.

Ecclesiastical history influenced civilization more than contemporary people are willing to admit. One such event in need of re-examination is the doctrinal confrontation between Athanasius and Arius.ⁱ

The first four ecumenical councils convened at Nicaea in A.D. 325 to discuss the person of Christ.ⁱⁱ Was he the son of God, or merely a create being? Did Christ have both a divine and human nature? If so, where they separate and distinct or mixed together in a confused fashion? These were the types of questions discussed with the goal of formulating a creed.ⁱⁱⁱ

The Philosophical Roots of Arius

Prior to the Council of Nicaea, the subject of the nature of Christ increasingly became a debated topic, but church leaders failed to give a definitive answer that satisfied those unexplained questions.^iv Disagreements about Christ's nature sparked biblical writers to address the matter. Some of the congregations that th apostle Paul established denied the deity of Christ.^v Other congregations denied the humanity of Christ.^vi At least for some, the purpose of the Apostolic letters were to correct false teachings about the nature of Christ.

It seems that early Christian writers were not aware of the theological problems lurking in the shadows. Their goal was to model the teachings and traditions left by the Apostles. The implications of those teachings were seldom a subject for discussion because most Christians were busy living those teachings. As time progressed and followers of Christ needed to make a firm distinction between Christianity and Judaism, and philosophic teachings of others religions, the demand for discussion increased.

The Ebonites^vii claimed “if He suffered then He was not divine”, while the Docetist Gnostics claimed that “if He was divine He could not suffer.^viii The early church fathers were content to reply that Jesus was divine and He did suffer, but they offered no empirical or textual proof to back their claims.

The Ebonites denied the Lord's divinity outright, while the Docetics denied the Lord's humanity., saying He was mystic in character, yet they maintained the deity of Christ. The Docetic idea reduced Jesus to an appearance of the ONE. This was a clear step backward to Oriental pantheism, while Ebionites sought to re-establish polytheism.^ix

The Ebonite view of Christ was a product of Hellenic polytheism. With the conquest of ancient Athens the formal systems of religions were destroyed but the polytheistic ideas and rites of the Hellenistic society remained for centuries.

2.

Even the great philosophers did not dare to challenge the idea of numerous gods.^x

By the time of Plato the systems of thought progressed to the point that the concept of one God was formulating. As Plato tells of Socrates' death for advocating the idea of one God, it is evident that a one God concept was dangerous for a philosopher to teach. The philosophic thought shifted to god or gods beyond the reach of humans and their worship. The Stoics crowned fate, the Epicureans, Chance, and the Skeptics left a void where God one lived. The common ground between all schools of philosophical thought was that – if there was one God he must be beyond Mt. Olympus and not only hard to find and impossible to explain to the vulgar, but beyond the power of man to reach Him at all.^xi

Gnostic thought had it roots in the Orient. Greece conquered Persia, but the Persian religion had a greater effect on culture than did those from Greece. Indian asceticism and Buddhism were strong in the nation of Persia. Chandragupta's elephants decided the battle of Ipsus and the Greek kings are named on Asoka's monuments in India. Thus, Oriental thought entered into Stoicism and formed the groundwork for many Gnostic systems.^xii Even the stern monotheism of Israel was influenced by these thoughts as is evident by the writings of Philo.^xiii This was the background of thought that lead Arius to formulate his idea of Christ.

Conflicts leading to the Nicaea Council

Arius was a key player at the council of Nicaea. His doctrine of Christ was the result of thousands of years of pagan beliefs that combined philosophy and superstition. To advocate a Christ-creature view, he formed the basis for the conflict that the council of Nicaea attempted to resolve.^xiv

Initially, two schools of thought, one in Alexandria, Egypt and the other in Antioch, offered different views regarding the interpretation of Christ. This dispute came to a head in A.D. 318 when the Bishop of Alexandria took offense to a letter written by one of his presbyters, Arius. Arius held that since there is but one God, the Father, who alone is Creator, all other things must be creatures and distinct from God. Since God the Father is unique, the Son came into being out of nothing from an act of creation. This can only mean that the Son is a creature, albeit the first and perfect creature. The Son,” was when He was not,” that is, there was once a time when the Son did not exist.^xv

Athanasius, secretary of the Bishop of Alexandria, championed the cause of those who found Arius's view at odds with the New Testament. The need to

3.

defend the teachings of Scripture against Arius' view was clear to Anthanasius. Arius' teachings were so opposed to Athanasius' thinking that he called Arius the anti-Christ.^xvi

Constantine became concerned about the tension created by this subject and ordered a council convened to settle the dispute. As the council began, the conflict increased. Several days were spent listening to the polemics of each party.^xvii

Arguments Concerning the Deity of Christ

The Bishop of Alexandria complained that Arius only discussed the Scriptures dealing with the humanity of Jesus., while conveniently ignoring Biblical passages that confirmed the deity of Christ. Since Arius only looked for the human characteristic of the Savior, he therefore considered him to be a creature.^xviii

Anthanasius refused to use the pre-existent Christ as a convenient philosophical device, preferring to maintain an empirical argument. He responded that God created every thing through the Logos in the Spirit. God did not need a mediator to create the world. The concept of Deity that redeemed mankind is too separated from the concept of the world. the Logos Son is redemptive, not just a cosmic principle.^xix Athanasius pointed out that Jesus “was in the beginning with God” and “was God.”^xx Through the gospels Jesus claims to be the prerogatives of God. He “gives life to whom he wills”^xxi and has been entrusted wit the judgment so that “all may honor the Father.”^xxii In John 10: 38 Jesus declares “the father is in me and I am in the Father.”^xxiii He even assumes the Old Testament name for God, “I Am,” ^xxiv leading Jews to pick up stones and attempt to kill him for blasphemy.^xxv

The necessity of Christ's full humanity while remaining deity is evident in Scripture: “For there is one God, and there is one mediators between man and God, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all.”^xxvi

A key passage Arius used to sustain his created Jesus came from the LXX.^xxvii That translation reads the “Lord made me the beginning of His ways.”^xxviii The last part of that passage states, “before the mountains were settled and before all the hills, he begets me.”^xxix Athanasius began the rebuttal of the Arian interpretation of this passage with a “prolegomena of the terminology in question.^xxx Athanasius insisted the terms used in these passages refers only to the incarnated Son, not the pre-existent Son. This turned out to be a rather absurd interpretation but it was a theological breakthrough. Athanasius placed the mediating activity of the Son outside the Godhead. This was a fundamental step in the formulation of the Doctrine of the Trinity.^xxxi

Athanasius explained the term beget or create is unique in Scripture and requires translating in light of biblical thinking.^xxxii The term should be translated beget, or brought me forth. In this particular incidence, Arius and Athanasius ignored the context around the passage since to heed the context meant that each person's doctrine was in danger. If they had kept reading, the pre-existent Christ is mentioned in a few verses down.

The famous statement “before He was born, He was not, God was not always Father,” ^xxxiii creates a problem for those of the Arius faith. It amounts to cosmological speculation. As a result, Arius was driven to formulate a creation before time began: “ the son is born timeless and created before the aeons.”^xxxiv Because of the progression of logic, Arius had to claim that there was a time before time.^xxxv

Athanasius chose to ignore the ontological speculation of Arius. Instead he declared that eternity and perfection are parallel issues because if the Son is to have perfection wit the Father, perfection and eternity cannot be separated.^xxxvi This leads one to wonder why Arius thought it important to speak of time within the realm of Christianity. Eternal salvation ought to be enough. Belief in the Arian position mandates belief in two gods since the Son was not always part of the God head.

The Argument over Rhetoric

Language became important in this debate. Athanasius was careful to draw clear lines between Greek philosophical speculative language and biblical language. When debating the term beget or created, Athanasius stated that when we pray we do not say, “O unbegotten,”^xxxvii but we say, “our Father which art in heaven!”^xxxviii And when Christ taught us to baptize, he did not tell us to baptize “into the name of the unbegotten and the begotten, but in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”^xxxix Arius was speaking of God in Greek ontological terms: the unborn, the unchangeable, and other negative terms used by the Greek culture to define their distance from God.^xl

As the debate developed, Athanasius began to challenge Arius on his use of other terminology. Athanasius demanded that language must be considered not only in the immediate context but in the whole realm of the Christian faith.^xli The Arian use of the word 'Son' makes Christ one son with many brothers. The foundation of Arianism hinges on the idea that the Son is a creature.

When the debate over terminology turned to defining the relationship between the Son and the Father, orthodox people maintained that the Son was as “one

5.

essence” and “from the essence of God.”^xlii Language to express this relationship entered the debate. Terms such as “always,” “in Him,” “like Him,” and “power” were proposed as vocabulary that correctly expresses the relationship of the Son to the Father. To the surprise of Athanasius, the Arians hand no problems using these terms. The language according to the Arians, is common to the Son and us.^xliii

In the Arian view, Christ was an adopted Son, much as the people of Israel were adopted as children of God. Athanasius observed that if this definition of Son ship were to stand, then Christ could not have been any different from us. Belief that Christ was different from other humans lead Athanasius to take the position that the Son must be a “true off spring.”^xliv

Athanasius explained the soteriological implications (concerning salvation) of the Arian doctrine. If Jesus was not God, how is it possible that his death atoned for the sins of others? It would provide only an example of sacrificial love at best. Only a Son who was really God could redeem men.^xlv

This matter strikes at the heart of the Christian faith, because the redemptive aspects of the Arian doctrine abort the purpose of Christ's resurrection. Since the Arian doctrine of soterilogy claims all sons have full status with God, they too can share in the testing and reward known to the firstborn son. The result of this logic is that others can say with Jesus, “I am in the Father and the Father is in me.”^xlvi The idea is that Jesus is no longer the Logos of God, but only one of many.^xlvii Athanasius argued that the statement made by Jesus meant that “He is one in essence” with the Father.^xlviii

If one takes the Arian position, the Redeemer can be said to be one of the redeemed. Athanasius asked Arius if he planned to ascend to the heavens and be as the most high.^xlix The terms, son of God or Son of Man are metaphorical as in the case when James and John are called the “sons of Thunder^l meaning their nature. In the appropriate context these terms mean that Jesus is all the nature of God and all the nature of man.

Arguments Confirming the Humanity of Jesus

The author of the book of Hebrews wrote concerning the bodily presence of the Word, saying that He was “the same yesterday, today and forever.”^li He made the point of Christ's immutability, even when He came in the flesh.

The above statement was the reply to Arius's charge that Jesus was subject to change since He was a creature. The Arian position was that Jesus lived His life by faith and was a creature of free moral choice.^lii The changeable Christ was supported by a proof text from the LXX.^liii Arius claimed that loving righteousness

6.

and hating iniquity was proof that God could change.^liv A failure to recognize that humanity cannot approximate God except through righteousness was the failure of the Arian logic, since the nature of God is righteousness.

Athanasius defined the Logos as God entering the Universe within a body and operating as He chose, permitting the body to endure normal suffering, yet remaining unaffected by these experiences. “One might properly called the Arian view of the humanity of Jesus a type “ Space suit Christology.”^lv However, for the fourth century, this was advanced theological thinking.

Athanasius explained that the Logos was God in a human body, given for our sake. Though the suffering of the body did not affect the Logos, the suffering of the Logos was redemptive. The Arians countered by saying the limitations and weakness of the Logos were proof of His inferior status to the Father.^lvi

Arius consistently used Scripture to prove that Jesus emptied himself,^lvii but neglected to mention that Christ prayed for His glory to return as it was before the foundations of the earth, at the end of His earthly mission.^lviii Arius overlooked the verse that states the equality of the Son with the Father prior to the Son emptying Himself.^lix In these two passages, Christ emptied Himself and became subject to the will of the Father.

Homoisusious or Homoousios

Athanasius' stand concerning the God head is reflected by his statement: “There is one form of Godhead, which is also in the Logos, and there is one God the Father existing in self-sufficiency because He is over all, and manifesting Himself in the Son because he (the son) extends through the universe, and in Spirit because He is active in the universe in Him (the Spirit), through the Son.^lx

The problem was to express this idea in words that satisfied both Athanasius and Arius. During this part of the debate, Arius chose the word homoiousios, which means of like substance. Athanasius wanted to use the word homoousious which means the same substance.^lxi

The word homoousious was rejected the prior century because the Sabellians used it to exclude all differences between the Father and the Son. This new conflict evoked the once banned word into use again. The Arians objected to the use of this word and protested loudly, but the word homoousious became a symbol for the eternal truth of the Deity of Christ.^lxii This word maintained the unity of God while allowing for diversity in the Godhead. Modern terminology describes the relationship as “cosubstantial.”^lxiii

7.

Biblical passages Athanasius used to affirm what we now call the Doctrine of the Trinity are:

1. Unity in the God head: Deut. 6:4, Mark 12:29, Jas. 2:19, Rom. 3:30. All of these affirm that there is one God.

2. Diversity in the God head: Matt. 3:16-17, Matt. 28:19, John 1:1, John 14:16, John 17:24, II Cor. 13:14.

3. The Personality of the Holy Spirit: I Cor. 2:10, I Cor. 12:11, and Eph. 4:30.^lxiv

These verses formulated the basis for the Nicene Creed, which is the summation of the debates of the First Council of Nicaea. The Nicene formula reads as follows:

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 of the Father, only-begotten,that is of the substance (homoousious) of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of the true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made, things in heaven and on earth: who for us men and our salvation came down from heaven and was flesh, and became man...^lxv

The Nicene Formula also included and appendage as follows:

Those who say, “Once He was not and before His generation He was not, and He came to be from nothing, or those who pretend that the Son of God is of other substance or essence, or created, or alterable, or mutable, the Catholic Church anathematizes.^lxvi

The significance of the Council of Nicaea was the formation of the Doctrine of the Trinity. This crucial doctrine became a pivot point of Christian orthodoxy for many centuries and still is today.