Eusebius of Nicomedia Archives » From Daniel to Revelation

Overview

The Great Persecution of AD 303-313 was Rome’s final attempt to destroy Christianity. The Empire razed churches to the ground, burned sacred articles, and jailed believers.

The fourth-century Arian Controversy was the Church’s most dramatic internal struggle to date. It began in 318, only 5 years after persecution ended, with a dispute between Arius and his bishop Alexander.

Arius had many supporters, not because they accepted his views, but because they regarded Alexander as more dangerous. Alexander believed that the Son is part of the Father, not a distinct Person.

Contrary to what is often said, Arius was a Conservative. He did not develop a new theology. His views have always been described as hopelessly defective but he was not worse than most theologians. Arius is often accused of teaching subordination but all theologians at the time described the Son as subordinate.

Constantine intervened in the dispute, rebuked both parties for quarreling about trivial matters, and commanded them to be reconciled.

In the traditional account, Arius was important. In reality, he was insignificant. He was not the founder of Arianism nor the leader of a movement. He did not leave a school of disciples. He only seems important because Athanasius accused his opponents of being ‘Arians’ (followers of Arius) and quoted extensively from Arius to attack his enemies. However, Athanasius’ opponents did not follow Arius.

Introduction

The Great Persecution of AD 303-313 was Rome’s final attempt to destroy Christianity.

The Roman Empire persecuted Christianity during the first three centuries. Beginning around 303, Diocletian’s first edict commanded churches and holy sites razed to the ground, sacred articles burned, and believers jailed. [Show More]

An end was made to this persecution by Galerius’ Edict of Toleration in 311, followed by Constantine’s Edict of Milan in 313, after Emperor Constantine himself became a Christian.

The fourth-century Arian Controversy was the Church’s most dramatic internal struggle to date.

The Controversy began only 5 years later, in 318, with a dispute between presbyter Arius and his bishop Alexander. [Show More]

It came to an end 62 years later when emperor Theodosius, in the year 380, through the edict of Thessalonica, made Nicene Christianity the State Religion of the Roman Empire and outlawed all other views. [Show More]

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” (Williams, 1). [Show More]

The Controversy began when Arius, who was in charge of one of the churches in Alexandria, opposed his bishop Alexander.

He 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” ¹ and of Sabellianism (Legal History Sources). [Show More]

Arius might have been a student of Lucius.

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.” (Hanson, 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.” (Williams, 30)

Arius was not 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.” (Williams, 34, 32-40) However, after several pages of detailed analysis, Williams concludes that “the Melitian Arius … melt(s) away under close investigation.” (Williams, 40) [Show More]

The purpose of this article is to explain who Arius was and why many regard him as an Antichrist.

In the traditional account, Arius was an Antichrist, attacking the core of the Christian faith.

‘Arianism’ “has often been regarded as … aimed at the very heart of the Christian confession.” (Williams, 1)

Athanasius implied that Arius is the devil’s pupil (Williams, 101). Consequently, after Emperor Theodosius in 380 had made Nicene Christianity the State Religion of the Roman Empire, Arius “came more and more to be regarded as a kind of Antichrist.” [Show More]

This article is part of the series on the Origin of the Trinity doctrine, focusing on the Arian Controversy.

The traditional account of the Arian Controversy is a complete travesty.

The fourth-century Arian Controversy resulted in the Church accepting the Trinity doctrine. However, during the 20th century, scholars have discovered that the traditional account of that Controversy, of how and why the church accepted the Trinity doctrine, is history according to the winner and a complete travesty.

“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 (published around the year 1900), can today be completely ignored.” (Hanson, p. 95-96) [Show More]

In many respects, the reality of the Arian Controversy is the opposite of the traditional account.

For example, in the traditional account, while Alexander and Athanasius represented the orthodox view, Arius developed a novel heresy in which the Son is subordinate to the Father. The reality is the opposite. While Arius was a traditionalist, and while subordination was the orthodox view when the Controversy began, Alexander and Athanasius, similar to the Sabellians, believed that the Father and Son are a single Person. [Show More]

This article series is based mostly on the writings of scholars of the last 50 years.

Following the last full-scale book on the fourth-century Arian Controversy in English by Gwatkin at the beginning of the 20th century, only a handful of full-scale books on the Arian Controversy have been published.Following the last full-scale book on the fourth-century Arian Controversy in English by Gwatkin at the beginning of the 20th century, only a handful of full-scale books on the Arian Controversy have been published. The writings of the last 50 years reflect the revised account of the Controversy. Although most quotes are hidden in ‘Show More’ sections, these quotes form a crucial part of this article. [Show More]

Arius

Arius had many supporters, not because they accepted his views, but because they regarded Alexander as more dangerous.

Arius’ following was small and limited to Africa. However, many in the Eastern Church supported him, not because they agreed with everything he said, but because they were on the same side on the core issue in the Controversy, while Alexander was on the opposite side. Consequently, they regarded Alexander’s theology as much more dangerous than Arius’ sometimes extreme views. [Show More]

The core issue was whether the Son is a distinct Person or a part of the Father.

Like Arius, many Easterners believed that the Son is a distinct Person. [Show More]

In opposition to them, Alexander believed that the Son is part of the Father. Specifically, he believed that the Son is the Father’s Word and Wisdom. For example, “Alexander taught that … as the Father’s Word and Wisdom the Son must always have been with the Father.” (Ayres, p. 16) Consequently, like the Sabellians, Alexander believed that the Father and Son are one single Person (hypostasis). [Show More]

The two most important church leaders at the day supported Arius.

Arius’ most prominent supporters were the two Eusebii. They were perhaps the two most important church leaders at the time. [Show More]

Eusebius of Nicomedia “virtually took charge of the affairs of the Greek-speaking Eastern Church from 328 until his death.” (Hanson, 29) Athanasius presents Eusebius of Nicomedia as “an unscrupulous intrigue” but that is, of course, because Eusebius organized the council where Athanasius was exiled. Hanson lists several examples where Eusebius displayed integrity and courage (Hanson, 28) and then concludes that he “certainly was a man of strong character and great ability” (Hanson, 29), motivated to spread the Christian faith beyond the frontiers of the Roman Empire. [Show More]

Eusebius of Caesarea was “universally acknowledged to be the most scholarly bishop of his day” (Hanson, 46; cf. 153) and “one of the most influential authors of the fourth century.” (Hanson, 860) [Show More]

Contrary to what is often said, Arius was a Conservative. He did not develop a new theology.

In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, Arius was a deliberate radical who broke away from the ‘orthodoxy’ of the church fathers to create a novel heresy. However, scholars of the Arian Controversy now assess Arius as “a conservative Alexandrian.” Although he varied in some respects, he broadly followed the tradition of the great Alexandrian theologian Origen. His theology was similar to that of Dionysius, who was bishop of Alexandria when Arius was born. [Show More]

Alexander also did not develop a new theology. His view was similar to Sabellianism.

If Arius was a “conservative Alexandrian,” then it is implied that Arius’ opponent Alexander was not. As stated, in Alexander’s theology, the Son is not a distinct Person but part of the Father. He believed that the Father and Son are a single Person (hypostasis). In other words, he deviated from Origen and Dionysius of Alexandria before him. Alexander’s theology was similar to that of the third-century Sabellians and another Dionysius, who was bishop of Rome when Arius was born. [Show More]

Arius’ views have always been described as hopelessly defective but he was not worse than most theologians.

Arius’ views have always been “represented as … some hopelessly defective form of belief.” (Williams, 2) However, 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 (Williams, 2). In his view, Arius is “a thinker and exegete of resourcefulness, sharpness and originality.” (Williams, 116) [Show More]

Arius is often accused of teaching subordination. However, all theologians described the Son as subordinate.

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. When Arius wrote, all Christians regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father. Even Athanasius thought of the Son as in a sense subordinate because, in his view, the Son is part of the Father. 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. [Show More]

Events before Nicaea

Constantine intervened, rebuked both parties for quarreling about trivial matters, and commanded them to be reconciled.

In 321, Alexander removed Arius from office and also excommunicated him [i.e.; banned him from the communion table]. [Show More]

Constantine sent a letter to both parties rebuking them for quarreling about ‘minute distinctions’, as he believed them to be doing, commanding them to be reconciled. [Show More]

Arius was Insignificant.

In the traditional account, Arius was important. In reality, he was insignificant.

At Nicaea, Arius’s peculiar theology was soon rejected. The Nicene Creed anathematizes all of Arius’ extreme statements.

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

But Arius was not important. The so-called ‘Arians’ did not regard his writings as worth copying. Very little of Arius’ writings have survived. Therefore, we have to reconstruct what Arius taught mostly from the writings of his enemies, which are not always a reliable source. [Show More]

He was not the founder of Arianism nor the leader of a movement and he did not leave behind a school of disciples:

“He was the spark that started the explosion. But in himself he was of no great significance.” (Hanson, xvii)

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

Athanasius coined the misleading term ‘Arian’ as a part of his polemical strategy.

Many people today still refer to the fourth-century crisis today as the ‘Arian’ Controversy and to the anti-Nicenes as “Arians” because Athanasius coined the term ‘Arian’ to describe his opponents as ‘Arians’ (followers of Arius) and because, in previous centuries, scholars have relied excessively on Athanasius. Athanasius’ goal was to tar his opponents with a theology that was already formally rejected. Pretending to attack his enemies, he quoted or paraphrased Arius extensively. But Athanasius’ opponents did not follow Arius. [Show More]

Arius is still misrepresented today because the Church uses the traditional account to defend the Trinity doctrine.

For the following reasons, many people still regard Arius and his theology as “crude and contradictory:” [Show More]

Firstly, little of his writings have survived. Arius’ letters that we have today only provide summary conclusions. There are no explanations of how he came to those conclusions. [Show More]

Secondly, most of what we know about Arius are critiques of his theology in the writings of his enemies – particularly Athanasius, and “Athanasius, a fierce opponent of Arius, certainly would not have stopped short of misrepresenting what he said.” (Hanson, 10) [Show More]

Thirdly, “Nicaea’s traditional and liturgical importance” (Williams): Criticism of Athanasius and the traditional account of the Arian Controversy creates doubt about the legitimacy of Nicene theology and the Trinity doctrine, which the Church does not accept.

Fourthly, “the long history of what I have called the ‘demonizing’ of Arius is extraordinarily powerful” (Williams, 2).

Tag: Eusebius of Nicomedia

Who was Arius? Why do many regard him as an Antichrist?

Overview

Introduction

Arius

Events before Nicaea

Arius was Insignificant.

Other Articles

FOOTNOTES