Acacians


The Acacians, or perhaps better described as the Homoians or Homoeans, were a non-Nicene branch of Christianity that dominated the church during much of the fourth-century Arian Controversy. They declared that the Son was similar to God the Father, without reference to substance. Homoians played a major role in the Christianization of the Goths in the Danubian provinces of the Roman Empire.
"Though Homoian Arianism derived from the thought both of Eusebius of Caesarea and of Arius, we cannot with confidence detect it before the year 357, when it appears in the Second Sirmian Creed."

Supporters

Homoian theology “was a development of the theology of Eusebius of Caesarea.”
  • “Homoian Arianism derived from the thought both of Eusebius of Caesarea and of Arius.”
  • "Akakius of Caesarea is usually regarded as the leader of the Homoian Arians par excellence. He succeeded Eusebius as bishop of that see in 339 or 340 and remained there for at least twenty-five years. He was clearly a devoted disciple of his predecessor." Hanson refers to Eusebius of Caesarea as “Akakius' master.”
“Eusebius of Caesarea, the historian and theologian” “attended the Council of Nicaea in 325,”” was “universally acknowledged to be the most scholarly bishop of his day,”” and “was the most learned and one of the best-known of the 300-odd bishops present” at Nicaea.”
But when the first Homoian Creeds was formulated, Eusebius was dead and Akakius an important leader.
R.P.C. Hanson stated, "If we are to determine who among the Homoian Arians was the most influential in the long run, we must choose Ulfilas, Apostle of the Goths." “He translated most of the Bible into Gothic.”

Theology

Anti-Nicene

Homoian theology is specifically anti-Nicene. Particularly, it opposes all ousia-language. They were “refusing to allow ousia-terms of any kind into professions of faith.” For example, the Sirmian Manifesto said, concerning the ousia-terms:
There "ought to be no mention of any of them at all, nor any exposition of them in the Church, and for this reason and for this consideration that there is nothing written about them in divine Scripture and that they are above men's knowledge and above men's understanding."

Anti-Arius

Homoian theology also opposed Arius because it opposed the key aspect of Arius’ theology “that the Son was created by the Father 'out of non-existence'.” For example, the creed of the council of Ariminum anathemized those who say “that the Son is from nothing, and not from God the Father."

The incomparability of God

The main pillar of Homoian doctrine is “the incomparability of God the Father.” They had “a long list of texts … to demonstrate the incomparability of the Father." For example:
  • Invisible - “Christ is the visible God."
  • Immortal - “Christ is not the immortal God.”
  • Ingenerate - 'We confess … one God, not two gods, for we do not describe him as two ingenerates."

    A Suffering God

The Homoian system was designed to avoid “the risk of saying that the Father suffered." “But they were perfectly ready to say that God the Son suffered. Indeed, their Christology was specifically designed to do so." “Here, they were on stronger ground than the pro-Nicenes, whose Christology … always wanted to avoid of concluding that the full, authentic Godhead suffered."

Christ as subordinate

“A drastic subordination of the Son to the Father had been the keynote of this school of thought."
“The Son is eternally … subordinated to the Father,” even after everything is completed that must be done for our salvation.
“It is characteristic of this type of Arianism to teach that the Father is the God of the Son.” Therefore, the Son “worships the Father."

Christ as divine

But they did refer to the Son as God. For example, they described Him as "God from God." However, "they pointed out that the word 'god' in the Bible was in several places applied to beings much inferior to God Almighty, e.g., Exod 7:1, Ps 82:6."
"In the intellectual climate of the fourth century, it was quite logical to maintain that the Son was God or divine while not being fully equal to the Father."

The Holy Spirit

“The status of the Spirit in Homoian teaching is emphatically short of divine.” “The Holy Spirit is created, and this certainly implies that, unlike the Son, he is not God.” The Spirit “is … not to be worshipped nor adored."
For example, “Ulfilas' doctrine exhibits a drastic subordination of the Son to the Father, a fierce emphasis upon the incomparability of the Father … a denial of the divinity of the Holy Spirit and a strong and explicit repudiation of the pro-Nicene doctrine.”

Homoian creeds

As stated, Homoian theology is particularly anti-Nicene and anti-ousia-language. During the first 25 years after Nicaea in 325, nobody mentioned or used or defended the Nicene Creed or ousia language:
“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.” “After Nicaea homoousios is not mentioned again in truly contemporary sources for two decades. … It was not seen as that useful or important.” “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.”
For that reason, during that period, there were also no anti-Nicene creeds or statements:
“Many of the theologies we have considered so far are non-Nicene more than anti-Nicene: only in the 350s do we begin to trace clearly the emergence of directly anti-Nicene accounts.”
The first sign of an anti-Nicene doctrine was the creed of Sirmium 351:
  • “Sirmium 351 had not only omitted ousia language, but positively condemned some uses of that language.”
  • “Most significant of all, perhaps, is the appearance of anathemas directly and explicitly aimed at N.” “This creed marks a definite shift towards a more sharply anti-Nicene doctrine.”
“The confession of 357 even more strongly argues against ousia language, condemning use of it,” saying, “there should be no mention of it whatever, nor should anyone preach it.” “This text demonstrates … the emergence of ‘Homoian’ theology.”
The two main Homoian Creeds are “the Second Sirmian Creed of 357” and “the Creed of Nice .” “The creed of Nice-Constantinople … was temporarily registered as ecumenical in 360.”

Biblical language

The Homoians were committed to use only Biblical language and declared the Son to be similar to God the Father, without reference to essence or substance.
  • “The Arians tended … to avoid allegorising. … They tend to take Scripture literally.”
  • “They prided themselves on their appeal to Scripture. … they pointed out that homoousios and ousia did not occur in the Bible. 'We do not call the Holy Spirit God … because Scripture does not call him ’.”
  • “Truth is discovered not from argument but is proved by reliable proof-texts.”
“The Homoian Arians … were not particularly interested in philosophy:”
“The theologians of the fourth century … use the terminology of Greek philosophy. … It was never accepted by the Homoian Arians).”
Consequently, they rejected all ousia-terms, including homoousion, homoi-ousion, and heter-ousion.

Dominant view

The Homoian view dominated during much of the Arian Controversy:

Eusebius of Caesarea

Lewis Ayres identifies “the ” as one of the four “trajectories” when the Arian Controversy began. Homoian theology, since it was a development of the Eusebians’ theology, already existed when the Nicene Creed was formulated. At that time, most bishops held to the "Eusebian" view:
For example, the delegates to the Nicene Council of 325 were "drawn almost entirely from the eastern half of the empire” and the Dedication Creed of 341, which has "Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea and Asterius" as its "ancestors,” "represents the nearest approach we can make to discovering the views of the ordinary educated Eastern bishop.”

Rise to dominance

“The Homoian group came to dominance in the church in the 350s” “Homoian Arianism is a much more diverse phenomenon, more widespread and in fact more longlasting.”
Throughout the Arian Controversy, the church's Doctrine of God was decided by the Roman Emperors:
“If we ask the question, what was considered to constitute the ultimate authority in doctrine during the period reviewed in these pages, there can be only one answer. The will of the Emperor was the final authority.”
Similarly, Homoian theology continued to dominate under emperors Constantius and Valens:
  • “Homoian Arians … had obtained power under Constantius from 360 to 361 and under Valens from 364 onwards.”
  • “By 366 Valens the supporter of Homoian Arianism ruled in the East and Valentinian, the Western Emperor, was keeping as far as possible neutral in religious matters.”
  • “The Emperor in the East, Valens, … was a fanatical opponent of the pro-Nicenes, as also of the Eunomians, and a supporter of the Homoian creed.”
Homoian theology continued to dominate until Theodosius became emperor and outlawed all non-Trinitarian branches of Christianity with the Edict of Thessalonica:
“When Theodosius had entered Constantinople in November 380 he had given the Homoian Demophilus the chance to remain as bishop if he subscribed to Nicaea. When he did not he was exiled.”

Continuation after 381

wrote:
“Frequently, studies focusing on the fourth-century Trinitarian controversy stop at the 380s and emphasize the importance of the Council of Constantinople and the Council of Aquileia in 381, and the end of Italian rule of the last Homoian emperor, Valentinian II. In very common interpretation, these events mark the virtual end of the Latin Homoianism … In the present paper … I argue that the Latin Homoian Church survived long into the fifth century and had an active role in the process of converting the Goths into the Homoian Christianity.”