God exists beyond the time, space, and matter of the creation. For that reason, He cannot be seen and always interacts with the creation through His Son. Through Him, God created all things, redeems sinners, resurrects believers, judges the world, and fulfills His promises. Through His Son, God reveals Himself, speaks to His creation, and rules the universe.
Through Him, God provides everything that the creation needs and, through Christ, the adoration and thanksgiving of the creation flow back to God. Jesus Christ is โthe Word of Godโ because He alone is the communication between God and His creation.
– END OF SUMMARY –
Introduction
Jesus Christ is not just โthe Word:โ He is โthe Word of God.โ
God exists beyond the time, space, and matter of creation. For that reason, He cannot be seen. Most certainly, He is able to cause an appearance of Himself to be visible to His creatures, but it remains only an appearance. God is omnipresent and can never be limited to one place in His universe. For example:
Jesus Christ โis the image ofย the invisible Godโ (Col 1:15).
โThe King eternal, immortal,ย invisible, the only Godโ (1 Tim 1:17);
โNo one has seen Godย at any timeโ (1 John 4:12)
โThe King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whomย no man has seen or can seeโ (1 Tim 6:15-16);
Therefore, in all respects, God interacts with His creation ONLY through His only begotten Son:
God created all things through Jesus Christ:
โAll things came into being through Himโ
(John 1:2-3; cf. 1:10)
โThere is but one God, the Father,
from whom are all things
and we exist for Him;
and one Lord, Jesus Christ,
by whom are all things,
and we existย through Himโ (1 Cor 8:6).
โBy (Gr. en = in) Him all things were created, both in (Gr. en = in) the heavens and on earth โฆ
all things have been createdย through Himโ (Col 1:16).
โGod โฆ in these last days has spoken to us in His Son โฆ
through whomย also He made the worldโ
(Heb 1:1-2; cf. 2:10).
God saves through Jesus Christ:
โGod did … send the Son into the world … that the world might be saved through Himโ (John 3:16)
โHe (Jesus) is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sinsโ (Acts 5:31).
โGod has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesusโ (Acts 13:23).
โAll have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
being justified asย a gift by
His grace through … Christ Jesusโ (Rom 3:23-24).
โWhat the Law could not do … God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sinโ (Rom 8:3).
โGod …ย gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christโ (1 Cor 15:57).
โGod … reconciled us to Himself through Christโ (2 Cor 5:18).
โThe God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ …
has blessed us with every spiritual blessing … in Christ,
just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world โฆ He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christโ (Eph 1:3-5).
โIt was the Fatherโs good pleasure …
through Him to reconcile all things to Himselfโ
(Col 1:19-20).
โGod has … destined us … for obtaining salvation
through our Lord Jesus Christโ (1 Thess 5:9).
โThe God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ โฆ
has caused us to be born again โฆ
through the resurrection of Jesus Christโ (1 Peter 1:3).
โGod has sent His only begotten Son into the world
so that we might live through Himโ (1 John 4:9).
God did miracles through Jesus Christ:
โJesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs whichย God performed through Himย in your midstโ (Acts 2:22).
God resurrects believers through Jesus Christ:
โAn hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For just as the Father has life in Himself, even soย He gave to the Son also to have life in Himselfโ (John 5:25-26).
God will judge through Jesus Christ:
โGod โฆ will judge the world … through a Man whom He has appointedโ (Acts 17:30-31).
โHe gave Him authority to execute judgment,
because He is the Son of Manโ (John 5:27).
โGod will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesusโ (Rom 2:16).
We glorify God through Jesus Christ:
โI thank my Godย through Jesus Christย for you allโ (Rom 1:8).
โThanks be to Godย through Jesus Christ our Lordโ (Rom 7:25).
โTo the only wise God,ย through Jesus Christ,
be the glory foreverโ (Rom 16:27).
โDo all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Himย to God the Fatherโ (Col 3:17).
โIn all things God may be glorifiedย through Jesus Christโ (1 Peter 4:11).
โTo the only God our Savior,ย through Jesus Christ our Lord, be gloryโ (Jude 1:25).
“Every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father” (Phil 2:11).
God fulfills His promises through Jesus Christ:
โFor as many as are the promises of God,
in Him (the Son of God, Christ Jesus) they are yesโ
(2 Cor 1:19-20).
Through Christ, we trust God:
โSuch confidence we have through Christ toward Godโ (2 Cor 3:4).
God sends the Holy Spirit through Jesus Christ:
โThe Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly
through Jesus Christ our Saviorโ (Titus 3:4-6).
โHaving received from the Fatherย the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hearโ (Acts 2:33).
We draw near to God through Christ:
โJesus โฆ is able also to save forever those who draw near to Godย through Himโ (Heb 7:24-25).
โYou also โฆ are being built up โฆ to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to Godย through Jesus Christโ (1 Peter 2:5).
God is revealed through Jesus Christ:
โHe who has seen Me has seen the Fatherโ (John 14:9).
โHe is the image of the invisible Godโ (Col 1:15).
โHe is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His natureโ (Heb 1:3).
God speaks through Jesus Christ:
โI did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speakโ (John 12:49).
โGod … in these last daysย has spoken to us in His Sonโ (Heb 1:2).
โThe Revelation of Jesus Christ,ย which God gave Himย to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take placeโ (Rev 1:1).
God rules the universe through Jesus Christ:
โThe God of our Lord Jesus Christ โฆ raised Him from the dead andย seated Him at His right handย in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominionโ (Eph 1:17-21).
โGod highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOWโ (Phil 2:9-10).
Conclusion
God always interacts with the creation through Jesus Christ. Through Christ, God provides everything that the creation needs and, through Christ, the adoration and thanksgiving of the creation flow back to God. This is the true circle of life. Jesus Christ is โthe Word of Godโ because He alone is the communication between God and His creation:
โThere is one God,
and one mediator also between God and men,
the man Christ Jesusโ (1 Tim 2:5).
Is Jesus God?
There are many texts that identify โGodโ as our Savior (e.g., 1 Tim 2:3; 4:10; Titus 1:3). But there are also many texts that identify Jesus Christ as Savior (e.g., Eph 5:23; Phil 3:20; 2 Tim 1:20). This is one argument that Trinitarians use to say that Jesus is God. But when you look at verses that differentiate between the roles of God and of Jesus Christ in salvation, it is clear that Jesus Christ is the Means through which God saves as shown by many texts quoted above.
This same principle applies to creation. The Bible identifies both the Father and the Son as Creators but if one considers texts that differentiate between the roles of God and of Jesus Christ in creation, it is clear that Jesus Christ is the Means through whom God creates.
In other words, the Son is always presented as subordinate to the Father. In fact, while the Trinity doctrine teaches that Jesus is God and that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are one single Being, the verses quoted above maintain a clear distinction between God and Jesus Christ. This the New Testament always does. See, Head of Christ.
I wonder why people are able to read the New Testament and come to a different conclusion. One reason is that the church has been brainwashed. Another is the extreme hostility that Christians experience when they reject the Trinity doctrine. They are often regarded as condemned. But I think another reason is simply that people are unable to conceptualize a being that is not God but is as exalted and as divine as Jesus Christ is described. In this respect, I think that it is important that people better understand the Logos-Christology that the church adopted during the first 300 years of its existence, while it still was persecuted by the Roman Empire. I think that explains the evidence in the Bible of the relationship between God and His Son better than what the Trinity doctrine does. For a discussion of Logos-Christology, see Hanson or The Real Issue.ย
In the first three centuries after Christ, the Roman Empire persecuted the church. In the fourth century, the church was first legalized (AD 313) and later became the official religion of the Roman Empire (AD 380). During that period, a controversy raged in the church with respect to the nature of Christ. The emperors could not allow disunity in the church because a split in the church could split the entire empire. The emperors, therefore, forced the church to formulate creeds, and, true to the nature of the empire, banish church leaders who were not willing to accept the creeds.
Arianism was named after Arius.
We are not sure what Arius taught, for his books were destroyed after Nicaea, and we cannot trust what his opponents wrote about him. For example, Athanasius claimed that Arius said that โthere was a time when the Son was not,” but below we quote Arius saying that the Son existed โbefore time.โย
‘Arianism’ dominated the church for 50 years.
Many erroneously understand the Nicene Creed of 325 to say that the Son is equal to the Father but, after 325, the consensus in the church was that the Son is subordinate to the Father. What the church believed at the time was different from what Arius believed, but it is practice today to describe anything that is not perfectly consistent with the Trinity doctrine as Arianism. Therefore, since, in the Trinity doctrine, the Son is co-equal to the Father, it is common for people to the refer to the belief in the fourth century, that the Son is subordinate to the Father, as Arianism.
This ‘Arianism’ remained the dominant view in the church for the next 50 years. During those fifty years, this ‘Arianism’ evolved and divided into a number of branches. It is, therefore, important to understand what the church believed after the intense debates of those years.
God and theos
Today, we use the modern word โGodโ as the proper name of the One who exists without a cause. The ancient Greek word, in the Bible and other ancient documents, such as the Nicene Creed, that is translated as “God” is theos. But theos is the common name for the Greek gods and means “god” in Eglish. When it refers to the One who exists without a cause, it is correctly translated as โGod.โย In instances where theos refers to Jesus, it can be translated as โGodโ only if one assumes the Trinity doctrine. In Arianism, in which only the Father is the One who exists without a cause, theos, when it describes Jesus, or to any being other than the Father, must be translated as โgod.โ See the article – theosย – for a further discussion.
What the Arian church believed
In Arianism:
The Father is the โonly one God.โ In contrast to the Son who is the “begotten,” the Father is “the unbegotten,” which means that He exists without a cause and, therefore, is the ultimate Cause of all else.ย
The Son is our god, but the Father is His god. God created all things through the Son. Since the Son was โbegottenโ by the Father, which is understood to mean that He was born of the Being of the Father, He was not created but, nevertheless, subordinate to the Father.
The Holy Spirit is not a Person, but as a power; subject to the Son.
– END OF SUMMARY –ย
Purpose of this article
The Metamorphosis of the Church
The fourth century was a remarkable period in which the church changed from being PERSECUTED to being the OFFICIAL STATE RELIGION of the Roman Empire. For all practical purposes, the church became part of the state and, as will be explained, the emperor became the head of the church. Adopting the character of the empire, the church changed from being persecuted to persecuting church leaders who do not accept the official church decrees.
Arian Controversy
Emperor Constantine standing before the bishops
In that fourth century, a huge controversy raged with respect to the NATURE OF CHRIST. The Nicene Creedโformulated in the year 325 at the city of Nicaeaโdescribed the Son as “true theos from true theos” and as of the “same substance” as the Father. Many today interpret these phrases as that the Son is EQUAL to the Father. The article on the Nicene Creed shows that this interpretation is wrong and that that Creed described the Son as subordinate to the Father.
After the creed was formulated in the year 325, for the next 50 years, the church was dominated by teachings in which the Son is SUBORDINATE to the Father. This Arian period was brought abruptly to an end when Theodosius became emperor in the year 380. He was an ardent supporter of Nicene Christology and, on ascending the throne, IMMEDIATELY declared Arianism to be illegal and Nicene Christology to be THE ONLY religion of the empire. He then replaced the Arian church leadership with Nicene leaders.
Purpose of this article
The purpose of this article is to analyze what Arianism believed in the fourth century. Some of the historical facts mentioned in this article are described in more detail in other articles.
Conflicting evidence in the Bible
To understand the war between Nicene Christology and Arianism, we must appreciate the seemingly conflicting evidence in the Bible about the nature of Christ. Many Bible statements describe Him as equal with the Father, but many others imply that He is subordinate to God, for example:
EQUAL
SUBORDINATE
He โupholds all things by the word of His powerโ (Heb 1:3) has โlife in Himselfโ (John 5:26) sent the Holy Spirit to His disciples (Luke 24:49), is โthe first and the lastโ (Rev 1:17) and owns everything which the Father has (Matt 11:27). โAll things have been created through Himโ (Col 1:16) and โall will honor the Son even as they honor the Fatherโ (John 5:23). In Him, all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form (Col 2:9). โAt the name of Jesus, every knee will bowโ (Phil 2:10). Only He knows the Father. (Matt 11:27)
Only the Father knows the โday and hourโ of His return (Matt 24:26). Everything which the Son has, He received from the Father, including to have โlife in Himselfโ (John 5:22, 26). The Father sent Him and told Him what to say and do (John 7:16). The NT consistently makes a distinction between Jesus and God (e.g., Philemon 1:3). For example, Jesus is today at the right hand of God. The โone Godโ and โthe only true Godโ is always the Father (1 Cor 8:6; 1 Tim 2:5; Eph 4:4-6; John 17:3). The Father is His God and He prayed to the Father. (Rev 3:12; John 17; Acts 7:56).
What Arius believed about Christ
Arius
The words Arian and Arianism are derived from the name of Arius (c. 250โ336); a church leader who had significant influence at the beginning of the fourth century. His teachings initiated the Arian controversy and Emperor Constantine called the council at Nicaea specifically to denounce His teachings.ย
We are not sure what Arius taught.ย After Nicaea in 325, the emperor gave orders that all of Ariusโ books be destroyed and that all people who hide Ariusโ writings, be killed. Very little of Ariusโ writings survived, and much of what did survive are quotations selected for polemical purposes in the writings of his opponents. Reconstructing WHAT Arius actually taught, andโeven more importantโWHY, is, therefore, a formidable task. There is no certainty about the extent to which his teachings continued those of church fathers in previous centuries.
Letter to Eusebius
We have a brief statement of what Arius believed in a letter to the Arian archbishop of Constantinople; Eusebius of Nicomedia (died 341). He wrote as follows:
We say and believe โฆ
that the Son is not unbegotten,
nor in any way part of the unbegotten;
and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter;
but that by his own will and counsel
he has subsisted (existed) before time
and before ages as perfect as God, only begotten and unchangeable,
and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not.
For he was not unbegotten.
We are persecuted because we say
that the Son has a beginning
but that God is without beginning.
(Theodoret: Arius’s Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, translated in Peters’ Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, p. 41)
Brief reflections on Arius’ view
The Son is not unbegotten,
nor in any way part of the unbegotten.
โUnbegottenโ is how the ancients described the Being who exists without a cause (the Father). Since the Son is begotten, Arius argued that He is not part of that which exists without a cause. For Arius, only the Father is unbegotten.
He does not derive his subsistence from any matter.
ARIUS
INTERPRETATION
NOT UNBEGOTTEN
The Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten.
โUnbegottenโ is how the ancients described the Being who exists without a cause. Since the Son is begotten, Arius reasoned that He is not part of that which exists without a cause. For Arius, only the Father is unbegotten.ย
ONLY BEGOTTEN
He does not derive his subsistence from any matter.
The phrase โonly begottenโ identifies the Son as unique. There is no other like Him. โBegottenโ indicates that His being came from the being of the Father. He was not created from other matter.
BEFORE TIME
By his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and before age.
He existed as an independent Person with His own will; distinct from the will of God. He was begotten by God before time began.
PERFECT
as perfect as God โฆ unchangeable
This shows the extremely high view which Arius had of the Son. Created beings change over time due to influences, but God and the Son are “unchangeable.”
HE WAS NOT.
Before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. The Son has a beginning but God is without beginning.
Firstly, here, Arius indicates that he does not know what it means that the Son was begotten. Nevertheless, since He was is begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, He exists by the will of God (the Father) and “was not” before He was “begotten.”
Arius seems to contradict himself. Above, he wrote that the Son “subsisted before time.” But he also wrote that the Son “was not” before He was begotten and that the Son “has a beginning.” It is a pity that we do not have Arius’ book that he can explain himself. Below, I propose how these statements can be reconciled.
A time when the Son was not
In the fourth century, Athanasius was the arch-enemy of Arianism and the great advocate of the homoousian (Nicene) theology. He quoted Arius as saying:
“If the Father begat the Son, then he who was begotten
had a beginning in existence, and from this, it follows there was a time when the Son was not.”
Today, this quote by Athanasius is quite famous and is still used to characterize Ariusโ teaching. But Arius wrote to Eusebiusโin the quote aboveโthat the Son existed โbefore time.โ This seems to contradict what Athanasius wrote. We do not know whether Arius really wrote “there was a time when the Son was not” or whether this was a straw man created by Athanasius.
Today, Trinitarians regard Athanasius of Alexandria as a hero who stood for โthe truthโ when โthe whole worldโ was Arian. Athanasius is counted as one of the four great Eastern Doctors of the Church in the Catholic Church.
But in his day, he was a highly controversial character in his day. The church accused him of horrible crimes and exiled no less than five times. We are not able to judge either way today, but Athanasius was a prolific writer, and we can judge his spirit by his writings. For this purpose, listen to the following podcasts:
In the Trinity doctrine today, the Son had no beginning but always existed with the Father. The Bible is clear that He is begotten by the Father but that is explained with the concept of eternal generation, namely that the Father always was the Father, that there never was a time that the Father was not the Father.
Arius, as quoted above, wrote that โthe Son has a beginning but โฆ God is without beginning.โ But in the same statement, he wrote that the Son existed โbefore time and before ages.โ Did Arius contradict himself? I wish we had Ariusโ book to explain his own words but would like to propose the following explanation:
God created time. God is that which exists without a cause, and time exists because God exists. God, therefore, exists outside time, cannot be defined by time and is not subject to time. We cannot say that God existed โbefore timeโ, for the word โbeforeโ implies the existence of time, and there is no such thing as time before time. Therefore, I prefer to say that God exists โoutside timeโ.
Since God created time, time had a beginning and is finite.
God created all things through the Son (e.g. 1 Col 8:6). Therefore, God created time through the Son. It follows that there never was a time when the Son did not exist. Arius, therefore, could validly write that the Son existed โBEFORE TIME.โ
But, there exists an infinity beyond the boundaries of time. All the power and wisdom that we see reflected in this physical universe, comes out of that incomprehensible infinity beyond time, space and matter. In that infinity beyond time, Arius wrote, โTHE SON HAS A BEGINNING.โ But this is not a beginning in time, for there is no such thing as time in infinity.
This explains why Arius could both claim that the Son existed before time and had a beginning. If this was Arius’ thinking, he could not that written that โthere was a time when the Son was not,โ as Athanasius claimed.
Arianism evolved after Nicaea.
Forced unity
Under the stern supervision of the emperors, who demanded unity in the church to prevent a split in the empire, the fourth-century church fathers would not allow different views about Christ to co-exist within the church. The churchโs view of Christ changed from time to time, but, nevertheless, it always formulated a view of Christ and, through persecution, forced all Christians to abide by the formal church doctrine.
Numerous synods
The fifty-year Arian period after Nicaea resulted in numerous synods, including at Serdica in 343,ย Sirmium in 358 and Rimini and Seleucia in 359. The pagan observer Ammianus Marcellinus commented sarcastically: “The highways were covered with galloping bishops.”
Numerous creeds
The best-known creed today is the Nicene Creed, but no fewer than fourteen further creeds were formulated between 340 and 360, depicting the Son as subordinate on the Father, e.g. the Long Lines Creed. Historian RPC Hanson lists twelve creeds that reflect the Homoian faithโone of the variants of Arianismโincluding the creeds of Sirmian (AD 357), Nice (Constantinople – 360), Akakius (359), Ulfilas (383), Eudoxius, Auxentius of Milan (364), Germinius, Palladius’ rule of faith (1988. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. pp. 558โ559).
Arianism evolved.
During the fifty years between Constantine and Theodosius, Arianism was refined and nuanced, relative to what Arius believed. Consequently, although Ariusโ views are important, it is far more important to understand what version of Arianism the church adopted after Ariusโ views and the Nicene Creed were intensely debated in the decades following Nicaea.
The word “GOD” is ambiguous.
Before we discuss what Ulfilas wrote, we need to explain the difference between the word โGodโ and the words used in the New Testament:
Modern English
In modern languages, we differentiate between the words โgodโ and โGod:โ
When we use a word as a proper name, we capitalize the first letter. The word โGod,โ therefore, has a very specific usage: It is the PROPER NAME of one specific being; the One who exists without cause.
The word โgod,โ on the other hand, is a general category name used for all supernatural beings. It is even for human beings with super-human qualities.
Ancient Greek
The capital โG,โ therefore, makes a huge difference. But, when the Bible was written, and also in the fourth century, there were no capital letters. Or, more precisely, the ancients wrote only in capital letters. The distinction between upper and lower case letters did not yet exist. According to the article on the timeline of writing in Western Europe, the ancients used Greek majuscule (capital letters only) from the 9th to the 3rd century BC. In the following centuries, up until the 12th century AD, they used the uncial script, which still was only capital letters. Greek minuscule was only used in later centuries.
Te Greek word theos
Since the word โGodโ is a name for one specific Being, the original New Testament does not contain any one word with the same meaning as โGod.โ The New Testament writers used the word theos, which is the same word that was used for the pantheon of Greek gods. The word theos, therefore, is equivalent in meaning to our modern word โgod.โย The word theos was also used for beings other than the one true God, even for โthe god of this worldโ (2 Cor 4:4) and for human judges (John 10:35). Therefore, by describing the Father and the Son as โgod,โ the Bible and the fourth-century writers only indicated that the Father and the Son are immortal beings; similar to the immortal Greek gods. Consequently, the word โgodโ does not elevate the Father or the Son above the pagan gods.
The word โGod,โ in the translations of the New Testament and other ancient Greek writings, therefore, is an INTERPRETATION. When the translator believes that theos refers to the One who exists without a cause, theos is rendered as โGod.โย But when Paul wrote spoke about the theos of the pagan nations, the New Testament translates that as โgod.โ And when it translates theos, when it refers to Jesus, as โGod,โ it does that on the assumption of the Trinity doctrine.
True god
To indicate that the Unique Being is intended, the Bible writers added words such as โonly,โ or โtrueโ or โoneโ to theos. But most often they simply added the definite article โtheโ to theos to indicate that the God of the Bible is intended.ย
In the Nicene Creed, both the Father and the Son are described as โtrue god.โ The Bible never identifies the Son as โtrue god.โ In the Bible, the โtrue godโ is always the Father.ย For example:
โYou, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sentโ (John 17:3)
โYou turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God, and to wait for His Son from heavenโ (I Thess 1:9-10).
โSo that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal lifeโ (1 John 5:20).
But then translators translate the Greek equivalent of โtrue godโ as โtrue God.โ Not only is this faulty translation, the word โtrueโ in the phrase โtrue Godโ is SUPERFLUOUS, for there is only one โtrue God.โย Since โGodโ already indicates the only true god, โtrue theosโ should be translated either as โtrue godโ or as โGod.โย
Ulfilas’ Christology
Germanic missionary – The Goth Ulfilas (c. 311โ383) was ordained as bishop by the Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia and returned to his Gothic people to work as a missionary. He translated the New Testament into the Gothic language and is credited with the conversion of the Gothic peoples, which resulted in the wide-scale conversion of the Germanic peoples.ย
Ulfilas’ Arianism – What he believed is perhaps a good reflection of the Arianism that was generally accepted in the church between Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381). He wrote:
I, Ulfila โฆ believe in
only one God the Father,
the unbegotten and invisible,
and in his only-begotten Son,
our lord/master and God,
the designer and maker of all creation,
having none other like him.
Therefore, there is one God of all,
who is also God of our God;
and in one Holy Spirit,
the illuminating and sanctifying power โฆ
Neither God nor lord/master,
but the faithful minister of Christ;
not equal, but subject and obedient in all things to the Son.
And I believe the Son to be subject and obedient in all things
to God the Father
(Heather and Matthews. Goths in the Fourth Century. p. 143 –ย Auxentius on Wulfila).
Discussion of Ulfilas’ Christology
The Father – Ultimate Cause of all else
Only one God
Ulfilas believed in โonly one God,โ who he identified as the Father.ย Actually, this was the standard opening phrase of all ancient creeds. The Nicene Creed also starts as follows:
โWeย believe in one God,ย the Father Almighty,
Maker of all things visible and invisible.โ
But then it continues to perhaps contradict this opening phrase by adding that the Son is “true god from true god“.
The unbegotten
Ulfilas identified the Father as “the unbegotten.” Arius also mentioned โthe unbegotten,โ which is that which exists without a cause. That means that the Father is the ultimate Cause of all else. ย
Invisible
Ulfilas added that the Father is invisible. This is also stated a number of times in the New Testament (e.g. Col 1:15). Certainly, in the past, God appeared to people (theophanies), but an appearance is vastly different from God Himself. An appearance does not contain God in His fullness. It is not possible for God in His fullness to be seen, for He exists outside this visible realm.
Only-begotten Son
Ulfilas also believed in:
โHis only-begotten Son,
our lord/master and God,
the designer and maker of all creation,
having none other like him.โ
Our God
In this translation of Ulfilasโ statement, the Son is โour โฆ God,โ but this is faulty translation. It should be rendered โour god,โ with a small “g.”ย As explained above, the Greek of the New Testament does not have a name for the God of the Bible. It uses theos; the common word for the pagan gods but added words such as “the” or “only” or “true” to identify “the only true god” (John 17:3). To say that the Son is โgodโ simply means that He is a immortal being, like the pagan gods. Consequently, Ulfilas followed up His description of the Son with the following explanation:
Therefore, there is one God of all,
who is also God of our God;
In this phrase, “our God” again refers to Jesus. This is similar to Hebrews 1:8-9, which also refers to Jesus as theos, but then says that the Father is His theos.
The phrases โonly-begottenโ and โnone other like himโ identify the Son as utterly unique.ย
Maker of all creation
Ulfilas described Son as the โdesigner and maker of all creation.โ If He made all things, presumably, He was not made Himself.ย ย
Arius wrote that the Son was โbegotten, or created, or purposed, or established.โ In other words, Arius did not make a clear distinction between begotten and created. But after Nicaea, Arianism emphasized that the phrase โonly begottenโ means that the Son was not created. See, for example, the Long Lines Creed.
Only-Begotten
Ulfilas described the Son as the “only-begotten Son” of the “only one God the Father, the unbegotten.” The word โbegotten,โ which means that the Father gave birth to the Son, implies that the Son came from the being or substance of the Father. “Only-begotten” means that He is the only being that ever was born of God.ย
Because He was “begotten” of the being or substance of God, the Nicene Creed described the Son as homoousios with the Father. This word comes from homรณs (same) and ousรญa (being or essence) and means “same substance.” In Latin, it is consubstantial. In other words, the Nicene claimed that the Son is of the “same substance” as the Father.
In Arianism, this means that the Father and the Son have the “same substance,” just like we as people have the “same substance,” but remain different persons with different skills and capacities.
Trinitarian theology replaces the word “same” with “one” and understands homoousian as that the Father and Son have “one substance;” like three Persons with one body.
In his description of the Father and the Son, Ulfilas does not mention substance at all, which is a good thing, for that concept is not revealed in the Bible (Deut 29:29). It was an unfortunate addition to the Nicene Creed, probably due to the insistence of the emperor, who presided over the proceedings. (Listen to Kegan Chandler on the term โhomoousios.โ)
Subordinate
In Trinitarian theology, the Son is in all respects equal with the Father. In contrast, in Arianism, โbegottenโ means that the Son’s existence was caused by the Father, and that He is dependent on the Father, who alone is the uncaused Cause of all things. Arianism claims that the Bible reveals Him as subordinate to the Father; both before and after His existence as a human being. See the article – Subordinate.
The Father is God of our God.
What really sets Him apart from the pagan gods is not the title โgod,โ but that He is โthe designer and maker of all creation.โ
God, the Father – All instances of the word โGodโ in the quote from Ulfilas should be translated โgod;โ even when referring to the Father.ย Ulfilas made a distinction between the Father and the Son and the pagan gods in HOW he described Him, namely as the โonly one godโ who is โgod of allโ and also “god of our god.”ย
God of our God โ As Ulfilas wrote, โthere is one God of all, who is also GOD OF OUR GOD.โย In other words, the Father is the Sonโs god.ย The Bible similarly describes Jesus as โonly-begotten god” (John 1:18) and โmighty godโ (Isaiah 9:6); the Lord of the universe (1 Cor. 8:6), but the Father as Jesusโ โGodโ (e.g. Rev. 3:2, 12; Heb. 1:8-9; John 20:17).ย Paul described the Father is the Head of Christ.ย
Subordinate – Ulfilas closed by saying, โI believe the Son to be subject and obedient in all things to God the Father.โย
The Holy Spirit is not a person.
Subject and obedient – Ulfilas furthermore believed “in one Holy Spirit, the illuminating and sanctifying power โฆ Neither God nor lord/master, but the faithful minister of Christ; not equal, but subject and obedient in all things to the Son.” That the Holy Spirit is โneither God nor lordโ implies that Ulfilas did not think of the Holy Spirit as a Person, but as a power, and a power that is subject and obedient in all things to the Son.
Therefore, the Son is SUBORDINATE to the Father and the Holy Spirit is SUBORDINATE to the Son.ย
No Trinity in the first four centuries
Ulfilas did not believe is the Trinity.ย For him:
The Father alone was God.ย The Holy Spirit is not a Person. There is no mention of three Persons in one Being.
It is often said that Arians do not believe in the traditional doctrine of the Trinity, which is true.ย However, the concept of the Trinity, as we know it today, did not yet exist in Ariusโ day.ย
First 300 years – In the first three centuries, the church fathers did not think of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as three Persons in one Being.ย Tertullian did use the word “trinity,” but he used it to refer to a group of three distinct beings; not use in the sense of a single being.ย
Nicene Creed – Neither does the Nicene Creed contain the Trinity concept, as a careful reading of that creed will show.ย The purpose of that creed was to say that the Son is equal to the Father; not say that they are one Being; the same God.ย It does say that they are homoousios (of the same substance), but that does not mean that they are one being.ย We may argue that human beings are of the same substance, and that does not make us all one being.ย
The Trinity doctrine was formulated later in the fourth century, perhaps by the Cappadocian Fathers, probably in response to the Arian criticism that the Nicene Creed creates the impression of two gods and can be accused of polytheism.
Three Forms of Arianism
In fact, as debates raged during the five decades after Nicaea, in an attempt to come up with a new formula, different forms of Arianism evolved. Three camps are identified by scholars among the opponents of the Nicene Creed:
Different Substance
One group, similar to Arius, maintained that the Son is of a different substance than the Father. They described the Son as unlike (anhomoios) the Father.
Similar Substance
The Homoiousios Christians (only an โiโ added to โhomoousiosโ) accepted the equality and co-eternality of the persons of the Trinity, as per the Nicene Creed, but rejected the Nicene term homoousios. They preferred the term homoiousios (similar substance). This is very close to the different substance view of the Arians. Therefore, they were called “semi-Arians” by their opponents. (See homoousia.)
No speculation about Substance
Homoian Arianism maintained that the Bible does not reveal whether the Son is of the same substance as the Father, and we, therefore, should not speculate about such things. They avoided the word ousia (substance) altogether and described the Son as homoios = like the Father. Although they avoided invoking the name of Arius, in large part they followed Arius’ teachings. RPC Hanson (The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. pp. 557โ559) lists twelve creeds that reflect the Homoian faith in the years 357 to 383.
None of these groups, therefore, adopted the Trinitarian approach of “one substance.”
In the fourth century, these differences were taken quite seriously and divided the church; similar to the denominations in Christianity we know today. Depending on the interpretation supported by Emperor Constantius, for example, wavered in his support between the first and the second party, while harshly persecuting the third.
Historians, unfortunately, categorize all three positions as Arianism, but there are important differences between these views.