Athanasius-Arius Controversy

Syed Waqas

Department of Biblical Studies

Cincinnati Christian University

Cincinnati, Ohio
 CONTENTS

Chapter Page

1. Introduction 2

2. The Conflict: History and Outcome 6

3. The Impact of the Debate 11

4. Bibliography 13

1
 INTRODUCTION

The Athanasius-Arius conflict is a major debate of as well as in the history of

Christianity. Being more of a phenomenon than an event, it took place in the fourth century. The

controversy it brought about started raging throughout the Christendom, particularly in the major

city of Alexandria and the Middle East, almost immediately. The pivotal point of the controversy

was the true nature of Christ, which triggered an enormous debate throughout the Roman Empire

after the conversion of Constantine the Great to Christianity and his promotion of Christian

religion under discreet official patronage.1 The land of the Eastern Roman Empire, which the

historians later on referred to as the Byzantine Empire, had become tremendously fertile for

planting the seeds of Christian faith and thus multitudes joined the Christian faith from the

milieu of paganism.2 It was, primarily, the fruit of Christianity's victory over other religions.

There was, however, a negative side to such a much-desired official patronage of

Christianity and encouragement to the ordinary masses to convert to Christianity, which

happened to be the only exclusivist faith in the empire. When people started to join the Christian

columns in thousands, it naturally gave birth to such problems as were not faced by the church in

the prior three centuries, namely the circumstances when Christians were still a dejected

minority. Evidently, there was no existential threat to the church anymore, because the

conversion of Constantine had signaled the royal favor to the Christian religion, which was such

a milestone achieved that substantially enlarged the size of the church even though Christianity

1
Constantine did not officially convert until much later. However, he was probably a believer at heart if we want to
put it in the best case scenario; the worst case scenario would be that he was sympathetic to Christianity.
Historically, Constantine was baptized only a short while before his death in May 337.
2
Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
1996), 10.

2
would take yet another century to become the religion of the majority within the empire.3 But the

threat was, nonetheless, more serious in nature at this moment from an internal point of view.

Heresy, for instance, was the biggest enemy of the church, which went out of control when

Christendom grew in size. The history of heresy as a problem for the church does not,

historically speaking, start in the fourth century. As a matter of fact, heresy has a much older

history that goes back to the first century when the church was in the phase of transition from the

Apostles to the early Church Fathers. Bishop Iranaeus of Lyons, for instance, wrote five books

under the title, Against the Heresies, to cope with the growing heresies in the church, whereas

Tertullian of Carthage penned down an impressive work, Prosecution Speech against the

Heretics, to deal with the same kind of issues.4 What is interesting to note is that the Christian

heresy, like the Christian religion itself, remained esoteric and unnoticed for the most part of

history prior to the moment of Constantine's conversion. The outsiders did not distinguish

between the orthodoxy and the heresy, whereas the insiders constantly fought this battle in the

so-called struggle for retrieving and preserving the true teachings of the New Testament.

Some three centuries down the road from the time of Jesus, Arius, a presbyter from

Alexandria who later became a bishop, preached that the Father and the Son were not of the

same substance and therefore God the Father was superior to the Son. It was believed by many to

be contrary to the doctrine of the New Testament and was, later on, rejected by the majority in

the First Council of Nicaea. Athanasius, an Egyptian bishop and a successor of famous

Alexandrian bishop, Alexander, rose to prominence on the account of his steadfast defense of the

core Christian teachings in the face of heretical aggression. He was up against many odds, given

3
Bart D. Ehrman, The Triumph of Christianity: How a Forbidden Religion Swept the World (New York, NY: Simon &
Schuster, 2018), 8.
4
Gerd Ludemann, Heretics: The Other Side of Early Christianity (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996),
12.

3
his options, but his resoluteness in defending what he believed as the faith of Christ against the

so-called heresy of Arianism was off the charts. His conviction of being grounded in truth and

constant resistance to heresy won him and his advocates, the Cappadocians, the day at the debate

of Nicaea—more famously known as the First Council of Nicaea. "Arius is regarded as the prime

culprit of Nicaea, and therefore all opposition to the Nicene formula was interpreted as 'Arian,'

an interpretive strategy originally devised by Athanasius."5 Marcellus of Ancyra, another strong

opponent of Arianism, was also with Athanasius in his fight against Arius.

Athanasius was the key player of the debate who emerged out victorious earning massive

respect of the church leaders, whereas it was the Great Cappadocians who were the main aides of

Athanasius in his stand against Arianism. Historically speaking, Athanasius' argument prevails to

this day in Christian theology and the Orthodoxy is therefore defined from his perspective. Arius,

as a result of the Council of Nicaea, was fated to be condemned in the church for all time to

come.6

The controversy continued even after the First Council of Nicaea, because Arianism

returned to the mainland after the death of Constantine in 337 AD. It is important to note that

Arius died one year prior to the death of Constantine in 336 AD. In 350 AD, Constantius became

the sole emperor of the Roman Empire, i.e. of both eastern and western empires. He leaned

towards Arianism as his sympathies were for them. He wanted to promote Arianism, which,

through his policies, resulted in attempts to crush the anti-Arian segment of the church. He was,

in fact, partly successful in achieving his goal because he banished such priests as did not

express allegiance to Arianism. Athanasius did not give up on his position and again dealt with

5
Khaled Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea: The Development and Meaning of Trinitarian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Academic, 2011), 28.
6
Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea 42-43.

4
the lingering problem of Arianism as effectively as in the past. This time he emerged to spotlight

unlike the humility and relative anonymity of the First Council. It is due to Athanasius' role as an

ardent defender of the faith that he is commemorated as a heroic figure of the church.

5
 THE CONFLICT: HISTORY AND OUTCOME

Arius was influential at the court of Constantine due to his friends, Eusebius of Caesarea

and Eusebius of Nicomedia, who were present at the Emperor's court in high offices.7 Apart from

being friends with Arius, they also had receptive attitude towards his theological position. His

theological argument that the Christ was homoi-ousian, meaning "of the similar

essence/substance," and not co-equal with God was catalyst in terms of ripping the Christian

world apart in the first quarter of the fourth century. His popularity had been established and

likewise his argument was gaining massive acceptance in all corners of the Roman Empire.

Historically, Arius was not the originator of this theological standpoint, because this view had

been in circulation prior to him. Arius emerged as the most articulate theological voice of the

belief in the inequality of God the Father and the Son. He tweaked the crude form of the belief

with his reasoning and turned it into a doctrine branding the Son as subordinate to the Father.8

Arius was, thus, building the patchwork for a lasting change in the Christology of the Church.

His position was obviously not Trinitarian and his main thesis was that Christ as the son had a

beginning and therefore he could not be equal to God the Father who had no beginning.9

The dispute began when Athanasius was the chief deacon assistant to the Bishop

Alexander of Alexandria. While Alexander preached with depth and perhaps too philosophical

minuteness on the Trinity, Arius, who was originally a presbyter from Libya, proclaimed, "If the

Father begat the Son, then he who was begotten had a beginning in existence, and from this it

follows there was a time when the Son was not."10 The argument caught on. Alexander and

7
George Hodges, The Early Church From Ignatius to Augustine (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1915), 128.
8
Ehrman, Triumph 225.
9
Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea 42.
10
Commemoration of the 1st Ecumenical Council in Nicaea, Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North
America (Retrieved on 10-22-2018 - http://ww1.antiochian.org/first_ecumenical_council)

6
Athanasius, who replaced Alexander as the Bishop of Alexandria afterwards, however, spotted

the heretical nature of the Arian doctrine. They geared up to fight the challenge of Arius and

waged a theological war on Arianism.11 Arguing from the New Testament, they declared that

Arius' theological position denied the doctrine of Trinity, which, in their view, was the true

anture of God. Christ is not of a like substance to God, they argued, but the same substance,

homo-ousios.12 The following citation from the Encyclopedia Britannica sums the Arian

argument in a brilliant way.

Arianism is often considered to be a form of Unitarian theology in that it stresses God’s unity at the

expense of the notion of the Trinity, the doctrine that three distinct persons are united in one

Godhead. Arius’s basic premise was the uniqueness of God, who is alone self-existent (not

dependent for its existence on anything else) and immutable; the Son, who is not self-existent,

cannot therefore be the self-existent and immutable God. Because the Godhead is unique, it cannot

be shared or communicated. Because the Godhead is immutable, the Son, who is mutable, must,

therefore, be deemed a creature who has been called into existence out of nothing and has had a

beginning.13

The grand debate took place in 325 AD in the ancient Anatolian city of Nicaea. Neither

Arius nor Athanasius was a bishop at that time and therefore they did not get a voting at the

council. Only bishops were allowed to vote. Alexander represented Alexandria as the bishop and

stood his ground firm against Arianism in support to Athanasius' position. The debate ended in

the affirmation of the homo-ousian doctrine, whereas Arius' ideas were rejected and he was

exiled in consequence to losing the debate.14 Any member of the church who followed Arius

11
Burn, Nicene Creed 14.
12
Andrew Ewbank Burn, The Nicene Creed (New York: Edwin S. Gorham, 1909), 51.
13
Encyclopedia Britannica, "Arianism" (Retrieved on 10-20-2018 - https://www.britannica.com/topic/Arianism)
14
Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea 18.

7
after that was, under official decree, to be exiled. Almost all of those who attended the debate

and were present at the council, with minor exceptions, converted to the newly established

Orthodox doctrine of Athanasius. This resulted in the formation of the doctrinal position now

known as the "Nicene Creed." It is, however, suggested by some historians that the Athanasian

orthodoxy's victory is often overrated because it resulted in creating more confusion than

solution, which projected the debate on the future years necessitating more Church Councils.15

In the opinion of Athanasius, it was not a matter of philosophical complexities and/or

logical reasoning in terms of theological stipulations. To him, the subject of the nature of Christ

did not require systematic theology either. Athanasius was convinced that it was the pivotal

doctrine of salvation that the New Testament writers had built their theology around. It was this

pivotal New Testament doctrine that was at stake given the spread of the heresy. He, therefore,

expounded that only one who fully shares humanity with mankind could possibly redeem human

sins and only one fully a divine entity could exercise the power to save humankind from

perishing in sin. Athanasius, therefore, built his theological position on this plain logic of the

New Testament doctrine of salvation, which, according to him, preaches dual nature of Christ.

He contends that "those who maintain (that) 'there was a time when the Son was not' rob God of

his Word, like plunderers."16 His resistance to the heresy was so tough and firm that he did not

change or modify his position at any point, even against heavy odds. In the chequered political

situation of the Roman Empire in the fourth century, he was exiled for his doctrinal position

multiple times and even his bishopric came under attack. However, Athanasius did not give in

and continued to brand Arius' theology a heresy.

15
Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea 18.
16
Patrick Navas, Divine Truth or Human Tradition? (Bloomington, IN: The Author House, 2011), 227.

8
 "Black dwarf" was the derogatory nickname Athanasius had been given by his enemies.

In fact, the short, dark-skinned Egyptian bishop had plenty of enemies.17 He was exiled five

times by four Roman emperors, cumulating 17 years in exile out of the total 45 years he served

as the bishop of Alexandria. Yet, in the end, it was his theological enemies who were banished

from the church and the teachings of Christianity, and it was Athanasius' writings that shaped the

future of the church.18

The Arian controversy was not going to end any time soon because it survived in various

pockets of the Roman Empire and continued until 381 AD. Arianism only collapsed in 381 AD

when the doctrinal position of Arius lost political support—and by definition, all religious-cum-

ecclesial support too. Emperors Gratian and Theodosius I took upon themselves the defense of

the non-Arian Christians, which resulted in the ultimate death of Arianism. It is also important to

know that Arianism bounced back with more vigor after 350 AD, but then its theology started

witnessing cracks within. Various factions emerged within Arianism and thus they more

radically invested their theology in the semantics of the word "essence." Those coming from an

extremist Arian position declared that the Son was anomoios , “unlike,” the Father.19 Another

group propagated that the Son was (exactly) like the Father (homoean). The Emperor

Constantius shifted his favor to this particular group over the one that preached homoiousian,

and in conclusion all other views were rejected at the Council of Constantinople in 360 AD. The

term ousia was rejected altogether and a statement of faith was issued that the Son was like the

Father.20 The statement of faith that was issued at that moment reads as follows:

17
M. M. Ninan, Arianism: Who is Jesus? (Sanjose, CA: Global Press, 2013), 29.
18
Christianity Today, "Athanasius" (Retrieved on 10-22-2018 -
https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/people/theologians/athanasius.html)
19
Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea 70.
20
Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea 22, 70.

9
 We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the
essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of
one substance with the Father;
by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth];
who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;
he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;
from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
And in the Holy Ghost.21

21
"The Nicene Creed" (Retrieved on 10-23-2018 - http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Nicene_Creed)

10
 IMPACT OF THE DEBATE

The Council of Nicaea set the tone for the future course of Christianity. The church was

under persecution prior to finding acceptance with the Emperor Constantine the Great, which

was the biggest hindrance for an unchecked interaction of Christian priests, per the church's

mission, on a grand scale. Such a prohibition made it difficult for the church to come up with an

ecumenically declared creed, which, when it later became possible and was thus issued, was

signed off by almost all of the bishops present in Nicaea. Secondly, the church did not have

enough funding to sponsor such a project as the canonization of orthodoxy and proclaiming a

crystallized position in the matters of theology and church practices. Determining and canonizing

the ultimate set of Scriptures was yet another mammoth task the church could not perform

without the imperial support. Such a thing as convening a council on a grand scale to work out a

theological patchwork under a unified creedal statement was only possible if the emperor, under

his royal patronage, had commissioned. The help of the emperor, therefore, came like a much

needed blessing to the aid of the church and the Nicene Creed became established as the result of

the Council. The Nicene Creed in its 'original wording was that which had long been recited at

Caesarea with the addition of some Nicene words.'22

It was an ominous occasion for Constantine to call a church council in 325 AD because

the Arian controversy was on the rise and its impact was felt throughout the breadth and length

of the Roman Empire. It was, therefore, crucial for the emperor to address this matter at hand and

seek opinion from the high clergy of various parts of his empire. Constantine had very well

realized the significance of the urgency and the magnitude of the problem, which made him

personally attend the debate. In order to make it a successful event, therefore, Constantine did

22
Hodges, Early Church 177.

11
not hesitate to fund the entire project and funnel money into every little detail of the Council.

The Council was held between 20 May to 19 June, 325 AD, and the emperor provided lodging,

food, and other basic facilities to all of those who attended the Council at the royal expense.

Once the conclusion of the debate had been brought forth and Athanasius' argument had

been established as superior to that of Arius, the statement of faith was finalized and was issued.

All those present had to affirm the statement. On this occasion, Constantine sided with

Athanasius and ordered the suppression of all of the writings of Arius, because Arius refused to

affirm the Nicene statement of faith.23 This went viral in the entire Roman Empire and the

Christians primarily in the urban centers started to distance themselves from Arianism.24

Arianism, however, did not completely die off immediately and survived the debate's impact to

live off until much later, as already stated. The presence of Arianism, nevertheless, was primarily

limited to the far off frontiers because those exiled were now living away from the civilized

centers of the empire. Arianism bounced back to return to the centers of civic life after the

change of the emperor, particularly with the coronation of Constantius.

Arianism has never been completely wiped out even though it was branded a heresy ever

since the time of the First Council of Nicaea. It continued to exist down the road in some form

among certain Germanic tribes through 7th century. Arianism was probably the biggest heresy of

Christianity, which did an enormous damage to the traditionally held orthodox position of the

church. However, it also helped the church to develop an apologetics along the lines of her

understanding of the identity of the New Testament church and thus the church re-

conceptualized a more secure form of orthodoxy.

23
Navas, Divine Truth 29. Footnotes
24
The orders would apply to the entire Roman Empire, because Constantine had already made himself the sole
emperor of Rome in September 324 by defeating Licinius.

12
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anatolios, Khaled, Retrieving Nicaea: The Development and Meaning of Trinitarian Doctrine.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011.

Burn, Andrew Ewbank, The Nicene Creed. New York: Edwin S. Gorham, 1909.

Ehrman, Bart D., The Triumph of Christianity: How a Forbidden Religion Swept the World.
New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2018.

Hodges, George, The Early Church From Ignatius to Augustine. New York: Houghton Mifflin
Company, 1915.

Ludemann, Gerd, Heretics: The Other Side of Early Christianity. Louisville, KY: Westminster
John Knox Press, 1996.

Navas, Patrick, Divine Truth or Human Tradition? Bloomington, IN: The Author House,
2011.

Ninan, M. M., Arianism: Who is Jesus? Sanjose, CA: Global Press, 2013.

Stark, Rodney, The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1996.

13