LIBERTY UNIVERSITY

ARIUS AND THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA

SUBMITTED TO DR. KEVIN KING

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COMPLETION OF CHHI520 B-05,

BY

JASON LOCKE

LEESBURG, IN

OCTOBER 10, 2010

 Introduction

The First Ecumenical Council, also known as The Council of Nicaea, had tremendous

impact upon Christendom and forever shaped the Church’s view of Christ. Emperor Constantine

convened this council in 325 AD to help bring unity to the Church concerning the person/deity of

Jesus Christ. The Church at the time had just gone through severe persecution under the Roman

government, but had just recently entered into a period of acceptance under Constantine who

himself had become a Christian. At issue were the teachings of Arius a presbyter from

Alexandria, Egypt. Arius had a problem equating Jesus with God claiming that the two were co-

eternal. His point was that Jesus was a created being by God, but was not the same as God the

Father. Arius’ point of view had on the surface merit, but a close look at his argument will reveal

that he had a fatal flaw in his logic. He failed to recognize the soteriological effects of making

Jesus a creature instead of God. It was in this area that the Church as a whole decided that Arius’

teachings should be banned. This issue will be examined in this paper to show that it is the main

focal point of why Jesus must be considered of the same essence as God.

Setting and Main Characters

It could be argued that this was the perfect time for this issue to be discussed and decided.

Constantine, the first Christian Emperor, had just recently come to power and had decided that

Christianity was to be tolerated. The church now had the time and energy to discuss this issue.1

Under the persecutions of the previous emperors the main goal was survival. It could be

providential that the issue was going to be discussed soon whether or not there was a relief to the

1
J. David Ray, “Nicaea and its Aftermath: A Historical Survey of the First Ecumenical Council and the Ensuing
Conflict”, Ashland Theological Journal 39, (2007): 19.
1
persecution. 2 The church was beginning to enter a stage of growth, it was no longer in its

infancy and this was a topic of utmost importance.3

There were lots of characters who played a role in the Nicaea, but by far there are four

that stand out. The first was Emperor Constantine, who in 312 saw a vision before the battle of

Milvian Bridge that marked his conversion. In 313 he signed the “Edict of Milan” that served to

accept Christianity in the East as it was already in the West.4 The debate over the Trinity and the

issue of the essence of Christ prompted Constantine to try and resolve the conflict by first writing

a letter to Bishop Alexander of Alexandria urging him to just forgive Arius and not allow this to

be a cause of division. This did not settle the issue; Constantine decided that he had to call a

council of bishops together to settle the issue. It was in Constantine’s best interest to get this

issue settled since he realized that the instability in the church could be seen as a weakness from

those outside the empire.5 Constantine used his position to call the bishops to Nicaea.

Constantinople, the soon to be new Roman Empire capital, was still under construction, but was

close by so Constantine could still oversee construction and be part of the council.

The second major character was Bishop Alexander who was the one that was responsible

for much of the conflict that Arius had with the church. Bishop Alexander was teaching that

Jesus was co-eternal with God the Father a position that Arius vehemently denied. Bishop

Alexander eventually secured the condemnation of Arius’ position in a local Alexandrian synod

2
Ibid.
3
Ibid., 20
4
Everett Ferguson, Church History Volume 1 from Christ to Pre-Reformation, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
2005), 183.

5
Oyvind Norderval, “The Emperor Constantine and Arius: Unity in the Church and Unity in the Empire”, Studia
Theologica 42, (1988): 116
2
in 317 or 318.6 This led to Arius sending out a letter to appeal to his friends, namely Eusebius

Bishop of Nicomedia, who sided with Arius in his position. The acceptance of Eusebius

combined with the appointment of Eustathius to the Bishopric of Antioch, who was a strong

opponent of Arius, brought this issue to the ears of Constantine.

The third character of importance was Athanasius. He was a deacon to Bishop Alexander

and one of the strongest opponents of Arius and his supporters. Athanasius would become the

recorder/secretary of the Council of Nicaea. He circulated a letter on the night of Nicaea that

outlined Arius’ position and several scriptures that refuted Arius’ position. Athanasius’ main

contributions came after he succeeded Bishop Alexander and the Bishop of Alexandria.7

Athanasius would go on to fight against the Arians for many years to come. In fact, one of his

greatest writings came in 340 called Against the Arians.8

The most important character in this whole debate would have to be Arius. Arius (256-

336) was a presbyter of Baucalis district in Alexandria He taught that Jesus was a created being

and not co-eternal with the Father. In Arius’ view there had to be a time that the Son (Jesus) did

not exist. Arius’ early life can only be pieced together and his writings were ordered destroyed

following his excommunication in 325. Arius was trying to fight against Sabellianism.

Sabellianism is the nontrinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are

different modes or aspects of one God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons in

God Himself; a heretical teaching that had been sharply dealt with by Tertullian. In Arius’

6
Everett Ferguson, 193.
7
G.R. Evans, ed., The First Christian Theologians (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2004), 163.

8
Ibid.
3
defense, he was defending what he perceived as an incorrect teaching concerning the Father and

Son.

Arian Conflict

According to reports it all began when Bishop Alexander taught on the similarities

between the Father and Son. As mentioned earlier the main issue centered on the essence of

Jesus and his relation to the Father. One thing that must be kept in mind as one explores the

issues is that many of the primary sources of Arius are in bad shape or nonexistant.9 The sources

of his opponents, however, are in good shape. One is left with relying upon what Arius’

opponents think that he said in many cases. The problem is that his opponents would not exactly

paint Arius in a favorable light. One can get a greater understanding of Arius’ position by

looking at some key teachings and Bible passages.

One of the key problems that Arius had with Alexander was the phrase “always a Father,

always a Son”. To Arius and his supporters this went against the passages in the scriptures that

talked about Jesus being the begotten son of God. Arius would turn to passages like John 1:12-

14. Arius concentrated upon the words μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός (monogenoῦs parὰ patrόs), the

only begotten of the Father. Meaning that there was a time when Jesus did not exist. In looking at

the words it would seem that this could be a logical conclusion. In Psalm 2:7 the psalmist says, “I

will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten

thee.”(NIV) The writer of Hebrews picks up this line in Hebrews 1:5, applying it to Jesus

directly. To Arius these passages suggest that the Son was born of the Father’s will. To Arius

Jesus was the first creature that God made or that God created. Arius’ opinion was that Jesus

9
Charles Kannengiesser, S.J., “Current Theology Arius and the Arians”, Theological Studies 44, (1983): 457; Also
the fact that his writings were ordered destroyed after being labeled a heretic.
4
held a position of authority as being the first creation above all else that was created and was

adopted into the Godhead, but was not of the same substance as God. In the next section we will

explore the words that were considered at the Council of Nicaea to describe Jesus’ relationship

with the Father.

Jesus’ Essence

Four words were considered at the Council of Nicaea to describe this relationship

between the Father and the Son. First, there was the term homoousians that stated that the Son

was of the same sustenance with the Father. This was the term supported by Alexander and his

followers. Second, there was the term homoiousians that stated that the Son was of similar

substance to the Father. This was the position of those that wanted to be somewhere in the

middle of both Arius and Alexander. Third, there was the term homoeans that taught that the Son

is like the Father. This position was close to the Arian point of view in that the Son was distinct

from the Father, but was like him since he was begotten of the Father. Fourth, the term

anomoeans that taught the Son is unlike the Father, was held by those that saw the Son as a

completely other substance than the Father. This included many followers of Arius, but then

took his position to the extreme that Jesus was of a totally other substance than God. In the book

God in Dispute the author takes an inventive look at this issue of wording. Roger Olson takes the

liberty placing Arius and Athanasius in an interview setting. He places them both in a news cast

reporting on the Council of Nicaea. Even though Olson takes some liberties in this mock news

cast, he gets to the point on where Arius wanted the wording to go and where Alexander and

Athanasius wanted it to go.10 Arius is very clear here that he holds to the homoiousians position.

He believed that Jesus was of a like substance not the same substance as God.

10
Roger E. Olson, God in Dispute, (Grand Rapids: MI: Baker Academics, 2009), 64

5
 Critique of Arianism

By the beginning of the fourth century there were two conflicting theological

traditions as pointed out by Joseph T. Lienhard in his article titled “The ‘Arian’ Controversy:

Some Categories Reconsidered”. 11

It is in this setting that the Arian conflict arises. The church

has long held to one God. They had prayed to the Father through the Son. They had baptized in

the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The problem came when the Church tried to

explain how the deity of Christ was reconciled with monotheism.12 This was a problem that the

Jews also faced when they encountered Jesus. Here is a man that claims to be God yet God is

only one. Another issue that helped to spark conflict is that by this time in the early fourth

century the idea that Jesus was merely a human or the teaching of psilanthropism was rejected.

Even Arius agreed that Jesus was more than just human He was the most exalted of all creatures.

Arius’ main problem is in the passages that seem to suggest that Jesus was begotten. A

closer look at Psalm 2 is in order. The first step to understanding Psalm 2 would be to understand

it in the context to which it was written. Just where does this psalm fit and what grouping does it

belong? Psalm 2 most definitely belongs in the category of a royal psalm for it is about the

placing of a king that God has chosen upon the throne. The idea of royal psalms goes back to the

period of the monarchy in Israel. It is grouped with other psalms like 20, 21; 45; 72; 89; 101;

110; 132; and 141: 1-11. The characteristic of this group is that it must be exclusively about

royalty or the king. It is not enough to merely be composed by a king such as the psalms

11
Joseph T. Lienhard, “The “Arian” Contreversy: Some Categories Reconsidered”, Theological Studies 48, (1987):
420.
12
Ibid., 421.

6
composed by David.13The word dly (yld), the Hebrew word begotten, must also be explored to

get a greater understanding of this phrase. Just what does it mean to be begotten? Francis Brown

defines the word as to bring forth to bare to beget.14 In Psalm 2 it more likely means to bring

forth or to establish. God brings forth his chosen king and places him upon the throne of Israel.

There are those that hold that any mention of this word where God is the subject must be taken

figuratively when it concerns the God of Israel. There are those that hold that the concept of

adoption can be used here and not diminish the meaning.15 God in this passage was establishing

that the king of Israel that he had chosen had a special relationship that of being called His Son.

The rest of this psalm goes on to proclaim that God will give the heathen kings as an inheritance

to his chosen king as a possession. The heathen kings are warned that they should serve this king

and not rebel unless God’s chosen king would become angry and kill them all.

A close look at the direct quote that the author uses here for Psalm 2 brings a couple of

more words that must be explored. The first is the word for begotten or gennafo),

from the Septuagint. The meaning of the word is to cause something to come into existence,

primarily through procreation or parturition. The use in this case here would be that God was

merely exercising the role of a parental figure.16 The idea here means more than that of adoption

through the death and resurrection of Jesus brought about a new divine mode of being. Those

13
Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 1-59 Augsburger Publishing House Minn. 1998. pg 56.
14
Francis Brown and others, eds., Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. New York: The Hiberside
Press Cambridge), 408
15
G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren eds., Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament Vol. VI, (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990), 78.
16
Ibid., 193

7
that choose to follow after Him are transformed into God’s image through the son, Jesus.17 The

next word that needs to be defined is the word for son or yios). The word here can take on

many meanings; the one here though means the special relationship to God or the special

designation of Messiah.18 The author was trying to show through the question asked here that

there is no one else that is ever referred to as the Son of God. It appears that the author of the

Hebrews passage would be agreeing with Arius by the choice of begotten here. The meaning

does seem to suggest that Jesus could have been a created being. The problem lies in the fact that

there are numerous passages that point to his deity.19

Arius’ Fatal Logical Conclusion

Of all the arguments that are put forth by Alexander the strongest is the failure of Arius to

develop a strong Soteriology. The one area that Arius fails to rectify is if Jesus is indeed a

created being then how can a created being save anyone.20 This is the reason that the Arian point

of view fails to adequately capture the fullness of Paul’s writings. Paul defends the concept that

through one man all die, but through one man all live (Romans 5:17-18). Athanasius points out

that even if Christ is the most exalted creature, there is still a problem with the salvation that

Christ passes on because there is a flaw in the relationship between God and his creation. 21The

point is that if Jesus was just a creature, even an exalted creature, then the salvation offered

17
For further on this see Gehard Kittle, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1976), 670.
18
Frederick William Danker, A Greek –English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,
(Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2000), 1025
19
For further reference John 8:58 cf. Exodus 3:14-15; Also John 10:30.
20
Everett Ferguson, 205.
21
G.R. Evans, 164.

8
would be lacking. The reason that Jesus’ atonement is effective for all is because of His divinity.

If Jesus has gotten his divinity bestowed upon him by the Father then it is lacking because it is

not fully divine. It also produces the problem that somehow God is mutable a position that Arius

would vehemently deny. God in no way could divide himself.22 The Arius position does not

afford the possibility that salvation can be passed onto all that believe in the Son.

Conclusion: The Aftermath of Nicaea

The council sided with Alexander and his supporters and exiled Arius. This, however, did

not end the debate on the nature of Christ or abolish Arianism. It would take several more years

and more debates on the topic till the church would finally settle upon the idea that Jesus was

like the Father in all aspects.23 The Nicaean Creed that was developed as a result of the Council

of Nicaea would go onto be worked and reworked to get the wording correct on the position that

the church held concerning the person/deity of Christ. The council of Nicaea proved to be the

starting point of what would become a long standing tradition in the church; the church settling

disputes in councils and writing creeds to proclaim what the correct theology of the church

should be. Nicaea also firmly established the States’ role in the church that would be the norm

for several years to come.24

It is not hard to see why the passions of Arius sparked such a great controversy. Arius’

view of Christ was severely flawed and had it been accepted would have left the church in a

position wherein Jesus would have been a little more than mankind. He would have shared all

the characteristics of being a human. It is commendable that Arius was fighting against what he

22
R.D. Williams, “The Logic of Arianism”, Journal of Theological Studies 34, (1983), 63.
23
Everett Ferguson, 203

24
Ibid., 196-197.

9
perceived to be heresy. His fatal flaw is that he failed to follow his own theology to its logical

conclusion. Arius was a man of great passions, but he failed to look at the whole of scripture and

see where he lacked. As pointed out in the section dealing with Soteriology, he failed to

adequately develop a basis of salvation that will work for the whole world. This alone was the

fatal flaw in Arius’ theology. Today Christians live in the bliss of having our theology of Christ

handed to them without having to think about it much. Modern day Arians (Jehovah Witnesses)

exist today spouting what appears to be a new theology, but a closer look one can see that it is

nothing more than Arianism. This paper has pointed out the major flaws of Arianism in a hope

that one will be able to see the flaw of not having Jesus of the same sustenance as God. Jesus

must be God in order for salvation to work.

10
 Bibliography

Botterweck, G. Johannes and Helmer Ringgren. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament .
Vol. VI. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publiching Company, 1990.

Brown, Francis. Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by others. New York:
The Hiberside Press Cambridge, 1996.

Danker, Frederick William. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature . Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2000.

Evans, G.R. ed. The First Christian Theologians. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2004.

Ferguson, Everett. Church History Volume 1: From Christ to Pre-Reformation. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2005.

Hall, Christopher A. Learning Theology with the Church Fathers. Downers Grove: IVP
Academic, 2002.

Kannengiesser, Charles. "Current Theology: Arius and the Arians." Theological Studies, 1983:
456-474.

Kittle, Gehard. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans

Publishing Company, 1976.

Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalms 1-19. Augsburger Publishing House, 1998.

Lienhard, Joseph T. "The "Arian" Controversy: Some Categories Reconsidered." Theological

Studies, 1987: 415-437.

Norderval, Oyvind. "The Emperor Constantine and Arius: Unity in the Church and Unity in the
Empire." Studia Theologica, 1988: 113-150.

Olson, Roger E. God in Dispute. Grand Rapids : Baker Academics, 2009.

11
Ray, J. David. "Nicea and its Aftermath: A Historical Survey of the First Ecumenical Council
and the Ensuing Conflicts." Ashland Theological Journal, 2007: 19-32.

Williams, R.D. "The Logic of Arianism." Journal of Theological Studies, no. 34 (1983): 56-81.

12