Tag: Eusebius of Caesarea

Posted on

Who was Arius and why is he important?

Overview

The Great Persecution of AD 303-313 was Rome’s final attempt to get rid of Christianity. Only 5 years later, in 318 AD, the Arian Controversy began. That was the church’s most dramatic struggle. It was only brought to an end 62 years later when emperor Theodosius made the Trinitarian version of Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire and brutally exterminated all opposition.

Thereafter, Arius became more and more regarded as some kind of Antichrist. However, over the last 100 years, due to new information that has become available, the scholarly view of the Controversy has significantly revised.

Arius’ following was limited to Africa but he had the support of the two most important church leaders of the time: Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea. However, it is perhaps truer to say that his supporters opposed Alexander rather than that they supported Arius. They thought the theology of Alexander a greater menace than that of Arius.

Emperor Constantine attempted to restore unity, not because he was interested in ‘the truth’, but because he was worried that the controversy might split his empire apart.

In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, Arius was a deliberate radical who created a novel heresy and defective theology. Recently, however, based on ancient documents that have become more readily available, scholars conclude that Arius was a conservative and an exegete of sharpness and originality.

Furthermore, in the traditional account, Arius was an important person. But not even his own supporters thought of him as important. He was not the founder of Arianism nor the leader of a movement. He did not leave a school of disciples. His theology was only relevant in the first 7 years of the controversy. The second and main phase of the Controversy was a dispute, particularly about the word homoousios in the Nicene Creed. In that phase, Arius’ theology were irrelevant.

The reason that Arius is still misunderstood is that so little of his writings survived. Most of what we know about Arius comes from the writings of his enemies, but they misrepresented him.

The Arian Controversy

The Great Persecution (AD 303-313)

During the first three centuries, the Roman Empire persecuted Christianity. The Great Persecution, only the 2nd empire-wide persecution and easily the longest, was led by Diocletian and was Rome’s final attempt to limit the expansion of Christianity across the empire. Beginning around 303, Diocletian’s first edict commanded churches and holy sites razed to the ground, sacred articles burned, and believers jailed.

That persecution of Christians came to an end when Christianity was legalized through Galerius’ Edict of Toleration in 311 followed by Constantine’s Edict of Milan in 313, after Emperor Constantine himself had become a Christian.

Beginning of the Controversy

The Arian Controversy began only 5 years later in 318 when Arius, who was in charge of one of the churches in Alexandria, publicly criticized his bishop Alexander for “carelessness in blurring the distinction of nature between the Father and the Son by his emphasis on eternal generation” 1Lyman, J. Rebecca (2010). “The Invention of ‘Heresy’ and ‘Schism'”. The Cambridge History of Christianity. and of Sabellianism (Legal History Sources).

End of the Controversy

The Controversy around the word homo-ousios in the Nicene Creed divided the church into a number of viewpoints. The pro-Nicenes defended the term, but others said that we should not talk about God’s substance (the Homo-ians), or that the Son’s substance is similar to the Father’s (the Homoi-ousians), and still said that the Son’s substance is different from the Fathers (the Heter-ousians).

That controversy was brought to an end 62 years after it began by emperor Theodosius who, in the year 380, through the edict of Thessalonica, made the Trinitarian version of Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire. He wrote that all must:

“Believe in the one deity of the Father,
the Son and the Holy Spirit,
in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity.”

End of Arianism

That edict threatened all other Christians with “the punishment of our authority.” This threat was brutally implemented. Opponents to the Trinity doctrine were forbidden to meet and preach and their places of worship were given to those bishops who accepted the Trinity doctrine. Through the Roman Army, Theodosius eliminated all opposition to the Trinity doctrine within the Empire. For a further discussion, see – Theodosius.

That eliminated ‘Arianism’ among the Roman citizens but the Germanic nations – both inside and outside the empire – remained ‘Arian’.

The most dramatic struggle

That entire period of 62 years, from 318 to 380, is known as “the Arian Controversy” and is described as “the most dramatic internal struggle the Christian Church had so far experienced” (RW, 1).

The doctrine of God is the church’s most fundamental doctrine. So, perhaps this controversy will flame up again in the end-time, when “the image of the beast” will kill those who “do not worship (obey) the image of the beast.” (Rev 13:15)

Purpose

This is an article in the series on the Arian Controversy. This article explains who Arius was and why it is important to learn about him.

Authors

This article series is largely based on three books:

RH = Bishop RPC Hanson
The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God –
The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987 2Trevor Hart wrote about this book: “While contributions have not been wanting, nothing comparable in either scale or erudition exists in the English language … treating in considerable detail … the so-called ‘Arian controversy’ which dominated the fourth century theological agenda.” 3Kermit Zarley described Hanson as “the preeminent authority on the development of the church doctrine of God in the 4th century.” 4Lewis Ayres, Emory University, wrote that this book “has been the standard English scholarly treatment of the trinitarian controversies of the fourth century and the triumph of Nicene theology.

RW = Archbishop Rowan Williams
Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987 5Lewis Ayres wrote that Williams’ book “offers one of the best recent discussions of the way scholarship on this controversy has developed. (LA, 12)

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

These are world-class scholars and Trinitarians who have made in-depth studies of the Arian Controversy of the fourth century and are regarded as specialists in this field.

Revised Scholarly View

“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.” (RW, 11-12) Consequently, scholars have come to realize that the traditional textbook account of the Arian Controversy is a complete travesty. For example:

“The four decades since 1960 have produced much revisionary scholarship on the Trinitarian and Christological disputes of the fourth century” (LA, 11). 6“A vast amount of scholarship over the past thirty years (i.e., as from 1970) has offered revisionist accounts of themes and figures from the fourth century.” (LA, 2)

Hanson summarizes this development as follows:

“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.” (These books were written around the year 1900.) (RH, 95-96)

The three books listed above reflect this ‘revised’ scholarly view.

Arius’ History

Arius was about 60 years old when the Controversy began (RH, 3, 5; cf. RW, 30). Epiphanius described him as follows:

“He was very tall in stature, with downcast countenance … always garbed in a short cloak and sleeveless tunic; he spoke gently, and people found him persuasive and flattering.” (RW, 32)

A student of Lucian?

Hanson says that “Arius very probably had at some time studied with Lucian of Antioch” because he refers to somebody else as “truly a fellow-disciple of Lucian.” (RH, 5, cf. 29) But Williams questions whether “we should assume from the one word in Arius’ letter that he had actually been Lucian’s student.” (RW, 30)

Involved in the Melitian Schism?

In the past, many writers have assumed that our Arius is the same as the Arius who was involved in the Melitian schism, “who had an outward appearance of piety, and … was eager to be a teacher.” (RW, 34, 32-40) However, after several pages of detailed analysis, Williams concludes that “the Melitian Arius … melt(s) away under close investigation.” (RW, 40)

Arius’ Support

Limited to Africa.

In the traditional account of the Controversy, Arius had wide support in the Roman Empire. The reality is that Arius’ following was limited to Africa. For example:

“The controversy had spread from Alexandria into almost all the African regions and was considered a disturbance of the public order by the Roman Empire.” (Eusebius of Caesarea in The Life of Constantine)

“The Thalia appears … to have circulated only in Alexandria; what is known of him elsewhere seems to stem from Athanasius’ quotations.” (LA, 56-57)

The two Eusebii

The two Eusebii supported Arius:

Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia “was a supporter of Arius as long as Arius lived.” (RH, 30-31)

Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea “was certainly an early supporter of Arius” (RH, 46).

At the time, the two Eusebii were perhaps the two most important church leaders (LA, 52). For example:

“Many eastern bishops rallied around the Eusebii even while differing among themselves.” (LA, 52)

Eusebius of Nicomedia

Eusebius of Nicomedia was the ‘top executive’ of the church:

“The conventional picture of Eusebius (of Nicomedia) is of an unscrupulous intriguer.” (RH, 27) “This is of course because our knowledge of Eusebius derives almost entirely from the evidence of his bitter enemies.“ (RH, 27)

Hanson lists several examples where Eusebius displayed integrity and courage (RH, 28) and then concludes that this Eusebius:

“Virtually took charge of the affairs of the Greek-speaking Eastern Church from 328 until his death.” (RH, 29) (At that time, the bulk of the church was in the east. “The Westerners at the Council represented a tiny minority.” (RH, 170))

“Was … influential with the Emperors Licinius, Constantine, and Constantius.” (LA, 52) It was this Eusebius who baptized Emperor Constantine on his deathbed.

“Certainly was a man of strong character and great ability.” (RH, 29)

Encouraged the spread of the Christian faith beyond the frontiers of the Roman Empire. (The version of the Christian faith that the missionaries spread was that favored by Eusebius and not by Athanasius. This is evidence of his zeal. (RH, 29))

Eusebius of Caesarea

“Eusebius of Caesarea, the historian and theologian” (LA, 58) “was made bishop of Caesarea about 313 (and) attended the Council of Nicaea in 325.” (RH, 47) He was:

“Universally acknowledged to be the most scholarly bishop of his day.” (RH, 46; cf. 153)

“One of the most influential authors of the fourth century.” (RH, 860)

“The most learned and one of the best-known of the 300-odd bishops present” at the Nicene Council (RH, 159).

“Neither Arius nor anti-Arians speak evil of him.” (RH, 46)

The Eusebii did not follow Arius.

The two Eusebii supported Arius but they did not follow Arius as if they were students of Arius. They supported Arius because they also opposed Alexander’s theology:

Eusebius of Caesarea “thought the theology of Alexander a greater menace than that of Arius.” (RW, 173)

“Holger Strutwolf (1999) … concludes that Eusebius initially misunderstood Arius as saying something similar to himself, and then distanced himself more and more from the Alexandrian as he realized his error, while still opposing the theology … advanced by Alexander” (RW, 261).

Socrates wrote that Eusebius opposed Arius by saying:

“Anyone could justly censure those who have presumed to affirm that he is a Creature made of nothing, like the rest of the creatures; for how then would he be a Son?”

Arius’ real followers were limited to a small number of people in Egypt. The Eusebii were the real theological leaders of the anti-Nicene movement. They agreed with Arius in many respects because they all belonged to the same school:

“Arius … represents a school … and the school was to some extent independent of him. Arianism did not look back on him later with respect and awe as its founder.” (RH, 97)

“If some of these … agreed with him, then the explanation is to be sought rather in the fact that both he and they were drawing upon a common theological heritage.” (Dr. Hart)

It is, therefore, truer to say that they opposed Alexander than that they supported Arius.

Before Nicaea (318-325)

Arius Excommunicated

In AD 321, three years after the dispute arose and four years before the Council of Nicea, Alexander removed Arius from office and also excommunicated him [i.e.; banned him from the communion table].

Constantine’s Motive

Emperor Constantine became involved as well. It is important to understand his motive. Constantine was not concerned about ‘the truth’.  His only interest was the unity of his empire. Since religion had such a huge hold on the people, religious conflict could cause the empire to split Boyd wrote: 7W.K. Boyd, The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code (1905)

“Constantine desired that the church should contribute to the social and moral strength of the empire.”

Therefore, “religious dissension was (regarded as) a menace to the public welfare.”

Constantine interceded “for the settlement of the Arian controversy,” not for “the protection of any creed or interpretation of Christian doctrine,” but “to preserve unity within the church.”

Constantine did not understand.

Constantine sent a letter to both parties rebuking them for quarreling about ‘minute distinctions’, as he believed them to be doing.8Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386 He dismissed the theological question of the relationship of Father and Son as “intrinsically trifling and of little moment” and as “small and very insignificant questions.”9Drake, 4. Constantine and Consensus He told the opposing parties that they are “not merely unbecoming, but positively evil, that so large a portion of God’s people which belong to your jurisdiction should be thus divided.”10Davis, Leo Donald. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology. Vol. 21. Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 1990. 55

Arius’ Writings

Very little of Arius’ writings have survived until today. As explained here, the reason is that “the people of his day, whether they agreed with him or not, did not regard him (Arius) as a particularly significant writer.” (RH, xvii) “He did not write anything worth preserving.” (RH, xvii-xviii)

Given that so little of Arius’ writings survived, we need to reconstruct what Arius taught mostly from the writings of his enemies, which are not always a reliable source.

Why is Arius important?

The church demonized Arius.

Why should we learn about Arius? ‘Arianism’ “has often been regarded as … aimed at the very heart of the Christian confession.” (RW, 1) Athanasius implied that Arius is the devil’s pupil (RW, 101). After Emperor Theodosius in AD 380 made Trinitarian Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire and, thereafter, brutally eliminated all opposition to the Trinity doctrine,

“Arius … came more and more to be regarded as a kind of Antichrist among heretics, a man whose superficial austerity and spirituality cloaked a diabolical malice.” (RW, 1)

“By the early medieval period, we find him represented alongside Judas in ecclesiastical art.” (RW, 1)

“No other heretic has been through so thoroughgoing a process of ‘demonization’.” (RW, 1)

Arius was not important.

Arius’ own supporters did not regard him as particularly important:

Since the Arian Controversy is named after Arius, it may seem as if Arius was important; the leader of the Arians and the cause of the Arian Controversy.

But Arius was not regarded by his fellow ‘Arians’ as a great theologian. He was not the founder of Arianism nor the leader of a movement. He did not leave a school of disciples and his following was limited to Africa. “He was the spark that started the explosion. But in himself he was of no great significance.” (RH, xvii)

The reason we today refer to the fourth-century crisis today as the ‘Arian’ Controversy is that Athanasius referred to his opponents as Arians to tar them with a theology that was already formally rejected by the church. But Athanasius’ opponents were not followers of Arius. After Nicaea, the controversy around the word Homoousios divided the church into four main camps and, in that context, Arius was irrelevant.

For a further discussion, see – Athanasius invented Arianism.

An important dimension in Christianity.

There is another and more valid reason for learning about Arius.

Defective Theology

Arius’ views have always been “represented as … some hopelessly defective form of belief.” (RW, 2) For example:

Harnack (1909) describes Arius’ teaching as “novel, self-contradictory and, above all, religiously inadequate.” (RW, 7)

“Gwatkin (c. 1900) characterizes Arianism as … a crude and contradictory system.” (RW, 10)

An exegete of sharpness and originality

Contrary to the traditional view, after writing a recent book specifically about Arius, Rowan Williams concluded that Arius had already early on produced a consistent position on almost all points under debate (RW, 2). In his view:

Arius is “a thinker and exegete of resourcefulness, sharpness and originality.” (RW, 116)

“Arius … is confronted with a bewildering complexity of conventions in Scripture for naming the mediator … and he seeks to reduce this chaos … to some kind of order.” (RW, 111)

“Arius may stand for an important dimension in Christian life that was disedifyingly and unfortunately crushed.” (RW, 91)

Hanson concurs:

“Arianism was not, as some of its critics have claimed, a juxtaposition of incongruous doctrines.” (RH, 99)

The point is that we need to study Arius, not because we agree with him, but to understand the core issues of that dispte.

Arius only explains the Nicene Creed.

As explained here, the Arian Controversy had two clear phases:

The first was the dispute between Arius and Alexander. That dispute was concluded when Arius was rejected at the Nicene Council in the year 325.

The second phase was about the word homoousios. That article explains that Arius and his theology had no role in the second and main phase of the controversy from 325 to 380. Lewis Ayres confirms:

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

Therefore, a study of Arius will only help us to understand the first phase of the Controversy, culminating in the Nicene Creed.

Arius was a conservative.

Another false accusation that the traditional account levies against Arius is that he is a deliberate radical, breaking away from the ‘orthodoxy’ of the church fathers. But the opposite is true:

“A great deal of recent work seeking to understand Arian spirituality has, not surprisingly, helped to demolish the notion of Arius and his supporters as deliberate radicals, attacking a time-honoured tradition.” (RW, 21)

“Arius was a committed theological conservative; more specifically, a conservative Alexandrian.” (RW, 175) 11“In Alexandria he (Arius) represented … a conservative theology.” (RW, 233)

“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.” (RW, 177)

Arius defended the tradition:

“Arius had perceived the necessity … of a critical and logical defence of tradition in the face of increasingly dangerous theological ambiguities in the teaching of his day [i.e., Alexander].” (RW, 235)

Why is Arius misunderstood?

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

Little of his writings survived.

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

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

Athanasius misrepresents Arius.

Secondly, most of what we know about Arius are critiques of his theology in the writings of his enemies – particularly Athanasius and that is not reliable:

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

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

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

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

This is the main reason why scholars still misunderstand Arius:

“Elliger argues that the consensus of earlier scholarship has radically misunderstood Arius, largely as a result of reading him through the spectacles of his opponents.” (Walter Elliger, 1931) (RW, 12)

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

Subordination was orthodox.

Arius is often accused of introducing a ‘new’ teaching that the Son is subordinate to the Father. That accusation results from a lack of understanding of his context. In Logos-Theology, which was ‘orthodoxy’ when the Arian Controversy began, the Logos is subordinate to the supreme Being. Therefore, when Arius wrote, all Christians regarded the Son to be subordinate to the Father:

“There is no theologian in the Eastern or the Western Church before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy, who does not in some sense regard the Son as subordinate to the Father.” (RH, 63)

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

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

The subordination of the Son to the Father, therefore, was an idea that Arius shared with his opponents; not a new idea proposed by Arius.

Demonized for a long time.

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

Other Articles

FOOTNOTES

  • 1
    Lyman, J. Rebecca (2010). “The Invention of ‘Heresy’ and ‘Schism'”. The Cambridge History of Christianity.
  • 2
    Trevor Hart wrote about this book: “While contributions have not been wanting, nothing comparable in either scale or erudition exists in the English language … treating in considerable detail … the so-called ‘Arian controversy’ which dominated the fourth century theological agenda.”
  • 3
    Kermit Zarley described Hanson as “the preeminent authority on the development of the church doctrine of God in the 4th century.”
  • 4
    Lewis Ayres, Emory University, wrote that this book “has been the standard English scholarly treatment of the trinitarian controversies of the fourth century and the triumph of Nicene theology.
  • 5
    Lewis Ayres wrote that Williams’ book “offers one of the best recent discussions of the way scholarship on this controversy has developed. (LA, 12)
  • 6
    “A vast amount of scholarship over the past thirty years (i.e., as from 1970) has offered revisionist accounts of themes and figures from the fourth century.” (LA, 2)
  • 7
    W.K. Boyd, The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code (1905)
  • 8
    Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386
  • 9
    Drake, 4. Constantine and Consensus
  • 10
    Davis, Leo Donald. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology. Vol. 21. Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 1990. 55
  • 11
    “In Alexandria he (Arius) represented … a conservative theology.” (RW, 233)
  • 12
    Overview of the history, from the pre-Nicene Church Fathers, through the fourth-century Arian Controversy
Posted on

What was the Real Main Issue of the Arian Controversy?

PURPOSE

I am currently editing this article. Sorry for any inconvenience.

This article provides an overview of the Arian Controversy by identifying the main issue in each of its phases. See here for a more complete description of the Arian Controversy. 

The fourth-century ‘Arian’ Controversy was the most dramatic internal struggle the Christian Church had experienced so far. It ended when Emperor Theodosius, in the year 380, through Roman Law, made Nicene (Trinitarian) Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire and persecuted all other views into extinction.

The phrase ‘real main issue’ implies a false main issue. In the traditional account, the main issue was whether Jesus is God. This article shows that all fourth-century theologians described the Son as theos (God), as on the God side of the God/creation divide, but as subordinate to the Father. These issues did not divide the parties.

This article identifies the real issue by identifying the golden thread that ran through all the different phases of the Controversy. It shows that the real main issue was whether the second Person of the Godhead (the Son) has an existence distinct from the Father: 

The Nicenes (including Athanasius, the Sabellians, and the Western Church) believed that the Son is part of the Father. 

The Arians believed that He is a distinct divine Being. 

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

In the Nicene view, the Son cannot suffer of die. Consequently, it was a mere human being who died, was resurrected, and now sits at God’s right hand.

In the Arian view, the Son is divine but with a reduced divinity that allowed Him to suffer and die. (Read more)

AUTHORS QUOTED

Scholars explain the fourth-century Arian Controversy today very differently compared to 100 years ago. 

The serious study of the Arian Controversy began in the 19th century. At that time, scholars put much reliance on Athanasius. During the 20th century, a store of additional ancient documents became available. Based on this and research, scholars today conclude that the traditional account of the Controversy – of how and why the church accepted the Trinity doctrine – is history written by the winner and fundamentally flawed. For example:

In the traditional account, the Trinity doctrine was already established as orthodoxy when the Controversy began. In reality, the orthodox view was that the Son is subordinate to the Father.

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

In the traditional account, tyrannical emperors supported the Arians. In reality, the Arian emperors were mild compared to the Nicene Emperor Theodosius.

In the traditional account, Athanasius bravely defended orthodoxy. In reality, Athanasius’ theology was similar to the Sabellians, believing that the Son is part of the Father.

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

Unfortunately, many “elementary textbooks” (Lienhard) still present the false account of the Arian Controversy because rejecting it would raise questions about the Trinity doctrine, which many regard as the mark of true Christianity, as opposed to the Mark of the Beast.

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

Following the book by Gwatkin at the beginning of the 20th century, only a limited number of full-scale books on the fourth-century Arian Controversy were published, of which R.P.C. Hanson’s 1988 book was perhaps the most influential. This was followed in 2004 by a book by Lewis Ayres, which built on Hanson’s book. This series also quotes from the 2002 book by Rowan Williams, which focuses more specifically on Arius, and from Khaled Anatolios:

MS = Manlio Simonetti, La Crisi Ariana nel IV secolo, 1975 (Only available in Latin)

RH = Bishop R.P.C. 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 (This book focuses specifically on Arius.)

LA = Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004 – Ayres’ book is based on the books by Hanson and Simonetti and “in some measure advances on their texts.” (Ayres, p. 5)

“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)

KA = Khaled Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea, 2011

THE FALSE MAIN ISSUE

The phrase ‘real main issue’ implies a false main issue.

Is Jesus God?

In the traditional account, the real main issue was whether the Son is God.

“Many summary accounts present the Arian controversy as a dispute over whether or not Christ was divine.” (Ayres, p. 13) 

But that was not the issue.

“It is misleading to assume that these controversies were about ‘the divinity of Christ’” (Ayres, p. 14) 

“We should avoid thinking of these controversies as focusing on the status of Christ as ‘divine’ or ‘not divine’.” (Ayres, p. 3)

All sides, including the Arians, agreed that He is God. The Arians believed in a trinity of three divine Beings and described Christ as theos (translated as ‘God’). For example:

The Arian Dedication Creed of 341 describes the Son as “God” and as “God from God.”

Two years later (in 343) the same people – the Arian Easterners at Serdica – condemned those who say, “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)

The issue was also not whether to place the Son on either side of the Creator/creation boundary.

“A second approach that we need to reject treats the fourth-century debates as focusing on the question of whether to place the Son on either side of a clear God/creation boundary.” (Ayres, p. 4) 

“Suggestions that the issue was one of placing Christ (and eventually the Spirit) on either side of a well-established dividing line between created and uncreated are particularly unhelpful.” (Ayres, p. 14)

The core issue was also not whether the Son shared the Father’s being. All believed that He does:

“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)

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

The Title ‘God’

The word translated as ‘God’ (Greek theos, Latin deus) has a wider meaning than the modern term ‘God’. 

The modern word “God” identifies one specific Being; the Ultimate Reality. The Greek of the Bible and the fourth century did not have an exact equivalent word. It only had the word theos, used for beings with different levels of divinity. Originally, it was the word for the Greek gods; immortal beings with supernatural powers. Used in that sense, all agreed that Jesus is theos (God). For example:

Commenting on the Council of Serdica in 343, where the Easterners (the anti-Nicenes) issued a statement condemning “those who say … that Christ is not God,” Ayres says: “This “reminds us of the variety of ways in which the term ‘God’ could be deployed at this point.” (Ayres, p. 124)

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

“In the fourth century the word ‘God’ (theos, deus) had not acquired the significance which in our twentieth-century world it has acquired … viz. the one and sole true God. The word could apply to many gradations of divinity.” (Hanson, p. 456)

“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, 14)

In other words, although the Arians described Jesus as “God” (theos), they still described the Son as subordinate to the Father. 

The same principle applies to the Bible. For example, when Thomas said, my Lord and my God,” he used the same flexible Greek word ‘theos’. For more details, see:

It was the late fourth-century theologians who eventually made a clear God/creation boundary. 

“The achievement of a clear distinction between God and creation (such that ‘true God’ is synonymous with God) was the increasing subtlety and clarity with which late fourth-century theologians (the Cappadocian) shaped their basic rules or grammar … (which) admits of no degrees.” (Ayres, p. 4)

Is the Son subordinate?

Whether the Son was subordinate to the Father was also not the real main issue. 

One might counter and say, yes, the ‘Arians’ did describe the Son as God but, while the pro-Nicenes regarded the Father and Son as equally divine, the ‘Arians’ described Him as less divine and as subordinate to the Father. That, however, is also not true. As discussed in the article on the ‘Orthodoxy’ when the Controversy began, all regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father. For example: 

Firstly, before Nicaea, all church fathers described the Son as subordinate.

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

“There is no theologian in the Eastern or the Western Church before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy [in the fourth century], who does not in some sense regard the Son as subordinate to the Father.” (Hanson, p. 64)

When the Controversy began, all described the Son as subordinate:

The “conventional Trinitarian doctrine with which Christianity entered the fourth century … was to make the Son into a demi-god … a second, created god lower than the High God” (Hanson Lecture).

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

During the Controversy, even the pro-Nicenes continued to regard the Son as subordinate 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) 

“Until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism.” 1RPC Hanson, “The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD” in Rowan Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy (New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989) p. 153.

Even Athanasius described the Son as subordinate to the Father. For him, the Son is part of the Father and, therefore, subordinate:

Athanasius said that the Son is homoousios with the Father but was unwilling to say that the Father is homoousios with the Son.

He always described the Son “as proper to the Father, as the Father’s own wisdom,” meaning that the Son is part of the Father, never the other way round. (Ayres, p. 206) (Read more)

Basil of Caesarea was the first theologian to insist on full equality:

“In all the previous discussions (before Basil of Caesarea) of the term (homoousios) … a certain ontological subordination is at least implied.” (Ayres, p. 206)

“In Basil, the Father’s sharing of his being involves the generation of one identical in substance and power.” (Ayres, p. 207) 

Continued Controversy

Arius did not cause the Controversy. His dispute with Alexander continued the third-century controversy. 

The term ‘Arian Controversy’ implies that Arius caused the controversy. However, to identify the real main issue, it is critical to understand that the fourth-century controversy was not a new controversy but continued the third-century controversy. The dispute between Arius and his bishop was the spark that re-ignited an existing fire:

“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).

“The views of Arius were such as in a peculiar manner to bring into unavoidable prominence a doctrinal crisis which had gradually been gathering … He was the spark that started the explosion, but in himself he was of no great significance.” (Hanson, p. xvii-xviii)

“This controversy is a complex affair in which tensions between pre-existing theological traditions intensified as a result of dispute over Arius.” (Ayres, p. 11-12)

For that reason, the identification of the Real Main Issue begins in the second century.

Arius was insignificant.

The title ‘Arian’ also implies that his theology was the main issue in the Controversy. That is also not true. 

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 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)

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

Consequently:

“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.” (Williams, p. 82)

THE REAL MAIN ISSUE

The Son is a distinct Person.

Below, this article identifies the Real Main Issue by providing an overview of the Controversy. It shows that the golden thread that ran through the controversy from the second to fourth centuries was whether the Son of God is a distinct Person with a distinct mind.

It shows that this view was opposed by the view that the Father and Son are a single Person. In the technical language of the fourth-century Greek, the opposing view was that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis. A hypostasis is something that has distinct existence.

The ‘one hypostasis’ view was primarily held by the Sabellians but Alexander, Athanasius and the Western church had the same view.

A Person has a mind.

In normal usage, the term ‘person’ implies a being with a distinct mind. However, while superficial descriptions of the Trinity doctrine sometimes describe the Father, Son, and Spirit as three Persons, in the official Trinity doctrine, the three ‘Persons’ share a single mind. Therefore, scholars confirm that the term ‘Person’ in the Trinity doctrine is misleading. (Read more) In contrast, this article uses the term ‘Person’ in the normal sense of a being with a distinct mind. For that reason, it often adds the phrase ‘with a distinct mind’. 

“More recent and more thorough examination of Arianism has brought a more realistic estimate of it. Simonetti sees it as an extreme reaction against a Sabellianism which was at the time rife in the East.” (Hanson, p. 95)

In the language of the fourth-century debate, the real main issue was whether the Son is a hypostasis. 

Greek-speaking theologians of the early fourth century used the terms ousia and hypostasis (plural hypostases) as synonyms to indicate that something has a distinct existence. Later, they used primarily the term hypostasis.

Show Quotes

You and I are hypostases. So, the question was whether the Father, Son, and Spirit are one or three hypostases.

“One hypostasis’ theology believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Person with a single mind. 

There were variations of the ‘one hypostasis’ view in all such views, there is only one hypostasis (Person), meaning that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit share one single mind or consciousness. Consequently, the Son does not have a real distinct existence.

Show examples of 'one hypostasis' Views

In the ‘three hypostases’ view, the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct Persons with three distinct minds.

The anti-Nicenes (the Arians, or more correctly, the Eusebians), held this view. For example, the Dedication Creed of 431 says, “They are three in hypostasis but one in agreement.” (Hanson, p. 286) “Agreement” implies distinct minds. (Read more) Arius was one of the Eusebians. (Read more) 

Show types of 'three hypostases' views

The Cappadocian fathers were the first pro-Nicenes to teach three hypostases – three minds. 

The Cappadocians were Eastern pro-Nicenes. They believed in three hypostases. In their view, Father, Son, and Spirit are three equal hypostases or substances (three beings), meaning three distinct minds. (Read more) For example:

Basil of Caesarea said that the Son’s statements that he does the will of the Father “is not because He lacks deliberate purpose or power of initiation” but because “His own will is connected in indissoluble union with the Father.” 2“When then He says, ‘I have not spoken of myself,’ and again, ‘As the Father said unto me, so I speak,’ and ‘The word which ye hear is not mine. but [the Father’s] which sent me,’ and in another place, ‘As the Father gave me commandment, even so I do,’ it is not because He lacks deliberate purpose or power of initiation, nor yet because He has to wait for the preconcerted key-note, that he employs language of this kind. His object is to make it plain that His own will is connected in indissoluble union with the Father. Do not then let us understand by what is called a ‘commandment’ a peremptory mandate delivered by organs of speech, and giving orders to the Son, as to a subordinate, concerning what He ought to do. Let us rather, in a sense befitting the Godhead, perceive a transmission of will, like the reflection of an object in a mirror, passing without note of time from Father to Son.” (Basil in his treatise, “De Spiritu Sancto”)

In the same treatise (De Spiritu Sancto), he indicates the existence of two wills: “The Father, who creates by His sole will … the Son too wills.” In other words, the Father has a “sole will” that He does not share with the others.

While, in the ‘Arian’ ‘three hypostases’-view, the Son is subordinate to the Father, in the Cappadocian view, the three hypostases are equal. However, this view is open to the criticism of Tritheism.

FIRST THREE CENTURIES

Not a new Controversy

This analysis begins in the second century because the fourth-century Controversy continued the controversy of the preceding centuries. The dispute between Arius and his bishop was the spark that re-ignited an existing fire:

“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).

Show more such quotes

Jewish Church

The first-century, Jewish-dominated church regarded the Son as distinct from and subordinate to the Father. 

It professed “one sole God and in addition that Jesus Christ was a very important person.” (Read More) The Jewish church did not speculate about the nature of God beyond what the Bible explicitly states. It did not use “the new terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy of the day.” (Hanson, p. 846) by the later Gentile-dominated church. It simply repeated the words of the Scriptures.

Logos Theology

In the second century, after the church became Gentile-dominated, it taught the Logos as a distinct hypostasis. 

To some extent, the early Gentile church fathers did not replace their existing philosophy with the Bible but absorbed the Bible into their existing beliefs. For example, they explained Christ as “the nous or Second Hypostasis of contemporary Middle Platonist philosophy, and also borrowed some traits from the divine Logos of Stoicism (including its name).” (Hanson Lecture) In this view, the Son had always existed as part of God but became a distinct and subordinate Being (hypostasis) when God decided to create. (Read More)

Monarchians

The Monarchians claimed that ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ are two names for the same Person. 

The second-century Monarchians opposed the Logos-theologians. They criticized the Logos theologians for teaching two Gods and an unScriptural division of God’s substance. They claimed that the Logos is not a separate hypostasis but that ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ are two names for the same Person. For example:

“This ‘monarchian’ view was … suggesting the Father and Son were different expressions of the same being, without any personal distinctions between them. In other words, the Father is himself the Son, and therefore experiences the Son’s human frailties.” (Litfin) (Read More)

Consequently, the dispute between the Logos theologians and the Monarchians was whether the Son has an actual distinct existence. This was a dispute between one- and three-hypostases views.

Tertullian

Tertullian taught that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis and that the Son is part of the Father. 

The Latin theologian Tertullian wrote at the beginning of the third century. As discussed here, he was also a Logos-theologian. As such, he believed that the Son is subordinate to the Father and that the Father existed before the Son.

To counter the Monarchian criticism that Logos-theologians teach two Gods, he revised the standard Logos-theology, saying that the Son did not separate from the Father’s substance but remained part of the Father. He said, for example:

“For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole” (Against Praxeas, Chapter 9).

In other words, like the Monarchians, he taught that Father and Son are a single Person (hypostasis). But different from the Monarchians, he distinguished between Father and Son within the one hypostasis. Furthermore, since the Son is part of the Father, Tertullian described the Son as subordinate to the Father. (Read More).

Show more on Tertullian

Origen

Origen expanded Logos-theology to say that Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases.

Also at the beginning of the third century, the famous African theologian Origen expanded and adapted Logos-theology to say that Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases, meaning three distinct Persons with three distinct minds. 

Show Quotes

Sabellius

Sabellius taught one hypostasis but distinguished between Father and Son within that one hypostasis. 

More or less at the same time as Tertullian, in opposition to Origen, Sabellius refined Monarchianism but maintained the view that the Father and Son are a single Person (a single hypostasis). While the Monarchians said simply that Father and Son are two names for the same Entity, Sabellius, like Tertullian, distinguished between Father and Son within the one hypostasis. He proposed that the Father and Son are two parts of the same Entity. He said that just like man is body, soul, and spirit, the Father, Son, and Spirit are three parts of one Person.

Show example

Third-Century Controversy

The controversy between the one- and three-hypostases views continued for the rest of the third century.

For example, in the middle of the third century, the bishops of Rome and Alexandria (both named Dionysius) disagreed about the term homoousios. While the bishop of Rome supported the term homoousios and taught one hypostasis, the bishop of Alexandria rejected the term and supported the ‘three hypostases’ view.

Show more on this dispute

A few years later, in 268, a council at Antioch, a major city for the Christian movement, condemned both Paul of Samosata’s one-hypostasis-theology and the term homoousios. (See – Antioch 268)

“The Council of Antioch of 268 …  did repudiate the word homoousios.” (Hanson, p. 694)

FOURTH CENTURY

All of the above happened while Christianity was illegal and persecuted by the Roman Empire. Many lost their lives. The most severe phase of persecution was the Diocletian persecution at the beginning of the fourth century. 

Arius vs Alexander

In 313, the Eastern Emperor Constantine became a Christian and legalized Christianity. Only five years later, in 318, a dispute broke out between bishop Alexander of Alexandria and Arius, one of his presbyters. This was not a new controversy but continued the controversy of the third century:

“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)

It was a dispute over whether the Son of God is a distinct Person with a distinct mind. Arius believed that He is. Like Origen, he taught three hypostases. He said that Father and Son have two distinct Persons and minds, united in agreement. 

Show Quotes

Alexander, similar to the Sabellians, explained the Father and Son as a single Person with a single Mind.

In contrast to Arius, Alexander claimed that the Son is the Father’s only Wisdom or Word. In other words, the Son is part of the Father, and the Father and Son only have a single mind. (Read More). 

Show Quotes

Nicene Council

Emperor Constantine (not the church) called the Nicene Council. His purpose was to end the dispute between Alexander and Arius because it threatened the unity of his empire. He was not particularly interested in ‘the truth’. 

Most delegates believed that the Father and Son are distinct Persons with distinct minds. 

The delegates were almost exclusively from the Eastern Church.

Show Quotes

The Eastern Church followed the two Eusebii.

Show more

The Eusebians believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases (three distinct Persons), meaning that the eternal Son pf God is a distinct Person. (Read More)

Show Quotes

The ‘one hypostasis’ view was in the minority but was supported by the emperor.  

Since the Eusebians were in the majority, Alexander’s view, which was that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one single Person (hypostasis), was in the minority. At the council, Alexander allied with the other one-hypostasis theologians; the leading Sabellians Eustathius and Marcellus.

Show Quotes

Although the ‘one hypostasis’ alliance was in the minority, it was supported by the emperor because he had taken Alexander’s side.

Show Quotes

One indication of a ‘one hypostasis’ preference is the term homoousios which was associated with Sabellianism.  

Before Nicaea, the term homoousios was preferred only by Sabellians, including Sabellius himself, the Libyan Sabellians, Dionysius of Rome, and Paul of Samosata. They used it to say that Father and Son are one single Person.

Show Quotes

At Nicaea, Homoousios was accepted because the Sabellians preferred it. 

Show Quotes

Furthermore, the Creed explicitly states that Father and Son are a single hypostasis.  

Another indication of a Sabellian ‘one hypostasis’ influence is that one of the anathemas explicitly says that Father and Son are a single hypostasis.

Show Quotes

Post-Nicaea Correction

In the decade after Nicaea, the Sabellians claimed Nicaea as a victory, namely, that the term homoousios means that the church had formally adopted a Sabellians one-hypostasis theology.

The Creed was associated “with the theology of Marcellus of Ancyra. … The language of that creed seemed to offer no prophylactic (prevention) against Marcellan doctrine, and increasingly came to be seen as implying such doctrine.” (Ayres, p. 96, 97)

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

“Within ten years of the Council of Nicaea all the leading supporters of the creed of that Council had been deposed or disgraced or exiled – Athanasius, Eustathius and Marcellus, and with them a large number of other bishops who are presumed to have belonged to the same school of thought.” (Hanson, p. 274)

After that, the term homoousios disappeared from the debate and the Controversy subsided.

“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)

Show more quotes

For that reason, the creeds of the 340s (Dedication, the Council of Serdica, and Macrostich Councils) do not mention the term. It simply was not an issue. (Read More).

The Divided Empire

While Constantine was still alive, he maintained unity in the church. But when he died in 337, his three sons divided the empire between them, creating the potential for division in the church also. The empire remained divided until the early 350s.

Athanasius and the leading Sabellian Marcellus were both exiled by the Eastern church during Constantine’s reign. They joined forces.

Show quotes

Both of them maintained a ‘one hypostasis’ theology.

The “clear inference from his (Athanasius’) usage” is that “there is only one hypostasis in God.” (Ayres, p. 48)

“The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and Athanasius. Eustathius insists there is only one hypostasis.“ (Ayres, p. 69)

Show more such quotes

After Constantine had died, they appealed to the Western Church (the bishop of Rome – Julius). The Western (Latin) Church, similar to the Eastern Sabellians, traditionally taught one hypostasis. For example:

“The Western bishops … their traditional Monarchianism …” (Hanson, p. 272)

Therefore, the Council of Rome in 340/1 accepted Marcellus and Athanasius as orthodox. Since both were previously formally assessed and exiled by the Eastern Church, this decision caused major friction and division between East and West.

In response, the East formulated the Dedication Creed in 341 which explicitly asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are “three in hypostasis but one in agreement.” (Ayres, p. 118) The phrase “one in agreement” implies three distinct minds.

Referring to the Dedication creed, Hanson says: “Its chief bête noire is Sabellianism, the denial of a distinction between the three within the Godhead.” (Hanson, p. 287)

This was followed by the Council of Serdica in 343 where the Western delegation produced a manifesto that explicitly confesses one hypostasis:

“We have received and have been taught this … tradition: that there is one hypostasis, which the heretics (also) call ousia, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (Hanson, p. 301)

In response, the East, in the next year (344), formulated the Macrostich or Long-Lined Creed, confessing three hypostases. Attempting to avoid all the new terms borrowed from Greek philosophy, it does not mention “three hypostases” explicitly (Hanson, p. 311) but uses the phrase ‘three realities or persons’.

 

Constantius

Homoian Dominance

“The Homoian group came to dominance in the church in the 350s” (Hanson, p. 558–559.) “Homoian Arianism is a much more diverse phenomenon (than Neo-Arianism), more widespread and in fact more longlasting.” Than heterousians?

The Meletian Schism

“Paulinus was a rival of Basil’s friend and ally Meletius. … Basil suspected that Paulinus was at heart a Sabellian, believing in only one Person (hypostasis) in the Godhead. Paulinus’ association with the remaining followers of Marcellus and his continuing to favour the expression ‘one hypostasis‘ … rendered him suspect.” (Hanson, p. 801)

“The opening of the year 375 saw the ironical situation in which the Pope, Damasus, and the archbishop of Alexandria, Peter, were supporting Paulinus of Antioch, a Sabellian heretic … against Basil of Caesarea, the champion of Nicene orthodoxy in the East” (Hanson Lecture) For a further discussion, see – Meletian Schism.

“Basil goes on to defend the application of homoousios to the Son (as we shall see, he never applies this term to the Holy Spirit).” (Hanson, p. 694)

“This expression (homoousios) also corrects the fault of Sabellius for … (it keeps) … the Persons (prosopon) intact, for nothing is consubstantial with itself.” (Hanson, p. 694-5) Note that Basil here interprets homoousion generically.

“Basil uses hypostasis to mean ‘Person of the Trinity’ as distinguished from ‘substance’ which is usually expressed as either ousia or ‘nature’ (physis) or ‘substratum’.” (Hanson, p. 690-691)

“In the DSS he discusses the idea that the distinction between the Godhead and the Persons is that between an abstract essence, such as humanity, and its concrete manifestations, such as man.” (Hanson, p. 698)

 

Theodosius

Majority

“The very wide spectrum of non-Nicene believers thought of themselves as mainstream Christians, and regarded Athanasius and his allies as isolated extremists – though increasingly they also looked on the more aggressive anti-Nicenes (Aetius, Eunomius, and the like) as no less alien to the mainstream of Catholic tradition.” (Williams, p. 82)

Trinity Doctrine

Must be effected by Affected

The Controversy is misleadingly called ‘Arian’. Arius was not the real problem. Since the second century, the real problem was Sabellianism, a version of which was defended by Athanasius and, in the year 380, became the official State religion of the Roman Empire, after which all other versions of Christianity within the Roman Empire were ruthlesslessly exterminated. So, the ‘Sabellian’ Controversy should be a more apt description. However, since a version of Sabellianism was the eventual winner and became what is known as the Trinity doctrine, this fact is carefully hidden from believers.

 

CONCLUSION

“More recent and more thorough examination of Arianism has brought a more realistic estimate of it. Simonetti sees it as an extreme reaction against a Sabellianism which was at the time rife in the East.” (Hanson, p. 95)

The Answer

Below, this article identifies the Real Main Issue by providing an overview of the Controversy. It shows that the Real Main Issue was whether Jesus is a distinct Person:

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

The Eusebians, misleadingly called ‘Arians’, and the Eastern pro-Nicenes (the Cappadocians) believed that the Son is a distinct Person with a distinct mind.

It should be called the Sabellian Controversy:

In the third century, Sabellianism – the teaching that the Father and Son are a single Person with a single mind – evolved but was declared a heresy.

People do not know this or do not want to know this but it is very clear from their writings that Alexander and Athanasius were Sabellians. Like the Sabellians, they believed in a single hypostasis (one Person). (Read More)

Following Tertullian, the Western Latin church also predominantly believed in a single Person. (Read More)

Finally, in the year 380, Emperor Theodosius made Sabellianism the state religion of the Roman Empire. (Read More)

The state religion became the Roman Church – the Church of the Roman Empire. That is why nobody says or knows today that it was a Sabellian Controversy. The victorious party had control of recorded history for many centuries. The truth has only been discovered over the last 100 years.

The Trinity doctrine is camouflaged Sabellianism. Formally, it claims three hypostases or three Persons but, if one delves a bit deeper, it teaches that Father, Son, and Spirit share a single mind. The Persons are mere ‘modes of existing as God. (Read More)

was whether the Son is a distinct Being; distinct from the Father

Hypostases in the Trinity doctrine

Formally, the Trinity doctrine teaches three hypostases (three Persons) but that is misleading. They are not real ‘persons’ as the term is used in modern English because Father, Son, and Spirit share a single mind.

The Trinity doctrine claims that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one God existing as three hypostases (three Persons), implying three distinct Entities with three distinct minds. However, in the Trinity doctrine, the terms hypostases and Persons are misleading. In that doctrine, they are a single Entity with one single mind (see here). We must, therefore, not derive the meaning of the term hypostasis from the Trinity doctrine. In the fourth century, each hypostasis had a unique mind.

The traditional Trinity doctrine, as taught by the Roman Church, retained Basil of Caesarea’s verbal formula of three hypostases but without Basil’s idea of three distinct minds. In reality, the Trinity doctrine continues Athanasius’ one-hypostasis theology, describing the Father, Son, and Spirit as one single Being (see here).

FOOTNOTES

  • 1
    RPC Hanson, “The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD” in Rowan Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy (New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989) p. 153.
  • 2
    “When then He says, ‘I have not spoken of myself,’ and again, ‘As the Father said unto me, so I speak,’ and ‘The word which ye hear is not mine. but [the Father’s] which sent me,’ and in another place, ‘As the Father gave me commandment, even so I do,’ it is not because He lacks deliberate purpose or power of initiation, nor yet because He has to wait for the preconcerted key-note, that he employs language of this kind. His object is to make it plain that His own will is connected in indissoluble union with the Father. Do not then let us understand by what is called a ‘commandment’ a peremptory mandate delivered by organs of speech, and giving orders to the Son, as to a subordinate, concerning what He ought to do. Let us rather, in a sense befitting the Godhead, perceive a transmission of will, like the reflection of an object in a mirror, passing without note of time from Father to Son.” (Basil in his treatise, “De Spiritu Sancto”)
Proudly powered by WordPress