Who was Arius and why is he important?

Summary

The Arian Controversy

During the first three centuries, the Roman Empire persecuted Christianity. In 313, after the emperor himself had become a Christian, the persecution of Christians came to an end. Only five years later, in 318, the Arian Controversy began when Arius, who was in charge of one of the churches in Alexandria, publicly criticized the Christological views of Alexander; the bishop of that same city.

That Controversy came to an end 62 years later when emperor Theodosius, in the year 380, through the Edict of Thessalonica, outlawed all ‘Arian denominations’ and made the Trinity doctrine the official religion of the Roman empire.

Arius’ Support

Arius was about 60 years old when the controversy began. He was very tall, spoke gently, and people found him persuasive. He enjoyed significant support; mainly in Africa but also in the Middle East. He also had the support of perhaps the two most important church leaders of his time, namely:

Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, who virtually took charge of the affairs of the Greek-speaking Eastern Church from 328 until his death, and

Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, who was universally acknowledged as the most scholarly bishop of his day and one of the most influential authors of the fourth century.

The Emperor’s Letter

Emperor Constantine became involved in the dispute as well – not because he had specific views on the subject but because he believed that disunity in the church was a danger to the state. He sent a letter to Arius and Alexander, rebuking them for quarreling about “minute distinctions;” things that are “trifling and of little moment.”

Arius’ Writings

As far as Arius’ own writings go, we have no more than three short letters. We also have quotes from ‘The Thalia’; Arius’ only known theological work, but these quotes are in the writings of his enemies (mainly Athanasius) and were selected to ridicule Arius’ theology.

There are at least two reasons why so little of Arius’ writings survived:

Firstly, after the Nicene Council in 325, Emperor Constantine gave orders that all Arius’ writings be burned.

Secondly, and this may surprise the reader, not even his supporters regarded Arius as a particularly significant writer.

But, given that so little of Arius’ writings survived, and given that what survived are mostly in the writings of his enemies, it is difficult to reconstruct WHAT Arius actually taught, and—even more important—WHY.

Why Arius is important

A Serious Misnomer

Since the Arian Controversy was named after him, it seems as if Arius was an important person. However, the term ‘Arian Controversy’ is a serious misnomer:

‘Arianism’ did not have a single great leader. Arius was not the founder of a sect. He was not a hero for the enemies of Nicaea.

As stated, Arius was not regarded as a particularly significant writer. Those who repudiated the decisions of Nicaea did not have a loyalty to the teaching of Arius as an individual theologian.

Over the centuries before Arius, theologians had expressed conflicting views about Christ. Before Christianity was legalized, this could not result in much controversy because Christians were too busy just trying to stay alive. But, as soon as the persecution came to an end, the explosion was inevitable. And Arius’ dispute with his bishop was the spark that ignited the Controversy. 

So, if Arius was not important, why is it called the ‘Arian Controversy’? The reason is that Athanasius, who lived a generation later than Arius, 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. For that purpose, he referred to his opponents as Arians. Unfortunately, the church has accepted and sustained Athanasius’ misnomer.

An important Dimension in Christian Life

There is another and much better reason for learning about Arius. Arius’ views have always been represented as some hopelessly defective form of belief but more recent scholarship has concluded that Arius and his supporters had a consistent and thought-out position on the points under debate. Rowan Williams described Arius as “a thinker and exegete of resourcefulness, sharpness and originality” and as “an important dimension in Christian life.”

To understand the Nicene Creed

However, the Arian Controversy made be divided into two parts and Arius was only relevant in the first part. That part of the Controversy came to an end with the Nicene Creed of 325. At the same time that same creed, by including words from pagan philosophy (substance, same substance, hypostasis), created a new problem and a new dispute. A study of Arius’ theology will not assist us in understanding the second and major part of the Arian Controversy from 325 to 380.

Not a Philosopher

In the year 1900, a well-known theologian wrote: “Arianism is ‘almost as much a philosophy as a religion.” But recent scholarship has concluded that Arius presents himself as essentially a biblical theologian. We misunderstand him completely if we see him as primarily a self-conscious philosophical speculator. Arius was by profession an interpreter of the Scriptures.

Why Arius is still Misunderstood

Despite the conclusions of recent research, Arius is still misunderstood:

One major reason is that very few of his writings survived.

Secondly, most of what has survived did so as derogatory remarks in the writings of his enemies.

Thirdly, we fail to understand Arius because we do not adequately take into account his context, namely that, when Arius wrote, the standard explanation of Christ, which was accepted by all, was that the Son is the Mediator between the immutable, abstract, and immaterial Supreme Being and the world. Thus, when Arius wrote, everybody regarded the Son to be subordinate to the Father.

A fourth and final reason that Arius is often misunderstood is that Arius has been demonized by the church for a very long time and this habit is extraordinarily powerful.

– END OF SUMMARY –


The Arian Controversy

In the year 313, after the emperor Constantine himself had become a Christian, Christianity was legalized and the persecution of Christians came to an end. Only five years later, in 318, the Arian Controversy began when, “Arius, a presbyter in charge of the church and district of Baucalis in Alexandria, publicly criticized the Christological doctrine of his bishop, Alexander of Alexandria” (RH, 3).

The Controversy came to an end 62 years later when emperor Theodosius, in the year 380, through the edict of Thessalonica, outlawed all Christian ‘denominations’ except those who “believe in the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity.” In this way, the emperor made the Trinity doctrine the official religion of the Roman empire.

That same edict promised all other Christians “the punishment of our authority.” This was implemented when, after this edict, they were forbidden to meet and their places of worship were given to those Christians who complied with the law of the Roman Empire. For a further discussion, see – Theodosius.

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

Purpose

This is an article in the series on Arius within the larger series on the Arian Controversy. The purpose of this article is to explain why it is important to understand what Arius taught.

Authors

This article series is largely based on books by two scholars:

The Search for the Christian doctrine of God –
The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987
by Bishop RPC Hanson
(Referred to as “RH” in this article)

Arius: Heresy and Tradition
by Archbishop Rowan Williams, 2002/1987
(Referred to as “RW” in this article)

Both Hanson and Williams are world-class scholars, Trinitarians, and bishops. These books are currently regarded by many to be the most comprehensive and reliable analysis of Arius’ theology and the Arian Controversy available to us today.

However, Williams has concluded that Arius is not the villain he is usually made out to be but described Arius as “a thinker and exegete of resourcefulness, sharpness and originality” (RW, 116). In support of this, Hanson wrote that the entire traditional account of the Arian Controversy is a complete travesty. This message, however, has not yet reached the level of preachers and ordinary Christians because, as Williams indicated, the prejudice caused by the long history of ‘demonizing’ Arius is extraordinarily powerful (RW, 2).

Who was Arius?

“Arius must have been born about 256 in Libya” (RH, 3). He was, therefore, about 60 years old when the controversy began (RH, 5; cf. RW, 30). Epiphanius, one of Arius’ enemies, omitting his insults of Arius, wrote:

“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).

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).

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 … too 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).

Support

Quickly Spread

Arius’ support seems to be located mainly in Africa and the Middle East:

Arius’ Christology quickly spread through Egypt and Libya and the other Roman provinces.1KAYE, John (1853). Some account of the Council of Nicæa in connexion with the life of Athanasius. p33

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 dissension that had by now spread across most of north Africa and the Middle East” (Christian-history.org).

Arius also had the support of perhaps the two most important church leaders of that time:

Eusebius of Nicomedia

Eusebius of Nicomedia “was a supporter of Arius as long as Arius lived” (RH, 30, 31). “The conventional picture of Eusebius 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 mentions several examples where Eusebius displayed integrity and courage (RH, 28) and concludes:

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

“It was he who virtually took charge of the affairs of the Greek-speaking Eastern Church from 328 until his death” (RH, 29).

It was he who 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).

It was also this Eusebius who baptized emperor Constantine on his deathbed in AD 337.

Eusebius of Caesarea

“Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine [the church historian] was certainly an early supporter of Arius” (RH, 46). “He was universally acknowledged to be the most scholarly bishop of his day” (RH, 46). “Eusebius of Caesarea … was one of the most influential authors of the fourth century” (RH, 860). “Neither Arius nor anti-Arians speak evil of him” (RH, 46).

“He was made bishop of Caesarea about 313 (and) attended the Council of Nicaea in 325” (RH, 47), where he was the leader of the Origenist party (Erickson).

“We cannot … describe Eusebius (of Caesarea) as a formal Arian in the sense that he knew and accepted the full logic of Arius, or of Asterius’ position. But undoubtedly, he approached it nearly” (RH, 59).

318 – 325

In AD 321, three years after the dispute arose, Alexander removed Arius from office and even excommunicated him [i.e.; banned him from the communion table].

Emperor Constantine became involved as well. We need to understand why:

“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.” Therefore, “if necessary, secular authority might be exercised for … suppression” of “religious dissension.” (Boyd)2W.K. Boyd’s 1905 book, The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code

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.” He believed that “disunity in the church” was a danger to the state “more grievous than any kind of war.” (Boyd)3W.K. Boyd’s 1905 book, The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code

Constantine sent a letter to both parties rebuking them for quarreling about minute distinctions, as he believed them to be doing.4Encyclopædia 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”5Drake, 4. Constantine and Consensus and as “small and very insignificant questions.” 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.”6Davis, Leo Donald. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology. Vol. 21. Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 1990. 55

Arius’ Writings

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

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

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

There are at least three reasons why so little of Arius’ writings survived, except as quotations selected for polemical purposes in the writings of his opponents:

1. After the Nicene Council in 325, Emperor Constantine gave orders that all copies of the Thalia be burned so that “nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him,” and authorized the death penalty for those who do not immediately destroy Arius’ writings (Emperor Constantine’s Edict against the Arians)7Fourthcentury.com. 23 January 2010.

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

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

In other words, not even his supporters regarded his writings as worth preserving. Given that so little of Arius’ writings survived, and given that what survived are mostly in the writings of his enemies, it is difficult to reconstruct WHAT Arius actually taught, and—even more important—WHY.

Why Arius is important

Therefore, why should we learn about Arius? Was he not, furthermore, the devil’s pupil, as Athanasius implied (RW, 101)?

The Term Arian

The terms “Arian,” “Arianism” and “Arian Controversy,” which were derived from Arius’ name, imply that Arius was the leader of the Arians and the cause of the Arian Controversy. And if we remember that Arianism dominated the church during most of the Arian Controversy, that would mean that Arius was a very important person during the fourth century. However, as explained in another article, “the expression ‘the Arian Controversy’ is a serious misnomer” (RH, xvii-xviii). Rowan Williams concurs: “’Arianism’ as a coherent system, founded by a single great figure and sustained by his disciples, is a fantasy” (RW, 82).

Not a Leader

Arius was not a leader of people:

“Arius’ role in ‘Arianism’ was not that of the founder of a sect” (RW, 165).

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

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

Not a significant writer

Arius was also not regarded “as a particularly significant writer:”

“Those who suspected or openly repudiated the decisions of Nicaea … certainly (did not have) a loyalty to the teaching of Arius as an individual theologian” (RW, 233).

“Arius was not accepted as leader of a new movement. He did not write anything worth preserving” (RH, xvii-xviii).

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

Therefore:

There is the growing sense that ‘Arianism‘ is a very unhelpful term to use in relation to fourth-century controversy. There was no single ‘Arian’ agenda, no tradition of loyalty to a single authoritative teacher. Theologians who criticized the Creed of Nicaea had very diverse attitudes to Arius himself.” (RW, 247)

Only the Spark

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

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

In other words, Arius did not create the fuel for the explosion. The fuel has been gathering over the previous centuries as writers expressed conflicting views about how the Son relates to the Father. Before Christianity was legalized, Christians were too busy trying to stay alive to do much wrestling with one another on this topic. But, as soon as the persecution came to an end, this explosion was inevitable. And Arius, as Hanson stated, was only the spark that ignited the Controversy. 

Athanasius’ Polemical Creation

So, if Arius was not regarded as important, why is it called the ‘Arian Controversy’?

Athanasius lived a generation later than Arius. Athanasius did not combat Arius directly. He only began to write about 20 years after Nicaea. His opponents were the anti-Nicenes of a different generation and also a different theology. But Athanasius was fond of insulting his opponents and, since Arius’ theology was already rejected at Nicaea in the year 325, Athanasius referred to his opponents as Arians to insult them:

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

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

“The textbook picture of an Arian system, defended by self-conscious doctrinal dissidents, inspired by the teachings of the Alexandrian presbyter, is the invention of Athanasius’ polemic” (RW, 234).

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

Athanasius’ controversial energies … are dedicated to building up the picture of his enemies as uniformly committed … to a specific set of doctrines advanced by Arius and a small group of confederates” (RW, 82-83).

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

If Athanasius’ account does shape our understanding, we risk misconceiving the nature of the fourth-century crisis” (RW, 234).

Unfortunately, the church has accepted and propagated Athanasius’ mangled version of the Arian Controversy.

An important Dimension in Christian Life

There is another and much better reason for learning about Arius.

Hopelessly Defective

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).

Consistent and Thought-out Position

In contrast, Williams concluded that Arius and his supporters had already at an early stage in the controversy gone far to produce a consistent and thought-out position on the points under debate (RW, 2).

After a careful and detailed analysis of Arius’ theology, Williams concluded that Arius was “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 between God and creation, 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 by policy or circumstance” (RW, 91).

About how Arius was “unfortunately crushed,” other articles in this series say much more. See, for example:

But the point is that we need to study Arius because, as Williams wrote, he “may stand for an important dimension in Christian life.”

To understand the Nicene Creed

In particular, it is important to understand Arius to understand the 325 Nicene Creed.

‘Arianism’ continued to develop.

After Nicaea, ‘Arianism’ continued to develop. For example, Hanson states:

“In the year 357, Arianism as a relatively clearly thought out doctrinal position emerged for the first time, and for the first time those Eastern theologians who were not Arian were in a position to distinguish their own views and confess them. (Confused Terminology)”

Nicene theology also continued to develop.

Nicene theology, similarly, continued to develop:

“There is no doubt … that the pro-Nicene theologians throughout the controversy were engaged in a process of developing doctrine and consequently introducing what must be called a change in doctrine” (RH, 872). For example:

The teaching of the three Cappadocian Fathers “made it possible for the Council of Constantinople (381) to affirm the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which up to that point had nowhere been clearly stated, not even in Scripture.8The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, “God,” p. 568

“The distinction in meaning between ousia and hypostasis (both of which mean ‘something that subsists’) was worked out only in the late fourth century.”9Lienhard, Joseph T. Ousia and Hypostasis: The Cappadocian Settlement and the Theology of ‘One Hypostasis’. Oxford University Press.

So, if we want to understand the ‘Arian Controversy’, we must study how it developed later; not Arius. But, to understand the Nicene Creed of 325, which was the conclusion of the first phase of the Arian Controversy, we need to study Arius’ theology. In the second phase of the Arian Controversy, Arius was no longer a significant factor.

Not a Philosopher

In the past, it has often been claimed that Arius attempted to distort theology with philosophy:

“It had been customary to associate the Arian system primarily with Neoplatonism” (RW, 3).

“Harnack’s discussion of the nature of Arianism (1909) … sees Aristotelian Rationalism as the background of Arius’ system” (RW, 6).

Gwatkin (1900) stated, “Arianism is ‘almost as much a philosophy as a religion’” (RW, 9).

But Williams concluded:

“Arius presents himself as essentially a biblical theologian. There is a good deal to be said about Arius’ relationship with late classical philosophy; but we misunderstand him completely (as we misunderstand Origen) if we see him as primarily a self-conscious philosophical speculator. … Arius was by profession an interpreter of the Scriptures.” (RW, 107)

“He is not a philosopher, and it would be a mistake to accuse him of distorting theology to serve the ends of philosophical tidiness. On the contrary: the strictly philosophical issues are of small concern to Arius.” (RW, 230)

Ahead of his Time

As stated, Arius was not a leader of people but an academic:

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

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

As such, he was ahead of his time:

In philosophy, he is ahead of his time; he … presses the logic of God’s transcendence and ineffability to a consistent conclusion – that ‘what it is to be God’ is incapable of conceptual formulation, and of imitation or reproduction by any natural process of diffusion” (RW, 233).

“In many ways – and here is a still stranger paradox – his apophaticism (knowledge of God) foreshadows the concerns of Nicene theology later in the fourth century, the insights of the Cappadocians, or even Augustine. If he had his problems with the Lucianists, he would have found the ‘neo-Arians’ of later decades still less sympathetic” (RW, 233).

Why Arius is Misunderstood

Little Writings Survived

One major reason that Arius is not understood, as already stated, is that very little of his writings survived. The letters written by Arius that we have today only provide his summary conclusions with no clear explanations of why 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).

In the Writings of his Enemies

Secondly, most of what has survived did so as derogatory remarks in the writings of his enemies:

“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).

Logos-Theology

Thirdly, we fail to understand him because we do not adequately take into account his context. Williams wrote:

“Our mistake is to try to interpret him in terms of a theology with which he was not at home, the Logos-theology he shares with his opponents” (RW, 12).

Frend also uses the term “Logos-theology” and says that most delegates at Nicaea accepted this view of God:

“The great majority of the Eastern clergy (at Nicaea) … were simply concerned with maintaining the traditional Logos-theology of the Greek-speaking Church.”10Frend, W.H.C.: The Rise of Christianity

Hanson refers to the “Logos-theology” as the “Logos-doctrine,” as “the theological structure provided by the Apologists,” and as “the basic picture of God with which the great majority of those who were first involved in the Arian Controversy were familiar and which they accepted.” (Hanson’s article).

Hanson also explains what this entails:

The supreme being is immutable, abstract, and immaterial.

For that reason, He is unable to communicate with our world of change, decay, transitoriness, and matter.

He uses the divine Logos or nous for that purpose. The Logos or nous was His agent for creating the world and also for revealing Himself in the world.

All of these are concepts from Greek philosophy but Christian “Logos-theology” identified the divine Logos or nous with Christ; both pre-existent and incarnate in his earthly ministry. Thus, when Arius wrote, everybody 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 not a new idea proposed by Arius.

Furthermore, pagan philosophy, in the form of Logos-theology, entered the church centuries before Arius and it was something that both Arius and his enemies inherited and accepted. Arius did not attempt to bring it into the church. On the contrary, Arius was not “at home” with Logos-theology (RW, 12-13).

Why Still Misunderstood

If Williams’ evaluation of Arius is correct, why do so many people still regard Arius and his theology as defective and even evil? William says:

“What is … surprising is 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).

He gives two reasons for this:

    • “Nicaea’s traditional and liturgical importance” and
    • “The long history of what I have called the ‘demonizing’ of Arius is extraordinarily powerful” (RW, 2).

Conclusions

“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. … By the early medieval period, we find him represented alongside Judas in ecclesiastical art” (RW, 1). No other heretic has been through so thorough going a process of ‘demonization’” (RW, 1).

Not only has Arius been misrepresented by the church, the conventional account of the Arian Controversy, which stems originally from the version given of it by the victorious party, is now recognized by a large number of scholars to be a complete travesty.

See here for a pdf of some of the key pages from Rowan Williams which I quote in this article and here for the same from RPC Hanson.


Other Articles

  • 1
    KAYE, John (1853). Some account of the Council of Nicæa in connexion with the life of Athanasius. p33
  • 2
    W.K. Boyd’s 1905 book, The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code
  • 3
    W.K. Boyd’s 1905 book, The Ecclesiastical Edicts of the Theodosian Code
  • 4
    Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Constantine, Vol. 6, p. 386
  • 5
    Drake, 4. Constantine and Consensus
  • 6
    Davis, Leo Donald. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology. Vol. 21. Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press, 1990. 55
  • 7
    Fourthcentury.com. 23 January 2010.
  • 8
    The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, “God,” p. 568
  • 9
    Lienhard, Joseph T. Ousia and Hypostasis: The Cappadocian Settlement and the Theology of ‘One Hypostasis’. Oxford University Press.
  • 10
    Frend, W.H.C.: The Rise of Christianity

The real dispute and main meaning of the Nicene Creed of AD 325

Summary of this article

Purpose

It is often said that the Council of Nicaea was called to determine whether Jesus is God. But that does not accurately describe the dispute prior to Nicaea or the meaning of the creed. The purpose of this article is to identify the fundamental point of disagreement that led to the Nicene Creed of AD 325 and to establish what the attendees at the council understood the creed to say.

The Two Phases of the Arian Controversy

The Arian Controversy of the fourth century consisted of two phases:

The first phase began around AD 318 in Alexandria and came to an end during the Nicene Council when Arius’ Christology was presented but rejected.

The second phase was caused by how the Nicene Creed as formulated and lasted for another about 50 years after that meeting. In this second phase of the Controversy, Arius was no longer of significance. It was a dispute between four different views of the ontological relationship between the Father and the Son:

        1. Same substance (homoousian)
        2. Different substance (The Arius view)
        3. Similar substance (homoiousian)
        4. God’s substance is not revealed. Therefore, we should not formulate doctrines that refer to God’s substance. This was the majority view in the decades after Nicaea.

How the delegates in 325 understood the creed

This point is that, through the debates of that long second phase of the Arian Controversy and even after that second phase was brought to an end, many new concepts were developed, for example with respect to the Holy Spirit and the meaning of the word hypostasis. Therefore, to read the Nicene Creed of 325 using concepts and definitions that were developed later will fail to reveal its true meaning. It is only possible to grasp the meaning of the creed of AD 325 when one understands how the delegates in 325 understood the creed. For this reason, this article focuses on the development of the doctrine of God prior to the Nicene Creed of 325.

The Apostolic Church

The Bible associates the Son with God in many ways, including to describe Him as subordinate to the Father. In the view of many, the Bible’s description of the relationship between God and His Son is inadequate: We should not simply repeat what the Bible says but develop a more advanced description.

However, in the Apostolic Church of the first century, while Jews remained the majority in the church, Christians did not attempt to explain the relationship between God and His unique Son in more detail. 

Logos-Christology

Somewhere during the second century, Gentiles became the majority in the church. The Gentile Christian theologians of the second and third centuries (also called the Apologists) identified the Son of God of the New Testament as the Logos of Greek philosophy. In this Logos-Christology:

Created substances, including spirit beings, did not always exist and exist only by God’s grace. Uncreated substances, in contrast, are inherently eternal; always existed and must necessarily always exist.

The Logos have always existed ‘inside’ God.

When God decided to create, the Logos was emitted from God to become a separate reality (hypostasis). This events was interpreted as that the Son of God was “begotten.”

The Logos was God’s “wisdom,” but that He was “begotten” did not leave God without His wisdom; God and His Logos always remained integrated.

Since the Logos was part of the uncreated substance of God from “the beginning,” He:

        • Is of the same uncreated substance as the Father,
        • Has always existed,
        • Must necessarily always exist, and
        • Is subordinate to the Father. As B.B. Warfield noted, “The dominant neo-Stoic and neo-Platonic ideas deflected Christian thought into subordinationist channels.” (cf. Irenaeus and Tertullian or Origen.)

Sabellianism

Sabellianism (Modalism) was the first challenge to Logos-Christology. Due to Logos-Christology, Christianity was often accused of having two or three gods. Sabellianism was one attempt to explain how God might be three and one at the same time (Kevin Giles). However, the church fathers rejected this Christology early in the third century. 

The Christology of the Nicene Fathers

With Modalism formally condemned, Logos-Christology was the theology with which the church entered the fourth century.

At Nicaea, there were three parties:

The Arius-group taught that the Son was created from nothing. In other words, they rejected Logos-Christology which taught that the Son is the Logos that always was inside God. After Sabellianism, Arius’ Christology was the second great challenge to Logos-Christology.

The Origenists, led by Eusebius of Caesarea were the majority at Nicaea and maintained the traditional Logos-theology.

The third group was led by Alexander of Alexandria. A letter in which Alexander explained Arius’ ex-communication shows that Alexander also continued the traditional Logos theology of the previous century.

In conclusion:

All the delegates at Nicaea, except the Arius-group, maintained the traditional Logos-Christology. 

This means that, at the time, the Nicene Creed was formulated and interpreted on the basis of Logos-Christology.

This further means that the word “begotten” in the creed must be understood as that the Logos, who always was inside God, was begotten (emitted) from God and became the Son of God.

The Nicene Creed – Four issues

This analysis allows us to read the Nicene Creed from the perspective of the delegates at Nicaea.

Since more than 80% of the words in the creed are about Jesus Christ, the issue before the council was about Him; not about the Father or about the Holy Spirit.

Analyzing the creed, including the anathemas, shows that it addresses four issues about the Son:

(1) HOW He was generated in eternity past, namely that He was not made from nothing, as Arius claimed, but that He is the only being ever “begotten” of the essence of the Father;

(2) WHAT His nature now is, namely, of the same substance (homoousion) as the Father.

(3) Whether He always existed, and

(4) Whether He is mutable (subject to change)

It is proposed that, of those four issues, the primary issue of dispute was how the Son was generated, namely, whether He was generated out of nothing (as Arius said) or out of the substance of God, as the creed suggests. This is justified as follows:

(a) Most of the words in the Nicene Creed that were added in response to the Arian controversy are about this.

(b) After the meeting, Eusebius, the leader of the majority Eastern Greek delegation, identified this as the foundational matter. See – Eusebius of Caesarea’s explanation of the Nicene Creed.

(c) All the other differences (whether He always existed, what His substance is, and whether He is mutable) are consequences of this fundamental difference.

(d) That He always existed and that He is immutable are only mentioned in the anathemas, implying that these are not fundamental issues.

Homoousios

The word homoousios is the most controversial aspect of the Nicene Creed but it does not reflect the primary issue of dispute prior to the Council of Nicaea. One indication of this is that the Origenists, who were in the majority at Nicaea and who also opposed Arius, resisted this word to the last and only accepted it because of the pressure from the emperor. (See Eusebius’ explanation for more detail.)

The Son is God.

The creed does not identify the Son as “God” in the sense of the Ultimate Reality:

Both the Nicene and Athanasian creeds open with the standard Unitarian language:

“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty …
And in one Lord Jesus Christ” (cf. 1 Cor 8:6).

“Almost all the Eastern theologians believed that the Son was in some sense subordinated to the Father before the Incarnation.”1RPC Hanson – The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381, page xix

“The initial debate was not about the rightness or wrongness of hierarchical models of the Trinity, which were common to both sides.”2Rowan Williams – Arius, Heresy & Tradition, 2001, Eerdmans Publishing Company, p109

Most delegates to the Nicene Council held to the traditional Logos-Christology in which the Son is subordinate to the Father.

Conclusion

The main point of the creed, with respect to the controversy with Arius, is that the Son was begotten out of the eternal, uncreated substance of the Father. That principle is foundational to everything else the creed says about the Son.

– END OF SUMMARY –

Purpose of this article

In his excellent book, Decoding Nicea, Paul Pavao wrote:

“It is commonly said that the Council of Nicea was called to determine whether Jesus was God. … But if we really want to understand Nicea, then that description will not suffice. It would be more accurate to say that the Council of Nicea met to determine what the Son of God was made of.”

The purpose of this article is to explain this somewhat strange statement by identifying:

      • The fundamental point of disagreement that led to the Nicene Creed of AD 325 and
      • What the attendees at the council understood the creed to say.

The Two Phases of the Arian Controversy

The Arian Controversy of the fourth century consisted of two phases:

The first phase began around AD 318 in Alexandria with a dispute between presbyter Arius and his bishop Alexander. After this dispute expanded to a large part of his empire, Constantine the Great called the Council of Nicaea in AD 325 to address this controversy. At the Council, Arius’ Christology was presented but soon rejected. 

Thereafter, however, the council meeting evolved into a disagreement between the two other parties at Nicaea over how the creed must be formulated. As Eusebius of Caesarea explained, the minority party of Alexander of Alexandria, because they enjoyed the protection of the emperor, was able to add the terms ousia (substance) and homoousion (same substance) to the Nicene creed even though the majority was uncomfortable with these terms:

As Bettenson stated, “The decisions of Nicaea were really the work of a minority” (Documents of the Christian Church, 2nd Ed 1963, p 41).

And as the reformed website Bible.ca states: “We will grant … that a majority opposed the Nicene creed. … The majority who opposed the creed were not aligned with Arius!”

That disagreement, which arose during the council meeting, became the second phase of the Arian Controversy, continued after the meeting and lasted for another about 50 years.

While the first phase of the Arian Controversy was between the Arius-faction and everybody else, the second phase of the controversy was a dispute between four different views of the ontological relationship between the Father and the Son:

(1) Same substance (homoousian – as per the Nicene Creed);

(2) Different substance (heteroousian – the view which Arius preferred);

(3) Similar substance (homo-i-ousian – attempted to find a view midway between the homoousians and the heteroousians); and

(4) God’s substance is not revealed. Therefore, we should not formulate doctrines that refer to God’s substance. This is known as the homoian (or homoean) view which simply taught that the Son is similar to the Father.

Homoian Domination

During the 50 years of the second phase of the Controversy, a series of further church councils considered and approved various alternatives for homoousion, but the homoian view became the dominant view. This view was accepted, for example in the Second Sirmian Creed of 357 and the Creed of Nice (Constantinople) of 360.3Hanson RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381 AD. pp. 558

At the Council of Constantinople in 360, 35 years after Nicaea, the homoian view was formally accepted as the official creed of the Christian Church. Its creed rejected the term homoousion and banned all use of ousia in theological discussions. (Steven Wedgeworth)

With the homoian creed, the church returned to the theology of Origen, who warned against attempts to overly define God:

“If then, it is once rightly understood that the only-begotten Son of God is his Wisdom existing in substance, I do not know whether our curiosity ought to advance beyond this” (De Principiis. I:2:1-2. c. AD 230.).

Post Nicaea Developments

Through the debates of that second phase of the Arian Controversy, many new concepts were developed, for example:

The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, “God,” p. 568, states that the teaching of the three Cappadocian Fathers “made it possible for the Council of Constantinople (AD 381) to affirm the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which up to that point had nowhere been clearly stated, not even in Scripture.

“Finally, following the authoritative example of St. Basil the Great, it became accepted to understand by the word Hypostasis the Personal attributes in the Triune Divinity.” (Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, p. 94-95) (To understand what this means, see Why the Nicene Creed uses ousia and hypostasis as synonyms.

Many other Trinitarian concepts were developed even after the Creed of Constantinople in 381. For example:

A German theologian named Gieseler stated that the first person who asserted “the numerical sameness of nature in the three divine persons” was Augustine.4Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology Volume 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981 reprint) p. 463. (For an explanation, see Should homoousion in the Nicene Creed be translated as “same substance” or as “one substance?”)

How did the delegates in 325 understand the Creed?

Given the significant development of the Trinity doctrine during the fourth and fifth centuries, reading the Nicene Creed of 325 using concepts and definitions that were later developed will fail to reveal its true meaning. It is only possible to understand what the creed of AD 325 means when one understands the nature of the controversy at that time and what the delegates in 325 understood the creed to say.

Furthermore, the Nicene Creed of 325 was formulated by a minority and only accepted by the majority due to pressure from the emperor. And, as we see in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea, the majority (re)defined the terms “substance” and “same substance” in a way that made it possible for them to accept the creed. Therefore, to understand what the Creed meant at the time, we need to determine what meaning that majority assigned to it.

For this reason, this article focuses on the development of the doctrine of God prior to the Nicene Creed of 325. It provides a brief overview of the Christology of:

      • The Bible,
      • The Apostolic Church,
      • The Apologists (Logos-Christology)
      • Sabellianism,
      • The Nicene Fathers, and 
      • Arius.

The Bible

The Bible associates the Son with God. For example:

The church is commanded to baptize believers “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19).

He will be honored equally with the Father, has life in Himself like the Father, and in Him, all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form (John 5:23; 26; Col 2:9). These are indications of divinity.

But the Bible also describes the Son as subordinate to the Father. For example:

He received honor equal with the Father, life in Himself, and the fullness of Deity the Father (John 5:22; 26; Col 1:19).

The Bible describes the Father as His God (e.g., Eph 1:3; Rev 3:12) and as His Head (e.g.,1 Cor 11:3).

This creates the challenge to explain the tension between the divinity and subordination of the Son. 

R.P.C. Hanson stated:

“The Bible does not give us a specifically Christian doctrine of God.”

It almost seems as if Hanson is saying that the Bible’s description of the relationship between God and His Son is inadequate and we need to develop a more advanced description.

The renowned ecclesiastical historian, Philip Schaff (1819 – 1893) stated:

“At the beginning of the fourth century the problem of how to preserve the Godhood of Christ and at the same time his subordination to the Father … had not been solved.”5Prolegomena: “The Outbreak of the Arian Controversy. The Attitude of Eusebius.” The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Series II. Vol. I.

If Schaff could say that with respect to the fourth century, he would have said the same of the first century.

Development within the Bible

While the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not clearly state the divinity or even only the pre-existence of Christ, John and Paul present a much higher Christology. Perhaps the reason is that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written earlier and only describe the literal historical events as seen from the perspective of people on earth, while John and Paul, who wrote later, were assisted by the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-13) to understand more clearly who the Son is relative to the “one God” of the Bible. In other words, even in the New Testament, we see a development of thought on the question of the relationship between the God of the Bible and His only-begotten Son. 

Apostolic Church

In the Apostolic Church of the first century, while Jews remained the majority in the church, Christians did not attempt to explain the relationship between God and His unique Son in more detail. They were simply repeating the verbal accounts of the disciples and the written gospels and letters, once these have become available. (For a further discussion, see Jewish Dominated Church)

Logos-Christology

Somewhere during the second century, Gentiles became the majority in the church. Gentile Christians, in order to explain their religion to their fellow Gentiles people of the empire, needed an explanation of the God of the Bible. Greek philosophy was still a dominant force in the culture of the Roman empire and the Gentile Christians were themselves very familiar with that philosophy. In that Greek philosophy, God’s Logos (word, mind, wisdom, or reason) existed through two stages:

      1. First, inside of the high God but
      2. When God determined to create, God’s Logos was emitted and became a separate being through whom God created all things and communicated with the creation.

Based particularly on the “wisdom” of Proverbs 8 and the “Word” of John 1, the Gentile Christian theologians of the second and third centuries (also known as the Apologists) thought and explained that the Son of God of the New Testament is the same as the Logos of Greek philosophy. As B. B. Warfield, stated:

“In the 2nd century, the dominant neo-Stoic and neo-Platonic ideas deflected Christian thought into subordinationist channels, and produced what is known as the Logos-Christology.”6Warfield, Benjamin B. “Trinity, 2.” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.

The following is an overview of the Logos-Christology of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, quoting some early Christian writers:

Uncreated Substances

Logos-Christology distinguished between created and uncreated substances. Created substances, including spirit beings, did not always exist and exist only by God’s grace. Uncreated substances, in contrast, is inherently eternal. Uncreated substances, therefore, always existed and must necessarily always exist. For example:

“The Deity is uncreated and eternal … while matter is created and perishable.”7Athenagoras. A Plea for the Christians. 4. AD 177

Inside God

On the basis of John 1:1, Logos-Christology agreed that the Logos existed inside God from the “beginning.” For example:

“God was in the beginning … was alone, but … the Logos … was in him.”8Tatian, c. AD 165. Address to the Greeks. 5.

“’In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God’, showing that at first God was alone, and the Word was in him.”9Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, To Autolycus. II:22. c. AD 168

Begotten Son

As stated, in Greek philosophy, the Logos was emitted from God to become a separate being. In Logos-Christology, this event was described as that the Logos was “begotten” of God to become a distinct being; identified as “the only-begotten Son of God” who later became the man Jesus Christ. For example:

“But when God wished to make all that he determined, he begot this Logos, uttered, the firstborn of all creation (Col 1:15).”10Theophilus, c. AD 168

As Biblical proof, they used verses such as, “My heart has emitted a good Word” (Psm 45:1) and “I begat you out of my bosom before the dawn” (Psm 110:3).

“The only-begotten Son of God is his Wisdom existing in substance.”11Origen. De Principiis. I:2:1-2. c. AD 230

Integrated

This, however, did not leave God without His wisdom; God and His Logos always remained integrated. For example:

“The Father has not divested him … of the Logos power.”12Tatian, c. AD 165. Address to the Greeks. 5.

“Always conversing with his Reason.”13Theophilus, c. AD 168. To Autolycus. II:22.

Same Substance

Since the Son was begotten from the uncreated substance of God, He is of the same uncreated substance as the Father. It is not clear whether the Logos theologians used the exact word homoousios which we find in the Nicene Creed, but the concept is similar. For example:

“The Logos … came into being … not by abscission [i.e., cutting off], for what is cut off is separated from the original substance.”14Tatian, c. AD 165. Address to the Greeks. 5. (In other words, the Son has not been separated from the uncreated substance of the Father.)

“We employ language which makes a distinction between God and matter … For we acknowledge a God and a Son, his Logos, and a Holy Spirit, united in essence.”15Athenagoras. A Plea for the Christians. 24. Emphasis mine.

In an analogy, Tertullian stated that, like the sun and a sunbeam, the Father and the Son are “two forms of one undivided substance.”16Tertullian, Against Praxeas. 13

“For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as [the Son] himself acknowledges: ‘My Father is greater than I’” [John 14:28].17Tertullian, Against Praxeas. 9

Always Existed

Since the Logos was part of the uncreated substance of God “in the beginning,” He always existed and must necessarily always exist. There never was a time that He did not exist. For example:

“The Son of God is the Logos of the Father … He is the first product of the Father, not as though he was being brought into existence, for from the beginning God, who is the eternal Mind, had the Logos in himself.”18Athenagoras, AD 177 – A Plea for the Christians. 10.

Subordinate

Since, in Logos-Christology, the Son is part of the substance of the Father, Father and Son have the same substance qualitatively but the Son is ontologically (in terms of substance) subordinate to the Father. It follows that the Son is subordinate to the Father in all respects. As B.B. Warfield (quoted above) noted:

“The dominant neo-Stoic and neo-Platonic ideas deflected Christian thought into subordinationist channels.”

R.P.C. Hanson wrote:

“The conventional Trinitarian doctrine with which Christianity entered the fourth century … (made) the Son into a demi-god” (Hanson).

And as Philp Schaff stated:

“The Nicene fathers still teach, like their predecessors, a certain subordinationism, which seems to conflict with the doctrine of consubstantiality. But we must distinguish between a subordination of essence (ousia) and a subordination of hypostasis.”19Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. Vol. III. Section 130.

In other words, Schaff stated that, while Father and Son were regarded as equal in essence (substance), the hypostasis (Person) of the Son is subordinate to the hypostasis of the Father.

For a further discussion of Logos Christology, see The Apologists by R.P.C. Hanson. 

Sabellianism

Due to Logos-Christology, Christianity was often accused of having two or three gods. Tertullian stated:

They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods. (Tertullian. Against Praxeas. 3. c. AD 210.)

Sabellianism (Modalism) was the first challenge to Logos-Christology. Sabellianism was an attempt to defend Christianity against the accusation of polytheism.

Kevin Giles (The Academic Journal of CBE International) stated:

“One of the first suggestions as to how God might be three and one at the same time was that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were merely successive modes of revelation of the one God. … This error, which was called modalism, was rejected by the Church Fathers.” 

Wikipedia states that Modalism has been mainly associated with Sabellius, who taught a form of it in Rome in the 3rd century. This had come to him via the teachings of Noetus and Praxeas.

Tertullian condemned Modalism (c. 213, Tertullian Against Praxeas 1, in Ante Nicene Fathers, vol. 3). Sabellius was excommunicated in AD 220. (GotQuestions). 

The Christology of the Nicene Fathers

With Modalism formally condemned, Logos-Christology was the theology with which the church entered the fourth century.

“Among those who were, three basic “parties” were discernible: Arius and the Lucianists, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia; the Origenists, led by Eusebius of Caesarea, already highly reputed; and Alexander of Alexandria, with his following.” (Erickson) (God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85)

Arius and the Lucianists

The quote from Erickson above refers to “Arius and the Lucianists.” Arius was the main spokesperson of this Christology, but he did not invent it. Pavao noted, “all the major players of the early Arian Controversy were trained in the school of Lucian.” (Pavao, Paul. Decoding Nicea (p. 273). Kindle Edition.) And Boer (A Short History of the Early Church, Harry R. Boer, p113) described Arius as “a disciple of Lucian.” Lucian was martyred in 311 or 312; at the very end of the Great Persecution.

While Logos-Christology taught that the Son is the Logos that always was inside God, “Arius and the Lucianists” taught that the Son was created from nothing. In other words, the Arius-delegation rejected Logos-Christology. The first great challenge to the Logos-Christology of the Apologists was Sabellianism. The second great challenge was the Lucian Christology which Arius proclaimed.

The Origenists, led by Eusebius of Caesarea

This group was the majority at Nicaea and maintained the traditional Logos-theology:

“The most important of the Eastern bishops were present, but the West was poorly represented” (God in Three Persons, Millard J. Erickson, p82-85).

“The great majority of the Eastern clergy were ultimately disciples of Origen. Future generations have tended to dub them “Semi-Arian.” In fact they were simply concerned with maintaining the traditional Logos-theology of the Greek-speaking Church” (Frend, W.H.C. The Rise of Christianity. see also, Bible.ca).

Alexander of Alexandria, with his following

Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, where the dispute with Arius began, explained Arius’ ex-communication in a letter (The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus. I:6.). In that letter, he explains what Arius taught and why his views were rejected. But it is also clear from that letter that Alexander continued the traditional Logos theology of the previous century. For example:

He stated that “the Son is the Word and Wisdom of God.”

And he used verses that were often used by Logos theologists, but which we would not necessarily today associate with the Son:

          • “My heart has dictated a good Word,” and,
          • “I begat thee out of my bosom before the dawn”? [45:1; 110:3, LXX]

Conclusion

All the delegates at Nicaea, except the Arius-group, maintained the traditional Logos-Christology. R.P.C. Hanson, a great authority on the Arian Controversy, wrote:

“The theological structure provided by the Apologists lasted as the main, widely-accepted, one might almost say traditional framework for a Christian doctrine of God well into the fourth century, and was, in differing form, the basic picture of God with which the great majority of those who were first involved in the Arian Controversy were familiar and which they accepted.” (link)

This means that the Nicene Creed was formulated and interpreted at the time on the basis of Logos-Christology. This further means that the word “begotten” in the creed must be understood as that the Logos, who always was inside God – part of God’s uncreated substance – was emitted from God (when God wanted to create) and became the Son of God.

Nicene Creed

This analysis allows us to read the Nicene Creed from the perspective of the delegates at Nicaea.

Since more than 80% of the words in the creed are about Jesus Christ, the issue before the council was about Him; not about the Father or about the Holy Spirit. The question is, what did they dispute about the Son?

Compared with 1 Corinthians 8:6

The first part of the creed seems to be based on 1 Corinthians 8:6, but notice the section inserted to describe the Son. It is proposed that this additional section specifically affirms what Arius disputed: 

1 Corinthians 8:6 Nicene Creed (AD 325)
For us there is but one God, the Father We believe in one God, the Father Almighty
From whom are all things and we exist for Him Maker of all things visible and invisible.
And one Lord, Jesus Christ, And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Son of God, begotten of the Father the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, 
consubstantial with the Father;
By whom are all things, and we exist through Him By whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth;

This added section may be divided into two subjects:

Firstly, how the Son was generated in eternity past, namely that He is the only being ever to be begotten of the essence of the Father;

Secondly, what His nature now is, namely, of the same substance (homoousion) as the Father.

This phrase “God from God, light from light, true God from true God” indicates both HOW He was generated and WHAT His nature now is. However, the part of the added section that begins with “begotten” and ends with “begotten not made” seems to form an inclusio, indicating that this part is a unit with the word “begotten” pointing to its main meaning, namely the generation of the Son from the being or substance of the Father.

Compared with the Anathemas

In addition to this added section, which described the Council’s agreed view of Christ, the creed of AD 325 also includes a list of statements that are categorized as heretical, and all of these statements are about Christ. These statements reflect Arius’ Christology. The following table compares the affirmations with Arius’ view:

  Council’s view:
(Affirmations)
Arius’ view:
(Anathemas)
Before He was generated There was when He was not – Before being born He was not
How He was generated Begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, He was created out of nothing.
His substance of one substance with the Father of a different hypostasis or substance
His nature subject to alteration or change (mutable)

The Nicene Creed, therefore, basically says 4 things about the Son, namely that He:

      • Always existed.
      • Was begotten from the substance of the Father.
      • Is of the same substance as the Father.
      • Is not subject to change.

The main point of dispute

It is proposed that, of those four issues, the primary issue of dispute was how the Son was generated, namely, whether He was generated out of nothing (as Arius said) or out of the substance of God, as the creed suggests. This is justified as follows:

Firstly, the previous table shows that most of the words that were added in response to the Arian controversy are about HOW He was generated; repeating the word “begotten” three times.

Secondly, all the other differences are consequences of this fundamental difference.

If the Son was created out of nothing, as Arius claimed, then, (a) He did not exist before He was begotten, (b) He consist of created substances, which is a different substance from the Father’s uncreated substance, and (c) He is mutable.

Given how the Council understood “begotten,” namely that the Son is the uncreated Logos that always was inside God but that was emitted from the essence of God to become God’s only begotten Son, means that (a) He always existed, (b) is of the same uncreated substance as the Father and (c) is as unchangeable as God.

Thirdly, that He always existed and that He is immutable are not mentioned in the affirmations; only in the anathemas, implying that these are not fundamental issues.

Fourthly, after the meeting, Eusebius, the leader of the majority Eastern Greek delegation, explained the dispute with Arius and identified Arius’ main argument as that the Son was created out of nothing. It also shows that Eusebius’ response was that, because the Son was begotten from the Father, He came out of the being of the Father and was not created from nothing. (See The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus – Book II (mb-soft.com))

Homoousios

That He is homoousios (of the same substance) as the Father is also mentioned in the affirmations of the creed. For that reason, that may indicate that this was the main point of the creed.

However, the word homoousios was proposed and enforced by the emperor. Eusebius and the other Origenists resisted this word to the last and, in the end, accepted this word only because of the pressure applied by the emperor. (See Eusebius of Caesarea’s explanation of Nicaea for more detail.) In other words, at least from the perspective of the majority at the council, this word does not reflect what they wanted to say in response to Arius’ Christology. For that reason, this word was the cause of the second phase of the Arian Controversy during the 50 years after Nicaea.

The Son is God

It is often stated that that creed identifies Jesus as God (e.g., Bible.ca) but, as R.P.C. Hanson – who studied the Arian Controversy of 20 years – stated, the traditional account of the Arian Controversy is a complete travesty. In fact, the issue was decidedly not whether Jesus is God. As discussed above, all the delegates to Nicaea, except the Arius-group, held to the traditional Logos-Christology in which the Son is subordinate to the Father. As Philip Schaff noted with respect to perhaps the most respected theologian at Nicaea:

“That Eusebius [of Caesarea] was a decided subordinationist must be plain to every one that reads his works with care” (The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Series II, Vol. 1)

As quoted above, Philip Schaff also stated that, while Father and Son were regarded as equal in essence (substance), the Nicene Fathers regarded the hypostasis (Person) of the Son as subordinate to the hypostasis of the Father (Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. Vol. III. Section 130. Emphasis mine, parentheses his. (pp. 251-252).

The Arius-group denied that the Son always existed and, therefore, had an even lower Christology. Therefore, if we use the word “God” for the Ultimate Reality, then none of the delegates thought of Christ as such. All of them regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father.

This is confirmed by the creed itself which identifies the “one God” of Christianity as the Father alone:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty …
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God …
And in the Holy Ghost. (cf. 1 Tim 2:5; cf. 1 Cor 8:6; John 5:44)

Whereas the Apostles’ Creed declared only that Jesus Christ is God’s only Son, and our Lord, the Nicene Creed added the following declaration dealing with eternal subordination:

“and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things came into being.”

As Schaff makes clear, these statements reflected a belief in the eternal subordination of the Son. The idea that the Son is begotten and the Father unbegotten means that the Father is primary and Sonship secondary. Schaff declares that “all important scholars since Petavius admit subordination in the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity.” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. III (311–600) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950) 683.

Conclusion

Out of what

At the beginning of the article, I mentioned that Paul Pavao wrote that the main point of the Nicene Creed was “what the Son of God was made of.” I propose that that is not entirely correct. What the Son of God was made of is only a consequence of the question out of what He was generated; out of God or out of nothing.

I propose, therefore, that the main point of the creed is that the Son was begotten out of the eternal, uncreated substance of the Father. That principle is foundational to everything else in the creed. Consistently, the Nicene Creed states three times that the Son was “begotten.”

  • 1
    RPC Hanson – The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381, page xix
  • 2
    Rowan Williams – Arius, Heresy & Tradition, 2001, Eerdmans Publishing Company, p109
  • 3
    Hanson RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381 AD. pp. 558
  • 4
    Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology Volume 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981 reprint) p. 463.
  • 5
    Prolegomena: “The Outbreak of the Arian Controversy. The Attitude of Eusebius.” The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Series II. Vol. I.
  • 6
    Warfield, Benjamin B. “Trinity, 2.” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.
  • 7
    Athenagoras. A Plea for the Christians. 4. AD 177
  • 8
    Tatian, c. AD 165. Address to the Greeks. 5.
  • 9
    Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, To Autolycus. II:22. c. AD 168
  • 10
    Theophilus, c. AD 168
  • 11
    Origen. De Principiis. I:2:1-2. c. AD 230
  • 12
    Tatian, c. AD 165. Address to the Greeks. 5.
  • 13
    Theophilus, c. AD 168. To Autolycus. II:22.
  • 14
    Tatian, c. AD 165. Address to the Greeks. 5.
  • 15
    Athenagoras. A Plea for the Christians. 24. Emphasis mine.
  • 16
    Tertullian, Against Praxeas. 13
  • 17
    Tertullian, Against Praxeas. 9
  • 18
    Athenagoras, AD 177 – A Plea for the Christians. 10.
  • 19
    Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. Vol. III. Section 130.