The challenge of Monarchianism returned in a more acute form in the violent ecclesiastical controversies of the fourth century. It was then that the threat of Arianism was combated and that the church’s Trinitarian formula was established at the ecumenical councils held in Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381).
There is also a purely historical connection between Arius, the fourth century’s most embattled heretic, and Dynamic Monarchianism. Arius, who was a presbyter in Alexandria ca. 310, was a disciple of Lucian of Antioch, who, in turn, was a follower of Paul of Samosata.
Like the Monarchians, Arius proceeded on the basis of a philosophical concept of God. God could not possibly impart His essence to anyone else, in view of the fact that He is one and indivisible. It is inconceivable that either the Logos or the Son could have come to be apart from an act of creation. Thus, as Arius said it, Christ could not be God in the true sense of the term; He must rather be a part of creation. As a result, Arius thought of Christ as a “middle being,” as less than God and more than man. He also said that Christ was a created being, having been created either in time or before time. Arius therefore denied the preexistence of the Son in all eternity and attributed divine attributes to Him only in an honorary sense, based on the special grace Christ shared and the righteousness He manifested. “The Son was not always, for when all things emerged out of nothingness and all created essence came into being, then it was that God’s Logos also came forth out of nothing. There was a time when He was not (ηv ποτε οτε ουκ ηv), and He was not until He was brought forth, for even He had a beginning, when He was created. For God was alone, and at that time there was neither Logos nor Wisdom. When God decided to create us, He first produced someone whom He called Logos and Wisdom and Son, and we were created through Him.” (Athanasius, Orationes contra Arianos, I, 5)
Arius’ own bishop, Alexander, came out against him and excommunicated him on the ground of heresy ca. 320. The conflict soon enveloped the entire East, and Arius received support from Eusebius of Nicomedia, among others. In view of the fact that this struggle jeopardized the unity of the entire church and, at the same time, the inner strength of the Roman Empire, Emperor Constantine decided to involve himself in it in an effort to get the matter settled. First he sent his court bishop, Hosius, to Alexandria to act as a mediator, and when that strategem failed he called a general council to be held in Nicaea in the year 325. Bishops from all over the empire were invited to attend.
Three different points of view were presented at the Council of Nicaea. There were, in the first place, a small number of pure Arians (led by Eusebius of Nicomedia). In the second place there were those who opposed Arianism, chief among whom was Bishop Alexander of Alexandria and his deacon Athanasius. The above-named Hosius of Cordova also belonged to this party. Finally, there was a mediating group, represented in particular by Eusebius of Caesarea. The formula which the council finally accepted was presented by him. But after this formula was approved, it was altered in such a way that it became more specifically anti-Arian. Thus it was, for example, that the expression ομοουσιος (of the same substance) was inserted into the formula through the intervention of Hosius. This was done in order to emphasize the opposition to Arius. The Nicene formula was constructed, primarily, on the basis of a symbol then in current use. It is possible that this symbol was the baptismal formula then used in Caesarea, to which new facets, conditioned by the polemical situation, were added. A final addition was an anathema against all of Arius’ teachings. The so-called Nicene Creed is not identical with the formula accepted at the Council of Nicaea, but it was given its final form before the end of the fourth century. It was approved by the Council of Constantinople (381) and the Council of Chalcedon (451). The Nicene Creed was also based on an older baptismal formula, and it includes a number of the anti-Arian expressions found in the Nicene decision.
Opposition to Arius was based partly on his doctrine of God and, in connection with this, partly on his doctrine of Christ. Two particular criticisms were directed at Arius: one, he introduced polytheistic ideas and the worship of creation; two, he destroyed the basis of salvation by denying the divinity of Christ.
Arius assigned the Logos to the category of created beings. Because he also felt that the Logos should be worshiped as a divine being, it was possible to criticize Arius for introducing idolatry. Creation was placed side by side with the Creator and worshiped as divine. If Christ is different from God, but nevertheless is God, this implies the worship of two Gods. Arius also spoke of other semidivine beings.
Christ, according to Arius, was a created being whose existence began in time or before time. He thereby rejected the teaching of the divinity of Christ and His birth in eternity. The Christ whom Arius proclaimed could not have created the world; neither can He be the Lord of creation. Arius’ Christology thereby repudiated Christ’s work of redemption, and this became the main point at issue between Arius and his opponents. If Christ is not of the same substance as God the Father, He can neither possess nor transmit the full knowledge of God. And salvation consists, among other things, in this, that Christ has presented us with this true knowledge of God. If He is not one with God, He could not do this.
If Christ is not the Lord of creation, neither could He carry out the work of redemption. If He is not God, He cannot make man divine. The real meaning of salvation is that it brings life and immortality to man. God’s Son in human form could have conquered death, made atonement for guilty man, and restored man to life and immortality only if He is of God’s own essence.
This Christology, which was hammered out during the struggle against Arianism, has been summarized in the Nicene formula, above all in the following sentences about Christ: “the only-begotten … begotten of His father … God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God; begotten, not made; being of one substance with the Father.” The final anathema against Arius contained these pertinent words: “Those who say that there was a time when He was not, and before He was generated He was not, and that He came forth from that which is not, or who say of Him that He is of another hypostasis or essence, or say that God’s Son is created or changeable, all such are condemned by the universal church.” An overzealous defender of the Nicene point of view was Marcellus of Ancyra (d. 374). He taught that the Logos, who was of the same substance as God, could be called “Son” only from the time of the Incarnation. He also believed that Christ’s Sonship will cease at a certain time and that the Logos will then be reincorporated into the Father. The words “whose kingdom shall have no end” were inserted into the Nicene Creed in order to counterbalance the teaching of Marcellus at this point. He championed an “economy” concept of the Trinity with his conception of an “expansion” of divinity to the Son and the Spirit. The Arians, who opposed him, criticized him for being Sabellian, but in contrast to the modalists he drew a sharp line of distinction between the Logos and Him from whom the Logos came.
One of Marcellus’ disciples, Photinus of Sirmium (d. 376), drew inferences from Marcellus’ theology which made it appear as though he (Photinus) supported the adoptionist, or dynamistic, Christology. Thus it was that the older polemical literature often referred to “Photianism” as a designation for this point of view. Photinus thought of the Logos as being identical with the Father, while Christ was considered to be Mary’s son—and no more.
Long theological controversies followed the Council of Nicaea (325). At the outset the Nicene decision met with strong opposition. The original Arian group, which subsequently adopted a mediating position and which formed around Eusebius of Nicomedia, grew increasingly influential. Even the emperor went over to this point of view; Athanasius was forced to leave his bishop’s office. In the middle of the fourth century (at the Synod of Ancyra, 358) a new mediating party, which derived its name from the Greek ομοιουσιος (of similar substance), appeared. But a number of theologians who were active during the last part of the century, chief among them the so-called “Cappadocians” (about whom more will be said later), came out strongly in favor of the Nicene decision and developed it even further (the proto-Nicene orthodoxy). Some of the "similar substance” proponents went over to this position, from which they were not far removed even before they took this step. And thus it was that the ground was prepared for the final victory at the Council of Constantinople in 381 (later referred to as the Second Ecumenical Council), where the Nicene decision was confirmed anew.
There is also a purely historical connection between Arius, the fourth century’s most embattled heretic, and Dynamic Monarchianism. Arius, who was a presbyter in Alexandria ca. 310, was a disciple of Lucian of Antioch, who, in turn, was a follower of Paul of Samosata.
Like the Monarchians, Arius proceeded on the basis of a philosophical concept of God. God could not possibly impart His essence to anyone else, in view of the fact that He is one and indivisible. It is inconceivable that either the Logos or the Son could have come to be apart from an act of creation. Thus, as Arius said it, Christ could not be God in the true sense of the term; He must rather be a part of creation. As a result, Arius thought of Christ as a “middle being,” as less than God and more than man. He also said that Christ was a created being, having been created either in time or before time. Arius therefore denied the preexistence of the Son in all eternity and attributed divine attributes to Him only in an honorary sense, based on the special grace Christ shared and the righteousness He manifested. “The Son was not always, for when all things emerged out of nothingness and all created essence came into being, then it was that God’s Logos also came forth out of nothing. There was a time when He was not (ηv ποτε οτε ουκ ηv), and He was not until He was brought forth, for even He had a beginning, when He was created. For God was alone, and at that time there was neither Logos nor Wisdom. When God decided to create us, He first produced someone whom He called Logos and Wisdom and Son, and we were created through Him.” (Athanasius, Orationes contra Arianos, I, 5)
Arius’ own bishop, Alexander, came out against him and excommunicated him on the ground of heresy ca. 320. The conflict soon enveloped the entire East, and Arius received support from Eusebius of Nicomedia, among others. In view of the fact that this struggle jeopardized the unity of the entire church and, at the same time, the inner strength of the Roman Empire, Emperor Constantine decided to involve himself in it in an effort to get the matter settled. First he sent his court bishop, Hosius, to Alexandria to act as a mediator, and when that strategem failed he called a general council to be held in Nicaea in the year 325. Bishops from all over the empire were invited to attend.
Three different points of view were presented at the Council of Nicaea. There were, in the first place, a small number of pure Arians (led by Eusebius of Nicomedia). In the second place there were those who opposed Arianism, chief among whom was Bishop Alexander of Alexandria and his deacon Athanasius. The above-named Hosius of Cordova also belonged to this party. Finally, there was a mediating group, represented in particular by Eusebius of Caesarea. The formula which the council finally accepted was presented by him. But after this formula was approved, it was altered in such a way that it became more specifically anti-Arian. Thus it was, for example, that the expression ομοουσιος (of the same substance) was inserted into the formula through the intervention of Hosius. This was done in order to emphasize the opposition to Arius. The Nicene formula was constructed, primarily, on the basis of a symbol then in current use. It is possible that this symbol was the baptismal formula then used in Caesarea, to which new facets, conditioned by the polemical situation, were added. A final addition was an anathema against all of Arius’ teachings. The so-called Nicene Creed is not identical with the formula accepted at the Council of Nicaea, but it was given its final form before the end of the fourth century. It was approved by the Council of Constantinople (381) and the Council of Chalcedon (451). The Nicene Creed was also based on an older baptismal formula, and it includes a number of the anti-Arian expressions found in the Nicene decision.
Opposition to Arius was based partly on his doctrine of God and, in connection with this, partly on his doctrine of Christ. Two particular criticisms were directed at Arius: one, he introduced polytheistic ideas and the worship of creation; two, he destroyed the basis of salvation by denying the divinity of Christ.
Arius assigned the Logos to the category of created beings. Because he also felt that the Logos should be worshiped as a divine being, it was possible to criticize Arius for introducing idolatry. Creation was placed side by side with the Creator and worshiped as divine. If Christ is different from God, but nevertheless is God, this implies the worship of two Gods. Arius also spoke of other semidivine beings.
Christ, according to Arius, was a created being whose existence began in time or before time. He thereby rejected the teaching of the divinity of Christ and His birth in eternity. The Christ whom Arius proclaimed could not have created the world; neither can He be the Lord of creation. Arius’ Christology thereby repudiated Christ’s work of redemption, and this became the main point at issue between Arius and his opponents. If Christ is not of the same substance as God the Father, He can neither possess nor transmit the full knowledge of God. And salvation consists, among other things, in this, that Christ has presented us with this true knowledge of God. If He is not one with God, He could not do this.
If Christ is not the Lord of creation, neither could He carry out the work of redemption. If He is not God, He cannot make man divine. The real meaning of salvation is that it brings life and immortality to man. God’s Son in human form could have conquered death, made atonement for guilty man, and restored man to life and immortality only if He is of God’s own essence.
This Christology, which was hammered out during the struggle against Arianism, has been summarized in the Nicene formula, above all in the following sentences about Christ: “the only-begotten … begotten of His father … God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God; begotten, not made; being of one substance with the Father.” The final anathema against Arius contained these pertinent words: “Those who say that there was a time when He was not, and before He was generated He was not, and that He came forth from that which is not, or who say of Him that He is of another hypostasis or essence, or say that God’s Son is created or changeable, all such are condemned by the universal church.” An overzealous defender of the Nicene point of view was Marcellus of Ancyra (d. 374). He taught that the Logos, who was of the same substance as God, could be called “Son” only from the time of the Incarnation. He also believed that Christ’s Sonship will cease at a certain time and that the Logos will then be reincorporated into the Father. The words “whose kingdom shall have no end” were inserted into the Nicene Creed in order to counterbalance the teaching of Marcellus at this point. He championed an “economy” concept of the Trinity with his conception of an “expansion” of divinity to the Son and the Spirit. The Arians, who opposed him, criticized him for being Sabellian, but in contrast to the modalists he drew a sharp line of distinction between the Logos and Him from whom the Logos came.
One of Marcellus’ disciples, Photinus of Sirmium (d. 376), drew inferences from Marcellus’ theology which made it appear as though he (Photinus) supported the adoptionist, or dynamistic, Christology. Thus it was that the older polemical literature often referred to “Photianism” as a designation for this point of view. Photinus thought of the Logos as being identical with the Father, while Christ was considered to be Mary’s son—and no more.
Long theological controversies followed the Council of Nicaea (325). At the outset the Nicene decision met with strong opposition. The original Arian group, which subsequently adopted a mediating position and which formed around Eusebius of Nicomedia, grew increasingly influential. Even the emperor went over to this point of view; Athanasius was forced to leave his bishop’s office. In the middle of the fourth century (at the Synod of Ancyra, 358) a new mediating party, which derived its name from the Greek ομοιουσιος (of similar substance), appeared. But a number of theologians who were active during the last part of the century, chief among them the so-called “Cappadocians” (about whom more will be said later), came out strongly in favor of the Nicene decision and developed it even further (the proto-Nicene orthodoxy). Some of the "similar substance” proponents went over to this position, from which they were not far removed even before they took this step. And thus it was that the ground was prepared for the final victory at the Council of Constantinople in 381 (later referred to as the Second Ecumenical Council), where the Nicene decision was confirmed anew.
No comments:
Post a Comment