Did Arius Teach Jesus Could Sin?

Table of Contents

Summary

Following ancient Greek philosophy, theologians generally accept that God is immutable, meaning unable to change. The question arises: Is God’s Son also immutable? Can He change? In particular, can He sin?

Arius’ opponents, Alexander and Athanasius, believed that the Son is an aspect of the Father (see here). As such, the Son is as immutable as the Father.

The Nicene Creed, similarly, anathematizes those who say, “The Son of God is … subject to alteration or change.”

Arius described the Son as “Like the Father, unchangeable” (Williams, p. 96). However, his enemies, Alexander and Athanasius, claimed that Arius taught the exact opposite, namely, that the Son is, “like all others … subject to change” (Athanasius in Contra Arianos(v), Williams, p. 100). Arius’ thinking was as follows:

By nature, the Son is mutable. His enemies preferred to emphasize this point.
God did not override the Son’s freedom (mutability). God did not make it impossible for His Son to change or to sin.
The Son does not sin because He loves righteousness and hates iniquity. He is “unchangeable” because He will not sin; not because He cannot sin.
God had always given the Son all authority in heaven and earth because He always knew His Son would never sin.

Note how Arius’ enemies emphasize the one part of Arius’ thinking, that the Son is mutable by nature, and omit that Arius also said the Son will never change. This is one example of how Athanasius misrepresents Arius.

The Son came to this world to be tested to see whether He would also sin under the ‘right’ circumstances (see here). If He couldn’t sin, His victory over sin would be meaningless.

Purpose of this Article

Since Arius said the Son is unchangeable, why did Athanasius write that Arius taught the Son is mutable?

Theologians generally agree, based mainly on the principles of Greek philosophy (see Classical Theism), that God is immutable, meaning “unchanging over time.” All other beings are then thought to be subject to change. [Show More]

The question arises: Is God’s Son also immutable?

Arius’ opponents, Alexander and Athanasius, believed that the Son is an internal aspect of the Father (see here). Consequently, the Son is as immutable as the Father.

In the Nicene Creed, the Son is begotten from the substance of the Father and is of the same substance as the Father. This also implies that He is as immutable as the Father. The Creed anathematizes those who say, “The Son of God is … subject to alteration or change.”

Arius argued that, since the Father has begotten the Son, the Father has caused His existence and the Father alone exists without a cause. Therefore, the Son could be thought of as created. As such, He must also be mutable. But Arius described the Son as:

“Like the Father, unchangeable” (Williams, p. 96).

The purpose of this article is to explain why Arius described the Son both as a ‘creature’ and unchangeable.

Arius was and is important.

Arius is traditionally regarded as the mother of heretics, but modern patristic scholars say he was a good theologian.

The term ‘Arian’ is derived from the name of the fourth-century presbyter Arius. “Arius … came … to be regarded as a kind of Antichrist among heretics” (Williams, p. 1). However, modern scholars conclude: “Once we stopped looking at him from Athanasius’ perspective, we shall have a fairer picture of his strength” (Williams, p. 12-13).

The point is that most of what we know about Arius comes from Athanasius’ criticism of Arius’ writings and “Athanasius, a fierce opponent of Arius … certainly would not have stopped short of misrepresenting what he (Arius) said” (Hanson, p. 10). Athanasius used “unscrupulous tactics in polemic and struggle” (Williams, p. 239).

Since most theologians over the centuries had taken Athanasius at his word, Arius’ theology has traditionally been “represented as … some hopelessly defective form of belief” (Williams, p. 2). But Rowan Williams recently, after careful study of the ancient documents, described Arius as:

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

“An important dimension in Christian life that was dis-edifyingly and unfortunately crushed.” (Williams, p. 91)

For that reason, it would be appropriate for us to take note of what Arius wrote.

Authors Cited

This article series is based on books by world-class scholars of the last 50 years.

When the modern study of the Arian controversy began in the 19th century, scholars relied almost exclusively on the ancient writings by Nicene authors, particularly Athanasius. “The 19th century lionized Athanasius and made his career appear even more glorious than it was” (Leinhard).

However, in the 20th century, scholars discovered that Athanasius distorted the nature of the conflict. He used “unscrupulous tactics in polemic and struggle” (Williams, p. 239). For example, “the quotations from the Thalia (Arius’s book) in Orationes con. Arianos I.5-6 are full of derogatory and hostile editorial corrections clearly emanating from Athanasius” (Hanson, p. 11).

“Athanasius’ account begins by presenting Arius as the originator of a new heresy” (Ayres, p. 107), and then argues that all the anti-Nicenes merely followed Arius. Both statements are untrue: “Arius was a committed theological conservative” (Williams, p. 175). The anti-Nicenes followed the same theological trajectory as Arius, but they did not follow him or agree with his extreme views.

Consequently, 20th-century research has produced a very different explanation of the 4th-century Controversy. Hanson stated that “the diatribes of Gwatkin and of Harnack,” published at the beginning of the 20th century as the culmination of the 19th-century research, “can to-day be completely ignored” (Hanson, p. 95). [Show More]

Therefore, this article series quotes mainly from the patristic scholars of the last 50 years, namely the writings used by most institutions of higher learning (see here), including:

• R.P.C. Hanson’s The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (1987);
• Rowan Williams’ Arius: Heresy and Tradition (1987); and
• Lewis Ayres’ Nicaea and its Legacy (2004).

The term ‘Arian’ is a Misnomer.

Arius did not have many followers. Athanasius invented the ‘Arian’ concept as a polemical device.

Arius was already dead when Athanasius wrote. However, he used Arius as a stick to beat his opponents with. He called his opponents ‘Arians’, meaning followers of Arius, and then selectively quoted Arius as an attack on his opponents.

But his opponents did not follow Arius. Arius did not leave behind a school of disciples. He had very few real followers. Nobody regarded his writings as worth copying. His theology played no part in the Controversy after Nicaea. The term ‘Arian’, therefore, is a serious misnomer. The only reason so many Christians believe Arius was important is that they accept Athanasius’ distortions. (Read more)

In reality, Arius was part of a group we may call the ‘Eusebians’; followers of Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia. Consequently, this article series often refers to the anti-Nicenes as the Eusebians rather than ‘Arians’. [Show More]

What Alexander and Athanasius said of Arius

Athanasius claimed that Arius described the Son as “changeable by nature,” “like all others.”

Athanasius, in his paraphrasing of Arius’ writings, claimed that Arius wrote:

The Son is “like all others … subject to change … because he is changeable by nature” (Contra Arianos(v), Williams, p. 100; cf. Hanson, p. 13).

“God foresaw that the Son was going to be good, and so exempted him from evil in advance, i.e., deprived him of the possibility of earning merit” (Hanson, p. 21; cf. p. 13).

These quotes are from Contra Arianos in which Athanasius paraphrases Arius’ theology. Williams confirms this “has no parallel in S, nor any in Arius’ letters” (Williams, p. 104). (“S” stands for de synodis 15, the other work by Athanasius in which he seems to quote Arius’ actual words.)

Alexander also claimed that Arius described the Son as “of a mutable nature.”

Alexander was Arius’ bishop. The 4th-century Controversy began as a dispute between them. Two of Alexander’s letters “emphasize very strongly that Arius taught a mutable Logos, whose divine dignity is a reward for his unswerving spiritual fidelity” (Williams, p. 104). Alexander described Arius as saying that the Son “is of a mutable nature” (Hanson, p. 16-17) and “mutable and alterable in his nature as are all rational beings” (Hanson, p. 16; cf. Williams, p. 104-5).

What Arius himself said

In his own writings, Arius said that the Son is and always was unchangeable.

In the three letters of Arius that have survived, he described the Son as:

- “Like the Father, ‘unchangeable’” (Williams, p. 96).
- “Stably and inalienably” (L, Williams, p. 97).
- “Unchangeable and unalterable” (Hanson, p. 7; cf. Hanson, p. 6, 8).
- “By the will of God, the Son is stably and unalterably what he is” (Williams, p. 98).

While Alexander claimed that Arius’ Son is mutable and “promoted because of virtue” (Williams, p. 113), namely, that His “divine dignity is a reward for his unswerving spiritual fidelity” (Williams, p. 104), Arius said that the Son always had His “divine dignity:”

“Arius’ scheme depends upon the fact that God bestows power and glory upon the Son from the beginning” (Williams, p. 113).

“The Son (was) creative Word and Wisdom and the image of the Father’s glory from before the world was made” (Williams, p. 114).

There was no “sort of change in his status … (no) time when he is not Wisdom and Word” (Williams, p. 114).

Arius’ Rationale

Rowan Williams explains how Arius could describe the Son as both a creature and as immutable on pages 113-116 of his book:

By nature, the Son is mutable. The Son has divine attributes, not by nature, but because He receives them from the Father.

For Arius, the Son “does not by nature possess any of the divine attributes … his godlike glory and stability [immutability] … and so must be given them” (Williams, p. 113-114).

For example, the Son has life in Himself and all the fullness to dwell in Him, but He received those things (John 5:26; Col 1:19).

God did not override the Son’s freedom. God did not make it impossible for His Son to change or to sin:

“As a rational creature he is mutable according to his choice and what is to be avoided here is the suggestion that God overrules the Son’s freedom by his premundane [before the creation of the world] gifts and graces” (Williams, p. 114).

The Son does not and will not sin because He hates iniquity, not because He cannot sin. In that sense, He is immutable:

In Arius’ view, “the Son, in his pre-incarnate state and in his life on earth voluntarily ‘loved righteousness and hated iniquity’” (Williams, p. 114).

God always knew that His Son would never sin. Even though the Son can sin, God has given Him all authority in heaven and on earth and “all the gifts and glories God can give” (L, Williams, p. 98) right from the beginning. If the Son would sin, that would cause great unhappiness. However:

“God, in endowing the Son with this dignity of heavenly intimacy from the very beginning of his existence, is … acting not arbitrarily but rationally, knowing that his firstborn among creatures is and will always be worthy of the highest degree of grace, a perfect channel for creative and redemptive action, and so a perfect ‘image’ of the divine” (Williams, p. 114-5).

Conclusions

Arius did not describe the Son as immutable because He cannot sin; He is immutable because He will not sin.

The Son came to this world to be tested to see whether He would also sin under the ‘right’ circumstances (see here). If it was impossible for Him to sin, His victory over sin would be meaningless.

While Arius wrote that the Son is immutable, Athanasius, without an explanation, stated that Arius taught the exact opposite. This is one example of how Athanasius misrepresented Arius. “Athanasius … certainly would not have stopped short of misrepresenting what he (Arius) said” (Hanson, p. 10). We must not blindly accept what Athanasius wrote.