one hypostasis view (see here).

In the third century, Sabellianism was defeated but the emperor’s interference at Nicaea caused the Controversy.

At the Nicene Council, the Emperor Constantine sided with Alexander and forced the council to accept a creed that is congenial to Alexander’s view, for example, the term homoousios. Before Nicaea, this term was preferred only by Sabellians. (Read more) This was the real cause of the Controversy. Arius and his theology played no role after Nicaea. It was a constant battle against Sabellianism. It should be called the Sabellian Controversy; not the Arian Controversy.

“Nicaea has been a catalyst for conflict between pre-existing theological trajectories.” (Ayres, p. 101)

 

 

 

 

Arius described the Son as created.

This frequent claim misrepresents Arius’ views.

‘Arians’ described Christ as originating from beyond our universe, the only being whom the Father has directly brought forth, the only Being able to come into God’s direct presence, the Creator of all things, standing as Creator over the created universe. (Read More)

COUNCIL OF NICAEA

Homoousios was orthodox.

Homoousios was a radical new term:

“To say that the Son was ‘of the substance’ of the Father, and that he was ‘consubstantial’ with him were certainly startling innovations. Nothing comparable to this had been said in any creed or profession of faith before.” (Hanson, p. 166-7)

Rowan Williams described it as “the radical words of Nicaea” (Williams, p. 236) and “conceptual innovation” (Williams, p. 234-5).

“We can detect no Greek-speaking writer before Nicaea who unreservedly supports homoousion as applied to the Son.” (Hanson, p. 169)

It was one of “the new terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy of the day.” (Hanson, p. 846)

Homoousios was a heretical, namely, Sabellian term.

Before Nicaea, if we define Sabellianism as the belief that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person), only Sabellians preferred homoousios. This includes Sabellius himself, the Libyan Sabellians, Dionysius of Rome, and Paul of Samosata. For them, Father and Son are a single Person with a single mind. The only non-Sabellian who accepted the term was Dionysius of Alexandria, but he accepted it only because he was compelled by the bishop of Rome.

“It was impossible to rid the term in the minds of many of Sabellian, if not Gnostic associations.” (Hanson, p. 437)

The Homoiousians rejected “homoousios as leading to Sabellianism.” (Hanson, p. 439) “To them an acceptance of homoousios … would naturally appear to involve them in pure indiscriminate Sabellianism.” (Hanson, p. 440)

(Read More)

The Sabellians at Nicaea were able to include the term in the Creed because they allied with Alexander and because the emperor took Alexander’s side. (Read More)

It also helped that Emperor Constantine was familiar with the term from Egyptian paganism. (Read More)

“Simonetti (a leading modern author but who did not write in English) estimates the Nicene Council as a temporary alliance for the defeat of Arianism between the tradition of Alexandria led by Alexander and ‘Asiatic’ circles (i.e. Eustathius, Marcellus) … Alexander … accepted virtual Sabellianism in order to ensure the defeat of Arianism.” (Hanson, p. 171)

Homoousios meant ‘one Being’.

The Nicene Creed, as formulated at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, states that the Son was begotten from the substance (ousia) of the Father and that He is (therefore?) of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father.

‘Same substance’ (homoousios) has two possible meanings because the word “same” has two possible meanings. When I say that John and I drive the same car, it can mean that we drive one and the same car or two different cars of the same type. Similarly, ‘same substance’ can mean: 

One substance – This is called numerical sameness because there is only one. Father and Son are seen as a single undivided substance (one Being).

Two distinct substances of the same type – This is called qualitative or generic sameness.

The Trinity doctrine asserts that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Being. In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, the Trinity doctrine was accepted orthodoxy when that controversy began. It claims, therefore, that homoousios in the Nicene Creed meant that Father and Son ‘one substance’ (one Being).

But scholars conclude that is not what it meant. They say it had a much looser, more flexible, indeed less specific meaning. However, this website maintains that it did mean ‘one substance’:

Through their alliance with Alexander and the emperor’s support, the Sabellians were able to include the term in the Creed. In Sabellian theology, Father and Son are ‘one hypostasis’ (one Person). Therefore, they would have understood the term as meaning ‘one substance’.

The Eusebian majority at the Council accepted the emperor’s highly figuratively explanation of the term, namely, that it only means that the Son is really from the Father. But in their heart of hearts, they knew it meant ‘one substance’.

The following are some quotes in support of the above;

Standard Generic

“A standard connotation of the term homoousios was membership in a class, a generic similarity between things that were, in some sense, co-ordinate [equal in rank or importance]. The term was used loosely to point to markers of commonality and did not at all exclude relationships between realities that were hierarchically distinct in other ways.” (Ayres, p. 94-95)[/mfn]

Not Numeric

“We can therefore be pretty sure that homoousios was not intended to express the numerical identity of the Father and the Son.” (Hanson, p. 202)

“While a large number of scholars have contended that the council used the term in this latter (numerical) sense, there are good grounds for questioning such a conclusion.” Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons – Nicene Creed” p82-85

“The Nicene Creed does not expressly assert the singleness or numerical unity of the divine essence.” ⁴Philip Schaff. History of the Church volume 3. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981 edition. pp.672-673.

Flexible Significance 

“Recent studies on the word homoousios have tended to show, not that it can be reduced to two meanings, one identifying two ousiai as one, and the other conveying a ‘generic’ sense of ‘God-stuff’ (Loofs), but that it was of a much looser, more flexible, indeed less specific and therefore less controversial significance.” (Hanson, p. 170) ⁵“It was intended to have a looser, more ambiguous sense than has in the past history of scholarship been attached to it.” (Hanson, p. 202)

“Studor … notes that the term homoousios is not used with precision at Nicaea and that later arguments for homoousios always involve constructing accounts of its meaning.” (Ayres, p. 238)

Hanson agrees with Loofs’ statement that “the meaning of homoousios was so fluid that we cannot determine its meaning from its appearance in N alone.” (Hanson, p. 192)

“Eusebius’ discussion nicely demonstrates the extent to which the promulgation of homoousios involved a conscious lack of positive definition of the term.” (Ayres, p. 91)

“Our investigation of the use of homoousios before it was inserted in N, then, should have suggested strongly that it would be unwise to give the word a strictly defined or single meaning.” (Hanson, p. 196)

Emperor Explained

“Eusebius … writes that Constantine himself spoke, endorsing the term homoousios, but insisting that it did not imply any material division in God.” (Ayres, p. 90-91)

According to Eusebius “the Emperor himself qualified the addition of ‘consubstantial’ by saying that it must not be understood “in the sense of any corporeal experiences.” (Hanson, p. 165) (See – Eusebius’ letter)

The Nicene Creed is Trinitarian.

The Creed is not Trinitarian for it identifies the ‘one God’ as the Father and does not describe the Holy Spirit as God.

In the Trinity doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit are one Being with one mind. In that doctrine, the term ‘Persons” is misleading. (Read More)

In the traditional account, the Trinity doctrine was established orthodoxy when the Controversy began and the Nicene Creed of 325 reflects this. However, it identifies the ‘one God’ as the Father. It begins:

“We believe in one God,
the Father almighty.”

And while it says much about the Son, including that He is homoousios with the Father and “true God from true God,” it says of the Holy Spirit merely:

“We believe in … the Holy Spirit.”

It does not describe the Holy Spirit as God or as homoousios. There is no indication of the unity or equality of the Spirit. 

The term homoousios and the anathema make the Creed more Unitarian than Trinitarian.

As already stated, the term homoousios was preferred only by Unitarians (Sabellianians).

Furthermore, in one of the anathemas, the Creed condemns all who say that the Son is “of another hypostasis or ousia.” (Ayres, p. 93) (At the time, the terms hypostasis (Person) and ousia (substance) were synonyms. (Read more)  In other words, the Father and Son are a single hypostasis and ousia: a single Person:

“The production of N … must have been deeply disturbing for many who could not seriously be described as Arian in sympathy but could not believe that God had only one hypostasis, as the creed apparently professed.” (Hanson, p. 274)

To say that Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person) is Sabellianism:

“The Creed of Nicaea of 325 … ultimately confounded the confusion because its use of the words ousia and hypostasis was so ambiguous as to suggest that the Fathers of Nicaea had fallen into Sabellianism, a view recognized as a heresy even at that period.” (Hanson’s Lecture)

“The condemnation … that the Son is ‘of another hypostasis or ousia’ from the Father … By the standard of later orthodoxy … it is a rankly heretical (i.e. Sabellian) proposition.” (Hanson, p. 167)

“If we are to take the creed N at its face value, the theology of Eustathius and Marcellus was the theology which triumphed at Nicaea. That creed admits the possibility of only one ousia and one hypostasis. This was the hallmark of the theology of these two men.” (Hanson, p. 235) [Eustathius and Marcellus were the leading Sabellians at Nicaea. See here.]

The pro-Nicene of today is not equivalent to the Nicene Creed but evolved after Nicaea as one way of explaining it.

The century must be understood as “one of evolution in doctrine.”  (Ayres, p. 13)

“By ‘pro-Nicene’ I mean those theologies, appearing from the 360s to the 380s … of how the Nicene creed should be understood. … These theologies build closely on and adapt themes found earlier in the century, but none is identical with any original ‘Nicene’ theology apparent in the 320s or 330s.” (Ayres, p. 6)

The Creed tends toward Sabellianism because the Sabellians allied with Alexander and because the emperor took their side.

To understand why the Creed is Unitarian, one needs to appreciate the situation at Nicaea. At Nicaea, Alexander held to a minority view. Almost all delegates were from the East and believed that the Son is a distinct Person. For that reason, Alexander joined forces with the Sabellians who, like him, believed that the Father and Son are a single Person. Through the emperor’s support for them, they were able to influence the wording of the Creed significantly. (Read more)

Emperor Theodosius’ Edict of Thessalonica in 380 was the first clear Trinitarian document.

Theodosius’ edict, which made Trinitarian Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire and outlawed all other forms of Christianity, was the first to describe the Trinity as the ‘one God;’ a single ‘Being’. It reads:

“Let us believe in the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” 

The Creed of the Council in Constantinople of the next year (381) still identifies the Father alone as the ‘one God’:

“We believe in one God
the Father Almighty …” (Read more)

Homoousios was regarded as important.

After Nicaea, homoousios was not mentioned for more than two decades. It was regarded as important.

By siding with Alexander and his Sabellian allies, Emperor Constantine forced the Nicene Council to include the Sabellian term homoousios in the Creed. (Read More)

In the decade after Nicaea, however, the church eradicated the term from its vocabulary by deposing the leading Sabellians. (Read More) After that, homoousios was not mentioned for two decades. During that period, there was no controversy around this term. For examples:

“What is conventionally regarded as the key-word in the Creed homoousion, falls completely out of the controversy very shortly after the Council of Nicaea and is not heard of for over twenty years.” (Hanson Lecture)

The controversy around homoousios revived in the 350s when Athanasius began to defend it.

For example:

“Athanasius’ decision to make Nicaea and homoousios central to his theology has its origins in the shifting climate of the 350s.” (Ayres, p. 144) (Read More)

But it was quite some time before the Western church followed Athanasius in defending the term.

Athanasius was very powerful; both in the church and politically.

“Towards the end of his life he had reached a position in which his power (in Egypt), not only ecclesiastical but also political, was virtually beyond challenge.” (Hanson, p. 421)

He was the “paragon” of the West (Hanson, p. 304) and, following him, the ‘West’ also began to defend homoousios, but not immediately:

“In most older presentations, ‘western’ bishops were taken to be natural and stalwart defenders of Nicaea throughout the fourth century. The 350s show how Nicaea only slowly came to be of importance in the west.” (Ayres, p. 135)

Even after Athanasius began to defend the term in the middle of the 350s, a Western Council in the year 357 still issued a clear Arian creed:

“This (the creed of 357) is a recognisably Arian creed, Arian according to the less subtle, less philosophically-minded Western mode, but still Arian.” (Hanson, p. 346)

Athanasius wrote that the term was included in the Nicene Creed to force the true Arians to reject the Creed so that the emperor could exile them. However, Athanasius was eager to present it as an anti-Arian term. This site proposes that it was a pro-Sabellian term.

ATHANASIUS

Athanasius’ defended Trinitarian orthodoxy.

Athanasius was not a Trinitarian, he was a Unitarian. In his view, Father and Son are a single Person with one single mind.

Athanasius is often acclaimed as the great defender of the Nicene Creed, which he was. However, a study of his theology shows that, in his view, the Son was ‘in’ the Father. In other words, they are a single Person with one single mind. (Read More) That was not the orthodox view but was what the Sabellians taught and was already rejected as heresy in the third century.

The Sabellians believed that the Son is ‘in’ the Father.

For example, they said:

“The Word … eternally is in the Father.” (Ayres, p. 63)

“The Word was in the Father as a power.” (Ayres, p. 63)

“To describe the relationship between Word and God he (Marcellus) deploys the analogy of a human person and her reason.” (Read More)

Athanasius and Alexander also believed that the Son is ontologically ‘in’ the Father.

They had the same view of Christ as the Sabellians, namely, that He is “in” the Father. Specifically, they thought of the Son as the Father’s one and only Wisdom. (See here) For example:

“In the Father we have the Son: this is a summary of Athanasius’ theology.” (Hanson, p. 426)

“The Son is in the Father ontologically.” (Hanson, p. 428)

“Athanasius’ increasing clarity in treating the Son as intrinsic to the Father’s being” (Ayres, p. 113)

“In Alexander, and in Athanasius … Christ is the one power and wisdom of the Father.” (Ayres, p. 54) (Read More)

Since their views were similar, Athanasius was able to ally with Marcellus, who was the main Sabellian at the time.

“Marcellus of Ancyra had produced a theology … which could quite properly be called Sabellian.” (Hanson, p. ix)

“Although Athanasius’ theology was by no means identical with Marcellus’, the overlaps were significant enough for them to be at one on some of the vital issues—especially their common insistence that the Son was intrinsic to the Father’s external existence.” (Ayres, p. 106)

“They considered themselves allies.” (Ayres, p. 106) At the time when both were exiled to Rome, “Athanasius and Marcellus now seem to have made common cause against those who insisted on distinct hypostases in God.” (Ayres, p. 106)

Athanasius was a heretic.

For the reasons above, it is valid to conclude that Athanasius was a Sabelian and that he and Alexander followed a theology that was already rejected as heresy in the third century.

Athanasius was deposed for opposing Arians.

Athanasius was exiled for violence.

In 335, a church council condemned and excommunicated Athanasius for violence against the Melitians in his see. The Melitians were a group of Christians who refused to receive back into communion any Christian who had denied Christ during the Great Persecution early in the fourth century. They accused Athanasius, by then archbishop of Alexandria, of preventing people from entering their church buildings, of burning their churches, imprisonments, beatings, and even murder. 

In 335, a church council assessed Athanasius’ conduct, sent a commission to Egypt to investigate the charges, and deposed and excommunicated Athanasius for “tyrannical behaviour” (Ayres, p. 124) and “the unscrupulous use of strong-arm methods against his opponents” (Hanson, p. 255).

Athanasius claimed that these allegations were false and that he was deposed for opposing Arianism.

Athanasius claimed that these accusations were made by an Arian conspiracy to eliminate him as their theological opponent. However, these accusations were made by Melitians; not by Arians. Athanasius’ aggression was not aimed at ‘Arians’:

“It seems clear also that Athanasius’ first efforts at gangsterism in his diocese had nothing to do with difference of opinion on the subject of the Arian Controversy, but were directed against the Melitians.” (Hanson, p. 254)

Papyrus letters discovered in the 20th century confirmed his guilt.

Athanasius also claimed that the accusations were false. The church had traditionally accepted Athanasius’ explanation:

“We might dismiss the accusations against Athanasius retailed by Sozomenus and Epiphanius as the product of sheer partisanship and not worthy of credence, as, for instance, Gwatkin does, and many a church historian before and after him who was willing to take Athanasius’ protestations of his innocence at their face value.” (Hanson, p. 251)

Some accusations were indeed false.  However:

“We have available to us contemporary evidence which we cannot possibly dismiss as invention or exaggeration or propaganda.” (Hanson, p. 251-2)

“This evidence consists of papyrus letters discovered (in the 20th century) by British archaeologists … They plunge us into the middle of the events which concerned Athanasius between the years 331 and 335.” (Hanson, p. 252)

“It is a factual account written for people under persecution, a private missive not intended for publication nor propaganda, and therefore all the more damning.” (Hanson, p. 252)

“It describes … the barbarous treatment which he (Athanasius) is meanwhile dealing out to those Melitians who have opposed him.” (Hanson, p. 252)

“We find Athanasius behaving like an employer of thugs hired to intimidate his enemies.” (Hanson, p. 254)

Athanasius had been justly convicted.

“He had been justly convicted of disgraceful behaviour in his see.” (Hanson, p. 254-5)⁶“The charge against him at Tyre was the unscrupulous use of strong-arm methods against his opponents, and that charge as a general accusation … was abundantly justified.” (Hanson, p. 255)

“It was beyond doubt that Athanasius had behaved with violence against the Melitians.” (Hanson, p. 272)

“He had not agreed with the arrangement made about the Melitians at Nicaea. Once he was in the saddle, he determined to suppress them with a strong hand, and was not at all scrupulous about the methods he used.” (Hanson, p. 254)

Athanasius also defended by slandering his judges.

“He represents the Council of Tyre, which was a properly constituted and entirely respectable gathering of churchmen, some of whom had been confessors in the Great Persecution, as a gang of disreputable conspirators, and brands all his opponents as favourers of heresy.” (Hanson, p. 262)

One wonders why. Did the Melitians know something about Athanasius we no longer know? Read More

Controversy raged the entire period.

That is not true. Controversy raged about different things at different times.

“At some times there was almost no controversy at all. If there was any controversy from 330 to 341, it was a controversy about the behaviour of Athanasius in his see of Alexandria. … There was a long period of confusion and uncertainty from 341 to 357 when it was far from clear what the controversy was about, if there was a controversy.” (Hanson, p. xviii)

For most of the time, it was not an ‘Arian’ Controversy but a Sabellian Controversy.

The following brief overview of the fourth-century Controversy shows that Controversy raged about different things at different times:

Arius/Alexander Dispute (318-325) – the Nicene Council made an end to the dispute between Alexander and Arius. After that, Arius was no longer a factor. This was the end of the true Arian Controversy.

Sabellian Controversy (325-335) – However, by introducing the Sabellian term homoousios, the Nicene Council created a Sabellian Controversy. By exiling the leading Sabellians in the years after Nicaea, the church resolved the Sabellian controversy, at least for a time. After that, the term homoousios disappeared from the debate and was not heard for more than 20 years.

Athanasian Controversy (335) – But there now developed a third controversy, namely, around Athanasius’ violence against the Melitians in his see, for which he was deposed in 335.

One Hypostasis Controversy (340s) – Athanasius and the leading Sabellian Marcellus now appealed to the West, who, up to this point, was not part of the Controversy. The West, the Sabellians, and Athanasius all believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single hypostasis – a single Person with a single mind. The West, therefore, accepted them as orthodox. This caused tensions with the Eastern church, where Athanasius and Marcellus were exiled. This controversy rages during the 340s.

Homoousian Controversy (350s) – During the 350’s Constantius, previously the Eastern emperor, became emperor of the entire empire and united the church around the Eastern three-hypostases theology. By this time, Athanasius was very powerful⁷“Towards the end of his life he had reached a position in which his power (in Egypt), not only ecclesiastical but also political, was virtually beyond challenge.” (Hanson, p. 421)⁸“At the end of his life he had reached a position when the threats and measures of Julian and Valens, Emperors though they were, could do him little damage.” (Hanson, p. 241) and the main stumbling block to unity. It was also in the 350s that he re-introduced homoousios into the Controversy to defend his position. This caused a ‘Homoousian Controversy’ in which the church divided into several views with respect to that term.⁹E.g., Homoiousians, Heterousians, Homoians, Western Pro-Nicene ‘one substance’ view, Eastern Pro-nicene ‘three substances’ view But Constantius achieved unity in the church that lasted for the next two decades.

Meletian Schism (360s-370s) – In the 360s and 370s, a controversy developed between two pro-Nicene groups. While the Western pro-Nicenes taught one hypostasis, the Eastern pro-Nicenes (the Cappadocians) professed three (three Persons).

Theodosius (380) – When Theodosius became emperor in 379, the Homoian view dominated. The next year, Theodosius made Athanasius’ one hypostasis theology the state religion of the Roman Empire. He outlawed and persecuted other forms of Christianity into extinction within the Roman Empire. The Arian Controversy began soon after persecution ended and ended when persecution was resumed.

ARIANISM

The anti-Nicenes followed Arius.

The opponents of the Nicene Creed are today known as ‘Arians’, implying that Arius was their leader. But that title is a serious misnomer because Arius was only involved in the first few years. After Nicaea, Arius and his theology were no longer important. He did not leave behind a school of disciples. Arius was an insignificant writer. A better name for the anti-Nicenes would be ‘Eusebians’ because Eusebius of Caesarea was their real theological leader.

The only reason so many people still believe that Arius was important is that Athanasius invented the term ‘Arian’ to insult his opponents by tarring them as followers of Arius’ discredited theology. But Athanasius’ opponents – the anti-Nicenes – did not follow Arius. Unfortunately, the church has traditionally believed Athanasius. (Read More)

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

“’Arianism’ as a coherent system, founded by a single great figure and sustained by his disciples, is a fantasy … based on the polemic of Nicene writers, above all Athanasius.” (Williams, p. 82)

“The people of his (Arius’) day, whether they agreed with him or not, did not regard him as a particularly significant writer. … Neither his supporters nor his opponents thought them (his writings) worth preserving. … He virtually disappears from the controversy at an early stage in its course.” (Hanson, p. xvii)

“Arius was part of a wider theological trajectory; many of his ideas were opposed by others in this trajectory: he neither originated the trajectory nor uniquely exemplified it.” (Ayres, p. 2)

“No clear party sought to preserve Arius’ theology.” (Ayres, p. 14)

“It is virtually impossible to identify a school of thought dependent on Arius’ specific theology.” (Ayres, p. 2)

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

“Eusebius of Caesarea, the historian and theologian” (Ayres, p. 58) “was the most learned and one of the best-known of the 300-odd bishops present” at Nicaea. (Hanson, p. 159) He supported Arius but was not a follower of Arius. He “thought the theology of Alexander a greater menace than that of Arius.” (Williams, p. 173)

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

“Heresiological labels enabled early theologians and ecclesiastical historians to portray theologians to whom they were opposed as distinct and coherent groups and they enabled writers to tar enemies with the name of a figure already in disrepute.” (Ayres, p. 2)

“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.” (Williams, p. 247)

It should not be called the ‘Arian’ Controversy because Arius’ theology was not the problem. It should be called the ‘Sabellian Controversy’.

Arian Theology is defective.

All sides made mistakes.

Traditionally, it is stated that the so-called ‘Arians’ proposed a defective theology. But Hanson says that all sides made mistakes. Concerning the pro-Nicene, for example, Hanson wrote:

“Hilary in order to defend his Trinitarian theology plunges wildly into Docetism. Pope Liberius signs a doctrinal formula which was widely believed in the West to be rankly Arian and certainly was not in accordance with pro-Nicene orthodoxy. Ambrose supports the Apollinarian Vitalian for some time after his unorthodoxy has been evident to Eastern theologians, and Damasus supports the near Sabellian Paulinus of Antioch.” (Hanson, p. xix)

Arians corrupted theology with philosophy.

All theologians used philosophy. Arius was primarily a Biblical theologian and did not have much interest in philosophy. The pro-Nicene Cappadocians were the major culprits with respect to philosophy.

In the past, Arius and the ‘Arians’ were often accused of using philosophy. However, all theologians used philosophy:

“It would of course be absurd to deny that discussion and dispute between 318 and 381 were conducted largely in terms of Greek philosophy. … The theologians of the Christian Church were slowly driven to a realization that the deepest questions which face Christianity cannot be answered in purely biblical language, because the questions are about the meaning of biblical language itself.” (Hanson, p. xxi)

Actually, the shoe is on the other foot. The theologians who were most indebted to philosophy were pro-Nicenes, specifically the three Cappadocian Fathers. (Read More)

Emperor Constantius was a tyrant.

After Constantius became emperor of the entire empire in the early 350s, he united the church on the basis of Eastern theology. Athanasius was the main obstacle to unity and Constantius tried to isolate him. For that reason, Athanasius presented Constantius as a tyrant, but he was, by the standards of the late Roman Empire, a mild ruler.

Constantine ruled the empire Empire and was able to maintain unity in the church. When he died in 337, his sons divided the Empire between them allowing the churches in the West and East to become divided. However, by 353, Constantius was again in control of the entire empire.

The 350s were “dominated by the figure of the Emperor Constantius II.”

He united the Western and Eastern churches, but he did it on the basis of the Eusebian theology that was widely accepted in the East. By now, Athanasius also had become extremely powerful and was the main obstacle to unity. For that reason, Constantius tried to isolate him. For that reason, Athanasius and his followers presented Constantius as a tyrant.

“The character of Constantius has mostly been painted by historians in dark colours.” (Hanson, p. 318)

However, he was a devout man with a reputation for mildness.

“Constantius was, by the standard of the late Roman Emperors, tolerant and even at times merciful.” (Hanson, p. 321).

“Constantius had a reputation for mildness.” (Hanson, p. 322)

“It is even possible to contrast Constantius’ relative mildness with the ferocious coercion more than twenty years later of the Emperor Theodosius.” (Hanson, p. 322)

“Constantius was a devout man.” (Hanson, p. 324) “Constantius was not lacking in integrity.” “We must credit him with sincerely desiring the welfare both of the church and of the Empire.” (Hanson, p. 324)

“Constantius’ conduct did indeed rouse some pro-Nicene writers, such as Athanasius and Ossius, to protest … that the Emperor had no authority over the church, and that people should be permitted to worship as they chose without interference from the State. But Ossius did not protest when Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea were exiled for doctrinal reasons, nor did Athanasius for a moment permit Arians freedom to worship as they chose, and both were quite ready to invoke imperial aid when it suited them.” (Hanson, p. 321-2)

TRANSVERSAL MATTERS

The West always supported Nicaea

It is often claimed that the Western Church always supported the Nicene Creed. However, the West was not involved in the Nicene Council. The West only became involved in the Controversy in the 330s when Athanasius and Marcellus, who the Eastern Church exiled, appealed to the Western church. But still, at this time, they did not support Nicaea as such. They supported the ‘one hypostasis’ theology of Athanasius and Marcellus. After the post-Nicaea Correction, the term homoousios disappeared from the debate. Athanasius brought it back into the Controversy in the 350s, 30 years after Nicaea and the West, following Athanasius, then began to support the term.

The issue was whether Jesus is God.

The traditional account claims that the main dispute was whether Christ is God. That was not the issue. All sides agreed that He is divine. The issue was also not whether He is subordinate to the Father. All believed that He is. The real main issue was whether the Son is a distinct Person with a distinct mind. The opposing view was that Father and Son are a single Person.

In the traditional account, the main issue was “whether or not Christ was divine.” (Ayres, p. 3) However: “it is misleading to assume that these controversies were about ‘the divinity of Christ’” (Ayres, p. 14) Even the so-called Arians described Christ as theos (translated as ‘God’). For example:

In the year 343, the anti-Nicenes (‘Arians’) at Serdica condemned those who said, “Christ is not God.” (Hanson, p. 298)

The creed of 357, which some regard as the high point of Arianism, describes the Son as “God from God.” (Hanson, p. 345)¹⁰As another example, the Dedication Creed, which opposed the Nicene Creed, describes the Son as “God” and as “God from God.”

The issue was also not “whether to place the Son on either side of a clear God/creation boundary.” All debate participants, including those who opposed the Nicene Creed, placed the Son on the ‘God’-side of the ‘God/creation’ boundary.

Today the term “God” has a specific meaning. It identifies one specific Being; the Ultimate Reality. In contrast, in the fourth century, the term ‘God’ was used very flexibly.

“At issue until the last decades of the controversy was the very flexibility with which the term ‘God’ could be deployed.” (Ayres, p. 14)

“Many fourth-century theologians (including some who were in no way anti-Nicene) made distinctions between being ‘God’ and being ‘true God’ that belie any simple account of the controversy in these terms.” (Ayres, p. 4)

Although the Eusebians described both the Father and the Son as “God” (theos or deus), they still described the Son as subordinate to the Father. Both were on the “God” side of the boundary but were not equal. (Read More)

It was the “late fourth-century theologians” who, by removing the distinction between ‘true God’ and ‘God’, and by admitting “no degrees” created “a clear distinction between God and creation.” (Ayres, p. 4)

The Son shares the Father’s being.

The core issue was also not whether the Son shared the Father’s being:

“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)¹¹“For some the position entailed recognizing the coeternity of the Son, for many it did not.” (Ayres, p. 5)

Whether the Son is a distinct Person

The real main issue of the fourth-century ‘Arian’ Controversy was whether the Son is a distinct Person with a distinct mind.

A ‘one hypostasis’ or ‘one mind’ theology claims that Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Person (hypostasis) with a single mind. Consequently, the Son has no real distinct existence. This view was maintained by the second-century Monarchians, the third-century Sabellians, and also by the fourth-century pro-Nicenes. For example:

Athanasius, the main defender of the Nicene Creed in the fourth century, and his predecessor Alexander of Alexandria believed in a single mind.¹²“Alexander of Alexandria … had maintained that the Son … is a property or quality of the Father, impersonal and belonging to his substance. … The statement then that the Son is … a property or quality of the Father is a Sabellian statement.” (Hanson, p. 92) (Read More) 

The Western church, which promoted and defended the Nicene Creed, in their declaration at Serdica in 343 explicitly teaches a single hypostasis (Person): “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). (Read More.)

The fourth-century ‘Arians’, following the third-century church father Origen, maintained three hypostases (three Persons with three minds). For example:

In contrast to the single hypostasis of Sabellianism, the Dedication Creed explicitly asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are “three in hypostasis but one in agreement (συμφωνία)” (Ayres, p. 118) “One in agreement” indicates the existence of three distinct ‘Minds’.¹³Its “chief bête noire [the thing that it particularly dislikes] is Sabellianism, the denial of a distinction between the three within the Godhead.” (Hanson, p. 287)¹⁴“The creed has a clear anti-Sabellian and anti-Marcellan thrust.” (Ayres, p. 119)

“The leadership of this alliance (the Homoians, the largest ‘Arian’ group) was always diverse. … It included bishops of different stripes united by the desire to find a solution to the ongoing controversy that would rule out any theologies seemingly tainted with Marcellan emphases.” (Ayres, p. 138) (The Sabellians were the most prominent ‘one hypostasis’ theologians. It would be valid to say that all ‘one hypostasis’ theologians are Sabellians.) 

In the 360s and 370s, the Cappadocian fathers were the first pro-Nicenes to accept to teach three hypostases (three Persons with three minds). Consequently, in what is known as the Meletian Schism (see here), this brought them into conflict with Athanasius and his followers, including Damasus, bishop of Rome, and Peter, Athanasius’ successor as bishop of Alexandria. (Read More).

It is more appropriate to refer to the Sabellian Controversy.

• • • As discussed above, the fourth-century Cntroversy was a continuation of the Controversy during the third century, which was a Sabellian Controversy.
    • If we define Sabelianism as the view that Father and Son are a single Person with a single mind, then Alexander and Athanasius of Alexandria and the Western pro-Nicene were Sabellians.
    • At Nicaea, Sabellians dominated through their alliance with Alexander and the emperor’s preference for Alexander.
    • Homoousios was a Sabellian term.
    • It is known as the Arian Controversy only because the Sabellians, following Athanasius’ lead, insulted their opponents by falsely calling them followers of Arius.

The Councils were ecumenical.

All general councils during the fourth century were called and dominated by emperors. The Council of Constantinople in 360 was even more ‘ecumenical than the councils in 325 and 381 but is not recognized by the church because it accepted an ‘Arian’ creed.

The Council of Nicaea

The Council of Nicaea of 325, known as the first ecumenical council, was not a church meeting. It was the emperor’s meeting. He controlled the Council. He took Alexander’s side against Arius, called the Council on his own initiative, paid all expenses, appointed his agent Ossius as chair, actively guided the discussions, proposed, explained and enforced key word Homoousios despite great resistance, and and exiled those who refused to sign the Creed. In this way, Emperor Constantine ensured that Nicaea concluded what he thought best:

“Constantine took part in the Council of Nicaea and ensured that it reached the kind of conclusion which he thought best.” (Hanson, p. 850)

Eusebius of Caesarea wrote that “Constantine took the initiative in all the matters that the letter deals with, apparently regarding himself as qualified to deal with any discussion about the profound questions raised by the Christian doctrine of God.” (Hanson, p. 160) (Read More)

Before Nicaea, only Sabellians favored the term homoousios. Alexander’s theology was similar to the Sabellians. Like them, he believed that the Father and Son are a single Person (hypostasis). (Read More) Since Nicaea was a meeting of almost exclusively the Eastern Church, who believed that the Son is a distinct Person, Alexander’s view was a minority. For that reason, he allied with the Sabellians. This, and Constantine’s support for Alexander, allowed the Sabellians to dominate, allowing them to include the term homoousios in the creed. Consequently, the Nicene Creed was not a majority decision. (Read More)

To see what the delegates to Nicaea really believed, one can read the Dedication Council of the year 341. Similar to the Nicene Council, it consisted exclusively of bishops from the Eastern part of the Empire and “represents the nearest approach we can make to discovering the views of the ordinary educated Eastern bishop.” (Hanson, p. 290-1) 

The Council of Constantinople in 360

In the year 359, Emperor Constantius called for twin councils in the East and West. He did not attend the meetings himself, but, just like his father Constantine before him, he ensured that these councils reached the kind of conclusion he thought best. These two councils were concluded at a small council in Constantinople where a Homoian (‘Arian’) creed was accepted. This creed remained the view of the church for the next two decades. If the Council of Nicaea is accepted as ecumenical, this series of councils was even more so. 

The Council of Constantinople in 381

The Council of Constantinople in 381, known as the second ecumenical council, was a meeting of only a part of the Eastern Church:

“Only a hundred and fifty bishops were present, all of them Easterns. The West was not represented even by a Roman legate.” (H. M. Gwatkin)

Furthermore, only one faction of Christianity, namely the Nicene Christians, were allowed to attend. Already before the meeting, in the year 380, through the edict of Thessalonica, the Eastern Emperor Theodosius had made Trinitarian Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire:

“His subjects were ordered to believe ‘the single divinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit within an equal majesty and an orthodox Trinity’. Heretics would be punished.” (Hanson, p. 402)

He also outlawed all other forms of Christianity with threats of punishment:

“We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment, they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles (places of worship) the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the punishment of our authority which in accordance with the will of Heaven we shall decide to inflict.”¹⁵Henry Bettenson, editor, Documents of the Christian Church, 1967, p. 22

He then brutally eliminated all opposition, including the previously dominant Homoian faction.

“It is even possible to contrast Constantius’ relative mildness with the ferocious coercion more than twenty years later of the Emperor Theodosius.” (Hanson, p. 322)

Consequently, no ‘Arian’ was allowed to attend.

Furthermore, Theodosius controlled the council. For example, he appointed one of his unbaptized civil servants as bishop of the capital (Constantinople) and as chair of the meeting:

“His part in choosing an unbaptised layman, Nectarius, as bishop of Constantinople, an act to which the pro-Nicene party raised no objection.” (Hanson, p. 322)

Therefore, the Arian Controversy began after Christianity was legalized and came to an end when all non-Trinitarian Christianity was again outlawed and persecuted. But it now was Christian on Christian persecution. For further reading, see Theodosius and The Council of Constantinople.

The Trinity doctrine was the majority view.

.

Some claim that the Trinity doctrine was the majority view when Theodosius made it the state religion of the Roman Empire.

“The Homoian group came to dominance in the church in the 350s” (Hanson, p. 558–559.)

Jerome (c. 347–420), best known for his translation of most of the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate), in 359 remarked: “The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian” (The Dialogue Against the Luciferians).

“Homoian Arians … had obtained power under Constantius from 350 to 361 and under Valens from 364 onwards.” (Hanson, p. 575)

The church adopted the Trinity Doctrine

The emperors controlled the councils and ensured that they made the decisions the emperors thought best. The decision, to adopt the Trinity doctrine, was taken by the Roman emperors.

The reality is that the church inherited the Trinity doctrine from the Roman Empire. The church never decided to adopt the Trinity doctrine. What happened was that the church was divided into several factions. But the Empire was not a democracy. It was a dictatorship and the emperors used religion to rule the many nations of the vast empire. Consequently, the emperors decided which religions were legal, and, after Christianity was legalized, the emperors were the ultimate judges in doctrinal disputes.

In the Christian Roman Empire, there was no separation between Church and State. In reality, the emperor was the head of the church and decided and decreed what view of Christ the church should hold:

At Nicaea, Constantine supported the Sabellians but soon afterwards switched sides. After his death in 337, his sons divided the empire:

Traditionally, the Western Church, following Tertullian, believed that Father and Son are a single Person and the Western emperor supported that view.

But the Eastern Church, following Origen, believed that the Son is a distinct Person and the Eastern emperor supported that view.

In the 350’s the Eastern emperor (Constantius) became emperors of the entire empire and ensured that the entire church adopted the Eastern ‘three hypostases’ view.

After Constantius died in 360, no new creeds were developed. Generally, the emperors continued Constantius’ religious policy but also allowed a fair degree of freedom, which allowed the Western Church to return to its ‘one hypostasis’ roots.

Theodosius became the Eastern emperor in 379 and almost immediately, in January 380, made the Western view the state religion of the Roman Empire and ferociously exterminated the previous ‘Arian’ view.

In the fifth century, Arian tribes, who previously migrated into the Empire, became strong enough to assume control of the Western Empire and divide it into various ‘Arian’ nations. The Western Romans and the Western Roman Chuch were now subject to Arian rule. The Eastern Empire remained Trinitarian. (Read More)

In the sixth century, the Eastern Emperor Justinian sent troops West, conquered the Arian nations, liberated the Roman Church, and set up the Byzantine Papacy, a system through which the Eastern Empire ruled the West through the Roman Church. This continued for two centuries, converting the Roman Church into a powerful political organization. (Read More)

In the eighth century, Muslim conquests neutralized the Eastern Roman Empire but, by now, the Trinitarian Roman Church was strong enough to survive with the support of other protectors. (Read More)

The purpose of this brief overview is to show that the Church was part of the Roman Empire and the emperors decided what the church must believe. The church never decided to adopt the Trinity doctrine. It was the Roman Emperors who decided that the church must adopt the Trinity doctrine. For example:

“If we ask the question, what was considered to constitute the ultimate authority in doctrine during the period reviewed in these pages, there can be only one answer. The will of the Emperor was the final authority.” (Hanson, p. 849)

“The history of the period shows time and time again that … the general council was the very invention and creation of the Emperor. General councils … were the children of imperial policy and the Emperor was expected to dominate and control them.” (Hanson, p. 855)

“The fact of central importance in understanding this is that Eusebius Pamphilus and many others did not regard Constantine’s authority as secular. On the contrary, the emperor was a God-inspired man, a true philosopher, a teacher who directs his flock to heaven … Church conflict is resolved by the virtual redefinition of the empire itself as a ‘school’ gathered around a charismatic royal teacher.” (Williams, p. 88)

The Trinity doctrine teaches Three Persons.

It is often claimed that the Trinity doctrine teaches that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three Persons but one Being. That is a false claim. The Trinity doctrine does not teach three Persons. The term ‘Person’, in normal English, implies a distinct entity with a distinct mind. In contrast, in the Trinity doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit share a single mind because they are one Being.

One might respond and say, Yes, but I believe in three Persons with three distinct minds, which would be consistent with the Bible. But the problem with that view is that it has three Gods (tritheism), unless one is willing to admit that the Son and Spirit are subordinate to the Father.

Sometimes the Trinity doctrine is explained, using Greek terms from the fourth century, as one ousia (substance) and three hypostases. But the term hypostasis is also misleading because a hypostasis is an “individual existence.” (Hanson, p. 193) In contrast, in the Trinity doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit are essentially a single entity.

The reality of the Trinity doctrine is that it teaches three modes of one Being.

To substantiate the statements above, consider the following definitions of the Trinity doctrine by leading Catholic scholars:

“The champions of the Nicene faith … developed a doctrine of God as a Trinity, as one substance or ousia who existed as three hypostases, three distinct realities or entities (I refrain from using the misleading word’ Person’), three ways of being or modes of existing as God.” (Hanson Lecture)

“By the conventions of the late fourth century, first formulated in Greek by the ‘Cappadocian Fathers’, these three constituent members of what God is came to be referred to as hypostases (‘concrete individuals’) or, more misleadingly for us moderns, as prosōpa (‘persons’).” (Anatolios, xiii)

“By the last quarter of the fourth century, halting Christian attempts … had led … to what later generations generally think of as ‘the doctrine of the Holy Trinity’: the formulated idea that the God … is Father and Son and Holy Spirit, as one reality or substance, operating outward in creation always as a unity, yet always internally differentiated by the relationships of origin that Father and Son and Holy Spirit have with one another.” (Anatolios, xiii)

(Read More)

CONCLUSION

The church inherited the Trinity doctrine from the Roman Empire. Or, put differently, the Roman Church is the Church of the Roman Empire.

These are some of the false claims of the traditional account. Since the Trinity doctrine is the most important doctrine of the church, and since the Arian Controversy gave us that doctrine, every Christian should study that Controversy. 

---

OTHER ARTICLES

• • • All articles on this website
    • Origin of the Trinity Doctrine ¹⁶Overview of the history, from the pre-Nicene Church Fathers, through the fourth-century Arian Controversy  
    • 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
  “Gwatkin nearly a century ago in the last full-scale book written in English on the Arian Controversy” (Hanson Lecture)
• 2
  This is perhaps the most influential book in modern history on the Arian Controversy.
• 3
  Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers p. 239.
• 4
  Philip Schaff. History of the Church volume 3. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981 edition. pp.672-673.
• 5
  “It was intended to have a looser, more ambiguous sense than has in the past history of scholarship been attached to it.” (Hanson, p. 202)
• 6
  “The charge against him at Tyre was the unscrupulous use of strong-arm methods against his opponents, and that charge as a general accusation … was abundantly justified.” (Hanson, p. 255)
• 7
  “Towards the end of his life he had reached a position in which his power (in Egypt), not only ecclesiastical but also political, was virtually beyond challenge.” (Hanson, p. 421)
• 8
  “At the end of his life he had reached a position when the threats and measures of Julian and Valens, Emperors though they were, could do him little damage.” (Hanson, p. 241)
• 9
  E.g., Homoiousians, Heterousians, Homoians, Western Pro-Nicene ‘one substance’ view, Eastern Pro-nicene ‘three substances’ view
• 10
  As another example, the Dedication Creed, which opposed the Nicene Creed, describes the Son as “God” and as “God from God.”
• 11
  “For some the position entailed recognizing the coeternity of the Son, for many it did not.” (Ayres, p. 5)
• 12
  “Alexander of Alexandria … had maintained that the Son … is a property or quality of the Father, impersonal and belonging to his substance. … The statement then that the Son is … a property or quality of the Father is a Sabellian statement.” (Hanson, p. 92)
• 13
  Its “chief bête noire [the thing that it particularly dislikes] is Sabellianism, the denial of a distinction between the three within the Godhead.” (Hanson, p. 287)
• 14
  “The creed has a clear anti-Sabellian and anti-Marcellan thrust.” (Ayres, p. 119)
• 15
  Henry Bettenson, editor, Documents of the Christian Church, 1967, p. 22
• 16
  Overview of the history, from the pre-Nicene Church Fathers, through the fourth-century Arian Controversy