Arius vs Athanasius

Arius lived during the early Christian period in the 3rd and 4th centuries, specifically in the context of the Roman Empire. Born around 250 AD, Arius was a presbyter in Alexandria, Egypt, known for his theological teachings that sparked the Arian controversy.

Theological Perspectives: Arius’s theological perspectives centered around the nature of the Trinity, challenging the traditional understanding of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He proposed that the Son (Jesus Christ) was a created being, distinct from the eternal God the Father. According to Arius, there was a time when the Son did not exist, and he argued that the Son was of a different substance (homoiousios) than the Father, not of the same substance (homoousios). This view opposed the Nicene Creed, which asserted the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son.

Potential Attraction of His Ideas: Arius’s ideas might have been attractive to those who valued a clear hierarchy within the Godhead, emphasizing the supremacy of God the Father. Individuals uncomfortable with the concept of co-equality within the Trinity might have been drawn to Arius’s teachings. Furthermore, his emphasis on the transcendence of God and the subordinate nature of Christ could have resonated with those who sought to maintain a more straightforward monotheistic understanding. Arius’s views could have found support among those who preferred a rational and systematic approach to theology, as opposed to the mysteries embedded in the traditional Trinitarian doctrine.

It’s essential to note that Arius’s teachings were controversial, leading to significant theological debates and the eventual formulation of the Nicene Creed at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, which rejected Arius’s views as heretical.

The Council of Nicaea not only marked a turning point in Christian doctrine but also had significant political implications. Emperor Constantine’s call for the council in 325 and Emperor Theodosius’s similar action in 381 emphasized the intertwining of imperial politics and the Arianism debate, influencing the relationship between the church and the state.

In the mid-fourth century, Athanasius, as Bishop of Alexandria, faced banishment by emperors Constantius II and Julian, revealing the political turbulence. The crucial question emerged concerning the role of emperors in relation to the church, especially with the state’s newfound support for Christianity. This question, while not as momentous as the Christ’s divinity issue, remained relevant for over a millennium in Christian history.

Arians, including emperors, favored direct imperial control of the church. Emperor Constantius sought to elevate his wishes for the church to the level of religious canons, treating his commands as divinely ordained. On the other hand, the orthodox or catholic party insisted on the church maintaining autonomy over its affairs. Bishop Ambrose of Milan, in a dispute with Emperor Theodosius, asserted, “The emperor is in the church, not above it,” emphasizing the church’s independence even concerning the emperor.

In the broader contest of ecclesiastical and imperial power, both Arians and Catholics agreed on Christ as the head of the church and the emperor’s divine ordination to rule over earthly matters. The disagreement arose over the nature of subordination. Arians, viewing the Son as subordinate to the Father, applied this hierarchy to the relationship between the church and the empire. This perspective justified the subordination of bishops’ authority to the emperor, even referring to the emperor as a “bishop of the bishops.”

Arius, with his perspective challenging the divinity of Christ, would likely face resistance in most mainstream Christian churches today. The majority of Christian denominations adhere to the Nicene Creed, which explicitly affirms the full divinity of Christ. Individuals who might be attracted to Arius’s perspectives could include those drawn to alternative theological viewpoints or groups outside mainstream Christianity. These could be individuals seeking a non-trinitarian understanding of God or those with a preference for heterodox interpretations of biblical teachings.

In assessing whether a standard of orthodoxy exists in the church today, it’s evident that different Christian traditions uphold varying doctrinal standards. While core tenets such as the divinity of Christ and the Trinity are widely accepted, there are differences in emphasis and interpretation across denominations. The basis of authority for determining orthodoxy varies; for many, it is rooted in scripture, creeds (such as the Nicene Creed), and historical church traditions. However, the interpretation of these sources can differ, leading to denominational distinctions.

Theological Perspectives: Arius’s theological perspectives centered around the nature of the Trinity, challenging the traditional understanding of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He proposed that the Son (Jesus Christ) was a created being, distinct from the eternal God the Father. According to Arius, there was a time when the Son did not exist, and he argued that the Son was of a different substance (homoiousios) than the Father, not of the same substance (homoousios). This view opposed the Nicene Creed, which asserted the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son.

Potential Attraction of His Ideas: Arius’s ideas might have been attractive to those who valued a clear hierarchy within the Godhead, emphasizing the supremacy of God the Father. Individuals uncomfortable with the concept of co-equality within the Trinity might have been drawn to Arius’s teachings. Furthermore, his emphasis on the transcendence of God and the subordinate nature of Christ could have resonated with those who sought to maintain a more straightforward monotheistic understanding. Arius’s views could have found support among those who preferred a rational and systematic approach to theology, as opposed to the mysteries embedded in the traditional Trinitarian doctrine.

It’s essential to note that Arius’s teachings were controversial, leading to significant theological debates and the eventual formulation of the Nicene Creed at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, which rejected Arius’s views as heretical.

The nuanced nature of orthodoxy in the church today reflects a diversity of beliefs and practices across different Christian denominations. The basis of authority varies, contributing to the complexity of defining and maintaining orthodoxy.

1. Scripture:
   • Many Christian denominations consider the Bible as the primary source of authority. However, interpretations of specific passages and the acceptance of certain books may differ.
2. Tradition:
   • Some denominations emphasize the importance of tradition alongside Scripture. They may follow specific liturgical practices, rituals, and teachings passed down through generations.
3. Creeds and Councils:
   • Certain denominations adhere to historical creeds and ecumenical councils (e.g., Nicene Creed, Council of Chalcedon) as authoritative guides for theological beliefs.
4. Magisterium and Apostolic Succession:
   • Within Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, the Magisterium (teaching authority of the Church) and apostolic succession play crucial roles. The authority is traced back to the apostles through the laying on of hands.
5. Personal Revelation and Experience:
   • In some evangelical and charismatic circles, personal revelation, experiences, and the work of the Holy Spirit are considered important aspects of understanding and practicing faith.
6. Leadership and Synods:
   • Hierarchical denominations often rely on the authority of church leaders, such as bishops or synods, to interpret Scripture and guide theological understanding.
7. Cultural Context:
   • The cultural context significantly influences interpretations of orthodoxy. Different regions and communities may prioritize certain theological aspects based on cultural perspectives.
8. Ecumenical Movements:
   • Some denominations actively participate in ecumenical efforts, seeking common ground among various Christian traditions while respecting doctrinal differences.

Arius’s scriptural interpretation played a significant role in shaping his theological views, particularly in emphasizing the subordination of the Son to the Father. His approach involved highlighting specific biblical passages that, in his understanding, supported the idea that the Son was a created being and subordinate to the Father. Here are some key aspects of Arius’s scriptural interpretation:

1. Verses Emphasizing Subordination: Arius often pointed to verses in the New Testament where Jesus is portrayed as subordinate to the Father. For example, he highlighted passages like John 14:28, where Jesus says, “the Father is greater than I,” as evidence of the Son’s subordination. Similarly, he referenced verses where Jesus speaks of doing the will of the Father.

2. Verses Indicating Growth or Change: Arius made use of biblical passages that suggest aspects of change or growth in Jesus. For instance, he referred to Luke 2:52, which mentions Jesus growing in wisdom and stature, as well as other verses portraying Jesus experiencing human privations like thirst (John 4:7, 19:28) and fatigue (John 4:6). Arius argued that these verses supported the idea that the Son was a created being and not co-eternal with the Father.

3. Firstborn Passages: Arius also focused on passages referring to Jesus as the “firstborn,” such as Romans 8:29 and Colossians 1:15. While these verses are interpreted differently in mainstream Christian theology, Arius maximized their significance to argue for the subordination of the Son, suggesting a beginning or creation.

4. Use of Prooftexts: Arius utilized specific prooftexts to support his theological position. His interpretations often centered on verses that seemed to underscore a hierarchical relationship between the Father and the Son, emphasizing Jesus’ subordination in function and essence.

Arius’s scriptural interpretation aimed to provide biblical support for his theological perspective, emphasizing the subordination of the Son to the Father. However, his readings were contested by other theologians, leading to debates and the eventual convening of the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE to address the theological controversies surrounding Arius’s teachings.The Nicene Creed, formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, doesn’t explicitly list specific proof texts or biblical references. Instead, the Creed provides a concise theological summary of the orthodox Christian understanding of the relationship between the Father and the Son. However, the theological formulations in the Nicene Creed reflect a broader biblical context and respond to key points raised by Arius. Some general biblical themes and concepts that influenced the Nicene Creed include:

1. “Begotten, not made”: The phrase “begotten, not made” directly addresses Arius’s assertion that the Son was a created being. This language reflects a theological understanding of the Son’s eternal relationship with the Father. While the Nicene Creed doesn’t cite a specific verse, the idea of the Son being “begotten” aligns with biblical themes emphasizing the eternal nature of the Son (e.g., John 1:1-14).

2. “Before all ages”: The Creed states that the Son is “begotten of the Father before all ages.” This formulation addresses the idea presented by Arius that there was a time when the Son did not exist. While not directly quoting a specific verse, this concept aligns with the biblical theme of the eternal existence of the Son (e.g., John 17:5).

3. “Consubstantial with the Father”: The Nicene Creed affirms the consubstantiality (of one substance) of the Father and the Son. While the term “consubstantial” is not explicitly found in the Bible, the concept aligns with the biblical teaching that the Father and the Son share a unique, divine essence (e.g., John 10:30).

4. “Light from light, true God from true God”: These phrases emphasize the divine nature of the Son and echo biblical language that presents Jesus as the light of the world (e.g., John 8:12) and affirms His true deity (e.g., Colossians 2:9).

The Nicene Creed, while not a comprehensive list of proof texts, reflects a theological synthesis based on the broader biblical witness to the identity of Jesus Christ. The formulation of the Creed was a response to specific challenges posed by Arius, providing a foundation for orthodox Christian doctrine on the Trinity.

In the context of Arius and the Council of Nicaea, the terms “essence,” “person,” and “nature” played a significant role in the theological debates surrounding the nature of the Trinity. Here’s a brief overview of how these concepts were understood by Arius and how they were addressed by the Council of Nicaea:

1. Arius’s View:
   • Essence (Substance): Arius emphasized a clear distinction in essence between the Father and the Son. He argued that the Father alone possessed the unique, eternal, and uncreated essence, while the Son was a created being with a different, subordinate essence.
   • Person: Arius acknowledged the personhood of the Father and the Son but asserted a hierarchical relationship, with the Father being superior and unbegotten, and the Son being subordinate and begotten, having a beginning.
   • Nature: Arius emphasized a created nature for the Son, denying the co-eternality and consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. According to Arius, the Son had a nature different from the Father, and there was a time when the Son did not exist.
2. Council of Nicaea’s Response:
   • Essence (Substance): The Nicene Creed, formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, affirmed the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. It declared that the Son is “of one substance (homoousios) with the Father,” countering Arius’s assertion of a distinct essence for the Son.
   • Person: The Nicene Creed affirmed the distinct persons of the Father and the Son within the Godhead but rejected the idea of subordination. The Father and the Son were declared to be co-eternal and of the same essence.
   • Nature: The Nicene Creed rejected Arius’s notion of a created nature for the Son. Instead, it emphasized that the Son is “begotten, not made,” affirming the Son’s eternal existence and divine nature.

In summary, Arius and the Council of Nicaea had differing views on these theological concepts, particularly concerning the relationship between the Father and the Son. The Nicene Creed, as a response to Arianism, sought to articulate a more orthodox understanding of the Trinity, emphasizing the unity of essence and equality of persons within the Godhead.

In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.Arius lived during the early Christian period in the 3rd and 4th centuries, specifically in the context of the Roman Empire. Born around 250 AD, Arius was a presbyter in Alexandria, Egypt, known for his theological teachings that sparked the Arian controversy.

Theological Perspectives: Arius’s theological perspectives centered around the nature of the Trinity, challenging the traditional understanding of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He proposed that the Son (Jesus Christ) was a created being, distinct from the eternal God the Father. According to Arius, there was a time when the Son did not exist, and he argued that the Son was of a different substance (homoiousios) than the Father, not of the same substance (homoousios). This view opposed the Nicene Creed, which asserted the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son.

Potential Attraction of His Ideas: Arius’s ideas might have been attractive to those who valued a clear hierarchy within the Godhead, emphasizing the supremacy of God the Father. Individuals uncomfortable with the concept of co-equality within the Trinity might have been drawn to Arius’s teachings. Furthermore, his emphasis on the transcendence of God and the subordinate nature of Christ could have resonated with those who sought to maintain a more straightforward monotheistic understanding. Arius’s views could have found support among those who preferred a rational and systematic approach to theology, as opposed to the mysteries embedded in the traditional Trinitarian doctrine.

It’s essential to note that Arius’s teachings were controversial, leading to significant theological debates and the eventual formulation of the Nicene Creed at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, which rejected Arius’s views as heretical.

The Council of Nicaea not only marked a turning point in Christian doctrine but also had significant political implications. Emperor Constantine’s call for the council in 325 and Emperor Theodosius’s similar action in 381 emphasized the intertwining of imperial politics and the Arianism debate, influencing the relationship between the church and the state.

In the mid-fourth century, Athanasius, as Bishop of Alexandria, faced banishment by emperors Constantius II and Julian, revealing the political turbulence. The crucial question emerged concerning the role of emperors in relation to the church, especially with the state’s newfound support for Christianity. This question, while not as momentous as the Christ’s divinity issue, remained relevant for over a millennium in Christian history.

Arians, including emperors, favored direct imperial control of the church. Emperor Constantius sought to elevate his wishes for the church to the level of religious canons, treating his commands as divinely ordained. On the other hand, the orthodox or catholic party insisted on the church maintaining autonomy over its affairs. Bishop Ambrose of Milan, in a dispute with Emperor Theodosius, asserted, “The emperor is in the church, not above it,” emphasizing the church’s independence even concerning the emperor.

In the broader contest of ecclesiastical and imperial power, both Arians and Catholics agreed on Christ as the head of the church and the emperor’s divine ordination to rule over earthly matters. The disagreement arose over the nature of subordination. Arians, viewing the Son as subordinate to the Father, applied this hierarchy to the relationship between the church and the empire. This perspective justified the subordination of bishops’ authority to the emperor, even referring to the emperor as a “bishop of the bishops.”

Arius, with his perspective challenging the divinity of Christ, would likely face resistance in most mainstream Christian churches today. The majority of Christian denominations adhere to the Nicene Creed, which explicitly affirms the full divinity of Christ. Individuals who might be attracted to Arius’s perspectives could include those drawn to alternative theological viewpoints or groups outside mainstream Christianity. These could be individuals seeking a non-trinitarian understanding of God or those with a preference for heterodox interpretations of biblical teachings.

In assessing whether a standard of orthodoxy exists in the church today, it’s evident that different Christian traditions uphold varying doctrinal standards. While core tenets such as the divinity of Christ and the Trinity are widely accepted, there are differences in emphasis and interpretation across denominations. The basis of authority for determining orthodoxy varies; for many, it is rooted in scripture, creeds (such as the Nicene Creed), and historical church traditions. However, the interpretation of these sources can differ, leading to denominational distinctions.

Theological Perspectives: Arius’s theological perspectives centered around the nature of the Trinity, challenging the traditional understanding of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He proposed that the Son (Jesus Christ) was a created being, distinct from the eternal God the Father. According to Arius, there was a time when the Son did not exist, and he argued that the Son was of a different substance (homoiousios) than the Father, not of the same substance (homoousios). This view opposed the Nicene Creed, which asserted the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son.

Potential Attraction of His Ideas: Arius’s ideas might have been attractive to those who valued a clear hierarchy within the Godhead, emphasizing the supremacy of God the Father. Individuals uncomfortable with the concept of co-equality within the Trinity might have been drawn to Arius’s teachings. Furthermore, his emphasis on the transcendence of God and the subordinate nature of Christ could have resonated with those who sought to maintain a more straightforward monotheistic understanding. Arius’s views could have found support among those who preferred a rational and systematic approach to theology, as opposed to the mysteries embedded in the traditional Trinitarian doctrine.

It’s essential to note that Arius’s teachings were controversial, leading to significant theological debates and the eventual formulation of the Nicene Creed at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, which rejected Arius’s views as heretical.

The nuanced nature of orthodoxy in the church today reflects a diversity of beliefs and practices across different Christian denominations. The basis of authority varies, contributing to the complexity of defining and maintaining orthodoxy.

1. Scripture:
   • Many Christian denominations consider the Bible as the primary source of authority. However, interpretations of specific passages and the acceptance of certain books may differ.
2. Tradition:
   • Some denominations emphasize the importance of tradition alongside Scripture. They may follow specific liturgical practices, rituals, and teachings passed down through generations.
3. Creeds and Councils:
   • Certain denominations adhere to historical creeds and ecumenical councils (e.g., Nicene Creed, Council of Chalcedon) as authoritative guides for theological beliefs.
4. Magisterium and Apostolic Succession:
   • Within Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, the Magisterium (teaching authority of the Church) and apostolic succession play crucial roles. The authority is traced back to the apostles through the laying on of hands.
5. Personal Revelation and Experience:
   • In some evangelical and charismatic circles, personal revelation, experiences, and the work of the Holy Spirit are considered important aspects of understanding and practicing faith.
6. Leadership and Synods:
   • Hierarchical denominations often rely on the authority of church leaders, such as bishops or synods, to interpret Scripture and guide theological understanding.
7. Cultural Context:
   • The cultural context significantly influences interpretations of orthodoxy. Different regions and communities may prioritize certain theological aspects based on cultural perspectives.
8. Ecumenical Movements:
   • Some denominations actively participate in ecumenical efforts, seeking common ground among various Christian traditions while respecting doctrinal differences.

Arius’s scriptural interpretation played a significant role in shaping his theological views, particularly in emphasizing the subordination of the Son to the Father. His approach involved highlighting specific biblical passages that, in his understanding, supported the idea that the Son was a created being and subordinate to the Father. Here are some key aspects of Arius’s scriptural interpretation:

1. Verses Emphasizing Subordination: Arius often pointed to verses in the New Testament where Jesus is portrayed as subordinate to the Father. For example, he highlighted passages like John 14:28, where Jesus says, “the Father is greater than I,” as evidence of the Son’s subordination. Similarly, he referenced verses where Jesus speaks of doing the will of the Father.

2. Verses Indicating Growth or Change: Arius made use of biblical passages that suggest aspects of change or growth in Jesus. For instance, he referred to Luke 2:52, which mentions Jesus growing in wisdom and stature, as well as other verses portraying Jesus experiencing human privations like thirst (John 4:7, 19:28) and fatigue (John 4:6). Arius argued that these verses supported the idea that the Son was a created being and not co-eternal with the Father.

3. Firstborn Passages: Arius also focused on passages referring to Jesus as the “firstborn,” such as Romans 8:29 and Colossians 1:15. While these verses are interpreted differently in mainstream Christian theology, Arius maximized their significance to argue for the subordination of the Son, suggesting a beginning or creation.

4. Use of Prooftexts: Arius utilized specific prooftexts to support his theological position. His interpretations often centered on verses that seemed to underscore a hierarchical relationship between the Father and the Son, emphasizing Jesus’ subordination in function and essence.

Arius’s scriptural interpretation aimed to provide biblical support for his theological perspective, emphasizing the subordination of the Son to the Father. However, his readings were contested by other theologians, leading to debates and the eventual convening of the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE to address the theological controversies surrounding Arius’s teachings.The Nicene Creed, formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, doesn’t explicitly list specific proof texts or biblical references. Instead, the Creed provides a concise theological summary of the orthodox Christian understanding of the relationship between the Father and the Son. However, the theological formulations in the Nicene Creed reflect a broader biblical context and respond to key points raised by Arius. Some general biblical themes and concepts that influenced the Nicene Creed include:

1. “Begotten, not made”: The phrase “begotten, not made” directly addresses Arius’s assertion that the Son was a created being. This language reflects a theological understanding of the Son’s eternal relationship with the Father. While the Nicene Creed doesn’t cite a specific verse, the idea of the Son being “begotten” aligns with biblical themes emphasizing the eternal nature of the Son (e.g., John 1:1-14).

2. “Before all ages”: The Creed states that the Son is “begotten of the Father before all ages.” This formulation addresses the idea presented by Arius that there was a time when the Son did not exist. While not directly quoting a specific verse, this concept aligns with the biblical theme of the eternal existence of the Son (e.g., John 17:5).

3. “Consubstantial with the Father”: The Nicene Creed affirms the consubstantiality (of one substance) of the Father and the Son. While the term “consubstantial” is not explicitly found in the Bible, the concept aligns with the biblical teaching that the Father and the Son share a unique, divine essence (e.g., John 10:30).

4. “Light from light, true God from true God”: These phrases emphasize the divine nature of the Son and echo biblical language that presents Jesus as the light of the world (e.g., John 8:12) and affirms His true deity (e.g., Colossians 2:9).

The Nicene Creed, while not a comprehensive list of proof texts, reflects a theological synthesis based on the broader biblical witness to the identity of Jesus Christ. The formulation of the Creed was a response to specific challenges posed by Arius, providing a foundation for orthodox Christian doctrine on the Trinity.

In the context of Arius and the Council of Nicaea, the terms “essence,” “person,” and “nature” played a significant role in the theological debates surrounding the nature of the Trinity. Here’s a brief overview of how these concepts were understood by Arius and how they were addressed by the Council of Nicaea:

1. Arius’s View:
   • Essence (Substance): Arius emphasized a clear distinction in essence between the Father and the Son. He argued that the Father alone possessed the unique, eternal, and uncreated essence, while the Son was a created being with a different, subordinate essence.
   • Person: Arius acknowledged the personhood of the Father and the Son but asserted a hierarchical relationship, with the Father being superior and unbegotten, and the Son being subordinate and begotten, having a beginning.
   • Nature: Arius emphasized a created nature for the Son, denying the co-eternality and consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. According to Arius, the Son had a nature different from the Father, and there was a time when the Son did not exist.
2. Council of Nicaea’s Response:
   • Essence (Substance): The Nicene Creed, formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, affirmed the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. It declared that the Son is “of one substance (homoousios) with the Father,” countering Arius’s assertion of a distinct essence for the Son.
   • Person: The Nicene Creed affirmed the distinct persons of the Father and the Son within the Godhead but rejected the idea of subordination. The Father and the Son were declared to be co-eternal and of the same essence.
   • Nature: The Nicene Creed rejected Arius’s notion of a created nature for the Son. Instead, it emphasized that the Son is “begotten, not made,” affirming the Son’s eternal existence and divine nature.

In summary, Arius and the Council of Nicaea had differing views on these theological concepts, particularly concerning the relationship between the Father and the Son. The Nicene Creed, as a response to Arianism, sought to articulate a more orthodox understanding of the Trinity, emphasizing the unity of essence and equality of persons within the God. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.