Orthodoxy Archives » From Daniel to Revelation

Overview

The ‘Arian’ Controversy raged for most of the fourth century. It is often thought that today’s Trinity doctrine was accepted orthodoxy when the Controversy began, and that Arius introduced a novel heresy, causing a struggle over the next 50 years between established orthodoxy and a new heresy. This is false in several respects:

(1) Arius did not introduce anything new. He was a conservative and part of a much larger trajectory.

(2) The theology of Arius’ opponent, Alexander, was not the orthodox view at the time. His theology was similar to that of the Sabellians, which the Church had already rejected as heresy.

(3) The dispute between Arius and Alexander was not new but a continuation of the third-century controversy.

(4) When the Controversy began, all believed the Son is subordinate to the Father. The Cappadocians, in the late 4th century, taught full equality of substance, but still taught that the Son is subordinate to the Father.

(5) The Nicene Creed was not ‘orthodox.’ Particularly, the term homoousios was not standard Christian language at the time and was preferred only by Sabellians.

(6) The Trinity doctrine of today did not exist when the Controversy began. Nicene theology evolved during that Controversy.

Introduction

Purpose

The fourth-century Arian Controversy began as a disagreement about the nature of the Son of God, with Arius and his bishop Alexander representing two opposing views. This article explains what the ‘orthodox’ view was when the Controversy began.

Overview of the Controversy

In the first three centuries, Christianity was illegal and persecuted. Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in 313. The Controversy began five years later with a dispute between Arius and his bishop Alexander. In 325, a church council at Nicaea (see here) accepted the Nicene Creed (see here). The most controversial aspect of that Creed was the use of the term homoousios to say that the Son is of the same ‘substance’ as the Father (see here).

For the next 55 years, most Christians opposed that Creed, particularly the term homoousios. Several creeds were formulated to find alternatives for the term. [Show More]

However, in the year 380, Emperor Theodosius ended the Controversy by issuing a Roman law that made ‘one hypostasis’ theology, which later evolved into Trinitarian Christology, the state religion of the Roman Empire (see here). Through the Imperial Forces, the emperor ruthlessly exterminated all opposing views among the Roman people. For example, he forbade ‘Arians’ to settle in cities, to have churches, or to have worship meetings. Therefore, the Controversy ended when persecution resumed.

The traditional account of the Controversy is fundamentally flawed.

Due to research and a store of ancient documents that have become available over the last 100 years, scholars today conclude that the traditional account of the Controversy – of how and why the church accepted the Trinity doctrine – is history written by the winner and fundamentally flawed. In some instances, it is the opposite of the true history.

This article series is based on books from the last 50 years.

Following the last full-scale book on the fourth-century Arian Controversy in English, written by Gwatkin at the beginning of the 20th century, only a handful of full-scale books on the Arian Controversy have been published. This article series is largely based on the following books:

Hanson, Bishop R.P.C.
The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God –
The Arian Controversy 318-381 (1987)

Williams, Archbishop Rowan
Arius: Heresy and Tradition (2002/1987)

Ayres, Lewis
Nicaea and its Legacy (2004)
Ayres is a Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology

Anatolios, Khaled
Retrieving Nicaea (2011)

The term Arian is a serious misnomer.

Anti-Nicene are traditionally called Arians, implying that they followed Arius. However, Arius did not leave behind a school of disciples. He had very few real followers. Nobody regarded his writings as worth copying. His theology played no part in the Controversy after Nicaea. The term Arian, therefore, is a serious misnomer. Instead of the term ‘Arians,’ Ayres refers to the anti-Nicenes as Eusebians, meaning followers of the two Eusebii. Arius was a follower of Eusebius. (See here)

Orthodoxy

In the traditional account, the Trinity doctrine was accepted orthodoxy.

In the traditional account of the ‘Arian’ Controversy, the Trinity doctrine was accepted orthodoxy when the Controversy began, but Arius developed a novel heresy. Consequently, the Controversy was a struggle of an established orthodoxy against a newly developed heresy. [Show More]

However, there was no formally agreed ‘orthodoxy’ position.

Hanson wrote that the Arian Controversy “was not a history of the defence of an agreed and settled orthodoxy against the assaults of open heresy. … (because) there was not as yet any orthodox doctrine” (Hanson, p. xviii-xix).

It is commonly believed today that the Trinity doctrine was orthodoxy because the pro-Nicene writers, such as Athanasius, claimed that their view was orthodox:

“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. The supporters of this view wanted their readers to think that orthodoxy on the subject under discussion had always existed and that the period was simply a story of the defence of that orthodoxy against heresy and error.” (Hanson, p. xviii-xix)

Arius did not develop a novel heresy. He was a conservative.

He was part of a larger trajectory; which Ayres calls the ‘Eusebians.’ The view Arius represented had long since co-existed alongside other views. (See here) His theology was similar to that of Dionysius, who was bishop of Alexandria when Arius was born. (See here)

“The fourth century was not a conflict between an ancient and established orthodoxy on the one hand and an emergent Christological heresy on the other.” (Hart)

Nicene theology was not orthodox when the Controversy began.

The theology of the Nicene Creed was also not new. It was “one strand of the ancient interpretative tradition over against others” (Trevor Hart). However, the theology of the Nicene Creed was not the accepted ‘orthodox’ view when the Controversy began. Particularly, the word homoousios was one of the “new terms borrowed from the pagan philosophy of the day” (Hanson, p. 846). It was not used in any previous creed or part of the standard Christian language of the day. (See here)

Nicene Christology evolved.

The Trinity doctrine did not yet exist when the Controversy began.

We need to distinguish between the Nicene Creed and Nicene theology. The Trinity doctrine or Nicene theology, as we know it today, did not yet exist when the Controversy began. It evolved over that century as one way of understanding the Nicene Creed.

“Original Nicene theology was a fluid and diverse phenomenon, and one that kept evolving.” Athanasius attempted to “offer a convincing version of that original Nicene theology” but “it was to be many years before those attempts evolved into what I shall term pro-Nicene theology.” (Lewis Ayres, 99)

“This is not the story of a defence of orthodoxy, but of a search for orthodoxy.” (Hanson, p. xix-xx) That is why Hanson named his book, ‘The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God’.

“Orthodoxy on the subject of the Christian doctrine of God did not exist at first. The story is the story of how orthodoxy was reached, found, not of how it was maintained” (Hanson, 870).

There was no ‘creed’ as yet that formulated orthodoxy.

Hanson says there was not yet any orthodox doctrine when the Controversy began. He adds:

There were no “clearly defined groups and boundaries.” “Clear definition is just what was lacking, and was, in fact, what gradually came to be established as the century wore on.”

Rowan Williams agrees: “Nicene apologists thus turn ‘Arianism’ into a self-conscious sect – as if the boundaries of Catholic identity were firmly and clearly drawn in advance. But the whole history of Arius and of Arianism reminds us that this was not so” (Williams, 83).

This firstly means that what is today regarded as orthodox did not yet exist. Furthermore, there was no ‘creed’ that formulated orthodoxy.

The orthodox view was that the Son is subordinate.

But there was an ‘orthodoxy’ in the sense that all theologians agreed that the Son is subordinate to the Father. This may surprise the reader, but what the church fathers of the first three centuries taught is regarded today as heresy. For example:

Much of what the Church Fathers taught “in the first three centuries … would have been forbidden as heterodox from 381AD onwards.”

The term homoousios had already been rejected as Sabellian in a church council in the third century (in 268).

All pre-Nicene church fathers regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father.

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

In this quote, Hanson refers specifically to “the Eastern theologians.” Since, at Nicaea, the delegates were “drawn almost entirely from the eastern half of the empire” (Ayres, p. 19), almost all delegates at Nicaea believed that the Son was subordinated to the Father.

“There is no theologian in the Eastern or the Western Church before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy [in the fourth century], who does not in some sense regard the Son as subordinate to the Father.” (Hanson, p. 64) [Show More]

When the Controversy began, the orthodox view was subordination.

The “conventional Trinitarian doctrine with which Christianity entered the fourth century … was to make the Son into a demi-god.” (Hanson article)

Furthermore, almost all 4th-century theologians regarded the Son as subordinate.

“Indeed, until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism. It could, about the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of catholic theology.” [RPC Hanson, “The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD” in Rowan Williams, ed., The Making of Orthodoxy (New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989) p. 153.]

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

The first theologian to teach full equality was Basil of Caesarea, but he became bishop only in 370. (See here)

Subordination was orthodox because Logos Theology was orthodox.

The history of the first three centuries explains the subordination ‘orthodoxy’:

The Logos of Greek Philosophy

Greek philosophy was still a strong force in the Roman Empire during the first three centuries. In that philosophy, God is immutable and can communicate with our world of change and decay only through an intermediary. For that reason, Greek philosophy proposed a Logos as a Second Hypostasis (a second and distinct Being) and as an intermediary between the high God and the physical world.

Logos Theology

During those centuries, while the Roman Empire still persecuted Christianity, the Apologists (the pre-Nicene fathers) defended Christianity before the Gentile peoples of the Roman Empire. Since the Roman intellectual world had accepted the idea of a divine but subordinate Logos as Intermediary between God and creation, the apologists found it effective to identify “the pre-existent Christ … with the nous or Second Hypostasis.” (Hanson article)

Since the Logos of Greek philosophy was “a second, created god lower than the High God” (Hanson article), the pre-Nicene fathers described Christ also as “a subordinate though essential divine agent.” (Hanson article) Therefore, as Hanson explains, going into the controversy, the orthodoxy was that Christ is subordinate to the Father.

Logos-theology was orthodox.

If there was an ‘orthodoxy’ when the Controversy began, it was the Logos-theology of the Apologists, in which the Son is a subordinate Intermediary between the High God and His creation:

“The great majority of the Eastern clergy (at Nicaea) … were simply concerned with maintaining the traditional Logos-theology of the Greek-speaking Church.” [The Rise of Christianity by W.H.C. Frend]

The fourth-century ‘Arians’ believed in a Trinity of three divine Beings.

They believed that the Son and Spirit are subordinate to the Father, who alone exists without cause and gave existence all things, including the Son and Spirit.

The pre-Nicene fathers did regard the Son as divine and did describe Him as theos (God).

The pre-Nicene fathers did regard the Son as divine and did describe Him as theos (God). They described all three divine Beings as theos because the term theos is not equivalent to the modern word ‘God.’

‘Theos’ was the word for the Greek gods; thought of as immortal beings with supernatural powers.

In modern English ‘God’ refers only to the Ultimate Reality. Fourth-century ‘Arians’ would refer in today’s English only to the Father as ‘God.’ Read more.

For example:

“The word theos or deus, for the first four centuries of the existence of Christianity had a wide variety of meanings. There were many different types and grades of deity in popular thought and religion and even in philosophical thought.” (Hanson article)

In the thinking of the pre-Nicene fathers, “of course Christ was divine.” However, “how divine, and what exactly did ‘divine’ mean in that context?” (Hanson article)

CONCLUSION

Other articles expand on the concepts in this article:

One relevant article shows that the theology of Alexander and Athanasius was similar to the Sabellians. They believed that the Father and Son are a single Person with a single mind. (See here)

Another article shows that the Real Main Issue in the entire Controversy, beginning in the second century, was whether the Son of God is a distinct Person, meaning a distinct Mind. While Alexander, Athanasius, the Sabellians, and the Western Church defended the ‘one Person’ (one hypostasis) view, Arius and the ‘Arians’ taught that the eternal Son is a distinct Person. (Read more)

Tag: Orthodoxy

What was orthodox when the Arian Controversy began?