Athanasius’ revised explanation of the Nicene Creed

Overview

In 359-60, Emperor Constantius called a series of councils to formulate a creed for the entire church. The Homoousians (same substance) and Homoiousians (similar substance) were strongly represented, but, after pressure from the emperor, the delegates finally agreed to a Homoian creed, which rejected all substance language.

The Homoiousians were the Arian group nearest to the Homoousians. Seeking their support, Athanasius claimed that he and they fundamentally teach the same. By explaining the ousia (substance) phrases in the Nicene Creed figuratively, Athanasius attempts to persuade them to accept the Creed.

After Athanasius had returned from exile in 362, he called a Council in Alexandria to discuss these matters. After the Council, he wrote a letter (the Antiochene Tome), setting the minimum requirement for restoring communion as the acceptance of the Nicene Creed. However, Athanasius gave a new interpretation of the controversial terms:

Much of the Controversy up to this point revolved around the question of whether the Son is a hypostasis (a distinct Person), as the Arians claimed, or whether the Son is an aspect of the Father, namely the Father’s own Wisdom, as the Nicenes argued.

The Nicene Creed seems to say that the Father and Son are one hypostasis (a single Person). However, Athanasius now argues that the Creed can be interpreted as teaching three hypostases if the term hypostasis is understood not as literally three distinct Persons. Athanasius taught that the Son and the Spirit are internal to the being of the Father, but also claimed that they are identifiable as distinct aspects of the Father. So, if one uses the term hypostases figuratively, one can say that three hypostases exist. 

Athanasius says that the statement in the Creed, that the Father and Son are one hypostasis, must not be understood as saying that the Son and Spirit do not have distinct existences, but simply that the Father, Son, and Spirit share one nature, as opposed to the created order.

Another interesting aspect of the Antiochene Tome is that it claimed that Jesus Christ had a human soul and mind. This was different from Athanasius’ traditional theology. He had never previously admitted a human mind in Christ. So, why this change?


The Councils of 359-360

Twin Councils – In the years 359-60, Emperor Constantius called twin councils in the West (Seleucia) and the East (Ariminum) to formulate a creed for the entire church. Show More

In the Western Council, the Homoousians (the Nicenes = same substance) initially seemed to have had the upper hand, but, through pressure from the emperor, the council eventually accepted the Dated Creed, which states that all ousia language should be avoided. Show More

In the Eastern Council, the Homoiousians, who maintained that the Son is like the Father in substance, but not homoousios (the same substance), were in the majority but eventually also had to accept the Dated Creed. Show More

Although the Homoiousians rejected the term homoousios (same substance) and said that the Son’s substance is similar to the Father’s, they were the anti-Nicenes who were the nearest to the Nicenes (the Homoousians). Show More

De Synodis

Athanasius defends Nicaea – Athanasius discusses these councils in his De Synodis. In it, he claims that he and the Homoiousians “fundamentally teach the same doctrine.” He “reaches out to the Homoiousians by attempting to refute their objections to Nicaea’s two uses of ousia language, ‘of the Father’s ousia’ and homoousios” (Ayres, p. 171). He defends the phrase ‘of the Father’s ousia’ by saying that it merely means that the Son was not produced like the created things. And Homoousios is simply the necessary consequence of the phrase ‘of the Father’s ousia’. Show More

Non-literal – In other words, like Eusebius of Caesarea (see here), Athanasius had a non-literal and non-corporeal explanation of these terms.  He was also willing to accept those who accepted the Nicene Creed but had doubts only about the term homoousiosShow More

Misstatements – Seeking reconciliation with the Homoiousians, Athanasius made several misstatements about their theology. For example, he claimed that Homoiousians, such as their leader Basil of Ancyra, taught that the Son is from the essence of the Father and that the Son is the Father’s own Word and Wisdom. There, Athanasius wrote, they are not far from accepting even the phrase homoousios. Apparently, Athanasius’ knowledge of Arianism was defective. Show More

Homoousios – While Athanasius wrote that the Homoiousians effectively accepted homoousios, Basil wrote that the Father is ‘of an essence like himself,’ which seems like an intentional denial of homoousios. Basil has already explicitly anathematized homoousios, but Athanasius avoids commenting on it. Show More

The Father’s own – And while Athanasius wrote that the Homoiousians believed that the Son is the Father’s own Wisdom, Basil wrote that “Wisdom is Son of the Wise one,” which makes a clear distinction between the two Beings (Ayres, p. 173). “Epiphanius, in his commentary takes this phrase (of an essence like himself) to be an intentional denial of homoousios” (Ayres, p. 172). 

Conflict in Antioch

The Church in Antioch was frequently divided during the fourth century:

Eustathius, who was deposed after Nicaea for Sabellianism, was the bishop of Antioch at the time of the Nicene Council and was influential at that council. After he was removed from office, he had continued support in Antioch. In 361, Paulinus was the head of the continuing Eustathians in Antioch. Show More

Meletius was consecrated bishop of Antioch in 361 but was soon deposed for seeming to teach Homoiousianism. Later, Meletius accepted the Nicene Creed, but not as interpreted by the Nicenes (one hypostasis), but as interpreted by Basil of Caesarea (three hypostases). that are alike in all respects. Show More

“In Antioch there was also a sizable Homoian community” (Ayres, p. 176).

Alexandrian Council

Purpose – Constantine died in 361, after which all exiled bishops, including Athanasius, were allowed to return. After his return to Alexandria in 362, Athanasius called a council in that city to set out “basic rules for re-establishing communion with bishops who had subscribed to the decisions of Ariminum and Seleucia” (Ayres, p. 173).

Minimum Requirements – The council decided to set the Nicene Creed as a minimum requirement for restoring communion, except that the Holy Spirit must also be acknowledged as divine, which the Nicene Creed does not explicitly state. Show More

Antiochene Tome

After the council, Athanasius and others sent a letter to the Church in Antioch, known as the ‘Antiochene Tome’. In this letter, Athanasius adopted a new strategy. Show More

His aim is to convince other parties, particularly the Homoiousians, to accept the Nicene Creed. For that purpose, he attempts to explain the Creed in a way that is acceptable to them. 

The Nicene Creed identifies the Father alone as the ‘one God’ and seems to say that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (a single Person). Show More

This is consistent with Athanasius’ theology, in which the Son and Spirit are aspects of the Father, existing intrinsic to the being of the Father. Specifically, Athanasius believed that the Son is the Father’s own Wisdom and Word. Show More

The Western Manifesto formulated at Serdica in 433 explicitly states the belief in only one hypostasis. However, in the Antiochene Tome, Athanasius makes the deliberate misstatement that the Western bishop at Serdica never declared that only one hypostasis exists. Athanasius was present at Serdica and must have known that that was not true, but he made this false statement because he wanted to argue in this letter that three hypostases are also acceptable. Show More

In opposition to the one hypostasis that the Nicene Creed seems to proclaim, the Eusebians (Arians), including the Homoiousians, believed that the Son is a distinct Person. Consequently, they taught three hypostases. Show More

Much of the Controversy up to this point revolved around the question of whether the Son is a hypostasis (a distinct Person). While the Nicenes claimed that Father and Son are a single hypostasis, the Arians professed two hypostases. Show More

Since Athanasius desired the Homoiousians to accept the Nicene Creed, he attempts to explain the Nicene Creed as consistent with the ‘three hypostases’ principle by redefining the terms:

He firstly states that the Eusebian view, that the Son literally is a hypostasis (a distinct Person), and that three hypostases exist, as madness. Show More

He then proposes that the term “hypostasis might primarily indicate a logical distinction” (Ayres, p. 174). Although Athanasius taught that the Son and the Spirit are internal to the being of the Father, he also claimed that they are identifiable as distinct aspects or features of the Father. So, if one uses the term hypostases figuratively, one can say that three hypostases exist. Show More

One challenge of this is as follows: Since Athanasius taught that the Son and Spirit are aspects of the Father, even if the term hypostasis is used figuratively, two of the hypostases are internal to the third.

A second challenge to Athanasius’ new strategy is that the Nicene Creed explicitly states one hypostasis. He explains that one hypostasis is used “only to indicate that the divine is one reality distinct from the created order” (Ayres, p. 174). In other words, that the Father, Son, and Spirit share one nature, not to state that the “Son and Spirit are not truly existent realities.” Show More

Sabellianism – The letter rejects Sabellianism, defined here as “to destroy the distinct real existences of the Persons” (Hanson, p. 641). In Sabellianism, like in Athanasius’ theology, the Son and Spirit are aspects of the Father. However, in Sabellianism, the Son and Spirit only have temporary existence, while in Nicene theology they have eternal and permanent existence.

Synonyms – The letter claims “hypostasis to be equivalent to ousia” (Hanson, p. 641).

No reconciliation – Athanasius went to Antioch but was not reconciled to Meletius. Nor were the Meletians reconciled to Paulinus. The Meletians suspected Paulinus of Sabellianism, and Paulinus objected to Meletius’ teaching of three hypostases. Athanasius left Antioch, having recognized Paulinus as bishop of that city. Show More

Human mind

The Antiochene Tome claimed that Jesus Christ had a human soul and mind. Show More

This was different from Athanasius’ traditional theology. In Sabellian theology, Jesus has a human mind and received inspiration from God. But Athanasius never admitted a human mind in Christ. He explained Jesus as God existing in a human body. Show More

So, the question is whether Athanasius was serious when he said in the Antiochene Tome that Jesus has a human mind. Show More

Another question is, why this change? Hanson says that Athanasius never really understood Arian theology. Specifically, he never understood the Arian argument that Jesus Christ does not have a human mind. Arians argued that the Logos took the place of a human mind in Jesus so that the Logos directly suffered and died. Since Athanasius had now come to understand the Arian theory, he admitted a human mind in Christ. And yet, Athanasius never seriously integrated this into his doctrine of the Incarnation. Show More


Other Articles

The Dedication Council of Antioch of AD 341

Purpose

In 341, approximately 90 Eastern bishops met in Antioch and produced the Dedication Creed. The Eastern church previously exiled Athanasius and Marcellus, Athanasius in 335 for violence against the Melitians, and Marcellus for Sabellianism. However, in 340, the Western Church declared Athanasius blameless and Marcellus orthodox. Therefore, the Easteners met in 341 to discuss these events.

Both the Nicene and Dedication Councils were attended only by Eastern delegates, but the two creeds are very different.

While homoousios was the key term in the Nicene Creed, the Dedication Creed does not mention it at all.

While the Nicene Creed can be read as Sabellian, the Dedication Creed is strongly anti-Sabellian.

This article explains why these creeds differ. It also shows that, although the Easterners are accused of being Arians, the Creed is explicitly anti-Arian, describes the Son as God, but still presents the Son as subordinate to the Father.

In 341, approximately 90 Eastern bishops met in Antioch and produced the Dedication Creed. 

They produced four documents. The second, known as the Dedication Creed because the Council met to celebrate the dedication of a new church built by Emperor Constantius, is the most important.

This article quotes mainly from books published during the last 50 years by world-class Catholic scholars, specializing in the fourth-century Arian Controversy:

      • R.P.C. Hanson – The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987
      • Rowan Williams – Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987
      • Lewis Ayres – Nicaea and its legacy, 2004

Extracts from the Dedication Creed

Hanson provides the entire Creed (see below). Some important parts are as follows:

“We believe in one God Father Almighty,
artificer and maker and designer of the universe;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ his only-begotten Son, God,
Through whom are all things,
Who was begotten from the Father before the Ages,
God from God … Lord from Lord …
Unchanging and unaltering,
Exact image of the Godhead and the substance and will and power and glory of the Father,
First-born of all creation, who was in the beginning with God, God the Word according to the text in the Gospel [‘and the Word was God’, by whom all things were made, and in whom all things exist;]

And in the Holy Spirit

They are three in hypostasis but one in agreement.”

The Creed condemns all who say that:

“Either time or occasion or age exists or did exist before the Son was begotten.”

“The Son is a creature like one of the creatures” (Hanson, p. 286).

Purpose of the Council

The Council met to discuss the decision of the Western Church to vindicate Athanasius and Marcellus. 

The Eastern church previously exiled Athanasius and Marcellus, Athanasius in 335 for violence against the Melitians in his see (see here), and Marcellus for Sabellianism. Show More

However, in 340, the Western church, at a council in Rome, declared Athanasius blameless and Marcellus orthodox. Their vindication caused significant tension between the East and West. Show More

That tension was heightened by the letter that Julius, the bishop of Rome, wrote to the Eastern Church earlier in 341. In that letter, he accused the Eastern ‘Eusebians’ of Arianism, meaning that they are followers of Arius’ already discredited theology. The main purpose of the Dedication Council was to discuss these events. Show More

Like Nicaea, an Eastern Council

Both the Nicene Council of 325 and the Dedication Council were essentially councils of the Eastern Church.

The Dedication Council consisted exclusively of bishops from the Eastern part of the Empire. Show More

Similarly, almost all bishops attending Nicaea were from the East. Show More

But a Different Creed

Although the two meetings were held only 16 years apart and represented the views of the same people, there are significant differences between the Nicene and Dedication Creeds:

No Homoousios

While homoousios was the key term in the Nicene Creed, the Dedication Creed does not mention it at all.  

The Nicene Creed describes the Son using the terms ousia and homoousios. While these terms are viewed today as crucial, they are absent from the Dedication Creed.

The reason is that the term homoousios disappeared from the Controversy soon after Nicaea and was not mentioned for more than 20 years by anybody, not even Athanasius. Show More

Athanasius brought the Nicene Creed and the term homoousios back into the Controversy in the 350s. Show More

The Dedication Council of 341 and the Council of Serdica of 343 were both held during the period when nobody mentioned the term. 

Anti-Sabellian

While the Nicene Creed is pro-Sabellian, the Dedication Creed is anti-Sabellian.

The main difference between the two creeds is that, while the Nicene Creed is open to a Sabellian reading, the main purpose of the Dedication Creed is to oppose Sabellianism. Eminent recent scholars confirm the pro-Sabellian nature of the Nicene Creed. Show More

One indication of the Sabellian nature of the Nicene Creed is the use of the term homoousios. Before Nicaea, the term was preferred only by Sabellians. (See here) Sabellius himself, the Libyan Sabellians, Dionysius of Rome, and Paul of Samosata used it to say that Father and Son are one single Person. Show More

A second indication of the Sabellian nature of the Nicene Creed is that it states, in one of its anathemas, that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (a single individual existence), which is the hallmark of Sabellianism. Show More

Thirdly, after Nicaea, the Sabellians claimed the Nicene Creed as support for their theology. Show More

This is not to say that the Nicene Creed is clearly Sabellian, but at the least, it can be said that it does not exclude Sabellianism. Elsewhere, Hanson describes it as “a drawn battle. Show More

Note that Hanson above associates Sabellianism with a one-hypostasis theology. Sabellianism is one form of one-hypostasis theology, which is the teaching that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Person with a single Mind. Monarchianism and Modalism are other one-hypostasis theologies. The main dividing line in the fourth-century Controversy was between one- and three-hypostases theologies. In other words, the main dispute was whether the Son exists as a distinct Person (See here).

While the Nicene Creed seems to support Sabellianism, which is the denial of a distinction between the three within the Godhead, the main purpose of the Dedication Creed is to oppose Sabellianism. Show More

In contrast to the single hypostasis of Sabellianism, the Dedication Creed explicitly asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are “three in hypostasis but one in agreement” (Ayres, p. 118) “One in agreement” indicates the existence of three distinct ‘Minds’.

Why do these creeds differ?

The Nicene Creed is pro-Sabellian because Emperor Constantine sided with the Sabellians. 

Since almost all delegates at Nicaea were from the East and since almost all Easterners were ‘Arians,’ Alexander joined forces with the Sabellians. Similar to the Sabellians, Alexander believed that the Son is part of the Father and does not have an existence distinct from the Father. The Nicene Creed is pro-Sabellian because Emperor Constantine took Alexander’s part in the dispute. Consequently, the Sabellians were able to influence the wording of the Creed significantly. Show More

The Dedication Creed is strongly anti-Sabellian because the Nicenes were Sabellians. 

It is traditional to think that the Controversy was between the Nicenes and the Arians. However, both these terms are misleading:

Nicene theology was similar to Sabellianism. Both taught that the Son does not have a distinct existence but is part of the Father. Therefore, the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (one Person). Show More

The ‘Arians’ were not Arians because they did not follow Arius. They followed Origen. Since the Nicenes were accused of Sabellianism, which was already formally rejected, the Nicenes accused the Oigenists of Arianism, which was also already formally rejected (at Nicaea), but this was a false accusation. See here.

Anti-Arian

The Dedication Creed is anti-Arian.

Following Athanasius, the West accused the East of following Arius. For example, Julius, the bishop of Rome, in his letter to the Eastern Church, accused the Easterners of following Arius’ already discredited theology.

But the Easterners did not follow Arius. In the Dedication Creed, they said:

“We have not been followers of Arius.” (Ayres, p. 117-8)

“We have rather approached him as investigators and judges of his belief than followed him.” (Hanson, p. 285)

It is true that the Easterners did not follow Arius. Arius did not leave a school of followers. He was of little significance. Show More

Consequently:

“’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.” (Rowan Williams, p. 82) (Read More.)

Indeed, the Dedication Creed explicitly condemns some of Arius’ more extreme statements. Show More

The following describes the Dedication Creed:

It “represents the nearest approach we can make to discovering the views of the ordinary educated Eastern bishop who was no admirer of the extreme views of Arius but who had been shocked and disturbed by the apparent Sabellianism of N [the Nicene Creed], and the insensitiveness of the Western Church to the threat to orthodoxy which this tendency represented.” (Hanson, p. 290-1)

Subordinate

The Dedication Creed claims that the Son is subordinate to the Father. 

“The names of the Three signify the particular order and glory of each.” (Hanson, p. 287)

The Father alone is “Almighty.”

The Son is the Father’s agent in creation. The Father is “maker and designer of the universe,” but the Son is the One “through whom are all things” and “by whom all things were made.”

In contrast to the Father identified as the “one God,” the Son is the “one Lord.”

However, the subordination in the Creed is not a concession to Arius’ theology. At the time, all theologians, including the Nicenes, even Athanasius, regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father. Subordination was the orthodoxy at the time. Show More

Image of the Father’s substance

 The Dedication Creed interprets homoousios as meaning the Son is an image of the Father’s substance.

The Nicene Creed says that the Son is of the same substance as the Father (homoousios), which was understood by the Sabellians as means ‘one substance.’ The Dedication Creed claims that the Son is the image of the Father’s substance:

“The Son is ‘the exact Image of the Godhead, the ousia and the will and the power and the glory of the Father’.” (Hanson, p. 288)

This implies that the Son is distinct from the substance of the Father. Later in the fourth century, “image of the Father’s substance” became the catchphrase of the Homoiousians (meaning ‘similar substance’).

The Son is God.

 The Dedication Creed describes the Son as God.

The Creed regards the Son both as subordinate and as “God from God” (theos). However, the term theos in the Bible and in the 4th century was not equivalent to the modern word “God.” While we use the term “God” only for the Almighty, there were many theoi in ancient Greek:

“In the fourth century the word ‘God’ (theos, deus) had not acquired the significance which in our twentieth-century world it has acquired … viz. the one and sole true God. The word could apply to many gradations of divinity.” (Hanson, p. 456)

Commenting on the Council of Serdica in 343, where the ‘Arians’ issued a statement condemning “those who say … that Christ is not God,” Ayres says: “This reminds us of the variety of ways in which the term ‘God’ could be deployed at this point.” (Ayres, p. 124) 

See here for a more detailed discussion.

The Fourth Creed

The fourth creed avoids all non-Biblical language.

It was intended to serve as a means of reconciliation, and avoided all the terms derived from Greek philosophy, ousia and hypostasis. Show More

It condemns both Marcellus and Arius. “It has a special clause inserted against Marcellus” (Hanson, p. 292) and ends with an anathema against Arius:

“But those who say that the Son is from non-existence or of a different hypostasis, and not from God, and that there was once a time or age when he did not exist, these the holy Catholic Church recognizes as alien’.” (Hanson, p. 292)

It does not even address the crucial aspect of the number of hypostases in God. “it makes no attempt to establish the distinctness of the ‘Persons’ in an anti-Sabellian manner.” (Hanson, p. 292)

Full Dedication Creed

Hanson gives the Dedication Creed as follows:

“Following the evangelical and apostolic tradition, we believe in one God Father Almighty, artificer and maker and designer of the universe:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ his only-begotten Son, God,
through whom are all things,
who was begotten from the Father before the Ages,
God from God, whole from whole, sole from sole, perfect from perfect, King from King, Lord from Lord, living Wisdom, true Light, Way, Truth, unchanging and unaltering,
exact image of the Godhead and the substance and will and power and glory of the Father, first-born of all creation, who was in the beginning with God, God the Word according to the text in the Gospel [quotation of John 1:1, 3 and Col 1:17]

who at the end of the days came down from above and was born of a virgin, according to the Scriptures, and became man, mediator between God and men, the apostle of our faith, author of life, as the text runs [quotation of Jn 6:38], who suffered for us and rose again the third day and ascended into heaven and is seated on the right hand of the father and is coming again with glory and power to judge the living and the dead:

And in the Holy Spirit, who is given to those who believe for comfort and sanctification and perfection, just as our Lord Jesus Christ commanded his disciples, saying [quotation of Matt 28:19], obviously (in the name) of the Father who is really Father and the Son who is really Son and the Holy Spirit who is really Holy Spirit, because the names are not given lightly or idly, but signify exactly the particular hypostasis and order and glory of each of those who are named, so that they are three in hypostasis but one in agreement.

Since we hold this belief, and have held it from the beginning to the end, before God and Christ we condemn every form of heretical unorthodoxy.

And if anybody teaches contrary to the sound, right faith of the Scriptures, alleging that either time or occasion or age exists or did exist before the Son was begotten, let him be anathema.

And if anyone alleges that the Son is a creature like one of the creatures or a product like one of the products, or something made like one of the things that are made, and not as the Holy Scriptures have handed down concerning the subjects which have been treated one after another,

or if anyone teaches or preaches anything apart from what we have laid down, let him be anathema. for we believe and follow everything that has been delivered from the Holy Scriptures by the prophets and apostles truly and reverently.”


Other Articles