 |
Arianism
and the Nicene Creed,
A summary of this Christological debate. |
|
|
|
| Evangelion |
| Posted:
Jan 2 2003, 01:11 PM |
|
|
Archived
Post
|
What
was the basic conflict between Arius and Athanasius?
How did the Nicene Creed come to be formed?
During the years AD 318 and 319, a Libyan presbyter
was found to profess a controversial definition
of the pre-existent Christ and his relation to God
the Father. His name was Arius, a Libyan priest
whose theological formation had been obtained not
at the school of Alexandria, but in all probability
in Syrian Antioch, under the Antiochene priest Lucian.
While Arius’ ideas met with immediate opposition
by contemporary theologians, he did succeed in obtaining
a considerable following within his congregation
and some parts of the clergy.
It is not easy to determine the precise nature of
Arius' heresy. Writing in Doctrine and Practice
in the Early Church (1994), Stuart G. Hall (a
former Professor of Ecclesiastical History at King's
College) admits:
The true nature of the original issue is clouded.
Modern theologians have read into Arianism whatever
views they themselves particularly abominate.
Our ancient sources reveal other problems. First,
what we have of Arius' own writing is meagre,
and even these documents are preserved by his
critics, and selected to be damaging, if not actually
misquoted or misconstrued.
Secondly, his critics often attribute to him views
which he never stated: the most famous is, "There
was once when he [the Son] was not." There can
be no doubt that if he had ever written that,
he would have been quoted direct.
Thirdly, the dispute about Arius led to divisions
between churchmen over many other issues, both
ecclesiastical (such as the alleged episcopal
tyranny of Athanasius) and theological (such as
whether the Son is like the Father or unlike him),
and much of this is called the "Arian controversy",
even though Arius had nothing directly to do with
the issues. Arius is not Arianism, as generally
understood.
His surviving letters, and the poem called Thalia,
show that he thought of himself as a conservative,
treading in the footsteps of pious teachers. and
following the doctrine of his bishop. He held
that there is...
"one God, alone unbegotten, alone everlasting,
alone unbegun..." (Letter to Alexander, NE 326)
...and that the Son of God makes his father known
by being different:
"We call him [the Father] Unbegotten because
of the one in nature begotten; we raise hymns
to him as Unbegun because of the one born in time."
(Thalia, II 3-5 [NE 330.]
Hall's analysis is confirmed by another Christian
professor; Dr. John C. McDowell. In a research paper
entitled Arius: A Theological Conservative Persecuted?
(1994), McDowell attempts to clarify the Arian position:
Over a century ago Newman innovatively argued
that Arius stood in a tradition stretching back
to Paul of Samosata through Lucian of Antioch.
Arius was thus an adoptionist, as indeed he was
accused of being by several 4th century critics,
entertaining a ‘low view’ of a Christ "exalted
into a God", and reading the title ‘son of God’
in the Old Testament sense of one specially chosen
by God to perform some task.
[...]
By virtue of an obedient life, lived by grace,
Jesus, as the proto-typical human being and or
representative creature, received divine grace
and favour, and was thus exalted at his resurrection,
becoming a Son. The Son was one with the Father,
then, not in essence but in will. Hence Christ
was ontologically a creature and not God, and
it was for this reason that the Arians stressed
his mutability. When Arius and his companions
spoke of the Christ, they thought of a being called
into existence by the divine will, a creature
finite in knowledge and morally changeable.
By the steady choice of the good, this ‘certain
one’ attained the favour which God, who foreknew
his fidelity, conferred upon him, when he ‘advanced
him as a son to himself by adoption’ (Athanasius,
De Synodis, 15.3). ... And as one who attained
sonship by obedience ..., he was the champion
and exemplar of that adoption which awaited other
partakers of the heavenly calling.
[...]
This was no blatant adoptionism, however, for
Arius taught a pre-existent Logos.
A more confusing argument comes from Jaroslav Pelikan,
who claims that the Arians literally worshipped
Christ, just as their opponents did.
In The Christian Tradition (1997), Pelikan
asserts:
The Arians found prayer to the Logos an unavoidable
element of Christian worship.
[...]
From the attacks of orthodox writers like Ambrose
it is clear that the Arians refused to abandon
the practice of worshiping Christ; 'else,
if they do not worship the Son, let them admit
it, and the case is settled, so that they do not
deceive anyone by their professions of religion.'
Still, this is not sufficient to prove Pelikan's
point. In fact, the ambiguity of the situation is
clearly demonstrated by the quote from Ambrose,
who questions whether they worship the Son
or not. Such scant evidence can hardly be advanced
in support of the theory that the Arians worshipped
Christ as God.
This becomes even more obvious when we examine the
quote from Ambrose in context:
69. But if the Arians believe Him to
be a strange God, why do they worship Him, when
it is written: "Thou shall worship no strange
God"? Else, if they
do not worship the Son, let them confess thereto,
and the case is at an end,--that they deceive
no one by their professions of religion.
This, then, we see, is the witness of the Scriptures.
If you have any others to produce, it will be
your business to do so.
(Ambrose, De Fide, I.II.69.)
Ambrose is clearly struggling to define the Arian
position. He thinks that they might worship
the Son, but he cannot be sure. Thus, he requests
that they clarify the point.
His primary concern…
Else, if they do not worship the Son, let them
confess thereto, and the case is at an end--that
they deceive no one by their professions of religion.
…is that they have not actually confessed to worshipping
the Son. (Hence his keen desire for an answer.)
Ambrose has no solid evidence that they worship
the Son – all he has at this stage is their “professions
of religion”, which (by his own admission) tells
him little.
In a later section, he writes:
103. But in any case let our private
judgment pass: let us enquire of Paul, who, filled
with the Spirit of God, and so foreseeing these
questionings, hath given sentence against pagans
in general and Arians in particular, saying that
they were by God's judgment condemned, who
served the creature rather than the Creator. Thus,
in fact, you may read: "God gave them over to
the lusts of their own heart, that they might
one with another dishonour their bodies, they
who changed God's truth into a lie, and worshipped
and served the thing created rather than the Creator,
Who is God, blessed for ever."
104. Thus Paul forbids me to worship a
creature, and admonishes me of my duty to serve
Christ. It follows, then, that Christ is not a
created being. The Apostle calls himself "Paul,
a servant of Jesus Christ," and this good servant,
who acknowledges his Lord, will likewise have
us not worship that which is created. How, then,
could he have been himself a servant of Christ,
if he thought that Christ was a created person?
Let these heretics, then, cease either to worship
Him Whom they call a created being, or to call
Him a creature, Whom they feign to worship, lest
under colour of being worshippers they fall into
worse impiety. For a domestic is worse than a
foreign foe, and that these men should use the
Name of Christ to Christ's dishonour increaseth
their guilt.
Here again, we see Ambrose’ confusion as he attempts
to define the Arian position. Do they believe that
Christ is a creature? Apparently so. Do they worship
him? That is less clear. It would seem that some
Arians did (or at least, allowed others to believe
that they did so; probably for the sake of avoiding
excommunication) but Ambrose is highly sceptical,
dismissing their alleged worship as “feigned.” What
he wants to see is open, unashamed worship of the
Son as Deity – and yet, that is precisely
what the Arians are not doing.
It is also interesting to note that although Ambrose
frequently compares the Arians with pagans (implying
that they are really polytheists and not Christians
at all), he has no concrete evidence for such a
claim, and so does not press it. (The accusations
appear to be little more than a form of rhetorical
bait.) Indeed, when Arius was first excommunicated,
he was condemned as an “atheist”, and not as a polytheist
(a charge which would certainly have been
laid if he and his fellows had worshipped Christ.)
Remember also that second- or third-hand accounts
of various religious practices by those who did
not subscribe to those practices, are frequently
inaccurate. Pliny (for example) wrote that the early
Christians “sang hymns to Christ as to a god” –
but this was merely his interpretation of events,
and not an accurate description of what transpired
at Christian meetings. So what did Arius really
believe - and how can we be sure?
One reliable source is Arius himself, who pens the
following in his missive to Eusebius of Nicomedia:
But we say and believe, and have taught, and
do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten; and
that He does not derive his subsistence from any
matter; but that by His own will and counsel He
has subsisted before time, and before ages, as
perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and
that before He was begotten, or created, or purposed,
or established, He was not. For He was not unbegotten.
This letter (believed to have been written around
AD 319) is taken from Theodoret’s Ecclesiastical
History, Book I, Chapter IV. Here, Arius (who
was fighting against his excommunication at the
time) appears to be fudging a couple of points,
for the sake of appearing more “orthodox” than he
really was. (We shall see that this was not uncommon
among the Arians, for their own Christological Confessions
provide many examples.)
Nevertheless, his Christology shines through.
Bishop Alexander presents a concise summary of Arian
Christology in his own Deposition of Arius:
2. Now those who became apostates
are these, Arius, Achilles, Aeithales, Carpones,
another Arius, and Sarmates, sometime Presbyters:
Euzoius, Lucius, Julius, Menas, Helladius, and
Gaius, sometime Deacons: and with them Secundus
and Theonas, sometime called Bishops.
And the novelties they have invented and put forth
contrary to the Scriptures are these following:-
God was not always a Father, but there was a time
when God was not a Father.
The Word of God was not always, but originated
from things that were not; for God that is, has
made him that was not, of that which was not;
wherefore there was a time when He was not; for
the Son is a creature and a work.
Neither is He like in essence to the Father; neither
is He the true and natural Word of the Father;
neither is He His true Wisdom ; but He is one
of the things made and created, and is called
the Word and Wisdom by an abuse of terms, since
He Himself originated by the proper Word of God,
and by the Wisdom that is in God, by which God
has made not only all other things but Him also.
Wherefore He is by nature subject to change and
variation as are all rational creatures.
And the Word is foreign from the essence of the
Father, and is alien and separated therefrom.
And the Father cannot be described by the Son,
for the Word does not know the Father perfectly
and accurately, neither can He see Him perfectly.
Moreover, the Son knows not His own essence as
it really is; for He is made for us, that God
might create us by Him, as by an instrument; and
He would not have existed, had not God wished
to create us.
Accordingly, when some one asked them, whether
the Word of God can possibly change as the devil
changed, they were not afraid to say that He can;
for being something made and created, His nature
is subject to change.
Most of these statements (but not all) have been
quoted verbatim from the Arians themselves.
Athanasius does the same in chapter 2 of his first
Discourse Against the Arians, quoting Thalia
verbatim, in order that Arius might be condemned
out of his own mouth. Here, he not only provides
us with the logical conclusion of Arius’ propositions,
but also quotes him extensively to prove the point.
You will see that I have highlighted the citations
from Arius:
And by nature, as all others, so the Word Himself
is alterable, and remains good by His own free
will, while He chooseth; when, however, He wills,
He can alter as we can, as being of an alterable
nature. For `therefore,'
saith he, `as foreknowing
that He would be good, did God by anticipation
bestow on Him this glory, which afterwards, as
man, He attained from virtue. Thus in consequence
of His works fore-known , did God bring it to
pass that He being such, should come to be.'
6. Moreover he has dared to say, that `the
Word is not the very God;' `though He is called
God, yet He is not very God,'
but `by participation
of grace, He, as others, is God only in name.'
And, whereas all beings are foreign and different
from God in essence, so too is `the
Word alien and unlike in all things to the Father's
essence and propriety,'
but belongs to things originated and created,
and is one of these.
Arius’ letter to Eusebius, therefore, must be balanced
against his open declaration of Christ’s immutability,
as boldly stated in Thalia.
Indeed, this was not the only time when the Arians
were seen to be moderating their doctrinal formulae
in order to appease the authorities. Their letter
to Bishop Alexander is particularly curious, since
it both affirms and contradicts certain arguments
which Arius had made in Thalia:
To Our Blessed Pope and Bishop, Alexander,
the Presbyters and Deacons send health in the
Lord.
Our faith from our forefathers, which also we
have learned from thee, Blessed Pope, is this:--
We acknowledge One God, alone Ingenerate, alone
Everlasting, alone Unbegun, alone True, alone
having Immortality, alone Wise, alone Good, alone
Sovereign; Judge, Governor, and Providence of
all, unalterable and
unchangeable,
just and good, God of Law and Prophets and New
Testament;
who begat an Only-begotten Son before
eternal times, through whom He has made both the
ages and the universe;
and begat Him, not in semblance, but in truth;
and that He made Him
subsist at His own will, unalterable and unchangeable;
perfect creature of God, but not as one of the
creatures; offspring, but not as one of things
begotten;
nor as Valentinus pronounced that the offspring
of the Father was an issue; nor as Manichaeus
taught that the offspring was a portion of the
Father, one in essence; or as Sabellius, dividing
the Monad, speaks of a Son-and-Father; nor as
Hieracas, of one torch from another, or as a lamp
divided into two; nor that He who was before,
was afterwards generated or new-created into a
Son, as thou too thyself, Blessed Pope, in the
midst of the Church and in session hast often
condemned; but, as we say, at
the will of God, created before times and before
ages, and gaining life and being from the Father,
who gave subsistence to His glories together with
Him.
For the Father did not, in giving to Him the inheritance
of all things, deprive Himself of what He has
ingenerately in Himself; for He is the Fountain
of all things. Thus there are Three Subsistences.
And God, being the cause of all things, is Unbegun
and altogether Sole, but the
Son being begotten apart from time by the Father,
and being created and founded before ages, was
not before His generation, but being begotten
apart from time before all things, alone was made
to subsist by the Father.
For He is not eternal or co-eternal or co-unoriginate
with the Father, nor has He His being together
with the Father, as some speak of relations, introducing
two ingenerate beginnings, but God is before all
things as being Monad and Beginning of all.
We see here that it is God who created Christ
(according to the Arians), and that Christ did not
exist “of himself”, nor is he co-eternal
or co-unregenerate, nor is he auto-theos.
Notice also that this public declaration denies
that Christ has existence of himself, using
language that is too clear to be misunderstood.
The Arians affirm that God…
…made Him [Christ] subsist at His [God’s]
own will, unalterable and unchangeable; perfect
creature of God,
but not as one of the creatures; offspring, but
not as one of things begotten;
And again…
…but being begotten apart from time before
all things, alone was
made to subsist by the Father.
…thereby contradicting Arius’ own words in his letter
to Eusebius, when he wrote:
…we say and believe, and have taught, and do
teach, that the Son is not unbegotten; and that
He does not derive his subsistence from any matter;
but that by His own will and counsel He has subsisted
before time.
But on closer examination, this contradiction turns
out to be no contradiction at all. For, with regard
to the definition of “immutability”, I believe that
there was some confusion of terminology between
the two opposing sides. The Arians affirmed the
immutability of Christ’s substance (since
this was divine), but denied the immutability
of his moral character (since they believed
that he resists sin by an act of will), as they
had made clear in their letter to Bishop Alexander.
Indeed, the Arians were already on record as having
stated that Christ could change, just as the devil
had changed.
Thus, from Alexander’s Deposition of Arius
again:
Accordingly, when some one asked them, whether
the Word of God can possibly change as the devil
changed, they
were not afraid to say that He can; for being
something made and created, His
nature is subject to change.
Notice that the reference to his nature being “subject
to change” is made within a moral context,
rather than an ontological one. The Arians
were not saying that Christ’s physical nature
was subject to change, but that his moral
nature was. Thus, it was possible for them
to say that Christ was both mutable and immutable
– and so we resolve the “contradiction.” (In fact,
their terminology is rife with apparent contradictions.)
The Christology for which Arius was so vehemently
criticised, therefore, may be summarised in the
following points:
- Jesus
is created by God; a magnificent divine being,
but not God Himself.
- As
a created being, Jesus is not worshipped; yet
he may be revered as the pinnacle of God's
creation.
- Jesus
is immortal, but not eternal; he exists by the
will of the Father, and (while on Earth, as
a man) was subject to the weaknesses of mortal
men.
Later, as he became more vocal in his opinions,
Arius was summoned to the presence of his bishop,
Alexander.
Alexander did not consider the matter as cause for
alarm, but believed that Arius’ teachings should
be examined in a theological discussion which would
allow his detractors the opportunity of a formal
response. Thus, in the presence of Alexander, Arius
is alleged to have stated:
Before he [Christ] was begotten, he
was not.
By this, Arius meant that Jesus Christ was the Word,
or Logos, a created being which God called
into existence before the creation of the world,
in order to create all other creatures through him.
The Logos himself was not truly God, but
stood on the side of creation. Only in a metaphorical
sense, could he be called the Son of God. In stark
contrast, Arius’ opponents affirmed the consubstantiality
and eternity of the Son with the Father – in other
words, that they existed together as one, eternal
and inseparable.
After some consideration, Bishop Alexander announced
that he accepted the latter view, and ordered Arius
never to propound his opinion again. This was unacceptable
to the priest, who adamantly refused to comply,
and was subsequently excommunicated, along with
his clerical adherents.
Given the initial tact with which the bishop approached
this issue, it may seem strange that his final judgement
was so harsh – but to Alexander, the problem was
more than just doctrinal. Arius’ supporters were
now quite numerous, and consisted of a significant
proportion of the clergy. The bishop appears to
have believed that the peace of the Church of Alexandria
was at stake, and so did his best to eliminate the
discord at its source. However, his plan misfired.
Ideally, the act of excommunication should have
guaranteed that Arius and his following were now
condemned to the role of a small and insignificant
sect, with no power base from which to re-enter
the political arena of the Catholic Church. But
it seems that Alexander underestimated the complexity
of the problem.
Arius was fully aware that the definition of “Jesus
the Son” which had been supported by the Church
of Alexandria, was by no means accepted universally
as a canonical statement. Questions concerning the
nature of the Godhead and its constituents were
legion, and outside Egypt there was no unanimous
opinion on the matter. Thus, in the same way that
he had refused to retract his original arguments,
Arius simply refused to recognise his excommunication,
and sent a letter of protest to Bishop Eusebius
of Nicomedia, detailing his confrontation with Alexandria.
This was an extremely adroit political manoeuvre,
since it deprived the conflict of its local limitations
and ensured that its impact would spread throughout
the Church. The decision forced Bishop Alexander
to take more decisive action. He immediately summoned
a synod of all Egypt, at which some one thousand
bishops renounced the “Arian Heresy”, and re-affirmed
the excommunication of Arius and all his defenders
in the Egyptian and Libyan clergy.
The resulting encyclical consisted of a concise
account of Arius’ false doctrine, an extensive refutation
on behalf of the synod, and a stinging reference
to Eusebeius of Nicomedia, as payback for his passive
support of the errant priest. But by AD 320, it
was clear that no amount of intimidation would cause
Arius to recant. He had moved back to Nicomedia,
where he drew up a profession of faith, signed by
himself and all those who had been excommunicated
with him.
It asserted that the faith which they held was that
which they had heard Alexander proclaim within the
Church of Alexandria; namely, that only the Father
is eternal – He alone is without beginning – and
the Son, God’s perfect creature, does not possess
his being with the Father, since the Father existed
before the Son. In the meantime, Bishop Eusebius
continued to propagate the Arian Heresy through
his own subtle but effective personal channels.
During the same year, Arius convoked a Bithynian
synod which sent a circular to all bishops, calling
for the restoration of ecclesiastical communion
with those who had been excommunicated by Bishop
of Alexander. He protested that, since they were
orthodox, pressure should be placed on the bishop
to receive them back – and his AD 320 profession
of faith with its multiple signatures, added considerable
weight to this argument.
Alexander was now feeling pressure from many sides,
and for the purpose of ecclesiastical harmony it
appeared that the time was coming for him to revise
his judgement on Arius. Until such a decision became
imperative however, the bishop still felt obliged
to warn others of the inherent dangers contained
in the Arian doctrine. Accordingly, he embarked
on a massive correspondence campaign. Letters were
sent to the bishops of the East, and obtained the
support of those in Egypt, Palestine, Asia Minor,
Greece and the Balkan Peninsula. In Rome, Pope Silvester
I was informed of the recent events in Alexandria,
and of the excommunication of the Alexandrian clerics.
It was not long before full-scale literary warfare
had broken out between the Arian and Alexandrian
factions. Mutual distortions of the teaching and
viewpoint of the one side were alleged by the other,
and crude accusations of a most personal nature
were advanced from both parties. Inevitably, the
split in Eastern Christianity came to the attention
of the Emperor Constantine.
Baus (1980), suggests that Constantine’s first response
to the controversy is indicative of the fact that
he was unaware of its greater significance. The
Emperor clearly saw the problem in a different light.
He sent a letter to Alexander and Arius in which
he represented the doctrinal division as analogous
to a disagreement by two philosophers regarding
superficial issues on which there could be private,
differing views, such as the interpretation of Proverbs
8:22 - itself an Arian proof text:
The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his
way, before his works of old.
Constantine, with breathtaking optimism, requested
that the two opponents become reconciled and restore
peace and unity in the Church so that general harmony,
his political goal, could be assured in the Empire.
The fact that this was a long-standing dispute over
a fundamental question of Christian theology, seems
to have escaped him.
Bishop Hosius of Córdoba, whose unenviable task
it had been to deliver the Imperial letter, realised
on his arrival in Alexandria that it would take
more than a cessation of public discussion, for
the controversy to be resolved. Furthermore, Arius
was in no mood for reconciliation with Alexander,
and for the most part absented himself from the
Egyptian capital altogether during Hosius’ visit.
The bishop returned to Necomedia and reported the
failure of his mission to Constantine. Alexander
had succeeded in convincing Hosius that the theological
implications of the Arian Heresy were of the utmost
significance to the Church’s stability, and it soon
became apparent that the only possible chance of
restoring peace was to summon the entire episcopate
of the Church to a great synod, in order to establish
a binding decision.
The Council met at Nicea in AD 325. Its attendance
is open to debate. Eusebius says that there were
more than two hundred and fifty; Athanasius, also
an eyewitness, gives the figure of three hundred
on one occasion, but amends this to three hundred
and eighteen in another account. Later historians
uphold the last number.
Among the Council Fathers were Alexander of Alexandria,
Eustathius, Bishop of the Syrian capital, Marcellus
of Ancyra, and Macarius of Jerusalem – all subscribers
to the anti-Arian school of thought. On his side,
Arius’ friends were led by the irrepressible Bishop
Eusebius of Nicomedia, and his namesake, Bishop
Eusebius of Caesarea. Bishop Hosius led the Latin
West contingent, while Rome was represented by the
two priests Vitus and Vincent.
Bray (1984) argues that Constantine’s hope was that
the synod would uphold orthodoxy without offending
any more Arians than was absolutely necessary. Runia
(1968) takes the view that the Council moved quickly
to an anti-Arian position, and constructed a new
creed, specifically designed to condemn the heresy.
Constantine opened the synod with a speech outlining
the reason for the convention, a request that reconciliation
should be the chief aim of the Council, and an exhortation
to the bishops, to peace and harmony.
This final point was somewhat ironic, since only
a few days previously, he had chastised a number
of them for continuing their political intrigues
and personal grievances against one another within
the precincts of the Imperial palace. With the preamble
concluded, Constantine turned over the floor to
the presidents of the synod.
The pro-Arian faction at once seized the initiative,
proposing a formula of faith into which essential
elements of Arian theology were incorporated. Violent
protest arose from the opposing side, which read
aloud passages from Arius’ work, showing that his
formulations were extreme, and had no chance of
being universally accepted. Eusebius of Caesarea
then intervened with a compromise proposal, recommending
the acceptance of the baptismal creed which was
employed in his diocese. While this was recognised
as being orthodox – notably, by Constantine and
the majority of the bishops – there were a few who
disagreed. Debate raged over the significance and
meaning of the word homoousios, (“one in being”),
which was unacceptable to the Arian bishops, but
considered appropriate by the Latin Church.
In the end, it was the Emperor himself who succeeded
in determining that the orthodox definition of the
term, as employed by the Greeks, was included in
the Nicene Creed. The definitive rejection of the
Arian Heresy may be seen in the conclusion of the
Creed, which states:
But some say: ‘There was a time in which he
was not’ and ‘Before he was born, he was not’
and ‘He was created out of nothing’, or they claim
that the Son of God is of another substance or
another being, or he was created or subject to
change or alteration. The Catholic and Apostolic
Church declares them excluded from its membership.
Arius had been defeated (at least, temporarily),
and his champions – men like Esusebius of Nicomedia
and Theognis of Nicaea – took note of the new theological
climate. From now on their support was more of a
political nature. Instead of attacking the Nicene
Creed directly, they found ways and means to bring
its defenders into disrepute with the Emperor.
But while Arius was deposed, his ideas were not.
Indeed, they had hardly been countered in any serious
way! The orthodox had the Imperial army (and
the Emperor's fluctuating support - which swung
back and forth between both sides of the
debate, since Constantine himself did not really
care about the issue one way or another), but the
Arians had the proof-texts from Scripture (or so
they saw it), and the weight of tradition (as it
appeared to them.) To their credit, it must be admitted
that their arguments were far more Biblical
than those of their adversaries. (Their arguments
were still incorrect, of course - but at least they
were Bible-based.)
Far from being a definitive victory, the "orthodox"
advantage was short-lived. Constantine attempted
reparations with Arius in AD 332, swung away from
the uncompromising bishops who had been so vocal
at Nicaea, and embraced Arianism himself - or at
least, a revised version of it. This position remained
the official Imperial policy until AD 361, when
Julian the Apostate renounced Christianity altogether.
None of this would have been possible if
Trinitarianism had already existed as the "orthodox"
Christology of the Church. But of course, it never
had...
We also know that Arius’ own beliefs were still
under revision, for he modifies and qualifies his
"official" statements from time to time, as we see
from the various Arian Confessions. Athanasius (following
each new twist and turn with extraordinary care)
records the development of Arian Christology.
For example, the 4th Arian Confession (AD 341) rejects
the idea that there was a time when Christ did not
exist, and affirms the Son as a direct product of
the Father’s own subsistence:
But those who say,
that the Son was from nothing, or from other subsistence
and not from God,
and, there was time when He was not, the Catholic
Church regards as aliens.
(Athanasius, De Synodis, 25. LPNF, ser. 2,
vol. 4, 462.)
By contrast, the 5th Arian Confession (AD 344) shows
evidence of further Christological refinement, and
a heavier emphasis on proof-texting:
But those who say,
(1) that the Son was from nothing, or from other
subsistence and not from God;
(2) and that there was a time or age when He was
not, the Catholic and
Holy Church regards as aliens.
Likewise those who say,
(3) that there are three Gods:
(4) or that Christ is not God;
(5) or that before
the ages He was neither Christ nor Son of God;
(6) or that Father and Son, or Holy Ghost, are
the same;
(7) or that the Son is Ingenerate; or that
the Father begat the Son, not by choice or will;
the Holy and Catholic Church anathematizes.
(1.) For neither is safe to say that the Son is
from nothing, (since
this is no where spoken of Him in divinely inspired
Scripture,)
nor again of any other subsistence before existing
beside the Father, but from
God alone do we define Him genuinely to be generated.
For the divine Word teaches that the Ingenerate
and Un-begun, the Father of Christ, is One.
(2.) Nor may we, adopting the hazardous position,
'There was once when He was not,' from
unscriptural sources, imagine any interval of
time before Him, but only the God who has generated
Him apart from time; for through Him both times
and ages came to be. Yet
we must not consider the Son to be co-unbegun
and co-ingenerate with the Father; for no one
can be properly called Father or Son of one who
is co-unbegun and co- ingenerate with Him.
But we acknowledge that the Father who alone is
Unbegun and Ingenerate, hath generated inconceivably
and incomprehensibly to all: and that the Son
hath been generated before ages, and in no wise
to be ingenerate Himself like the Father, but
to have the Father who generated Him as His beginning;
for 'the Head of Christ is God.' (1 Cor.
xi. 3.)
(Athanasius, De Synodis, 26. LPNF, ser. 2,
vol. 4, 462-464.)
We see here that that the Arians tried hard to define
their Christology in terms which were acceptable
to both the Athanasian and the Arian positions.
They were not entirely successful (sometimes gaining
the support of liberal Athanasians at the expense
of the more conservative Arians, who frequently
refused to compromise), but although the language
was subject to variation, the essential lineaments
of Arian Christology never really changed.
Clearer still is the growing Arian preference for
unambiguous Scriptural statements (hence the increasing
reliance on proof texts), and the rejection of unBiblical
terminology (as used by the Athanasians.) This enabled
the Arians to avoid being drawn into speculative
debates about those aspects of the Godhead which
are not explicitly revealed in Scripture – and consequently,
the various Arian Confessions became shorter, while
the Athanasian Confessions became longer.
What is particularly interesting, is that
their public statements were more strongly “Arian”
during those times when they had the Emperor’s support;
becoming more “Athanasian” when the balance of power
was against them. (And of course, the same was often
true of the Athanasian side.) But this does not
mean that Arian Christology was subject to change
at a moment’s notice, for despite their apparent
Christological variations, the Arians never once
affirmed God as a Trinity of three Divine Persons,
nor did they teach that the Holy Spirit was God.
While it is true that several of the Arian Confessions
– there are ten in total – appear to be stating
that the Holy Spirit is a “person”, these must be
weighed against the other Confessions, which define
the Holy Spirit merely as “Paraclete.” (Thereby
personifying the power of God without affording
it literal personality – just as the Scriptures
do.) At the end of the day, the Arians were simply
trying to find a form of language that would be
acceptable to both sides of the debate, without
abandoning their central tenets – and if this meant
formulating a Creed that could be interpreted in
different ways by different people, then so be it.
The task of defending the Nicene settlement fell
to Athanasius, the successor to Alexander of Alexandria.
He was bishop of Alexandria from AD 328-373, and
was influenced by the Western theologians he had
met whilst in Rome, during a politically advantageous
flight from his diocese. He began the attack on
Arius in his famous book On the Incarnation,
which deals with the fall of man and his need of
a saviour. Instead of arguing the proof-texts of
Arius, he sought to demonstrate that the logic of
the Scriptures as a whole made the incarnation of
the Word inevitable. Therefore, God did not make
man because some philosopher thought it would be
a good idea, but because He has created man in His
own image.
Athanasius was not so concerned with the expression
of theology, as the preservation of its principles.
He defended the Nicene Creed because the alternative
– Arianism – constituted an unintelligible attempt
to explain the reconciliation of God to man. According
to Arius, the Logos was simply manifested in Christ
the Son, but Athanasius was convinced that unless
the Son was considered co-eternal and co-equal with
the Father, he could have no personal relationship
with the beings he came to save.
It was chiefly the impersonal nature of Arius’ Logos,
with which Athanasius disagreed – not least because
it gave rise to paradoxical questions regarding
the essential humanity of Christ the Son and his
suffering on the cross. These and other vital points
of doctrine, were asserted at the second general
Council, held in Constantinople during AD 381. At
this meeting, the original Creed of Nicaea was reaffirmed
and slightly extended again, resulting in the form
in which the majority of the Christian world uses
the Creed.
The Chalcedonian Creed (which resulted from the
Council of AD 381) attempted to improve the Trinitarian
argument by filling the logical holes which the
previous Creeds (Nicene and Athanasian) had overlooked
- but it was not entirely successful. Thus, the
very fact that the Church found it necessary to
hold this Council at all, demonstrates that the
concept of the Trinity - even at this late stage
- was still in a state of flux.
Basil of Caesarea was one of the first to highlight
this problem:
Of the wise men among ourselves, some have
conceived of him [the Holy Spirit] as an
activity, some as a creature, some as God; and
some have been uncertain which to call him...
And therefore they neither worship him nor treat
him with dishonor, but take up a neutral position.
(As quoted by Pelikan in The Christian Tradition.)
Richard E. Rubenstein (When Jesus Became God;
1999) neatly encapsulates both the metaphysical
dilemma facing the Church at this time, and its
eventual (philosophical) solution:
Even great theologians such as Athanasius still
used terms like "essence" (ousia) and "being"
(hypostasis) interchangeably, sometimes exchanging
these words with other terms like "person" (prosopon.)
The Nicene Creed itself anathematized not only
those who denied that the Father and son were
"one in essence" but those who denied that the
Father and son were one in "being." This was a
mistake, the Cappadocians said. The corrective
was distinguish clearly between ousia and hypostasis,
essence and being. The Father, the Son, and Holy
Spirit are three separate beings, each with his
own individual characteristics - they are three
hypostases. But they are one and the same in essence
- they are homoousios. Adopting an idea of Origen's
that easterners would appreciate, Basil of Caesarea
described Jesus as a
'sharer of [God's] nature, not created
by fiat, but shining out continuously from his
ousia.'
And the Holy Spirit, which the Arians and some
Nicenes considered a principle or person lower
down the scale of divinity than either the Father
or Son, shares that same divine essence. The Holy
Spirit, that is, a third individual being (or
Person) "consunbstantial" with the Father and
the Son.
In other words, lest any should suggest that he
was degrading the third member of the Trinity, Basil
reassured the Church that the Holy Spirit shares
that same divine ousia which the Father and
son both possess. Thus, while the Father, son and
Holy Spirit are all separate hypostases (a
word which was still being used as synonymous with
"person" and "being", since the classical world
did not conceive of these terms as necessarily distinct
from one another) together they constituted the
Godhead, melded into a consubstantial "ONE" by virtue
of their shared ousia.
Gregory of Nyssa summarised his own solution in
the following way:
The difference of the hypostases does not dissolve
the continuity of their nature, nor does the community
of their nature dissipate the particularity of
their characteristics. Do not be amazed if we
declare the same thing is united and distinct,
and conceive, as in a riddle, of a new and paradoxical
unity in distinction and distinction in unity.
(As quoted by Hanson in The Search for the Christian
Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381
AD; 1988.)
The most significant aspect of his statement is
the admission that this Trinitarian formula is "a
new and paradoxical unity." (As indeed it certainly
was!) Athanasius' Trinitarianism - which
was still rather primitive - had given orthodoxy
a few decades of breathing space, but Basil (along
with the two Gregorys) feared that it might not
stand the test of time. The pressure of the Arian
movement - still highly influential - had forced
the Church to adopt a Christology which was both
novel and incomprehensible.
Writing in his Encyclopaedia of Religion and
Ethics (1994), Eliade Mircea observes:
Like the bishops
at Nicaea, Athanasius had a limited trinitarian
vocabulary; hupostasis (person) and ousia (substance)
could still be used interchangeably.
The fourth-century Cappadocian theologians (Basil
of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of
Nazianzus) formulated orthodox trinitarian doctrine
and made it possible for the Council of Constantinople
(381) to affirm the divinity of the Holy Spirit.
The speculatively gifted Cappadocians made a clear
distinction between hupostasis and ousia (roughly
equivalent to particular and universal), thereby
establishing orthodox trinitarian vocabulary.
At the close of the patristic period John of Damascus
(d. 749) summarized Greek trinitarian doctrine
with the doctrine of pericharesis (Lat., circumincessio),
or the mutual indwelling of the divine persons.
Western trinitarian theology took a different
course because of Augustine (d. 430). Instead
of regarding the Father as source of divinity,
Augustine's starting point was the one divine
substance, which the three persons share.
He sought the image of the Trinity within the
rational soul and formulated psychological analogies
(memory, intellect, will; lover, beloved, love)
that conveyed unity more than plurality. The Augustinian
approach served to effectively refute Arianism,
but it also moved the doctrine of the Trinity
to a transcendent realm, away from salvation history,
from other areas of theology, and from liturgy.
The desperate need to define God in such a way as
to preclude the possibility of an Arian interpretation,
necessitated a total obfuscation of the doctrine
itself. Having realised that the Trinity could not
be protected from the dangers of misinterpretation
if it remained comprehensible to the common man,
the Cappadocians took the drastic step of transcending
Biblical language altogether. The Arian "proof text"
methodology posed a constant threat to Trinitarian
dogma - their appeal to Scripture was nothing less
than an appeal to God Himself; a level of authority
which the Nicene bishops could never hope to match.
Gregory and Basil knew that they were incapable
of defeating the Arians on the basis of Scripture
alone. (Although this says more about the lack of
Biblical evidence for orthodox Trinitarianism than
it does about the alleged validity of Arianism!)
The triadic formula upon which their doctrine relied,
was notably absent from the Bible. Philosophical
language of the highest order - the language of
a necessarily unBiblical metaphysic - was
their only escape.
Catholic theologian Edmund J. Fortman (The Triune
God; 1972) admits:
In the New Testament affirmations about the
Son were largely functional and soteriological,
and stressed what the Son is to us. Arians willingly
recited these affirmations but read into them
their own meaning. To preclude this Arian abuse
of the Scripture affirmations Nicea transposed
these Biblical affirmations into ontological formulas,
and gathered the multiplicity of scriptural affirmations,
titles, symbols, images, and predicates about
the Son into a single affirmation that the Son
is not made but born of the Father, true God from
true God, and consubstantial with the Father.
But it was a one-way street; a door which, once
entered, would close behind them forever. There
could be no going back. The search for an anti-Arian
Trinitarianism led the bishops not to the "light
of the world", but to a darkened room in which the
Church would be forced to remain from that day forward:
Some theologians
have concluded that all post-biblical trinitarian
doctrine is therefore arbitrary.
While it is incontestable that the doctrine cannot
be established on scriptural evidence alone, its
origins may legitimately be sought in the Bible,
not in the sense of "proof-texting" or of finding
metaphysical principles, but because the Bible
is the authoritative record of God's redemptive
relationship with humanity.
What the scriptures narrate as the activity of
God among us, which is confessed in creeds and
celebrated in liturgy, is the wellspring of later
trinitarian doctrine. Dogmatic development took
place gradually, against the background of the
emanationist philosophy of Stoicism and Neoplatonism
(including the mystical theology of the latter),
and within the context of strict Jewish monotheism.
In the immediate post New Testament period of
the Apostolic Fathers no attempt was made to work
out the God-Christ (Father-Son) relationship in
ontological terms.
By the end of the fourth
century, and owing mainly to the challenge posed
by various heresies, theologians went beyond the
immediate testimony of the Bible and also beyond
liturgical and creedal expressions of trinitarian
faith to the ontological trinity of coequal persons
"within" God.
The shift is from function to ontology, from the
"economic trinity" (Father, Son, and Spirit in
relation to us) to the "immanent" or "essential
Trinity" (Father, Son, and Spirit in relation
to each other).
It was prompted chiefly by belief in the divinity
of Christ and later in the divinity of the Holy
Spirit, but even earlier by the consistent worship
of God in a trinitarian pattern and the practice
of baptism into the threefold name of God. By
the close of the fourth century the orthodox teaching
was in place:
God is one nature, three persons (mia ousia, treis
hupostaseis).
(Ibid.)
What, then, was the ultimate role of Arius in this,
the greatest of all the Christological controversies?
Orthodoxy has chosen to paint him as a dangerous
radical; the proponent of novel and heretical ideas.
But the truth of the matter is that Arius proposed
nothing new. His only mistake was to attempt a defence
of an outdated Christology which (though "orthodox"
in its day) was rapidly being abandoned by the more
prominent churchmen of his time.
Hence the conclusion of McDowell in his research
paper:
Brought into the open were tensions that had
lain underneath the theological surface for years,
and it is as the catalyst of this situation Arius
is known in hindsight. Therefore, in this sense
the popular ecclesial description of Arius as
‘arch-heretic’, or as the founder of archetypal
Christian deviation, something aimed at the heart
of the Christian confession", is not a wholly
fair one.
Secondly, stripped of the strong notes of polemic
so characteristic of many theological nineteenth
century histories of the period, the work of Richard
Hanson has thrown more than a stone into the comparatively
still waters of the belief that the achievement
of doctrinal orthodoxy was a relatively early
and painless accomplishment.
Hanson has shown, somewhat
echoing Elliger, that there was no clear cut black
and white dispute, no neat and tidy development
of Trinitarian and christological thought which
culminated in Arius’ deviation as a final reaction.
In A.D. 318 there was no universally recognised
orthodox answer as to the question of how divine
Christ is (e.g., Origen and Tertullian).
The frontiers of orthodoxy were not so rigidly
demarcated as they later became, and important
currents of thought flowed outside the main channel.
This is one of the reasons why the controversy
lasted for so long.
Of course certain positions were declared untenable,
for example Sabellianism, and adoptionism. But
within these very broad limits no doctrine could
properly be said to be heretical (Arius’ views
were regarded as no more than a radical version
of an acceptable theological tradition by Eusebius
of Caesarea for example). It must remembered that
the majority of sources for this period are composed
of writings of the eventually triumphant Nicene
party.
[...]
The controversy was
not the story of the defence of orthodoxy, but
the search for orthodoxy, conducted by the method
of trial and error - for almost everybody changed
their ideas in some ways during it.
The Arian controversy, then, was the situation
which brought the existing diversity to the fore
thus necessitating and indeed facilitating the
development of clear orthodox doctrine.
[...]
His Thalia is conservative
in the sense that there is almost nothing that
could not be found in earlier writers.
He inherited from his Alexandrian predecessors
a strongly accented doctrine of God’s incomprehensibility,
combined with the idea that God alone could overcome
the distance that necessarily separated the divine
life from the contingent order. And this was done
by a doctrine of God’s will - God’s simplicity
had to be preserved. Even
the notion of a hierarchy of distinct hypostases,
the criticisms of Origen’s doctrine of an intelligible
realm independent of the cosmos we now know, are
none of them themes unique to Arius.
Arius was a heretic - of this there can be no doubt
- and he was certainly no friend of Biblical Unitarianism.
But he was a heretic because his beliefs were contrary
to the Bible - and not because they
were contrary to the beliefs of his opponents
(who also subscribed to a heretical, unBiblical
Christology.) His Christological position has been
greatly misunderstood, and his "heresy" greatly
exaggerated. The oft-repeated accusations of "Christological
innovation", therefore, simply cannot be substantiated.
_______________
Bibliography
Ambrose, De Fide.
Alexander, Deposition of Arius.
Arius, Letter to Alexander.
Athanasius, De Synodis.
Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians.
Baus, Karl (1980), History of the Church,
The Seabury Press, New York, USA.
Bray, Gerald (1984), Creeds, Councils & Christ,
Inver-Varsity Press, Leicester, England.
Chadwick, Henry (1988), Atlas of the Christian
Church, Equinox, Oxford, England.
Fortman, Edmund J. (1972), The Triune God,
Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA.
Hall, Stuart G. (1991), Doctrine and Practice
in the Early Church, Society for the Promotion
of Christian Knowledge, London, England.
Hanson, R. P. C. (1988), The Search for the Christian
Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381
AD, T & T Clark, Edinburgh, England.
McDowell, John C., Arius: A Theological Conservative
Persecuted?; a personal research paper from
October 1994.
Mircea, Eliade (1994), Encyclopaedia of Religion
and Ethics, Macmillan Publishing Company, New
York, USA.
Pelikan, Jaroslav (1997), Christian Tradition
- a History of the Development of Doctrine Christian
Doctrine & Modern Culture, since 1700, University
of Chicago Press, USA.
Rubenstein, Richard E. (1999), When Jesus Became
God, Harcourt, Inc., Florida, USA.
Runia, Klaas (1968), I Believe in God…, The
Tyndale Press, London. England.
Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History.
Young, Frances (1993), The Making of the Creeds,
Trinity Press International, London, England. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
