The Failure of Arius to understanding monotheism
Introduction of Monotheism and Arianism
Monotheism is at the heart of a Christian worldview. This monotheism is sometimes difficult to explain in light of the Trinity. Having three beings in one has confused theologians and Christians for a long time as they work out the implications of a trinity. The early church was working out these implications when Arius tried to explain and develop a view that honored the Scriptures. In his dedication to the Scriptures and his monotheistic view, he explained the incarnation and begetting of the Son in heretical ways as it denied the Son’s divinity. The council of Nicaea was formed in order to work through the debate in which they sided against Arianism. Even though the counsel did not side with Arianism, its beliefs carried on even after the counsel’s verdict. Athanasius is the one that combats Arius and influenced the church to continue its stance against Arianism. Arius was dedicated to a monotheistic Christian worldview and in his dedication to this principle, dwindled the divinity of the Son down to being merely a creature. Therefore, the Council of Nicaea condemned Arianism and Athanasius continued the good fight in proving its heretical conclusions.
Historical setting to Arius
It is important to properly understand the historical setting of the Arian Controversy as the church has gone through a transition. The church is legalized under Constantine and the church was not being persecuted by the governing authorities. Prior to the legalizing of the Christianity, controversies were settled by church leadership but at this point, convincing the emperors was important. This created a strange dynamic as theological debates included a mixture of politics.[1]
As time progresses, a controversy comes to the forefront. Christians were originally believed to be atheists as they had no visible gods yet claimed Jesus came from the Father. Educated Christians started to appeal to classical philosophers in order to convert the roman culture around them to Christ as the philosophers were considered wise. Christians started to argue that the God they spoke of was actually the supreme being that philosophers were referring to. Even though this was an argument that persuaded many, it was a dangerous argument. As Christians started to use more philosophy, Christianity became more removed from the roots it once held of speaking about God through the prophets and Biblical writers. By using the classic philosophers, Christianity started to use the vocabulary of philosophers as they started to use terms such as immutable, impassible, and fixed. This philosophical emphasis resulted in a debate over the Logos, Word of God.[2]
The bishop of Alexandria, Alexander, entered into a feud with Presbyter named Arius. Arius was popular and claimed that the “Son had a beginning, but God is without beginning.”[3] Arius claimed that there was a time when Jesus was not and that he was the first of all creatures.[4] Christians believe that only God should be worshiped and if Christ was created, then Christians would be forced to change some fundamental practices. Early on in Christian History, Christians worshipped Jesus and if Arius is correct, that would mean the church should stop their worship of Jesus because it would be worshipping a creature. As a result of this dynamic, Alexander set out to prove Arius wrong which led to the council of Nicaea.[5]
The Council of Nicaea was for Bishops only and Arius was not a bishop. Therefore, Arius was represented by Eusebius of Nicomedia. The two groups debated and eventually the Nicene creed was adopted which dismissed the Arius view of Christ. All of the bishops but two signed the creed. This was a great accomplishment that no one would have expected considering the events that preceded the council.[6] Unfortunately, this was not the end of the debate as the true champion of orthodoxy is Alexanders’ follower named Athanasius.[7] It is important to situate the debate in history as both sides engage in a political dynamic between philosophy and the Scriptures.
The Debate Arianism
The debate between Athanasius of Alexandria and Arianism is one that has subtle differences that lead to radically different conclusions. Arian authors have a distinct conclusion in regard to the subordination of the Son. Subordination theology is used in several early church fathers, especially those pre-Nicene. Origen, Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, and others are thought to have a minor form of the subordination of the Son, but they do not go to the same extent as Arian supporters. Arian authors take the subordination of Jesus to an extreme point in which they believe the Son is a creature and was created which would remove genuine divinity.[8] Some scholars believe that Arius made the mistake from reading Origen’s statements. Origen contrasted Christ’s spiritual mode with his Sonship in which he refers to Christ as a creature.[9]
The debate is rooted in the Son and what it means to be “begotten” of the father. How one understands the begetting of the Son, will influence much of their Christology. It is important to be careful and sensitive in this debate as words can be mis-used and misunderstood. To accurately look at Arius and Athanasius theology, one must first understand their framework for what it means to be “begotten”.
Creation and production of the son
JT Paasch writes in great depth regarding creation and the production of God’s Son as he tries to sift through Arius and Athanasius views regarding the begetting of Christ. Arius, he believes, maintains that the Son was created from ex nihilo (from nothing). To be created from ex nihilo means that something is produced without any “pre-existence ingredients.”[10] It is important to note that products have two conditions regarding ingredients. Firstly, ingredients are only considered if they are actually in the product. This is common sense as a product that does not have an ingredient would be lacking that property because it does not have that ingredient. It would be contradictory to say that a product is a specific thing if it lacks the ingredients that make up that product. Secondly, the product must bear its own properties and ingredients that other objects do not have. This is important because if two products have the same properties and ingredients than they are the same product, and a distinction cannot be made.[11] An ingredient then must exist in the product, and it must also have its own properties. According to Paasch, both “Athanasius and Arius need these two conditions to make their theories work.”[12]
Production does not necessarily mean creation. Christians believe that the Spirit and the Son are actually produced eternally which does not mean they are created. Production does not entail a point in time. The problem is that Arius takes this production a step further and moves it into the realm of creation.[13]
Arius Misunderstanding of Monotheism
Some credit should be given to Arius as he does hold several fundament Christian views. For example, Arius believes that God is eternal and without beginning as he is prior to all things.[14] This is a fundamental Christian belief as God cannot have a cause or that thing that caused him would be God. The problem is that Arius took the production of Jesus one more step and claimed that Jesus was subordinate to God as he is a unique creature.[15] In Arius’s, defense he should have stopped at the production of Jesus instead of trying to explain the intricate details of how that production occurred as no one had worked out those details yet. This problem occurred for Arius because he believed in an unproduced producer. However, Arius does hold firmly to a single producer which then causes problems for him as he cannot claim that there is a second unproduced producer. In his strict dedication to Biblical Monotheism, he had difficulty explaining the Son.[16] This commitment to monotheism can be seen in Eusebius of Caesarea who defends Arianism. Eusebius says, “If they both [The Father and the Son] were since the beginning, how can it be that the Father is Father and the Son is Son?”[17] Arius saw in scripture the Father and Son and used his experience in order to show that the father existed before because every earthly father exists before their son comes into existence. A father must exist long before a son according to Arius.
One must keep in mind the extensive Scripture use that Arius employs. Arius uses several scriptures to proof text his belief that the Father existed before the Son. To support Arianism, Arius and his supporters used verses such as Luke 10:22, Matthew 11:27, Hebrews 1:4; 3:2, Philippians 2:9, Acts 2:36, John 14:10; 17:13, and many other verses.[18] To assume Arius was not dedicated to the Christian faith and trying to understand the Scriptures, would be an improper assumption. Arius is trying to make sense of Jesus and the incarnation when Christians were still trying to explain and figure out the trinity. The contradictions in Arianism are brought forth through a careful analysis of Arianism because at first glance it seems solid but when one works out the implications, it is logically and theologically impossible.[19] Arius should have stopped with his argument when he claimed that the Son was begotten by the Father and should never have tried to explain what that meant. As he tried working through the meaning of begotten, he concluded that Jesus must have been created because of his strict monotheistic beliefs.
It is relevant to bring forth Paasch’s theory that Arius tried to explain the incarnation of Jesus and did not know how to discuss it without reverting to temporal language. According to Paasch, Arius tries to say that the Son is produced, meaning does not exist apart from his production. Even though Arius uses the language “before he was begotten, the Son did not exist.”[20] Paasch believes that when Arius uses this vocabulary, he is actually trying to say that the Son is produced which is non-controversial as Athanasius believes this as well.[21] It would be unfortunate if Arius was misunderstood because he could not explain the begetting of Christ without reverting to temporal language. It seems to be an unlikely conclusion to agree with Paasch in his claim that Arius used temporal language but did not intend to portray the Son as temporal. Athanasius and many others understood Arius in a different light than Paasch which Arius would have been able to explain his intent to his contemporaries, but his contemporaries understood Arius differently. Athanasius was the leading figure that worked out the implications of Arianism and combatted it.
Athanasius Defense of Jesus being God
Athanasius does not believe that the Son is created from nothing. If Jesus was created from nothing, then he would be a creature which is a theory that Athanasius is trying to avoid. Athanasius does believe that the son is begotten, by begotten, they are using a term for the process of procreation in which something living produces an offspring. This would mean that Athanasius believes that the Son is the offspring of the Father. Athanasius’s understanding of the process of procreation is not discussed.[22] What can be understood is that Athanasius believes that Christ is ἀγένητος, uncreated.[23]
Instead of using the procreation of humans and applying it to God, similar to what Arius did, Athanasius acknowledges that the Father-Son relationship is different than human relationships. Athanasius does not try to explain how the Son is God’s offspring but instead refers to the timelessness of the Son and makes him co-equal to the Father.[24] For Athanasius, the incarnation is central to his theology and explaining the incarnation of the Son while preserving his divinity is of the utmost importance.[25] Athanasius was smart and instead of using philosophical speculation, he pivots the conversation back to Scripture and therefore, did not come to the same conclusions as Arius.[26]
The incarnation is important to Athanasius as it is the story of God saving humanity. Not only does he save humanity but the “incarnation made participation in God’s nature a real possibility.”[27] Athanasius combines Paul’s doctrine of filial adoption and Johannine Son of God theology in order to show how the full trinity is still working in and through the created world. Athanasius properly assess the importance of the incarnation as the divinity of the Son is necessary for salvation and many other Christian doctrines as the Trinitarian economy is working in the world today.[28]
Implications of this debate on Monotheism
Athanasius and other Christian leaders argued passionately against Arianism because of its implications. If Jesus is merely a creation, then there are great concerns for Christians as their faith should not be placed in creation but should be placed in God. Arius was redefining the incarnation and Christian experience. Arius redefining the incarnation, in doing so he was changing the Gospel narrative as he explained Jesus in a different way than the gospels did. Not only does it change the good news narrative, but it also changes the way Christians had historically seen Jesus. The early church worshipped Jesus and believed that he died for the forgiveness of sins. A creature should not be worshipped only the creator and a creature could not give atonement. Therefore, Arius redefined the worship of those that came before him, and he would have a difficulty explaining the atonement as a creature cannot atone for the sins of creatures.
Debate implications on Worship
Christians are called to worship God and no other. When Arius argues that the Son is created, this means that Jesus is created and therefore should not be worshipped. Christians had been worshipping the person of Jesus ever since his resurrection as the last supper was often the center of the worship service. By claiming that Jesus was created, the entire worship service would have to change as a creature should not be worshipped and this would also remove the last supper from worship services. The debate manifested itself with the liturgy of easter in 374 to 386 in which Arianism was affecting the worship services.[29] This was just one debate of many that was a result of Arianism. If Arianism continued to flourish, then there would most likely have been debates regarding how to worship God and not creation.
The entire modern church service would have to be changed if the Son was created as Christians are called to worship God alone. God cannot be created and therefore Jesus would not be God. Not only could one not worship the Son, but what would make this creature worthy of worship? If he was a creature then he could not atone for sin or overcome the powers of evil. The worth of the creature comes from its creator and therefore the creator should be worshipped and not the creature. The doctrine of the incarnation and the Son being part of the divine economy is important for worship and for understanding the revelation of God.
Monotheism Needed for atonement
Athanasius makes a compelling argument for the necessity of the Word becoming flesh. Athanasius claimed that the Word could not die because of the immortality of the Word. The Word takes for Himself a body that can die. This happens so that the Word “might be a sufficient representative of all in the (discharge of the penalty of) death, and, through the indwelling Word, might remain incorruptible, and that for the future corruption should cease from all by the grace of the resurrection.”[30] Athanasius goes on to argue that the Word, because of its incorruptibility, can be a substitute for the life of every human. Because of its incorruptibility, the Word can satisfy “all that was required in His death.”[31] This Word is then living inside of Christians which makes it important the Word is incorruptible. By being incorruptible, the Word overcame the corruption of death.[32] This makes the incarnation of the Word as important because if the Word was a creation and not God, then the overcoming of sin and death would be impossible. This makes the divinity of Christ as that of utmost importance because if he was not God, then there would be no atonement for sin and our hope is then misplaced as Christians do not have atonement for the forgiveness of their many sins. Through Christ, humanity is redeemed and allows one to have a basis for the hope of resurrection.[33]
Conclusion
The debate between Athanasius is and Arius happened almost two thousand years ago but still has great influence and effects on modern day Christianity. Debates on what is orthodoxy has reigned among Christians for centuries and debates regarding the trinity and divinity of Jesus are of the utmost importance. Athanasius argues that Jesus was always begotten and not made. Jesus, existing from the beginning, means that he is equal with the father instead of being subordinate as Arius implied by believing Jesus was created from ex-nihilo. Dwindling Jesus down to the point of being created makes him a creature and Christians are not supposed to worship creatures. The incarnation and divinity of Christ is important to have a proper understanding of who Christ is as he is worthy of worship because he is part of the trinitarian economy. Jesus must be eternal along with the Father or the conquering over death is irrelevant.
To read other ways God has revealed himself, click here
Sources
[1] Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation. (Vol. 1. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2010) 181-182
[2] Ibid., 182-183
[3] William G. Rusch, Trinitary Controversy. (ProQuest Ebook Central: Fortress Press, 1980) 24. This is a primary source that is compiled by Rusch. This quote is from a letter written from Arius to Eusebius
[4] Martin Connell, “Heresy and Heortology in the Early Church: Arianism and the Emergence of the Triduum.” (Worship 2, no. 72. 1998) 125
[5] Gonzalez, Story of Christianity, 183-184,
[6] Henry Chadwick, “Faith and Order at the Council of Nicea: A Note on the Background of the Sixth Canon.” (Harvard Theological Review 53, no. 3. 1960) 171
[7] Gonzalez, Story of Christianity, 188-190
[8] Dragos-Andrei Giulea, “Reassessing Arianism in Light of the Council of Antioch 268.” (Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 95, no. 1. 2019) 94
[9] Rev. John R. Meyer, “Athanasius ‘Son of God’ Theology.” (Recherches De Theologie et Philosophie Medievales 66, no. 2. 1999) 232
[10] Travis J. Paasch, “Arius and Athanasius on the Production of God’s Son.” (Faith and Philosophy 27, no. 4. 2010) 384
[11] Paasch, Arius and Athanasius, 384-386
[12] Ibid., 384
[13] Ibid., 389
[14] Arius. “Epistle to Alexander.” In Christology of the Later Fathers, by Edward G. Hardy. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press. 1954) 332
[15] Paul Gavrilyuk, “Creation in Early Christian Polemical Literature: Irenaeus against the Gnostics and Athanasius against the Arians.” (Modern Theologica 29, no. 2. 2013) 31
[16] Paasch, Arius and Athanasius, 388
[17] Samuel Laeuchli, “Case of Athanasius against Arius.” (Concordia Theological Monthly 30, no. 6. 1959) 414
[18] Ibid., 411
[19] Angus Holland, “Athanasius Versus Arius: What Now?” (The Reformed Theological Review 28, no. 1. 1969) 21
[20] Arius. Letter to Alexander, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2. (New York: Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1892) 458
[21] Paasch, Arius and Athanasius, 389
[22] Paasch, Arius and Athanasius, 293
[23] Michel E. Butler, “Neo-Arianism: Its Antecedents and Tenents.” (St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 36, no. 4. 1992) 361
[24] Meyer, Athanasius ‘Son of God’ Theology, 240
[25] Grahame Rosolen, “The Incarnational Christology of Athanasius.”( Phronema 35, no. 2. 2020) 94
[26] Nicholas Thompson, “Mighty in the Word: Athanasius’s Doctrine of Scripture in His War on Arianism.” (Puritan Reformed Journal 10, no. 1. 2018) 91
[27] Meyer, Athanasius ‘Son of God’ Theology, 252
[28] Meyer, Athanasius ‘Son of God’ Theology, 252
[29] Connell, Heresy and Heortology, 120-123
[30] Athanasius of Alexandria, Athanasius: On the Incarnation of the Word of God. Edited by T. H. Bindley. (Vol. Second Edition Revised. London: Religious Tract Society, 1903) 57
[31] Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 57
[32] Ibid.
[33] Rosolen, “The Incarnational Christology, 94