Tag: Nicene Council

Posted on

In the Nicene Creed, is the Son equal to the Father?

Introduction

The Traditional Account

The fourth-century ‘Arian’ Controversy produced the Trinity doctrine, the most fundamental doctrine of the Church. Show More

In the traditional account of the Controversy, Nicene theology was the established orthodoxy, but Arius, by teaching that the Son is a created being, formulated a novel heresy and caused the Controversy. With his superior communication skills, he was able to gather many followers. However, at the Nicene Council in 325, the Church formally and decisively rejected Arius and formulated the Nicene Creed, reflecting the Church’s traditional teaching.

However, due to an Arian conspiracy, Arianism continued to dominate after Nicaea. Athanasius defended the orthodoxy valiantly, at times alone. Later in the century, the Cappadocian fathers received the baton from Athanasius, and in 381, the Church finally rejected Arianism with a revision of the Nicene Creed. 

The Revised Account

However, during the 20th century, scholars discovered that the traditional account of that Controversy, of how and why the Church accepted the Trinity doctrine, is history written by the winner and a complete travesty (see here):

“The diatribes of Gwatkin and of Harnack (published around the year 1900) can today be completely ignored” (Hanson, p. 95). Show More

There are several errors in the brief overview of the traditional account above. This section explains some of the errors with quotes from scholars, but the quotes are hidden in ‘read more’ blocks. Contrary to the traditional account:

The orthodox view, when the Controversy began, was not the Trinity doctrine but that the Son is a distinct Being, subordinate to the Father. Show More

Arius did not formulate a novel heresy. He was a conservative, defending the traditional Alexandrian view. Show More

The Controversy did not begin in the fourth century but continued the third-century Controversy. Show More

Arius did not teach that the Son is a created being. He believed in a trinity of three divine Beings, with the Son subordinate to the Father. Show More

Arius did not have many followers. He was pretty insignificant in the bigger scheme of things. However, many other conservatives supported Arius because they saw the theology of Arius’ opponent, Alexander, as a threat to orthodoxy. Show More

However, at the Nicene Council in 325, the emperor took Alexander’s side and compelled the Council to accept the Nicene Creed. It was not a Church Council. It was a meeting of the Roman government to which the emperor invited all bishops. The Council was called by the emperor on his own initiative. He paid all expenses, welcomed the delegates, and generally ensured that the Council accept a Creed he thought best. The so-called Arians accepted the Creed because they were able to interpret the terms as consistent wth their. Show More

However, after the Council, the Emperor accepted the Arian view and allowed the exiled Arians to return, and all leading pro-Nicenes to be banished. He was baptized on his deathbed by the leader of the Arians. Thereafter, the Church returned to teaching the orthodox view.

Athanasius defended his view valiantly, but he was not a Trinitarian. He was a Unitarian. He believed that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person).

Later in the century, the Cappadocian fathers, who were also Arians, accepted the term homoousios. However, they explained it in an Arian way as that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct Beings with the same time of substance. This caused a severe conflict between Athanasius and the Cappadocians.

In 379, Theodosius became the Eastern emperor. He accepted Nicene theology and, in 380, made a law to declare all other views illegal. He called the Constantinople Council of 381, but invited only Nicene supporters. He deposed Arian bishops, confiscated Arian churches, and forbade Arians from living in the cities.

In conclusion, both the creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople reflect the views of the emperors at the time, not the views of the Church.

Examples of Errors

The two so-called ‘ecumenical’ councils were not church meetings but the means by which the emperors compelled the Church to comply with their wishes. Show More

Athanasius was not a Trinitarian. He was a Unitarian. He believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Person. Show More

See here for a more detailed discussion of several errors.

The Church defends the traditional account.

The traditional account is primarily based on Athanasius’ writings. He developed his polemical strategy in the 340s. In it, he claimed that Arius developed a novel heresy, that all opponents of the Nicene Creed are followers of Arius, and that he (Athanasius) defends Scriptural orthodoxy.

Today’s Trinity doctrine is more or less equivalent to Athanasius’ theology, for both claim that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Being with a single mind.

Despite the revised conclusions of scholars over the last 100 years, “summary accounts” and “elementary textbooks” by authors who do not specialize in the Arian Controversy often still present the 19th-century version. Since the Arian Controversy produced the Trinity doctrine, and since the traditional account was formulated to support that doctrine, the revised account casts doubt on the legitimacy of the Trinity doctrine, which many regard as the mark of true Christianity. Consequently, the Church continues to defend the traditional account.

Purpose

The current article addresses the traditional view that the Nicene Creed of 325 reflects the Trinity doctrine, in which the Father, Son, nd Spirit are a single Being with a single mind (see here). It first discusses what the delegates to Nicaea in 325 believed and then what the Creed says. It concludes that most delegates at Nicaea read the Creed as saying that the Son is subordinate to the Father. 

Authors Quoted

This article quotes from the books published on the Arian Controversy over the last 50 years. These scholars are all Catholics, and they all accept the Trinity doctrine.

Following the book by Gwatkin at the beginning of the 20th century, only a limited number of books on the fourth-century Arian Controversy have been published, of which R.P.C. Hanson’s book, published in 1988, is perhaps the most influential. This 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. Show More

Summary

All Christians of the first three centuries described the Son as subordinate to the Father. During the fourth-century Controversy, both ‘Arians’ and Nicenes continued to regard the Son as subordinate. Almost all delegates to the Council of Nicaea came from the East, and the Eastern church believed the Son to be subordinate. Therefore, the delegates to Nicaea must have understood the Creed to say that the Son is subordinate.

The Creed itself also presents the Son as subordinate:

    • The titles Father and Son imply that the Son is subordinate.
    • While the Father is called Almighty God, the Son is ‘Lord’.
    • While the Father is the Creator, the Son is His means of Creation.
    • While the Son is ‘begotten’, the Father exists without cause.

The term homoousios implies ontological equality but was explained and accepted at the Council as allowing subordination.

The Creed refers to the Son as ‘God’, but that did not mean that He is equal to the Father. For example, the Arians, who clearly regarded the Son as subordinate, also described Jesus as ‘God.’ The reason is that the Greek term translated as ‘God’ (theos) had a flexible meaning. 

The pro-Nicene theology of today is not equivalent to the Nicene Creed of 325 but evolved after Nicaea as one way of explaining it. 

The Delegates’ View

All Christians of the centuries before Nicaea described 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 [in the fourth century], who does not in some sense regard the Son as subordinate to the Father” (Hanson, p. 64).

“’Subordinationism’, it is true was pre-Nicene orthodoxy.” (Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers p. 239.)

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).

During the fourth century, both pro- and anti-Nicenes continued to regard the Son as subordinate to the Father:

“Except Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement (end) of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy” (Hanson, p. xix). 

“The initial debate (i.e., between Arius and Alexander) was not about the rightness or wrongness of hierarchical models of the Trinity, which were common to both sides” (Williams, 109).

Almost all delegates to Nicaea came from the East:

The delegates were “drawn almost entirely from the eastern half of the empire” (Ayres, p. 19).

“The Council was overwhelmingly Eastern, and only represented the Western Church in a meagre way” (Hanson, p. 156). 

The Eastern church believed the Son to be subordinate:

“Almost all the Eastern theologians believed that the Son was in some sense subordinated to the Father before the Incarnation” (Hanson, p. xix). 

”Almost everybody in the East at that period would have agreed that there was a subordination of some sort within the Trinity” (Hanson, p. 287). 

As stated, almost all delegates to Nicaea were from the Eastern (Greek) part of the Empire. Sixteen years later, in 341, the same Eastern Church formulated the Dedication Creed, which clearly describes the Son as subordinate. Similar to the Nicene Creed, it describes the Father alone as “Almighty” and the “one God,” in contrast to the Son as who is the “one Lord” and the Father’s agent in creation. But, more explicitly, it says that “the names of the Three signify the particular order and glory of each” (Hanson, p. 287)

Since they accepted the Nicene Creed but regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father, the Eastern majority at Nicaea must have understood the Creed to say that the Son is subordinate to the Father.

The Creed

Indications of Subordination

It is often claimed that the Nicene Creed describes the Son as equal to the Father. However, the creed begins as follows:

“We believe in one God,
the Father Almighty,
Maker of all things visible and invisible
And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Son of God,
begotten of the Father …
through Whom all things came into being …
very God of very God …”  (Earlychurchtexts)

In several ways, this identifies the Son as subordinate to the Father:

God vs Lord – The Creed describes the Son as “one Lord,” but the Father with a higher title, namely, “one God.” This excludes the Son from being the “one God.”

Almighty – It identifies the Father alone as “Almighty.” Consequently, the Son is not the “Almighty.”  

Creator – While the Father is the “Maker of all things visible and invisible,” all things were made “by” the Son. This means that the Father is the primary Creator and the Son is the secondary Cause: It is the Father who makes all things ‘through’ or ‘by’ the Son. (Cf. John 1:3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2; 1 Cor 8:6).

Father vs Son – The titles “Father” and “Son” also identify the Son as subordinate to the Father.

Begotten – The creed describes the Lord Jesus as the “Son” of as “begotten” by the Father, implying that the Father is the source of the Son’s existence, meaning that the Son is not the original Source of all things; the Father alone exists without cause and is the Cause of all things.

Homoousios

The Creed says the Son was begotten from the Father’s substance and that He is (therefore) homoousios (of the same substance) with the Father. In the Trinity doctrine, Father and Son are one Being with a single will and mind (See here). Therefore, the Trinity doctrine interprets homoousios as meaning ‘one substance’, a single undivided substance. But homoousios (same substance) can also mean two substances of the same type (see here).

Both these interpretations of the term imply that the Son is equal to the Father in terms of substance, nature, or being (ontological equality). However, since the Creed presents the Son as subordinate to the Father in other respects, other options for interpreting homoousios must be considered.

For example, Tertullian described the Son as a portion of the Father’s substance. That would mean that they are homoousios (of the same substance). But, since the Son is part of the Father’s substance, Tertullian described Him as subordinate to the Father (Read Article).

At the Nicene Council, the emperor not only proposed and insisted on the term but also explained it and said it must be understood figuratively as merely meaning that the Son is from the Father (Read Article). Given that vague explanation, the Eusebians were able to accept the creed. However, if it only means that the Son is truly from the Father, the Son can still be subordinate to the Father. That is how the leader of the Easterners at Nicaea (Eusebius of Caesarea) understood the term:

“In Eusebius’ reading of the text it is still possible to read Nicaea as implying a certain subordinationism” (Ayres, p. 91) (Read Article). 

Before Nicaea, ‘homoousios’ was a Sabellian term. At the Council, the Sabellians were able to include the term in the Creed because they allied with Alexander and because the emperor took Alexander’s side (Read Article). Since, in Sabellian theology, Father and Son are a single Person with a single mind, they understood the term to mean ‘one substance’. However, the Sabelians were in the minority and, after Nicaea, the church eradicated the term homoousios from its vocabulary by exiling all leading Sabelians (Read Article). Therefore, the majority at Nicaea accepted ‘homoousios’ as consistent with subordination.

True God from True God

In English translations of the Nicene Creed, it seems to profess equality when it describes the Son as ‘true God from true God’. However, in the original language, the term ‘God’ (Greek theos) had a flexible meaning. To describe both the Father and Son as theos does not mean that they are equal. It simply means that both are divine.

For example, the Arians regarded the Son as subordinate but described Him also as ‘God’. Later in the century, the Arians formulated several creeds that also proclaimed Jesus as ‘God’:

The Dedication Creed, which opposed the Nicene Creed, describes the Son as “God” and as “God from God.”

Two years later, the same people-the Easterners (the anti-Nicenes) at Serdica-condemned those who say, “Christ is not God” (Hanson, p. 298). 

The Western ‘Arian’ creed of 357, which has been described as the high point of Arianism, describes the Son as “God from God” (Hanson, p. 345).

As another example, all pre-Nicene fathers regarded the Son as subordinate but also described Him as theos:

For example, Irenaeus wrote:

“That which is begotten of God is God” (Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 47).

The following statement by Irenaeus nicely brings out the flexible meaning of the word theos:

“There is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption” (Adv. Her. 4. Pref. 4 – 4.1.1).

Here, Irenaeus referred to the Father, the Son, and human beings as theos, creating an interesting challenge for translators. Since Irenaeus regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father (See Article), when he described Jesus as theos, he did not mean that Jesus is equal to the Father.

As stated, the Greek term translated as ‘God’ (theos) had a flexible meaning:

In modern English, while we use the word “god” for a range of beings, we use the term “God” as a name for one specific Being – the One who exists without a cause – the omnipotent originator of the universe (Merriam-Webster). (Read Article)

Like the Bible, the Nicene decree was written in Greek, which did not have a word exactly equivalent to “God.” In the Creed, as in the Bible, the word “God” is translated from the Greek word theos, which had a wide range of meanings. This is the same word the Greeks used for their gods; the Greek Pantheon, believed to be immortal beings with supernatural powers. When the Jews began speaking Greek, they used this same word for the God of the Bible but also for other beings. For example, Jesus even referred to humans, “to whom the word of God came,” as “gods” (the same word – John 10:34-35). (Read Article) Show More

When theos refers to the Almighty, it is translated as “God.” In other instances, it is translated as “god.” To translate theos, when it refers to Jesus, as “God” is based on the assumption that He is the Almighty. It is an application of the Trinity doctrine and should not be used to prove that doctrine. Since the Nicene Creed already identified the Father alone as the “one God” and the Almighty, and the Son as “Lord.” It uses the term theos for the Son in a different sense and should not be translated as “God.” (Read Article)

Theology Evolved

The pro-Nicene of today is not equivalent to the Nicene Creed of 325 but evolved after Nicaea as one way of explaining it.  

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

“By ‘pro-Nicene’ I mean those theologies, appearing from the 360s to the 380s … of how the Nicene creed should be understood. … These theologies build closely on and adapt themes found earlier in the century, but none is identical with any original ‘Nicene’ theology apparent in the 320s or 330s.” (Ayres, p. 6)

Emperor Theodosius’ Edict of Thessalonica in 380 was the first clear Trinitarian document.

As stated, in the Trinity doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit are one Being with one mind. In that doctrine, the term ‘Persons” is misleading. (Read More)

The Nicene Creed does not contain the Trinity doctrine for it still identifies the ‘one God’ in whom we believe as the Father and because it does not describe the Holy Spirit as God or as homoousios.

Theodosius’ Edict, which made Trinitarian Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire and outlawed all other forms of Christianity, was the first to describe the Trinity as the ‘one God;’ a single ‘Being’. It reads:

“Let us believe in the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” (Read more)

The Creed of the Council in Constantinople of the next year (381) still identifies the Father alone as the ‘one God’:

“We believe in one God
the Father Almighty …” (Read more)

KINDS OF SUBORDINATION

Some Christians distinguish between ontological and functional subordination. They claim that the Son is ontologically (in terms of His being or substance) equal to the Father but functionally, in terms of role, subordinate to the Father. I would respond as follows:

Firstly, the Bible says nothing about God’s substance and it is not something that human beings are even able to understand.

Secondly, I am not aware of any of the fourth-century fathers who distinguished between kinds of subordination.

Thirdly, if the Son is functionally subordinate to the Father, and if He is eternally so, it implies He is also subordinate in person or being. If the Son is eternally subordinate in terms of roles, what difference does it make to say that they are ontologically equal?

THE CREED

The Nicene Creed reads as follows:

We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the Son of God,
begotten from the Father, only-begotten,
that is, from the substance of the Father,
God from God,
light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten not made,
of one substance with the Father,
through Whom all things came into being,
things in heaven and things on earth,
Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down,
and became incarnate
and became man,
and suffered,
and rose again on the third day,
and ascended to the heavens,
and will come to judge the living and dead,

And in the Holy Spirit.

But as for those who say, There was when He was not,
and, Before being born He was not,|
and that He came into existence out of nothing,|
or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance,
or created,
or is subject to alteration or change
– these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.

OTHER ARTICLES

Posted on

Homoousios was not regarded as important at Nicaea.

INTRODUCTION

Purpose

The Nicene Creed of AD 325 states that the Son is homoousios (of the same substance as) the Father. In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, this term is the key word of the Creed.  Show More

However, soon after Nicaea, it disappeared from the debate. For more than 20 years, nobody mentioned it, not even Athanasius, the great hero of the Arian Controversy and defender of the Nicene Creed, nor the Western church, which is often described as the stalwart defender of Nicaea throughout the fourth century.  Show More

It wasn’t until the mid-350s, some 30 years after Nicaea, that Athanasius re-introduced the term into the debate. Only after that did the West slowly begin to defend it and the Eusebians began to attack it. Show More

In other words, it was not regarded as important at Nicaea. Show More

This article explains why it was accepted at Nicaea, why it disappeared from the debate, and why it again became part of the Controversy 30 years later.

This article quotes extensively from leading scholars. Although almost all quotes are hidden in ‘read more’ section, they are a crucial part of this article.

Authors Quoted

Based on discoveries and research over the past century, leading scholars today explain the fourth-century Arian Controversy very differently from scholars in preceding centuries. This article quotes from the main books on the subject from the last 50 years. Show More

WHY INCLUDED

Athanasius claimed that homoousion was inserted in the Creed as an anti-Arian term, namely, to force Arius and his supporters to reject the Creed so that the emperor could exile them. But Hanson says that it was included as a pro-Sabellian term, namely, because the Sabellians preferred it.

It was inserted in the Nicene Creed because Constantine insisted on it. Constantine took Alexander’s part in the dispute. Alexander viewed the Father and Son as a single Person (a single hypostasis). Since the majority of the delegates were from the East, and since the Eastern Church regarded the Son to be a distinct Person, Alexander’s theology was in the minority. For that reason, Alexander allied with the other ‘one hypostasis’ theologians, namely, the Sabellians. This gave the Sabellians much influence in the Council. Since the emperor had taken Alexander’s part, he insisted in the term because the Sabellians preferred it. Show More

Show More

However, although it may be true that homoousios was inserted in the Creed to get Arius exiled, most delegates strongly objected to the concept. As discussed here, the Eusebians opposed the term because it is not Biblical, was borrowed from pagan philosophy, was not part of the standard Christian language of the day, and was already condemned as associated with the heresy of Sabellianism. Furthermore, ‘same substance’ implies that God has a body, which nobody was willing to grant. The Dedication Creed of 341 shows what the majority at Nicaea really believed, when not compelled by an emperor. They opposed both Arius and the term homoousios. The decisions of Nicaea were really the work of a minority.

Show More

More or less the same people who attended Nicaea also attended the Dedication Council 16 years later and the Dedication Creed opposed both Arius and also the term homoousios. So, the Nicene Creed does not reflect die views of the majority: Show More

 


Did Ossius propose the term?

If Ossius, the chairperson, proposed the term, as some think, then it was on instruction of the emperor, for he was the emperor’s agent.

“According to the Arians … the Nicene Creed was presented by Ossius of Cordova in his capacity as president of the assembly.” (P.F. Beatrice) However, Ossius did not preside because of his position in the church. He was the bishop of the “obscure” see of Cordova (Hanson, p. 155). He presided in his capacity “as the Emperor’s representative” (Hanson, p. 154) and represented “the Emperor’s interest.” (Hanson, p. 156) 

The emperor was the final authority.

Given the modern culture of religious freedom, the reader might find it strange that an emperor was able to insist on the inclusion of a keyword in a church creed. However, the Roman Empire was not a democracy and religious freedom did not exist. The empire was ruled by the general who commanded the strongest army. Consequently, the emperors decided which religions were allowed and also acted as the final judge in religious disputes.

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

The so-called ‘ecumenical’ church councils of the fourth century were “the very invention and creation of the Emperor” (Hanson, p. 855). “Everybody recognised the right of an Emperor to call a council, or even to veto or quash its being called” (Hanson, p. 849-50). “The Emperor was expected to dominate and control them” (Hanson, p. 855).

Conclusion

The term was not mentioned for some decades after Nicaea because the Nicene Creed was the work of a minority under the protection of the emperor, while the majority was most uncomfortable with this term.

Nicaea was not regarded as binding.

Furthermore, at the time, the Nicene Creed was not regarded as binding. It was a temporary solution to an immediate problem. 

“Many modern readers assume that the Nicene creed was intended at its promulgation to stand as a binding and universal formula of Christian faith.” (Ayres, p. 85) However, “by the time Nicaea met, Church leaders … had no precedent for the idea of a council that would legislate for the Church as a whole.” (Ayres, p. 87) “Councils were not expected to produce precise statements of belief.” (Ayres, p. 87)

“All the bishops at Nicaea would have understood their local ‘baptismal’ creed to be a sufficient definition of Christian belief.” (Ayres, p. 85)

For a further discussion of this point, see Ayres – 4.1 The Nicene Creed as a Standard of Faith.

HOW WAS HOMOOUSIOS REVIVED?

As stated above, the term homoousios was re-introduced into the Controversy in the 350s; about 30 years after Nicaea. This section explains the history chronologically.

The West was not at Nicaea.

At first, the West was not part of the Controversy. For example, the Westerners at the Council represented a tiny minority.

At Nicaea in 325, “around 250–300 attended, drawn almost entirely from the eastern half of the empire.” (Ayres, p. 19)

“The Westerners at the Council represented a tiny minority.” “The Eastern Church was always the pioneer and leader in theological movements in the early Church.” (Hanson, p. 170)

Post-Nicaea Correction

The inclusion of the term homoousios caused an intense struggle during the years immediately after Nicaea. Sabellians claimed the homoousios in the Creed as a victory for their side but that struggle resulted in the exile of all leading Sabellians. After that, homoousios disappears from the debate. (See here.)

Period of no Controversy

As already mentioned, after the post-Nicaea Correction, the Nicene Creed and Homoousios were not part of the Controversy for more than 25 years. In fact, there was no controversy.

“At some times there was almost no controversy at all. If there was any controversy from 330 to 341, it was a controversy about the behaviour of Athanasius in his see of Alexandria.” (Hanson, p. xviii)

“There was a long period of confusion and uncertainty from 341 to 357 when it was far from clear what the controversy was about, if there was a controversy.” (Hanson, p. xviii)

In other words, the Council of Nicaea brought the dispute between Arius and his bishop Alexander to an end. The Real Controversy began only decades later:

Athanasius’ Polemical Strategy

After he was exiled in 335, Athanasius developed a masterful polemical strategy to explain why he was exiled. He claimed that:

      • Arius developed a novel heresy.
      • He (Athanasius) represents scriptural orthodoxy.
      • He was exiled for his opposition to Arianism.
      • An Arian Conspiracy manipulated the council of Tyre to exile him for violence, of which he was innocent.
      • His opponents are ‘Arians’, meaning followers of Arius’ condemned theology.

None of these points are true but the important point for the current article is that homoousios was not yet part of his polemical strategy.

During those decades after Nicaea, while nobody thinks about homoousios, Athanasius and Marcellus were both exiled from the East and sent to the West (Rome). There they met and joined forces against the East:

“Athanasius and Marcellus now seem to have made common cause against those who insisted on distinct hypostases in God.” (Ayres, p. 106)

In Rome, Athanasius developed his polemical strategy:

“Athanasius’ engagement with Marcellus in Rome seems to have encouraged Athanasius towards the development of” “an increasingly sophisticated account of his enemies;” “the full flowering of a polemical strategy that was to shape accounts of the fourth century for over 1,500 years;” “a masterpiece of the rhetorical art.” (Ayres, p. 106-7)

What was his polemical strategy?

“Athanasius’ account begins by presenting Arius as the originator of a new heresy.” (Ayres, p. 107) In contrast, “Athanasius presents himself as the preserver of the one theological tradition that is equivalent with scriptural orthodoxy.” (Ayres, p. 107)

Athanasius described “his enemies as ‘Arians’ seeking to perpetuate a theology stemming from Arius.” (Ayres, p. 106) “To this end Athanasius quotes extensively from Arius’ Thalia.” (Ayres, p. 107) See also – Athanasius invented Arianism.

This polemical strategy is discussed further in – The Creation of ‘Arianism’. It presents a misleading picture of that Controversy:

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

“Once we begin to grasp the problems with Athanasius’ rhetorical unmasking of ‘Arians’ then we need to look beyond the Athanasian terminology of an ‘Arian’ conspiracy to get a more accurate sense of how to understand non-Marcellan and non-Athanasian eastern theologies during this period.” (Ayres, p. 432)

Rome accepted Athanasius.

Using his polemical strategy, Athanasius appealed to the bishop of Rome. The bishop accepted his version of reality, called a council, and vindicated both him and Marcellus.

The subsequent events are described in more detail here. In brief:

“Athanasius appealed to Julius of Rome in 339–40 by using his strategy of narrating a theological conspiracy of ‘Arians’. His success had a profound impact on the next few years of the controversy.” (Ayres, p. 108)

Julius of Rome held a council in Rome which “quickly vindicated Marcellus and Athanasius.” (Ayres, p. 109)

“Julius wrote to the east in 341 in a letter which shows the strong influence of the emerging Athanasian account of ‘Arianism’.” (Ayres, p. 109)

Caused division between East and West

It is traditionally thought that the West had always supported Nicaea. In reality, similar to the East, most in the West believed that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct Beings. However, after the West had declared Athanasius and Marcellus orthodox, cracks in that unity began to appear. That was the real beginning of the ‘Arian’ Controversy.

In Ayres’ discussion of the Western (Latin) Theologists at the time of Nicaea, he concludes that they believed more or less the same as the theologians in the East:

“These Latin theologians have as far to travel towards later pro-Nicene theology as the eastern trajectories.” (Ayres, p. 75)

“Ironically, an anti-monarchian, anti-‘modalist’ polemic fundamentally shapes these early Latin theologians, and that is taken so often to be determining the future course of a unitary western theology!” (Ayres, p. 74)

This last quote says that the West opposed the idea that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one Being.

So, around the time of Nicaea, there was harmony between East and West. It was the West’s acceptance of Athanasius’ polemical strategy that first caused division between East and West:

“Once Julius had acted we begin to see divisions between the Church in the eastern and western halves of the empire emerging.” (Ayres, p. 109)

This, in the early 340s, was the real beginning of the ‘Arian’ Controversy. However, the bishop of Rome’s acceptance of Athanasius’ strategy did not mean that the entire West accepted it.

“We should … be cautious in our reading of these divisions. The divisions we initially observe are between one group of eastern bishops taking their lead from Eusebius of Nicomedia and Julius and his immediate associates. We must be wary of reading this as reflecting a simple division between eastern and western theology. Even when just such a division appears to come clearly into the open at the Council of Serdica in 343, even there the participants cannot usefully be divided in purely geographic terms.” (Ayres, p. 109-110)

Constantius strived for unity.

In the 340s, while the empire remained divided East and West, the division between the church in the East and West remained. However, after Constantius became emperor of the entire empire in the early 350s, he attempted to get the Western church to agree to the key eastern decisions of the previous few years.

In the same year that Julius wrote his letter to the East (AD 341), the East formulated the Dedication Creed which says that the Father, Son, and Spirit “are three in hypostasis but one in agreement.” Two years later, in 343, the West formulated a Manifesto at Serdica which “opted clearly for Una substantia meaning one hypostasis.” (Hanson, p. 201) There-after. the Western and Eastern churches continued to oppose one another. Since they were ruled by different emperors, there was little incentive to reconcile these opposing views.

However, in the early 350s, Constantius became emperor of the entire Roman Empire:

“Over the period AD 351–3, and after a complex civil war, the eastern Emperor Constantius achieved complete control of the whole empire.” (Ayres, p. 133)

“At this point Constantius found himself sole ruler of the Roman world and with the ability to push for a unified religious policy throughout his domains in a way no emperor had been able to do since the death of his father in 337.” (Ayres, p. 133)

He attempted to get the Western church to agree to the eastern Creeds:

“As his control over the west grew Constantius increased his attempts to get bishops to agree to the key eastern decisions of the previous few years.” (Ayres, p. 135)

“Through the 350s … we seem to see a growing opposition to Constantius’ attempts to force western councils to agree to the decrees of Sirmium 351.” (Ayres, p. 136)

He attempted to isolate Athanasius.

Since Constantius’ greatest enemy, both politically and in the church, was Athanasius, his primary goal was to isolate Athanasius.

“Athanasius had a desire for power; he suppressed ruthlessly whenever he could any opposition to him within his diocese … towards the end of his life he had reached a position in which his power (in Egypt), not only ecclesiastical but also political, was virtually beyond challenge.” (Hanson, p. 421)

Therefore, the emperor “attempted to get the condemnation of Athanasius and probably some sort of theological statement accepted throughout the west.” (Ayres, p. 135) With that double goal in mind, “the council of Sirmium in 351 set the trend for a series of councils.” (Ayres, p. 135) For here for a discussion of the Creed of 351.

Athanasius re-introduced Homoousios.

In response to the emperor’s attack on him, Athanasius incorporated homoousios into his polemical strategy, which was the basis for the schism between the East and West. Therefore, homoousios became part of the dispute. As argued above, that was in the mid-350s.

“He began to use it [homoousios] first in the De Deeretis and thereafter regularly in his theological works, defending it fiercely against all criticism of it. If we place De Deeretis in 356 or 357, we can perhaps see the reason for this change of policy. By then it had become abundantly clear not only that Constantius was everywhere trying to isolate Athanasius himself from ecclesiastical support both in the East and the West … Athanasius decided that he must begin a policy of defending the very words of N as a slogan or banner round which to gather.” (Hanson, p. 438)

It was a turn to Nicaea.

Athanasius and the West did not oppose Constantius because they defended Nicaea. Rather, they turned to Nicaea to strengthen their resistance to the emperor’s efforts.

“It seems unlikely that previous adherence to Nicaea motivated their (the West’s) growing opposition (to Constantius’ efforts): it is much more likely that events in the second half of the decade prompted a turn to Nicaea as a focus for their already strong opposition.” (Ayres, p. 136)

In the ‘West’ there were, already before 357, “the beginnings of attempts on the part of a few to turn to Nicaea as a standard against the direction of Constantius’ policies.” (Ayres, p. 139)

Anti-Nicene Accounts Emerged.

As stated above, anti-Nicene theologies, particularly Homoianism, emerged in the late 350s; only after Athanasius introduced homoousios into his polemical strategy.

For example, Homoian theology is specifically anti-Nicene. Particularly, it opposes ousia-language. For example, they were “refusing to allow ousia-terms of any kind into professions of faith.” (Williams, p. 234) It appeared only in the 350s:

“Though Homoian Arianism derived from the thought both of Eusebius of Caesarea and of Arius, we cannot with confidence detect it before the year 357, when it appears in the Second Sirmian Creed.” (Hanson, p. 558)

“Many of the theologies we have considered so far are non-Nicene more than anti-Nicene: only in the 350s do we begin to trace clearly the emergence of directly anti-Nicene accounts.” (Ayres, p. 139)

Homoousios divided the church.

As a result of the introduction of homoousios into the Controversy, the church divided into various factions. Those who accepted homoousios were divided between one-hypostasis and three-hypostases views. Those who rejected homoousios were divided between those who rejected all ousia (substance) language and those who did use the term in their theologies.

One-hypostasis Homo-ousians (Sabellians), such as Athanasius and Marcellus, interpreted homoousios as “one substance,” namely, as saying that Father and Son are one Being. See above the Council of Serdica in 343, where the Western delegates asserted ‘one hypostasis’.

Three-hypostases Homo-ousians, such as Basil of Caesarea and Meletius of Antioch, interpreted homoousios as “same substance,” namely, that Father and Son are two beings with the same type of substance. (See – Basil.)

The Homoi-ousians (from ὅμοιος, hómoios, “similar”) maintained that the Son’s substance is like the Father’s, but not the same.

The Heter-ousians said that the Son is like the Father but His substance is unlike the Father’s.

The Homo-ians, who remained the dominant emperor-supported faction, rejected all use of ousia-terms. They held that Jesus Christ is like the Father, without referencing ousia (essence or substance).

OTHER ARTICLES

Proudly powered by WordPress