Copyright © By Dr. Adel Elsaie, Book Title: "Please Revise the Bible, Again"

3.7 Arianism

 

In the Gospel according to Matthew 16:14, Jesus asked an important question to his apostles, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" The twelve apostles quickly answer his question with a list of popular opinions, but when forced to reach a decision on their own, they could not easily come up with an answer. For the following three centuries after this question was initially asked by Jesus, it had still not been adequately answers by his followers. Even after 2000 years, no Evangelist or theologian expert can answer adequately this question. Jesus said specifically that is the son of man, but other try to correct Jesus and claim that he is god!

 

Arianism can be defined as those doctrines and beliefs put forward by Arius (256-336), Asterius the Sophist (died 341), and Eusebius of Nicodemia (died 342). After those doctrines were condemned and declared heretic by the first Ecumenical council of Church in 325, people who owned Arius’ writings were ordered to deliver them. Thus historians uses the works of Arius’ main opponent Athanasius as a source for Arianism, for it is there that direct mention of Arius' beliefs and quotations of his work are supposed to be found. One section of Athanasius' de Synodis, generally referred to as the “blasphemies of Arius,” is considered by most scholars to be an authentic reproduction of Arius' teachings.

Arius seems to have been born in Libya.  He had studied under St. Lucian of Antioch, the founder of the school of Antioch, who had earlier advocated that Christ was only a man. He is called the father of Arianism because Arius and almost all the fourth century Arian theologians were his students. Arius struggled with the question of the Trinity. He became a parish priest in Alexandria, and taught 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 a time when he did not exist he could not be eternal. This teaching of Arius drove the distinctions outside the Deity and thus destroyed the Trinity. He replaced the trinity by one Supreme Being and two inferior deities; the son and the holy ghost. Arius' views began to spread among the people and the Alexandrian clergy.

The Arian controversy found its formal beginning in a debate between Arius and Bishop Alexander of Alexandria. During a lecture on the nature of God, Arius contested Alexander's assertion that there was an eternal 'oneness' between the Father and the Son. Arius' objection to Alexander was a simple one, "If the Father had begotten the Son, he who had been begotten had a beginning, and therefore there must have been a time when the Son did not exist." Alexander, like many Christians of his time, thought it reprehensible to believe that the Son was created. (Perhaps more to his dislike was the fact that a subordinate of his dared to challenge his authority). Whether the fierceness of the debate had more to do with the egos of the men involved or the issue at hand is irrelevant; the Arian controversy had more importantly brought to the forefront of the Christian Church the unresolved issue of Christ's identity.

 

The Gospel according to John, 1:1-3, called the Son "God," and apparently considered him to be equal with the Father. At the same time, however, even a cursory glance at the New Testament reveals that Jesus himself claimed to be inferior to, and distinct from God. At John 20:17, he tells Mary Magdalene that the Father is his God; he specifically says in John 14:28 that "the Father is greater than I;" he claims imperfect knowledge and he could not do things by himself.

 

Mark 13:32 "But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”

John 12:49 “for I have not spoken on my own, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak.”

Bishop Alexander 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 Alexander 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.

With the decision of the synod Arius fled to Palestine. Some of the Bishops there, especially Eusebius of Caesarea, supported him. From there 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. His supporters held their own synod calling Arius' views orthodox and condemning Bishop Alexander of Alexandria. All this controversy was taking place just as the Church was emerging from Roman oppression.

Arius was not an idiot; he received the support from scholarly and politically powerful bishops. He knew the scriptures well and produced many texts to support his claim that Jesus, the Word, could only be a creature like us. The Logos had been the instrument used by God to bring all creatures into existence. The Word or the Logos had to be entirely different from God. He believed that Jesus had lived a perfect life; he had obeyed God even unto his death on the cross, notwithstanding the last words of Jesus on the cross according to Matthew. He contended that humans by imitating Jesus, the perfect creature, they too would be perfect creatures of God. Alexander and his student Athanasius harassed Arius. They had a different view regarding the weakness of humanity. Athanasius saw the need for God Himself to descent on earth and be crucified to save humanity because God alone is the Perfect Being. So a domestic dispute in Alexandria became a wide crisis in the Byzantine Empire!

 

When the Emperor of Rome Constantine selected and brought together 318 bishops for the Council, it was a military and political decision. He needed the support of the new religion in his battles.  He claimed that he saw a vision of the Cross in the middle of the sun, his god before converting to Christianity in his last day. Even the bishops had no illusion about that, for not only did the Emperor preside over the Council, he also proclaimed that his will was a divine law. The senior pastors accepted him as a “Universal Bishop” even though he was not baptized, and they let him take part in votes on church doctrine. Constantine was completely ignorant of Jesus’ teachings. He was a follower of the solar monotheism of Mithras (the ancient Persian god), who was portrayed on coins as the “invincible sun”. When Constantine gave his name to the old Greek commercial city of Byzantium and made Constantinople in 330, five years after the Council, the capital of the Roman Empire, he had a mighty column erected for the ceremonial opening with the Emperor and the “invincible sun god” on the top of it.

 

When the bishops gathered to resolve the crisis, very few bishops shared Athanasius’ view of Christ. Most held position between Arius and Athanasius. Nevertheless, Athanasius used his powerful skills of argument to impose his theology on the bishops with the support of the atheist Emperor. Only Arius and two companions refused to sign this creed. The creed stated, “The Creator, God the father, and the Redeemer, Son of God, were of the same nature, and that Jesus is the only begotten of the father.” This absolutely vital Christian law became the church’s canon by imperial decree. That is how Jesus became identical with God. With this as a foundation, the bishops took Pauline Christianity to another level.

 

After the council, the bishops went on teaching the new creed, and the Arian crisis continued for another sixty years. Arius and his followers fought back and managed to regain imperial favor. Athanasius was exiled about five times. It was still very difficult to explain this creed because it was not in the scriptures and had pagan association. To an outsider or to an average Christian, these theological arguments seemed a waste of time, no one can possibly prove anything definitively one way or another, and the dispute simply proved to be divisive. No one disagreed about the special place that Christ holds, but the question remained in very many minds, What is Jesus Christ? Pauline Christianity had always been an inconsistent faith. Now at the first council, the church had added another paradox of incarnation, despite its apparent incompatibility with monotheism.

 

The atheist Emperor Constantine did the church another enormous favor. He was led by “divine inspiration” to discover the grave of Jesus, who had just become of the same substance as that of God. However, in spite of his spiritual inspiration and moral Christian values, Constantine did not stop murdering his close relatives during the same year, his son, his wife whom he had plunged into boiling water and his father in law whom he forced to commit suicide. This is the image of the Emperor and the Universal Bishop who managed the Nicene Creed, and who, when the council was over, told the Christians that the agreement was “the decision of God.”

After the Council of Nicaea in 325 Arianism was wiped out except for a few remote Germanic tribes. Anti-Trinitarians was one of the many flourishing beliefs arising from the independent study of scripture. The word "Trinity" is not in the Bible, nor is the concept. The naming of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit hardly occurs; except as an echo of a baptismal formula. At that time the Unitarian Church was called "Arians" for its leader Arius of Alexandria.

As the Unitarian title implies, this church is uncompromising in its assertion of the unity of the Godhead and its denial of the Trinity. Its revival in the modern period owes more to the nominalism of medieval scholasticism and its influence on Reformation thinkers, especially Socinus (1539-1604). As their defining doctrine denies the divinity of Christ, the Unitarians place themselves outside the worldwide Christian communion, event though it cannot be disputed that their ideas permeate many mainstream denominations. The unity of God is expressed symbolically as the Fatherhood of God, but this image contradicts the main stream Christianity

 

[Table of Contents] [Home]