(Welcome God Bless You) I am very sorry for such a long question, and attempting a solution in the question. Please bear with me, first a selection of the oldest creeds before the formal/official Filioque clause: [Links to Earliest Pre- Old Roman Symbol “Proto-Creeds” https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2/creeds2.iii.i.i.html https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2/creeds2.iii.i.ii.html https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2/creeds2.iii.i.iii.html ] ---------------------------------- Old Roman Symbol / Old Roman Creed - Composed in the early 2nd century? I believe in God the Father almighty; and in Christ Jesus His only Son, our Lord, Who was born from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried, on the third day rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, whence he will come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, [life everlasting]. Source: https://www.logos.com/grow/the-apostles-creed-its-history-and-origins/?msockid=18dbc452ca76677c0084d13bcb516636 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Creed of Aquileia – Date 307-309 AD? Credo in Deo Patre omnipotenti invisibili et impassibili (I believe in God the Father Almighty, invisible and impassible) Et in Jesu Christo, unico Filio ejus, Domino nostro (And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord) Qui natus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine (Who was born from the Holy Ghost, of the Virgin Mary) Crucifixus sub Pontio Pilato, et sepultus (Was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried) Descendit ad inferna; tertia die resurrexit a mortuis (He descended to hell; on the third day he rose again from the dead) Ascendit in cœlos; sedet ad dexteram Patris; (He ascended to the heavens; he sits at the right hand of the Father) Inde venturus est judicare vivos et mortuos; (Thence he is to come to judge the quick and the dead) Et in Spiritu Sancto (And in the Holy Ghost) Sanctam Ecclesiam (The Holy Church) Remissionem peccatorum (The remission of sins) Hujus carnis resurrectionem (The resurrection of this flesh) Source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2711.htm -------------------------------------------------- Eusebius’ Caesarean Creed pre- 325AD: Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεόν πατέρα παντοκράτορα, We believe in one God the Father Almighty, τὸν τῶν ἀπάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν· Maker of all things visible and invisible; Καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, And in one Lord Jesus Christ, τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον, the Word of God, 30 θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ, God of God, φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς, Light of Light, ζωὴν ἐκ ζωῆς, Life of Life, υἱὸν μονογενῆ, the only-begotten Son, πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως, the first-born of every creature, πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ πατρὸς γεγεννημένον, begotten of God the Father before all ages, δἰ οὗ καὶ ἐγένετο τὰ πάντα· by whom also all things were made; τὸν διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν σαρκωθέντα καὶ ἐν ἀνθρώποις πολιτευσάμενον, who for our salvation was made flesh and made his home among men; καὶ παθόντα, and suffered; καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, and rose on the third day; καὶ ἀνελθόντα πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, and ascended to the Father; καὶ ἥξοντα πάλιν ἐν δόξῃ κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς. and will come again in glory, to judge the quick and the dead. [Πιστεύομεν] καὶ εἰς ἕν πνεῦμα ἅγιον. 31 [We believe] also in one Holy Ghost.32 Τούτων ἕκαστον εἶναι καὶ ὑπάρχειν πιστεύοντες, πατέρα ἀληθῶς πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν ἀληθῶς υἱὸν καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἀληθῶς πνεῦμα ἅγιον, καθὼς καὶ ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν ἀποστέλλων εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ μαθητὰς εἶπε· πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀγίου πνεύματος. We believe that each of these is and exists, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost; even as our Lord, when sending forth his disciples to preach, said: 'Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' Source: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iii.i.x.html ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ First council of Nicaea 325 AD 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 from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down, and became incarnate and became man, and suffered, and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and dead, And in the Holy Spirit. But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, or created, or is subject to alteration or change - these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes. Source: https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/creed_of_nicaea_325.htm Thank you so much for bearing with me, now for the split between Catholic and Orthodox; So The dominant Eastern expression is: “The Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son” This is found in: Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, not in the preceding old creeds I gave by sources; a rejection of the filioque? (Tertullian?), Augustine, (later more formulated in Aquinas’s Summa), have a type of filioque, also not found in the preceding old creeds I gave by sources ---------------------------------------------- Perhaps a bias of me – I will give key biblical support for a filioque development: “When the Helper comes… the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father…” — Gospel of John 15:26 Central to Aquinas’ teaching on procession of the Holy Spirit. John 15:26 – Spirit “comes from the Father” but also receives from the Son. John 20:22 Jesus breathes the Spirit upon disciples, illustrating the Spirit’s relational reception from the Son. Galatians 4:6, Romans 8:9, Philippians 1:19 – References to the Spirit as “Spirit of the Son” underscore Tertullian’s relational view. The Spirit of the Son “God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts… — Epistle to the Galatians 4:6 The Spirit of Christ “Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.” — Epistle to the Romans 8:9 From Pauline texts “Spirit of the Son” (Galatians 4:6) or interchangeably as the “Spirit of Christ” (Romans 8:9; Philippians 1:19). -------------------------------------- Perhaps another bias of mine – Fathers early filioque development: [Would Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus if they read the following disagreed?] Tertullian Ontological Status of the Spirit The Spirit is distinct, yet fully divine; Tertullian rejected any notion of created or inferior status. The Spirit receives divinity from the Father via the Son, sharing fully in co-eternal glory Ambrose of Milan (4th century) In De Spiritu Sancto: The Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son” In De Trinitate (c. 400–420), Augustine writes: “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son” ----------------------------------- An additional supplement Maximus the Confessor attempted reconciliation – I'm not sure about the Holy Catholic Churches stand on this. Maximus the Confessor introduces a two-level ontology of procession, Creation-Deification: First level: Causal Level (Ontological Origin) Greek term: (αἰτία / aitia) Ultimate origin God, the Logos, and the eternal logoi Property: personal, hypostatic Only the Father is cause Relationship: Source of all; Logos and logoi originate here Second level: Mediation / Manifestation, being and purpose only by participating in the first-level Logos Mutual implicative identity and distinction—creatures partake in divinity while remaining distinct. How what proceeds is expressed or communicated --- "Maximus’ model is non-hierarchical, avoiding Dionysian verticality, allowing movement across ontological boundaries based on participatory capacities rather than fixed ontological grades." The Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son and is manifested/given from the Son The Spirit can be from the Son relationally Without being caused by the Son --------------------------------- --------------------------------- God the Father (αἰτία) / Ultimate Cause │ ▼ Logos / Eternal Logoi │ ┌──────────────────┴───────────────────┐ │ │ Nature Rational Beings │ │ └──────────────────┬───────────────────┘ │ Manifestation Level Maximus: Mediation Through Son Aquinas (reinterpreted by Maximus): Participation of Son in spiration [side note: related question by another https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/35279/the-difference-between-how-the-holy-spirit-and-son-proceed-from-the-father]

In reading the answers to a [recent question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/113053/why-do-some-believers-form-factions-despite-scriptures-warning-against-division) here, the Great Schism was brought up, and consequently the filoque: which added the words to the creed, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father *and the Son*. In researching the filoque, it occurred to this writer that perhaps it was a needless divide. It seems that man is trying to parse and define the undefinable. The bottom line seems to be the understanding of what Jesus meant by "proceeds." >But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me. ‭‭John‬ ‭15‬:‭26‬ ‭NKJV‬‬ The commentaries weren't very helpful - the ones that would be, mostly used the Greek which was useless to me. The lexicons give several meanings, as does the English dictionaries. Generally I use all of that plus, most importantly, *context* to try to figure out what a passage means. But the context doesn't help, even considering other passages, and I am still flummoxed. I wonder if we are going beyond Scripture in trying to figure out the nature of the Trinity. In an answer to a similar question, [What does "proceeds" mean to Greek Orthodox?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/53159/what-does-proceeds-mean-to-eastern-orthodox) this was said: >Regarding the precession of the Holy Spirit as well as the pre-eternal begetting of the Son, Gregory of Nazianzus (known as Gregory the Theologian) (329-390) is reputed to have cautioned: >>When was this begetting and this procession? This was before when itself. You have heard that the Spirit proceeds from the Father; do not be curious to know how He proceeds. Oration 20 This made the most sense to me. I wonder if he added being cautious about adding the filoque as well. How am I wrong? Why did the church divide over this? Note: [This commentary](https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/gab/john-15.html) by Gaebelein was somewhat helpful, but still seems presumptuous to me. >In saying: whom I will send, Jesus is necessarily thinking of His approaching reinstatement in the divine condition; and in adding: from the Father, He acknowledges His subordination to the Father, even when He shall have recovered that condition. ...Most of the modern interpreters, Meyer, Luthardt, Weiss, Keil, refer the words: who proceeds from the Father, to the same fact as the preceding words: whom I will send you from the Father, to the sending of the Holy Spirit to the disciples. The attempt is made to escape the charge of tautology by saying that the first clause indicates the relation of the Spirit to Christ, and the second His relation to God ( Keil); as if in this latter were not already contained the from God, which, repeated in the second clause, would form the most idle pleonasm. It must be observed that the second verb differs entirely from the first; ἐκπορεύεσθαι , to proceed from, as a river from its source, is altogether different from to be sent: the ἐκ , out from, which is added here to παρά , from the presence of, also marks a difference. But especially does the change of tense indicate the difference of idea: whom I will send and who proceeds from. He whom Jesus will send (historically, at a given moment) is a divine being, who emanates (essentially, eternally) from the Father. An impartial exegesis cannot, as it seems to me, deny this sense. It is that the historical facts of salvation, to the view of Jesus, rest upon eternal relations, as well with reference to Himself, the Son, as to the Spirit. They are, as it were, the reflections of the Trinitarian relations. As the incarnation of the Son rests upon His eternal generation, so the mission of the Holy Spirit is related to His eternal procession from the very centre of the divine being. The context is not in the least contradictory to this sense, as Weiss thinks; on the contrary, it demands it. What Jesus sends testifies truly for Him only so far as it comes forth from God.

Watching the installation of the 106th Archbishop of Canterbury, the Nicene Creed was part of [the service](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cevkjgykrvet#player) at around 16:14. What I heard was > We believe in the Holy Spirit, > the Lord, the giver of life, > who proceeds from the Father, > who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, > who has spoken through the prophets. though the [standard Church of England version](https://www.churchofengland.org/faith-life/what-we-believe/nicene-creed) includes the filioque phrase > We believe in the Holy Spirit, > the Lord, the giver of life, > who proceeds from the Father and the Son, > who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, > who has spoken through the prophets. The Church of England does provide a filioque-less [alternative for ecumenical purposes](https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/common-worship/service-word/service-word-morning-and#ch6k) but it seems strange that a service which is so internally focused on the Church of England and the wider Anglican Communion should do this. Is this an indication of the future?

Does the cause-effect and begotten doctrine of the Eastern and Roman Catholic Church imply a division or multiplication in the nature of God? Unitarian God (Father) begets or caused into effect the second person- Son, who is subordinate to the Father. I am not using *Subordinate* in the sense of having a lesser divine and different substance/essence than the Father, but when they say "begotten not made", and that the Father alone is uncaused seem to imply that the Father begot the Son like a living creature begets its offspring. The offspring of God is not created from outside substance (like man from dust) but literally *derived, generated, caused or begotten* from the Father's divine nature, and he is equally divine. The Son is lesser in rank by the virtue of "generation", and the Spirit "proceeds". The words begotten and proceed are used, but seem to imply causation and generation. As though the Monarch, Unitarian God generated the (co-divine persons) Son and the Spirit, transforming into Multipersonal or the Trinity. The topics on "begotten, not made " and the "Monarchy of the Father " doctrine and the doctrines of "eternal generation", "eternal sonship" and "eternally begotten" generated this question. The language and these phrases in their creeds have resulted in confusion and debate; One might even say that such a literal generation of the divine persons undermines the doctrine of Immutability or the unchangeable nature of God. > Eastern Orthodox - Wiki > > According to the Eastern Orthodox view, the **Son is derived from the > Father who alone is without cause or origin.** This is not > subordinationism, and the same doctrine is asserted by western > theologians such as Augustine. In this view, the Son is co-eternal > with the Father or even in terms of the co-equal uncreated nature shared by the Father and Son. However, this view is sometimes > misunderstood as a form of subordinationism by Western Christians, who also asserts the same view even when not using the technical term i.e. > Monarchy of the Father. Western view is often viewed by the Eastern > Church as being close to Modalism. > > **Catholics** > > The Catholic Church also believes that the Son is > begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit is proceeding from the > Father through and from the Son. Catholic theologian John Hardon > wrote that subordinationism "denies that the second and third persons > are consubstantial with the Father. Therefore it denies their true divinity." Arius "made a formal heresy of" subordinationism. > > The International Theological Commission wrote that "many Christian > theologians borrowed from Hellenism the notion of a secondary god > (deuteros theos), or of an intermediate god, or even of a demiurge." > Subordinationism was "latent in some of the Apologists and in > Origen." The Son was, for Arius, in "an intermediate position > between the Father and the creatures." Nicaea I "defined that the Son > is consubstantial (*homoousios*) with the Father. In so doing, the > Church both repudiated the Arian compromise with Hellenism and deeply > altered the shape of Greek, especially Platonist and neo-Platonist, > metaphysics. In a manner of speaking, it demythicized Hellenism and > effected a Christian purification of it. In the act of dismissing the > notion of an intermediate being, the Church recognized only two modes > of being: uncreated (nonmade) and created."

In both the **Roman Catholic** and **Eastern Orthodox** traditions, the first seven Ecumenical Councils are regarded as being guided by the Holy Spirit, and their dogmatic definitions (the Creeds) are considered infallible. The Catholic catechism states: > *The **infallibility** promised to the Church **is also present in the body of bishops when**, together with Peter's successor, **they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.** When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." **This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself**.* The Eastern Orthodox view is the following: > *The Church venerates the **Holy Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils** because Christ has established them as “lights upon the earth,” guiding us to the true Faith. “Adorned with the robe of truth,” the doctrine of the Fathers, based upon the preaching of the Apostles, has established one faith for the Church. The Ecumenical Councils, are the highest authority in the Church. **Such Councils**, **guided by** the grace of **the Holy Spirit**, and accepted by the Church, **are infallible**.* However, a direct comparison between the original Creed of Nicaea (325 AD) and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (381 AD) reveals what appears to be a reversal of technical terminology.

The Anathema of "hypostasis"

The original 325 Creed concluded with a series of anathemas. The final clause states: > *"But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not'... or that the > Son of God is of a different **hypostasis** (ὑποστάσεως) or substance > (οὐσίας)... the holy catholic and apostolic church anathematizes."* In 325, ***hypostasis*** was synonymous with ***ousia*** (essence). To claim the Son was a different hypostasis than the Father was a mark of Arianism. Yet, by the Council of 381, this anathema was removed, and "Orthodoxy" began to require the confession of three hypostases (the Cappadocian formula). ---------- If these Creeds are ***infallible*** and ***Spirit-led***, how do theologians address the following: - **The Problem of Reversal:** How can a document be "infallible" if a later council must remove an anathema and adopt the very terminology (***different hypostases***) that was previously condemned? - **The Problem of Anachronism:** If the definition of hypostasis was "refined" or changed in 381, then it seems anachronistic to read these later technical distinctions back into the 325 Council, or even into the Biblical text itself. Does this imply that "Orthodoxy" is a moving target of vocabulary rather than a static "deposit of faith"? I am looking for answers that cite reputable theologians regarding how the Church maintains the "immutability" of truth while essentially "correcting" or radically expanding its infallible formulas.

Why were ousia and hypostasis synonymous in the Nicene Creed? ---- In the original 325 A.D. Nicene Creed, an anathema is included which has ousia and hypostasis as synonymous. In this case, the Trinity is one hypostasis ( = homoousios). >And in the Holy Spirit. But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a ***different hypostasis or substance*** (ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσιάς) or created, or is subject to alteration or change these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes. Source: https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/creed_of_nicaea_325.htm It seems also the meaning of υποστασις in Hebrews 1:3. >He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his ***nature*** (υποστασις) (ESV). The ASV has "substance". However, in later centuries hypostasis began referring to the "person", not the "nature" or "being" of the Trinity. **Why did such change in definition occur?** It would be helpful to address the semantical development of υποστασις on how it changed from "substance" (nature/essence) to "person". >The Church confesses is that God is three Persons (hypostasis) in one Essence (ousia). Source: https://www.google.com.ph/amp/s/exploringthedepthsofthedivine.wordpress.com/2015/08/12/god-as-trinity-orthodox-trinitarianism/amp/

Most discussions of the Creed suggest that both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches accept the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and that the only substantive difference between them is the Filioque. Yet there is one other significant difference: The Catholic Creed includes "God from God" in the section on the Son of God (see ), while the Orthodox Creed does not have a similar clause (see , ). Why do they differ on whether to include this language, and does it signal any difference in dogma? NOTE: As of January 11, 2026, this question has not been answered. The discussion has provided documentation of the difference by not an explanation of why they are different.

There is a song I like from a source that I trust, called ‘God of Wow ’ that has as its very first line ‘You have no birthday’ and that stops me from sharing or using it. My objection is that although it is true that God is eternal and birthday-less, but it seems to me that the external God did take on having a birthday because of the incarnation where Jesus was conceived and birthed. I understand what the song means, but is this a legitimate phrase? I am asking from a Nicene-Christian perspective.

In the “centuries-old account of the Council of Nicaea: … The whole power of the mysterious dogma is at once established by the one word homoousios … with one pronouncement the Church identified a term (homoousios) that secured its … beliefs against heresy. ... Such older accounts are deeply mistaken ” (LA, 11) “What is conventionally regarded as the key-word in the Creed homoousion, falls completely out of the controversy very shortly after the Council of Nicaea and is not heard of for over twenty years.” (Hanson Lecture ) “For nearly twenty years after Nicaea nobody mentions homoousios, not even Athanasius. This may be because it was much less significant than either later historians of the ancient Church or modern scholars thought that it was.” (RH, 170) “During the years 326–50 the term homoousios is rarely if ever mentioned.” (LA, 431) “After Nicaea homoousios is not mentioned again in truly contemporary sources for two decades. … It was not seen as that useful or important.” (LA, 96) “During the years 325–42 neither Arius nor the particular technical terminology used at Nicaea were at the heart of theological controversy.” (LA, 100) The word homoousios appears only once in Athanasius’ the Orations. This is understood as “evidence of Athanasius’ lack of commitment to Nicaea's terminology at this stage of his career.” (LA, 115) “Athanasius' decision to make Nicaea and homoousios central to his theology has its origins in the shifting climate of the 350s and the structure of emerging Homoian theology.” (LA, 144) > LA = Lewis Ayres Nicaea and its legacy, 2004 Ayres is a Professor of > Catholic and Historical Theology at Durham University in the United > Kingdom. > > RH = Bishop R.P.C. Hanson The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God > – The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987 Question: Why was the term homoousios not part of the controversy during the 25 years from 325-350 and when and why did this change, so that it is today regarded as the key term in the Nicene Creed?

I previously posted the question: > I understand the word theos may be translated as "God" or as "god." > Bible writers added words (the, true, only, or one) to indicate the > Almighty. For example, in prayer, Jesus described the Father as **the > only true theos** (John 17:3). The Nicene Creed describes the Father > as "one theos" and the Son as "true theos from true theos." Is there > anything in the Greek of this phrase to indicate whether this should > read "God" or "god?" But the moderator closed the question and indicated: > Add details and clarify the problem you’re solving. So, let me try to explain why I ask such a question: The ancient Greek word theos is the standard word used by the Greeks for their gods, the pantheon. The modern English word “God” has a very different meaning, for it is used only for one Being, namely the Ultimate Reality; the Almighty. Since no other word was available, the New Testament writers used the same word theos for the God of the Bible. When the context indicates that it refers to the Ultimate Reality, it is translated as “God.” But the New Testament also uses theos for other beings, such as Satan and even certain humans. In such instances, it is translated as “god.” (e.g., 1 Cor 8:5-6) The Nicene Creed refers to Jesus as theos in the phrase “theos from theos.” On the assumption of the Trinity doctrine, in which the Son is God Almighty, this is translated as “God from God.” However, **the authors of the 325 Nicene Creed did not think of the Son as God Almighty**. This is indicated by the following: 1. The Creed itself makes a distinction between the “one God, the Father almighty” and “one Lord, Jesus Christ.” 2. Most of the delegates to the council were followers of Origen Frend WHC (The Rise of Christianity) (<a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Frevelationbyjesuschrist.com%2Ferickson%2F" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">Millard J. Erickson <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>), and Origen, like all pre-Nicene Fathers, regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father (<a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Frevelationbyjesuschrist.com%2Fhanson%2F%23origen" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">Hanson <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>). They did refer to Jesus as theos because they <a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Frevelationbyjesuschrist.com%2Fhanson%2F%23divine" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">did regard Him as divine <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a> but, in their theology, there were <a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Frevelationbyjesuschrist.com%2Fhanson%2F%23theos" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">many different types and grades of deity <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>. 3. The concept or phrase “theos from theos” was used by pre-Nicene fathers (Irenaeus - Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 47, Tertullian <a href="/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ccel.org%2Fccel%2Fschaff%2Fanf03.v.ix.xiii.html" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">Against Praxeas 13 <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a>), but they regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father. 4. Later Arian Creeds also referred to Christ as theos from theos. For example, the Creed of Sirmium , in the year 358, refers to the Son as “God from God, light from light.” However, that creed presents the Son as subordinate to the Father. As a defense against the indications in the Bible that the Son is subordinate to the Father, the Council of Chalcedon stated that the Son, during His incarnation, had two natures: a divine and a human nature. Therefore, that council argues, when He said that He is subordinate to the Father, He was speaking from His human nature. However, the 'two natures' proposal only deals with indications of subordination while the Son was on earth in the form of a man. There are also many indications that the Son is subordinate to the Father BEFORE His incarnation and AFTER His resurrection and ascension. To defend against such indications of subordination, Trinitarians argue that the three ontologically equal Persons have a voluntary arrangement amongst themselves – a division of duties, so to speak - in which the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father. However, an eternal voluntary arrangement between three ontologically equal Persons, in which the Son is subordinated to the Father, remains real subordination. (Kevin Giles ) Conclusion and Question -------- Therefore, when Irenaeus said that “the Father is God and the Son is God” (Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 47), I understand that Irenaeus simply meant that both the Father and the Son are immortal beings with supernatural powers. And, therefore, when Irenaeus added that “that which is begotten of God is God,” he simply meant that, since the Father is an immortal being with supernatural powers, and since Jesus Christ is the only begotten of God, He is also an immortal being with supernatural powers. So, the question remains, on the basis of the conclusion that the Nicene Council regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father, how should "theos from theos" in the Nicene Creed be translated? This may be compared to the following quote from Irenaeus: > There is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of > all, and the Son, and those who possess the adoption. (IV, Preface). This quote classifies the Father, the Son, and believers under the category theos, showing the general meaning of the word theos. How should theos in this quote be translated?

### Nicene Beliefs Non Latter-day Saint Christians (also known as Nicene Christians) believe the following about God: - **There is only one God** > “We believe in one God...” — Nicene Creed, opening line - **God created everything in existence** > “…the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things > visible and invisible.” — Nicene Creed, 381 version - **God is eternal, uncreated, and the source of all life** > “…begotten, not made…” (referring to the Son), and “the Lord and Giver > of Life” (referring to the Holy Spirit) — Nicene Creed - **God is a Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — three persons, one essence** > Implied throughout the Nicene Creed and formally defined at the 1st Council of Constantinople (381 CE) ### LDS Beliefs On the other hand, these core Nicene beliefs are **not** shared by the Church of Latter-day Saints. Indeed the LDS Church explicitly rejects these tenets: > **There is only one God** Latter-day Saints worship only God the Father through Jesus Christ, but they also believe in the existence of a plurality of Gods. God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct beings, and this divine plurality extends beyond them — faithful humans can and have also become exalted and become gods themselves: > “I will preach on the plurality of Gods… The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us.” - Joseph Smith, King Follett Discourse --- >> **God created everything in existence** LDS theology holds that God organized the universe from pre-existing, eternal matter, rather than creating ex nihilo (out of nothing). Matter is considered co-eternal with God: > “The elements are eternal...” — Doctrine and Covenants 93:33 --- >> **God is eternal, uncreated, and the source of all life** LDS theology teaches that God is eternal, but not uncreated in the classical Christian sense. According to LDS theology, the LDS God was once a mortal man who progressed to godhood: > “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man... If you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form.” — Joseph Smith, King Follett Discourse --- >> **God is a Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — three persons, one essence** Latter-day Saints reject the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity. Instead, they believe in a Godhead of three distinct divine beings: God the Father, Jesus Christ (His Son), and the Holy Ghost. These are united in purpose but are not of one substance. > “Latter-day Saints do not believe in the traditional doctrine of the Trinity as developed in the post–New Testament church.” — Gospel Topics: Godhead ### Question With these apparent fundamental differences in mind, do Nicene Christians believe that they worship the same god as Latter-day Saints? Or do they believe that the Nicene/Trinitarian God is ontologically different enough from the LDS God that they cannot be said to be the same being?

Apparently, the terms “Arian,” “Arianism,” and “Arian Controversy” were derived from the name of Arius, who was in charge of one of the churches in Alexandria, and whose dispute with his bishop Alexander began the Arian Controversy. This implies that Arius was a very important person. It implies that Arius’ theology continued during that entire period of the Arian Controversy, namely: > From AD 318, when Arius publicly criticized his bishop Alexander for > teaching ‘erroneous’ doctrines about the nature of Christ, > > Until AD 380, when the emperor outlawed all 'Arian denominations’ > through the Edict of Thessalonica . However, recent scholars on the Arian Controversy claim that Arius was neither the leader of ‘Arianism’ nor regarded by the 'Arians' as a significant theologian. For example: > “Arius … was never unequivocally a hero for the parties associated > with his name” (RW, 82). And, again, “Arius … was not an obvious hero > for the enemies of Nicaea.” (RW, 166) > > “It was not just ecclesiastical protocol which made the bishops at > Antioch in 341 declare … that they were not 'followers of Arius … They > meant exactly what they went on to say, that they had accepted Arius > as orthodox, but did not look on him as a factional leader, or ascribe > any individual authority to him.” (RW, 82) > > “Those who suspected or openly repudiated the decisions of Nicaea … > certainly (did not have) a loyalty to the teaching of Arius as an > individual theologian” (RW, 233). > > “The people of his day, whether they agreed with him or not, did not > regard him (Arius) as a particularly significant writer” (RH, xvii). > > “Arius’ own theology is of little importance in understanding the > major debates of the rest of the century.” (LA, 56-57) > > “Those who follow his theological tradition seldom or never quote > him.” (RH, xvii) And, again, “the heirs of his theological tradition > hardly ever quote him.” (RH, 6) > > “Arius evidently made converts to his views … but he left no school of > disciples.” (RW, 233) > > “Arius’ role in ‘Arianism’ was not that of the founder of a sect. It > was not his individual teaching that dominated the mid-century eastern > Church.” (RW, 165) > > “Arius was not accepted as leader of a new movement.” (RH, xvii-xviii) > > “Arius was only the spark that started the explosion. He himself was > of no great significance.” (RH, xvii-xviii) Authors ------- > RH = Bishop RPC Hanson The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God - > The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987 > > RW = Archbishop Rowan Williams Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987 > > LA = Lewis Ayres Nicaea and its legacy, 2004 Ayres is a Professor of > Catholic and Historical Theology So, if Arius was of no great significance in the fourth-century controversy, why is it called the ‘Arian’ Controversy?

In summary, 2nd century Logos-theology taught that God's Logos was always part of God but later became a distinct Person. In 4th-century Nicene theology, the Son is the Father's only Mind. In Arian theology, the Father and Son are two distinct Minds. Did the Nicenes or the Arians follow the Logos-theologians in this regard? To explain in more detail: When the Church became Gentile dominated in the second century, the Apologists explained Jesus Christ as the Logos of Greek philosophy. In this philosophy, the Logos always existed as part of God but became a hypostasis (a distinct Person or Existence) when God decided to create. Through the Logos, the high God created and communicated with the creation: > “Ever since the work of Justin Martyr, Christian theologians had > tended to use the identification of the pre-existent Son with some > similar concept in contemporary Middle Platonism as a convenient > philosophical device” (Hanson, p 22-23). > > “They used to great effect several features of contemporary Greek > philosophy to enable them to construct their doctrines of God. They > identified the pre-existent Christ, thought of as manifesting himself > on critical occasions throughout the history of the Jewish people, > with the nous or **Second Hypostasis** of contemporary Middle > Platonist philosophy, and also borrowed some traits from the divine > Logos of Stoicism (including its name).” (Hanson Lecture ) > > "Greek-speaking theologians of the early fourth century had three > words for something that really exists, and exists in itself, as > distinguished from an accident or a quality. The words are ousia, > hypostasis, and hyparxis. ... As the fourth century progressed, > hypostasis became, more and more, the one term that was the center of > controversy." (Lienhard ) Logos-theology remained the dominant teaching right into the fourth century: > "The theological structure provided by the Apologists lasted as the > main, widely-accepted, one might almost say traditional framework for > a Christian doctrine of God well into the fourth century, and was, in > differing form, the basic picture of God with which the great majority > of those who were first involved in the Arian Controversy were > familiar and which they accepted" (Hanson ). Almost all delegates to Nicaea in 325 were from the East and the East maintained Logos-theology: > “Around 250–300 attended, drawn almost entirely from the eastern half > of the empire” (Ayres, p. 19). > > "The great majority of the Eastern clergy (at Nicaea) were ultimately > disciples of Origen. … they were simply concerned with maintaining the > traditional Logos-theology of the Greek-speaking Church" (Frend, > W.H.C. The Rise of Christianity. See also, Bible.ca). Alexander and Athanasius taught that the Son is the Father's only Logos or Wisdom. In other words, only one Logos existed: > “In Alexander, and in Athanasius … Christ is the one power and wisdom > of the Father” (Ayres, p. 54). > > Alexander stated that if, as Arius claims, there once was when the Son > was not, then “there was once when God was without wisdom, power, > brightness, and so on” (Anatolios, p. 87). > > Athanasius argued similarly that the Son is “present with Him (the > Father) as his Wisdom and his Word” (Ayres, p. 46). > > Athanasius wrote: “There is no need to postulate two Logoi” (Hanson, > p. 431), meaning two minds. > > “He (Athanasius) is appalled at the Arian statement that the Son > exercises his own judgment of free-will” (Hanson, p. 428). Origen, Arius, and the 'Arians' taught two Logoi. In other words, the Father has His own mind apart from the Son: > Origen argued that “Father and Son are two … in subsistence > (hupostasis), but are one in likemindedness, harmony … and … will” > (Williams, p. 132), implying two distinct minds. > > “Arius also talks of two wisdoms and powers, speaking of a Logos that > was not distinct from the Father's hypostasis, after whom the Son is > designated Word” (Ayres, p. 55). “God's own power and wisdom is the > source of Christ.” “The proper power of God Himself … is natural to > him and coexistent with him unoriginatedly” (Ayres, pp. 53-54, quoting > Asterius, a prominent early Arian). > > Asterius, a prominent early Arian, wrote: “There are … two Wisdoms, > one God's own who has existed eternally with God, the other the Son > who was brought into existence. … There is another Word in God besides > the Son” (Hanson, p. 13). My question is, therefore, did the Nicenes or the Arians follow second-century Logos-theology? The Nicenes taught one mind and the Arians two. Did Logos-theology teach one or two minds (Logoi)? I put a similar question to Bryan Litfin, a theologian who wrote in Logos-theology. He said: > The general idea of the Logos Theology is that there is only one > mind, which belongs to God. ... In his one, single mind, there is an > eternal existence which goes by several names. In particular, it can > be called Word, or Wisdom. What happens in Christian theology, due to > the 2nd century Logos Theologians, influenced by Stoicism and by > John's Prologue, is that the abstract Word/Wisdom of God comes to be > "hypostasized" as a separate Person, the Second Person of the Trinity. > He only becomes a Son when God decides to create the cosmos. Then > later, he becomes incarnate for salvation (at the virginal > conception). So the Word/Wisdom is eternal, residing in the eternal > mind of God. But Sonship is temporal, and so is Incarnation. If I understand this correctly, it seems to say that in Logos-theology, there is only one mind in God, which means that the Nicenes followed Logos-theology in this regard, while the Arians deviated from Logos-theology. Further insight will be appreciated.

Following are some excerpts from the Nicene Creed: > I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father... > >I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. > >(*Source*: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) Here, the Creed speaks of God the Son as consubstantial with the Father. But when it comes to describing the Holy Spirit, it does not use the attribute 'consubstantial'. What is the explanation for the same? Inputs are welcome from any denomination that has adopted the Nicene Creed.

The Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Germany celebrates the anniversary (325-2025) with a new Icon of the Council of Nicaea (see below). Here's the Festival hymn (from [the program](https://www.oekumene-ack.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Theologische_Reflexion/Nizaea2025/Materialien/Die_Pilgerreise_der_Niz%C3%A4a-Ikone_2025.pdf)) : German: >„Wir feiern freudig das Jubiläum des Konzils,
und nun kommt in Deutschland eine neue ehrwürdige Ikone zu uns;
die Väter haben uns das Symbolum des Glaubens geschenkt und darin bekannt,
dass Christus, der Sohn Gottes, Licht vom Licht und Eines Wesens ist; Ihr preisen wir“
-*Festlied der Nizäa-Ikone* English Translation: >„We joyfully celebrate the anniversary of the Council,
and now a new venerable icon comes to us in Germany;
the Fathers have given us the Symbol of Faith and in it professed that Christ,
the Son of God, is Light from Light and of one substance; You we praise.“
-*Festival hymn of the Nicaea Icon* **Is the Catholic church doing anything special or similar for this 1700th year anniversary?**

Lately I've been trying to figure out whether or not Constantine is a Nicene Christian. He was baptised by Eusebius who was of course an Arian. And since he was very close to Eusebius, he was influenced by Arian views (exiling Saint Athanasius). Some sources I have looked at say that he favored Arianism instead of the Orthodox christian view. Others say that he also exiled Eusebius because he continued to teach Arianism. Was Constantine an Orthodox/Nicene Christian believing Christ was in fact God?

The word homoousios is not in the Bible. It also was not a standard part of the Christian confession immediately before Nicaea. Rowan Williams described it as “the radical words of Nicaea” (RW, 236) and “conceptual innovation” (RW, 234-5). The Arians objected that these words are both “unscriptural” and “untraditional” (RW, 234-5). In contrast to these “radical words,” Williams refers to “the lost innocence of pre-Nicene trinitarian language” (RW, 234-5). [Rowan Williams - Arius, Heresy & Tradition, 2001] In the third century, the word homoousios was associated with Sabellian Monarchianism which taught that God is one person as well as one being. The word was used by some Libyan bishops to say that Christ and the Father are one and the same God, by Sabellius to abolish the distinction of the three hypostases, and by Paul of Samosata to describe Father and Son as a primitive undifferentiated unity. This was one of the reasons why the Arians did not like the word. But the anti-Arians did not like the word either: > 1. Eusebius of Caesarea unambiguously stated that it was Constantine, and nobody else, not even the anti-Arians, who wanted the word > homoousios. > > 2. After Nicaea, the word falls completely out of the controversy very shortly after the Council of Nicaea and is not heard of for over > twenty years (See - Homoousios ). > > 3. At the Council of the Western Bishops at Sardica in the year 343, where they rephrased the Nicene Creed, the pro-Nicene theologians > omitted the word. > > 4. At the end of his life Ossius gave his unconditional consent to the so-called "blasphemy" of Sirmium (AD 357), which states that neither > homoousios nor homoiousios are Biblical. > > 5. Eustathius, archbishop of Antioch in the 4th century, whose anti-Arian polemic made him unpopular among his fellow bishops in the > East, openly expressed his dissatisfaction with the formula approved > at Nicaea. So, if the word homoousios is not found in the Holy Scriptures or in the orthodox Christian confession before Nicaea, why was it included in the Nicene Creed?

The Nicene and Dedication Councils were attended by more or less the same people and were only 16 years apart (325 vs 341) but resulted in opposing creeds. The Nicene Creed is pro-Sabellian but the Dedication Creed is anti-Sabellian. What made the difference? More or less the same people ---------------------------- The Dedication Council was a Council of the Eastern Church and the Nicene Council was almost exclusively Eastern: > At Nicaea, the delegates were “drawn almost entirely from the eastern > half of the empire” (LA, 19). > > “Very few Western bishops took the trouble to attend the Council (of > Nicaea). The Eastern Church was always the pioneer and leader in > theological movements in the early Church. It is well known that > Hilary, for instance, never really understood the Arian Controversy > till he reached the East as a result of being exiled. The Westerners > at the Council represented a tiny minority.” (RH, 170) > > The Nicene Council “was overwhelmingly Eastern, and only represented > the Western Church in a meagre way.” (RH, 156) The Nicene Creed is pro-Sabellian. ---------------------------------- > “If we are to take the creed N at its face value, the theology of > Eustathius and Marcellus was the theology which triumphed at Nicaea. > That creed admits the possibility of only one ousia and one > hypostasis. This was the hallmark of the theology of these two men.” > (RH, 235) [Eustathius and Marcellus were the two main Sabellians > who attended in Nicene Council.] > > “The Creed of Nicaea of 325 … ultimately confounded the confusion > because its use of the words ousia and hypostasis was so ambiguous as > to suggest that the Fathers of Nicaea had fallen into Sabellianism, a > view recognized as a heresy even at that period.” (Hanson’s Lecture ) > > “In the controversies which erupted over Eustathius of Antioch and > Marcellus after Nicaea, both thought their theologies faithful to > Nicaea—and they had good grounds for so assuming. Both were > influential at the council, and Nicaea’s lapidary formulations were > never intended to rule out their theological idiosyncrasies.” (LA, 99) > > After Nicaea, the Creed was associated “with the theology of Marcellus > of Ancyra. … The language of that creed seemed to offer no > prophylactic (prevention) against Marcellan doctrine, and increasingly > came to be seen as implying such doctrine.” (LA, 96, 97) > > “To many the creed seemed strongly to favour the unitarian tendency > among these existing trajectories.” (LA, 431) [Ayres uses the term > “unitarian” to refer to Sabellianism. For example: “A great deal of > controversy was caused in the years after the council by some > supporters of Nicaea whose theology had strongly unitarian tendencies. > Chief among these was Marcellus of Ancyra.” (LA, 431)) > > “Simonetti estimates the Nicene Council as a temporary alliance for > the defeat of Arianism between the tradition of Alexandria led by > Alexander and ‘Asiatic’ circles (i.e. Eustathius, Marcellus) whose > thought was at the opposite pole to that of Arius. … Alexander … > accepted virtual Sabellianism in order to ensure the defeat of > Arianism. … The ‘Asiatics’ … were able to include in N a hint of > opposition to the three hypostases theory.” (RH, 171) > > It is not “an openly Sabellian creed.” “It is going too far to say > that N is a clearly Sabellian document. … It is exceeding the evidence > to represent the Council as a total victory for the anti-Origenist > opponents of the doctrine of three hypostases. It was more like a > drawn battle.” (RH, 172) Ayres says that his conclusions are close to > Hanson’s in this regard (LA, 92). > > The Dedication Creed of 431 “represents the nearest approach we can > make to discovering the views of the ordinary educated Eastern bishop > who was no admirer of the extreme views of Arius but who had been > shocked and disturbed by **the apparent Sabellianism of Nicaea**.” (RH, > 290) The Dedication Creed is anti-Seballian. --------------------------------------- While Sabellianism asserts only one single hypostasis, meaning one single rational capacity or mind, the Dedication Creed explicitly asserts that the trinity is “three in hypostasis but one in agreement (συμφωνία)” (LA, 118). “One in agreement” indicates the existence of three distinct ‘Minds’. > The Dedication Creed’s “chief bête noire [the thing that it > particularly dislikes] is Sabellianism, the denial of a distinction > between the three within the Godhead.” (RH, 287) > > The Dedication creed is “strongly anti-Sabellian.” (RH, 287) > > “The creed has a clear anti-Sabellian and anti-Marcellan thrust.” (LA, > 119) LA = Ayres, Lewis, Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004 RH = Hanson RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381. 1988

The council of Nicea was held in A.D. 325 a few hundred years after the early church. Yet it contained church leaders from all over, and it reached a wide consensus on a number of issues. Some of these decisions seem contradictory with Protestantism, specifically the seeming appeal to bishops and the church community as a final authority. For example, the council refers to itself several times as "the great and holy Synod," implying that these decisions are binding to some extent, not just suggestions. It refers to penance, which Protestants typically don't practice. It also heavily implies that church custom ought to be followed: > It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great Synod that, in some > districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the > presbyters, whereas **neither canon nor custom permits** that they who > have no right to offer should give the Body of Christ to them that do > offer. And this also has been made known, that certain deacons now > touch the Eucharist even before the bishops. They also state: > It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the > bishops in the province which seems to appeal to church consensus in a way that seems to contradict Protestant beliefs. Together, the most clear implication seems to be that believers everywhere are bound to follow the teachings given by ecumenical councils or decisions made by a consensus of bishops. I suppose Protestants could argue that humans are capable of error and that these teachings were a modern invention, not something believed by the early church. But if that were the case, then why would bishops from *all* across the continent be able to agree on these declarations? I'm open to arguments that large swaths of the church had fallen into error by AD 325, or that this contradicts things agreed on in the early church. But I'm not sure how to make that argument. On the one hand, there's a lot here that we don't see said by Ignatius or early writers. On the other hand, I don't see Ignatius *contradicting* what's written here, and a consensus by successors of the apostles could indicate that the apostles themselves did believe these things and passed them on as tradition. Ignatius also writes : > Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop...It is not lawful > without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast That doesn't directly imply everything said at Nicea, but the similarity in what's said at Nicea and by Ignatius seems to strengthen the case that Nicea was based on tradition passed down from the apostles. Why would the tradition change so much and so broadly?

What was the core issue in the Arian Controversy? ================================================= Whether the Son was God? ------------------------ It is often stated that it was about whether Jesus is God. But Lewis Ayres says that is not true. The so-called Arians also referred to Jesus as God and placed Him on the God side of the God-creation barrier. For example: > The creed of 357, which some regard as the high point of Arianism, > describes the Son as “God from God.” (Hanson, p. 345) > > “It is misleading to assume that these controversies were about ‘the > divinity of Christ’” (Ayres, p. 14) > > “A second approach that we need to reject treats the fourth-century > debates as focusing on the question of whether to place the Son on > either side of a clear God/creation boundary.” (Ayres, p. 4) Whether the Son was a lesser Being? ----------------------------------- One may counter and say, yes, the 'Arians' described Him as God but they also described Him as subordinate to the Father. That statement would be misleading because, as RPC Hanson stated, the pro-Nicenes also thought of the Son as subordinate. Ayres says that even Athanasius regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father. For example, he regarded the Son as part of the Father and would never say that the Father is homoousios with the Son. The first theologian to insist on full equality was Basil of Caesarea. For example: > Before Nicaea, all church fathers described the Son as subordinate, > e.g.,: The “conventional Trinitarian doctrine with which Christianity > entered the fourth century ... was to make the Son into a demi-god … a > second, created god lower than the High God” (Hanson Lecture). > > “With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and > West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year > 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement (end) of the > controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy.” (Hanson, p. > xix) > > Athanasius also described the Son as subordinate. He always described > the Son “as proper to the Father, as the Father's own wisdom,” meaning > that the Son is part of the Father, never the other way round. (Ayres, > p. 206)  > > Basil of Caesarea was the first to proclaim full equality: “In all the > previous discussions (before Basil of Caesarea) of the term > (homoousios) … a certain ontological subordination is at least > implied.” (Ayres, p. 206) “In Basil, the Father's sharing of his being > involves the generation of one identical in substance and power.” > (Ayres, p. 207) So, whether the Son was subordinate to the Father was also not the real main issue in the Arian Controversy. Was the Controversy about Arius? -------------------------------- The title 'Arian' Controversy implies that Arius caused it and that it was about Arius' teachings. However, Hanson and Lewis confirm that Arius was not the 'cause' but that it was the continuation of the controversy that raged during the previous century: > "He was the spark that started the explosion, but in himself he was of > no great significance.” (Hanson, p. xvii-xviii) > > “This controversy is a complex affair in which tensions between > pre-existing theological traditions intensified as a result of dispute > over Arius.” (Ayres, p. 11-12) Furthermore, the Controversy was not about Arius' teachings. He left no school of followers. After Nicaea, he was no longer mentioned. Nobody thought his writings were worth preserving. As Hanson, Ayres, and Williams confirm, it is called the 'Arian' Controversy only because Athanasius falsely accused his opponents, the anti-Nicenes, of being followers of Arius, which they were not. For example: > “The people of his (Arius’) day, whether they agreed with him or not, > did not regard him as a particularly significant writer. … Neither his > supporters nor his opponents thought them (his writings) worth > preserving. … He virtually disappears from the controversy at an early > stage in its course.” (Hanson, p. xvii) > > “It is virtually impossible to identify a school of thought dependent > on Arius' specific theology." (Ayres, p. 2) > > “The expression 'the Arian Controversy' is a serious misnomer.” > (Hanson, p. xvii) > > “’Arianism’ as a coherent system, founded by a single great figure and > sustained by his disciples, is a fantasy … based on the polemic of > Nicene writers, above all Athanasius.” (Williams, p. 82) > > “The textbook picture of an Arian system … inspired by the teachings > of the Alexandrian presbyter, is the invention of Athanasius’ > polemic.” (Williams, p. 234) So, what was the real core of the Arian Controversy? Was there a golden thread that ran through the controversy in the third and fourth centuries? Authors Quoted -------------- Following the last full-scale book on the Arian Controversy, published in English by Gwatkin at the beginning of the 20th century, R.P.C. Hanson in 1988 published perhaps the most influential book in modern history on the Arian Controversy. (Hanson RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381. 1988) This was followed in 2004 by a book by Lewis Ayres.(Ayres, Lewis, Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004) Ayres confirmed the importance of Hanson's book. > “Richard Hanson’s The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (1988) > and Manlio Simonetti’s La Crisi Ariana nel IV secolo (1975) remain > essential points of reference.” (Ayres, p. 12) Ayres’ book is based on those surveys and “in some measure advances on their texts.” (Ayres, p. 5) I also quote from another important book by Rowan Williams, focusing specifically on Arius.(Williams, Rowan (24 January 2002) . Arius: Heresy and Tradition (Revised ed.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8028-4969-4.)