Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
No part of this document may be reproduced without written consent from the author.
CHURCH HISTORY
BY
SERGIO N. LONGORIA
AUSTIN, TEXAS
DECEMBER 3, 2009
Copyright © Sergio N. Longoria, 2009. All Rights Reserved.
1 author.
No part of this document may be reproduced without written consent from the
In the third and fourth century a group of Christians called Arians were
affirming that Christ was not divine. The Arians were following the teachings of
Scripture that seemed to indicate that Jesus, or the Son of God, had not
always been in existence. They claimed that there was a time when He was
not, that in fact, the Son of God had a beginning. This would make the Son
less divine than the Father. Much of Christendom of the time was following in
line with the teachings of Arius. But one man stood up to oppose him and
In this paper I examine some of the claims of Arius (d. 336 A.D.). I will
look at one of the Scriptures that he used to support his argument, but more
importantly, I also examine the refutation made by Athanasius (d. 373 A.D.). I
will specifically focus on some aspects of his treatment of Proverbs 8:22 in his
Second Discourse Against the Arians which is part of his work, Orations Against
practices. I will begin with a brief introduction to both Arius and Athanasius
and the nature of the controversy that led to Arius’ condemnation at the
Copyright © Sergio N. Longoria, 2009. All Rights Reserved.
2 author.
No part of this document may be reproduced without written consent from the
council of Nicea (325 A.D.). I will then present Arius’ specific case in Proverbs
Arius
deposed for siding with a heretical group called Melitians. He later asked for
Bishop Achillas. Arius was put in charge of the Church of Baucalis. There he
gained a reputation for his ascetic life, his theological thinking and his skill in
logic. He had attractive qualities, was well educated, an able preacher, and
had a rather austere appearance.2 But according to Molly, Arius had other less
than admirable qualities such as, being proud, ambitious, insincere, and
with a good outward appearance, social grace and a pleasing voice that gained
Revised Second Edition. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006), s.v.
"Arius.”
3 Ibid., 15.
Copyright © Sergio N. Longoria, 2009. All Rights Reserved.
3 author.
No part of this document may be reproduced without written consent from the
In 313 A.D., Alexander was consecrated the new bishop of the see of
Alexandria. This see included the church of which Arius was pastor or senior
presbyter. It seems that for a time Alexander and Arius maintained a cordial
relationship. Yet between 318 and 323 A.D. Arius and Alexander clashed over
the nature of Christ. It seems that during a gathering of clergy, Alexander took
the opportunity to teach them about the unity of the Father and the Son.
Alexander taught in accordance with the traditional teachings, but to this Arius
Arius asserted that the Father and the Son were not equal and that any
appearance to the contrary found in scripture was just merely titles of honor
for Christ.5 Arius had reasoned erroneously from a human premise that since
God was a Father, there must have been a time when he had not yet had a
son.6 From this comes the famous Arian dictum, “there was once when he was
not”7 to signal that there was a time when the Son did not exist and was
4 Ibid.
Arius’ did not set out to oppose orthodoxy merely because he was evil as
and he saw danger to this in the teaching of Alexander. But Arius’ ideas at
first seemed to preserve monotheism as well as uphold the divinity of the Son,
even when this was merely honorific or bestowed divinity, as distinct from the
inherent and eternal divinity of the Father. Arius’ ideas quickly gained
Athanasius
319 A.D., he was ordained a deacon and soon became the secretary of bishop
Mike Feazell, “Is Jesus really God? A look at the Arian controversy,”
9
Routledge, 2004), 4.
Copyright © Sergio N. Longoria, 2009. All Rights Reserved.
5 author.
No part of this document may be reproduced without written consent from the
some of the debates, although only the bishops voted. In 328 A.D., upon the
death of Alexander, Athanasius was elected bishop of Alexandria, but this was
immediately contested accusing him of being under the canonical age of 30 for
this office.11
making, he does not come to the forefront until after the Council of Nicea in
Church to deal with the questions that Arianism was posing. Yet as early as
321 A.D., Alexander had called a council to deal with Arius. But even after the
continued to grow in the empire. Arianism also exerted a political force in the
empire with the result that Arian bishops exile and excommunicate apostolic
bishops and vice versa. Athanasius is also the subject of multiple exiles
and many years of struggle even after Nicea. To deal with the growing heresy,
Athanasius spent much of his time, and his time in exile, writing to counteract
the Arian heresy. It is during his second exile ca. 339 A.D.-340 A.D. that he
11 Ibid., 5.
12 Ibid., 87.
Copyright © Sergio N. Longoria, 2009. All Rights Reserved.
6 author.
No part of this document may be reproduced without written consent from the
The Controversy
The great controversy over the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ was
background created by the interests of each Christian power center within the
political boundaries of the Roman Empire.13 It is well beyond the scope of this
around the Arian controversy, but it is important to simply mention that the
controversy was not only theological, but also had elements of political
into session the council of Nicea in 325 A.D. At the center of the theological
between God the Father and Son. It is from this council that we get the
orthodox confession which declares that Jesus was “begotten of the Father…of
the substance of the Father…begotten not made, of one substance with the
Father.”14 The council also anathematized Arius and his followers, but Arius
arguments had to be dealt with exegetically and not just by the power of the
state-church for years to come. That is, they had to be defeated in the arena of
ideas and not just under the threat of action by the state.
the use of Greek philosophical categories. The “of the substance of the Father”
is the Greek term homoousios which orthodox adherents were using as opposed
to the Arians’ use of homoiousios which merely denoted the Son’s likeness in
Greek words only once or twice in his refutation of the Arians and prefers to
Arius did not argue in a vacuum or from a priori premises. In fact, Arius
and the Arians argued from Scripture. This made their arguments all the more
compelling. As Helyer points out, “the Arians relied primarily upon Scriptural
passage reads, “The LORD created me at the beginning of his work.” At the
time, Arian and orthodox exegetes did not have the benefit of modern methods
and essentially were unaware that this verse was not to be necessarily linked
with the Logos or Word of God. But in Arius and Athanasius times, everyone
Thought, 32.
(Col 1:15),” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 31, no. 1 (March
1988): 59.
Copyright © Sergio N. Longoria, 2009. All Rights Reserved.
8 author.
No part of this document may be reproduced without written consent from the
located the meaning of the text not so much in the intentions of the human
author, but in the objective reference to divine realities placed there by the
Spirit.18 So that everyone understood that Wisdom, the Logos and the Word
“Wisdom” was the primary designation for Christ.19 And so it was of absolute
expediency to deal with the Arian assertion that this verse implied that
Wisdom, as the Christ, was created at the beginning of God’s work. Meaning,
that God had created Christ rather than Christ being co-eternal with the
Father.
Athanasius’ Refutation
into Scripture and sees how it teaches us to discover the divinity of the Son
starting from the concrete confessions of the Church. Such clues can be
found, for example, in the confessions of the early Church, some of which
ended up recorded as Scripture. One such confession mentions the Father, the
19 Ibid.
Son and the Holy Spirit in the baptismal formulas. But this approach to
Biblical inquiry is novel in Athanasius time; in fact, partially borrowed from the
concluded that the Logos cannot be true God. Although designated as Son of
God and even God in Scripture, the Logos enjoys this status either by
clearly a creature dissimilar in all things from the Father, a perfect creature
and immensely above all other created beings, but a creature nevertheless. In
that the Son of God is a created being, Athanasius uses an impressive amount
of Scripture and rhetoric in his refutation of the Arian heresy. It is not possible
to go into detail here about all of them. It will be sufficient to show an example
21 Ibid.
22 Helyer, “Arius Revisited: The Firstborn over all Creation (Col 1:15),” 59.
23 Ibid.
Copyright © Sergio N. Longoria, 2009. All Rights Reserved.
10author.
No part of this document may be reproduced without written consent from the
Athanasius wrote Second Discourse Against the Arians to deal with this
the heresy around Proverbs 8:22. It can be seen in this work, as pointed out
above, that he makes liberal use of Scripture texts, and presents them along
confessions of the faith. For example, Athanasius rhetorically asks why did the
Church confessions include the Son along with the Father in the performance
Why too in the baptismal consecration is the Son named together with
the Father? For if they say that the Father is not all-sufficient, then their
answer is irreligious, but if He be, for this it is right to say, what is the
need of the Son for framing the worlds, or for the holy laver? For what
fellowship is there between creature and Creator? or why is a thing made
classed with the Maker in the consecration of all of us? or why, as you
hold, is faith in one Creator and in one creature delivered to us? for if it
was that we might be joined to the Godhead, what need of the creature?
but if that we might be united to the Son a creature, superfluous,
according to you, is this naming of the Son in Baptism, for God who
made Him a Son is able to make us sons also. Besides, if the Son be a
creature, the nature of rational creatures being one, no help will come to
creatures from a creature.25
Athanasius response establishes that the Son is in the Father and the Father
in the Son, not because God lacks anything, but because God wills it so. In his
That the Son is named with the Father, not as if the Father were not all-
sufficient, not without meaning, and by accident; but, since He is God’s
Word and own Wisdom, and being His Radiance, is ever with the Father,
therefore it is impossible, if the Father bestows grace, that He should not
give it in the Son, for the Son is in the Father as the radiance in the light.
For, not as if in need, but as a Father in His own Wisdom hath God
founded the earth, and made all things in the Word which is from Him,
and in the Son confirms the Holy Laver.26
Wisdom 9:1 (O God of my fathers, and Lord of mercy, who hast made all things
with thy word). Athanasius then adds, “So it is because the Father is named
in baptism that the Son must also be named along with him.”27
Proverbs 8:22 is geared toward showing that the overall patterns of the
scriptural language clearly point to the Word as God and not as a creature and
that the overall theme of Scripture precisely involves a double account of the
26 Ibid.
28 Ibid., 111.
Copyright © Sergio N. Longoria, 2009. All Rights Reserved.
12author.
No part of this document may be reproduced without written consent from the
Now it is plain that our body is Wisdom’s house, which It took on Itself to
become man; hence consistently does John say, ‘The Word was made
flesh’ and by Solomon Wisdom says of Itself with cautious exactness, not
‘I am a creature,’ but only ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways
for His works,’ yet not ‘created me that I might have being,’ nor ‘because I
have a creature’s beginning and origin.29
Conclusion
controversy of the fourth century by broadly outlining the position of Arius and
Scripture and early Christian practices in his refutation of the Arian position
uses the baptismal formulas of the early Church as part of his refutation
won the struggle. The important thing here is to show that rather than
handle the Word of truth against those who choose to distort its meaning.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Elwell, Walter A., ed. The Concise Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1991. S. v. "Arianism," by V.L.
Walter.
Feazell, Mike. “Is Jesus really God? A Look at the Arian Controversy.”
http://www.christianodyssey.com/god/jesusgod.htm./(accessed October
18, 2009).
Grenz, Stanley J. Theology for the Community of God. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000.
Helyer, Larry R. “Arius Revisited: The Firstborn over all Creation (Col 1:15).”
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 31, no. 1 (March 1988): 59-
67.
Molloy, Michael E. Champion of Truth: The Life of St. Athanasius. New York, NY:
Society of St. Paul, 2003.