Purpose
The fourth-century ‘Arian’ Controversy was the most dramatic internal struggle the Christian Church had experienced so far. It resulted in the Trinity doctrine, which some regard as “the centerpiece of orthodox theology” (GotQuestions).
In the traditional account of that struggle between the Nicenes and the Arians, the main issue was whether Jesus is God. However, over the last 100 years, based on new information and research, scholars have described the Controversy very differently. The question arises, what was the fundamental issue that divided the Nicens and Arians?
This article begins by explaining what the Controversy was NOT about. For example, it shows that, when the Controversy began, even the Arians described Jesus as divine. On the other hand, even the pro-Nicenes, even Athanasius, regarded Him as subordinate to the Father. Those issues did not divide the Arians and Nicenes.
This article evaluates different proposals of what the real main issue was:
In 1987, Lienhard proposed that the real main issue was the number of divine hypostases. In other words, whether the pre-incarnate Son is a distinct Person, as the Arians believed, or whether He and the Father are a single Person, as the Nicenes believed.
In 2011, Anatolios proposed that the main issue was whether the Son is homoousios with the Father.
Authors Quoted
The Traditional Account
The serious study of the Arian Controversy began in the 19th century. In that century, scholars relied excessively on Athanasius.
“Some of these problems and inconsistencies can be explained by the
fact that older research depended heavily on Athanasius as its source.
The 19th century lionized Athanasius.” (Lienhard, p. 416)
During the 20th century, a store of additional ancient documents became available. Based on this and research, 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.
“If Athanasius’ account does shape our understanding, we risk
misconceiving the nature of the fourth-century crisis” (RW, 234).
R.P.C. Hanson described the traditional account as a complete
travesty.
The Revised Account
Scholars today explain the fourth-century Arian Controversy very differently from 100 years ago:
"The four decades since 1960 have produced much revisionary
scholarship on the Trinitarian and Christological disputes of the
fourth century." (Ayres, p. 11)
The following are a few examples of how the explanation changed:
In the traditional account, the Trinity doctrine was already established as orthodoxy when the Controversy began. In reality, the orthodox view was that the Son is subordinate to the Father. (More)
In the traditional account, Arius caused the Controversy by developing a novel heresy. In reality, Arius was a conservative. The Controversy continued the controversy of the preceding century.
In the traditional account, Arius was important. In reality, he did not leave behind a school of disciples, had very few real followers, and nobody regarded his writings worth copying. (More)
In the traditional account, Athanasius defended orthodoxy. In reality, Athanasius was a Unitarian, not a Trinitarian. Like the Sabellians, he believed that the Son is an aspect or part of the Father. (More)
In the traditional account, Nicene theology ultimately triumphed at the Council of Constantinople in 381. In reality, already in the previous year (380), Emperor Theodosius had made Nicene Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire and outlawed all opposition.
Authors Quoted
This article series is based on the books of the last 50 years written by world-class Trinitarian scholars.
Following the book by Gwatkin at the beginning of the 20th century, only a limited number of full-scale books on the fourth-century Arian Controversy were published, of which R.P.C. Hanson's 1988 book was perhaps the most comprehensive and influential. That was followed in 2004 by a book by Lewis Ayres, which built on Hanson's book. This series also quotes from the 2002 book by Rowan Williams, which focuses more specifically on Arius, and from Khaled Anatolios (2011):
MS = Manlio Simonetti, La Crisi Ariana nel IV secolo, 1975 (Only available in Latin)
RH = Bishop R.P.C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987
RW = Archbishop Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987 (This book focuses specifically on Arius.)
LA = Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004 - Ayres’ book is based on the books by Hanson and Simonetti and “in some measure advances on their texts.” (Ayres, p. 5)
KA = Khaled Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea, 2011
The author of the current article did not study the ancient documents; only the books published over the last 50 years. For that reason, those books serve as the ‘Bible’ as far as this topic is concerned and this article probably provides too many quotes.
The False Main Issue
Whether Jesus is God
In the traditional account, the main issue was whether or not Jesus is divine. However, that is misleading. The Arians agreed that He is divine. They believed in a trinity of three divine Beings.
“It is misleading to assume that these controversies were about ‘the
divinity of Christ’.” (Ayres, p. 14)
“We have to resist the anachronistic characterization of him (Arius)
as an antitrinitarian theologian.” “He writes simply, ‘So there are
three hypostaseis,’” meaning “the set of beings that form the object
(or objects) of Christian confession. … the three hypostaseis
seemingly form a certain unity.” (Anatolios, p. 47-48)
The issue was also not whether to place the Son on either side of the Creator/creation boundary. Although the Arians did not regard the Son as equal to the Father, they did regard the Son as on the ‘God’ side of the God/creation boundary.
“A second approach that we need to reject treats the fourth-century
debates as focusing on the question of whether to place the Son on
either side of a clear God/creation boundary.” (Ayres, p. 4)
Since the Arians believed Jesus to be divine, they described Him as theos (usually translated as 'God'). However, since many different beings may be called theos, when there is the risk of ambiguity, the Bible and the ancients added words, such as "one" or "true" or "only" to identify the one true God (e.g., John 17:3). The Arians were careful to say that Jesus is not the 'one true God'.
The translation of the Greek term theos is difficult. The Greek word theos (Latin deus) had a much wider meaning than the modern term ‘God’:
The modern term “God” identifies one specific Being; the Ultimate Reality, the One who exists without cause.
The Greek of the Bible and the fourth century did not have an exact equivalent word. It only had the term theos. Originally, theos was the word for the Greek gods; thought to be immortal beings with supernatural powers, but it was used for beings with different levels of divinity.
“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 Lecture)
Commenting on the Council of Serdica in 343, where the Easterners (the
anti-Nicenes) 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)
When the Bible or fourth-century authors refer to Jesus as theos, it is typically translated as “God.” However, the Arians did not think of the Son as the Ultimate Reality but as subordinate to the Father. Therefore, when they refer to Jesus as theos, it should not be translated as “God.” Such instances should also not be translated as “god” for, in modern English, that term is typically reserved for false gods. That was not the Arian view. They regarded Him as truly divine. I would propose that theos be translated as ‘divine’ or left untranslated.
The same principle applies to the Bible. For example, when Thomas said, my Lord and my God," he used the same flexible Greek word 'theos'. What Thomas meant depends on the context. (Read Article)
Whether the Son is subordinate
The main issue was also not whether the Son is subordinate to the Father. In the traditional account, the Trinity doctrine was ‘orthodox’ when the Controversy began and the pro-Nicenes regarded the Father and Son as equally divine. That is false. Before Nicaea, all church fathers described the Son as subordinate.
“’Subordinationism’, it is true was pre-Nicene orthodoxy” (Henry
Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers p. 239.)
Therefore, when the Controversy began and for most of the fourth century, even the Nicenes regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father.
“The initial debate (i.e., between Arius and Alexander) was not about
the rightness or wrongness of hierarchical models of the Trinity,
which were common to both sides” (RW, 109).
“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)
Even Athanasius regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father. For him, the Son is part of the Father (Read Article) and, therefore, subordinate. Athanasius said that the Son is homoousios with the Father but was unwilling to say that the Father is homoousios with the Son. Basil of Caesarea was the first to insist on full equality.
Athanasius always described the Son “as proper to the Father, as the
Father's own wisdom,” meaning that the Son is part of the Father,
never the other way round. (Ayres, p. 206)
“In all the previous discussions (before Basil of Caesarea) of the
term (homoousios) … a certain ontological subordination is at least
implied.” (Ayres, p. 206)
Therefore, whether the Son is subordinate to the Father was also not the real main issue.
Not about Arius
In the traditional account, it was the ‘Arian’ Controversy, implying that Arius caused the Controversy by developing a novel heresy that became the main issue in the Controversy. That is also not true. Arius did develop a new theology. He was a conservative.
“Arius was a committed theological conservative; more specifically, a
conservative Alexandrian.” (RW, 175)
The traditional account further claims that Arius was able to win many converts due to his eloquence and persuasiveness. The reality is that Arius was not of any great significance. He had few real followers and did not leave behind a school of disciples. Nobody regarded his writings worth copying. His theology played no part in the Controversy after Nicaea:
“The people of his (Arius’) day, whether they agreed with him or not,
did not regard him as a particularly significant writer. … Neither his
supporters nor his opponents thought them (his writings) worth
preserving. … He virtually disappears from the controversy at an early
stage in its course.” (Hanson, p. xvii)
“It is virtually impossible to identify a school of thought dependent
on Arius' specific theology." (Ayres, p. 2)
So, the Controversy was not about Arius. The anti-Nicenes are misleadingly called ‘Arians’ and it should not be called the ‘Arian’ Controversy.
“The expression 'the Arian Controversy' is a serious misnomer.”
(Hanson, p. xvii)
“’Arianism’ as a coherent system, founded by a single great figure and
sustained by his disciples, is a fantasy.” (Williams, p. 82)
Nevertheless, this article continues to refer to the anti-Nicenes as Arians because that is the term most people know.
Whether He is a Created Being
The issue was also not whether the Son is a created being. Arius described the Son as made out of nothing. In his view, perhaps, the Son was created. But Arius was an extremist. The mainstream ‘Arians’ believed that the Son was begotten from the being of the Father. For example, Eusebius of Caesarea, the theological leader of the ‘Arians’, said: “He alone was born of the Father himself” (LA, 58). The Arians consequently believed that the Son shares the Father’s being.
“Many participants supposedly on different sides … (insisted) that one must speak of the Son's incomprehensible generation from the Father as a sharing of the Father's very being.” (Ayres, p. 4-5)
Although the Eusebians agreed that the Son was begotten from God’s being and shares the Father's very being, they did not agree that He has the same uncreated substance as the Father. Therefore, in their view, He is not eternal or immutable.
The Real Main Issue
Divine Hypostases
Joseph Lienhard (Marquette University) published an article in 1987 proposing that the real main issue, that divided the Nicenes and Arians, for most of the Controversy, was the number of divine hypostases.
“The way of using the word hypostasis characterized the two opposing
parties for much of the fourth century; one preferred to speak of one
hypostasis in God, the other of two (or three, if the Holy Spirit is
considered).” (Lienhard)
[expander_maker id="5" more="Show more" less="Show less"]
“I suggest calling the two conflicting theological systems
‘miahypostatic’ and ‘dyohypostatic’ theology, the theology of one
hypostasis and of two hypostaseis respectively.” (Lienhard)
Hypostasis Defined
Fourth-century theologians used the Greek term hypostasis for a distinct individual existence.
- An "individual existence” (Hanson, p. 193);
- "Distinct individuality" (Hanson, p. 53)
- “Something that really exists, and exists in itself, as distinguished from an accident or a quality;” (Lienhard)
Therefore, to say that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases implies "three distinct existences within the Godhead." (Litfin) In other words, Lienhard proposed that the real main issue was whether the Son is a distinct existence. In the opposing (one hypostasis) view, the Father and Son are a single existence. (Initially, the Holy Spirit was not part of the dispute.)
Other differences are consequences.
If this was the main issue, all other differences between Arian and Nicene theologies are consequences of this fundamental difference:
In the Nicene view, since the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person), the Son is eternal, immutable, and invisible.
In contrast, the Arians taught that the Father alone exists without a cause and caused the Son to exist. Consequently, the Son is dependent on and subordinate to the Father.
The Athanasians – One Hypostasis
Lienhard identifies the two opposing groups as the Athanasians and the Eusebians. The Athanasians included Athanasius, Alexander, the Sabellians, and most Western bishops.
“Athanasius, Marcellus, and the Westerners insisted just as vigorously
that the divine hypostasis, the reality of God, is singular.”
(Lienhard)
“The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is
close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and Athanasius. Eustathius
insists there is only one hypostasis.“ (Ayres, p. 69) (Eustathius was
the main Sabellian at Nicaea.)
They believed that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis, meaning that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three aspects or modes of a single Being. Consequently, the Son also exists without cause but it also means that He is not a distinct Being. He does not have a real distinct existence.
Athanasius' Theology
Hanson refers to Athanasius as the “paragon” (norm) of the West. (RH, 304) That is presumably why Lienhard refers to the 'one hypostasis' group as the Athanasians. What he believed, therefore, is critically important for this article. Possibly following Tertullian, who said that the Father is the whole, and the Son is part of the whole, Alexander and Athanasius believed that the Son is the Father's only Wisdom and Word. Therefore, He is in the Father and part of the Father. Consequently, the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (a single existence).
“In Alexander, and in Athanasius … Christ is the one power and wisdom
of the Father.” (Ayres, p. 54)
“In the Father we have the Son: this is a summary of Athanasius'
theology.” (Hanson, p. 426)
“The Son’s being belongs (idios) inalienably and inseparably to the
Father.” (Anatolios, p. 89, describing Athanasius) (In other words, He
is part of or an aspect of the Father.)
The “clear inference from his (Athanasius') usage” is that “there is
only one hypostasis in God.” (Ayres, p. 48)
Article
Sabellians
The Sabellians were part of the 'Athanasians'. The leading Sabellians in the early fourth century were Eustathius and Marcellus. They believed in a single hypostasis.
“Marcellus of Ancyra had produced a theology … which could quite
properly be called Sabellian.” (RH, xix)
"The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is
close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and Athanasius. Eustathius
insists there is only one hypostasis.“ (Ayres, p. 69)
“It is not surprising, however, that Eustathius was condemned for
Sabellianism. His insistence that there is only one distinct reality
(hypostasis) in the Godhead, and his confusion about distinguishing
Father, Son and Holy Spirit laid him open to such a charge.” (RH, 216)
Eusebians – Three Hypostases
Following Origen in the third century, the Eusebians, traditionally called the Arians, but including Arius, believed that the pre-incarnate Son is a distinct hypostasis.
“The dyohypostatic (two hypostases) tradition in the early fourth
century is most clearly and fully represented by Eusebius of
Caesarea.” (Lienhard)
“The Eusebians' most characteristic phrase for what is plural in God
is ‘two hypostaséis’.” (Lienhard)
“The majority of bishops in Asia Minor and Syria were sympathetic to
the dyohypostatic tradition.” (Lienhard)
The Eusebians believed in a trinity of three distinct divine Beings, with the Son and Spirit subordinate to the Father.
“He (Arius) writes simply, ‘So there are three hypostaseis,’” meaning
“the set of beings that form the object (or objects) of Christian
confession. … the three hypostaseis seemingly form a certain unity.”
(Anatolios, p. 47-48)
“There exists a Trinity in unequal glories” (Ayres, p. 55, quoting
Arius).
Not Three and One
It is critically important to understand that the idea that God is both one and three (one Being but three Persons), did not yet exist when the controversy began and did not exist for most of the fourth century. For the first 40 years of the Controversy, the Arians said three and the Nicenes said one. Nobody said that God is both one and three. Only in the 360s did Athanasius begin to reluctantly accept the possibility of “three hypostases.”
“In 362 a synod that Athanasius convoked in Alexandria marked the
first time that he admitted that the phrase ‘three hypostaseis’ might
be understood of God in an orthodox way, although he still preferred
‘one hypostasis’.” (Lienhard)
But Athanasius defended ‘one hypostasis’ to the end. The idea that God is one ousia (substance) but three hypostases (Persons) began with the Cappadocians in the 360-370s. We see proof of this in how the terms ousia and hypostases were used. In the Trinity doctrine, God is one ousia but three hypostases (Persons). Before the 360s, Athanasius and most others used these terms as synonyms. In other words, when Athanasius said that God is one ousia, he also said that God is one hypostasis. It was mainly Basil of Caesarea who made the distinction between the two terms that we today have in the Trinity doctrine, where ousia means substance and hypostasis means Person.
“Basil's most distinguished contribution … was in his clarification of
the vocabulary.” (Hanson, p. 690) He is best known for developing “the
distinctions between persons and essence.” (Ayres, p. 187)
However, the Cappadocian view of three divine hypostases brought Basil of Caesarea into severe conflict with the Western pro-Nicenes (Athanasius and his supporters, including the bishop of Rome), who defended one hypostasis. This is known as the Meletian Schism because it was particularly manifested in the controversy over who the bishops of Antioch must be; Meletius or the Sabellian Paulinus. (Read more)
Ayres
In his book, Ayres identified four ‘trajectories’ when the Controversy began:
- The ‘Eusebians’, including Arius,
- Alexander and Athanasius,
- Marcellus (representing Sabellianism), and
- The Western (Latin) theologists (See here)
However, this article will show the following:
Alexander and Athanasius allied with the Sabellians. For example, at Nicaea, Alexander joined forces with the Sabellians, and, later, Athanasius allied with Marcellus, the main fourth-century Sabellian. So, perhaps Marcellus must be grouped with Alexander and Athanasius.
Although both Athanasius and Basil of Caesarea defended the Nicene Creed, as stated, Athanasius aggressively opposed Basil, the first Cappadocian. So, perhaps the Cappadocians must be a separate category.
Note that both Lienhard and Ayres included Arius under the Eusebians. As stated, Arius was not a leader or an important writer. He was an Eusebian with some extreme tendencies.
Ayres confirmed that a deeper issue existed behind the four categories he identified. Similar to Lienhard, he identified the main issue as whether the Son is a distinct Being or whether He is part of the Father:
“Behind the original controversy lie conflicting approaches to the
Word's generation’. To what extent can we think of it as the emergence
of one distinct thing from another? How does one understand the
distinction between God and Word, Father and Son: is this the
distinction of two separate beings? Or is this distinction analogous
to that of a person who speaks his or her word (the word being here
only a dependent and temporary product of the speaker)?” (Ayres, p. 3)
A Distinct Person
In this quote, although Ayres comes to the same conclusion as Lienhard, he replaces the Greek term hypostasis with the English terms ‘thing’, ‘being’, and ‘person’. Hanson also uses the term ‘Person’ for a hypostasis.
“The Arians always accuse the pro-Nicenes of confounding the Persons
of the Trinity.” (RH, 102-3)
“Later theology would not have said that the Son was a mirror of the
Person (hypostasis) of the Father” (Hanson, p. 190)
Therefore, the core issue can also be stated as whether the Father and Son are a single Person, as the Athanasians claimed, or whether the Son is a distinct Person, as the Eusebians proposed.
A Distinct Mind
In normal usage, the term 'person' implies a distinct mind. However, while superficial descriptions of the Trinity doctrine sometimes claim that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three Persons or three hypostases, in the traditional Trinity doctrine, the three 'Persons' share a single mind. Therefore, the term 'Person' in the Trinity doctrine is misleading. (See here)
In contrast, in the fourth century, the terms hypostasis and 'Person' were used in the normal sense of a being with a distinct mind. Therefore, in the ‘three hypostases’ view, the three divine Persons have distinct minds:
“Arius also talks of two wisdoms and powers, speaking of a Logos that
was not distinct from the Father's hypostasis, after whom the Son is
designated Word.” (Ayres, p. 55)
“Eusebius of Caesarea, the historian and theologian” (Ayres, p. 58)
“speaks of two powers in God: the power of God unique to his nature
and a second power, the Word, who is the first principle of creation.”
(Ayres, p. 59)
The Eusebian Dedication Creed stated: “They are three in hypostasis
but one in agreement” (Hanson, p. 286) "Agreement" implies distinct
minds. (Read more)
In the Athanasian ‘one hypostasis’ view, the Father and Son share a single mind. Both Alexander and Athanasius claimed that the Son is the Father’s only Logos (Word, Wisdom). Consequently, the Son is part of the Father, and Father and Son are a single hypostasis.
The West responded to the Eastern view of three minds that
"differences and disputes could exist between God the Father Almighty
and the Son, which is altogether absurd." (Hanson, p. 302)
“He (Athanasius) is appalled at the Arian statement that the Son
exercises his own judgment of free-will.” (Hanson, p. 428)
In Athanasius’ view, “Christ is the one [the only one] power and
wisdom of the Father.” (Ayres, p. 54)
Therefore, an alternative for Lienhard’s classification is the Athanasian ‘one mind’ vs the Eusebian ‘three minds’.
Anatolios
In his 2011-book, Anatolios opposed Lienhard’s classification and proposed that the main question was whether the Son is homoousios with the Father. He calls it "unity of substance."
“We can identify two main trajectories.” (Anatolios, p. 45)
“The
essential distinction … was whether the divine Trinity was united
according to a unity of being, or by unity of will.” (Anatolios, p.
34-35)
“Unity of substance” is another way of saying homoousios:
“Whatever ambiguities may attach to the signification of the Nicene
homoousios, its clear intent of describing the relation of Father and
Son in the language of being aligned it unmistakably with theologies
of the ‘unity of being’ rather than ‘unity of will’.” (Anatolios, p.
82)
However, Anatolios qualifies this by saying that "unity of substance" (homoousios) can mean both that the Father and Son are one single substance (one hypostasis), as Athanasius claimed, or two distinct substances of the same type, as Basil of Caesarea claimed.
“To say this … does not presume, for example, that numerical oneness
or equality is a necessary feature of that unity so conceived.”
(Anatolios, p. 34-35)
Anatolios identifies Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, Alexander of Alexandria, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Apollinaris of Laodicea as ‘unity of being’ theologians. (Anatolios, p. 82-3)
“Alexander, Athanasius, and the Cappadocians, despite undeniable
differences and developments, all designated the relation between
Father and Son in terms of unity of being.” (Anatolios, p. 35)
While the Nicenes taught "unity of substance," the Arians taught “unity of will.” In other words, the Father and Son are two distinct substances (two hypostases) of different types of substances that are united in will.
“Arius, Asterius, Eusebius, and Eunomius, again despite all their
divergences, insisted that the relations between Father and Son
pertained to will, not to being.” (Anatolios, p. 35)
Comparing the Classifications
The Lienhard and Anatolios systems are very similar. ‘One hypostasis’ always means homoousios and homoousios, before Nicaea, only meant one hypostasis because it was preferred only by Sabellians, who taught one hypostasis. (See here)
The only type of theology that would be classified differently by the two systems is a theology that teaches three hypostases of the same type of substance. The only example is the Cappadocians. Lienhard stated that his system is valid only until 360. After that, it fails to distinguish between Nicenes and Arians because the Cappadocians, like the Arians, taught three hypostases. In other words, in Lienhard’s classification, the Cappadocians are classified with the Arians.
“One criticism leveled against it (Lienhard’s system) is … the fact
that the Cappadocians would have to be designated as dyohypostatic
would seem to suggest more continuity with the Arius-Asterius-Eunomius
trajectory.” (Anatolios, p. 32-33)
The original article is about 100,000 characters. The Stackexchange limit is 30,000. For the full article, see here.
