What was wrong with Arius theology?

Before attempting to assess Arius theological concepts within the context of fourth-century Christianity one will have to look closely both into the historical background as well as into the state of progress the orthodox Christian Church had already made by that time concerning Christology and the Trinity. In trying to reconstruct Arius' doctrines we are faced with the problem of having mostly isolated fragments1 preserved by his opponents, the largest number of quotations and texts being extant in Athanasius and Epiphanius. Arius own work has not survived apart from a few fragments of popular songs, perhaps due to Constantines edict, which ordered the destruction of Arius' writings.2 Arius was born into a time when Christian orthodoxy was busy refining its language about Christ, and philosophical differences concerning his exact relation to God were sharpened. Prominent among the cities, where the drama regarding the issues of the Trinity and Christology took place, were Antioch and Alexandria, the latter probably being the second largest city in the Roman Empire at that time. Alexandria served as the commercial repository for the entire eastern Mediterranean with tightly organized communities of Jews, pagans, and Christians jostling one another in their ongoing competition for social as well as cultural hegemony. Concerning the religious outlook, the theology of Alexandria, if one must offer a very generalized view, was heavily tinged by concepts of mysticism and a generally dualistic approach to the universe, to matters of incarnation and salvation whereas Antiochenes main concern was the humanity of the Son , often at the expense of his divine nature. Arius' teaching gained its first popularity within the diverse, socially complex urban environment of Alexandria. Being of Libyan descent, Arius was appointed as a priest in the docklands area of Alexandria, in charge of the parish church of Boukolia.
1 2

cf. Athanasius, De Synodis,16, ; Hilary, De Trinitate,IV,11-12 and IV,4;Epiphanius, Haeres, LXIX Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica, I,9,PNF,2nd serv.,vol.II,p 14

What was wrong with Arius theology?

We find that he was noted for his ascetic demeanour and style of dressing, which was characteristic of early Egyptian monks. Arius had been educated by Lucian of Antioch, a later martyr, who saw in the Logos a way of expressing the relation of God to Christ. Being, above all, concerned to affirm the unity of God, Arius professed belief in the one God Judaism and therefore held that a monotheistic theology was crucial to Christianity. Arius describes his intellectual pedigree as follows: A man much spoken of who suffers all manner of things for Gods glory, And, learning from God, I am now no stranger to wisdom and knowledge.3 In his assessment of the Son, Arius was heavily influenced by Origens fundamentally Platonist theology. Origen proclaimed the Son to be a second god, subordinate to God the Father, who was absolute perfection. Although the Son, according to Origen, was one with the father and eternally generated in the life of God, he was still distinct from him. These ideas of subordinationism and eternal generation were to feed into the theological systems of both Athanasius and Arius. Arius didnt present his doctrine as a schism, but rather as a question that needed to be answered and thus called for the churchs attention since it appeared to have its roots in Monarchianism and had previously resulted in the excommunication of Paul of Samosata, who taught a version of Monarchianism that stressed the unity of God rather than the distinctions within the Trinity, which equalled an extreme Monotheistic view. Though it regarded Christ as Redeemer, it clung to the numerical unity of the Deity. Arius started out from an abstract philosophical concept extant in NeoPlatonism. His presuppositions were based on Aristotelian syllogisms which said that God was unique and therefore self-existent; thus, the Son, who was not self-existent,
3

Arius,Thalia in Athanasius,Orationes tres contra Arianos, 26.20.44-21.3(transl.Rowan Williams, Arius, p 85)

What was wrong with Arius theology?

could not be divine. Because of Gods uniqueness, which could not be shared or communicated, the Son could not be God. Because God was immutable, the Son, who was mutable, being depicted in the Gospels as subject to growth and change, could not be God. The Son had, as having had a beginning and therefore being finite, to be deemed a creature that had been called into existence out of nothing. Moreover, the Son could have no direct knowledge of the Father since the Son was of a different order of existence. In order for Christ, as Son incarnate, to be proclaimed a saviour, he could not be a mere human, but had to be divine, because a creature who was not one with God could not offer salvation to mankind and his work could not be reconciling. Arius didnt hesitate to reference the New Testament such as John 14, 28, for my Father is greater than I to back up the axiomatic nature of his belief. According to his opponents, especially bishop Athanasius, whose Four Orations Against the Arians give a most thorough and effective exposition of the Sons eternal origin in the Father and his essential unity with him, Arius was thus thought to have reduced the Son to a lesser god, an idea that was strongly reminiscent of Platonic dualism. Since the worship of the Son was not altogether abandoned, Arius thus was accused of reintroducing polytheism. Arius also undermined the Christian concept of redemption since only he who was truly God could be deemed to have reconciled man to the Godhead. For Arius, Jesus Christ was a creature, but not one of the creatures4 , instead of the later, Nicene-decreed , a comment which was usually read as diminishing the Son as less than divine. Modern critics, however, have held that by this presupposition Arius actually intended to show that, while generation demands creatureliness, the Son is

Athanasius, Adversus Arianos, caput XVI

What was wrong with Arius theology?

nonetheless unlike all others. He is divine, but not in a matter equivalent or congruous to the Father. In this sense of demanding some manner of divinity to the Son as essential to a view of salvation, Arius is quite in line with Irenaeus and Tertullian. At the dawn of the fourth century, however, Arius train of thought provoked a unified outcry of indignation. The position orthodoxy took on the relationship between the Father and the Son was well entrenched by this time , with the Father and the Son being co-substantial, sharing the same substance and the same essence, as well as coeternal, both regarding their person and their relationship with each other, while at the same time remaining separate entities. When Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria questioned Arius on the meaning of some biblical texts, Arius held that the texts showed that God the Father had created the pre-existent Son out of nothing. The Son was therefore different from the Father and inferior to him. Such, according to Arius, was the doctrine of both scripture and tradition. The bishop, who was unable to win arguments with him, decided upon a political solution. He assembled nearly a hundred bishops from Egypt and Libya, and they followed his lead by excommunicating Arius as a heretic. The controversy was brought to an end by the Council of Nicaea, in which Arius and his teaching were condemned and a creed to safeguard orthodox Christian belief was issued.

What was wrong with Arius theology?

BIBLIOGRAPHY Barnard, L.W.: De Vogel, C. J.: The Antecedents of Arius, IN: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Sep., 1970), pp. 172-188 Platonism and Christianity: A Mere Antagonism or a Profound Common Ground?, IN: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Mar., 1985), pp. 1-62 Athanasius of Alexandria: The Scope of Scripture in Polemical and Pastoral Context, IN: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 47, No. 4 (Dec., 1993), pp. 341-362 Religion and Politics at the Council at Nicaea, IN: The Journal of Religion, Vol. 55, No. 1 (Jan., 1975), pp. 1-12 The Arians of Alexandria, IN: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 47, No. 3 (Sep., 1993), pp. 234-245 Arius: Twice a Heretic? Arius and the Human Soul of Jesus Christ, IN: Church History, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Sep., 1960), pp. 251-263 How Greek Philosophy Corrupted the Christian Concept of God, Cedar Fort, 2009 "Christus Nesciens"? Was Christ Ignorant of the Day of Judgment?, IN: The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 96, No. 3 (Jul., 2003), pp. 255-278 Truly Divine and Truly Human, The Story of Christ and the Seven Ecumenical Councils, London 2008 Tradition, Exegesis, and the Christological Controversies, IN: Church History, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Jun., 1965), pp. 123-145 nd Arius, Heresy and Tradition, 2 edition, London 2001 Philosophical Implications of Arianism and Apollinarianism, IN: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 12 (1958), pp. 5-28

Ernest, James:

Grant, Robert:

Haas, Christopher: Haugaard, William:

Hopkins, Richard: Madigan, Kevin :

Need, Stephen: Wilken, Robert L.:

Williams, Rowan: Wolfson, Harry: