INTRODUCTION
Purpose
| This article identifies the main points of Arius’ teaching. What did he teach that had such an explosive effect? |
The fourth-century ‘Arian’ Controversy, about the relation between God and His only begotten Son, began in the year 318 when Arius, a presbyter in charge of a district in Alexandria, publicly criticized the Christological views of his bishop Alexander (RH, 3).
“The crisis of the fourth century was the most dramatic internal struggle the Christian Church had so far experienced” (RW, 1).
Why we should learn about Arius
| The traditional account of the Controversy misleadingly presents Arius as the mother of all heretics. |
After Emperor Theodosius, in the year 380, made the Trinitarian version of Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire and brutally eliminated all opposition, “Arius himself came more and more to be regarded as a kind of Antichrist among heretics, a man whose superficial austerity and spirituality cloaked a diabolical malice.” (RW, 1).
However, Bishop R.P.C. Hanson, a world expert on the Arian Controversy, concluded that the traditional account of the Arian Controversy is a complete travesty. Specifically, in a recent book about Arius, Archbishop Rowan Williams described Arius as:
“A thinker and exegete of resourcefulness, sharpness and originality.” (RW, 116)
“An important dimension in Christian life that was dis-edifyingly and unfortunately crushed.” (RW, 91)
“Arius’ solution is no better or worse than most efforts that have been made by theologians through the ages.” (RW, 114)
We do not agree with everything Arius said, but he had some fascinating perspectives that are worth studying.
Authors Quoted
| This article series is based on books by world-class scholars of the last 50 years. |
Due to research and a store of ancient documents that have become available over the last 100 years, 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. In some instances, it is the opposite of the true history.
Following the last full-scale book on the fourth-century Arian Controversy in English, written by Gwatkin at the beginning of the 20th century, only a handful of full-scale books on the Arian Controversy have been published. This article series is largely based on the following books:
RH = Bishop RPC Hanson
The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God –
The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987
RW = Archbishop Rowan Williams
Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987
LA = Lewis Ayres
Nicaea and its legacy, 2004
Ayres is a Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology
‘Arian’ is a misnomer.
| Arius did not have followers. Athanasius invented the ‘Arian’ concept as a polemical device. |
Arius was already dead when Athanasius wrote. However, he used Arius as a stick to beat his opponents with. He called his opponents ‘Arians’, meaning followers of Arius, and then selectively quoted Arius as an attack on his opponents.
But his opponents were not followers of Arius. Arius did not leave behind a school of disciples. He had very few real followers. Nobody regarded his writings worth copying. His theology played no part in the Controversy after Nicaea. The term ‘Arian’, therefore, is a serious misnomer. The only reason so many Christians believe Arius was important is because they accept Athanasius’ distortions. (Read more)
In reality, Arius was part of a group we may call the ‘Eusebians’; followers of Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia. (Read more) Consequently, this article series often refers to the anti-Nicenes as the Eusebians rather than ‘Arians’.
Arius’ Writings
| Most of what we know about Arius comes from the writings of Athanasius, who maliciously misrepresented him. |
Of Arius’ own writings, we only have three letters.
“We have only a handful of texts that can confidently be treated as giving us Arius’ own thinking in his own words,” (RW, 95), namely:
Everything else we know about him comes from the writings of his enemies; particularly Athanasius:
“We are wholly dependent upon the reports of his enemies.” (RW, 95)
However, since Athanasius used Arius’ writings for polemical purposes, we can never be sure that his views were transmitted correctly:
“Athanasius … would not have stopped short of misrepresenting what he (Arius) said.” (RH, 10)
“In places (Athanasius) may be suspected of pressing the words maliciously rather further than Arius intended” (RH, 15).
Athanasius wrote that Arius said that “the Son was no greater than the locust or caterpillar.” Hanson describes this as ‘malicious’ (RH, 20). The quotes by Arius’ enemies, “divorced from their own original literary context … are … very far from presenting to us the systematic thought of Arius as he himself saw it. In other words, we can never be sure that the theological priorities ascribed to Arius by his opponents were his own, even if his statements are transmitted correctly.” (RW, 95)
“Such reports, especially in the writings of Athanasius, have to be handled with caution.” (RW, 95)
Athanasius describes Arius’ teachings in De Synodis 15 and in Contra Arianos 1.5-6:
The first seems to be a direct quote and provides a balanced perspective. For example, Arius described the Son as “full of truth, and grace, God, Only-begotten, unaltering.” (RH, 6)
The second seems to be Athanasius’ paraphrase of Arius’ teachings and describes the Son as completely different from God and as merely a created being.
“The differences in tone between these two versions is especially striking:” (RW, 103) The one, which seems like a direct quote (De Synodis 15), “balances negations with affirmations of the Son’s dignity.” (RW, 103) But the other – Athanasius’ paraphrase of Arius teachings (Contra Arianos 1.5-6) – “piles up a series of very negative-sounding terms to describe the distinction of the divine hypostases.” (RW, 104) For example: “As everything else is alien to and unlike God in substance, so ‘the Word is different from and in all points unlike the Father’s substance and individual character” (RH, 13) … “totally different from both the Father” (RH, 14).
Over the centuries, people have formed a wrong view of Arius because they base it on Athanasius’ writings.
We also have two letters from Alexander, archbishop of Alexandria, in which he gives an account of what Arius taught. Since the Arian Controversy began as a dispute between him and Arius, Alexander must be regarded as a biased witness.
ARIUS’ THEOLOGY
The anathemas in the Nicene Creed reflect Arius’ views that attracted the most opposition.
The Nicene Creed anathematizes those who say:
Arius’ theology may be summarized as follows:
God alone exists without a cause.
| The central principle of Arius’ theology is that the Father alone exists without cause. |
For Arius, the Father alone is “unbegotten,” meaning to exist without a cause. The Father, therefore, gave existence to all things and has no equal. Arius’ entire theological system hangs on this central principle.
For example, Arius said:
his will is uniquely sovereign.” (RW, 98)
The Father gave existence to the Son.
| It follows that the Son does not exist without a cause but that the Father gave Him existence. |
For example, Arius wrote:
The Son is a Created Being
| The Son is the only Being ever produced by God Himself, and the greatest Being God could produce. |
Arius described the Son as “a creature and a product” (RH, 16). Both Athanasius and Alexander claimed that Arius taught that the Son is equal to other created beings. For example, they wrote:
“He was then such as is every man. We are able to become the sons of God as he is.” (RH, 17)
“He is one of the many ‘powers’ that exist besides God, among which are also the locust and the caterpillar.” (RH, 13)
This is an example of how Arius’ enemies misrepresented his teachings, for Arius taught that the Son is:
-
-
- The only Being ever created directly by God,
- The Creator of all other beings,
- ‘God’ as far as the rest of creation is concerned,
- The greatest being that God could possibly produce. He received everything from the Father that a created being could receive.
-
Consequently, the only-begotten Son has no equal.
He “alone has been given existence by the Father.” (RH, 8) (b) The Creator of all other beings. – “The Father is the origin of everything made, but the Son brings everything into actual existence.” (RH, 103) The word “through” indicates that, for Arius, the Father is the primary Creator and the Son was His agent (cf. John 1:3; Col 1:16; 1 Cor 8:6; Heb 1:2). (c) As Creator, He is God. – The Son is “‘God’ as far as the rest of creation is concerned.” (RW, 177) (d) The greatest being that God could possibly produce (RW, 103). – He is “a perfect creature, not just ‘one among others’; he is the inheritor of all the gifts and glories God can give him.” (RW, 98) For these reasons, Arius said that “His only-begotten Son … has nobody like him.” (RH, 105) For a further discussion, see – Did Arius describe Jesus Christ as a Created Being?
(a) The only being ever created directly by God.
“This direct creation means that the Son has nobody like him.” (RH, 102)
– “The Son creates the Spirit and then everything else.” (RH, 101)
– “All things are said to be made through him.” (RW, 96)
– “The only-begotten Son … through whom also he made the aeons and everything” (RH, 7).
– Arius described the Son as “God” (RH, 6), the “only-begotten God” (RH, 14) and as “the Mighty God [Isa 9:15]” (RH, 15).
– “A creature, yet one endowed with all the gifts that can be given.” (RW, 177)
Created to Create
| God produced the Son to create all things through Him. |
In Nicene theology, the Son is co-eternal with the Father. In other words, He does not exist for a specific reason. For Arius, the Son was created specifically to create all things.
Not Literally Begotten
| The term “begotten” is a symbol and means that God Himself produced the Son. |
By describing the Son as a created being, Arius seems to contradict the Bible, which says that the Son was “begotten;” the only Being ever “begotten” by God.
The Nicene Creed says that the Son was begotten from the substance of God and, therefore, is of the same substance as God. This seems to interpret “begotten” literally, as if the Son was born from God like human children are born from their parents.
Arius responded that the term “begotten” and the titles Father and Son must not be understood literally but symbolize that the Son is the only being ever directly produced by the Father and that He is an exact visible replica of the invisible God.
“The metaphor of sonship … cannot … be the semantic field that covers kinship, biological continuity … it must be … familial intimacy, a dependency expressed in trust or love – the field evoked for us when we call God ‘Father’.” (RW, 112) “’Son’ is … a metaphor.” (RW, 109) “Metaphorical uses of the language of ‘sonship’ and ‘begetting’ can be found elsewhere in Scripture (Isa. 1:2).” (RW, 112) Hanson adds Deut 32:18; Job 38:28 (RH, 31). For these reasons, Arius used the terms “created” and “begotten” as synonyms (RH, 6, 8). For example: “Before he was begotten or created or determined or established, he did not exist” (RH, 6).
Begotten before Time Existed
| The Son always existed. |
Since He made all things, the Son existed before all things. Consequently, the Son was begotten before time itself existed. From the perspective of beings who exist ‘in’ or subject to time, the Son has ‘always’ existed.
There was when He was not
| In the infinity beyond time, the Father existed metaphysically before the Son. |
On the other hand, Arius argued that “God must preexist the Son. If not, we are faced with a whole range of unacceptable ideas .. (such as) that he is, like God, self-subsistent.” (RW, 97) Therefore, “the Son was produced before everything, before anything conceivable, but is still not co-eternal with the Father.” (RH, 103) In that incomprehensible infinity beyond time, the Father exists metaphysically ‘before’ the Son. There was when He was not but there was no literal ‘time’ before the Son.
Both Athanasius and Alexander – Arius’ enemies – claimed that Arius taught that there was ‘time’ before the Son. They wrote, for example:
“There was a time when God was not Father.”
“There was a time when he (the Son) did not exist.” (RH, 13, 16, 17).
But Arius did not use the word “time” in this context. Since he said the Son was “brought into existence … before all times and ages” (RW, 97), the Son was begotten in the unknowable and timeless infinity beyond time, and “there was when He was not” only in a metaphysical sense. He did not say that there was literal time before the Son. For our purposes, living within time, the Son has ‘always’ existed.
Time is part of our universe and, presumably, does not exist outside our universe. But God, since He gave existence to this universe, exists outside the universe. Therefore, what exists beyond our universe is infinitely more than in our universe. For a further discussion, see – Did Arius teach there was time when the Son of God did not exist?
Created out of Nothing
| One aspect where Arius deviated from other Eusebians is his view that the Son was produced out of nothing. |
Arius stated:
“God … made him when he did not exist out of non-existence” (RH, 16).
In other words, God made Him out of nothing. “This was certainly the feature of Arius’ thought which gave rise to more scandal than any other.” (RH, 88) This was one aspect in which Arius deviated from the mainstream Eusebians, who argued that the Son was begotten from the being of God. Eusebius of Caesarea “consistently rejects the doctrine that the Son was produced from nonexistence” (RH, 59; cf. RH, 52, 53).
By saying that the Son was derived from the substance of the Father, the Nicene Creed explicitly opposes this statement. After the Nicene Creed has anathematized this statement, “it is noteworthy too that … Arius deliberately refrains from describing the Son as ‘deriving from nonexistence’” (RH, 8).
Created by the Will of God
| Alexander taught that the Son is part of the Father, existing without cause and without the Father’s will. |
Arius’ opponents Alexander and Athanasius believed that the Son is part of the Father. (See here) Consequently, the Son exists without cause and the Father never ‘willed’ the Son to exist. Arius and the Eusebians, in contrast, since they regarded the Son as a created Being, argued that God willed the Son to exist.
Gregg and Groh concluded that Arius’ view in this regard “is good Biblical doctrine, reproduced by Ignatius, Justin, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria and Origen.” (RH, 90)
Arius taught that:
Therefore, whether the Son exists by God’s will was a significant discussion point in the ‘Arian’ Controversy. It still is today. One key aspect of the Trinity doctrine is Eternal Generation. In it, God never ‘willed’ to generate the Son. It teaches that the Father has always been begetting the Son and will always be begetting the Son. In other words, it is an eternal reality and part of what God is.
(i) The Son is a creature … a product of God’s will; (ii) ‘Son’ is therefore a metaphor … and must be understood in the light of comparable metaphorical usage in Scripture; (iii) The Son’s status, like his very existence, depends upon God’s will.” (RW, 109)
Williams summarizes Arius’s writings by saying that “Arius and his followers … establish three basic theological points:
Subordinate
| Since the Son received His life and being from the Father, He is subordinate to the Father. |
Eusebians even described the Father as the Son’s God whom He worships.
Consequently, the Son is subordinate to the Father: The Father is the Son’s God:
The Son received His life and being from the Father:
They argued that the Son cannot be on equal footing with the Father, for that would mean “two unoriginated ultimate principles” (RH, 8) and referred to “Christ’s human infirmities (as a proof of his divine inferiority).” (RH, 17) However, when Arius wrote, all theologians, also the pro-Nicenes, regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father.
“There is no theologian in the Eastern or the Western Church before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy, who does not in some sense regard the Son as subordinate to the Father” (RH, 63). “Subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement (end) of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy” (RH, xix). “The initial debate was not about the rightness or wrongness of hierarchical models of the Trinity, which were common to both sides” (RW, 109).
So, the issue was not whether the Son is subordinate to the Father. Everybody accepted that He is. (Read more) The real issue in the ‘Arian’ Controversy was whether the Son is part of the Father, as Alexander and Athanasius, claimed, or whether He is a distinct Person, as the Eusebians thought. (Read more) People familiar only with the traditional (19th century) account of the ‘Arian’ Controversy will find these statements surprising.
God
| All theologians described the Son as theos but that term did not mean “God.” |
In Arius’ day, the Greek language did not have a word equivalent to the modern term ‘God’ (the Ultimate Reality). It only had the term theos, which means ‘god’ and which the Greeks used for their multitude of gods; thought of as immortal beings with supernatural powers. Since all agreed that the Son is an immortal Being with supernatural powers, all parties to the Controversy described the Son as theos, but the Eusebians, such as Arius, distinguished between the Son as theos and the Father as the only true theos.
However, translators have a dilemma. They believe that the Son is God and, therefore, when they translate theos, when referring to the Son, they render it as “God.” However, this is an application of the Trinity doctrine and should not be used as proof of the Trinity doctrine. On the other hand, the term ‘god’ is not acceptable because of the negative connotation of that term in today’s English. (Read more)
Following John 17:3, the ‘Arians’ distinguished between “God” and “the one true God.” They described the Father alone as “true God” (RH, 13, 57; RW, 101). For example, “There is, says Eusebius, the ‘one true God’ (John 17:3), and the Son who is God but not ‘the one true God’.” (RH, 57)
Arius described the Son as:
The Trinity
| Arius did refer to the Father, Son, and Spirit as a Trinity but meant a group of three distinct Beings. |
The Trinity doctrine, in contrast, does not merely teach that three divine Persons exist, or even that they are equal, but that they are one single Being. (Read more)
Arius taught “three hierarchically ordered divine subsistents” (RW, 105, cf. 98; RH, 7) Arius had a “strong commitment to belief in three distinct divine hypostases.” (RW, 97) Although he did not regard them as equal, Arius did refer to them as a Trinity: “Certainly, there is a Trinity … their individual realities do not mix with each other, and they possess glories of different levels. (The Father is) infinitely more splendid in his glories.” (RH, 14; cf. RW, 102).
Arius believed that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct divine Beings:
Different Substance
| In the Nicene Creed, the Son is of the same substance as the Father. Arius claimed His substance is different. |
Arius said that the Son is “unlike in substance to the Father” because the substance of a created being can never be the same as God’s substance that exists without a cause. Arius may be what became later known as a Hetero-ousian (different substance). (Read more)
Arius wrote:
Two Wisdoms
| Alexander believed the Father and Son share a single mind. Arius taught that they are two distinct minds. |
Arius’ enemies Alexander and Athanasius believed in only one Logos (Mind, Word, Wisdom, Reason) in God and that the Son is the Father’s Wisdom and Word. In other words, the Father and Son share a single mind. (Read more)
In contrast, Arius believed that the Father and Son have two distinct minds: He taught “two Logoi and two Wisdoms,” meaning that God also has His own Wisdom.
Athanasius wrote that, for Arius, “There are … two Wisdoms, one God’s own who has existed eternally with God, the other the Son who was brought into existence. … There is another Word in God besides the Son” (RH, 13; cf. RW, 100) Alexander similarly noted that Arius stated: “Nor is he the Father’s true Logos … nor his true Wisdom” (RH, 16). “He came into existence himself through the proper Logos of God and the Wisdom which was in God.” (RH, 16) Hanson stated it like this: In Arius’ theology, “there are two Logoi and two Wisdoms (Sophiae) … Arius distinguished between an original Reason (Logos) or Wisdom immanent from eternity in the Godhead and the Son who was not immanent in the Godhead but created.” (RH, 20)
Both Alexander and Athanasius reported that Arius taught two Wisdoms or Words (Logoi):
Immutable
| Arius taught that the Son can change but will never change. |
This is discussed in a dedicated article. (See here) In summary:
Following ancient Greek philosophy, theologians generally accept that God is immutable, meaning, unable to change. The question arises, Is God’s Son also immutable? Can He change? In particular, can He become evil?
Arius’ opponents Alexander and Athanasius believed that the Son is part of the Father. (See here) As such, the Son is as immutable as the Father.
The Nicene Creed similarly anathematizes those who say, “The Son of God is … subject to alteration or change.”
Arius described the Son as “Like the Father, ‘unchangeable’.” (RW, 96) However, his enemies Alexander and Athanasius claimed that Arius taught the exact opposite, namely, that the Son is, “like all others … subject to change.” (Athanasius in Contra Arianos(v), RW, 100) Arius’ thinking was as follows:
By nature, the Son is mutable. His enemies preferred to emphasize this point.
God did not override the Son’s freedom (mutability). God did not make it impossible for His Son to change or to sin.
The Son does not sin because He loves righteousness and hates iniquity. He is “unchangeable” because He will not sin; not because He cannot sin.
God had always given the Son all authority in heaven and earth because He always knew His Son would never sin.
Note how Arius’ enemies emphasize the one part of Arius’ thinking, that the Son is mutable by nature, and omits that Arius also said the Son will never change. This is one example of how Athanasius misrepresents Arius. (Read more)
The Son came to this world to be tested to see whether He would also sin under the ‘right’ circumstances. (See here) If He couldn’t sin, His victory over sin would be meaningless.
Knowledge of God
| Arius also said that the Son knows everything about the Father that a created being can know. |
The Bible says several times that God is invisible. (e.g., Col 1:15; John 1:18; 1 Tim 6:16). Ancient writers understood this also to mean that nobody understands God fully. So, the question arose, is the Son able to “see” and “understand” the Father fully?
Origen said that the Son has “perfect knowledge of the Father.” But he qualified this by saying that “all that can be known of the Father’s life is known by the Son.” By implication, certain things cannot be known. Specifically, he said that the Son does not have “the Father’s primary self-awareness.” (RW, 206)
Arius said that the Son also does not understand God fully, for how could a being who has a beginning possibly understand a Being who is without a beginning?
“God is invisible to all” (RH, 14), By implication, God “is invisible … to the Son himself.” (RH, 14) “It is clear that that which has a beginning could not possibly comprehend or grasp the nature of him who is without a beginning.” (RH, 15) Or, as Williams interpreted his argument: “It is logically out of the question that anything that is not God should understand … what it is to be God.” (RW, 106) For Arius, “the Son’s ignorance is a logical consequence of his createdness.” (RW, 105)
Arius believed that “the Father remains invisible to the Son, and the Word cannot see or know his own Father completely and accurately. The Son cannot comprehend the Father.” (RH, 14; cf. RH, 16) He argued as follows:
But Arius also said that the Son knows everything about the Father that a created being can know.
“All that limits his selfcommunication and self-revelation is the irreducible difference between him and his creation; but what he can give, he does give.” (RW, 107) The Son “receives all the grace a creature could receive.” (RW, 105)
Knowledge of Himself
Arius also said that “the Son does not know the nature of his own substance (ousia)” (RH, 16; cf. RH, 15). Williams understands Arius as saying:
“He is willed into existence by the Father, and cannot therefore have that ‘perspective’ on his own substance which his creator possesses.” (RW, 105-6)
OTHER ARTICLES
-
-
- Origin of the Trinity Doctrine – Including the pre-Nicene Church Fathers and the fourth-century Arian Controversy
- All articles on this website
- Is Jesus the Most High God?
- Trinity Doctrine – General
- The Book of Daniel
- The Book of Revelation
- The Origin of Evil
- Death, Eternal Life, and Eternal Torment
-