| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"arah" |
| Date: |
17 Dec 2007 03:48:50 AM |
| Object: |
ARIANISM VS THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA |
Arianism Versus the Council of Nicaea
By Brother John Raymond
Introduction
Arianism with its fundamental Trinitarian controversy must not be
looked upon as an isolated theory by its founder Arius.
Its appeal, which began in Alexandria and spread through the whole
Empire, must be seen in the context of the times. The Church emerged
in a Jewish and Greek world. The question occupying this non-Christian
world was the contrast between the "One and the Many, between the
ultimate unity that lay behind the visible universe and the
incalculable variety that exists in the world (Ward 1955, 38)."
The relationship between God and the world had to be solved. The Jews
proposed a supreme God who created by His word. It was an idea of a
mediating "Word or Wisdom - the Word which is pronounced, the Wisdom
which is created - whereby the Father communicated Himself to man and
took possession of him (Guitton 1965, 81)."
The Greeks could not see how a finite and changeable world could come
from an eternal and changeless God. They proposed the idea of a
"mediating Intelligence or even Word, a first emanation of the first
principle which reduced the distance between God and the world
(Guitton 1965, 81)."
The primitive Church had to "reconcile the notions they had inherited
from Judaism with those they had derived from philosophy. Jew and
Greek had to meet in Christ. They had to find an answer that would
agree with the revelation they had received from Christ as recorded in
the scriptures (Ward 1955, 39)."
This struggle for a reconciliation of thought reached its climax with
the Arian controversy. The Church responded with the First Ecumenical
Council of Nicaea that brought together Scriptural and philosophical
thought to explain the Trinity. The Council did triumph over Arianism
but only after fifty years of bitter battling. Imperial support and
confusion in theological terminology were the principal reasons for
such a long drawn out battle as we will see.
Arius and His Teaching
Arius, who was born in Egypt in 256 A.D., was a parish priest in
Alexandria. He had studied under St. Lucian of Antioch, the founder of
the school of Antioch, who had earlier been condemned for holding that
Christ was only a man; although he was later reconciled. He is called
the "Father of Arianism" because "Arius and almost all the 4th-century
Arian theologians were his students.
Calling themselves Lucianists and Collucianists, they developed his
adoptionist and subordinationist tendencies into a full heresy
(Harkins 1967, 1057, 1058)."
With this background Arius struggled with the question of the Trinity.
His teaching in Alexandria was the following: "Personal distinctions
were not eternally present within the nature of God. . . the Godhead
Himself was responsible for them. . . Identifying the eternal Godhead
with the Father and regarding the Logos ('Logos' is simply a Greek
word for 'word') as no more than a power or quality of the Father, he
said that before time began the Father had created the Son by the
power of the Word to be His agent in creation.
The Son was not therefore to be identified with the Godhead, He was
only God in a derivative sense, and since there was once when he did
not exist He could not be eternal. Arius stressed the subordination of
the Logos to such an extent as to affirm His creaturehood, to deny His
eternity and to assert His capacity for change and suffering (Ward
1955, 41)." This teaching of Arius "drove the distinctions outside the
Deity and thus destroyed the Trinity. It meant solving the difficulty
of the One and the Many by proposing a theory of one Supreme Being and
two inferior deities (Ward 1955, 43)." The Person of Christ "belonged
to no order of being that the Church could recognize. . . He was
neither God nor man (Ward 1955, 42)."
Arius Versus the Alexandrian Bishop
Arius' views began to spread among the people and the Alexandrian
clergy. Alexander the Bishop called a meeting of his priests and
deacons. The Bishop insisted on the unity of the Godhead. Arius
continued to argue that since the Son was begotten of the Father then
at some point He began to exist. Therefore there was a time when the
Son did not exist. Arius refused to submit to the Bishop and continued
to spread his teaching. Alexander called a synod of Bishops of Egypt
and Libya. Of the hundred Bishops who attended eighty voted for the
condemnation and exile of Arius. After the synod Alexander wrote
letters to the other Bishops refuting Arius' views. In doing so the
Bishop used the term "homoousios" to describe the Father and Son as
being of one substance. Alexander "used a term which was to become the
keyword of the whole controversy (Ward 1955, 43, 44)."
With the decision of the synod Arius fled to Palestine. Some of the
Bishops there, especially Eusebius of Caesarea, supported him. From
here Arius continued his journey to Nicomedia in Asia Minor. The
Bishop of that city, Eusebius, had studied under Lucian of Antioch. He
became Arius' most influential supporter. From this city Arius
enlisted the support of other Bishops, many of whom had studied under
Lucian. His supporters held their own synod calling Arius' views
orthodox and condemning Bishop Alexander of Alexandria. Arius seemed
to have good grounds for this condemnation. The term homoousios was
rejected by Alexander's own predecessor Dionysus when arguing against
the Sabellians (who claimed the Father and Son were identical). All
this controversy was taking place just as the Church was emerging from
Roman oppression.
Constantine and Ossius
With the rise of Constantine to power Christianity became the religion
of the Roman Empire. Constantine had politically united the Empire but
he was distressed to find a divided Christianity. Constantine,
certainly not understanding the significance of the controversy, sent
Ossius his main ecclesiastical adviser with letters to both Alexander
and Arius. In the letters he tried to reconcile them by saying that
their disagreement was merely just a matter of words. Both of them
really were in agreement on major doctrines and neither were involved
in heresy. The letters failed to have an effect.
In 325 A.D. Ossius presided over a Council of the Orient in Antioch
that was attended by fifty-nine bishops, forty-six of whom would soon
attend the Council of Nicaea. This Council in Antioch was a forerunner
of the latter Council in Nicaea. Under the influence of Ossius a new
Church practice was inaugurated - that of issuing a creedal statement.
At this Council Arianism was condemned, a profession of faith
resembling the Alexandrian creed was promulgated and three Bishops who
refused to agree with the teaching of this Council were provisionally
excommunicated until the Council of Nicaea.
Roman Emperor Calls Council of his Church (Universal or Catholic
Church of Rome)
It was the year 325 AD in what is now Turkey and in the summer of that
year, probably under the suggestion of Ossius, Constantine called for
a general council of the Church at Nicaea in Bithynia. That an Emperor
should invoke a Council should not be considered unusual since in
Hellenistic thought he "`was given by God supreme power in things
material and spiritual (Davis 1987, 56).'"
The Council of Nicaea
The General Council was well attended by the major sees of the Eastern
Empire. Also some Western Bishops were present. Because of old age and
sickness Pope Sylvester did not attend but sent two papal legates. The
total number of Bishops who attended the Council has been disputed.
Eusebius of Ceasarea who attended it claimed 250; Athanasius also in
attendance mentioned 300; after the Council a symbolic number of 318
was used; modern scholars put the number at 220.
If there were minutes taken of the Council proceedings they are no
longer in existence. We know from the writings of Rufinus that "daily
sessions were held and that Arius was often summoned before the
assembly; his arguments attentively considered. The majority,
especially those who were confessors of the Faith, energetically
declared themselves against the impious doctrines of Arius (LeClercq
1913, 45)."
Concerning the Creed that was drafted at the Council "Eusebius of
Caesarea, Athanasius of Alexandria and Philostorgius have given
divergent accounts of how this Creed was drafted (LeClercq 1967,
792)." But from one reconstruction of the events Eusebius of Nicomedia
offered a creed that was favorable to Arian views. This creed was
rejected by the Council. Eusebius of Caesarea proposed the baptismal
creed used in Caesarea. Although accepted it does not seem to form the
basis of the Council's Creed. Attempts were made to construct a creed
using only scriptural terms. These creeds proved insufficient to
exclude the Arian position. "Finally, it seems, a Syro-Palestinian
creed was used as the basis for a new creedal statement . . . The
finished creed was preserved in the writings of Athanasius, of the
historian Socrates and of Basil of Caesarea and in the acts of the
Council of Chalcedon of 451 (Davis 1987, 59)." When the creed was
finished eighteen Bishops still opposed it. Constantine at this point
intervened to threaten with exile anyone who would not sign for it.
Two Libyan Bishops and Arius still refused to accept the creed. All
three were exiled.
The Creed and an Analysis
Some parts of the literal translation of the Nicaea Creed are as
follows:
"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things
visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten
of the Father, that is, of the substance (ousia) of the Father, God of
God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the
same substance (homoousios) with the Father, through whom all things
were made both in heaven and on earth . . . Those who say: `There was
a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten;' and
that `He was made out of nothing;' or who maintain that `He is of
another hypostasis or another substance,' or that `the Son of God is
created, or mutable, or subject to change,' the Catholic Church
anathematizes (LeClercq 1913, 45)."
The Arians were very clever in twisting phrases in creedal statements
to reflect their own doctrine. The Son being "begotten of the Father"
was seen by them as saying that the Son was created from nothing. But
to counter their doctrine the phrase "begotten not made" was added to
the creed that totally ruled out their position of the Son having a
beginning. Another Arian teaching was that the Son was God by grace
and name only. The creedal statement "true God of true God" was an
affirmation that the Son was really truly God against this Arian
position. The most important statement in the creed that affirms "that
the Son shares the same being as the Father and is therefore fully
divine" was the phrase "of one substance (homoousios) with the
Father" (Davis 1987, 61). This statement totally destroyed the Arian
view of the Son as an intermediary being between God and Creation.
In case the creed was not enough to end the Arian controversy
anathemas were attached directly condemning Arian positions. The Arian
denial of the Son's co-eternity with the Father is expressed in the
two phrases "there was when the Son of God was not" and "before He was
begotten He was not." The Arian belief in the Son being created out of
nothing is expressed in the phrase "He came into being from things
that are not." The Arian doctrine that the Son being a creature was
subject to moral changeability and only remained virtuous by an act of
the will is expressed in the phrase "He is mutable or alterable."
Finally the Arian position of the Son as subordinate to the Father and
not really God is expressed in the phrase "He is of a different
hypostasis or substance." With these specific anathemas against them
the Arians and their heresy seemed to be finished.
Terminology Problem
With the Eastern Church using Greek and the Western Church using Latin
misunderstandings were bound to arise over theological terminology.
Once instance of confusion is the statement "He is of a different
hypostasis or substance." The two words in the Eastern Church were
seen to be synonymous. In the West hypostasis meant person. So for a
Westerner the Council would look as if it was condemning the statement
that the Son was a different Person from the Father, which would
clearly be erroneous. Only later would the East come to distinguish
hypostasis from substance (ousia) as in the West. This instance of
confusion "points up the terminological difficulty which continued to
bedevil Eastern theology and to confuse the West about the East's
position (Davis 1987, 63)."
A second and very important termed used by the Council was homoousios.
At that time this word could have three possible meanings. "First, it
could be generic; of one substance could be said of two individual
men, both of whom share human nature while remaining individuals.
Second, it could signify numerical identity, that is, that the Father
and the Son are identical in concrete being. Finally, it could refer
to material things, as two pots are of the same substance because both
are made of the same clay (Davis 1987, 61)." The Council intended the
first meaning to stress the equality of the Son with the Father. If
the second meaning for the word was taken to be the Council's
intention it would mean that the Father and Son were identical and
indistinguishable - clearly a Sabellian heresy. The third meaning gave
the word a materialistic tendency that would infer that the Father and
Son are parts of the same stuff.
Along with these possible misunderstandings of the meaning of the word
homoousios the history of the word is closely associated with
heresies. The word was originally used by the Gnostics. The word had
even been condemned at the Council of Antioch in 268 regarding its use
by the Adoptionist Paul of Samosata. Another factor making the word
unpopular was that it was never used in Sacred Scripture.
The Council's defeat by Arianism
It is not surprising that with its use of the word homoousios the
Council could be called into question. Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia
gained the confidence of Emperor Constantine. He convinced Constantine
that the Council's use of the word homoousios was Sabellian (Father
and Son were identical). The Emperor now favored the Arians. With the
death of Constantine the Empire was divided between his sons. Constans
who ruled in the West favored Nicaea while his brother Constantius who
ruled the East was anti-Nicaea. Supporters of Nicaea in the East
especially Bishop Athanasius were deposed and excommunicated by the
Dedication Council of Antioch. This Council directly attacked the
Nicaea Council by promulgating its own creed that omitted the phrases
"from the substance of the Father" and "homoousios." Some attempts
were made to find a substitute word for homoousios. As many as
fourteen Councils were held between 341 and 360 "in which every shade
of heretical subterfuge found expression . . . The term `like in
substance,' homoiousion . . . had been employed merely to get rid of
the Nicene formula (Barry 1913, 709)." Not all Arians, or their new
name of Semi-Arian, agreed with this new word. One group emphasized
that the Father and Son were "dissimilar" or anomoios. Another group
used the word "similar" or homoios to describe the Father and Son
relationship.
With the death of Constans in 350 his anti-Nicaea brother Constantius
became sole ruler of the Empire. The new Emperor demanded that all the
Bishops of his Empire should agree with the homoios formula. In 359 he
summoned two Councils, one in the East at Seleucia and the other in
the West at Rimini. Both Councils, under the Emperor's threats and
with rationalizing arguments aimed at calming consciences, were
induced to sign the homoios formula. "This Homoean victory was
confirmed and imposed on the whole Church by the Council of
Constantinople in the following year" which condemned the terms
homoousios, homoousios and anomoios (Ward 1955, 57). It seemed that
the Arians had triumphed over the Nicaea creed.
The Final Battle
The seeming triumph of homoeism was short lived. First it gained its
popularity solely by imperial imposition. With the death of
Constantius in 361 it collapsed. Second by persecuting both homoousios
and homoousios supporters alike "it brought about better understanding
and, ultimately, reconciliation between the two groups (DeClercq 1967,
793)." Athanasius an ardent defender of the homoousios position and
following the Alexandrian train of thought had begun his reasoning
with the unity of God. From their he had concluded that the Son and
Spirit Who shared that unity must have the same essential substance.
The Cappadocian Fathers Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzen and
Gregory of Nyssa were associated with Homoiousians. The point of
departure for them as well as the Antiochenes had been the individual
aspect of the divine personality. With the help of Athanasius they
came to the realization that the three Persons as God must share the
same identical substance also. By using the term homoousios the
Cappadocian Fathers "had never meant to deny the unity but only to
preserve the distinction of persons (Ward 1955, 58)." Both came to the
conclusion that although they used different terms what they meant to
say was the same. The Cappadocian Fathers came to accept the term
homoousios. Athanasius, on the other hand, accepted the Cappadocian
formula for the Trinity - one substance (ousia) in three persons
(hypostaseis).
At about the same time as Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers were
reaching an agreement another development was taking place. The East
and the West were arriving at a better understanding of each others
theological terminology. At the Synod of Alexandria in 362 the Nicene
Creed was re-affirmed, the terms ousia and hypostasis were explained
and Macedonianism (sometimes referred to as another form of Semi-
Arianism in its subordination of the Holy Spirit) was condemned. Under
the Eastern Emperor Valens (364-378) homoeism still had imperial
favor.
In the West Ambrose of Milan led the fight for the Nicene Creed. At
the Council of Sirmium in 378, with the support of the Western Emperor
Gratian, six Arian Bishops were deposed. A series of laws were passed
in 379 and 380 the Emperor prohibited Arianism in the West.
In the East with the succession of Valens by a Nicene sympathizing
Emperor Theodosius I all exiled Bishops under Valens to return to
their sees. In 381 he convoked a regional Council at Constantinople.
The first canon from this Council states that "`the faith of the 318
fathers who assembled at Nicaea in Bithynia is not to be made void,
but shall continue to be established (Davis 1987, 126).'" In 380 the
Emperor Theodosius outlawed Arianism. The last victory over Arianism
came in 381 with the Council of Constantinople in the East and the
Council of Aquileia in the West. Both of them "sealed the final
adoption of the faith of Nicaea by the entire Church (DeClercq 1967,
793)."
Conclusion
The Council of Nicaea was victorious in the end. It took over fifty
years of bitter battling between the upholders of the Council of
Nicaea and those against it. The Arian heresy seemed finished when the
Council so specifically anathematized their teachings one by one. The
Arian doctrines condemned were the following: The Son was created by
the Father out of nothing. Thus the Son was not God in the strict
sense but by grace and in name only. The Father and Son did not share
the same substance. The Son being a creature was subject to moral
changeability and only remained virtuous by an act of the will.
Terminology difficulties had kept the door open for the Arians to
continue after the Council. This was especially true with the term
homoousios (of the same substance) used by the Council to describe the
relationship between the Father and the Son. The Arians took advantage
of one of the term's other meaning, that of identity, to claim that
the Council said the Father and Son were identical thereby
invalidating the Council. The Arians then started producing their own
creeds either eliminating this term or substituting another for it.
This lead to the breaking up of the Arians into diverse groups
according to which term they supported - anomoios (dissimilar),
homoios (similar) or homoiousion (like in substance).
It is obvious that Imperial involvement in the controversy determined
at any given moment whether the Council of Nicaea or the Arianism was
dominating the controversy. With the imposition of the term homoios on
the Church by the Emperor Constantius the work of the Council of
Nicaea seemed doomed. But the popularity of this term died with the
Emperor. The persecution of both the Homoiousians and the Homoiousians
forced them to begin to dialogue. With the two great representatives
of these positions, St. Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers,
finding theological grounds for their eventual agreement the way was
paved for the triumph of the Council of Nicaea. This incident later
coupled with Eastern and Western Emperors who were pro-Nicaea led to
the final Arian downfall.
.
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: ARIANISM VS THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA |
18 Dec 2007 07:53:43 PM |
|
|
At least ARIUS had the semi-good sense not to claim that the
Jewish prophet Christians talk about was literally the
SON of "God".
Trinitarianism is an absurd nonsense. -- L.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
