Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy » From Daniel to Revelation

This is my summary of the book, Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004, by Lewis Ayres. He is a Catholic theologian and Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology at Durham University in the United Kingdom. This book was recommended to me by the theology faculty of my local university.

Based on ancient documents that have become more accessible, scholarship since about 1960 has painted the fourth-century Arian Controversy in a very different light. It is therefore important that this book is fairly recent and incorporates that new research. It is important that Ayres is a Catholic and Trinitarian. As such, his views should be acceptable to a wider audience.

As far as possible, I summarize the book by selecting quotes. This article is a work in progress.

The headings I provide really are categories. So, if a reader searches for a specific category, all the quotes relating to that category would be available.

Introduction

Arian Controversy Overview

The fourth-century controversy “produced … the most important creed in the history of Christianity.” (LA, 1)

Fragmentary Documentary Evidence

“The fundamental problem in understanding … these controversies … (is that) the documentary evidence from this period is … fragmentary.” (LA, 2)

Read Scripture Differently

“Fourth-century theologians read Scripture differently from modern theologians.” They regarded certain Old Testament texts as “fundamental points of reference and departure for discussing the divine being.” Sometimes they seem “to rip terms or verses out of context.” (LA, 4)

No Arianism

A further challenge is that the surviving documents are often not reliable because theologians used labels to “tar enemies with the name of a figure already in disrepute:” (LA, 2)

The most famous label was “Arian.” The anti-Nicenes were divided into various groups with very different views but pro-Nicene writers such as Athanasius labeled them all as ‘Arians’, implying that they were a coherent group. However, “it is virtually impossible to identify a school of thought dependent on Arius’ specific theology. ”Furthermore, it is “certainly impossible to show that even a bare majority of Arians had any extensive knowledge of Arius’ writing.” (LA, 2)

Arius was not a particularly significant writer. For example, the so-called ‘Arians’ never quote him. “Arius was part of a wider theological trajectory; many of his ideas were opposed by others in this trajectory: he neither originated the trajectory nor uniquely exemplified it.” (LA, 2) (For a further discussion, see – Athanasius invented Arianism.)

“Scholars continue to talk as if there were a clear continuity among non-Nicene theologians by deploying such labels as Arians, semi-Arians, and neo-Arians. Such presentations are misleading.” (LA, 13)

Recent Scholarship 

“Recent scholarship” has moved “beyond ancient heresiological categories.” (LA, 1)

“A vast amount of scholarship over the past thirty years has offered revisionist accounts of themes and figures from the fourth century” (LA, 2). In other words, that recent research has put that Controversy in a new light. This book summarizes this new perspective and offers “a narrative of … thought between approximately AD 300 and 383.” (LA, 2)

“Recent writers on the fourth century have tried to narrate the period with greater sensitivity to the continuities and divisions that these labels seek to hide.” (LA, 3)

Core Issue

In the traditional account of the ‘Arian’ Controversy, the core issue was “whether or not Christ was divine.” (LA, 3) In reality, the controversies focused “on debates about the generation of the Word or Son from the Father.” (LA, 3) “The controversies originally focused on the nature and consequences of the Word’s generation.” In other words, what does it mean that the Son was begotten from the Father? (LA, 3, 13) For example:

• • • Did the Son emerge as a being “distinct” from the Father? (LA, 3)
    • Is He a created being?
    • “Or is this distinction analogous to that of a person who speaks his or her word (the word being here only a dependent and temporary product of the speaker)?” (LA, 3)
    • Is “the Word as an intermediary being, able to communicate something of the divine character because of an inherent mutability that makes communication possible?” (LA, 3)

Core Issue / Theos 

The core issue was also not “whether to place the Son on either side of a clear God/creation boundary.” The ancients did not have such a clear boundary. “Many fourth-century theologians (including some who were in no way anti-Nicene) made distinctions between being ‘God’ and being ‘true God’ that belie any simple account of the controversy in these terms.” (LA, 4) They described the Son as “God” and the Father as “true God’.” Therefore, both were on the “God” side of the boundary but were not seen as equal.

Core Issue / Pro-Nicene / Theos

It was the “late fourth-century theologians” who, by removing the distinction between ‘true God’ and ‘God’, and by admitting “no degrees” created “a clear distinction between God and creation.” (LA, 4)

Core Issue / Share the Father’s Being 

The core issue was also not whether the Son shared the Father’s being. “Many participants supposedly on different sides … (insisted) that one must speak of the Son’s incomprehensible generation from the Father as a sharing of the Father’s very being.” (LA, 4-5) “For some the position entailed recognizing the coeternity of the Son, for many it did not.” (LA, 5)

Authors 

“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.” (LA, 12)

This book is “not intended to replace the standard large surveys by Richard Hanson (The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (1988)) and Manlio Simonetti (La Crisi Ariana nel IV secolo (1975)).” This book is based on those surveys and “in some measure advances on their texts.” (LA, 5)

Pro-Nicene 

Ayres says, “The conflict that resulted eventually led to the emergence of a series of what I will term pro-Nicene theologies interpreting the Council of Nicaea in ways that provided a persuasive solution to the conflicts of the century.” (RH, 12)

‘Pro-Nicene’ refers to “those theologies, appearing from the 360s to the 380s … of how the Nicene creed should be understood. … All of these theologies build closely on and adapt themes found earlier in the century, but none is identical with any original ‘Nicene’ theology apparent in the 320s or 330s.” (LA, 6) In other words, ‘Pro-Nicene’, namely, what we today understand as Nicene theology, did not exist when the Nicene Creed was formulated in AD 325.

The century must be understood as “one of evolution in doctrine.”  (LA, 13)

East/West

“The East/West or Greek/Latin division which is often used as a primary dividing marker between varieties of fourth- and fifth-century Trinitarian theology is of far less significance than is usually thought.” (LA, 6)

Recent Trinitarian Theology 

Ayres suggests “that recent Trinitarian theology has engaged the legacy of Nicaea at a fairly shallow level, frequently relying on assumptions about Nicene theology that are historically indefensible.” (LA, 1) He says that “pro-Nicene theologies” “challenge modern Trinitarian theologians to rethink some of their most cherished assumptions.” (LA, 2)

Chapter 16 discusses how “modern theological cultures have failed to” “sustain the theological practices” that shaped “pro-Nicene theology.” (LA, 6) “Modern Trinitarianism … has barely engaged with it (pro-Nicene theology) at all.” (LA, 7)

Chapter 1: Points of Departure

Travesty 

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.” But “such older accounts are deeply mistaken.” (LA, 11)

Introduction: Where To Begin? 

Recent Scholarship / Travesty 

“The four decades since 1960 have produced much revisionary scholarship on the Trinitarian and Christological disputes of the fourth century. It is now a commonplace that these disputes cannot simply be understood as … the Church’s struggle against a heretic and his followers grounded in a clear Nicene doctrine established in the controversy’s earliest stages. Rather, this controversy is a complex affair in which tensions between pre-existing theological traditions intensified as a result of dispute over Arius, and over events following the Council of Nicaea.” (LA, 11-12)

In the older account, “a clear Nicene doctrine (was) established in the controversy’s earliest stages.” Now we know that the ‘orthodoxy’ as we know it today did not exist at the beginning but was worked out through that struggle. (LA, 11-12) “The century is understood as one of evolution in doctrine.” (LA, 13)

Sides 

Ayres says that his “account pays particular attention to the difficulties of identifying discrete parties and positions during the course of the controversy.” (LA, 13)

Travesty 

The “traditional account,” presents “the Arian controversy as

• • • A dispute over whether or not Christ was divine,
    • Initially provoked by a priest called Arius …
    • Eventually … the controversy extended throughout the century … because (of) a conspiracy of Arians
    • Against the Nicene tradition
    • Represented particularly by Athanasius perpetuated Arius’ views.” (LA, 13)

In this book, Ayres shows that every one of these assertions is either wrong or requires qualification.

No Arianism / Arius Who (Supporters) 

“This controversy is mistakenly called Arian. No clear party sought to preserve Arius’ theology.” “Even those who initially supported Arius in his struggle with Alexander” cannot be called ‘Arians’ because they did not follow Arius. Arius was not “their teacher or main inspiration.” (LA, 13) “Many of Arius’ earliest supporters appear to have rallied to him because they, like him, opposed Alexander’s theology.” (LA, 14) “For these reasons some scholars now simply refrain from using the term Arian.” (LA, 14)

Core Issue / Created Being / Theos 

“It is misleading to assume that these controversies were about ‘the divinity of Christ’” (LA, 14) “Suggestions that the issue was one of placing Christ (and eventually the Spirit) on either side of a well-established dividing line between created and uncreated are particularly unhelpful.” “Until the last decades of the controversy” “the term ‘God’ could be deployed” “very flexibility.” “Many fourth-century theologians easily distinguished between ‘God’ and ‘true God’.” That implies “degrees of deity” (LA, 14)

No Arianism (Spark)

Ayres’ book highlights “the variety of theological trajectories existing in tension at the beginning of the fourth century” and says that “the controversy surrounding Arius was an epiphenomenon of widespread existing tensions.” (LA, 15) (Arius had put his head in a beehive.)

Chapter 1.1 From Arius to Nicaea

This section discusses the view that Arius caused the Controversy.

Alexander’s Theology / Objections 

“Alexander taught that God was always Father and that the Son was always Son, thus implying the eternal generation of the Son; as the Father’s Word and Wisdom the Son must always have been with the Father. At the same time, he taught that the Son is the exact image of the Father.” (The Father’s only Word and Wisdom?)

“Arius saw his bishop’s theology as implying two ultimate principles in the universe, and he thought that Alexander compromised the biblical insistence on the Father’s being alone God and alone immortal (1 Tim. 6:16). For Arius, any talk about Father and Son as coeternal ignored the hierarchy involved in the very language of Father and Son.” (LA, 16)

Arius Theology 

“Arius saw the Son as a being distinct from and inferior to the Father.” The Son was “created as a derivative copy of some of the Father’s attributes.” (LA, 16)

Arius Who 

“It is not likely, as was once argued, that Arius himself had an association with Melitius.” (LA, 17)

“Alexander and the Alexandrian clergy condemned Arius after he refused to sign a confession of faith presented by Alexander.” (LA, 17)

“Over the next few years Arius gained support from some bishops in Palestine, Syria, and North Africa, especially Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine and Eusebius of Nicomedia, near Constantinople. … Although these supporters may have been wary of some aspects of Arius’ theology … they joined in opposition to Alexander. For all of them Alexander’s theology seemed to compromise the unity of God and the unique status of the Father.” (LA, 17)

Emperor Role 

“In 324 the Emperor Constantine … (who) assumed control of the whole empire, took an interest in the dispute. Constantine wrote to Alexander and Arius telling them to stop quarrelling about what seemed to him to be such a small matter. Soon, however, Constantine began to see their dispute as more serious.” (LA, 17-18)

“Ossius the bishop of Cordoba in Spain … apparently acted in some sort of advisory capacity to Constantine, and perhaps also served as his representative in these events.” (LA, 18)

“Constantine himself summoned the bishops.” (LA, 18)

Nicaea – Premeeting 

“Probably early in 325, a council took place in Antioch, possibly under the presidency of Ossius. … The meeting produced a statement of belief asserting that the Son is generated from the Father himself in an ineffable manner and that the transcendence and ineffability of this generation forbid us from speaking of the Son as in any way like the creation. … This council also temporarily excommunicated one of Arius’ senior supporters, Eusebius of Caesarea.” (LA, 18)

Nicaea – Sabellian 

“Originally Constantine seems to have summoned the council to Ancyra … (where) he would have had the support of Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, who was either already known to Constantine, or had at least now been indicated as a strong opponent of the views held by Arius.” (LA, 18-19)

Nicaea – Eastern / Emperor Role

“Around 250–300 attended, drawn almost entirely from the eastern half of the empire: Ossius probably presided.” (LA, 19)

Nicaea – Text 

“The decision of the council against Arius found expression in a short statement of faith, the creed of Nicaea:

We believe in one God, Father Almighty Maker of all things, seen and unseen;

and in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, begotten as only begotten of the Father, that is of the being of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came into existence, both things in heaven and things on earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate and became man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into the heavens, and is coming to judge the living and the dead.

And in the Holy Spirit.

But those who say
– ‘there was a time when he did not exist’,
 – and ‘before being begotten he did not exist’,
 – and that he came into being from non-existence,
 – or who allege that the Son of God is from another hypostasis or ousia,
 – or is alterable or changeable,
these the Catholic and Apostolic Church condemns.” (LA, 19)

Emperor Role / Post-Nicaea Correction 

“Constantine exiled Arius along with two Libyan bishops … The Emperor also exiled Eusebius of Nicomedia. … Within two or three years, however, Arius and the others exiled by Constantine were recalled, it seems at the behest of the Emperor.” (LA, 19)

Travesty 

“Those who assume that … Arius and his conflict with Alexander is the most important point of departure for the fourth-century controversies interpret the events after Nicaea by narrating the emergence of an Arian conspiracy to keep alive his theology, to oppose Athanasius, and to contend against Nicaea and its theology. In fact, little evidence for any Arian conspiracy can be found.” (LA, 19-20)

No Arianism (Spark) / Arius Who 

“Through exploring this context (within which those claims were made) we will find pre-existing deep theological tensions at the beginning of the fourth century. Controversy over Arius was the spark that ignited a fire waiting to happen, and the origins of the dispute do not lie simply in the beliefs of one thinker, but in existing tensions that formed his background.” (LA, 20)

Chapter 1.2 Origen

Arius – Origen 

“The theology of Origen of Alexandria (c.185–c.251) lies beneath the surface of many early fourth-century theologies. … For some over the last century Arius’ own theology is a direct result of Origen’s ‘subordinationism’.” (LA, 20)

Ayres gives three reasons why “such a view is implausible:”

1. 1. 1. “Origen exercised influence on all sides in Alexandria.” (LA, 21)
      2. “No theologian adopted Origen’s system ” (LA, 21) “Even those partial to his work came to it with ideas from other writers.” (LA, 29)
      3. “Origen’s account of the Son as in some ways subordinate to the Father is in part simply that of his contemporaries.” (LA, 21)

“Origen was not the direct source of Arius, or even of Arius and his opponents. Origen’s influence was piecemeal.” (LA, 28)

Arius – Origen / Subordinate 

“Origen’s account of the Son as in some ways subordinate to the Father is in part simply that of his contemporaries.” (LA, 21)

Ayres distinguishes between “subordinationism” and saying that the Son is “inferior to the Father.” He says that “many pre-Nicene and early fourth-century theologies,” who said that the Son can “possess some of the Father’s attributes,” described the Son as subordinate but not inferior to the Father. In his book, Ayres “tried to reserve the term (subordinationism) … for theologians whose clear intent is to subordinate the Son to the Father in opposition to the gradual emergence of Nicene and pro-Nicene theologies.” (LA, 21) In other words, Ayres is saying that Alexander, and people with similar views, did not teach subordination.

Arius – Origen 

“Origen … helped to shape the character of theology and exegesis in the fourth century.” (LA, 21) The following are some of Origen’s main teachings relevant to the status of the Son:

Distinct and Dependent – “Father and Son are distinct beings.” (LA, 22) “Origen does consider the Son to be a distinct being dependent on the Father for his existence.” (LA, 23) “The Son is not the one power of God, but another distinct power dependent on God’s power for its existence.” (LA, 24)

Eternal – “The Son is eternally generated from the Father. … He who is God’s Wisdom and Power must have always been with the Father.” (LA, 22)

Intrinsic – “While the Father is superior to the Son, Origen works to make the Son intrinsic to the being of God.” (LA, 23) (Note the phrase “works to make.” It means that Origen did not literally say this. That is how Ayres reads Origen.)

Ousia – “Origen is constantly concerned to describe the relationship of Father and Son without falling into the (for him) material-sounding language of a shared essence or nature.” “Origen directly denies that the Son can come from the Father’s ousia, as this would imply a material conception of the divine generation.” “Ousia language in most forms seemed to Origen unsuitable for application to the divine existence.” (LA, 24)

Homoousios – “One famous passage in which he seems to use the term homoousios (‘sharing the same being’) of the Father and Son may have been adulterated by later writers.” (LA, 24)

Hypostasis – Origen uses “the term hypostasis … to indicate ‘real existence’—as opposed to existence only in thought—but also as ‘individual, circumscribed existence’.” For instance:

“He argues against those who distinguish Father and Son only in thought (epinoia), not in hypostasis.” (against Sabellians?)

He “speaks of Father and Son as two ‘things (πράγματα) in hypostasis, but one in like-mindedness, harmony, and identity of will’.” (LA, 25) (Are One)

“Here ‘in hypostasis’ seems to mean ‘in actual existence’. Origen is searching for a way to argue that Father and Son and Spirit each have a distinct existence.” (LA, 25)

“Elsewhere … Origen writes that ‘we are persuaded that there are three hypostases, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit’. Here hypostasis indicates ‘individual circumscribed existence’.” (LA, 25)

The language of three hypostases evolves as part of a continuing attempt to describe the participation and hierarchy existing among the three that are most definitely three.” (LA, 25)

The transcendence of the Father “In a number of places Origen emphasizes the transcendence of the Father over all things, including Son and Spirit.” For example, “He argues … that the Father transcends the Son and Spirit more than they transcend the created world.” (LA, 25-26)

Knowledge of the Father – “Origen presents the Son as contemplating the Father uninterruptedly and unmediatedly … And yet, Origen seems also to regard the Father as containing in his own depth, in his true simplicity (which the Son does not share) a mode of contemplation (θεωρία) which is reflected by the Son but not simply shared.” “The Son … knows the Father ‘as an infinite depth never fully to be sounded’.” (LA, 26)

Shared Existence – “Origen’s presentation of the relationship between Father and Son … (is a) shared but graded divine existence.” (LA, 26)

As Will proceeding from the Mind – Origen said that the Son is generated “as will proceeding from mind.” (LA, 24, 27) “This language serves not only to present the generation as non-material, but also to emphasize” that “the Son has no origin except the Father.” (LA, 27) “In Origen’s insistence that the Son is a product of the Father’s will, not his essence, we might seem to see … a key anti-Nicene argument in the fourth century: if the Son is from the will then he is not from the Father’s essence.” (LA, 27)

Created – “Origen seems to have spoken of the Son as created.” (LA, 27)

One will and action – “Origen distinguishes the three hypostases by attributing to them specific roles or activities in the world. … Origen’s concern is to distinguish Father, Son, and Spirit while maintaining the idea that the latter two reveal and bring to completion the one divine will and action.” (LA, 27-28)

“Origen writes: As regards the power of his works, then, the Son is in no way whatever separate or different from the Father, nor is his work anything other than the Father’s work, but there is one and the same movement, so to speak, in all they do.” (LA, 28)

“On the one hand, the Son’s will is so like the Father’s that they can be said to be one; on the other, the Son is generated like the will from the mind.” (LA, 28)

Image – “Origen describes the Son as the image of the Father because his will directly mirrors the Father’s (mind?).” (LA, 28) Ayres is not clear here what aspect of the Father the Son mirrors.

The eternal existence of the creation – Ayres briefly some criticism Origen had in the third century:

“Particularly important was the suspicion that Origen’s theology implied the eternal existence of the creation.” (LA, 29) (I have never studied Origen myself but it is for me obvious that creation always existed because God always existed and He is always a Creator. Never mind that we cannot understand that. We are surrounded by an infinity that we will never phantom.

“Under attack is Origen’s attempt to say both that all the first created spiritual things exist eternally in the Logos and that God is the beginning or arche of all things.” (LA, 29)

Chapter 1.3 Theology and the Reading of Scripture

I did not summarize this section because, as a Protestant, I fundamentally disagree with it. It begins by referring to the comment by Richard Hanson “that ‘the expounders of the text of the Bible [in the fourth century] are incompetent and ill-prepared to expound it’.” (LA, 32) As I read it, this section basically says that the Bible cannot be trusted as a basis for theology because it can be read in different ways. For example:

“Patristic exegesis takes as its point of departure the ‘plain’ sense of the text of Scripture.” That is “the sense that a text had for a Christian of the period versed in ancient literary critical skills.” (LA, 32)

“The plain sense is pluralistic in a number of ways.” (LA, 32)

“A number of fourth- and fifth-century authors assume that one might understand ‘the way the words run’ in different ways” because the text speaks “about realities that are beyond comprehension.” (LA, 32, 33)

“For virtually all the flexibility of the plain sense results from its speaking about realities that are beyond comprehension.” (LA, 32)

Please forgive me if I am wrong but, in my view, Ayres, as a good Catholic, tries to justify the view that the church decrees take precedence over the Bible. For a Protestant, on the other hand, the study of the relation between God and His unique Son should start with an in-depth analysis of the Bible.

Chapter 2: Theological Trajectories in the early fourth century

2.1 Two Trends

No Arianism

“To understand how the story of Arius and Alexander quickly spread beyond Alexandria we need to get some sense of the existing theological trajectories and tensions present in the early years of the fourth century.” (LA, 41)

“By way of introduction we can identify two distinct trends. … In talking about the status of the Son (the Spirit is, at least initially, much less a focus of attention),

• • • some prefer language that emphasizes the sameness of Father and Son,
    • while others emphasize diversity between the two.” (LA, 41)

“Those who emphasize sameness frequently” say that the Son:

• • • Has the same qualities as the Father (LA, 41)
    • Share “in almost all the Father’s characteristics … not just a ‘mirroring’,” (LA, 41) “but a real sharing of nature and qualities.” (LA, 42)
    • Is “one aspect or feature of the Father’s existence; for example, the Son may be conceived as the Father’s Wisdom” (LA, 42); The Logos is the (only) “rational capacity” of the Father. (LA, 42)

“Those who emphasize difference between Father and Son” say

• • • The Son is an image of the Father (LA, 42)
    • “Father and Son language … implies) a relationship of clear hierarchy” (LA, 42)
    • The Logos is “a subordinate and independent being.” (LA, 42)

Objections

“When those who emphasize difference between Father and Son attack those who emphasize sameness, they argue that the latter group speaks materially of God, implying a division of God’s being in the Son’s generation. They also criticize what seems to be an envisaging of two eternal principles.” (LA, 42)

Chapter 2.2: Alexander, Athanasius, And Friends

Sabellian – “The first trajectory is found in Alexander of Alexandria and in the early Athanasius. This trajectory emphasizes the eternally correlative status of Father and Son in ways close to Origen’s understanding of eternal generation, but is also resistant to speaking of three hypostases.” (LA, 43)

Eternal – Alexander argued that the Father is made perfect “by the eternal begetting and presence of the Son.” (LA, 44)