Category: Trinity Doctrine

The Arian Controversy, over the nature of Christ, which really already began in the 2nd century, after several centuries, resulted in the formulation and acceptance of the Trinity doctrine, the church’s most important doctrine. However, as ancient documents became more readily available over the last 100 years, scholars realized that the traditional explanation of that Controversy, of how and why the Church accepted the Trinity doctrine, is a complete travesty.

INTRODUCTION

The Arian Controversy

The 4th-century Controversy, over the nature of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, began in 318 with a dispute between Arius and his bishop, Alexander of Alexandria. 

In total, the Controversy lasted for 62 years. When it ended, all those who had taken part at the beginning were already dead.

It is often assumed that it was one single Controversy. In reality, controversy raged about different things at different times. At times, there was no controversy. 

Importance of the Controversy

This was the greatest internal struggle the Christian Church had experienced so far. It led to the acceptance of the Trinity doctrine, the church’s most fundamental doctrine. Therefore, it was also the most important controversy in the history of the church.

This controversy has never really died down completely. It is almost inevitable that this Controversy would flare up again in the end-time crisis, as predicted in Revelation 13.

Traditional Account – A Travesty

In understanding the Arian Controversy, the fundamental problem is that the documentary evidence from this period is fragmentary. 

Over the centuries, the Church preserved almost exclusively the writings of the orthodox, or Nicene, theologians. Consequently, when the modern study of the Controversy began in the 19th century, scholars relied on these Nicene theologians, particularly Athanasius, to explain the events of the Controversy.

However, during the 20th century, a store of ancient documents became available. 

This stimulated a period of extensive research. 

Unfortunately, this research found that the Nicene writers were deeply biased. The traditional account of that controversy is history written by the winner. It is fundamentally flawed. R.P.C. Hanson, perhaps the most influential modern scholar on the Controversy, described the traditional account as “a complete travesty.” He said it can be completely ignored.

Since the Controversy gave rise to the Trinity doctrine, it is the traditional account of the Origin of the Trinity doctrine that is a complete travesty.

Purpose of this article

After posting many articles on the Controversy on this site, and after studying the subject on a full-time basis for some years, the purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the Controversy. That includes identifying several errors in the traditional account. This article only summarizes the conclusions from these other articles. It does not always attempt to justify these conclusions. For further information, links to the more detailed articles are provided.

Authors Quoted

Following Gwatkin’s book at the beginning of the 20th century, only a few books on the Arian Controversy have been published. 

To avoid the errors of the traditional account, this article series is based primarily on writings from the past 50 years. It also avoids generalist writing and focuses on experts in the field. These authors include:

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

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

Ayres, Lewis
Nicaea and its legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (2004)

Anatolios, Khaled
Retrieving Nicaea (2011)

Although this article series is based on, and quotes extensively from such writers, the conclusions are my own.

CAUSE OF THE CONTROVERSY

Traditional Account

In the traditional account, Arius caused the Controversy by developing a radical new heresy, winning many converts, and founding a large and dangerous sect, Arianism. 

In this view, the Controversy was a struggle of an established orthodoxy against a newly developed heresy.

Arius was not the Cause.

However, he did not develop a new heresy, was not a radical, and did not cause the Controversy.

Rowan Williams, who wrote a recent book specifically on Arius, described him as a conservative, specifically, an Alexandrian conservative. He was part of an existing theological trajectory, defending a traditional Alexandrian theology. 

Many supported Arius, but they did not follow him. They belonged to the same conservative theological trajectory as Arius. In reality, Arius had few real followers. He certainly did not establish or lead a new sect. Therefore, he did not cause the Controversy.

An Existing Controversy

In other words, it was not a new controversy. In the second and third centuries, there were deep theological tensions about the nature of Christ. In the second century, Monarchianism opposed Logos-theology. In the third, Origen opposed Sabellianism. Also in the third, Rome and Alexandria were in dispute over the term homoousios. Therefore, the opposing sides were well established when Christianity was legalized in 313. The dispute between Arius and his bishop, Alexander, re-ignited an existing fire.

That also explains why the dispute between Arius and Alexander spread quickly beyond Alexandria. The battle lines were already formed in the previous century.

THEOLOGIES COMPARED

Nicene Theology

In the traditional account, Nicene theology is equivalent to the Trinity doctrine. In reality, there were fundamental differences:

In the Father

In the Trinity doctrine, the Father and the Son are two distinct Persons, sharing equally in the one divine Being. In contrast, for Athanasius, the great defender of Nicene theology, the Son is an internal aspect of the Father, not a distinct Person.

His predecessor, Alexander, also regarded the Son as internal to the Father, a property or quality of the Father.

Only One Person

In other words, only one divine Person, or hypostasis, exists – the Father. If these terms are used in their generic senses, Nicene theology was unitarian, not trinitarian.

The Father’s Wisdom

Specifically, Athanasius and Alexander thought of the Son as the Father’s one and only Wisdom. The Father had no other Wisdom. For example, they would say that, if there was a time when the Son was not, as Arius claimed, then there was a time when the Father had no wisdom.

One Hypostasis

The Nicenes, e.g., Alexander and Athanasius, expressed their faith by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are one single hypostasis.

In fourth-century Greek, a hypostasis is a distinct individual Existence:

For example, the Arians and the Cappadocians, who argued for three hypostases in the Godhead, said that the three hypostases are united in agreement. In other words, three hypostases mean three distinct minds, three distinct Beings.

Conversely, the Nicenes and Sabellians, who argued for one hypostasis in God, believed in only one mind in the Godhead. Therefore, the view that only one hypostasis” exists, as the Nicenes held, means that the Father and Son are a single Being.

Monotheism

Nevertheless, the Trinity doctrine and Nicene theology are both forms of monotheism, the belief that only one divine Being exists. The Trinity doctrine is often stated as the view that there are three divine Persons. However, in the Trinity doctrine, only one divine mind, will, and consciousness exists. Therefore, in the Trinity doctrine, the term ‘three Persons’  is misleading. 🔗 

Subordination

In the traditional account, Nicene theology, like the Trinity doctrine, held that the Father and Son are equal. It is then said that Arianism is the view that the Son is subordinate to the Father. In reality, all theologians, including the Nicenes, regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father.

For example, Alexander argues for a ‘great distance’ between the unbegotten Father and the created order, and then describes the only-begotten Word as mediating between these two, ‘holding the middle place’. 

Athanasius played down Alexander’s conception of the Word’s mediating status. 

Nevertheless, for Athanasius, the preincarnate Son is subordinate to the Father. For example:

Firstly, he described the Son as an internal aspect of the Father. It follows that the Son is ontologically subordinate, even though He is homoousios, ‘same substance’ or ‘one substance,’ with the Father. 

Secondly, he said that the Son is homoousios with the Father, never the other way round.

The Cappadocian Fathers, later in the century, described the Son as homoousios, of the same substance as the Father, but still regarded the Son as subordinate. 🔗

The view that the Son is equal to the Father, as stated in the Trinity doctrine, was a later development.

God in a human body

In the Trinity doctrine, Jesus has both a divine and a human mind. In contrast, in Nicene theology, as explained by Athanasius, the incarnated Jesus Christ is God in a human body, without a human mind, only pretending to believe, fear, pray, suffer, and die. He did not really suffer or die. 🔗

Nicene theology evolved.

In other words, the current Nicene theology did not exist when the Controversy began. It evolved during the fourth century and into the fifth. 

See here for more on Nicene theology.

Arian Theology

Readers may question the need to study Arianism, for it is a known heresy. However, Archbishop Rowan Williams, who recently wrote a book about Arius, concluded as follows:

“Arius may stand for an important dimension in Christian life that was disedifyingly and unfortunately crushed by policy or circumstance” (Williams, p. 94).

Arius is “a thinker and exegete of resourcefulness, sharpness and originality” (Williams, p. 116).

Created Being 🔗

In the traditional account, Arians believed that the Son of God is a created being, while the Nicenes held that Jesus Christ is God.

In reality, in Arianism, the Son is infinitely exalted above the created beings. In the Arian view, the Son is the only Being produced by God directly, the only Being born from God’s own being, and the only Being who can enter God’s immediate presence. 

In Arianism, the Son is divine. For example, Arian creeds confess faith in the trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Their creeds describe the Son as ‘theos from theos,’ usually translated as ‘God from God.’ In their view, the preincarnate Son is the second Being of the Godhead.

Consequently, in the fourth century, the Controversy was not about the divinity of Christ. Today, we distinguish between God and creation, between created and uncreated. In the fourth century, in contrast, the issue was not where to place the Son, relative to a God/creation boundary. In the Arian view, Father and Son are both on the God side of that divide.

Furthermore, since God is invisible, Arians held that all personal and visible appearances of Yahweh, recorded in the Old Testament, were, in fact, the Son of God. He was temporarily incarnate when he walked in the garden in the cool of the evening, wrestled with Jacob, appeared in the burning bush, gave the law to Moses, and spoke through the prophets.

In Arianism, the Son created all other beings. Consequently, from the perspective of such created beings, the Son has always existed, and is their Creator and God.

It is sometimes stated that, in Arianism, the Son is ‘a’ god, one god among many gods. However, as the previous paragraphs explain, in Arian theology, the Son has no equal. In Arianism, there are only three divine Beings: the Father, Son, and Spirit. The Son is the only Being, apart from the Father, whom the Arians worshiped and called God, or theos in Greek.

As Arians read the Bible, to save mankind, the Son of God suffered and died. For that reason, Arians argued that the Son must be visible, mutable, passible, and mortal. In contrast, the Father is invisible, immutable, impassible, and immortal. In other words, compared to the Father, the Son has a lower level of divinity, meaning He is subordinate to the Father. Nevertheless, He is a divine Being. In Him, divinity was crucified in the flesh. That was the heart of Arianism: that a divine Being died for the sins of the world.

Arians were trinitarians in the sense that they believed in three divine Beings. If we use the terms unitarian and trinitarian generically, since the Nicenes had only one hypostasis in the Godhead, they were unitarians, while the Arians were trinitarians.

So, then, where did this idea, that the Arian Son is a created being, originate? According to experts in the field, Athanasius deliberately and maliciously distorted Arian theology. In his paraphrase of Arius’s writings, Athanasius repeatedly assimilated the Son to the level of ordinary creatures. He added phrases such as ‘like us’ and ‘like all others,’ words that Arius did not use.

Was Arian theology defective?

In the traditional account, Arian theology was crude and contradictory. 

In reality, all sides made mistakes. As explained, original Nicene theology was quite different from the modern Trinity doctrine. It developed through trial and error. Concerning the interpretation of the Bible, Nicenes were as distant from accurate interpretation as the Arians. Nicenes were even more guilty of irresponsible allegory than the Arians.

As quoted, Rowan Williams concluded that Arius was “a thinker and exegete of resourcefulness, sharpness and originality.” While Arianism is today typically viewed as a horrible deviation, it is a system worth studying. It had some very interesting insights. Unfortunately, today, few people understand or defend it.

Incarnation and Soteriology 🔗

In the few pages of Arius’s writings that have survived, he says nothing about soteriology, of how people are saved. Almost every word, written by Arius, is about the Son’s eternal nature, independent of the Incarnation. Consequently, in the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, the Arians ignored soteriology, whereas the pro-Nicenes paid more attention to it.

The reality is the opposite. Arians began with the fact that the Son suffered and died for our sins. They then argued that, to become incarnate, He must be mutable (subject to change). And to suffer and die, He must be passible and mortal. In contrast, God, as all agreed, is invisible, immutable, impassible, and immortal. Arians argued then that, since the Son is mutable, passible, and mortal, He must be a distinct Being. It also means that He has a lower level of divinity, allowing Him to really suffer and die. That is the foundation of Arianism.

In contrast, the last admission which the Nicenes wished to make was that the divine Son of God suffered and died. The Nicenes could not say that He suffered or died because, for them, the Son is an internal aspect of the Father. Therefore, He is as immutable, impassible, and immortal as the Father. Consequently, it was the Nicenes who avoided this topic.

Sabellianism

The main Sabellians of the 4th century were Eustathius and Marcellus. 

Nicene and Sabellian theologies were similar:

Both groups were monotheists. Both taught that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis, or Person.

The Sabellians, like the Nicenes, believed that the Son is intrinsic to the Father’s being.

Marcellus, the leading Sabellian, like the Nicenes, described the Son as the Father’s reason. 

For both the Nicenes and Sabellians, the enemy was Arianism, the view that the Son is a distinct divine Being. Therefore, the Nicenes and Sabellians were on the same side in the Controversy. The Nicenes accepted the Sabellians as orthodox, supported them, and allied with them against the Arians. For example:

Alexander allied with the Sabellians at Nicaea, and, in the following decade, Athanasius allied with the Sabellian Marcellus.

Nicenes condoned Sabellianism. For example, the Council of Rome, which championed Nicene theology, formally declared Marcellus orthodox.

Nicenes supported Sabellians. For example, in the Meletian Schism, the Nicenes supported a Sabellian as bishop of Antioch, in opposition to the Cappadocian candidate.

However, there were also some significant differences between Nicene and Sabellian theologies:

For the Nicenes, the Son is the Father’s only wisdom and power. In their view, without the Son, the Father would not have any wisdom or power. In other words, effectively, for them, the Son is the Father, just like your wisdom and power are really you. In contrast, for the Sabellians, the Son is a mere temporary Word from the Father, the product of the Father’s wisdom and power.

This difference had great repercussions for their views on the incarnation. For Athanasius, Jesus Christ is God in a human body, without a human mind. In stark contrast, for the Sabellians, Jesus Christ is a mere human being with a human mind, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Philosophy in Theology

In the traditional account, Arian theology was corrupted with philosophy. Some claimed that Arianism was almost as much motivated by Greek philosophy as by the Bible. 

But Arianism did not introduce philosophy into theology. Rather, the entire 4th-century church inherited Logos-theology, which was grounded in pagan philosophy. As will be discussed, the Christian Apologists of earlier centuries described the Son of God as the Logos of Greek philosophy. In this theology, the Son is a second God, subordinate to the high God. Arianism continued this view. It did not invent it.

Furthermore, all theologians used terms and concepts from Greek philosophy. Specifically, Nicene theology borrowed the terms hypostasis and ousia from that philosophy.

Arius, specifically, was not a philosophical speculator. He did not distort theology to serve the ends of philosophy. He was a Biblical theologian. Philosophical issues were of small concern to him. 

In fact, the Arians always insisted that theology must be proven from the Bible. Furthermore, Arianism reduced the influence of Greek philosophy. For example, in 359, at a council in Constantinople, the Arians prohibited the use of Greek philosophical terms, such as ousia, homoousios, and hypostasis.

While Arianism is often accused of corrupting theology with philosophy, the reality is the opposite. The three Cappadocian Fathers, who are today regarded as Nicenes, were the theologians who were most indebted to philosophy.

The Core Issue

A Distinct Being

In the traditional account, the core issue was whether Jesus is God. However, that was not the issue. As discussed, Arianism did believe that the Son is divine. They called Him God, and they worshiped Him.

In the traditional account, furthermore, the core issue was whether the Son is subordinate to the Father. However, since the Nicenes also believed that the Son is subordinate, that was not the great issue.

The real main issue was whether the preincarnate Son is a distinct Person, as the Arians claimed, or an internal aspect of the Father, as the Nicenes believed:

The Old Testament seems to teach monotheism, the principle that only one divine Being exists. This view was defended, in the second and third centuries, by the Monarchians and the Sabellians, and, in the fourth century, by Nicene theology. All three of these systems explained the Father and Son as a single Being, one single hypostasis.

However, the New Testament seems to present Jesus Christ as a second divine Being. This principle was followed, from the second century onward, by Logos-theology, by Origen in the third, and by the Arians in the fourth century. Origen and the Arians expressed this by stating there are three hypostases in the Godhead, united in agreement, meaning three distinct minds or Beings.

Other Differences

Almost all other differences, between the Nicenes and Arians, flowed from this core difference:

If the Father and Son are two distinct Beings, as the Arians believed, then the Father alone exists without cause. It then follows that the Son is of a different substance, subordinate, mutable, passible, mortal, etcetera.

On the other hand, if the preincarnate Son is an aspect of the Father, as the Nicenes believed, then He is homoousios with the Father. That would mean that He is, like the Father, eternal, invisible, immortal, immutable, and impassible.

Foundational Assumptions

However, as explained, the causal relationships worked in the opposite direction:

In the Arian system, since Jesus Christ suffered and died, He must be mutable, passible, and mortal. Furthermore, since Jesus Christ and the preincarnate Son are one and the same Person, the preincarnate Son is also mutable, passible, and mortal. Therefore, the preincarnate Son is a second divine Being, distinct from the Father.

The Nicene system, I conclude, began with the view that the man Jesus Christ is God Almighty. Therefore, the preincarnate Son must also be God Himself, or, at least, be an aspect of God.

The Cappadocian Fathers

It is proposed above that the core issue was whether the Son is a distinct Being. However, the Cappadocians, later in the fourth century, seem to contradict that proposal:

On the one hand, since they accepted the term homoousios, they are usually classified as Nicenes.

On the other hand, like the Arians, they believed that the Son is a distinct Being.

However, the Athanasians opposed the Cappadocians. While the Athanasians believed in only one hypostasis, or Person, in God, the Cappadocians held to three hypostases. For example, they were on opposite sides in the Meletian Schism (see here). Thus, also in the conflict between the Athanasians and Cappadocians, the core issue was whether the Son is a distinct Being. As explained elsewhere, this site holds that Cappadocian theology was much closer to Arianism than to Athanasius’s theology.

Arianism Defined

Since Nicenes and Arians agreed that the Son is divine, subordinate to the Father, mere Arianism may be defined as the view that the preincarnate Son is a second divine Being, a second hypostasis, distinct from the Father, possessing a distinct mind. There were several variations of Arianism, but all held to this core principle.

In contrast, in Monotheism, the Father and Son are a single divine Being, a single divine Mind. There were also several variations of Monotheism. Nicene theology was one such variation. 

To determine whether Nicene or Arian theology was orthodox, the analysis below uses this definition. 

THE TERM ‘ARIAN’

Traditional Account

In the traditional account, Arius developed a new heresy, won many converts, and founded and led Arianism, a new sect that opposed established orthodoxy. Therefore, in this view, Arius caused the Controversy. For that reason, in the traditional account, this movement is called ‘Arianism, his followers are called ‘Arians,’ and the dispute is called the ‘Arian Controversy.’

Arius was not important.

However, as already stated, Arius was a conservative. He had few real followers. He did not develop a new theology, did not found a new sect, did not leave behind a school of disciples, and was not the leader of the ‘Arians.’ The so-called Arians did not think his writings were worth preserving, never quoted him to support their views, and did not follow him. After Nicaea, Arius and his theology were no longer significant.

Arians opposed Arius.

After Nicaea in 325, the Arian Eastern Church formulated several creeds. Some of them explicitly condemned Arius’s more extreme teachings. For example, while the Arians generally believed that the Son was begotten from the Father’s being, not materially but incomprehensibly, Arius claimed that the Son was made of nothing. 

Many supported Arius.

However, they did not follow him. They did not regard him as their leader. They supported him because they belonged to the same conservative theological tradition, and because they regarded Alexander’s theology, which they believed approached Sabellianism, as even more dangerous. 

Serious Misnomer

Therefore, the terms ‘Arian,’ ‘Arianism,’ and ‘Arian Controversy’ are serious misnomers. These terms distort the nature of the Controversy. It was not an Arian Controversy.

Athanasius invented Arianism.

Anti-Nicenes are called Arians because Athanasius invented the term. Athanasius was fond of calling his opponents names. He called them dogs, leeches, frogs, chameleons, and a string of other abusive names. In the same way, he invented the term ‘Arian’ as an insult, to tar his opponents with an already-rejected theology. For that purpose, Athanasius quoted Arius at length to create a straw man which he could easily shoot down, all the while pretending to be shooting down the anti-Nicenes. But that was a false label. As stated, Athanasius’ opponents, the anti-Nicenes, did not follow Arius. 

Arians are Eusebians

Arius was part of a broader theological trajectory. Ayres proposes that the anti-Nicenes should rather be called the ‘Eusebians,’ after their real leaders, Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia. Ayres includes Arius under the ‘Eusebians. 

Nevertheless, since ‘Arian’ is the term most people know, this site continues to describe the anti-Nicenes as ‘Arians.’

See here for a more detailed discussion.

THE ORTHODOX VIEW

Introduction

Traditional Account

In the traditional account, Nicene theology was orthodox when the Controversy began. It then claims that Arius caused the Controversy by developing a novel heresy. Consequently, the Controversy was a struggle of an established Nicene orthodoxy against the Arian novel heresy.

The Nicene writers, such as Athanasius, claimed their view was orthodox. 

However, according to Hanson, there was no orthodox doctrine when the Controversy began.

Purpose

However, this section will show that an orthodox view did exist. As stated, the 4th-century Controversy was caused by existing tensions. Therefore, this section discusses the controversies of the preceding centuries, beginning in the 2nd century. It will show that competing views existed, but by the beginning of the fourth century, there was a majority view. In particular, the purpose is to determine:

• • Firstly, whether Nicene or Arian theologies were ‘orthodox,’
  • Secondly, what the core issue in the pre-Nicene controversies was,
  • Thirdly, whether homoousios was an orthodox term, and
  • Fourthly, whether equality or the subordination of the Son was orthodox.

Old vs New Testaments

As already stated, the Old Testament seems to present God as a single divine Being. However, the New Testament describes Jesus Christ as divine, but as distinct from the Father. The different views of Christ tried to make sense of this apparent dichotomy.  

Logos-Theology

Christianity became Gentile-dominated in the second century. At the time, it was still outlawed and persecuted. However, Greek philosophy was highly regarded. Perhaps consequently, the Christian Apologists, who assumed the task of defending Christianity, identified the Biblical Son of God with the Logos of Greek philosophy.

In that philosophy, the Logos mediated between the high God and the physical world. He was divine, but also subordinate to the high God. Consequently, the Apologists explained the Biblical Son as a subordinate agent of the Father. In this view, known as Logos-theology, the Son is divine, but not as divine as the high God. (See here.) This remained the dominant teaching in the Gentile Church. It was the dominant view at the beginning of the 4th century.

Monarchianism

In the second century, Monarchianism opposed Logos-theology.

In Modalistic Monarchianism, only one divine Person exists. They believed that the titles ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ are two names for exactly the same Person. Therefore, God, the Father, was born of Mary. Jesus Christ was really God Himself in human form. The Father was crucified, but only pretended to suffer and die. He did not die, for God is immortal. In this view, Jesus Christ, before His human birth, did not exist as a distinct ‘Person’.

Dynamic Monarchianism also taught that only one divine Person exists, but maintained that Jesus Christ was a mere man.

The Monarchians opposed Logos-theology, which held that the Son is a second divine being. However, Monarchianism was a minority view.

See here for more.

Sabellius

Sabellianism is named after the early third-century theologian Sabellius. Like the Monarchians, he was a monotheist. He taught that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one single Person with one single mind.

However, Sabellius did differ from Monarchianism. He distinguished between the Father, Son, and Spirit. He opposed the Monarchian view that ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ are simply two names for the same Person. He argued that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three distinct forms, aspects, or portions of the one divine Person. 🔗

Tertullian (155-220)

Tertullian wrote at the beginning of the third century. He was a Westerner, writing in Latin. At the time, the West was less Christianized. Since communication between distant parts of the Empire was difficult, writers tended to represent local views.

Tertullian was a Logos-theologian. However, Logos-theologians were criticised for teaching two Gods, contrary to Monotheism. To address this objection, Tertullian proposed a revised Logos-theology:

In Logos-theology, the Son existed in two phases. He always existed as an aspect of the Father, but was later begotten to become a distinct Being.

In Tertullian’s revised proposal, the Son never became distinct, but remained a portion of the Father’s substance. He only became more clearly distinguished. In other words, in Tertullian’s new scheme, only one divine Person exists – the Father. In this way, Tertullian sought to satisfy the demands of Old Testament monotheism, as well as the distinct existence of the Son, as revealed in the New Testament. 

However, Tertullian remained a Logos theologian, teaching that the Son did not always exist and is subordinate to the Father. Arius was later severely criticized for such views.

Tertullian and Sabellius represented two opposing trajectories. Tertullian was in the Logos-theology camp, which holds that the Son is a second divine Being. His challenge was to explain the unity of the Godhead. Sabellius was a monotheist. He refined Monarchianism. His challenge was to explain how the Son is distinct. Nevertheless, in the way that they restated their theological traditions, eventually, their theologies were similar:

Firstly, in both, the Son is not a distinct Being. Both held that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are one single Being.

Secondly, while the Monarchians said that ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ are two names for the same Being, both Sabellius and Tertullian made a distinction between the Father and the Son, not as distinct Beings, but as distinct aspects of the one divine Being.

Therefore, in opposition to Logos-theology and to Origen, who regarded the Father and Son as distinct Beings, both Sabellius and Tertullian were monotheists.

Scholars do not agree about Tertullian’s influence. However, just as Tertullian did, the Nicenes described the Father, the Son, and the Spirit as a single hypostasis, with the Son as an intrinsic aspect of the Father’s being (see here). Therefore, Tertullian probably had a strong influence on 4th-century Nicene theology.

See here for more on Tertullian.

Origen

Origen wrote a decade or two after Sabellius. He was the most influential Christian writer of the first three centuries. He refined and expanded Logos-theology. However, he continued to teach that the Son is a distinct Being. In his view, the Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases (three distinct divine Beings), with the Son and Spirit subordinate to the Father. Most of the delegates to the Nicene Council were followers of Origen.

Rome vs Alexandria

Around the year 260, Rome and Alexandria were in dispute over the term homoousios:

Rome defended a Monarchian or a Sabellian theology. It taught that the Father and Son are a single divine Being, a single hypostasis. It also championed the term homoousios. 

Alexandria followed Origen, probably its most famous citizen. At that time, Alexandria held that the Father and Son are two distinct divine Beings. As Arius later did, Alexandria opposed the term homoousios.

Paul of Samosata

In 268, a council in Antioch, one of the main centers of Christianity at the time, deposed Paul of Samosata for Sabellianism. Apparently, he taught that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis. In his view, Christ did not exist before His human birth. That council also condemned the term homoousios, implying that Paul used it.

Conclusions

The purpose of the current section, as stated, is to determine what the orthodox view was. In particular, was Nicene or Arian theology the majority view at the beginning of the fourth century? From the discussion above, the following conclusions can be drawn:

Three Views of the Son

As a first conclusion, the ancient theological views of the Son can be divided into three categories:

The first was the view that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three distinct Beings, united only in will and agreement. This view was held by the Logos-theologians, Origen, the Arians, and the Cappadocians.

Secondly, at the other extreme, the Son is identical with the Father, with no distinction between them. This was the Monarchian view. They were the strict monotheists. For them, ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ are merely two names for exactly the same Being.

Thirdly, between these two extremes, there were different attempts to explain how the Father, Son, and Spirit might be a single Being, as Old Testament monotheism demands, yet still distinct from one another, as the New Testament explains. Tertullian, Sabellius, and the 4th-century Nicenes were in this category.

The Core Issue

These three categories can be reduced to two. As a second conclusion, in the pre-Nicene disputes, similar to the 4th century, the core issue was whether the Son is a distinct Being:

On the one hand, Monotheism holds that only one divine Being exists. It regards the Son as divine, but not as a distinct Being. Monotheism was defended by the Monarchians, Sabellius, and by Rome:

• • • • The Monarchians claimed that ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ are two names for exactly the same Person.
      • Sabellius taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three modes or forms of the single divine Being.
      • Around 260, Rome insisted that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single hypostasis (one Being).

On the other hand, Monotheism was opposed by Logos-theology, Origen, and Alexandria. They taught that the Son of God is a second divine Being, a second hypostasis.

Lienhard refers to the Monotheists as the miahypostatic (one hypostasis) tradition. Origen and Alexandria represented the dyohypostatic (two hypostases) tradition.

Homoousios

As a third conclusion, the dispute over the term homoousios was related to the core issue. The monotheists defended homoousios. For example:

• • • Sabellius used the term.
    • Around the year 260, some Libyan Sabellians claimed that the Son is homoousios to the Father.
    • In that dispute, Rome supported the Libyan Sabellians. It championed the term.

In opposition to monotheism, those who held to three hypostases condemned the term. For example, Origen did not use the term, Alexandria opposed it, and the council in Antioch, in the Greek East, condemned it in 268, along with Paul’s theology.

Subordination was Orthodox.

In the traditional account, when the 4th century began, the orthodox view held that the Son is equal to the Father, but Arianism held that the Son is subordinate. In reality, as a fourth conclusion, all sides in the pre-Nicene Controversy believed that the Son is subordinate to the Father.

As shown above, even Tertullian, who is sometimes regarded as an early Trinitarian, believed that the Son is subordinate to the Father. However, the fact that subordination was orthodox is not really important. As discussed, in the 4th century, both Nicenes and Arians regarded the Son as subordinate.

East/West Divide

As a fifth conclusion, the discussion above showed that the division between the West and East, which we see in the fourth century, already existed in the third. The West and East were on opposing sides of the core issue:

The Greek Eastern Church taught that the Son is a distinct Being. That is what Logos-theology held, which remained the standard teaching, right into the fourth century. That is also what Origen taught. He amended and expanded Logos-theology, and taught that three divine Beings exist. The East formally rejected Sabellianism, which is a form of monotheism. For example, it deposed Sabellius in 220 and Paul of Samosata in 268. The church in Alexandria, in its dispute with Rome, around the year 260, also held to this view.

The Latin Western Church, in opposition to the East, held that the Father and the Son are one single Being. For example, Tertullian believed that the Son is a portion of the Father’s substance. As another example, Rome, in the West, the Empire’s Capital, had a Monarchian tradition.

Arianism was orthodox.

A sixth conclusion is that Arianism was the orthodox view at the beginning of the 4th century.

R.P.C. Hanson claims there was no orthodox view. According to Lewis Ayres, it is not possible to define an orthodox view. The analysis above showed that the East and West had opposing views. However, it would be fair to assume that the bulk of the Church was in the Greek East. This can be shown as follows:

Firstly, Christianity originated in the East and spread to the West. However, persecution slowed growth. Therefore, during the first three centuries, the Latin West remained less Christianized. 

Secondly, the bulk of the pre-Nicene writings, that have survived, are in Greek.

Thirdly, almost all delegates to Nicaea came from the Greek East. In other words, the Controversy was an Eastern-only affair, at least at first.

These are indications that the bulk of the church was in the East. Consequently, for the Church as a whole, the Eastern view dominated when the Controversy began. The Eastern view, that the Son is a second divine Being, was also held by Arianism. For that reason, it is valid to claim that Arianism was the dominant view when the Controversy began.

Nicene Theology was not Orthodox.

As discussed, Nicene theology is a form of monotheism. Specifically, original Nicene theology, as taught by Athanasius, described the Son as an internal aspect of the Father. Possible ancestors of this view include Tertullian, Sabellianism, and Roman Monarchianism:

Tertullian was a Western theologian. He also taught a form of monotheism. In his view, the Son is a portion of God’s substance. This is similar to original Nicene theology.

As discussed, the church in Rome had a Monarchian tradition. In Monarchianism, Jesus Christ is God himself in a human body. That is also how Athanasius described Jesus.

Sabellianism held that the Son is an intrinsic aspect of the Father’s being. This was similar to original Nicene theology.

Tertullian and Rome represented Western views. Sabelianism was mostly an Eastern version of monotheism. Nicene theology, therefore, continued the Western view. However, as argued, the church in the West was small, relative to the entire church. On that basis, one can conclude that monotheism was already rejected by the Church majority when the Controversy began. Therefore, Nicene theology deviated from the majority view. 

It is often said that Arius, by teaching a new heresy, caused the Controversy. However, it would be more accurate to say that Alexander caused the Controversy. He continued a monotheistic theology, similar to Sabellian monotheism, which had already been formally rejected.

See here for more on the orthodox view when the Controversy began.

ARIUS AND ALEXANDER

Around the year 260, there was a dispute between Rome and Alexandria:

Rome, in 260, had a monotheistic theology. It held to only one hypostasis in the Godhead. In other words, the Father and Son are a single Person or Being. Rome also championed the term homoousios.

At that time, Alexandria, like Origen, its most famous citizen, taught that the Father and the Son are two distinct divine Beings. Consequently, Alexandria rejected the term homoousios.

This dispute continued in the dispute between Arius and Alexander:

In the 60 years between 260 and the time of Arius, Alexandrian theology shifted. While, in 260, it believed that the Son is a distinct Being, by the time of Arius, it maintained that the Son is an internal aspect of the Father. In the dispute between Rome and Alexandria, Rome forced Alexandria to accept the term homoousios. This shows that the church in Rome dominated churches in other centres. Therefore, the shift in Alexandrian theology probably resulted from continued pressure from Rome. Alexander represented the new majority view.

Arius resisted this trend to Roman monotheism. He was a conservative. He attempted to defend the view held by Alexandria about 60 years earlier.

This conclusion is supported by the later developments: While Arius appealed to the Eastern Church, Athanasius appealed to Rome. Athanasius was deposed by the Eastern Church. However, in 340, a council in Rome declared him innocent.

ROLE OF EMPERORS

Final Judges in Doctrinal Disputes

In the 4th century, the Controversy continued the same issues as in the 3rd. What was new was the involvement of emperors. The Roman Empire was not a democracy. It was a dictatorship. Furthermore, religions were subject to the emperor’s control. The emperors used religion to unite the many nations of their vast empire. In their view, religious discord was a danger to the Empire’s unity. Therefore, they decided which religions to allow and which to squash. It was for that reason that, during the first three centuries, the Empire persecuted the church.

The last great persecution ended in 313, when Christianity was legalized. However, the emperors soon discovered that the Church was divided into factions. Consequently, they also decided which Christian factions they would allow. To achieve that, they exiled bishops, called and manipulated church councils, and, in the end, even issued laws to outlaw opposing views. Effectively, the emperor was the head of the Church and the ultimate judge in doctrinal disputes. There was no separation between Church and State (Boyd). When the emperor was Arian, the Church was Arian, but when the emperor was Nicene, the Church followed. 

Ecumenical Councils

In the traditional account, the councils of 325 and 381 were ecumenical, meaning they were meetings of church authorities from the whole world (oikoumene), securing the approval of the whole Church.

In reality, they were not even church councils. They were not called, requested, or managed by the Church.

They were meetings of the Roman government. The emperors used large meetings to rule the Empire. Therefore, they also used large meetings to rule the Church. Only emperors could call general councils, and they were expected to dominate and control them.

The emperors took sides in the disputes, called these councils on their own initiative and for their own purposes, and controlled and manipulated the councils to ensure an outcome in line with the emperor’s wishes.

In other words, the decision to adopt Nicene theology, at both of these so-called ecumenical councils, was made by the Emperors, not by the Church.

One indication of emperor domination is that, at both so-called ecumenical councils, representatives of the emperor presided. At Nicaea, Ossius chaired as the emperor’s agent. At the Council of Constantinople in 381, the emperor even appointed a lay person, an unbaptized government official, as bishop of the Capital and as chairperson.

There were also other general councils in the fourth century. The most ecumenical council was a series of councils in 359-360 in Seleucia/Ariminum. Emperor Constantius called these councils. As emperors always did, he also manipulated these councils. However, at least, these councils were representative. All factions from all parts of the Empire were invited.

In contrast, only about 1.5% of the delegates to the Nicene Council in 325 were from the West. There were no Western delegates at all at the 381-council. Only bishops from the area around Antioch were invited, and only Nicenes were invited. The emperor had already, before the Council, outlawed Arianism and banned the leading Arian bishops.

However, the twin councils in 359/360 are not regarded as ecumenical today. The reason is that the outcome was an Arian Creed. The traditional account carefully selects only the councils, where the Nicenes triumphed, as ecumenical, and ignores the others.

THE NICENE COUNCIL

The First Ecumenical Council (325)

The dispute between Arius and Alexander spread to other regions of Africa. In 325, seven years after the dispute began, Emperor Constantine called a council in Nicaea. This council formulated the famous Nicene Creed.

Almost all delegates were from the East. Most Easterners believed in three hypostases in the Godhead. In other words, the Son is a second divine Being, distinct from the Father. That means that the majority at the Council was Arian. 

Why, then, did the Council accept an anti-Arian Creed?

In the traditional account, the Nicene Council of 325 was the First Ecumenical Council. In reality, it was not even a church meeting. It was not called, requested, or managed by the Church. It was the emperor’s meeting. He called the Council on his own initiative and for his own purpose. Already before the Council, he took Alexander’s side. To ensure control, he appointed his agent Ossius as chair. He financed, personally attended, and actively guided the council to achieve a Nicene outcome. For example, he proposed, explained, and insisted on the keyword Homoousios, despite strong resistance. The council knew that the emperor would exile those who refused to accept the Creed. They were compelled to accept it. However, the emperor explained the new terms in a way that made it easier for the Arians to accept the creed. In short, Emperor Constantine ensured that Nicaea concluded what he thought best.

Consequently, the Nicene Creed was a minority decision. The Dedication Council of 341 shows what the majority at Nicaea really believed. Like the Nicene Council, all delegates were from the Greek East. But unlike the Nicene Council, there was no emperor to enforce a predetermined outcome. Therefore, the Dedication Creed reflects the view of the ordinary educated Eastern bishop.

Is the Creed Trinitarian?

In the traditional account, the Trinity doctrine was established as orthodoxy when the Controversy began. It claims that the Nicene Creed reflects the Trinity doctrine. Later formulations of the Trinity doctrine are simply clearer restatements of the Nicene Creed.

In reality, there are fundamental differences between the Nicene Creed and the Trinity doctrine:

Holy Spirit

Firstly, in the Nicene Creed, the Son is homoousios with the Father. He is also described as “true God from true God.” In contrast, the Creed does not describe the Holy Spirit as God or as homoousios. There is no indication of the unity or equality of the Spirit. It says of the Holy Spirit merely: “We believe in … the Holy Spirit.”

This is consistent with the form of Nicene theology at that time. For much of the fourth century, the dispute was only about the Son. The divinity of the Holy Spirit was accepted only much later in the century.

One God

Secondly, in the Trinity doctrine, the ‘one God’ is the Trinity. However, the Nicene Creed, like all preceding creeds, explicitly identifies the ‘one God’ as the Father alone. In contrast to the ‘one God,’ the Creed identifies Jesus Christ as the “one Lord.”

As discussed, this was also consistent with the Nicene theology of the time. Original Nicene theology held that the Son is an internal aspect of the Father. Therefore, only one divine Person exists, namely, the Father. 

One Hypostasis

Thirdly, the Trinity doctrine teaches that there are three hypostases, or three Persons, in God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In contrast, the Creed claims that the Father and Son are a single Person, a single hypostasis. It condemns all who say that the Son is a different hypostasis or ousia from the Father.

This was also consistent with original Nicene theology. As Athanasius explained God, the Father and the Son are a single hypostasis. Therefore, in its generic sense, the Nicene Creed, like original Nicene theology, was unitarian, not trinitarian.

The Serdica manifesto of 343, another Nicene statement, even more emphatically states that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (see here). The idea that God is both one and three did not yet exist.

Nicene Theology Evolved.

The Cappadocian fathers, about 40 years after Nicaea, were the first ‘Nicenes’ to argue for three hypostases in God. For that purpose, they made a distinction in the meanings of ousia and hypostasis. They used ousia to mean ‘substance’ or ‘Being,’ and hypostasis to mean ‘Person.’

In conclusion, the Trinity doctrine, as we know it today, did not exist at the beginning of the Controversy. There are similarities, but also fundamental differences between the Nicene Creed and the Trinity doctrine. As discussed above, Nicene theology evolved after Nicaea, as one way of explaining the Nicene Creed.

Subordination in the Creed

Purpose

The Nicene Creed, formulated in 325, is the most important creed in the history of the Church. The purpose of this section is to show that, in the view of the Nicene Council, as well as in the wording of the Creed, it describes the preincarnate Son as subordinate to the Father.

Traditional Account

The modern study of the Arian Controversy began in the 19th century. At the time, scholars accepted Athanasius’s explanation of the Controversy. This article refers to that as the traditional account of the Controversy.

However, in the 20th century, scholars realized that Athanasius’s version of the Controversy is extremely biased. Over the past 50 years, based on documents discovered and much research, scholars have explained the Controversy very differently.

In the traditional account, when the Arian Controversy began in the early fourth century, Nicene theology, which later developed into the Trinity doctrine, was the established orthodoxy. In the Trinity doctrine, the three Persons of the Godhead are equal in all respects. Therefore, in the traditional account, the Nicene Creed describes the Son as equal with the Father.

Arian View

Below, this article discusses the Creed. However, we will first discuss the views of the delegates to the council.

In the traditional account, Arianism is defined as the view that the Son is subordinate to the Father. Arians indeed regarded the Son as subordinate. As discussed in another article, in the Arian view, the Son is the second Being of the Godhead, distinct from the Father. Arians further argued that, since two Almighty Beings are not considered possible, the Son must be subordinate to and dependent on the Father. In the Arian view, the Father alone exists without cause and is the Cause of all things.

Pre-Nicene View

However, this Arian view was not new. During the first 300 years of the church’s existence, while it was still outlawed and persecuted, each and every one of the church fathers believed the Son to be subordinate. Subordinationism was the pre-Nicene orthodoxy.

For example, Origen described the Son as in some ways subordinate to the Father, but that was what his contemporaries taught. Much of what the Church Fathers taught in the first three centuries is today forbidden as heterodox.

Orthodox View

Therefore, when the 4th-century Controversy began, as a dispute between Arius and his bishop Alexander, the orthodox view was that the Son is a second divine Being, subordinate to the Father.

When 4th-century Arianism described the Son as subordinate, it merely followed the tradition. This view was not the result of mixing theology with philosophy, as some have claimed.

Nicene View

In the traditional account, the Nicenes taught that the Son is equal with the Father. That is not true. The Nicenes also taught that the Son is subordinate to the Father. For example, Alexander, Arius’s bishop and immediate opponent, argued for a ‘great distance’ between the Father and the created order, and then describes the Son as mediating between these two, ‘holding the middle place.’ This implies an intermediate ontological status.

Consequently, all 4th-century theologians, east and west, regarded the Son as subordinate. According to Hanson, Athanasius was the only exception.

But Athanasius also regarded the Son as subordinate. He Athanasius was not a Trinitarian. He described the Son as an internal aspect of the Father. In other words, in his view, the Son is ontologically internal to the Father.

Therefore, the Son is homoousios with the Father, of the same substance, or of one substance. But, if the Son is ontologically internal to the Father, He is ontologically subordinate to the Father.

In conclusion, since the Nicenes also believed the Son to be subordinate, subordinationism does not define Arianism.

Cappadocian View

The Cappadocians, later in the century, also taught that the Son is subordinate to the Father. While the original Nicenes, such as Athanasius, held the Son to be an internal aspect of the Father, and, therefore, ontologically subordinate, the Cappadocians were the first to teach full ontological equality. As discussed in another article, in the Cappadocian view, the Son is a second divine Being, with exactly the same substance as the Father.

Nevertheless, as stated, they also taught that the Son is subordinate to the Father. They still maintained a certain order among the Persons. For example, Basil wrote that the Spirit is third in rank. He was not willing to say that the Spirit is divine in the same terms as the Father and the Son are.

Nicene Theology Evolved

It is clear, therefore, that, in 325, when the Nicene Creed was first formulated, the Trinity doctrine of today did not exist. Over the course of the century, Nicene theology evolved. In particular, in original Nicene theology, since the Son is internal to the Father, only one divine Person exists. The Cappadocians were the first to propose three Persons, with exactly the same substance, in the Godhead. But they wrote only about 40 years after Nicaea. For example, Basil, the first of the Cappadocians, became bishop of Caesarea only in 370. Furthermore, Athanasius opposed the Cappadocian view of three Persons in the Godhead. Only in the next century did that become the mainstream view. Therefore, the Nicene Creed, in 325, did not teach the Trinity doctrine.

Nicene Council

We will now discuss the Nicene Creed more specifically.

Delegates

The discussion above shows that, in the view of the vast majority of the Council, perhaps all of them, the Son is subordinate to the Father. While Nicene theology dominated in the West, Arianism dominated in the eastern half of the empire. 

Since almost all delegates to the Nicene Council came from the East, all delegates at Nicaea viewed the Son as subordinate to the Father. Therefore, since they accepted the Creed, the Council must have understood it as asserting that the Son is subordinate. 

The Nicene Creed

Subordination can also be seen in the Creed itself:

First, the titles Father and Son imply subordination.

Second, while the Father is called Almighty God, the Son is called by the lower title ‘Lord.’ 

Third, the Creed states, “we believe in one God, the Father.” This excludes the Son from being the “one God.” 

Fourth, by saying that the Son was begotten by the Father, the Creed implies that the Father alone exists without a cause. 

Fifth, the Creed describes the Father as “Maker of all things.” It says that the Father created all things “through” the Son. This identifies the Father as the primary Creator.

Homoousios

One aspect of the Creed, which might be read as implying equality, is the statement that the Son is homoousios, of the same substance, with the Father. It does not necessarily imply equality. For example, as stated, Athanasius defended homoousios, but believed that the Son is an internal aspect of the Father.  Therefore, in his view, the Son is homoousios with the Father, but still ontologically subordinate.

Furthermore, at the Council, the emperor not only proposed and insisted on the term, but also explained it. He said it must be understood figuratively, namely, as merely meaning that the Son is from the Father. Given that vague explanation, the Arian majority could accept the creed. However, if homoousios only means that the Son is truly from the Father, the Son can still be subordinate to the Father. That is how Arians preferred to understand it. 

True God from True God

Another aspect of the Creed, that apparently implies equality, is the description of the Son as true God from true God. However, the Creed already identified the Father alone as the one God, as Almighty, and as the primary Creator. Furthermore, the term theos, which is here translated as God, had a very flexible meaning. Therefore, we have good grounds for assuming that the phrase, true theos from true theos, does not describe the Son as equal with the Father.

Conclusion

In conclusion, during the first three centuries, and when the Controversy began, and for most of the fourth century, every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordination. The Nicene Creed must be interpreted accordingly. It is possible that Augustine, who only began writing after the Second Ecumenical Council in 381, was the first to teach full equality. However, by selectively emphasizing specific aspects, ignoring others, and reinterpreting the terms, later Trinitarians make the Creed fit the Trinity doctrine.

Was Homoousios Orthodox?

Traditional Account

The Nicene Creed, formulated in 325, states that the Son is of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father. In the traditional account, homoousios was an orthodox term.

A Radical New Term

In reality, homoousios was a radical new term. It was not part of the standard Christian language. Nothing comparable was said in any previous creed or profession of faith. Not even the pro-Alexander creed, formulated at Antioch earlier in 325, mentioned this term. In the extant writings, Alexander never used it. 

A Sabellian Term

In fact, homoousios was heretical, namely, Sabellian. Before Nicaea, only Sabellians preferred the term. It was used by Sabellius and Paul of Samosata, another Sabellian, both of whom were deposed. The dispute between Rome and Alexandria, in the middle of the third century, began when some Libyan Sabellians used the term. After Alexandria had opposed them, they appealed to Rome, which had a Monarchian tradition, and defended the term.

The only non-Sabellian to accept the term was the bishop of Alexandria. However, he accepted it only because the church in Rome forced him to.

The term was formally condemned by the church council at Antioch that deposed Paul of Samosata in 268.

At Nicaea, the emperor proposed the term because he saw that the Sabellians, with whom Alexander had allied, preferred it. 

The Emperor Insisted.

Most delegates opposed the term, but it was accepted because Emperor Constantine insisted on it. 

Eusebius of Caesarea, the famous historian, was the leader of the Arians. He was also the most respected theologian at Nicaea. Immediately after the Nicene Council, he wrote a letter to his church in Caesarea to explain why he had accepted the Creed (see here). In his letter, he stated that homoousios was inserted into the Creed solely at the emperor’s insistence.

What did Homoousios mean?

Traditional Account

As stated, according to the Nicene Creed of 325, the Son was begotten from the Father’s substance (ousia) and, therefore, that He is of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father.

In the Trinity doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Being. Therefore, in the traditional account, homoousios in the Nicene Creed meant that Father and Son are ‘one substance,’ or ‘one Being.’

Two Possible Meanings

Literally, homoousios means ‘same substance.’ Since the word “same” has two possible meanings, the phrase ‘same substance’ also 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. But it can also mean that we drive two different cars of the same type:

Similarly, ‘same substance’ can mean ‘One substance.’ This is called numerical sameness because there is only one. Father and Son are seen as a single, undivided substance, a single Being.

But ‘same substance’ can also mean two distinct substances of the same type – This is called qualitative or generic sameness. 

Looser Meaning

However, at the Council, Emperor Constantine thought himself worthy of explaining the term. He said it merely means that the Son is like the Father, without any material implications. This vague explanation enabled the Arian majority to accept the Creed. In other words, the term was accepted as devoid of a specific meaning. It had a much looser, more flexible, indeed less specific meaning.

One Substance

However, for the Nicenes, homoousios did mean ‘one substance.’ The Nicenes were a minority. Therefore, they joined forces with the Sabellians. The emperor sided with the Nicene/Sabellian alliance. This gave the Sabellians much influence in the Council. As stated, Emperor Constantine insisted on the term because the Sabellians preferred it. In Nicene and Sabellian theologies, Father and Son are ‘one hypostasis,’ one Person. Therefore, they did understand the term to mean ‘one substance’.

The Arian majority accepted the emperor’s vague explanation. However, they knew it was a Sabellian term. They also knew that the Sabellians and Nicenes understood it to mean ‘one substance.’

Was Homoousios important?

In the traditional account, homoousios was “the key word of the Creed,” one of the most important words in the Christian theological vocabulary, and the foundation of Christianity.

However, “such older accounts are deeply mistaken.”

The term disappeared.

In reality, the term disappeared from the debate in the decade after Nicaea. It reappeared only around the year 350, 30 years after Nicaea. In that period, nobody mentioned it. In other words, it was much less important than later thought.

Constantine insisted on homoousios.

If the term was not important, why was it included in the Creed? As stated, homoousios was a Sabellian term. Emperor Constantine sided with Alexander and his Sabellian allies. He then forced the Nicene Council to accept the term. He insisted on it, despite strong resistance. Therefore, for the church majority, the term was not important. In fact, for the majority, the term was heretical.

Decade after Nicaea

The term disappeared in the decade after Nicaea because the emperor had switched sides. The emperor’s support enabled the Arian majority to effectively reverse some of the decisions made at Nicaea. It deposed the main proponents of the Creed (see here), who were mainly Sabellians. After they had been deposed, the term disappeared as well. For the next two decades, there was no controversy around this term. Therefore, for the Sabellians, the term was important. But for the majority, the term was not useful or important. It even seemed heretical.

Revived in the 350s

Constantius, previously the Eastern emperor, became emperor of the entire Empire in the early 350s. To ensure unity, he forced the Western Church to accept an Eastern (Arian) creed. By this time, Athanasius had become very powerful. In the mid-350s, 30 years after Nicaea, to strengthen his opposition to the emperor, Athanasius revived the term. Thereafter, controversy around the term resumed.

In the traditional account, the Western Church always defended the term. In reality, the West began defending it only slowly after Athanasius revived the term. Athanasius was the “paragon” of the West (Hanson, p. 304).

To force Arius out

Athanasius stated that homoousion was inserted in the Creed, not because it was an important or orthodox term, but merely to force Arius and his followers to reject the Creed (Hanson, p. 162), so that the Emperor could exile them. All understood that the emperor would exile all who refused to accept the creed. However, this site proposes that homoousios was a Sabellian term, something Athanasius was not eager to admit.

See here for a further discussion.

Was the Creed Sabellian?

Monotheistic Alliance

When the 4th-century Controversy began, Sabellianism was already formally rejected in the Greek East. The prevailing view, at least in the East, was that the preincarnate Son is a distinct divine Being. However, Sabellianism still had some adherents in the East. Eustathius and Marcellus, the two leading Sabellians, were Easterners.

In some fundamental respects, Alexander’s theology was similar to the Sabellians. Both parties were monotheists. Both claimed that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis.

At the Nicene Council, almost all delegates were from the Eastern Church. Since most Easterners believed that the Son is a distinct divine Being, Alexander’s party was a minority. For that reason, he allied with the Sabellians.

Strong Sabellian Influence

Already before the Council, Emperor Constantine took the Nicene side. The emperor’s support, through their alliance with Alexander, gave the Sabellians (Eustathius and Marcellus) significant influence in the Council. They may have significantly influenced the wording of the Creed.

One Hypostasis

The Creed confesses only one hypostasis. This is one indication of a Sabellian influence. In Arianism, there are three hypostases (three Beings) in the Godhead. In contrast, in the Creed, the Father and the Son are a single hypostasis, a single Being. ‘One hypostasis’ was the hallmark of Sabellianism.

Homoousios

The term homoousios is another indication of a Sabellian influence. As stated, before Nicaea, only Sabellians preferred this term (see here). At Nicaea, the emperor insisted on the term because he saw that the Sabellians preferred it.

Most delegates opposed the term, but were compelled to accept it because Emperor Constantine insisted. However, to enable the Arian majority to accept it, the emperor gave the term a non-Sabellian meaning. The Arians accepted the new terms in the Creed as merely meaning that the Son is like the Father (see here).

Post-Nicaea

After Nicaea, a dispute broke out over the meaning of the term homoousios. A further indication of the Sabellian nature of the term is that, in that dispute, it was the Sabellians, not the Nicenes, who defended the term. See post-Nicaea below.

Main Arian Enemy

Furthermore, in the 4th century, the controversy was primarily between the Sabellians and the Arians, not between the Nicenes and the Arians. This is consistent with the view that the Creed has strong Sabellian emphases. 

For example, the Dedication Council of 341 identified Sabellianism as its main enemy. This council was held only 16 years after Nicaea and largely consisted of the same people; only Easterners. For them, the main enemy was Marcellus, the leading Sabellian, not Athanasius.

The Arian East accused the West of Sabellianism. This is another indication that they saw Sabellianism as the real enemy.

As another example, the Homoians, who became dominant in the 350s, were really an anti-Sabellian alliance.

Sabellian Controversy

In conclusion, the Nicene Creed was a victory for the Sabellians. The Nicene Council vindicated Sabellianism and caused the Controversy after Nicaea. Arius and his theology played no role after Nicaea. The Controversy was a continued battle between Arianism and a Sabellian/Nicene alliance.

The phrase ‘Arian Controversy’ implies that Arius’s theology caused the Controversy. However, since Sabellianism was already rejected in the 3rd century, it may be called the ‘Sabellian Controversy’ because Sabellianism caused it.

MID-CENTURY

Post-Nicaea Correction

Nicene Council

As stated, Sabellianism was formally rejected in the 3rd century. However, by allying with the Nicenes, the Sabellians significantly influenced the wording of the Nicene Creed. In particular, before Nicaea, the term homoousios was preferred only by Sabellians. Immediately after the Council, Emperor Constantine exiled Arius, two Libyan bishops who supported him, and, sometime later, exiled Eusebius of Nicomedia, one of the Arian leaders.

Post-Nicaea Dispute

However, in the decade after Nicaea, the term homoousios caused huge conflict. It was mainly between the Sabellians, led by Eustathius of Antioch, and the Arians, led by Eusebius of Caesarea. The Sabellians claimed that the Church, through the Nicene Creed, had adopted Sabellianism. As discussed, they had good grounds for their claim. In the Arian response, the term was accepted at Nicaea with a non-Sabellian meaning.

The Arians won this round. All leading supporters of the Nicene Creed, but mainly the leading Sabellians, were exiled.

With the Sabellians, the term homoousios also disappeared from the debate. It was not mentioned for more than 20 years. 

At the same time, all exiled Arians were allowed to return. 

In this way, the decisions at Nicaea were effectively reversed. In the traditional account, this Arian victory was the result of political engineering by an Arian Conspiracy. However, in the Christian Roman Empire, the emperor was always the final judge in doctrinal disputes. The Arians won this round because Constantine had switched sides. He shifted his allegiance to the Arian side. For example, on his deathbed, he was baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia, the same Arian leader he previously exiled. That was why he allowed all exiled Arians to return, and allowed all leading Nicenes to be exiled.

It is important to note, again, that this conflict after Nicaea was between the Arians and the Sabellians, not between the ‘Arians’ and the Nicenes. The Arians always considered Sabellianism to be the real threat.

See here for a more detailed discussion.

Why was Athanasius Deposed? (335) 🔗

The Traditional Account

Athanasius, whom many regard as the hero of the Arian Controversy, was condemned and excommunicated in 335. He was later allowed to return, but was exiled four more times by different emperors. He was bishop of Alexandria for 45 years, but spent almost half that time in exile (Blue Letter).

In the traditional account, as Athanasius claimed, these accusations were false. He claimed he was really deposed by an Arian Conspiracy for opposing Arianism, motivated solely by theological concerns. 

The church had traditionally accepted Athanasius’ explanation. 

No Evidence

First, there is no evidence of an ‘Arian Conspiracy.’ The reversal of fortunes in the decade after Nicaea was not due to an Arian Conspiracy. As discussed, Emperor Constantine switched sides, leading to a return to pre-Nicene orthodoxy. 

Regular Councils

Second, Athanasius was found guilty of misconduct and violence by regularly constituted councils. The council of Tyre in 335 sent a commission to Egypt to investigate the charges. Following this, it deposed and excommunicated Athanasius for “tyrannical behaviour” (Ayres, p. 124) and “the unscrupulous use of strong-arm methods” (Hanson, p. 255).

He was not an Arian target.

Third, Athanasius was not an obvious target for Arians. Contrary to the traditional account, he was not a leading figure at the Council of Nicaea (Hanson, p. 275). He only began to oppose Arianism after his exile in 335. Therefore, he could not have been exiled by an Arian conspiracy.

The Arians did not accuse him.

Fourth, Athanasius was accused of violence by Meletians, not by Arians. The fourth century began with the most severe Roman persecution of Christians. Later, the Melitians, a Christian sect, refused to accept those who had denied Christ in that persecution. They accused Athanasius, by then archbishop of Alexandria, of preventing people from entering their churches, of burning their churches, and of imprisoning, beating, and even murdering their people. Athanasius’ aggression was not aimed at Arians.

Ancient Discoveries

Fifth, ancient documents, papyrus letters written between 331 and 335, discovered in the 20th century by British archaeologists, confirmed Athanasius’s guilt beyond a doubt. These letters were written by the people Athanasius persecuted. They were not for publication or propaganda. Therefore, they are trustworthy. Athanasius behaved like a crime boss, hiring thugs to intimidate his enemies. He justly earned the disgust and dislike of the majority of Eastern bishops.

Conclusion

The Nicene Council agreed on how to deal with the Melitians, but Athanasius was determined to suppress them violently. He had been justly convicted of disgraceful behaviour. 

Rome enters the Controversy.

Divided Empire

While Constantine was alive, he enforced unity in the church. After he died in 337, the Empire was divided between Eastern and Western emperors. The division of the empire allowed the Latin Western Church, with its traditional Monarchian or Sabellian theology, to become divided from the Greek Eastern Church, with its traditional Origenist or Arian theology.

Athanasius’s Polemical Strategy

At this time, Marcellus was the leading Sabellian. He and Athanasius were both deposed by the Eastern Church. In the late 330s, they joined forces. 

With Marcellus’s support, Athanasius developed a polemical strategy. His polemical strategy later became the traditional account of the Controversy and, over the centuries, had a profound impact on the church.

Athanasius invented Arianism.

According to his polemical strategy, Arius developed a novel heresy, attracted many followers, and formed and led a large and dangerous new heretical sect. In other words, Arius caused the Controversy. Therefore, Athanasius claimed, the anti-Nicenes must be called ‘Arians,’ meaning followers of Arius’s new theology.

However, as discussed, these claims are all false. Arius did not develop a new theology. He was a conservative. Nevertheless, Athanasius’s polemical strategy created the concept of ‘Arianism.’

Rome accepted Athanasius.

In the late 330s, using their polemical strategy, Athanasius and Marcellus appealed to the church in Rome. Up to this point, Rome was on the periphery of the Controversy.

As discussed, Rome, the Sabellians, and Athanasius were all monotheists. In other words, they all believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single hypostasis, a single Being with a single mind. This put them on the same side in the Controversy, against the Arians, who believed that the preincarnate Son is a second divine Being, distinct from the Father.

Rome accepted Athanasius’s polemical strategy. That would have a great impact on the Controversy in the subsequent decades. Rome attacked the Eastern Church using Athanasius’s polemical strategy.

In 341, a council in Rome declared Athanasius and Marcellus innocent and orthodox. This decision made Rome a main player in the Controversy. Since both men had been exiled by the East, it caused severe tensions between the East and the West. From this point forward, the Controversy was largely between the Latin West and the Greek East.

The Divided Empire (340s)

Important Creeds

In the 340s, the Empire remained divided. The absence of a single emperor, seeking to unify the church, allowed the Eastern and Western Churches to oppose one another.

The Nicenes were a minority at the Council of Nicaea. However, with the emperor’s support, they had the upper hand. Nevertheless, they were limited in how far they could push their perspective. The emperor wished, above all, to end the Controversy. If the Nicenes pushed the Arian majority too far, they might risk losing the emperor’s support.

Therefore, Hanson describes the Nicene Creed as a drawn battle. In contrast, in the 340s, because the empire remained divided, there was little pressure to reach a consensus. The two sides had much more freedom of expression. Therefore, the Councils of the 340s are important. They show what the Western and Eastern Churches really believed.

Dedication Creed (341) 🔗

The Eastern Dedication Creed of 341 was formulated in response to Rome’s decision to vindicate Athanasius and Marcellus. It asserts “three in hypostasis but one in agreement.” In other words, the East believed in three distinct divine Beings with three distinct minds. This was the view of the ordinary, educated Eastern bishop. 

The main enemy, from the perspective of this creed, was Sabellianism.

Serdica Manifesto (343) 🔗

In opposition to the Dedication Creed, the Western statement, formulated at Serdica in 343, proclaims a single hypostasis. This statement is important. It was probably the only instance, in the entire Arian Controversy, in which the Nicenes could freely express their views, without interference from the emperors.

However, it was a clear Sabellian statement. It said that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis, or Person. It did not attempt to make any distinction between the Father and Son. In this manifesto, Jesus Christ is a mere man. This was the result of the Monarchian tradition of the church in Rome, supported by the strong Sabellian influence of people like Marcellus.

The Opposing Parties

Since the Dedication Creed was primarily anti-Sabellian, while the Serdica Manifesto was clearly Sabellian, these creeds show that the Controversy, at this time, was mainly between the Arians and Sabellians, not between the Arians and Nicenes.

East/West

The church was now divided between the Greek East and Latin West. However, there were many in the East who had maintained a ‘one hypostasis’ view. For example, Eustathius, who was the bishop of the key city of Antioch, was a Sabellian. He was one of the main drivers at the Nicene Council. Similarly, in the West, many held the ‘three hypostases’ view.

Constantius (350s)

Constantius maintained unity.

Constantine ruled the entire empire and maintained unity in the church. When he died in 337, his sons divided the Empire between them, allowing the division of the Western and Eastern churches. However, by 353, the Empire was again united under a single emperor, Constantius, who had previously been the Eastern emperor. 

He enforced unity in the Church. He compelled the Western Church to adopt an Eastern (Arian) creed.

Athanasius revived Nicaea.

However, by this time, Athanasius had become extremely powerful, both in the church and politically, and was the main obstacle to unity. 

It was at this time that Athanasius, in response to Constantius’s policy, reintroduced homoousios into the Controversy. He added “a detailed defence of Nicaea’s terminology” (Ayres, p. 140) to his polemical strategy.

Constantius was a mild ruler.

Since Athanasius was the main obstacle to unity, Constantius attempted to isolate him. Consequently, Athanasius portrayed Constantius as a tyrant. This view is also reflected in historians’ writings.

However, by the standards of the late Roman Empire, Constantius was a mild ruler, a tolerant and devout man. He had a reputation for mildness. At times, he was even merciful. He desired the welfare of both the church and the Empire. 

The Nicenes complained that Constantine interfered in Church affairs, but they did not complain when the emperors deposed Arians. And Athanasius did not, for a moment, permit Arians within his jurisdiction the freedom to worship as they chose. 

The real tyrant emperor of the fourth century was a Nicene. Theodosius became emperor in 379, made Nicene theology the sole legal religion, outlawed Arianism, and ferociously persecuted Arians. For example, he confiscated Arian churches, prohibited Arian worship meetings, and banned Arians from living in Roman cities and towns, things none of the Arian emperors did. See the discussion below.

Christian Factions

In the traditional account, there were just two sides to the Controversy, ‘orthodox’ and ‘Arian’. However, that “is a grave misunderstanding and a serious misrepresentation of the true state of affairs.” 

In reality, both Arians and Nicenes were divided into factions. On the Nicene side, the Nicenes, Sabellians, Roman Monarchians, and Cappadocians had very different theologies. On the Arian side, the reintroduction of the term homoousios caused them to divide. Different factions had different views of how Christ related to God’s substance:

Different Substance – The Heter-ousians were the extreme Arians. They are also called Neo-Arians. They claimed that the Son is of a “different substance” than the Father. This is similar to what Arius had taught.

Similar Substance – The Homoi-ousians became fairly dominant for a few years. They argued that, since the Father alone exists without cause, the Son’s substance cannot be the same (homoousios) as the Father’s. However, if the Son was “begotten” from the Father’s being, His substance must be similar to the Father’s.

Like the Father – The Homo-ians, like good Protestants, maintained that the Bible does not say anything about God’s substance. Therefore, it is utter arrogance to speculate about His substance. All they would say was that the Son is like the Father, as the Scripture teaches (e.g., Col 1:15). This view was accepted at the Council of Constantinople in AD 359/360. It remained the dominant view in the East over the next 20 years. When Theodosius became emperor in AD 379, the bishop of the Capital was a Homoian.

Homoousios became important.

Homoousios was not mentioned for two decades after Nicaea. However, these views show that, by the late 350s, the word homoousios had become important. Arianism, therefore, was a coalition of those hostile to Nicaea in general, and the homoousios in particular.

Twin Councils (359-360)

In 359, Emperor Constantius called twin councils in the East and West. He did not attend the meetings himself, but, as his father Constantine had done at the Nicene Council, he ensured that they reached the conclusion he thought best. These two councils were concluded at a small council in Constantinople, where a Homoian Arian creed was accepted. That remained the dominant view over the next two decades, at least in the East. If the Council of Nicaea is accepted as ecumenical, this series of councils, in reality, was even more ecumenical.

360s-370s

For much of those two decades, the Empire was divided between Eastern and Western emperors, allowing the Western Church to return to its traditional Nicene position, while the East remained mainly Arian:

“Constantius, who had lent forceful support to the Homoian position, died in 361. He was succeeded briefly by his cousin Julian, who had renounced Christianity and sought to purge the empire of Christian influences, and by Jovian, who showed signs of favoring pro-Nicenes during his brief reign. In 364, imperial authority was again divided, now between Valens in the East (364–378) and Valentinian in the West (364–375). Valens was an active promoter of the homoian cause, while Valentinian followed a non-interventionist policy that was nevertheless sympathetic to the Nicene position. Upon his death in 375, Valentinian was succeeded by his son Gratian, who adopted a policy of general tolerance” (Anatolios, pp. 29-30).

Cappadocian Fathers (370s)

In the traditional account, the three Cappadocian Fathers, in the 360s and 370s, received the baton of orthodoxy from Athanasius. In reality, the Athanasians opposed the Cappadocians. The Cappadocians did accept the term homoousios. However:

The Athanasians and Sabellians, on the one hand, understood homoousios as meaning ‘one substance.’ Consequently, they claimed that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis, a single divine Person.

The Cappadocians, on the other hand, began as Arians, believing that the Father and Son are two distinct Beings. Specifically, they were Homoiousians, believing that the Son’s substance is similar to the Father’s, but not the same. From that position, they later accepted the term homoousios. However, they did not understand it, as the Athanasians did, to mean ‘one substance.’ In their view, it means that the Father and Son are two distinct substances, two distinct Beings, with the same type of substance. The shift they made, from teaching two Beings with similar substances, to two Beings with the same type of substances, is relatively small. They did not make the huge shift to believe, like the Athanasians did, that the Father and the Son are one single substance or hypostasis.

Meletian Schism

The friction between the Cappadocians and Athanasians can be seen in the Meletian Schism. The Athanasians, including Damasus, bishop of Rome, and Peter, Athanasius’ successor as bishop of Alexandria, supported a Sabellian candidate as bishop of Antioch. The Cappadocians, on the other hand, supported Meletius, Basil’s friend. (See here.) 

I am busy rewriting this article. Sorry for any inconvenience.

END OF THE CONTROVERSY

Theodosius and the Edict

Traditional Account

In the traditional account, during the 55 years after Nicaea, Arian emperors, particularly Constantius, forced the church to accept Arian creeds. Orthodoxy was everywhere attacked and was almost completely eclipsed. 

However, the traditional account continues, by 381, a majority in the Church held to the Nicene view. Therefore, at the Council of Constantinople, the Second Ecumenical Council, right prevailed, the wickedness of Arianism was defeated and crushed, and the Controversy was ended through the ratification of Nicene orthodoxy. Thus ended the ascendancy of Arianism.

Final Say in Doctrinal Disputes

It is true that Arian emperors forced the church to accept Arian creeds. However, that is something all emperors did. The Empire was a dictatorship. Therefore, the emperors decided which religions to allow. And after the emperors legalized Christianity, they also decided which Christian factions to allow. In other words, the emperors always had the final say in doctrinal disputes. For all practical purposes, the emperor was the head of the church. There was no separation of Church and State (Boyd). 

Theodosius ended the Controversy.

In fact, the most tyrannical emperor was a Nicene. Theodosius became emperor in the East in 379. 

He formally outlawed Arianism, prohibited Arians from living and preaching in cities and towns, and confiscated Arian churches. These are things none of the Arian emperors did. Compared to Theodosius, the Arian emperors were mild. 

Thus, the Controversy was ended, and Nicene theology was prescribed, but not by the Church or by an ecumenical council. Arianism was already outlawed in 380, the year before the Council of Constantinople, by the Roman Empire, through a Roman law, the Edict of Thessalonica.

Without consulting a church council, but with the support of the Western emperor, Theodosius issued the edict in February 380. It outlawed Arianism, threatened punishment, and made Nicene Christianity the only legal religion. In an antichristian style, it described all who do not conform as “foolish madmen.” “They will suffer … the punishment of our authority,” it said.

The First Trinitarian Statement

The creeds of 325 and 381 identified the Father alone as the ‘one God.’ In contrast, the Edict of Thessalonica, in 380, was the first to describe the Trinity as the ‘one God.’ It reads:

“Let us believe in the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” 

Bishops

In 360, under Constantius, the church accepted a Homoian Arian creed. During the two decades before 381, the Greek Eastern Church maintained this policy. Consequently, by 380, a Homoian bishop, Demophilus, ruled the church in the Capital, Constantinople. In November of 380, still before the Council, Theodosius unilaterally drove him out. He appointed, in his place, one of the three Cappadocians, Gregory of Nazianzus. He also ordered the Arian bishop Lucius to be chased out of Alexandria (Hanson, p. 804-5). 

Worship Meetings

In January 381, still before the ‘Ecumenical’ Council, Theodosius issued a second edict. It said that no church was to be occupied for worship by any heretics, and no heretics were to gather together for worship within the walls of any town.

Council of Constantinople

After these events, Theodosius summoned the so-called Second Ecumenical Council, the Council of Constantinople, in 381. However, the Council of Constantinople was far from ecumenical:

Call – The Church did not call or request this council. Emperor Theodosius summoned the council on his own initiative.

Invitees – Since the empire had already outlawed Arianism, only Nicenes were invited and allowed to attend. Other groups tried to attend, but were shown the door (Hanson, pp. 805-6).

A local council – While ‘ecumenical’ means a meeting of church authorities from the whole ‘world’ (oikoumene), securing the approval of the whole Church, the Council in Constantinople, in 381, was a local council of Antioch, attended by delegates from the area around Antioch, probably mainly to address the schism in Antioch. The West was not represented even by a single person.

Chairperson – After Gregory resigned, to ensure that the meeting complied with his wishes, the emperor appointed a layman, an unbaptized government official, Nectarius, as both bishop of Constantinople and chair of the Council. The Nicenes did not object. 

Therefore, the decision to adopt Nicene theology was not made by the church, but by the emperors. It is amazing that people still regard this as a valid and even an important church council.

Further Persecution

In the third edict, immediately after the Council in 381, Theodosius confiscated all Arian churches, gave them to Nicene bishops (Boyd), and prohibited Arians from living in cities and towns. 

State Religion

The Edict of Thessalonica was not a church decree. It applied to all Roman citizens. It made Nicene theology the State Religion. In other words, all Roman citizens were now Christians, specifically, Nicene Christians. On the other hand, the Nicene church became fully subject to Roman authority.

Why Theodosius succeeded

Many emperors tried to put a final end to the Controversy, but failed. Why did Theodosius succeed? In the traditional account, he was supported by a Nicene majority. That would be difficult to prove:

In the East, Arianism always dominated. As stated, even when Theodosius became emperor, the bishop of Constantinople was an Arian. A Nicene majority was most unlikely.

In the West, a Nicene majority was certainly possible, even likely. Rome had a Monarchian tradition. As the Empire’s mother city, the church in Rome was influential.  

Perhaps it is a moot point to ask what the overall majority view was. The main issue is that the emperors decided which factions to allow, regardless of the majority’s view. Perhaps Theodosius succeeded for the following reasons:

First, he outlawed Arianism with a formal Roman law, something no other emperor did. He made Nicene theology the sole legal religion.

Second, he prohibited Arians from meeting and living in the cities. He confiscated their churches. No other emperor did something similar.

Third, in the West, Ambrose of Milan was a most hostile anti-Arian. Gratian, the young Western Emperor, followed a policy of non-interference, but later came under the influence of Ambrose and Theodosius.

Fourth, Rome had a Monarchian tradition. The support of the mother city certainly supported the Nicene cause.

However, Theodosius did not really succeed. As stated, in the next century, Europe was ruled again by Arian kingdoms. The triumph of the Roman Church must really be ascribed to Emperor Justinian. In the sixth century, he liberated the Roman Church in the West by defeating three Arian kingdoms.

Conclusion

The Arian Controversy began soon after Christianity was legalized. Persecution ceased. However, the Controversy ended when Arian Christianity was outlawed. In other words, the form of Christianity that dominated in the 3rd century, and for most of the 4th, became illegal. Persecution was resumed, but it was now Christian-on-Christian persecution.

For more details, see Theodosius and The Council of Constantinople.

LATER CENTURIES

Fifth Century

Christianity transformed in the 4th century. It began as an outlawed, persecuted religion, but ended as the State Religion of the Roman Empire, meaning that all Romans were now required to be Christians.

However, the Church of the 4th century was divided into factions, something the emperors could not allow, for it threatened the Empire’s unity. Therefore, they made Nicene theology the sole legal religion, outlawed Arianism, and severely persecuted Arians.

Already beginning in the 4th century, large numbers of Germanic peoples, called ‘barbarians’ by the Romans, migrated into the Empire. The Empire was unable to stop or control them. In the fifth century, the immigrants defeated the Roman army, sacked Rome twice, deposed the Roman emperor, and divided the Western Empire into several Germanic kingdoms.

These Germanic tribes had converted to Christianity in the 4th century, when Arianism still dominated. Therefore, they were Arian. Consequently, after they had taken control, Arian kingdoms ruled Europe.

The Roman State Church was Nicene, but the Arian kingdoms tolerated it. One reason is that they did not want to destroy the Empire. They intended to remain part of the Roman Empire, live like Romans, and share in its wealth and the protection the Empire offered.

Actually, the Roman State Church grew in strength. One reason is that it had a strong, centralized organization, in contrast to the political chaos and continual warfare of the Germanic nations. However, it was now subject to Arian rule and had to compete with the Arian church.

Specifically, the bishop of Rome, the Pope, grew in status. In the Roman Empire, the emperor functioned as the head of the Church. After the emperor disappeared from the Western Empire, the bishop of Rome gradually assumed that role.

See here for more on the fifth century.

Sixth Century

Justinian was emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire, also called the Byzantine Empire, from 527 to 565. He had a genuine interest in the church, but suppressed heretics with violence and death.

He found defending the ‘two natures’ theory challenging. The Papacy was strongly pro-‘two natures,’ as Chalcedon claimed. However, many in the East, including his wife, were convinced that Jesus Christ only has one nature.

In the Roman culture, Church and State were one. The Emperor was regarded as the head of both, with the right and duty to protect and regulate the Church. In Justinian’s view, it was his duty to protect and rule, not only the church in the East, but also the Papacy.

He sent troops West to liberate the Papacy from Arian domination. They subjected the three Arian nations that posed an immediate threat to the Papacy. By 553, his troops had dispersed the Vandals to the fringes of the empire, forced the Ostrogoths back north to South Austria, and barricaded the Visigoths with the new province of Spania. 

These conquests marked the beginning of the ‘Byzantine Papacy, period of two-century period during which the Byzantine emperors dominated the Papacy. But, more importantly, the Eastern Empire also ruled the West through the Papacy. This transformed the Roman Church into a very powerful political organization. It eventually led to the conversion of the Germanic kingdoms from Arianism to Roman Catholicism. For example, the Visigoths in Spain converted around 589, and the Lombards around 700.

These decisions to convert were not made by the people, but by the emperors. Conversion took place “top to bottom,” meaning that the king converted first, then made his faith the State Religion of his nation, imposing it on the general population. 

In conclusion, if Justinian had not subjected the Arian nations, and if he had not set up the Byzantine Papacy, Arianism might still have dominated today.

See here for more on the sixth century.

Later

Eighth Century

In the eighth century, Muslim conquests neutralized the Eastern Roman Empire. However, by now, the Trinitarian Roman Church was strong enough to survive with the support of other protectors. The previously Arian nations, which had accepted Catholicism over the preceding two centuries, now protected the Roman Church. (Read More)

Middle Ages

The State Religion of the Roman Empire became the Roman Church. The exact same organization that was formed within the Roman Empire, as the Church of the Empire, survived the Fall of Rome as a distinct entity and grew in power, and eventually became the Roman Church: the church of the Middle Ages.

Present Day

Therefore, the reality is that the church of today inherited the Trinity doctrine from the Roman Empire. Or, put differently, the Roman Church is the Church of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire no longer exists, but its official religion – a symbol of its authority – continues to dominate Christianity. It is regarded as the most important doctrine of the church. Non-Trinitarians are even regarded by some as non-Christians.

CONCLUSIONS

Arianism Dominated

Therefore, Arianism dominated for at least the first five centuries. One exception was during Constantine’s reign, when the Nicene Creed was produced. But Constantine then switched to the Arian side. Thereafter, the emperors, generally, maintained Arianism. The second exception was the period following Theodosius’ ascension, when the Empire made Nicene Christianity its State Religion. In the 5th century, as stated, after the Empire fragmented, Arian kingdoms ruled. It was only during the Byzantine Papacy (6th to 8th centuries) that the Arian nations converted to Nicene theology.

The Roman Church

It still exists today as the Roman Church. During the Reformation, the Protestants rejected many of its doctrines, but retained the Roman doctrine of the Trinity.

The Emperors decided.

The decision to adopt Nicene theology was not taken by the Church, but by the Roman emperors when they made it the State Religion. The organization that was formed within the Roman Empire, the Roman Church, survived the Empire’s fragmentation and became powerful, and became the Church of the Middle Ages.

Therefore, the reality is that the Church inherited the Trinity doctrine from the Roman Empire. Or, put differently, the Roman Church is the Church of the Roman Empire.

Resistance to the Revised Account

This article has shown that the traditional account of the Controversy, which is how the Nicenes, particularly Athanasius, explained it, is a complete travesty. This information has been available for at least the past 50 years. However, it remains limited to scholarly writings. Why does the Church, and sources such as Wikipedia, continue to teach the traditional account? The revised account is often seen as an attack on the Church. Why aren’t even pastors aware of these matters?

According to Williams, one reason is the strong prejudice, caused by the long history of ‘demonizing’ Arius (Williams, p. 2).

However, the main reason, I would submit, is that the traditional account has been developed as a defense of the Trinity doctrine. Therefore, the revelation of the true origin of the Trinity doctrine, which many regard as the Church’s foundational doctrine, casts doubt on its legitimacy.

The Church in Rome was victorious.

The Roman Church, the Church of the Roman Empire, continued the theology of the ancient church in the city of Rome:

As discussed, in the third century, while Christianity was still outlawed and persecuted, the bulk of the church was in the Greek East. It held, in the main, that the preincarnate Son is a second divine Being, similar to Arian theology in the fourth century.

In contrast, the church of the city of Rome, in the West, had a Monarchian tradition. It held that the Father and Son are one single divine Being.

While Christianity was persecuted, the power of the church in Rome was limited. However, after Christianity was legalized, and after the emperor, ruling from Rome, himself became a Christian, the church in Rome grew increasingly dominant. For example, in 380, Theodosius’ Edict of Thessalonica specifically mentions Damasus, bishop of Rome at the time, as the norm of acceptable religion. So, eventually, Rome’s theology overcame the Arian domination.

In other words, the present-day Trinity doctrine developed from Monarchianism. It is a very refined form of Monarchianism.

BIBLE PROPHECY

These events have been predicted by Bible prophecy. In Daniel 7, four great beasts come up out of the sea. They symbolize the ancient Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek, and Roman Empires.

From the fourth beast, representing the Roman Empire, first, ten horns grow. This represents the fragmentation of the Roman Empire, in the fifth century, into many kingdoms.

Then an 11th horn grows out, uprooting three of the other horns. This symbolizes the Roman Church. In the sixth century, Emperor Justinian had to defeat and subject three Arian nations to liberate the Roman Church from Arian domination.

This 11th horn becomes the main character in Daniel 7. Daniel 7 mentions several other characters. However, they are mentioned only to enable the reader to identify this 11th horn. It is the great antichrist. It grows larger than the remaining horns. In the High Middle Ages, when the Roman Empire dominated the nations of Europe.

It opposes God, persecutes God’s people, and attempts to change God’s law, and will only be destroyed when Christ returns. The Roman Chruch has killed thousands, if not millions, of God’s people.