The Arian Controversy

 

Alexander, Bishop at Alexandria, maintained the Orthodox position of the church against the Arians. That the Son is de facto co-eternal with the Father. As all scientific theories must show themselves falsifiable to qualify as theories, so too does Athanasius provide a test of falsifiability with his claim that, “…our adversaries must first prove that the Son is not the Son, but a creature made of nothing. Then, when they have done this, they may clamour as they like of His not being before He began to exist.

     In a letter composed by Arius to Eusebius he states, “To the most desired Master, the faithful man of God, the Orthodox Eusebius, Arius, who is unjustly persecuted by Father Alexander, on account of the truth which conquereth all things, which truth thou also shieldeth…For the Bishop wastes and persecutes us exceedingly, and sets in motion every evil against us; so that he has driven us out of the city as godless men, because we do not agree with his assertion made in the public that God always existed [and that], the Son always existed, [and] that the Son has existed as long as the Father has, that the Son has [always] co-existed uncreatedly with God…”.

                                                 Chrystal, James. 1891. Authoritative Christianity. Vol. 1 pp. 178-9

     Arius was a student at Antioch before becoming Presbyter of the church at Alexandria, Egypt. In ca. 318 A.D. Arius entered into a contentious disagreement with the then Bishop of Alexandria, Alexander, regarding the essence and eternality of the Son. Alexander defended the Orthodox position that the Son existed co-eternally with the Father, as such, His divinity would be axiomatic disqualifying Him as a creature. Arius believed that to say the Son was divine would be heresy, as such a belief would imply a polytheism. By contrast, Arius contended that the Son was a created being, created by God the Father, who subsequently created all other beings. Alexander believed that such a view would deny the deity of Christ which is supported by both scripture and by the common practice of the church in its worship. For such a view Arius was deposed and excommunicated, however, he was popular with many of the people, and enlisted the aid of certain Bishops. In 324 A.D. Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, brought with him a letter from the emperor Constantine, urging Alexander and Arius to make amends. Hosius’ report back to Constantine strongly favored the position of Alexander while discrediting the views of Arius. Nevertheless, Hosius, it was thought, made the recommendation to Constantine that a council of Bishops should be called to address the matter. However, that point is contested by some church historians who report that Constantine claimed he had seen a vision instructing him to call a council together to discuss the matter. It should be noted, however, that Constantine cared little about the unity of the Trinity and more about the unity of his empire.

     The council of Nicaea was convened on May 20th 325 A.D. with a disputable number of 318 attendees. Many matters were discussed at the council, but chief among them was the Arian controversy. As Arius was only a Presbyter (elder) he was not permitted to sit in on the council. Therefore, Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, represented Arius at the council. Only a small number represented either side of the argument with the vast majority lamenting the whole issue that they felt could divide the church. The party then which rallied round Alexander in formal opposition to the Arians may be put down at over thirty. Between the convinced Arians and their reasoned opponents lay the great mass of the bishops, two hundred and more, nearly all from Syria and Asia Minor. Of all the Bishops who attended the council, the Arians could only rely on seventeen members who would support their cause.

     What changed for the conservative majority had to do with Eusebius’ defense of Arius and of Arianism. Upon hearing the argument of Eusebius, the council went into an uproar calling him a “blasphemer” and a “heretic.” To counter it, the council determined to enact a creed clarifying, in the strongest terms, the orthodox view of the church on the matter. The Creed of Nicaea read in part, 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, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten (γεννηθέντα), not made, being of one substance (ὁμοούσιον, consubstantialem) with the Father. At the time, Athanasius held the office of Deacon but would later become Bishop and take up the fight of Alexander, after his passing, against the Arians and defending Nicaean orthodox doctrine. 

     The particular issue centered around the Arian motto “there was when He was not” referring to the Son.  Athanasius observed, as others also did, that Arius declined to include the noun “time” in his argument. “Why do you not speak out plainly, when you are speaking of time, and say, ‘There was a time when the Word was not’? No doubt the word ‘time’ is carefully avoided because you are afraid of alarming the minds of simple folk. But your meaning and opinion are too evident to be disguised or concealed. For time is really what you mean when you omit the word, and only say, ‘There was when,’ instead of ‘There was a time when He was not;’ and ‘He was not before He was begotten,’ instead of ‘before the time when He was begotten.’” Gregory of Nazianzus also addressed this same issue by contending that the Father and the Son are equally eternal in existence. How could the Son be the creator of time and also be subject to it?  The Arians held that, as He is a created being He would have to be subject to time just as we are.

     Furthermore, because those who are begotten into this world once did not exist, there must have been a point when the Son also did not exist. But Gregory argued that to make such a claim was to argue different realities. What the Arians were essentially doing was confusing contingent being with necessary being. Most things which exist do so contingently, that is, their existence is predicated on the existence of something or someone else. In other words, it is possible for them to not exist. Those things which exist necessarily have their existence in and of themselves, in other words, it is impossible for them not to exist. Shapes and numbers are said to exist necessarily, but shapes and numbers do not create anything. God the Father is said to exist in this fashion, necessarily, as does the Son. Therefore, the Son cannot be subject to time, and at the same time be ruler over it. Such a notion would violate the law of non-contradiction which states that you cannot not have A, and yet have A in the same sense to the same extent. The generation of the Son is not like that of a man, which requires an existence after that of the Father, but the Son of God must, as such, have been begotten of the Father from all eternity. As regards man’s nature it is impossible, as his nature is finite, but that his generation should be in time; but the nature of the Son of God, being infinite and eternal, His generation must, of necessity, be infinite and eternal too.

     Arius was employed as Professor of Exegesis, his contention that the Son was created was based on his exegetical work of scripture. He appealed to such passages as, Proverbs 8:22; Acts 2:36; Mark 13:32; John 14:28, 17:3; Colossians 1:15 et al, in support of his view. Arius fled to an erroneous LXX rendering of Proverbs 8:22a and placed these words into Christ’s mouth, “The Lord made (κτίζω) me….”  Athanasius himself accepted the same Greek word and even applied it to Christ, but he took it in the sense of an appointing to a position. To him the verse is a declaration that the Father had “made” His Son the Head over all creation. Beale argues that the Hebrew word, קָנָה qânâ, means “possessed,” not “created.”  In actuality, how the word is translated is based on the context of the verse.  If the context suggests the constructing of some- thing, then “made” would be appropriate. If the context suggests something positional, such as proper ownership, appointment, or the establishment of some-thing, then “possessed” would be appropriate.

     To counter Arius, the Orthodox church appealed to such verses as, John 1:1; 1 Corinthians 2:8; Philippians 2:6; Hebrews 1:3, 13:8 et al. Regarding John 1:1, the verb “was”, not ‘came into existence,’ but was already in existence before the creation of the world. The generation of the Word or Son of God is thus thrown back into eternity. Thus, Paul calls Him (Col. 1:15) ‘the firstborn of every creature,’ or (more accurately translated) ‘begotten before all creation,’ like ‘begotten before all worlds’ in the Nicene creed. Comp. Heb. 1:8, 7:3; Rev. 1:8. On these passages is based the doctrine of the Eternal Generation of the Son. John says distinctly that the Son or Word was existing before time began, i.e. from all eternity. Furthermore, the verb eimi is a first-person singular which has been translated as “was,” though it actually means “be”, or “to be” as in “to exist”. Some translators have claimed that this verb is actually third person. In the Greek, the verb is in the present tense (Lit. “be”), and in the emphatic it is most frequently translated as “I Am” or “I exist.” “I” is a personal pronoun utilized as a first-person singular. Whether first person or third, the verb itself remains unchanged, it merely determines how the statement itself should be understood. So, although archē (beginning) can refer to time in this passage, it is actually utilized in reference to a person, “In the beginning,” “I Am”. 

     The case ending, in the Greek, helps us to determine what the subject or the object is in relation to the verb. The verb ἦν (“be” or “to be”) appears three times in this passage and has been translated as “was.” In English, the tense of the verb is past, but in the Greek the verb is always present tense. Regardless of whether ἦν is past or present tense, it still exists as a verb. Because the case ending of λόγος is nominative, this would indicate that the “word” is the subject while the case ending of θεόν is accusative, indicating that “God” is the direct object. The preposition πρὸς, translated “with” is a term of proximity. Literally understood as the Word being “toward” or “face to face” with God. The preposition qualifies the verb “was” (lit. “to be”) indicating that God the Son (ὁ λόγος) is “face to face” with God (πρὸς θεόν) the Father at the beginning (Ἐν ἀρχῇ).

     Finally, various terms have been utilized by Historians and Theologians alike on this subject. Hypostasis (or Hypostatic Union), Consubstantiality, Homousius, and Homoiousius. One iota really does make all the difference. The Council at Nicaea settled on the term Homousius (“of the same nature”) to define their view on the essence of the Son to the Father. While the Arians preferred the term Homoiousius (“of a similar nature”). The difference in the spelling comes down to one letter in the Greek, the iota. Athanasius commented on what the word Homousius was intended to entail, “That the Son is not only like to the Father, but that, as his image, he is the same as the Father; that he is of the Father; and that the resemblance of the Son to the Father, and his immutability, are different from ours… his generation is different from that of human nature; that the Son is not only like to the Father, but inseparable from the substance of the Father, that he and the Father are one and the same”. This word, it was believed, was the best suited to confute the Arian heresy.

     The term “hypostasis” referred to the Son being of one “substance”, “nature” or “essence” with the Father. “Hypostatic Union” argued that in Christ He possessed two natures in one person, His humanity and His divinity making Him fully human, to pay the penalty for sin, and fully God to become the perfect sacrifice for sin, without mixture or confusion. The term “consubstantial” was an older term and was associated with the two previous, and which simply indicated that Jesus Christ is of the same nature as the Father, essentially the same as Homousius.  In conclusion, the two-word phrase “eternal generation” was derived from two words, “begotten” and “monogenes.”  Begotten, comes from the word gennao and means “to be born or conceived.”  The word monogenes comes from two words, mono meaning “one” or “only” and genos meaning, “one of a kind” or “unique.”  As such, monogenes consistently denotes “uniqueness,” even in post-apostolic literature. This same word (monogenes) occurs five times in scripture, and all in John’s gospel. Many conservative scholars believe that this word depicts the idea of “one and only” and nothing else and is more prevalent in newer translations. This would indicate that the church today recognizes what the church councils laid down several centuries ago, that the Son is eternal in existence, one in nature with the Father, fully human and fully divine. 

Athanasius of Alexandria, The Orations of S. Athanasius against the Arians. London: Griffith, Farran, Okeden, & Welsh, 1893

Beale, David. Historical Theology In-Depth, Vol. 1: Themes and Contexts of Doctrinal Development since the First Century. Greenville, South Carolina: Bob Jones University Press, 2013

Percival, Henry R. Excursus on the Word Homousios in The Seven Ecumenical Councils, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 14, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1900

Plummer, A. The Gospel according to St John, with Maps, Notes and Introduction, The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902

Robertson, Archibald T. Prolegomena, in St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 4, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series. New York: Christian Literature Company. 1892

Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., The Nicene Creed, in The Seven Ecumenical Councils. Translated by Henry R. Percival, vol. 14, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. 1900