The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 1

II. The Athanasius-Arius Controversy and the Nicene Creed

We here digress long enough to set forth the issues involved in the unhappy irruption of Arianism, which brought the Christian Church to another crisis of a different nature, this time in the fourth century. Arianism, it should be added, reappears periodically across the centuries, and the issues involved have a definite bearing on our quest. Hence this divergence. CFF1 1056.2

The doctrine of the pre-existent Logos was the subject of prolonged controversy in the crucial fourth century. Pressures from Gnosticism with its emanation theory, and from Ebionism with its total rejection of Christ’s deity, forced the church to make a definitive expression of view on the issues at stake. Some sought to escape the difficulty by absolute identification of Father and Son. The problem was to distinguish between Father and Son without denying either the humanity or the absolute deity of the latter. CFF1 1056.3

Various devices were offered—as by Tertullian, and by Dionysius of Rome, and the concept of subordination and Sabellianism. ¹ But in the early part of the fourth century decision had to be made as to whether the church should regard the Son as but a creature, not God by nature and hence not eternal, and therefore not in the highest sense divine; or, that He is uncreated, eternal, truly God, and of the same essence with the Father—the famous Nicene term being homoousios (“of one substance”)—yet with a personality distinct from that of the Father. That was the crux of it all. CFF1 1057.1

1. ABSOLUTE DEITY OR CHRIST AT STAKE

The absoluteness of the Christian religion, as well as the integrity of the person of Christ, was at stake. Christianity could not remain content with a concept that involved the subordination of its Head. If Christianity is the absolute religion, Christ must be regarded as absolutely divine. It was therefore necessary that the Athanasian formula should, at Nicea, become a fundamental part of the declared Christianity of subsequent centuries. CFF1 1057.2

It should be noted that it was Western Christians who saw the need of asserting the absolute deity of Christ, whereas Eastern Christians spent much of their time and energy on speculative hairsplitting. The Arian controversy was widespread and prolonged, and raged for nearly a century. It engaged the energies of nearly all prominent Christian spokesmen of the time, and was the occasion of much violence, of expression and otherwise. It rent asunder whole sections of Christendom, and penetrated other related areas of doctrine as well. And it bore upon the nature of man. CFF1 1057.3

2. THE ARIAN VIEW SUMMED UP

ARIUS (c. 256-336), a Libyan by birth, was a presbyter of the Alexandrian church, where the allegorical interpretation prevailed. But, curiously enough, in opposition to the allegorical concept Arius interpreted the Bible grammatically and historically. He demanded a clear and rational statement. He rejected Origen’s “eternal generation” theory. But a large number who held with Origen rejected the Arian theory of subordination of the Person of Christ. Arius held that Jesus, the Son of God, was not coeternal with the Father, and must be held external to the divine essence, and only a creature. The issue was basic. The ARIAN VIEW may be summed up as follows: CFF1 1058.1

(1) The Son was created out of nothing; hence He is different in essence from the Father. He is the Logos, the Wisdom, the Son of God, and of grace; but He is not so of Himself.
(2) The characteristic formula was, “There was when the Son was not”; that is, He is a finite being, a creature, a derived being, not eternally pre-existent.
(3) In the historical Christ the human element is merely the material aspect, while the soul is the Logos. The historical Christ therefore had no human soul, and was finite and imperfect.
(4) But, although the incarnate Logos is finite, He was made the instrument in creation, and is to be worshiped and exalted above all other creatures, as the Creator and Governor of the universe, and the Redeemer of man.

3. THE ATHANASIAN VIEW EPITOMIZED

The champions of the Athanasian view were driven to state their concept of the relations of the Godhead in answer to the assertions of the Arians. They were compelled to repudiate the subordinate position given by Arius to the Son, and to affirm the absolute and eternal deity of the historical Christ. The ATHANASIAN VIEW of Christ embraced the following: (1) As God is unchangeable, there never was a time when the Son was not with the Father. The distinction between Father and Son is therefore an eternal distinction. (2) The Son is identical in substance (or being) with the Father. His deity is identical with the deity of the Father. Athanasius consequently rejected the Platonic exaltation of God above all relations to the universe, held by Arius and Origen. Creation was the work of the Son, but not because it was beneath the dignity of the Father. Athanasius held that in denying the absolute deity of Christ, the possibility of the union of God with man was denied. If Christ is not truly and freely God, there is no true redemption for man. (3) Athanasius emphasized the personality of the Son just as much as His identity of essence with the Father. The Son is not a mere attribute or mode of manifestation of the Father, but an independent personal subsistence. His was not a derived life. Yet Athanasius would not allow anything that involved a partition of the divine essence. This had been illustrated by the relation of light and its reflection, in this way subordinating the Son to the Father. Athanasius stressed the sameness of essence and the distinction of personality of Father and Son. That discloses the soundness and the stature of Athanasius on the question of the Godhead. CFF1 1058.2

4. THE SEMI-ARIAN OR EUSEBIAN CONCEPT

On the other hand the Semi-Araan, or Eusebian, party sought to mediate between the other two. Such rejected the Arian view that the Son was created out of nothing, hence was different in essence from the Father, and denied that there was a time “when the Son was not.” They likewise rejected the idea that the Son is a creature, or was “born” in the sense that other beings are born. CFF1 1059.1

They, on the other hand, declared that the Son was begotten of the Father before all time, God of God, entire of entire, perfect of the perfect, image of the Deity, the essence, the will, the power, and the glory of the Father. But they denied the Athanasian sameness of essence, holding only to likeness as to essence. CFF1 1059.2

5. TIDE OF BATTLE ENDS IN ATHANASIAN VICTORY

The issue came to a head at the Nicene Council of 325. As noted, the main object of this council was to settle the far-flung Arian controversy that threatened the unity of Christianity. There were now three parties in the controversy. At the opening of the council the Arians proposed a creed, signed by eighteen names. This was indignantly rejected, and as a consequence all but three abandoned the Arian cause. CFF1 1060.1

Eusebius then proposed an ancient Palestinian formula. The Arians were willing to subscribe to it, but the Athanasians wanted to change the creed to which the Arians must subscribe. They insisted on the term “identical in substance.” The Nicene Creed in its present form was then proposed. The emperor, awed by the personality of Athanasius, cast in his lot with the Athanasian party, and finally the Semi-Arians reluctantly subscribed. Arius and the two Egyptian bishops who refused to sign it were banished. CFF1 1060.2

However, in time Arius was restored to office. And in 335 an Arian Synod, convoked at Tyre, now condemned the Athanasian party, and Athanasius was banished to Treves. But when the empire was divided after the death of Constantine in 337, Constantius in the East was an Arian, while Constantine II in the West was an adherent of the Nicene Creed, and restored Athanasius. CFF1 1060.3

Thus the tide of battle over the creeds, involving the Godhead, swung back and forth—the Western Church being predominantly Nicean, and the Eastern predominantly Arian. Finally the Athanasian party prevailed, and Athanasianism became victorious. With this sketch of the man and the issues, we are now ready to consider Athanasius, and then his writings, in greater detail. CFF1 1060.4