What did homoousios mean to the Nicene Council?

Introduction

Authors Quoted

Due to ancient documents that have become available and substantial research, scholars today explain the fourth-century Arian Controversy very differently from a century ago. In fact, R.P.C Hanson described the traditional account of the Arian Controversy as a complete travesty[Show More]

This article relies largely on books by scholars of the last 50 years and quotes extensively from them. But, to simplify this article, almost all quotes are hidden in ‘Show more’ sections. Nevertheless, since the scholarly view of the Controversy has changed so much, and since this is a highly controversial subject, these quotes are a crucial part of this article. This article relies mainly on the recent books by R.P.C. Hanson, Rowan Williams, and Lewis Ayres. [Show More]

Nicene Creed

The Nicene Creed, as formulated at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, is accepted as official doctrine by most denominations. It states that the Son is homoousios with the Father, meaning ‘of the same substance’. [Show More]

Homoousios has two Possible Meanings.

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

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

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

Since monoousios specifically means ‘one substance’, homoousios primarily has a qualitative meaning. [Show More]

Arius rejected both these possible meanings of the term because, for him, the Son’s substance is different from the Father’s. [Show More]

It is often said that the traditional Trinity doctrine teaches that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three Persons. However, leading orthodox scholars confirm that the term “Persons” is misleading because, in the Trinity doctrine, the distinction between Father, Son, and Spirit is invisible to humans and because the Father, Son, and Spirit share a single mind and will. Since the essence of the Trinity doctrine is that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Being, it interprets homoousios as ‘one substance’. [Show More]

In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, the Trinity doctrine has existed from the beginning of that controversy and homoousios in the Nicene Council also meant ‘one substance’. However, the Trinity doctrine did not exist at the beginning but evolved over the fourth century. On the contrary, subordination was orthodox when the Controversy began. [Show More]

Consequently, this article analyses what homoousios meant (1) before, (2) during, and (3) after Nicaea. It will show that scholars today conclude that homoousios at Nicaea did not mean ‘one substance’. It had a much looser, more flexible, and less specific meaning. [Show More]

The Term Arian

As is discussed here, the term ‘Arian’ is a complete misnomer because the Arius did not develop a new heresy, had only a few real followers, and did not leave behind a school of disciples. Scholars agree that the term ‘Eusebians’ would be more appropriate to describe the anti-Nicenes. Nevertheless, this article sometimes still uses the term ‘Arian’ for the anti-Nicenes because that is the term most people know.

Homoousios Before Nicaea

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

As shown below, at Nicaea, Emperor Constantine insisted on the term. Beatrice suggests that Emperor Constantine had a previous connection with Egyptian paganism and proposed the term at Nicaea partly because he was familiar with it from Egyptian paganism.  (See Article).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rome then persuaded Alexandria to accept the term but the bishop of Alexandria accepted it reluctantly and as meaning two substances of the same type. In other words, for him, the term did not mean that Father and Son are one Being or even that they are equal. In his view, Father and Son were two distinct hypostases and the Son can still be subordinate to the Father. [Show More]

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

Conclusions

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

Arius was conservative. In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, Arius was a heretic. However, Archbishop Rowan Williams, who recently published a book on Arius, described him as an Alexandrian conservative. It follows that Arius’ opponent Alexander was not conservative. The analysis above shows that, Arius followed the traditional Alexandrian teaching, which was consistent with the views of the Eastern Church, that the Son is a distinct Person. In contrast, Alexander followed Rome in teaching that the Father and Son are a single Person. See here for a discussion of Alexander’s theology. [Show More]

Homoousios at Nicaea

A Surprising Innovation

The term homoousios was a surprising innovation in the Nicene Creed. It is not found in the Holy Scriptures, was borrowed from pagan philosophy, did not appear in any precious creed, was not part of the standard Christian language of the day, and was already condemned in 268 at a Council in Antioch as associated with Sabellianism (Hanson, p. 198). Antioch was the headquarters of the entire church at the time. [Show More]

Furthermore, ‘same substance’ implies that God has a body, which nobody was willing to grant. [Show More]

For such reasons, the term homoousios seemed especially objectionable to most delegates at Nicaea, the vast majority of whom were from the East. Given these strong objections, some powerful force must have caused its inclusion in the Creed. [Show More]

Not even Alexander favoured the term. For example, a pro-Alexander meeting in Antioch a few months before the Nicene Council formulated a draft creed that “makes no use of the ousia language that we see in Nicaea’s creed.” (Ayres, p. 51) “The word homoousios is not to be found in the extant writings of Alexander of Alexandria.” (Beatrice

The Emperor enforced the term.

The powerful force that ensured the inclusion of the term was the emperor. As astounding as it might sound to people who grew up in a culture of separation of Church and State, in the Christian Roman Empire, the emperors were the final arbiters in doctrinal disputes. [Show More]

Similarly, the Nicene Council, like all fourth-century general councils, was called and dominated by the emperor. It was the Emperor’s meeting. It was not Constantine’s goal to find ‘the truth’ but simply to prevent this dispute from causing division in his empire.

The emperor not only proposed but used his influence to enforce the inclusion of the term. [Show More]

Emperor Constantine also dared to explain the word to that assembly of the church’s leaders. The Creed says that the Son is of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father because He is begotten from the Father’s substance. As stated, the Eusebians objected that this is unbiblical and untraditional language and sounds as if the Son was begotten like humans through a material, bodily process, which nobody was willing to grant. [Show More]

To counter such objections and to enable the Eusebians (the Arians) to accept these new terms, he insisted that these terms must be understood without material connotation. This shows his dominant role in the council. [Show More]

Constantine explained that these phrases merely mean that the Son is not out of any other substance, but out of the Father alone. [Show More]

With that non-literal explanation of the contentious terms, all delegates could agree. But the main point is that these untraditional terms were included in the Creed due to the emperor’s domination of the council. For more detail, see the discussion of Eusebius’ letter.

Why Constantine insisted on homoousios

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

Firstly, like the Sabellians, Alexander believed that the Father and Son are a single Person (one hypostasis) (See here) [Show More]

But Alexander’s one-hypostasis theology was in the minority because the vast majority of the delegates were from the East and, following Origen, believed in three hypostases, meaning the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct Beings. (See here.) [Show More]

Since he was opposed by this ‘three hypostases’ majority, and since his theology was similar to the Sabellians, Alexander joined forces with the Sabellians, led by Eustathius and Marcellus. [Show More]

Since the emperor had taken Alexander’s side, this alliance made the Sabellians influential at the council. [Show More]

Alexander did not prefer the term. For example, just a few months earlier, the draft statement prepared by the pro-Alexander council at Antioch did not mention ousia or homoousios. Constantine insisted on homoousios specifically because the Sabellians preferred the term. [Show More]

In conclusion, the Creed was the work of a Minority. The emperor’s authority allowed the one-hypostasis minority to include the term homoousios in the Creed, despite the Sabellian history of the term and despite the objections raised by the majority. [Show More]

Chairperson Ossius

Ossius, whom Constantine appointed as chair of the Nicene Council, was also his religious advisor. In the Council, he acted “as the Emperor’s representative” (Hanson, p. 154) and as Constantine’s “agent.” (Hanson, p. 190) His humble position in the church, as bishop of the small city of Cordova, did not qualify him as chair of that assembly.

He also believed in one hypostasis, similar to Alexander and the Sabellians. In all probability, it was Ossius who advised Constantine to take Alexander’s part. [Show More]

The Anathema confirms Sabellian domination.

Another indication of Sabellian domination in the Council is the anathema in the Creed against all “who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance.” This seems to say that Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person) and substance, which is the hallmark of Sabellianism. [Show More]

How did the delegates understand the term?

The delegates did not all understand the term in the same way.

The emperor’s vague explanation allowed the Eusebian majority to accept the term reluctantly. They were able to reconcile that explanation with their view that the Son is distinct from and subordinate to the Father. Like Dionysius of Alexandria, the Eusebians at Nicaea were forced to accept the term but accepted it only with a generic meaning.

The Sabellians, on the other hand, understood it as saying that the Father and Son are ‘one substance’; a single hypostasis (a single Person). Consequently, as discussed below, after Nicaea, the Sabellians claimed the Creed as support for their doctrine. [Show More]

However, in reality, the Eusebians knew that this term implies Sabellianism. For that reason, the same church mainstream (the Eusebians) opposed the Creed after Nicaea. [Show More]

Was Nicaea a Sabellian victory?

There are several indications in the Creed that the Son is subordinate to the Father. For example, the Father alone is called “Almighty,” and the Son is God’s agent in creation. (Read Article) Our authors say that Nicaea was a drawn battle between the Sabellian ‘one hypostasis’ theology and the Eusebian ‘three hypostases’ subordinationism. However, since homoousios was known to be a Sabellian term and given the anathema, perhaps it was a Sabellian victory. [Show More]

Homoousios after Nicaea

Arius’ specific theology was also no longer at issue after Nicaea. He had some extreme views, such as that the Son was made out of nothing, but almost the entire Nicene Council rejected his theology. [Show More]

Alexander was also not a main player after Nicaea. He died about three years after Nicaea. [Show More]

Nicaea caused Controversy – The Controversy after Nicaea was caused not by Arius, as is often claimed, but by the acceptance of the Sabellian term homoousios at Nicaea. The conflict in the decade after Nicaea was specifically about the meaning of this term. The Sabellians claimed that it supported their theology. [Show More]

Post-Nicaea Correction – The same war that raged between the followers of Origen and the Sabellians in the third century and at Nicaea, continued in the decade after Nicaea between the Eusebians (often but misleadingly called ‘Arians’) and the Sabellians. All leading Sabellians were deposed. This decade may be called the ‘Post-Nicaea Correction’ because it closed the door to Sabellianism that was opened at Nicaea. (Read Article). [Show More]

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

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

Athanasius did not defend homoousios. – During the years 335-6, Athanasius and Marcellus were deposed by the Eastern Church. Meeting in Rome, they joined forces. At that time Athanasius also developed his polemical strategy; his “masterpiece of the rhetorical art,” (Ayres, p. 106-7). However, in the 330s and 340s, Athanasius’ polemical strategy said nothing about homoousios. [Show More]

Homoousios Revived – By the time Constantius became emperor of the entire Empire in the early 350s, Athanasius had become extremely powerful and Constantius attempted to isolate Athanasius. In this time of crisis, in the mid-350s, 30 years after Nicaea, Athanasius revived homoousios to strengthen his polemical strategy. In this way, homoousios came back into the Controversy. Athanasius had become the West’s “paragon” (model) (Hanson, p. 304). Following Athanasius, the West also began to support homoousios. (Read More) [Show More]

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

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

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

Meletian Schism – In the 360s and 370s, in what is known as the Meletian Schism, a dispute between the Western and Eastern pro-Nicenes, Basil’s view of three hypostases brought him to oppose Athanasius and Westerners who taught one hypostasis. It is called the Meletian dispute because it manifested particularly in a dispute about who the bishop of Antioch must be. While Basil supported Meletius, the Westerners (Athanasius, Damasus of Rome and Athanasius’ successor Peter) supported Paulinus (another ‘one-Person’ theologian). [Show More]

The Core Issue

One or three Hypostases?

The core issue in the Controversy was whether the Son is a distinct Person. In the Greek of the fourth century, the core issue was whether the Father and Son are distinct hypostases:

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

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

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

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

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

Related to Homoousios

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

One Person => One Substance – All theologians who believed that the Father and Son are a single Person also believed that the Son is homoousios with the Father. In this view, homoousios is understood as saying that the Father and Son are ‘one substance’. Therefore, like the Father, the Son is eternal and immutable. These theologians included Tertullian, the Sabellians, Paul of Samosata, Alexander, Athanasius, and the Western Church generally. [Show More]

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

Ways of understanding the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

 (See here for the article on the Real Main Issue.)

Overview

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

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

After Nicaea, the Sabellian dominance at Nicaea re-ignited the third-century controversy. The Sabellians claimed that the term homoousios means that the church had accepted a one-hypostasis theology. This caused a few years of intense strife during which all leading Sabellians were exiled.

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

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

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

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

Western pro-Nicenes defended homoousios and explained it as saying that Father and Son are a single hypostasis (one Person). (Read More)

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

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

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

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

In the year 380, Emperor Theodosius made the Western pro-Nicene view the State Religion of the Roman Empire and subjected Arians to severe persecution. Over the subsequent centuries, with the support of the Imperial Forces, that State Religion became the Roman Church (the Church of the Roman Empire) and dominated the Middle Ages. Bible prophecy symbolizes it as the 11th horn of the fourth beast in Daniel 7. (Read More)

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

Other Articles

FOOTNOTES

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

Arius was a conservative, not an exegetical rebel.

Introduction

In the traditional account, the ‘Arian’ Controversy began with a dispute between Arius and his bishop Alexander.

Arius was a presbyter in the city of Alexandria, Egypt. In the year 318, he confronted his bishop Alexander for ‘erroneous’ teachings concerning the nature of the Son of God. Their disagreement escalated. So, Emperor Constantine called a council at Nicaea in the year 325 where Arius’ theology was presented, discussed, and soon rejected.

Purpose

This article discusses Arius’ antecedents: From whom did Arius receive his theology? Or did he develop his theology himself? In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, Arius’ theology was an innovation opposing established orthodoxy. But this article shows that Arius did not say anything new.

Was Arius important?

In the fourth century, Arius was not regarded as important. He is regarded as important today because Athanasius falsely claimed that the anti-Nicenes were followers of Arius.

Only a few pages of what Arius wrote survived until today because, as discussed in a previous article, Arius was not regarded as a particularly significant writer. As discussed here, while Athanasius’ enemies labeled him as a Sabellian, Athanasius invented the terms ‘Arian’ and ‘Arianism’ to label his enemies as followers of Arius’ theology, with all the incoherence and inadequacy that teaching displayed. But Athanasius’opponents did not follow Arius. They were the anti-Nicenes of a different place and time. Indeed, they also opposed Arius’ theology.

Nevertheless, Arius was significant in the first 7 of the 62 years of the ‘Arian’ Controversy. (See – The Arian Controversy had two phases.) To understand the Nicene Creed, we need to understand Arius.

Authors Quoted

This article series is based on the latest available books on this subject, all by world-class Catholic scholars and Trinitarians.

Following the last full-scale book on the Arian Controversy, published in English by Gwatkin at the beginning of the 20th century,1“Gwatkin nearly a century ago in the last full-scale book written in English on the Arian Controversy” (Hanson Lecture) R.P.C. Hanson in 1988 published perhaps the most influential book in modern history on the Arian Controversy.2Hanson RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381. 1988 This was followed in 2004 by a book by Lewis Ayres.3Ayres, Lewis, Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004 Ayres confirmed the importance of Hanson’s book.4“Richard Hanson’s The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (1988) and Manlio Simonetti’s La Crisi Ariana nel IV secolo (1975) remain essential points of reference.” (Ayres, p. 12) Ayres’ book is based on those surveys and “in some measure advances on their texts.” (Ayres, p. 5) I also quote from another important book by Rowan Williams, focusing specifically on Arius.5Williams, Rowan (24 January 2002) [1987]. Arius: Heresy and Tradition (Revised ed.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8028-4969-4.

Specific Predecessors

“A very large number of names have been suggested as predecessors of Arius.” (Hanson, p. 60)

“His enemies first associated him with Paul of Samosata and with Judaizing tendences in Christology; later on, after the reputation of Origen had been virtually ruined in the Church, Arius was regarded by some as an Origen redivivus (a reborn Origen). Some more modern scholars have been much preoccupied with the question of whether Antioch or Alexandria should be seen as his spiritual and intellectual home.” (Williams, p. 116)

This section summarizes Hanson’s and Williams’ conclusions concerning Arius’ dependence on specific predecessors:

Plato

Arius was influenced by Plato, but so was every other theologian of his time.

Plato’s philosophy of time and the origin of the universe still dominated in the fourth century and shaped what most influential writers of that time said about creation:

“Plato’s Timaeus served as the central text upon which discussions of the world’s origins focused, not only in late antiquity, but right up to the revival of Christian Aristotelianism in the thirteenth century. …

There can be no doubt that for many of the most influential writers of the age, from Origen to Eusebius Pamphilus, the contemporary discussion of time and the universe shaped their conceptions of what could intelligibly be said of creation.” (Williams, p. 181)

“Plato distinguishes between:

      • What exists without cause and, therefore always exists and never comes into being, and
      • The universe as we perceive it, which had a beginning, is not eternal, and never exists stably.” (Williams, p. 181)

Furthermore, Plato argues that, since the cosmos is beautiful; it must therefore be modeled upon what is higher and better. The Creator made something like himself; reflecting order and beauty. To establish this order, God created time. The heavenly bodies are made in order to measure and regulate time. In other words, so to speak, time did not always exist. (Williams, p. 181-2) (Similar to the modern big bang theory)

Philo of Alexandria

To the same extent that Arius was influenced by Philo, Alexandrian theologians, in general, were also influenced by him. Philo was not the origin of Arius’ idiosyncrasies.

Philo (20 BC – 50 AD) was a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who interpreted Jewish scripture in terms of Greek philosophy. That is significant because the Christian theologians of the second and third centuries did the same with the New Testament (See – the Apologists).

Wolfson concluded, “Arius was responsible for ‘a reversion to the original view of Philo’ on the Logos, after the aberrations of a modalism which deprived the Logos of real subsistence” (Williams, p. 117).

“Wolfson … suggested that Philo may have been a former of Arius’ thought because he too taught two Logoi, and the creation of one of them ex nihilo, and the incomparability of God.

But then, Wolfson was obsessed to an excessive degree with the influence of Philo on the fathers; Philo’s Logos-doctrine is confused and obscure; he does not make the same division between the Logos and God as did the Arians. We cannot claim Philo as an ancestor of Arius’ thought.” (Hanson, p. 60)

After discussing the evidence, Rowan Williams comes to a similar conclusion. He says that the similarities between Philo and Arius “should not … mislead us into hastily concluding that Arius was an assiduous student of Philo. What all this shows is, rather, that Philo mapped out the ground for the Alexandrian theological tradition to build on, and that Arius’ theological problematic is firmly within that tradition.” (Williams, p. 122-123)

Gnosticism

Arius also did not receive his theology from the Gnostics.

“There are some resemblances to Gnostic doctrines in Arius’ thought. … But these resemblances are either too general or refer to terms used for different things in the two authors. Furthermore, Arius several times rejects the favourite Gnostic concept of the ‘issue’ … of beings, from God.” (Hanson, p. 60)

Clement of Alexandria (150-215)

Arius inherited many things from Clement, just like he received many things from many other theologians, but the peculiar aspects of Arius’ theology cannot be blamed on Clement (Hanson, p. 60).

Clement was the bishop of Alexandria in the early third century in the same city where Arius and his bishop lived.

Clément’s theology included one of the peculiar aspects of Arius’ theology, namely, “two Logoi.” (See the explanation below.) However, Clement’s “two Logoi are quite different from those of Arius.” (Hanson, p. 60)

Furthermore, while Arius taught ‘there was when He (the Son) was not, Clement taught “the eternity of the Son.” (Hanson, p. 60)

Clement describes the Logos as:

“The primary image of God …
the ‘second cause’ in heaven,
‘life itself’.” (Williams, p. 125-126)

After showing that Clement’s theology is significantly different from that of Arius, Williams concludes:

“However, this is not to deny that Clement also passes on a positive legacy to Arius and his generation. … There are the numerous parallels in vocabulary between Arius’ Thalia and the language of Clement.” (Williams, p. 126)

“It is less a question of a direct influence on Arius than of a common ethos … Arius begins from the apophatic tradition shared by Philo, Clement and heterodox Gnosticism … but his importance lies in his refusal to … (admit) into the divine substance … a second principle.” (Williams, p. 131)

Origen (185-253)

Arius “was not without influence from Origen, but cannot seriously be called an Origenist.” (Hanson, p. 98)

Origen was the most influential theologian of the first three centuries. “From very early on, there were those who saw Origen as the ultimate source of Arius’ heresy” (Williams, p. 131). The similarities and differences between Origen and Arius are discussed in a separate article. Hanson concluded:

“Arius probably inherited some terms and even some ideas from Origen, … he certainly did not adopt any large or significant part of Origen’s theology.” (Hanson, p. 70)

Another article compares Arius’ theology to that of Origen in more detail. Origen taught three hypostases, meaning that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct Persons with three distinct minds. This was the dominant view in the third century and was also taught by the Eusebians, including Arius, in the fourth century. 

Dionysius of Alexandria

Arius probably received his theology from Dionysius of Alexandria, who was the bishop of the city when Arius was born.

“Dionysius was bishop of Alexandria from 247 to 264.” (Hanson, p. 72) “The Arians … were adducing (offering) Dionysius of Alexandria as a great authority in the past who supported their doctrine.” (Hanson, p. 73) For example, Dionysius wrote:

“The Son of God is a creature and generate,
and he is not by nature belonging to
but is alien in ousia from the Father,
just as the planter of the vine is to the vine,
and the shipbuilder to the ship;

Further, because he is a creature
he did not exist before he came into existence” (Hanson, p. 73).

“Dionysius … rejected homoousios because it did not occur in the Bible.” (Hanson, p. 75)

“Athanasius defends Dionysius, though he admits that he wrote these words, on the grounds that the circumstances, since he was combating Sabellianism, justified such expressions” (Hanson, p. 73).

“Basil … says that Dionysius unwittingly sowed the first seeds of the Anhomoian error, by leaning too far in the opposite direction in his anxiety to correct wrong Sabellian views” (Hanson, p. 74).

Hanson concludes as follows:

“However Dionysius may have refined his later theology, it is impossible to avoid seeing some influence from his work in the theology of Arius. The later Arians and Basil were right. The damning passage quoted from his letteris altogether too like the doctrine of Arius for us to regard it as insignificant.” (Hanson, p. 75-76)

“If, as seems likely, Arius put together an eclectic pattern of theology … Dionysius of Alexandria certainly contributed to that pattern.” (Hanson, p. 76)

In conclusion, of the writers discussed so far, Dionysius is the first one who really could have been the source of Arius’ theology.

Paul of Samosata

While this Paul believed that Jesus was a ‘mere man’ and did not exist before His birth, Arius believed that the Father begat the Son before time began.

Paul was Bishop of Antioch from 260 to 268. At the time, Antioch was the headquarters of the church. “Many scholars have conjectured that the views of Paul of Samosata, or at least of his school, must have influenced Arius” (Hanson, p. 70). However:

“Apparently for Paul the Son was Jesus Christ the historical figure without any preexistent history at all.

And the stock accusation made against Paul by all ancient writers who mention him from the ivth century onward was that he declared Jesus to be no more than a mere man.” (Hanson, p. 71)

“Apart from his (moral?) superiority to us in all things because of his miraculous generation, he is ‘equal to us’. Wisdom dwells in Jesus ‘as in a temple’: the prophets and Moses and “many lords’ (kings?) were indwelt by Wisdom, but Jesus has the fullest degree of participation in it.” (Williams, p. 159-160)

“This is an idea which all Arian writers after Arius (and, in my view, probably Arius himself) regularly rejected.” “Arius believed firmly in a pre-existent Son.” (Hanson, p. 71) “Arius … ranges himself with those who most strongly opposed Paul. (Williams, p. 161)

To conclude:

“We know very little with certainty about Paul of Samosata.” Therefore, “any attribution of influence from Paul of Samosata upon Arius must rest almost wholly upon speculation.” (Hanson, p. 72)

Theognostus of Alexandria

While Arius believed in two Logoi, meaning that the Son is a distinct Person with a distinct mind, Theognostus taught one Logoi, meaning that Father and Son share a single mind.

“We cannot glean any satisfactory evidence that Theognostus was a predecessor of Arius.” (Hanson, p. 79) Theognostus wrote between 247 and 280. His views “echoes Arian concerns in insisting that the Father is not divided” but he also had some quite un-Arian views, such as that:

The Son is an issue of the Father (Hanson, p. 78).

“The ousia of the Son … was (not) introduced from non-existence, but it was of the Father’s ousia.” (Hanson, p. 77) “Theognostus explicitly disowned the doctrine, which Arius certainly held, that the Son was created out of non-existence” (Hanson, p. 78).

While Arius taught “that there are two Logoi (one immanent in the Father and one a name given somewhat inaccurately to the Son),” … Theognostus insisted that there was only one Logos (Hanson, p. 79).

Methodius of Olympia

Methodius, like Arius, taught that the Father alone exists without cause, and that the Son is subordinate to the Father; the first of all created things.

Methodius of Olympia (died c. 311) was a bishop, ecclesiastical author, and martyr.

He was “the most vocal critic of Origen in the pre-Arian period” (Williams, p. 168). He “seems to assume that Origen’s doctrine of the eternity of creation implies the eternity of matter as a rival self-subsistent reality alongside God” (Williams, p. 168).

He “produces some views which interestingly resemble those of Arius. For example:

“The Son … is wholly dependent on the Father.” (Hanson, p. 83).

The Son is “the first of all created things” (Hanson, p. 83).

“God alone … is ingenerate [meaning, exists without a cause]; nothing else in the universe is so, certainly not, he implies, the Son.” (Hanson, p. 83)

“God the Father is the ‘unoriginated origin’, God the Son the beginning after the beginning, the origin of everything else created.” (Hanson, p. 83)

“God the Father creates by his will alone. God the Son is the ‘hand’ of the Father, orders and adorns what the Father has created out of nothing.” (Hanson, p. 83)

Lucian of Antioch

Arius drew on the teachings of Lucian. Arius represents a school, probably the school of Lucian of Antioch, but we do not know what Lucian taught.

The authorities above are discussed in chronological sequence. Lucian was the last of them. He died as a martyr in 312, only 6 years before Arius and his bishop clashed.

“Jerome ... describes Lucian thus: ‘A very learned man, a presbyter of the church of Antioch” (Hanson, p. 81). He was “well versed in sacred learning” (Hanson, p. 79).

Evidence that Arius was a follower of Lucian

“A figure to whom many scholars have looked in order to explain the origins of Arius’ thought is Lucian of Antioch:”

“Arius describes Eusebius of Nicomedia, to whom he is writing, as ‘a genuine fellow-disciple of Lucian’” (Hanson, p. 80), implying that Arius himself was a “disciple of Lucian.”

Philostorgius also described Eusebius of Nicomedia, one of Arius’ close friends, as “the _ disciple of Lucian the martyr’” (Hanson, p. 81).

Epiphanius identifies “the Arians” with “the Lucianists” (Hanson, p. 80). “’Lucian and all the Lucianists’, he says, ‘deny that the Son of God took a soul [i.e. a human soul), ‘in order that, of course, they may attach human experiences directly to the Logos.” (Hanson, p. 80) This was a standard teaching of the Arians.

Lucian’s theology

“According to Sozomen, the second creed of the Dedication Council on Antioch in 341 was said to be a confession of faith stemming from Lucian.” (Williams, p. 163-4; cf. RH, 80-81)

“There is one fact, and one fact only, which we can with any confidence accept as authentic about Lucian’s doctrine. … Lucian taught that the Saviour at the Incarnation assumed a body without a soul” (Hanson, p. 83).

But Arius deviated from Lucian.

“Philostorgius knew of a tradition that Arius and the Lucianists disagreed about the Son’s knowledge of the Father, (Williams, p. 165)

While Arius maintained “that God was incomprehensible … also to the only-begotten Son of God’ (Williams, p. 165), “the Lucianists … were remembered to have held that God was fully known by the Son … Eusebius of Caesarea says much the same.” (Williams, p. 165)

If these are true, then Arius differed from Lucian on this key aspect of his teachings.

Conclusions re Lucian

“We can be sure that Arius drew on the teachings of Lucian, but … we do not know what Lucian taught” (Hanson, p. 82, cf. 83). “Our witnesses to Lucian’s theology are fragmentary and uncertain in the extreme.” (Williams, p. 163)

“It is wholly unlikely that Arius was a vox clamantis in deserto (a lone voice calling in the desert). He represents a school, probably the school of Lucian of Antioch, and the school was to some extent independent of him. Arianism did not look back on him later with respect and awe as its founder.” (Hanson, p. 97)

Antioch or Alexandria?

Arius is an unmistakable Alexandrian. We have no real justification even for regarding him as a rebel in the matter of exegesis.”

“Some … modern scholars have been much preoccupied with the question of whether Antioch or Alexandria should be seen as his spiritual and intellectual home.” (Williams, p. 116).

However, “the stark distinctions once drawn between Antiochene and Alexandrian exegesis or theology have come increasingly to look exaggerated. (Williams, p. 158)

“Arius is an unmistakable Alexandrian in his apophaticism (knowledge of God). … We have no real justification even for regarding him as a rebel in the matter of exegesis.” (Williams, p. 156) “Arius inherits a dual concern that is very typically Alexandrian.” (Williams, p. 176)

Conclusions

Arius did not cause the Controversy.

The dispute around Arius continued the dispute that raged during the preceding century.

The analysis above shows that the authors preceding Arius had very conflicting views of the Son. Sabellian and his supporters are not even mentioned above because Arius was on the opposite end of the spectrum. Consequently:

“We will find pre-existing deep theological tensions at the beginning of the fourth century. Controversy over Arius was the spark that ignited a fire waiting to happen, and the origins of the dispute do not lie simply in the beliefs of one thinker, but in existing tensions that formed his background.” (Ayres, p. 20)

“The views of Arius were such as in a peculiar manner 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.” (Hanson, p. xvii-xviii)

Two authors influenced Arius.

The two authors who particularly influenced Arius were Dionysius of Alexandria and Methodius of Olympia:

Arius rejected Gnosticism and the theology of Paul of Samosata.

Arius is unmistakably Alexandrian in his theology and the general heritage of the church in Alexandria was shaped by Plato, Philo, Clement, Origen, and Lucian:

Arius’ theology was “clearly the result of a very large number of theological views.” (Williams, p. 171)

The two authors whom Arius could rightly claim as his theological predecessors are Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, and Methodius, bishop of Olympia:

It is likely that Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria contributed to Arius’ theology (Hanson, p. 76).

Bishop Methodius of Olympia regarded the Father alone as ingenerate; the ‘unoriginated origin’ and the Son as the first of all created things and wholly dependent on the Father (Hanson, p. 83).

While Hanson said that “Arius … represents a school, probably the school of Lucian of Antioch” (Hanson, p. 97), Williams proposed that “it is perhaps a mistake to look for one self-contained and exclusive ‘theological school’ to which to assign him” (Williams, p. 115).

Arius did not say anything new.

Arius was not the strange monster of heresy traditionally claimed.

Arius’ book (The Thalia) “is conservative in the sense that there is almost nothing in it that could not be found in earlier writers; it is radical and individual in the way it combines and reorganizes traditional ideas and presses them to their logical conclusions.” (Williams, p. 177).

“Arius … can no longer be regarded as the strange monster of heresy which Gwatkin, and even Harnack, depicted him to be” (Hanson, p. 84-85).

Specific Doctrines

This second section discusses specific doctrines that Arius might have received from his predecessors. Almost everything that Arius wrote can be found in the writings of his predecessors. This section relies on both the discussion above and the article – Was Origen the ultimate source of Arius’ heresy?

A Creature

Both Origen and Dionysius of Alexandria, like Arius, described the Son as a ‘creature’ (Hanson, p. 63).

“Origen did … describe the Son both as ‘having come into existence’ and as a ‘creature’. … But at the same time, he declares his belief in the eternity of the Son as a distinct entity from the Father” (Hanson, p. 63-64). He used the term ‘creature’ in the general sense of a being whose existence was caused by another. That would include ‘begotten’ beings.

Dionysius described the Son of God as “a creature,” “alien in ousia from the Father” (Hanson, p. 73).

Originated

Methodius and Origen, like Arius, taught that the Father generated the Son.

Methodius emphasized that the Father alone exists without a cause and, therefore, without a beginning. Origen, similarly, described the Son as “the originated God” (Hanson, p. 62).

Subordinate

All theologians of the first three centuries, like Arius, claimed that the Son is subordinate to the Father.

“Origen, with Arius, can be said to have subordinated the Son to the Father” (Hanson, p. 64). Hanson also explains that, for Origen, the Son was less subordinate than for Arius (Hanson, p. 64). Nevertheless, Hanson goes on to say that all theologians in the Eastern or the Western Church before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father.

“Subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement (end) of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy” (Hanson, p. xix).

For example, Bishop Methodius of Olympia (died c. 311) regards the Son as the first of all created things and wholly dependent on the Father (Hanson, p. 83).

Not fully understand

Like Arius, Origen taught that the Son does not fully understand the Father.

Produced by the Father’s will

In contrast to Nicene theology, in which God never decided to generate the Son, but that the Son simply always exists, “Ignatius, Justin, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria and Origen,” like Arius, taught “the Son was produced by the Father’s will.” (Hanson, p. 90)

Not homoousios

Dionysius of Alexandria, like Arius, “rejected homoousios” (Hanson, p. 75) and said that “the Son of God … is alien in ousia from the Father.” (Hanson, p. 73)

There was when He was not

Dionysius of Alexandria, like Arius, said that the Son did not always exist.

As indicated by the anathemas attached to the Nicene Creed, one of the main aspects of Arius’ theology to which the Council objected was that the Son is from non-existence and, related to that, that there was when He was not. In opposition to this view, the Nicene Creed interprets “begotten” as that He is from the substance of the Father. Hanson says that “Arius’ view, that “the Son was created from non-existent things, has never been supplied with a convincing antecedent.” (Hanson, p. 88)

But I would like to differ a bit from Hanson in this regard. I cannot find where Arius adds the word “things” to this statement. Arius merely said, “God made him ‘out of non-existence'” (Hanson, p. 20, 24). This means that the Son did not exist before He was begotten. Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria said the same thing about 50 years earlier when he said:

“Because he is a creature he did not exist before he came into existence” (Hanson, p. 73).

Two Logoi

Both the traditional Logos-theology of the Gentile church and Sabellianism taught ‘one Logos’, meaning that Father and Son only have one mind between them. Alexander and Athanasius continued this teaching by Arius taught ‘two Logoi’.

One of the aspects of Arius’ teaching was ‘two logoi’. Clement of Alexandria also taught “two Logoi” (Hanson, p. 60) but Theognostus of Alexandria “insisted that there was only one Logos” (Hanson, p. 79).

Logos-theology had only one Logos.

The church became Gentile (non-Jewish) dominated in the second century but was still persecuted by the Roman Empire. Most of these Gentile Christians accepted Logos-theology, which interpreted the New Testament based on Greek philosophy, which still dominated the intellectual world of the Roman Empire (see – The Apologists).

In Greek philosophy, God’s Logos (the Word or Wisdom has always existed as part of God but became a hypostasis (a distinct existence) when God decided to create. These church fathers explained the pre-existent Jesus Christ as the Logos of Greek philosophy and, therefore, as God’s only Logos. In this theology, God does not have another Logos. In other words, God does not have his own ‘mind’ or ‘Wisdom’ apart from His Son.

In the third century, Sabellianism challenged Logos-=theology but Sabellianism was rejected. Consequently, Logos-theology was the general explanation of the Son with which the church entered the fourth century. For example, Theognostus of Alexandria (247 to 280) “insisted that there was only one Logos” (Hanson, p. 79).

Since Hanson mentions only one theologian who taught “two Logoi” (Clement of Alexandria, p. 60), presumably all other theologians taught one single Logos – as per the traditional Logos theology. For a further discussion, see – Logos-Theology

Arius deviated from Logos-theology.

Both Alexander and Athanasius noted that Arius taught two Logoi (two Wisdoms): The Son is Logos and God has His own Logos (mind). For example, Athanasius, in his paraphrasing of Arius’ teaching, wrote:

“There are … two Wisdoms, one God’s own who has existed eternally with God, the other the Son who was brought into existence. … There is another Word in God besides the Son” (Hanson, p. 13, cf. 16).

The fact that they mentioned this shows that they regarded this as noteworthy and a deviation from tradition. Arius is very often accused of bringing philosophy into the church. However, his ‘two Logoi’ seem to protest against the influence of Greek philosophy on church doctrine:

“Our mistake is to try to interpret him (Arius) in terms of a theology with which he was not at home, the Logos-theology he shares with his opponents.” (Williams, p. 12)


OTHER ARTICLES

FOOTNOTES

  • 1
    “Gwatkin nearly a century ago in the last full-scale book written in English on the Arian Controversy” (Hanson Lecture)
  • 2
    Hanson RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381. 1988
  • 3
    Ayres, Lewis, Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004
  • 4
    “Richard Hanson’s The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (1988) and Manlio Simonetti’s La Crisi Ariana nel IV secolo (1975) remain essential points of reference.” (Ayres, p. 12)
  • 5
    Williams, Rowan (24 January 2002) [1987]. Arius: Heresy and Tradition (Revised ed.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8028-4969-4.