What did homoousios mean to the Nicene Council?

Introduction

Authors Quoted

Due to ancient documents that have become available, stimulating significant progress in research, scholars today explain the fourth-century Arian Controversy very differently. In fact, R.P.C. Hanson described the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, as was taught in the 19th century, as a complete travestyShow More

This article is based on books published during the last 50 years by specialists in the field. Show More

This article quotes extensively from these authors. However, to simplify reading, almost all quotes are hidden in ‘Show More’ sections. Nevertheless, since the scholarly view of the Controversy has changed so much, and since this is a highly controversial subject, these quotes are a crucial part of this article. 

Nicene Creed

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

The word homoousios consists of two parts: homós = same + ousia = substance (see The Free Dictionary or GotQuestions). Via the Latin, it is sometimes translated as ‘consubstantial’.

Two Possible Meanings

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

Homoousios (same substance) can mean that the Son is a distinct Being with the same type of substance as the Father, just like a human father and son have the same type of substance. This is called qualitative or generic sameness. Show More

Or it can mean that the Father and Son are a single substance (one Being). This is called numerical sameness because there is only one substance. Show More

Alternative Interpretations

Arius rejected both of these possible meanings. In his view, the Son’s substance is different from the Father’s:

“No doubt he (Arius) believed that the Father and the Son were of unlike substance, but he did not say so directly” (Hanson, p. 187). 

The Trinity doctrine teaches that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Being. In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, the Trinity doctrine has existed from the beginning of that controversy, and homoousios in the Nicene Council also meant ‘one substance’. However, the Trinity doctrine did not exist at the beginning but evolved over the fourth century. ‘Pro-Nicene’ theology only emerged after 360:

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

“This is not the story of a defence of orthodoxy, but of a search for orthodoxy” (Hanson, p. xix-xx).

“In the period after 360, we also begin to see the emergence of what I have termed throughout the book so far ‘pro-Nicene’ theology” (Ayres, p. 167). (See here for a discussion.) 

In reality, the view that the Son is distinct from and subordinate to the Father, which is today called Arianism, was orthodox when the Controversy began:

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

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

Purpose

This article analyses what homoousios meant (1) before, (2) during, and (3) after Nicaea. It will show that scholars today conclude that homoousios at Nicaea did not mean ‘one substance’:

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

Scholars conclude that it had a much looser, more flexible, and less specific meaning:

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

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

The Term Arian

As discussed here, the term ‘Arian’ is a complete misnomer because Arius did not develop a new heresy, had only a few real followers, did not leave behind a school of disciples, and was of no real significance after Nicaea. Scholars propose that the term ‘Eusebians’ would be more appropriate to describe the anti-Nicenes because Arius was a member of the group that followed Eusebius of Caesarea. Nevertheless, this article sometimes still uses the term ‘Arian’ because that is the term most people are familiar with.

Before Nicaea

Greek Philosophy and Egyptian Paganism used the term homoousios, not to say that two things are really one thing, but to compare distinct things. In other words, in these systems, it did not mean ‘one substance. Show More

As shown below, at Nicaea, Emperor Constantine insisted on the term. Beatrice suggests that Emperor Constantine proposed the term at Nicaea partly because he was familiar with it from Egyptian paganism (see article).


The Bible never refers to God’s substance and never says that the Son is homoousios with the Father. Show More


The second-century Gnostics used the term, not to say that two beings are one or even equal, but to describe distinct beings as “belonging to the same order of being” (Beatrice). Specifically, they used homoousios to say that lower deities are of ‘a similar kind’ as the highest deity from whom they emanated. However, the word homoousios in the Nicene Creed is not due to a Gnostic influence because “by the fourth century the Gnostic threat to the Christian faith was over” (Hanson, p. 856). Show More


Tertullian (155-220), writing in Latin, nowhere used a term equivalent to the Greek homoousios. However, he did use the term “substance,” and believed that God has a body (is a substance) and that the Son is part of God’s substance. In other words, he did believe that Father and Son are ‘one substance’ and a single hypostasis; a single “individual existence.” This would mean that the Father and Son are homoousios (of the same substance). Show More


Sabellius (fl. ca. 215) wrote in the early 3rd century. Sabellianism is named after him. He and his followers used homoousios to say that Father and Son are ‘one substance’ (a single hypostasis or Person). As discussed here, according to Von Mosheim, for Sabellius, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three parts of God. By the time of the Nicene Council, the church had formally rejected Sabellianism. Show More


Origen of Alexandria (c. 185 – c. 253), the most influential theologian of the first three centuries, did not use the term, despite claims to the contrary. He believed that the Son’s substance is different from the Father’s and was anxious to avoid the idea that the Father and the Son were of the same material. Show More

In opposition to Tertullian and Sabellius, who taught that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis, Origen believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases; three distinct Existences or Persons. Show More


Dispute between Rome and Alexandria – Around the year 260, there was a dispute between Rome and Alexandria about the term homoousios. It began when some Libyan Sabellians described the Son as homoousios with the Father. Show More

The bishop of Alexandria (Dionysius), overseeing the church in Libya, believing in three hypostases, rejected the term homoousios because Sabellius, who claimed that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis, used it. Show More

The Libyan Sabellians then appealed to the bishop of Rome (also named Dionysius). Like the Sabellians, Rome believed that Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person) and described the Son as homoousios with the Father. Show More

It seems as if Rome had some authority over Alexandria because it was able to persuade Alexandria to accept the term. However, Alexandria accepted it reluctantly and only as meaning two substances of the same type. In other words, in Alexandria, the term did not mean that Father and Son are one Being or equal. In the Alexandrian view, Father and Son were two distinct hypostases, with the Son subordinate to the Father. Show More


Condemned in 268 – More or less at the same time, Paul of Samosata used homoousios to describe Father and Son as a single hypostasis (Person). In 268, a council at Antioch condemned both Paul and the term homoousios as Sabellian. This fact caused the 4th-century pro-Nicenes considerable embarrassment. Show More


In conclusion, before Nicaea, only Sabellians favored the term. They include Sabellius himself, the Libyan Sabellians, Dionysius of Rome, and Paul of Samosata. For them, it meant that Father and Son are a single Person. The only non-Sabellian who accepted the term was Dionysius of Alexandria, but he accepted it reluctantly and only as meaning that the Father and Son are two distinct substances (two hypostases) of the same type. Therefore, when the Arian Controversy began, the term homoousios was regarded as Sabellian. Show More


Wikipedia – It is interesting to note that Wikipedia’s article on Homoousios (see here) avoids all discussion of the use of the term before Nicaea. It only mentions that the Gnostics used the term, but the Gnostics cannot be regarded as Christians. I attempted to add to Wikipedia’s article, but was banned from editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia reflects the version of the Arian Controversy which scholars still believed in the 19th century, and which was designed to bolster the Trinity doctrine, but which specialists in the field today describe as a complete travesty.


At Nicaea

The majority opposed Homoousios.

The term homoousios was a surprising innovation in the Nicene Creed

It is not found in the Holy Scriptures, did not appear in any precious creed, was not part of the standard Christian language of the day, was already condemned in 268 at a Council in Antioch as associated with Sabellianism, and was borrowed from pagan philosophy. Not even Alexander favoured the term. For example, a pro-Alexander meeting in Antioch a few months before the Nicene Council formulated a draft creed that “makes no use of the ousia language that we see in Nicaea’s creed” (Ayres, p. 51). Show More

Furthermore, ‘same substance’ implies that God has a body and that there is a kind of common ‘God-stuff’ shared by Father and Son. This made many theologians uncomfortable. Show More

For these reasons, the term homoousios seemed especially objectionable to most delegates at Nicaea

Almost all delegates to Nicaea were from the East, and we do not know of anybody in the East who unreservedly supports the concept that the Son is homoousion with the Father. Eusebius of Caesarea, the leader of the Easterners, accepted homoousion with “obvious reluctance” (Hanson, p. 165). Show More

Emperor Constantine enforced homoousios.

Given these strong objections, some powerful force must have caused its inclusion in the Creed. That powerful force was the emperor. As astounding as it might sound to people who grew up in a culture of separation of Church and State, in the Christian Roman Empire, the emperors were the final arbiters in doctrinal disputes:

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

Similarly, the Nicene Council, like all fourth-century general councils, was called and dominated by the emperor. It was not a church meeting. It was the Emperor’s meeting. He dominated it and ensured an outcome consistent with what he thought best:

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

“Constantine took part in the Council of Nicaea and ensured that it reached the kind of conclusion which he thought best” (Hanson, p. 850). This included that he not only proposed the term, but he also used his position to enforce its inclusion, despite the reservations of most delegates. Show More

Emperor Constantine even dared to explain the term to that assembly of the church’s leaders

The Creed says that the Son is of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father because He is begotten from the Father’s substance. As stated, the Eusebians objected that this is unbiblical and untraditional language and sounds as if the Son was begotten like humans through a material, bodily process. Show More

To counter such objections and to enable the Eusebians (Arians) to accept these new terms, Constantine insisted that these terms must be understood without material connotation. That he was able to explain the term and that the meeting accepted his explanation show his dominant role in the council. Show More

Constantine interpreted the ousia terms figuratively. 

Constantine explained that these phrases merely mean that the Son is not out of any other substance, but out of the Father alone. “The creed’s technical terms are all interpreted to mean that the Son is like the Father, and is truly from the Father” (Ayres, 91). Show More

That figurative explanation of the contentious terms allowed almost all delegates to agree to the Creed. But the main point remains that these untraditional terms were included in the Creed due to the emperor’s domination of the council. For more details, see the discussion of Eusebius’ letter.

Why did Constantine insist on homoousios?

Another article argues that Constantine found the term agreeable because he was familiar with it through his contact with Egyptian paganism. But even if that is true, he would not have proposed the term without support from at least some of the delegates. This section shows that he insisted on this term because he had taken Alexander’s part in his dispute with Arius and because Alexander allied with the Sabellians, who preferred the term.

Like the Sabellians, Alexander believed that the Father and Son are a single Person (one hypostasis). 

The term hypostasis, meaning a distinct individual Existence, was the key term in the Arian Controversy. The core of the Controversy was whether the Son is distinct from the Father or part of the Father. The Eusebians (Arians) believed that the Son is a distinct hypostasis (a distinct Person). They believed that the Father, Son. and Spirit are three hypostases. In opposition to them, the Nicenes and Sabellians agreed that the Father and Son are one hypostasis (a single Person). Show More

Alexander’s one-hypostasis theology was in the minority

The delegates were drawn almost entirely from the eastern half of the empire, and, following Origen, the Easterners believed in three hypostases, meaning the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct Beings. Show More

Alexander joined forces with the Sabellians. 

Since he was opposed by a ‘three hypostases’ majority, and since his theology was similar to the Sabellians, Alexander joined forces with the leading Sabellians, Eustathius and Marcellus, against the Eusebians. Show More

The Emperor took Aleander’s part. 
“Constantine had taken Alexander’s part” (Ayres, p. 89). “This imperial pressure coupled with the role of his advisers in broadly supporting the agenda of Alexander must have been a powerful force” (Ayres, p. 89). 

It was probably Ossius, whom Constantine appointed as chair of the Nicene Council, and who was also his religious advisor, who advised the Emperor to take Alexander’s side. His humble position in the church, as bishop of the small city of Cordova, did not qualify him as chair of that assembly. He also believed in one hypostasis, similar to Alexander and the Sabellians. Show More

This made the Sabellians very powerful. 

Since the emperor had taken Alexander’s side, this alliance made the Sabellians influential at the council. Eustathius and Marcellus were both influential at the council and may have significantly influenced the wording of the Nicene Creed. Show More

Constantine did not insist on the term because Alexander preferred it.

This point was already made above. In his extant utterances, “Alexander never uses homoousios and indeed seems to be avoiding homoousios. Furthermore, just a few months earlier, the draft statement prepared by the pro-Alexander council at Antioch did not mention ousia or homoousios. Show More

Constantine insisted on homoousios because the Sabellians preferred the term

Since the 3rd-century Sabellians used and preferred the term homoousios, the Sabellians Marcellus and Eustathius seem likely to have endorsed homoousios, understood as meaning ‘one substance’. Once Emperor Constantine discovered that the Sabellians were in favour of homoousios, he pressed for its inclusion. Show More

Another indication of Sabellian domination in the Council is the anathema that confesses one hypostasis.  

The anathema in the Nicene Creed against all “who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance” implies that Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person) and substance. This is the hallmark of Sabellianism, implying that the Nicene Creed was a Sabellian victory. Show More

Therefore, the Creed was the work of a Minority

The decisions of Nicaea were really the work of a minority. A majority opposed the Nicene creed, and that majority also opposed some of Arius’ extreme statements. Show More

The emperor’s authority and support allowed the one-hypostasis minority to include the term homoousios in the Creed, despite the Sabellian history of the term and despite the objections raised by the majority.

The Eusebian (Arian) majority accepted the emperor’s figurative explanation.

The emperor’s figurative explanation allowed the Eusebian majority to accept the term, albeit reluctantly. They were able to reconcile that explanation with their view that the Son is distinct from and subordinate to the Father. Like Dionysius of Alexandria in the 3rd century, the Eusebians at Nicaea were forced to accept the term, but accepted it only with a generic meaning. Therefore, if we take the majority view of the term homoousios, it had a rather vague meaning, namely, that the Son was truly from the Father. Show More

But the Sabellian minority understood homoousios as meaning ‘one substance.’

The Sabellians, on the other hand, who preferred the term in the first place, understood it very differently, namely, as saying that the Father and Son are ‘one substance’; a single hypostasis (a single Person). Show More

Therefore, after the Council, the Sabellians claimed the Nicene Creed as a victory for their theology:

“In the controversies which erupted over Eustathius of Antioch and Marcellus after Nicaea, both thought their theologies faithful to Nicaea—and they had good grounds for so assuming. Both were influential at the council, and Nicaea’s lapidary formulations were never intended to rule out their theological idiosyncrasies” (Ayres, p. 99). 
However, the Eusebians (Arians) knew that this term implies Sabellianism

For that reason, the same church mainstream (the Eusebians) opposed the Creed after Nicaea:

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

“The language of that creed seemed to offer no prophylactic (prevention) against Marcellan doctrine, and increasingly came to be seen as implying such doctrine” (Ayres, p. 96, 97). Show More

The Nicene Creed was a Sabellian victory. 

There are several indications in the Creed that the Son is subordinate to the Father. For example, the Father alone is called “Almighty,” and the Son is God’s agent in creation (see here).

On the other hand, since homoousios was known to be a Sabellian term and given the anathema which implies a single hypostasis, perhaps it was a Sabellian victory.

Hanson says that Nicaea was a drawn battle. Simonetti says that the Creed includes a hint of opposition to the three hypostases theory, in favour of the Sabellian ‘one hypostasis’ theology. Ayres says that it is not an openly Sabellian creed. Since the Nicene Creed is known as the most important creed in the history of the church, perhaps our Trinitarian authors are hesitant to admit that it was a Sabellian victory:

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

After Nicaea

Arius’ specific theology was also no longer at issue after Nicaea

He had some extreme views, such as that the Son was made out of nothing, but almost the entire Nicene Council rejected his theology:

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

“He virtually disappears from the controversy at an early stage in its course” (Hanson, xvii). Show More

Alexander was also not a main player after Nicaea. He died soon after Nicaea

“The Index to the Festal Letters of Athanasius dates the death of Alexander firmly to April 27th, 328” (Hanson, p. 175).

By reviving Sabellianism, Nicaea rekindled the Controversy. 

The Controversy after Nicaea was not caused by an an Arian Conspiracy, as is often claimed, but by the Sabellian elements in the Nicene Creed. In the 3rd century, Sabellianism was rejected, but the Nicene Council gave it new life.

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

The conflict in the decade after Nicaea was specifically about the meaning of the term homoousios. The Sabellians claimed that the Nicene Council had accepted Sabellianism as its formal religion, but the Eusebians (Arians) insisted that the term does not imply Sabellianism. Show More

The Nicene Creed was abandoned after Nicaea. 

The same war that raged between the followers of Origen and the Sabellians in the third century and at Nicaea continued in the decade after Nicaea between the Eusebians (Arians) and the Sabellians. Again Origen’s theology triumphed. All leading pro-Nicenes were deposed. This decade may be called the ‘Post-Nicaea Correction’ because it closed the door to Sabellianism that was opened at Nicaea. Show More

Consequently, the term homoousios disappeared

Since the dispute between the Eusebians and Sabellians focused on the meaning of the term homoousios, the rejection of the Sabellians after Nicaea was also a rejection of the term homoousios. After the Sabellians were removed from their positions, the term homoousios also disappeared from the debate. Nobody mentioned homoousios for about two decades:

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

For example, respectively 16 and 18 years after Nicaea, the Easteners formulated the Dedication Creed in 341 and the Westerners a Manifesto at the Council at Serdica in 343. Since both these creeds were formulated during the period when nobody mentioned homoousios, they do not mention the term. However, these councils focused on the more fundamental issue, of which homoousios was only a symptom, namely, whether the Son is a distinct Person. Show More

Athanasius did not defend homoousios in the 330s-340s

During the years 335-6, Athanasius and Marcellus were deposed by the Eastern Church. Meeting in Rome, they joined forces. At that time, Athanasius also developed his polemical strategy; his “masterpiece of the rhetorical art” (Ayres, pp. 106-7). However, in the 330s and 340s, Athanasius’ polemical strategy said nothing about homoousios. Show More

Athanasius revived homoousios in the 350s

By the time Constantius became emperor of the entire Empire in the early 350s, Athanasius had become extremely powerful, and Constantius attempted to isolate Athanasius. Show More

In this time of crisis for Athanasius, in the mid-350s, 30 years after Nicaea, he revived homoousios to strengthen his polemical strategy. In this way, homoousios came back into the Controversy. Athanasius had become the West’s “paragon” (model) (Hanson, p. 304). Following Athanasius, the West also began to support homoousios. Show More

Athanasius revised homoousios because his theology was similar to the Sabellians. 

Athanasius re-introduced the term into the Controversy because, as discussed here, like the Sabellians, he believed that the Father and Son are a single Person (one hypostasis). Specifically, he believed that the Son is part of the Father:

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

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

In response, the Eusebians united, not against Athanasius as such, but against Sabellianism. 

In the late 350s, after Athanasius had reintroduced homoousios into the Controversy, the Eusebians (the so-called Arians) opposed the term but had differing views about the Son’s substance. Nevertheless, they were united against Sabellianism. This confirms that homoousios was a Sabellian term and that Sabellianism remained the main enemy. Show More

Since Arius’ theology did not cause the Controversy, it should not be called the ‘Arian’ Controversy. Rather, since Sabellianism was already rejected in the third century but continued to oppose the Eusebian majority in the fourth, it could more appropriately be called the ‘Sabellian Controversy’.

The Cappadocians accepted homoousios but opposed traditional Nicene theology. 

Basil of Caesarea, the first Cappadocian father, who wrote in the 360s-370s. was the first to accept both the term homoousios and the view that the Son is a distinct Person. He did not follow Athanasius and did not base his theology on the Nicene Creed. He began as an Arian (a Homoiousian), but later also accepted that the Son is homoousios with the Father. However, while Athanasius and other traditional pro-Nicenes explained homoousios as meaning one substance and one hypostasis, Basil, like most other Easterners, taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct substances (three hypostases or Persons or Beings). Show More

Where Basil differed from the other Easterners is that he said that the three Persons have exactly the same type of substance. Show More

In other words, Basil opposed the traditional Nicene theology, as represented, for example, by Athanasius, in which the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (a single Person). Show More

In the 360s and 370s, in what is known as the Meletian Schism, Basil’s view of three hypostases brought him to oppose Athanasius and Westerners, who taught one hypostasis. Show More


The Core Issue

One or three Hypostases?

The core issue in the Controversy was whether the Son is a distinct Person. In the Greek of the fourth century, the core issue was whether the Son is a hypostasis (a distinct existence):

This controversy began in the second century. While the Monarchians said that ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ are two names for the same Person, Logos theology dominated, claiming that the Son is a distinct hypostasis.

In the third century, while the Sabellians confessed one hypostasis, Origen’s view dominated, teaching three hypostases.

In the fourth century, the Sabellians, Alexander, Athanasius, and the West continued teaching one hypostasis. With the emperor’s assistance, that view dominated at Nicaea, but the Eusebian three hypostases dominated for most of the century.

Later in that century, the Cappadocians taught three equal hypostases but were opposed by Athanasius and the Western pro-Nicenes, who taught one hypostasis (see here).

However, in 380, Emperor Theodosius made Western ‘one hypostasis’ theology the State Religion of the Roman Empire (see here).

(See here for a discussion of the Real Main Issue in the Controversy.)

Related to Homoousios

The term homoousios was not the core issue. For example, the term disappeared from the Controversy soon after Nicaea and only surfaced again in the 350s. But the term homoousios relates directly to the question of whether the Son is a distinct Person:

If the Father and Son are a single Person, then they are one substance (homoousios). It also follows that the Son, like the Father, is eternal and immutable. These theologians included Tertullian, the Sabellians, Paul of Samosata, Alexander, Athanasius, and the Western Church generally. Show More

But if the Son is a distinct Person, as Origen, Arius, and the Eusebians believed, then the Father alone exists without cause, which implies that the Son’s substance is different from the Father’s. At Nicaea, almost all Eusebians (Arians) accepted the term homoousios but not as meaning ‘same substance’. They had accepted the emperor’s figurative explanation of the term.

Ways of understanding the Bible

The core issue relates to two ways of understanding the Bible:

In the Old Testament, God is one. There is little indication of a second divine Being.

But the New Testament reveals a second divine Being, namely, the Son of God, who is also called ‘I am’ and ‘the First and the Last’, who is God’s Agent in the creation of all things and maintains all things. So, the question arose, how does the Son relate to the Father?

‘One hypostasis’ theology argues from the Old Testament and claims that, since the Old Testament asserts only one divine Being, the ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ must be one Person.

Three hypostases’ theology accepts the evidence from the New Testament that the Son is indeed a distinct divine Person. It identifies three divine Persons (three hypostases): the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.


Overview

The fourth-century Controversy continued the controversy of the preceding century, which was mainly between Sabellius’ one-hypostasis theology, which adopted the term homoousios, and Origen’s three hypostases, which rejected the term. In that century, Sabellianism was defeated.

However, at Nicaea, through the emperor’s support, a Sabellian ‘one hypostasis’ minority had the upper hand and was able to insert the term homoousios in the Creed, despite the majority’s objections. Emperor Constantine appeased the majority’s fears by explaining the terms ousia and homoousios highly figuratively, saying that it only means that the Son is truly from the Father. This enabled the Eusebian majority to accept the Creed.

After Nicaea, the Sabellians claimed that the term homoousios means that the church had accepted a one-hypostasis theology. This caused a few years of intense strife during which all leading Sabellians were exiled.

After that, nobody mentioned homoousios for more than two decades. For example, neither Athanasius nor the councils in the 340s mention homoousios. Rather, the focus was now on the more fundamental issue: whether the Son is a distinct Person (a hypostasis).

In the mid-350s, 30 years after Nicaea, Athanasius, who also had a ‘one hypostasis’ theology, brought the term back into the Controversy, causing the Eusebians to divide into three major views with respect to the Son’s substance.

In the 360-370s, Basil of Caesarea, the first Cappadocian father, was the first pro-Nicene to explain homoousios as three hypostases. This caused some fierce conflict between Basil and Athanasius.

In the end, the church was divided into at least the following factions:

Western pro-Nicenes defended homoousios and explained it as saying that Father and Son are a single hypostasis (one Person). (For example, at the Council of Serdica)

Eastern pro-Nicenes (the Cappadocians) also accepted homoousios but interpreted it in a generic sense, meaning three distinct but equal hypostases (see here).

Homoians Eusebians, who dominated the church for much of the 350s to 370s, rejected all talk of God’s substance, including the term homoousios (see here).

Homoiousian Eusebians claimed that the Son’s substance is similar to the Father’s, but not the same (see here).

Heterousian Eusebians taught that the Son’s substance is different from the Father’s.

In the year 380, Emperor Theodosius made the Western pro-Nicene view the State Religion of the Roman Empire and destroyed Arianism among the Romans through violent persecution (see here).

However, the other European nations remained ‘Arians.’ Consequently, after these other nations had taken control of the Western Empre in the fifth century, and divided it into various Arian kingdoms, Europe was Arian once again.

In the sixth century, the Eastern Emperor Justinian subjected the Arian kingdoms and set up the Byzantine Papacy, a system through which the Eastern Empire ruled the West through the Papacy. This continued for two centuries. During this period, the dominance of the Eastern Empire and the Roman Church converted all the Arian kingdoms to Nicene theology.

After the influence of the Eastern Empire dwindled in the West in the 8th century, the Roman Church managed to survive as a distinct organization and grew in power to become the Church of the Middle Ages. 

In conclusion, throughout the Controversy, the only people who regarded homoousios as saying that Father and Son are one substance, as the Trinity doctrine also claims, were the one-hypostasis (Sabellian) theologians. In reality, the Trinity doctrine continues ancient Sabellianism. (See here for a discussion of the Trinity doctrine.)


Other Articles

What was the Real Main Issue in the Arian Controversy?

Overview

The issue was not whether the Son is divine or subordinate.

In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, it was a struggle between Nicenes and Arians, and the main issue was whether Jesus is God, as the Nicenes claimed, or a created being, as the Arians claimed. However, over the last 100 years, scholars have discovered that the traditional account is a complete travesty.  The Arians agreed that He is divine and the Nicenes agreed that He is subordinate.

The Controversy was also not about Arius’ theology.

Contrary to what is traditionally stated, Arius did not develop a new theology. He was a conservative. He was also not important. He had few real followers and did not leave behind a school of disciples.

The Controversy was about whether the Son was a distinct divine Being.

Lienhard proposed that the main issue was whether the Son is a distinct Person, as the Arians claimed, or part of the Father, as the Nicenes believed.

To understand this, it is important to realize that the idea that God is both one and three (one Being but three Persons) did not yet exist. Athanasius and his followers believed that the Father and Son are a single Person.

The Nicenes and Sabellians believed that the Father and Son are a single divine Being.

Lienhard classifies the Sabellians with the Nicenes. For example, while Alexander allied with the Sabellians at Nicaea, Athanasius allied with the Sabellians in later decades. The primary identification of Sabellian theology is ‘one hypostasis’; that the Father and Son are a single Person. But that is also what Alexander and Athanasius believed.

This brought Athanasius into severe conflict with the Cappadocians, who taught three hypostases.

One disadvantage of Lienhard’s classification is that it puts the Cappadocians with the Arians because both these groups taught three hypostases. To address this anomaly, Anatolios proposed that the main issue was whether the Son is homoousios with the Father. the benefit of this classification is that it groups the Cappadocians with the other Nicenes, but it does not explain the severe conflict that developed between the Athanasians and the Cappadocians.

The core issue was whether the Son is a distinct Person.

This article identifies the real main issue by providing an overview of the Controversy, showing who opposed who and who allied with who in each of its phases.

It concludes that the real main issue was the number of divine hypostases, as Lienhard proposed, but that this also applies to the Cappadocians. It shows further that the two opposing groups were the Sabellians (not Nicenes) and the Eusebians (not Arians).

It was not an Arian Controversy; it was a Sabellian Controversy.

Furthermore, since it is called the ‘Arian’ Controversy on the assumption that Arius formulated a new heresy that threatened orthodoxy, it should rather be called the Sabellian Controversy because Sabellianism was already rejected in the third century but continued to threaten orthodoxy in the fourth century.

Purpose

The fourth-century ‘Arian’ Controversy was the most dramatic internal struggle the Christian Church had experienced so far. It resulted in the Trinity doctrine, which some regard as “the centerpiece of orthodox theology” (GotQuestions), and formed the church that dominated the Middle Ages.

In the traditional account of that struggle between the Nicenes and the Arians, the main issue was whether Jesus is God. However, over the last 100 years, based on new information and research, scholars have described the Controversy very differently. The question arises, what was the fundamental issue that divided the Nicenes and Arians?

This article begins by explaining what the Controversy was NOT about. For example, it shows that, when the Controversy began, even the Arians described Jesus as divine. On the other hand, even the pro-Nicenes, even Athanasius, regarded Him as subordinate to the Father.

This article evaluates different proposals of what the real main issue was:

In the Nicene Creed, it seems as if the main issue was out of what the Son was begotten; out of nothing, or out of the substance of the Father.

In 1987, Lienhard proposed that the real main issue was the number of divine hypostases. In other words, whether the pre-incarnate Son is a distinct Person, as the Arians believed, or whether He and the Father are a single Person, as the Nicenes believed.

In 2011, Anatolios proposed that the main issue was whether the Son is homoousios with the Father.

This article evaluates these alternatives by providing an overview of the main phases of the Arian Controversy, showing in each phase who allied with whom, and who opposed who, indicating what the core issue was.

Authors Quoted

The Traditional Account of the Arian Controversy is fundamentally flawed.

The serious study of the Arian Controversy began in the 19th century. In that century, scholars relied largely on Athanasius. Show More

During the 20th century, a store of additional ancient documents became available. Based on this and research, scholars today conclude that the traditional account of the Controversy – of how and why the church accepted the Trinity doctrine – is history written by the winner and fundamentally flawed. Show More

Today, scholars explain the Arian Controversy very differently.

The scholars of the last 50 years explain the fourth-century Arian Controversy very differently from 100 years ago. Show More

The following are a few examples of how the explanation changed:

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

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

In the traditional account, Arius was important. In reality, he did not leave behind a school of disciples, had very few real followers, and nobody regarded his writings worth copying. (See Article)

In the traditional account, Athanasius defended orthodoxy. In reality, Athanasius was a Unitarian, not a Trinitarian. Like the Sabellians, he believed that the Son is an aspect or part of the Father. (See Article)

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

Unfortunately, many “elementary textbooks” (Lienhard) or “summary accounts” (Ayres, p. 13) still present the 19th-century version of the Arian Controversy. Rejecting that older versions would raise questions about the Trinity doctrine, which many regard as the mark of true Christianity, as opposed to the Mark of the Beast.

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

Following the book by Gwatkin at the beginning of the 20th century, only a limited number of full-scale books on the fourth-century Arian Controversy were published, of which R.P.C. Hanson’s 1988 book was perhaps the most comprehensive and influential. That was followed in 2004 by a book by Lewis Ayres, which built on Hanson’s book. This series also quotes from the 2002 book by Rowan Williams, which focuses more specifically on Arius, and from Khaled Anatolios (2011). Show More

The author of the current article did not study the ancient documents; only the books published over the last 50 years. For that reason, those books serve as the ‘Bible’ as far as this topic is concerned, and this article probably provides too many quotes. However, most quotes are hidden in ‘show more’ blocks.

The False Main Issue

Whether Jesus is God

In the traditional account, the main issue was whether or not Jesus is divine. However, that is misleading. The Arians agreed that He is divine. They believed in a trinity of three divine Beings. Show More

The issue was also not whether to place the Son on either side of the Creator/creation boundary. Although the Arians did not regard the Son as equal to the Father, they did regard the Son as on the ‘God’ side of the God/creation boundary. Show More

Since the Arians believed Jesus to be divine, they described Him as theos (usually translated as ‘God’). However, since many different beings may be called theos, when there is the risk of ambiguity, the Bible and the ancients added words, such as “one” or “true” or “only” to identify the one true God (e.g., John 17:3). The Arians were careful to say that Jesus is not the ‘one true God’. Show More

The translation of the Greek term theos is difficult. The Greek word theos (Latin deus) had a much wider meaning than the modern term ‘God’: 

The modern term “God” identifies one specific Being; the Ultimate Reality, the One who exists without cause.

The Greek of the Bible and the fourth century did not have an exact equivalent word. It only had the term theos. Originally, theos was the word for the Greek gods; thought to be immortal beings with supernatural powers, but it was used for beings with different levels of divinity. Show More

When the Bible or fourth-century authors refer to Jesus as theos, it is typically translated as “God.” However, the Arians did not think of the Son as the Ultimate Reality but as subordinate to the Father. Therefore, when they refer to Jesus as theos, it should not be translated as “God.” Such instances should also not be translated as “god” for, in modern English, that term is typically reserved for false gods. That was not the Arian view. They regarded Him as truly divine. I would propose that theos be translated as ‘divine’ or left untranslated.

The same principle applies to the Bible. For example, when Thomas said, my Lord and my God,” he used the same flexible Greek word ‘theos’. What Thomas meant depends on the context. (See Article)

All the fourth-century theologians (Nicene and Arian) used theos for Beings with different levels of divinity. Only the late fourth-century Nicene theologians eliminated such degrees of divinity and made a “clear God/creation boundary.” Show More

For further discussion, see – Did the church fathers describe Jesus as God? and The meaning of the term theos.

Whether the Son is subordinate

The main issue was also not whether the Son is subordinate to the Father. In the traditional account, the Trinity doctrine was ‘orthodox’ when the Controversy began and the pro-Nicenes regarded the Father and Son as equally divine. That is false. Before Nicaea, all church fathers described the Son as subordinate. Show More

Therefore, when the Controversy began and for most of the fourth century, even the Nicenes regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father. Show More

Even Athanasius regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father. For him, the Son is part of the Father (See Article) and, therefore, subordinate. Basil of Caesarea was the first to insist on full equality. Show More

Therefore, whether the Son is subordinate to the Father was also not the real main issue. (See Article) The traditional account claims that the pro-Nicenes always believed that the Son is equal to the Father because that is what Athanasius claimed and because, before the 20th century, scholars had accepted Athanasius’ account.

Not about Arius

In the traditional account, it was the ‘Arian’ Controversy, implying that Arius caused the Controversy by developing a novel heresy that became the main issue in the Controversy. That is also not true. Arius did develop a new theology. He was a conservative. Show More

The traditional account further claims that Arius was able to win many converts due to his eloquence and persuasiveness. The reality is that Arius was not of any great significance. He had few real followers and did not leave behind a school of disciples. Nobody regarded his writings worth copying. His theology played no part in the Controversy after Nicaea. Show More

So, the Controversy was not about Arius. The anti-Nicenes are misleadingly called ‘Arians’ and it should not be called the ‘Arian’ Controversy. Show More

Nevertheless, this article continues to refer to the anti-Nicenes as Arians because that is the term most people know.

Whether He is a Created Being

The issue was also not whether the Son is a created being. Arius described the Son as made out of nothing. In his view, perhaps, the Son was created. But Arius was an extremist. The mainstream ‘Arians’ believed that the Son was begotten from the being of the Father. For example, Eusebius of Caesarea, the theological leader of the ‘Arians’, said: “He alone was born of the Father himself” (LA, 58). The Arians consequently believed that the Son shares the Father’s being. Show More

Although the Eusebians agreed that the Son was begotten from God’s being and shares the Father’s very being, they did not agree that He has the same uncreated substance as the Father. Therefore, in their view, He is not eternal or immutable.

The Real Main Issue

Divine Hypostases

Joseph Lienhard (Marquette University) published an article in 1987 proposing that the real main issue, that divided the Nicenes and Arians, for most of the Controversy, was the number of divine hypostases.

“The way of using the word hypostasis characterized the two opposing parties for much of the fourth century; one preferred to speak of one hypostasis in God, the other of two (or three, if the Holy Spirit is considered).” (LienhardShow More

Hypostasis Defined

Fourth-century theologians used the Greek term hypostasis for a distinct individual existence. Show More

Therefore, to say that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases implies “three distinct existences within the Godhead.” (Litfin) In other words, Lienhard proposed that the real main issue was whether the Son is a distinct existence. In the opposing (one hypostasis) view, the Father and Son are a single existence. (Initially, the Holy Spirit was not part of the dispute.)

Other differences are consequences.

If this was the main issue, all other differences between Arian and Nicene theologies are consequences of this fundamental difference:

In the Nicene view, since the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person), the Son is eternal, immutable, and invisible. 

In contrast, the Arians taught that the Father alone exists without a cause and caused the Son to exist. Consequently, the Son is dependent on and subordinate to the Father.

The Athanasians – One Hypostasis

Lienhard identifies the two opposing groups as the Athanasians and the Eusebians. The Athanasians included Athanasius, Alexander, the Sabellians, and most Western bishops. Show More

They believed that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis, meaning that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three aspects or modes of a single Being. Consequently, the Son also exists without cause but it also means that He is not a distinct Being. He does not have a real distinct existence.

Athanasius’ Theology

Hanson refers to Athanasius as the “paragon” (norm) of the West. (RH, 304) That is presumably why Lienhard refers to the ‘one hypostasis’ group as the Athanasians. What he believed, therefore, is critically important for this article. Possibly following Tertullian, who said that the Father is the whole, and the Son is part of the whole, Alexander and Athanasius believed that the Son is the Father’s only Wisdom and Word. Therefore, He is in the Father and part of the Father. Consequently, the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (a single existence). Show More

Sabellians

The Sabellians were part of the ‘Athanasians’. The leading Sabellians in the early fourth century were Eustathius and Marcellus. They believed in a single hypostasis. Show More

Eusebians – Three Hypostases

Following Origen in the third century, the Eusebians, traditionally called the Arians, but including Arius, believed that the pre-incarnate Son is a distinct hypostasis. Show More

The Eusebians believed in a trinity of three distinct divine Beings, with the Son and Spirit subordinate to the Father. Show More

The Father alone exists without cause and is the Source and Cause of all things, including the Son and Spirit. Show More

Not Three and One

It is critically important to understand that the idea that God is both one and three (one Being but three Persons), did not yet exist when the controversy began and did not exist for most of the fourth century. For the first 40 years of the Controversy, the Arians said three and the Nicenes said one. Nobody said that God is both one and three. Only in the 360s did Athanasius begin to reluctantly accept the possibility of “three hypostases.” Show More

We see proof of this in how the terms ousia and hypostases were used. In the Trinity doctrine, God is one ousia (one Being) but three hypostases (Persons). Before the 360s, Athanasius and most others used these terms as synonyms. In other words, for Athanasius, God is one Being (ousia) and one Person (hypostasis). (Read Article)

Athanasius defended ‘one hypostasis’ to the end. The idea that God is one ousia (substance) but three hypostases (Persons) began with the Cappadocians in the 360-370s. It was mainly Basil of Caesarea who made the distinction between the two terms that we today have in the Trinity doctrine, where ousia means substance and hypostasis means Person. Show More

However, the Cappadocian view of three divine hypostases brought Basil of Caesarea into severe conflict with the Western pro-Nicenes (Athanasius and his supporters, including the bishop of Rome), who defended one hypostasis. This is known as the Meletian Schism because it was particularly manifested in the controversy over who the bishops of Antioch must be; Meletius or the Sabellian Paulinus. (Read Article)

Ayres

In his book, Ayres identified four ‘trajectories’ when the Controversy began:

      • The ‘Eusebians’, including Arius,
      • Alexander and Athanasius,
      • Marcellus (representing Sabellianism), and
      • The Western (Latin) theologists (See here)

However, this article will show the following:

Alexander and Athanasius allied with the Sabellians. For example, at Nicaea, Alexander joined forces with the Sabellians, and, later, Athanasius allied with Marcellus, the main fourth-century Sabellian. So, perhaps Marcellus must be grouped with Alexander and Athanasius.

Although both Athanasius and Basil of Caesarea defended the Nicene Creed, as stated, Athanasius aggressively opposed Basil, the first Cappadocian. So, perhaps the Cappadocians must be a separate category.

Note that both Lienhard and Ayres included Arius under the Eusebians. As stated, Arius was not a leader or an important writer. He was an Eusebian with some extreme tendencies.

Ayres confirmed that a deeper issue existed behind the four categories he identified. Similar to Lienhard, he identified the main issue as whether the Son is a distinct Being or part of the Father:

Behind the original controversy lie conflicting approaches to the Word’s generation’. To what extent can we think of it as the emergence of one distinct thing from another? How does one understand the distinction between God and Word, Father and Son: is this the distinction of two separate beings? Or is this distinction analogous to that of a person who speaks his or her word (the word being here only a dependent and temporary product of the speaker)?” (Ayres, p. 3)

A Distinct Person

In this quote, Ayres comes to the same conclusion as Lienhard, he replaces the Greek term hypostasis with the English terms ‘thing’, ‘being’, and ‘person’. Hanson also uses the term ‘Person’ for a hypostasis. Show More

Therefore, the core issue can also be stated as whether the Father and Son are a single Person, as the Athanasians claimed, or whether the Son is a distinct Person, as the Eusebians proposed.

A Distinct Mind

In normal usage, the term ‘person’ implies a distinct mind. However, while superficial descriptions of the Trinity doctrine sometimes claim that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three Persons or three hypostases, in the traditional Trinity doctrine, the three ‘Persons’ share a single mind. Therefore, the term ‘Person’ in the Trinity doctrine is misleading. (See Article)

In contrast, in the fourth century, the terms hypostasis and ‘Person’ were used in the normal sense of a being with a distinct mind. Therefore, in the ‘three hypostases’ view, the three divine Persons have distinct minds. Show More

In the Athanasian ‘one hypostasis’ view, the Father and Son share a single mind. Both Alexander and Athanasius claimed that the Son is the Father’s only Logos (Word, Wisdom). Consequently, the Son is part of the Father, and Father and Son are a single hypostasis. Show More

Therefore, an alternative for Lienhard’s classification is the Athanasian ‘one mind’ vs the Eusebian ‘three minds’.

Anatolios

In his 2011-book, Anatolios opposed Lienhard’s classification and proposed that the main question was whether the Son is homoousios with the Father. He calls it “unity of substance.” Show More

However, Anatolios qualifies this by saying that “unity of substance” (homoousios) can mean both that the Father and Son are one single substance (one hypostasis), as Athanasius claimed, or two distinct substances of the same type, as Basil of Caesarea claimed. Show More

Anatolios identifies Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, Alexander of Alexandria, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Apollinaris of Laodicea as ‘unity of being’ theologians. (Anatolios, p. 82-3) Show More

While the Nicenes taught “unity of substance,” the Arians taught “unity of will.” In other words, the Father and Son are two distinct substances (two hypostases) of different types of substances that are united in will. Show More

Anatolios adds that “unity of will” includes teaching that the Son is subordinate to the Father.

Comparing the Classifications

The Lienhard and Anatolios systems are very similar. ‘One hypostasis’ always means homoousios and homoousios, before Nicaea, only meant one hypostasis because it was preferred only by Sabellians, who taught one hypostasis. (See Article)

The only type of theology that would be classified differently by the two systems is a theology that teaches three hypostases of the same type of substance. The only example is the Cappadocians. Lienhard stated that his system is valid only until 360. After that, it fails to distinguish between Nicenes and Arians because the Cappadocians, like the Arians, taught three hypostases. In other words, in Lienhard’s classification, the Cappadocians are classified with the Arians. Show More

Objections to Anatolios’ classification

1. The meaning of ‘unity of being’ is too flexible. – While the Cappadocians proposed two Beings of the same type of substance, Athanasius defended one Being. ‘One hypostasis’ theology is profoundly different from ‘three hypostases’ theologies, even if the three hypostases are equal, but Anatolios’ classification lumps them together. Show More

2. Anatolios’ classification, but putting the Western pro-Nicenes (‘one hypostasis’ theologians – Athanasians) and the Eastern pro-Nicenes (‘three hypostases’ theologians – Basil of Caesarea) together, fails to explain the severe conflict between them. (See Article)

3. ‘Unity of being’ and ‘unity of will’ are not mutually exclusive. The Cappadocian taught both ‘unity of being’ and ‘unity of will’.

4. The term homoousios (unity of substance) was not the core issue because it disappeared soon after Nicaea and was only revived in the 350s. (See Article) In that period, as shown below, the focus was on the more fundamental issue; the number of hypostases.

Proposal

This article proposes that Lienhard is correct that the real main issue was the number of hypostases. 

It further proposes that a classification system must make a distinction between Athanasius’ ‘one hypostasis’ and the Cappadocian ‘three hypostases’ theologies because of the profound differences between these two theologies, as evidenced by the war that erupted between these two groups. 

A possible objection might be that both Athanasius and Basil of Caesarea were Trinitarians and must, therefore, be categorized similarly. However, Athanasius was in reality not a Trinitarian. He was a Unitarian. He did not defend any form of threeness in God.

This article proposes further that the opposing groups during the Controversy must not be described as the Nicenes and Arians, but as the Sabellians and the Eusebians. Firstly, ‘one hypostasis’ was not only an aspect of Sabellian theology, it was the main identification of Sabellian theology. Hanson describes ‘one hypostasis’ as the “hallmark” of Sabellianism. Show More

Secondly, while the Eusebians insisted on three hypostases, the Nicenes (Alexander, Athanasius, and most of the Western delegates) may be classified as Sabellians because they also taught that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (a single Person).

The next section will support these proposals with an overview of the Controversy, asking who opposed who and who allied with whom in each of its phases.

First Three Centuries

Not a new Controversy

The term ‘Arian Controversy’ implies that Arius caused the controversy. However, to identify the real main issue, it is important to understand that the fourth-century controversy was not new but continued the third-century controversy. The dispute between Arius and his bishop was merely the spark that re-ignited an existing fire. For that reason, this discussion begins with the second century. Show More

The Main Phases

This article identifies the main phases of the Controversy according to the reigns of the various emperors, mostly due to the decisive influence the emperors had. The emperors were the final judges in doctrinal disputes. Show More

The following are the main phases:

      • Second century: Logos theologians vs Monarchains
      • Third century: Origenists vs Sabellians
      • Arius vs Alexander
      • Nicene Council
      • The remainder of Constantine’s reign
      • The Divided Empire (340s)
      • Constantius’ reign (350s)
      • Meletian Schism (360-370s)
      • Theodosius’ reign (380-)

Jewish Church

In the first century, most Christians were Jews and the church professed “one sole God and in addition that Jesus Christ was a very important person.” (Hanson) In other words, the Church thought of the Father and Son as two distinct Beings with the Son subordinate to the Father. 

Logos Theology – Two Hypostases

The church became Gentile-dominated in the second century. The Gentile theologians did not replace Greek philosophy with the Bible but absorbed the Bible into their existing system of beliefs. With respect to Christology, in what is known as Logos theology, they explained Jesus as “the nous or Second Hypostasis of contemporary Middle Platonist philosophy, and also borrowed some traits from the divine Logos of Stoicism (including its name).” (Hanson Lecture) In that philosophy, the Logos always existed as an aspect of God but became a second hypostasis (a distinct Being alongside and subordinate to God) when God decided to create.

Monarchians – One Hypostasis

The second-century Monarchians (also called Modalists) opposed the Logos theology. They criticized the Logos theologians for teaching two Gods and an unscriptural division of God’s substance. Their view was that the Logos is not a distinct hypostasis but that ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ are simply two names for the same Person. Show More

Therefore, already in the second century, the dispute was whether the Son has a real distinct existence, as per Lienhard’s classification. While Logos theology taught two hypostases, the Monarchians believed one. This dispute does not fit Anatolios’ classification because both sides taught that the Son is homoousios with the Father:

    • In Logos theology, the Son always existed as an aspect of God that later became separated. Therefore, the Son is presumably of the same unoriginated substance (homoousios) as the Father.
    • In Monarchianism, Father and Son are one hypostasis.

Tertullian – One Hypostasis

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

However, to counter the Monarchian criticism that Logos theologians teach two Gods, he revised the standard Logos theology, saying that the Son did not separate from the Father’s substance but remained part of the Father. In other words, like the Monarchians, he taught that Father and Son are a single Person (hypostasis). Show More

Sabellius – One Hypostasis

Sabellius wrote more or less the same time as Tertullian but in the Greek East. He refined Monarchianism but still taught that the Father and Son are a single Person (a single hypostasis). While the Monarchians said simply that Father and Son are two names for the same Entity, Sabellius proposed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three parts of one hypostasis. He said that just like man is body, soul, and spirit, the Father, Son, and Spirit are three parts of one Person. (Read Article) He used the term homoousios in his theology. Show More

Origen – Three hypostases

Origen wrote a decade or two later. He was the most influential theologian of the first three centuries. He was a Logos theologian but rejected the two-stage theory and taught the eternal existence of the Son. 

In opposition to the Monarchians, Sabellius, and Tertullian, he taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases; three Persons with three distinct minds. Show More

Third-Century Controversy

The controversy between the one- and three-hypostases views continued for the rest of the third century. For example, in the middle of the third century, the bishops of Rome and Alexandria (both named Dionysius) were in dispute about the term homoousios. While the bishop of Rome supported the term and taught one hypostasis, the bishop of Alexandria rejected it and supported the ‘three hypostases’ view. Show More

A few years later, in 268, a council at Antioch, probably the most important city in the early Eastern Gentile Church, condemned both Paul of Samosata’s one-hypostasis-theology and the term homoousios. (Read ArticleShow More

Fourth Century

During the first three centuries, Christianity was illegal and persecuted by the Roman Empire. Many Christians lost their lives. The most severe phase of persecution was the Diocletian persecution at the beginning of the fourth century. 

Arius vs Alexander

The Eastern Emperor Constantine became a Christian and legalized Christianity in 313. Only five years later, in 318, a dispute arose between bishop Alexander of Alexandria and Arius, one of his presbyters. As stated, this was not a new dispute but continued the controversy of the third century. Like Origen, Arius taught three hypostases. He said that the pre-incarnate Son is a distinct Person with a distinct mind. Show More

In opposition to Arius, but similar to the Sabellians, Alexander claimed that the Son is the Father’s only Wisdom or Word. In other words, the Son is part of the Father. Consequently, the Father and Son are one single Person with a single Mind; a single hypostasis. Show More

The Eusebians, since they also believed in ‘three hypostases’, supported Arius against Alexander’s one-hypostasis theology. However, the Eusebians disagreed with Arius’ more extreme views, such as that the Son came into existence from nothing. Arius had only a few real followers. (Read Article)

Nicene Council

After Constantine had become emperor of the entire Empire in 324, he (not the church) called the Nicene Council to end the dispute between Alexander and Arius because it threatened the unity of his empire. He was not particularly interested in finding ‘the truth’. 

The delegates were almost exclusively from the Eastern Church and the Eastern Church were Eusebians, who believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases. Consequently. most delegates believed that the Father and Son are three hypostases. Show More

Since Alexander’s view, that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one single Person (hypostasis), was in the minority, Alexander allied with the other one-hypostasis theologians; the leading Sabellians Eustathius and Marcellus. Although this ‘one hypostasis’ alliance was in the minority, it was supported by the emperor. This gave the Sabellians significant influence at the council. Show More

Before Nicaea, only Sabellians preferred the term homoousios, including Sabellius himself, the Libyan Sabellians, Dionysius of Rome, and Paul of Samosata. At Nicaea, Homoousios was accepted because the Sabellians preferred it. Show More

Another indication of a Sabellian ‘one hypostasis’ dominance at the Council is the anathema in the Nicene Creed which explicitly states that Father and Son are a single hypostasis and substance. Show More

Given these indications of a strong Sabellian ‘one hypostasis’ influence at the Council, the Creed may be described as Sabellian. Show More

Post-Nicaea Correction

In the decade after Nicaea, the Sabellians claimed Nicaea as a victory, namely, that the term homoousios means that the church had formally adopted a Sabellians one-hypostasis theology. This caused an intense struggle. The Sabbellians lost this battle and all leading Sabellians were deposed. (Read ArticleShow More

After that, the term homoousios also disappeared from the debate. For that reason, the creeds of the 340s (Dedication, the Council of Serdica, and Macrostich Councils) do not mention the term. It simply was not an issue. Show More

The Divided Empire

While Constantine was still alive, he maintained unity in the church. But when he died in 337, his three sons divided the empire between them. One of the three brothers died in 340. This left the empire in the hands of Constans in the West and Constantius in the East. The empire remained divided until the early 350s.

Since the emperors were the final arbiters in doctrinal disputes, the division of the empire created the potential for division in the church also. In this period, the church became divided. While the East continued a ‘three hypostasis’ view, the West taught one hypostasis.

Marcellus was the leading Sabelian at this time. He and Athanasius were both exiled by the Eastern church, more or less at the same time during Constantine’s reign. Both also had a ‘one hypostasis’ theology. During the ‘divided empire’, they met in Rome and joined forces against their eastern opponents. Show More

The church originated in the East and, as stated, initially, the West was not part of the Arian Controversy. However, in the late 330s, Athanasius and Marcellus appealed to the Western Church, represented by the bishop of Rome (Julius). This appeal brought the West into the Controversy. Show More

The Western (Latin) Church, similar to the Eastern Sabellians, traditionally taught one hypostasis. For example, the Western Manifesto at Serdica in 343 explicitly declared a single hypostasis. Therefore, the Council of Rome in 340/1 accepted Marcellus and Athanasius as orthodoxShow More

Since both were previously formally assessed and exiled by the Eastern Church, this caused friction and division between East and West. Julius, the bishop of Rome, then (in 341) made the situation worse by writing a letter to the Eastern church. Using Athanasius’ polemical strategy, Julius accused the Easterners of being ‘Arians’ (followers of Arius). In the letter, he identified the two opposing parties as the Eusebians (Arians) and the Athanasians, with the Sabellians part of the ‘Athanasians’. Show More

In response, the Eastern (Eusebian) Church formulated the Dedication Creed in the same year (341). It condemns some of Arius’ extreme statements but is mainly anti-Sabellian. It explicitly rejected ‘one hypostasis’ and explicitly insisted that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are ‘three in hypostasis, one in agreement’ (Ayres, p. 118), implying three distinct Persons with distinct minds. Show More

Two years later, the Council of Serdica in 343 was supposed to be a joint council of East and West but the two groups never met as one because they could not agree about the participation of Athanasius and Marcellus in the council. However, meeting by themselves, the Western delegation, including Athanasius and Marcellus, formulated a Manifesto that spells out the pro-Nicene view at this stage. It regarded the Son as the Father’s Wisdom and, therefore, as part of the Father. Consequently, the Father and Son are a single hypostasis:

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

As stated above, ‘one hypostasis’ is the “hallmark” of Sabellianism. Therefore, for the Western Church to say that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single hypostasis means the Western Church was Sabellian in its theology. Show More

The East answered the next year (344) with another creed, the Macrostich or Long-Lined Creed. Attempting to avoid all the new terms borrowed from Greek philosophy, it does not mention “three hypostases” explicitly (Hanson, p. 311) but uses the phrase ‘three realities or persons’.The East answered the next year (344) with another creed, the Macrostich or Long-Lined Creed. Attempting to avoid all the new terms borrowed from Greek philosophy, it does not mention “three hypostases” explicitly (Hanson, p. 311) but uses the phrase ‘three realities or persons’Show More

In conclusion, during the Divided Empire, the main dispute was whether the Father and Son are ‘one hypostasis’, as the Sabellian West claimed, or ‘three hypostases’, as the Eusebian East insisted. It is important to mention again that the West was not Trinitarian. It did not confess the Father and Son as distinct Persons or hypostases. They insisted that the Father and Son are a single Person and hypostasis.

Constantius

During the 350s the empire was united again under Constantius, Constantine’s son. Theology evolved considerably on both sides over the fourth century. As stated, soon after Nicaea, the term homoousios disappeared from the debate but Athanasius re-introduced it in the mid-350s, during Constantius’ reign. This caused the Eusebians to divide into a few factions. Constantius wavered somewhat between these views but eventually settled on Homoianism. This theology refused to use the new terms from Greek philosophy (hypostasis, ousia, homoousios). They declared the Son to be subordinate to and distinct from the Father. Constantius forced the church, both East and West, through a series of councils, which Constantius manipulated to reach his desired outcome, to accept a Homoian creed.

Constantius died in 361. No new creeds were issued after Constantius before Theodosius’ reign. The emperors between them mostly maintained the Homoian Creed. Show More

Cappadocians

In the 360s and 370s, the Cappadocian Basil of Caesarea was the first to accept both the term homoousios and ‘three hypostases’. While the Western pro-Nicenes, Athanasius, and the Sabellians believed that Father and Son are a single substance or hypostasis with one single mind, the Eastern pro-Nicenes (the Cappadocians), understood homoousios as saying that Father and Son are two distinct substances (two Beings with two distinct minds). However, while the Son is subordinate to the Father in the Eusebian ‘three hypostases’ view, the Cappadocians taught that the three hypostases are equal in all respects. Show More

The traditional Trinity doctrine makes a distinction between the terms ousia and hypostasis. It says that God is one ousia (Being) but three hypostases (Persons). In contrast, Athanasius and most other pro-Nicenes in that century used the terms ousia and hypostasis as synonyms. They believed that God is both one ousia and one hypostasis. Since the Cappadocians were the first pro-Nicenes to accept three hypostases, they proposed a distinction between the terms ousia and hypostasis. Show More

The Meletian Schism

However, Basil’s view of three hypostases, while the Athanasians (including Damasus, bishop of Rome, and Peter, Athanasius’ successor as bishop of Alexandria) supported only one, caused severe friction between them. This is called the Meletian Schism after Meletius, bishop of Antioch, who was opposed by a Sabellian faction in Antioch, led by Paulinus, who was supported by the Western pro-Nicenes. (Read Article). Show More

So, does the Cappadocian phase of the Controversy fit the hypostasis or the homoousios classification?

The homoousios system classifies both Athanasius and Basil as ‘unity of substance’. In other words, it does not explain the severe friction between them or the large difference in doctrine. To teach three Beings with three divine minds is vastly different from one Being with one mind, even if the three Beings are equal.

The hypostasis schema classifies Athanasius as ‘one hypostasis’ and Basil as ‘three hypostases’, which does explain that conflict.

However, both Basil and Athanasius opposed the Arians, who regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father. That conflict is better explained by homoousios schema.

I propose that the Cappadocians must not be classified with either the Arians or the Athanasians. It was a third category. 

Theodosius

In 380, Theodosius, the new emperor in the East, issued an edict in which he made Western pro-Nicene (one hypostasis) theology the official religion of the Roman Empire. In the subsequent year, he ruthlessly exterminated all other versions of Christianity. For example, he prohibited them from meeting or teaching, or from settling in the cities, and confiscated their church buildings. This was a time of crisis in the Empire, after a large part of its army had been wiped out, and drastic action was required.

He called the council of Constantinople the next year (381). However, since all other forms of Christianity had already been outlawed and their leaders exiled, only pro-Nicenes were allowed to attend. 

Conclusion

Enemies Defined

‘Who opposed who’ identifies the Real Main Issue.

“The choice of categories to designate the two opposing sides in the fourth-century theological controversy is crucially important, for the categories color the whole interpretation of the controversy.” (Lienhard)

Traditionally, the opposing parties are called the Nicenes and the Arians. In his 341-letter to the East, Julius of Rome identified the two opposing parties as the Athanasians and the Eusebians. But he was biased. For example, he described the Eusebians as ‘Arians’, meaning followers of Arius, which we today know was false. The term ‘Arian’ was coined by Athanasius to insult. (Read Article)

The Eusebians had a different classification system. They described the Nicenes not as Athanasians but as Sabellians. Show More

Furthermore, throughout the Controversy, we see Sabellians opposing the Eusebians:

– Sabellianism evolved in the third century in opposition to Logos theology but was opposed by Origen and declared a heresy.

– At Nicaea, Sabellians dominated because they allied with Alexander and because the emperor took Alexander’s part. 

– In the decade after Nicaea, Constantine allowed the Eusebians to dominate again, and they exiled the leading Sabellians.

– In 341, a council in Rome (the Western Church) accepted Marcellus, the main Sabellian at that time, as orthodox.

– In response, the Eastern Church formulated the Dedication Creed which was mainly anti-Sabellian.

– In 343, the Western Church, together with Athanasius, and Marcellus, formulated an explicit ‘one hypostasis’ manifesto.

– Eight years later, the purpose of the Council of Sirmium of 351 was specifically to stamp out Sabellianism.

– In the 350s, the Eusebians divided into several factions but formed a united front against Sabellianism.

Athanasius and the Western Church also opposed the Eusebians. However, like the Sabellians, they believed that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis. (Article) In summary:

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

Athanasius was not a great theologian but he was a very powerful and dangerous politician. Show More

Since the “hallmark” of Sabellianism was ‘one hypostasis’, as stated above, for the Eusebians, the main enemy was ‘one hypostasis’ theologies. For Nicenes, on the other hand, the main enemy was theologies with more than one hypostasis. Show More

This analysis confirms that the real main issue was whether the pre-incarnate Son is a distinct Person:

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

The Eusebians and the Eastern pro-Nicenes (the Cappadocians) believed that the Son is a distinct Person with a distinct mind.

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

In the Nicene/Sabellian ‘one hypostasis’ view, the Son cannot become incarnate, suffer, or die because He is one Being with the Father. Consequently, at the birth of Jesus, a new being, with a human body and mind, came into existence. He was inspired by God’s Word through the Holy Spirit. It was a mere human being who died, was resurrected, and now sits at God’s right hand. Show More

In the Eusebian ‘three hypostasis’ view, the Son is divine but with a reduced divinity that allowed Him to become a human being, suffer, and die. Consequently, the incarnation did not result in a new person or a new mind. Rather, the Son took on a human body without a human mind. The eternal Logos takes the place of the human mind. Therefore, Christ is the same Person as the pre-existent Son of God. Jesus is subordinate because the pre-incarnate Son is subordinate. To become incarnate was also not a new experience for Him. He was also temporarily incarnate when he wrestled with Jacob. All appearances of Yahweh in the Old Testament were really the Son. Show More

(Read Article)

The Sabellian Controversy

It is called the ‘Arian’ Controversy on the assumption that Arius formulated a new heresy that threatened orthodoxy for most of the fourth century. However, Arius did not develop a new heresy. He was a lone Eusebian voice in North Africa. He had few followers and did not leave behind a school of disciples. The Controversy is misleadingly called ‘Arian’.

If the term ‘Arian Controversy’ implies that Arius’ theology was a threat to orthodoxy, then it should rather be called the ‘Sabellian Controversy’ because Sabellianism was already rejected as heresy in the third century but, in the fourth century, remained the main threat to the traditional Eusebian theology.

Three Broad Phases

The entire Controversy can be divided into three broad phases:

1. In the second-century war between the Logos theologians and the Monarchians, both sides believed that the Son is homoousios.

2. The anti-Sabellians Controversy began in the third century and continued for most of the fourth. In this war, both the Lienhard and Anatolios classifications are able to explain the opposing parties. While the Eusebians taught that the Son is distinct Person, which also means that He is not of the same unoriginated substance as the Father, the Sabellians taught that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis and, therefore, of the same substance.

3. The intra-Nicene conflict between the Athanasians and the Cappadocians.

The Truth is Carefully Guarded.

Finally, in the year 380, Emperor Theodosius made Western ‘one hypostasis’ theology the State Religion of the Roman Empire. (Read Article) His Edict explicitly mentioned Damasus and Peter, the bishops of Rome and Alexandria respectively.

With the protection of the Roman Military, that State Religion, with Sabellianism as its founding decree, became the Roman Church (the Church of the Roman Empire) that dominated the Middle Ages.

Sabellianism became what is known today as the Trinity doctrine. The nature of the Trinity doctrine is carefully hidden. It is camouflaged Sabellianism. Superficial accounts claim that the Trinity doctrine teaches that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one God existing as three hypostases or three Persons, implying three distinct minds. However, in the Trinity doctrine, the terms hypostases and Persons are misleading because it teaches that Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Being with a single mind. They are not real ‘persons’ as the term is used in modern English. The ‘Persons’ are mere ‘modes of existing as God’. In reality, the Trinity doctrine continues Athanasius’ one-hypostasis theology. (Read Article)

In the same way, the true origin of the Trinity doctrine is a carefully guarded secret. The victorious party had control of the recorded history for many centuries and had corrupted history. The truth has only been discovered over the last 100 years.


Other Articles

FOOTNOTES

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