Tag: Nicene Creed

Posted on

Ousia and Hypostasis in the Nicene Creed

Summary

The Nicene Creed of AD 325 seems to use the terms hypostasis (Person) and ousia (substance) as synonyms when it anathematizes those who say that the “Son of God” is of a different hypostasis or ousia than the “one God Father Almighty.” That would also mean that the Son is the same hypostasis (Person) as the Father, which would contradict the Trinity doctrine, in which the Father and Son are two distinct Persons but one substance or Being. In fact, that anathema seems to teach Sabellianism in which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one single hypostasis (Person).

To explain these terms, this article shows that, during the centuries before Nicaea and during most of the Arian Controversy, hypostasis and ousia were indeed used as synonyms. Although there was, during that period, significant confusion about the meaning of these terms, ousia did not mean “substance.” Rather, both hypostasis and ousia were used for “Person.”

It was mainly under the influence of the Cappadocian Fathers, in particular Basil of Caesarea, after the year 360, that the terminology was standardized so that the formula ‘three hypostases in one ousia’ came to be accepted as an epitome of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.

The Cappadocians proposed these more specific meanings because, in contrast to the Sabellians, they recognized three distinct Realities (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) but regarded them as equal in every respect. However, then the anti-Nicenes would object that that implies three First Principles (three Beings who exist without cause and who gave existence to all else). So, they proposed the distinction to say the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three Realities (Persons) but only one First Principle (ousia).

In other words, Basil did not simply propose specific meanings for the two terms. His purpose was to formulate a distinction between the three distinct Realities (Persons) and the one First Principle and assigned meanings to the terms to assist with that distinction.

But when the Nicene Creed was formulated, this distinction did not yet clearly exist. Hypostasis and ousia did not yet mean “Person” and “substance” respectively. When the Creed was formulated, the two terms still had pretty must the same meaning and both meant ‘person’. Therefore:

Firstly, the Nicene Creed does indeed use the two terms as synonyms and that anathema does indeed imply Sabellianism.

Secondly, since that distinction is the epitome of the Trinity doctrine, the Trinity doctrine did not yet exist when the Nicene Creed was formulated.

– END OF SUMMARY –

PURPOSE

The Anathema

The Nicene Creed of AD 325 anathematizes those who say that the “Son of God,” compared to the “one God Father Almighty,”

“Is of a different hypostasis (ὑποστάσεως)
or substance (οὐσιάς, transliterated as ousia).”
(Early Church Texts)

The terms “ousia and hypostasis” are “one of the most striking aspects of Nicaea.” These terms have not appeared in any previous creed and also do not appear in the creed formulated just a few months earlier at Antioch. (LA, 92) Hanson describes them as “new terms” (RH, 846).

The anathema seems to use the terms hypostasis and ousia as synonyms:

Ayres refers to “the seeming equation of ousia and hypostasis (LA, 88).

R.P.C. Hanson says that “N (the Nicene Creed) … apparently (but not quite certainly) identifies hypostasis and ousia” (RH, 187).

Consequently, the anathema seems to say that the Son of God is the same hypostasis (Person) as the “one God Father Almighty.” This would be a contradiction of the Trinity doctrine in which the Father and the Son are:

      • Two different hypostases (Persons)
      • In one ousia (Being or substance).

In fact, by describing the Father and the Son as the same hypostasis AND as the same ousía, that anathema seems to teach Sabellianism in which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three parts of one single ‘Person’. R.P.C. Hanson says of the condemnation quoted above:

“By the standard of later orthodoxy, as achieved in the Creed of Constantinople of 381, it is a rankly heretical (i.e. Sabellian) proposition, because the Son must be of a different hypostasis (i.e. ‘Person’) from the Father. And in fact there were present at the Council people, such as Marcellus of Ancyra, who were quite ready to maintain that there is only one hypostasis in the Godhead, and who were later to be deposed for heresy because they believed this.” (RH, 167) (“Marcellus of Ancyra had produced a theology … which could quite properly be called Sabellian” (RH, ix))

“The Creed of Nicaea of 325 … ultimately confounded the confusion because its use of the words ousia and hypostasis was so ambiguous as to suggest that the Fathers of Nicaea had fallen into Sabellianism, a view recognized as a heresy even at that period.” (Hanson)

The Holy Spirit

This anathema does not mention the Holy Spirit, just as the Creed does not say that the Holy Spirit is “God” or “of one substance with the Father.” The Nicene Creed, in its 325-form, focused on the Son. For that reason, this article also focuses only on the Father and Son.

Purpose

The purpose of this article is to determine whether that is really what the Creed says. For that purpose, it explains how these terms were used in the time leading up to the Nicene and in the rest of the fourth century. From this analysis, we can conclude whether the Nicene Creed teaches or contradicts the Trinity doctrine.

AUTHORS

This article uses the following codes for referring to the books of three world-class scholars who are regarded as specialists in the fourth-century Arian Controversy:

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

As far as possible, I quote from these scholars but I also want to explain these complex principles as simple as possible. For that reason, I sometimes abbreviate or paraphrase what they wrote.

Centuries before Nicaea

This section discusses how these terms were used in the centuries before Nicaea.

Etymology

Etymologically (i.e., relating to the origin and historical development of words and their meanings), hypostasis and ousia are direct cognates (See – Ousía and hypostasis from the philosophers to the councils). That means that these two words have the same linguistic derivation, just like the English father, the German Vater and the Latin pater are cognates. In other words, originally, therefore, hypostasis and ousia had the same meaning.

In Greek Philosophy

“Hypostasis … became a key-word in Platonism.” (RH, 182) Hanson says hypostasis and ousia were “borrowed from the pagan philosophy of the day” (RH, 846).

Ancient Greek philosophers also used these terms as synonyms. They used both ousía and hypostasis as meaning:

      • “That which stands under;” and
      • “The fundamental reality that supports all else.”
      • The primary, fundamental kind of being, in contrast to the objects in the sensible world which are mere shadows.

In other words, they used these terms to describe God.

In the Bible

The Bible does not use these terms to describe God. Hanson says:

“The pro-Nicenes are at their worst, their most grotesque, when they try to show that the new terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy of the day were really to be found in Scripture.” (RH, 846)

Ousia

The Bible never uses ousia to describe God. For a definition, see – The Free Dictionary or Liddell & Scott.

Hypostasis

“The word occurs five times in the New Testament” (RH, 182):

In the four instances where it is used NOT with reference to God, it is translated as ‘confidence’ and ‘assurance’ (2 Cor 9:4; 11:17; Heb 3:14; 11:1); consistent with the concept of ‘fundamental reality’ in Greek philosophy.

The fifth instance is Hebrews 1:3, in which “the Son is described as the impression (character) of the Father’s hypostasis and this must mean his nature.” (RH, 187) “It denotes God’s being or nature.” (RH, 182)

The word hypostasis also appears once in the Greek translation of the Old Testament:

“In the LXX, … at Wisdom 16:21 the writer speaks of God’s hypostasis, meaning his nature.” (RH, 182)

Note that, while hypostasis, today, is commonly understood to mean “Person,” in these two verses it is mostly translated as the “nature” of God (BibleHub).

In Origen’s writings

Origen wrote at the beginning of the third century. He was the most influential writer of the first three centuries. “The great majority of the Eastern clergy were ultimately disciples of Origen.” (Bible.ca, quoting W.H.C. Frend):

“For Origen the words hypostasis … and ousia are … synonyms for the same thing – distinct individual entity.” (RH, 66-67)

He “used hypostasis and ousia freely as interchangeable terms to describe the Son’s distinct reality within the Godhead.” (RH, 185)

As an example where Origen used these as interchangeable terms (synonyms), he “can argue … that the Logos is … separate in hypostasis or ousia from the Father.” (RH, 66-67)

As an example where Origen used these terms for a “distinct reality” (a Person, we might say), “he taught that there were three hypostases within the Godhead.” (RH, 184)

However, while Origen wrote that the Son is “separate in hypostasis or ousia from the Father” (RH, 66-67), the Nicene Creed states the opposite and condemns those who say that He “is of a different hypostasis or substance.

So, while ousia is understood today as “substance,” Origen used it for “Person” (a distinct reality):

“He can say … that the Son is ‘different in ousia’ from the Father, meaning that he is a distinct entity from the Father.” (RH, 66-67)

“His statement … that the Son ‘does not differ‘ in ousia from the Father does not … mean that the ousiai of the Father and Son are identical; the subsequent passage makes it perfectly clear … that they are distinct. But Origen means that they are not unlike, not of different natures.” (RH, 66-67)

Dionysius of Rome

Bishop Dionysius of Rome (in the middle of the third century) also used hypostases for ‘distinct individual entity’. For example, he “said that it is wrong to divide the divine monarchy ‘into three sorts of … separated hypostases and three Godheads’; people who hold this in effect produce three gods.” (RH, 185)

Conclusion

So, in summary:

      • In terms of origin, hypostasis and ousia are cognates (the same or similar nature), just like the English father and the German Vater.
      • Greek Philosophy used them as synonyms for “the fundamental reality that supports all else” (“God” in modern English).
      • The New Testament uses hypostasis once for God’s “nature” but never refers to God’s ousia.
      • Origen, a century before Nicaea, used the terms as synonyms for a “distinct individual entity” (a divine Person).
      • Bishop Dionysius of Rome, about 60 years before Nicaea, also used hypostases for ‘distinct individual entity’.

Therefore, in the time before the Arian Controversy:

      • The two terms were used as synonyms,
      • For “a distinct individual entity.”

In other words, ousia was NOT used for the substance of God. Williams refers to “the respectable pre-Nicene usage of ousia for primary (individual) substance.” (RW, 164)

When the Controversy began

Confusion

“Considerable confusion existed about the use of the terms hypostasis and ousia at the period when the Arian Controversy broke out.” (RH, 181) “Several alternative ways of treating these terms were prevalent.” (RH, 184)

Synonyms

“For many people at the beginning of the fourth century the word hypostasis and the word ousia had pretty well the same meaning:” (RH, 181)

“It is … likely that when Narcissus of Neronias at the Council of Antioch in 325 declared to Ossius that he believed in three ousiai he was equating ousia with hypostasis.” (RH, 187)

“Eusebius of Caesarea appears to accept the equation of hypostasis and ousia in the anathema of N quite readily.” (RH, 185)

But with different meanings

However, different authors gave different meanings to the same word. For example:

Ousia

Eusebius of Nicomedia used ousia to describe the Persons (distinct individual entities) of the Godhead. For example, he said “there are two ousiai and two facts (or “things”)” (RH, 185-6)

“Eusebius of Caesarea … uses ousia to mean substance.” (RH, 185)

Hypostasis

“Alexander of Alexandria … does not use the word ousia, but instead uses hypostasis for both ‘Person’ and ‘substance’” (RH, 186)

The manifesto of Antioch in 325, shortly before the Nicene Council “uses hypostasis to mean ‘substance’ or ‘nature’” (RH, 188).

Some used the terms in the “orthodox way.”

“When at last the confusion was cleared up and these two distinct meanings were permanently attached to these words,” hypostasis and ousia meant “’person’ and ‘substance’.” (RH, 181) But it seems as if some ‘Arians’ already used these terms in that way.

Arius, for example, said that the hypostases of Father, Son and Holy Spirit “were different in kind and in rank.” (RH, 187) (In other words, he used hypostasis for a “distinct individual reality’.)

He wrote, “The Father is alien in ousia to the Son” (RH, 186) and “the Logos is alien and unlike in all respects to the Father’s ousia.” (RH, 186) (In these instances, he used ousia for “substance.“)

Hanson concludes:

“It seems likely that he was one of the few during this period who did not confuse the two.” (RH, 187)

Another leading “Arian” “who clearly did not confuse ousia and hypostasis” was Asterius. (RH, 187):

He “said that there were three hypostases” and “certainly taught that the Father and the Son were distinct and different in their hypostases.” (RH, 187)

“He also described the Son as ‘the exact image of the ousia and counsel and glory and power’ of the Father.”

Note also, from these quotes, that Arius thought that “the Father is alien in ousia to the Son,” meaning that the Son’s substance is very different from the Father’s. In contrast, Asterius said that the Son is “the exact image of the ousia’ of the Father.” “He thought that the resemblance of the Son to the Father was closer than Arius conceived.” (RH, 187) As discussed, the so-called ‘Arians’ were not followers of Arius.

Conclusion

“The state of affairs as regards the use of hypostasis and ousia at the outset of … the Arian Controversy can … be stated (as) … a general state of indecision and uncertainty as to how either of them should be used:” (RH, 184-185)

Decades after Nicaea

“For at least the first half of the period 318-381, and in some cases considerably later, ousia and hypostasis are used as virtual synonyms.” (RH, 183) “It is only much later in the century that the two are more clearly distinguished by some.” (LA, 98)

“The distinction in meaning between ousia and hypostasis (both of which mean ‘something that subsists’) was worked out only in the late fourth century.”1Lienhard, Joseph T. Ousia and Hypostasis: The Cappadocian Settlement and the Theology of ‘One Hypostasis’. Oxford University Press.

The Cappadocians

“It was mainly under the influence of the Cappadocian Fathers that the terminology was clarified and standardized so that the formula ‘three hypostases in one ousia’ came to be accepted as an epitome of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.”2González, Justo L. (1987). A History of Christian Thought

Hanson similarly says that, even though some (in the time before the Cappadocians) “distinguished hypostasis, meaning distinct reality, from ousia, meaning ‘nature’ or even ‘substance’,” this does not mean that they have “anticipated the later meanings of those terms given to them in the second half of the century by the great Cappadoclan theologians.” He gives examples. For example:

“The concept of what we would now call the ‘Persons’ of the Trinity … had barely dawned on the consciousness of theologians.” (RH, 190)

“The concept of what each Person of the Trinity is in his existence and proper form distinct from the others had not yet been distinguished from the concept of what all of them were as full and equal (or even as partial and unequal) sharers of the Godhead.” (RH, 190)

Basil of Caesarea

Basil of Caesarea, one of the three Cappadocians, is in particular credited with this development:

“In some accounts Basil is the architect of the pro-Nicene triumph:” He “develops an account of the distinctions between persons and essence of such power that the final victory of pro-Nicene theology under the Emperor Theodosius is inevitable.” (LA, 187)

“The first person to propose a difference in the meanings of hypostasis and ousía, and for using hypostasis as synonym of Person, was Basil of Caesarea”3Johannes, “Ousía and hypostasis from the philosophers to the councils”, namely in his letter 214 (AD 375) and Letter 236 (AD 376).

Michael Pomazansky, in discussing the fact that the Nicene Creed uses the terms hypostasis (person) and ousia (substance) as synonyms, remarks: “Finally, following the authoritative example of St. Basil the Great, it became accepted to understand by the word Hypostasis the Personal attributes in the Triune Divinity.” (Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, p. 94-95). (Britannica)

Since Basil was born only born after the Creed was formulated (“around 330” (LA, 187)), the distinction between hypostasis and ousia did not yet exist when the Nicene Creed was formulated. In the Council itself, the two terms still had a similar meaning.

It is not just that the meanings of the terms changed; Basil formulated these meanings for these terms to establish the distinction between Being and Person:

Basil “is often identified” with the “distinction between a unitary shared nature at one level, and the personal distinctions of Father, Son, and Spirit at another.” (LA, 190-191)

This is important because it means that the concept of three Persons in one Being is not to be found in the Nicene Creed.

Why the meanings changed

On pages 189-190, Ayres discusses Basil’s motivation for developing the concept that God is one Being but three Persons. In brief:

Firstly, the Sabellians interpreted homoousios as meaning that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one single Reality (Person). Basil did not agree. He wanted to say that they are distinct but the same in every way.

However, then the anti-Nicenes objected that this implies three Ultimate Principles (three Beings who exist without cause and who are the cause of all life).

So, Basil developed the distinction to enable him to say they are three Realities (Persons) but only one Ultimate Principle (ousia).

To quote Ayres more fully:

In Letter 361, Basil seems to have had two concerns “about the difficulty of understanding homoousios appropriately:” (LA, 189)

“On the one hand, Basil may be expressing an anti-Marcellan concern with homoousios.” (LA, 190) Basil understood the phrase “light from light” to “speak clearly of two realities.” His concern was that homoousios may imply “that Father and Son are the same one light;” (LA, 190) (one single reality), as claimed by the Sabellians and Marcellus.

“On the other hand … it may well be that Basil of Caesarea’s concern in Letter 361 is” “that homoousios implies Father and Son are of identical ontological status. (In that case) Homoousios is unacceptable because it implies the existence of two ultimate principles.” (LA, 190) “To speak of Father and Son as simply having the same ousia would be … to present him as logically another God.” (LA, 190)

“Basil’s new distinctions have provided him with an understanding of homoousios that overcomes his earlier concerns.” (LA, 195)

Developed through Epinoia.

In brief, the anti-Nicenes said that the Bible teaches that only the Father exists without cause. Therefore, no other being can be equal to Him. But Basil argued that, if we reflect (epinoia) on certain texts, then “there is a unity of ousia between Father and Son.” To quote Ayres more fully:

“Basil’s Contra Eunomium,” consisting of “three books,” “probably finished in 363 or 364” (LA, 191) opposed the teachings of Eunomius, the leading ‘Neo-Arian’, also known as a hetero-ousian, meaning that he taught that the Son’s substance is different from the Father’s.

As Ayres discusses on pages 191 and following, Basil and Eunomius had different approaches:

For Eunomius, the main distinction between God and all other beings, including His Son, is that God is “ingenerate” (exists without cause). (LA, 194) “Ingenerate,” therefore, is “the primary name of God.”

Basil responded that “ingenerateness” is merely the absence of a quality “and hence it is unsuitable as the primary name of God.” (LA, 194) He argued that if ingenerateness is God’s primary identification, then “Father and Son are unlike” (LA, 194) and this, he argues, “flies in the face of biblical material such as Col 1:15, Heb 1:3, and Phil 2:6.”

Basil explained, on the basis of such texts, “by epinoia we know that there is a unity of ousia between Father and Son.” (LA, 194) Epinoia means “concepts developed by the human mind,” through “a process of reflection and abstraction” (LA, 191-2). Epinoia, therefore, means to extrapolate the text of the Bible beyond what it literally says. But Eunomius objected saying, “If we know God only according to epinoia, then our knowledge is insignificant and our faith useless.” (LA, 195)

The Distinction

Basil explained:

“The distinction between ousia and hypostases is the same as that between the general and the particular; as, for instance, between the animal and the particular man. Wherefore, in the case of the Godhead, we confess one essence or substance so as not to give variant definition of existence, but we confess a particular hypostasis, in order that our conception of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit may be without confusion and clear.”4González, Justo L. (1987). A History of Christian Thought: From the Beginnings to the Council of Chalcedon. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press. p. 307.

Gregory of Nyssa (AD 380)

After Basil of Caesarea, in c. 380, Gregory of Nyssa, another of the Cappadocians, devotes his letter 35 to the difference between ousía and hypostasis.

Council of Chalcedon

However, after the Cappadocians, many Latin-speaking theologians continued to use hypostasis and substance as synonyms. It was only from the middle of the fifth century onwards, marked by the Council of Chalcedon, that the word came to be contrasted with ousia and used to mean “individual reality,” especially in the trinitarian and Christological contexts.5González, Justo L. (1987). A History of Christian Thought: From the Beginnings to the Council of Chalcedon. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press. p. 307.

Conclusions

Confusion

So, when the Controversy began, and for a considerable time afterward, there was “a general state of indecision and uncertainty as to how either of them should be used.” (RH, 184-185) “The ambiguous anathema in N against those who believe that the Son is ‘from another hypostasis or ousia than the Father” was the consequence of “this unfortunate semantic misunderstanding.” (RH, 181)

This confusion helps to explain why the Controversy continued for another 55 years after Nicaea:

“When apparent agreement was reached at Nicaea in 325 the Creed … contained in one of its anathemas a confusion of terms so disastrous as to render its eirenic function (to promote peace or reconciliation) virtually worthless” (RH, xviii)

Synonyms

Since “for many people at the beginning of the fourth century the word hypostasis and the word ousia had pretty well the same meaning” (RH, 181), and since the Creed itself seems to use these terms as synonyms, it is quite possible that the Creed does indeed use “ousia and hypostasis” as synonyms. “It is only much later in the century that the two are more clearly distinguished by some.” (LA, 98)

Therefore, referring to the terms hypostasis and ousia in the Nicene Creed, R.P.C. Hanson states:

“They did not mean, and should not be translated, ‘person’ and ‘substance’, as they were used when at last the confusion was cleared up and these two distinct meanings were permanently attached to these words.” (RH, 181)

No Trinity Doctrine

One important implication is that the Trinity doctrine did not exist when the Nicene Creed was formulated in AD 325 because:

      • The distinction between hypostases (Persons) and ousia (Being or substance) is foundational in the Trinity doctrine, and because
      • That distinction was only developed decades later.

It is important to understand that ‘Pro-Nicene theology’ is different from ‘Nicene theology’. Lewis Ayres wrote:

“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.” (LA, 6)

Sabellian

Furthermore, since the Creed uses hypostasis and ousia as synonyms, it indeed says that the Son of God is the same hypostasis (Person) as the Father, which is a clear Sabellian statement.

Other Articles

  • 1
    Lienhard, Joseph T. Ousia and Hypostasis: The Cappadocian Settlement and the Theology of ‘One Hypostasis’. Oxford University Press.
  • 2
    González, Justo L. (1987). A History of Christian Thought
  • 3
    Johannes, “Ousía and hypostasis from the philosophers to the councils”
  • 4
    González, Justo L. (1987). A History of Christian Thought: From the Beginnings to the Council of Chalcedon. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press. p. 307.
  • 5
    González, Justo L. (1987). A History of Christian Thought: From the Beginnings to the Council of Chalcedon. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press. p. 307.
Posted on

Athanasius invented Arianism.

Purpose

The ‘Arian’ Controversy began in the year 318; only five years after the end of the “great persecution.” It began with a dispute between Arius, who was in charge of one of the churches in Alexandria, and his bishop Alexander. That Controversy continued until Emperor Theodosius made an end to it in 380; 62 years later.

The term ‘Arian” is derived from the name Arius. This implies that Arius was the founder and teacher of ‘Arianism’, which dominated the church for most of the fourth century. However, “in the first few decades of the present (20th) century … seminally important work was … done in the sorting-out of the chronology of the controversy, and in the isolation of a hard core of reliable primary documents.” (RW, 11-12) Consequently, “the four decades since 1960 have produced much revisionary scholarship on the Trinitarian and Christological disputes of the fourth century.” (LA, 11) On this basis, this article shows that Arius, in himself, was of no great significance, and continues to explain why it is called the ‘Arian’ Controversy:

Summary

The First Seven Years

Arius was of some significance during the first 7 years of the Controversy until the Nicene Council in 325 decidedly rejected his theology. However, his importance was limited. He was not the founder or leader of ‘Arianism’:

“Arius was part of a wider theological trajectory; Many of his ideas were opposed by others in this trajectory: he neither originated the trajectory nor uniquely exemplified it.” (LA, 2)

“Many of the issues raised by the controversy were under lively discussion before Arius and Alexander publicly clashed” (RH, 52). Arius “was the spark that started the explosion. But in himself he was of no great significance.” (RH, xvii)

“Many of Arius’ earliest supporters appear to have rallied to him because they, like him, opposed Alexander’s theology” (LA, 14).

The Next 55 Years

During the next 55 years of the ‘Arian Controversy’, Arius and his theology were no longer of any significance.

The Controversy of those 55 years was not caused by Arius. It was caused by the inclusion in the Nicene Creed of “new terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy of the day.” (RH, 846) The Controversy revolved specifically around the term homoousios, meaning “same substance.” This was a new and different dispute. As discussed in another article:

The Homo-ousians, with Athanasius on the forefront, defending the term against the anti-Nicene majority, argued that the Son’s substance is identical to the Father’s.

The homo-i-ousians claimed that His substance is similar to the Father’s, but not identical.

The hetero-ousians (the Neo-Arians) said that the Son’s substance is different from the Father’s.

The homo-ians said that we should not talk about God’s substance because the Bible does not say anything about it.

The point is that “Arius’ own theology is of little importance in understanding the major debates of the rest of the century” (after Nicaea) (LA, 56-57):

“Arius’ role in ‘Arianism’ was not that of the founder of a sect. It was not his individual teaching that dominated the mid-century eastern Church.” (RW, 165)

“Those who suspected or openly repudiated the decisions of Nicaea had little in common but this hostility … certainly not a loyalty to the teaching of Arius as an individual theologian.” (RW, 233)

Athanasius invented Arianism.

So, if the word “Arian” is derived from Arius’ name, and if Arius “in himself … was of no great significance” (RH, xvii), why is it called the ‘Arian Controversy’? The reason is that, while the anti-Nicenes sometimes accused Athanasius and the Nicene Creed of Sabellianism, Athanasius invented the term ‘Arian’ “to tar” his opponents with the name of another theology that was already then formally rejected by the church:

“’Arianism’ as a coherent system, founded by a single great figure and sustained by his disciples, is a fantasy … based on the polemic of Nicene writers, above all Athanasius.” (RW, 82)

But, since Athanasius’ opponents were NOT followers of Arius:

“Theologians who criticized the Creed of Nicaea had very diverse attitudes to Arius himself.” (RW, 247)

‘Arianism’ is a serious misnomer.

Since the term ‘Arianism’ implies “a coherent system, founded by a single great figure and sustained by his disciples” (RW, 82), Hanson concludes that “the expression ‘the Arian Controversy’ is a serious misnomer” (RH, xvii-xviii):

“This controversy is mistakenly called Arian.” (LA, 13)

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

– END OF SUMMARY –

Authors / Sources

This article series is based largely on the books of three world-class scholars who are regarded as specialists in the fourth-century Arian Controversy, namely:

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

Little of Arius’ writings survived.

Arius’ Own Writings

“As far as his own writings go, we have no more than three letters, (and) a few fragments of another” (RH, 5-6). The three are:

      1. The confession of faith Arius presented to Alexander of Alexandria,
      2. His letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, and
      3. The confession he submitted to the emperor. (RH, 5-6; RW, 95)

The Thalia

“The Thalia is Arius’ only known theological work” (RH, 10) but “we do not possess a single complete and continuous text.” (RW, 62) We only have extracts from it in the writings of Arius’ enemies, “mostly from the pen of Athanasius of Alexandria, his bitterest and most prejudiced enemy.” (RH, 6)

Why did so little survive?

If Arius was such an important person that the whole Fourth Century Controversy was named after him, why did so few of his writings survive?

Constantine destroyed Arius’ writings.

The usual explanation is that, a few years after the Nicene Council in 325, when Emperor Constantine thought that Arius threatened to split the church, he gave orders that all copies of the Thalia be burned so that “nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him.” He even commanded that those who do not immediately destroy Arius’ writings must be put to death (Constantine’s Edict)1Fourthcentury.com. 23 January 2010.

Arius was not a great theologian.

But that is not the real reason. The church remained ‘Arian’ for about 55 years after the Nicene Council. If Arius had that much support that his teachings would continue to dominate the church for another 55 years, then his supporters would have kept copies of his writings despite Constantine’s severe warnings.

The real reason is that Arius was not a great theologian and that not even his fellow ‘Arians’ regarded his writings as worth preserving. For example:

“It may be doubted … whether Arius ever wrote any but the most ephemeral works.” (RH, 6)

“The people of his day, whether they agreed with him or not, did not regard him (Arius) as a particularly significant writer.” (RH, xvii)

“He did not write anything worth preserving.” (RH, xvii-xviii)

The Arian Controversy had two phases.

To explain Arius’ relevance in the Arian Controversy, we must realize that the events of the Nicene Council in the year 325 divided the Arian Controversy into two parts:

The first phase focused on Arius.

The first part began with the dispute between Alexander and Arius in the year 318 and came to an end when the Council of Nicaea discussed and very soon rejected His theology:

“It became evident very early on (during the council meeting) that the condemnation of Arius was practically inevitable.” (RW, 68)

The second phase focused on Homoousios.

But then the Nicene Council, by inserting “new terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy of the day” (RH, 846) into the Nicene Creed, particularly the word homoousios, saying the Son is of the same substance as the Father, caused a new and different problem and caused the second and main phase of the Arian Controversy:

“The radical words of Nicaea became in turn a new set of formulae to be defended” (RW, 236).

These words were heard in debates before Nicaea but very infrequently. They were not part of the standard Christian language or confession and they were never before used in any Christian profession of faith. But since they were key words in Greek philosophy, Hanson describes them as “new terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy.” (RH, 846)

Williams, as a Trinitarian in good standing, accepts these words but he admits that these words were not used before Nicaea and they are an untraditional innovation:

“It was … impossible … to pretend that the lost innocence of pre-Nicene trinitarian language could be restored. … to reject all innovation was simply not a real option; and thus the rejection of homoousios purely and simply as unscriptural or untraditional could no longer be sustained.” (RW, 234-5)

This second phase lasted for a further 55 years after Nicaea. The point is that the controversy now no longer was about Arius’ theology but about the word homoousios.

The word Homoousios divided the church into four main branches.

To show further that Arius was irrelevant in the second and main phase of the Arian Controversy, we need to understand that, in the 50+ years of the second phase of the Arian Controversy, there was no such thing as a single Arian movement. The church was divided into a number of branches; similar to our denominations today:

The homo-ousians were the pro-Nicenes. They accepted the statement in the Nicene Creed that the Son is homoousios (of the same substance) as the Father. The anti-Nicenes were divided as follows:

The homo-i-ousians claimed that the Son’s substance is similar to the substance of the Father but not the same.

The hetero-ousians said that the substance of the Son is different from the Father’s.

The homo-eans rejected all uses of the word ousia (substance), including homoousios and homoiousios because these words are not Scriptural. For example:

The Homoeans made “attempts in the credal statements of conservative synods in the 350s’ to bracket the whole Nicene discussion by refusing to allow ousia-terms of any kind into professions of faith” (RW, 234).

Arius and Athanasius were the extremists.

Arius’ theology approximated that of the hetero-ousians. But the homo-i-ousians and the homo-ians dominated in the years after Nicaea. For example, several councils were held in which homo-i-ousian or homo-ian creeds were accepted to replace the Nicene Creed (e.g., the Long Lines Creed). In the mid-fourth century, the anti-Nicenes were the “mainstream Christians” and regarded both Athanasius and Arius as extremists:

“The very wide spectrum of non-Nicene believers thought of themselves as mainstream Christians, and regarded Athanasius and his allies as isolated extremists – though increasingly they also looked on the more aggressive anti-Nicenes (Aetius, Eunomius, and the like) as no less alien to the mainstream of Catholic tradition.” (RW, 82)

For the most part,
Arius was irrelevant.

So, Arius was important in the first 7 years of the Controversy, but in the second and main part of the Controversy, which raged for another 55 years, the focus was on the new words from pagan philosophy. In this phase, Arius was irrelevant. The following is further evidence of this:

His theology was irrelevant.

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

“Those who suspected or openly repudiated the decisions of Nicaea … certainly (did not have) a loyalty to the teaching of Arius as an individual theologian” (RW, 233).

The so-called ‘Arians’ opposed Arius.

“Arius was suspect in the eyes of the Lucianists and their neo-Arian successors.” (RW, 234)

“Arianism (was) the … long-lasting hostility to or unease with Nicaea among those who would have found the Thalia puzzling and none too congenial” (RW, 167).

“Holger Strutwolf (1999) … concludes that Eusebius initially misunderstood Arius as saying something similar to himself, and then distanced himself more and more from the Alexandrian as he realized his error, while still opposing the theology … advanced by Alexander” (RW, 261).

The so-called ‘Arians’ never quote Arius.

“The Arians could and did appeal to great names in the past … but not Arius!” (RH, 828).

“We have no knowledge of later Arian use of the Thalia [Arius’ book] … which suggests that it was not to the fore in the debates of the mid-century.” (RW, 65)

“He may have written a lot of works … but (not even) … his supporters … thought them worth preserving. Those who follow his theological tradition seldom or never quote him.” (RH, xvii)

Bishops supported Arius because they opposed Alexander.

Arius was supported by several bishops; not because they agreed with Arius, but because they opposed also Alexander:

“Many of Arius’ earliest supporters appear to have rallied to him because they, like him, opposed Alexander’s theology” (LA, 14).

“Arius gained support from some bishops …  Although these supporters may have been wary of some aspects of Arius’ theology … they joined in opposition to Alexander.” (LA, 17)

Eusebius of Caesarea “thought the theology of Alexander a greater menace than that of Arius.” (RW, 173)

Arius was not the leader of the ‘Arians’.

“We are not to think of Arius as dominating and directing a single school of thought to which all his allies belonged.” (RW, 171)

“Those who suspected or openly repudiated the decisions of Nicaea had little in common but this hostility … certainly not a loyalty to the teaching of Arius as an individual theologian.” (RW, 233)

“The bishops at Antioch in 341 … did not look on him as a factional leader, or ascribe any individual authority to him.” (RW, 82-83, cf. 166)

“Arius … was not an obvious hero for the enemies of Nicaea.” (RW, 166)

Arius was an academic.

“Arius, like his great Alexandrian predecessors, is essentially an ‘academic’.” (RW, 87)

“He (Arius) is not a theologian of consensus, but a notably individual intellect.” (RW, 178)

He did not leave behind a school of disciples.

“Arius evidently made converts to his views … but he left no school of disciples.” (RW, 233)

“Arius’ role in ‘Arianism’ was not that of the founder of a sect. It was not his individual teaching that dominated the mid-century eastern Church.” (RW, 165)

“The later ‘neo-Arians’ of the mid-century traced their theological ancestry back to the Lucianists rather than Arius” (RW, 31).

Arius was part of a wider theological trajectory.

“Arius was part of a wider theological trajectory; many of his ideas were opposed by others in this trajectory: he neither originated the trajectory nor uniquely exemplified it.” (LA, 2)

Arius was only the spark.

“Many of the issues raised by the controversy were under lively discussion before Arius and Alexander publicly clashed” (RH, 52).

“The views of Arius were such as … to bring into unavoidable prominence a doctrinal crisis which had gradually been gathering. … He was the spark that started the explosion. But in himself he was of no great significance.” (RH, xvii)

“In the fourth century there came to a head a crisis … which was not created by … Arius.” (RH, xx)

The fuel for the Controversy has been gathering over the previous centuries as writers expressed conflicting views about how the Son relates to the Father. Before Christianity was legalized, Christians were simply too busy just trying to survive to do much wrestling on this topic. But, as soon as the persecution came to an end, this explosion was inevitable. And Arius, as Hanson stated, was only the spark that ignited the fire.

Why, then, the name ‘Arian’?

If the word “Arian” is derived from Arius’ name, and if Arius “in himself … was of no great significance” (RH, xvii) during the second and main phase of the ‘Arian Controversy’, why is it called the ‘Arian Controversy’?

Athanasius invented Arianism.

The only reason we today use the terms “Arian” and “Arianism” is because:

“The textbook picture of an Arian system … is the invention of Athanasius’ polemic.” (RW, 234)

“‘Arianism’ is the polemical creation of Athanasius above all.” (RW, 247) (Athanasius was the main defender of Nicene theology against the anti-Nicene majority.)

“’Arianism’ as a coherent system, founded by a single great figure and sustained by his disciples, is a fantasy … based on the polemic of Nicene writers, above all Athanasius.” (RW, 82)

What was Athanasius’ purpose?

Athanasius’ purpose was to create the impression that, although the various anti-Nicene views seem to differ, they all constituted a single coherent system; all based on Arius’ teachings. For example:

“The textbook picture of an Arian system … inspired by the teachings of the Alexandrian presbyter, is the invention of Athanasius’ polemic.” (RW, 234)

“Athanasius’ controversial energies … are dedicated to building up the picture of his enemies as uniformly committed … to a specific set of doctrines advanced by Arius and a small group of confederates” (RW, 82-83).

“The professed purpose of Athanasius … is to exhibit the essential continuity of Arianism from first to last beneath a deceptive appearance of variety, all non-Nicene formularies of belief really lead back to the naked ‘blasphemies of Arius’.” (RW, 66)

“Athanasius … was determined to show that any proposed alternative to the Nicene formula collapsed back into some version of Arius’ teaching, with all the incoherence and inadequacy that teaching displayed.” (RW, 247)

Athanasius’ purpose, therefore, was to argue, since Arius’ theology was already formally rejected by the church, that all opposition to the Nicene Creed was also already rejected.

Athanasius defended against accusations of Sabellianism.

After Nicaea, the anti-Nicenes accused Alexander, Athanasius, and the Nicene Creed of submitting to Sabellianism; a theology which was already formally rejected during the previous century. For example:

“The so-called Semi-Arians in particular objected to this Greek term homoousios on the grounds that it has a Sabellian tendency.”2St. Athanasius (1911), “In Controversy With the Arians”, Select Treatises, Newman, John Henry Cardinal trans, Longmans, Green, & Co, p. 124, footn.

It was to counter this accusation, and “to tar” his opponents with the name of another theology that was already rejected, that Athanasius referred to his opponents as ‘Arians’.

“Heresiological labels enabled early theologians and ecclesiastical historians … to tar enemies with the name of a figure already in disrepute. Most famously some participants in the debate described loosely related but clearly distinct thinkers as Arians.” (LA, 2)

The term ‘Arian’ was intended to insult.

Athanasius was fond of insulting his opponents by calling them all sorts of names. (See Tuggy’s podcasts 169, 170, 171.) The name ‘Arian’ fits this pattern:

“’The Arians’, (and a variety of abusive names whereby he [Athanasius] distinguishes them.” (RH, 19)

Athanasius quotes Arius because he “relies on such texts being a positive embarrassment to most of his opponents” (RW, 234).

A Serious Misnomer.

There was no single, coherent ‘Arian’ party.

The term “Arian” creates the impression that there was only one anti-Nicene view. However:

As already shown above, the term homoousios divided the church into several different branches, including several very different anti-Nicene views.

“‘Arianism,’ throughout most of the fourth century, was in fact a loose and uneasy coalition of those hostile to Nicaea in general and the homoousios in particular” (RW, 166).

“Scholars continue to talk as if there were a clear continuity among non-Nicene theologians by deploying such labels as Arians, semi-Arians, and neo-Arians. Such presentations are misleading.” (LA, 13-14)

“There was no such thing in the fourth century as a single, coherent ‘Arian’ party.” (RW, 233)

Arius was not the dominant teacher.

Furthermore, the term “Arian” creates the impression that Arius was the dominant teacher of the ‘Arian’ movement and that his disciples propagated his theology later in the century. However:

“No clear party sought to preserve Arius’ theology. Many … are termed Arian … (but) their theologies often have significantly different concerns and preoccupations.” (LA, 13)

“There was no single ‘Arian’ agenda, no tradition of loyalty to a single authoritative teacher. Theologians who criticized the Creed of Nicaea had very diverse attitudes to Arius himself.” (RW, 247)

“The fourth-century crisis … is very far from being a struggle by ‘the Church’ against a ‘heresy’ formulated and propagated by a single dominated teacher” (RW, 234).

“It is virtually impossible to identify a school of thought dependent on Arius’ specific theology.” (LA, 2)

A Serious Misnomer

Since Arius was not the dominant teacher but, actually, a relatively unimportant person, and since there was no single ‘Arian’ party, our authors concluded that:

“The expression ‘the Arian Controversy’ is a serious misnomer.” (RH, xvii-xviii)

“’Arianism’ is a very unhelpful term to use in relation to fourth-century controversy.” (RW, 247)

“This controversy is mistakenly called Arian.” (LA, 13)

Rowan Williams concluded, “I was still, in 1987, prepared, even with reservations, to use the adjective ‘Arian’ in a way I should now find difficult” (RW, 248).

And Lewis Ayres said, “For these reasons some scholars now simply refrain from using the term Arian other than as an adjective to describe Arius’ own theology and I shall follow that practice.” (LA, 14)

A Complete Travesty

Hanson stated that the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, which stems originally from the version given of it by the victorious party, is now recognized by a large number of scholars to be a complete travesty. Our authors confirm:

The “older accounts (of the Arian Controversy) are deeply mistaken.” (LA, 11)

“The accounts of what happened which have come down to us were mostly written by those who belonged to the school of thought which eventually prevailed and have been deeply coloured by that fact.” (RH, xviii-xix).

This message, however, has yet to fully reach the level of preachers and ordinary Christians due to, as Williams indicated, the prejudice caused by the long history of ‘demonizing’ Arius is extraordinarily powerful. (RW, 2)

Athanasius distorts.

In the view of the Catholic Church and many, many Protestants, Athanasius is the hero of the Arian Controversy and they believe whatever he wrote. But, apart from Jesus, nobody is without sin, and the above shows that Athanasius’ writings distort the nature of that Controversy:

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

“This book has attempted to view Arius without the distorting gloss of Athanasian polemic intervening and determining our picture of the heresiarch.” (RW, 234)

The article titled Complete Travesty lists several aspects of the traditional account that are blatantly wrong but the fact that ‘Arianism’ is a serious misnomer is one of the more important aspects.

Trinitarian Christianity continued the deception.

Unfortunately, after Emperor Theodosius, in the year 380, made the Trinitarian version of Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire and ruthlessly eliminated all other versions of Christianity from amongst the Roman people, the victorious Trinitarian Christianity accepted and continued Athanasius’ description of the Arian Controversy.

Even today, any person who opposes the Trinity doctrine is labeled as an ‘Arian’, irrespective of what the person believes.

It was only after the ancient documents became more readily available in the 20th century that scholars realized that the textbook account of the Arian Controversy is a complete travesty. But this realization is slow to work its way through to the rank and file of Christianity. 

Other Articles

  • 1
    Fourthcentury.com. 23 January 2010.
  • 2
    St. Athanasius (1911), “In Controversy With the Arians”, Select Treatises, Newman, John Henry Cardinal trans, Longmans, Green, & Co, p. 124, footn.