Athanasius and Arius in Light of Nicaea Council - Research Paper Example

? Athanasius and Arius in light of Nicaea council Philosophy Table of Contents 0 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..…2 2.0 Thesis statement………………………………………………………………………...……3 3.0 Oregon’s contribution………………………………………………………………….……3 4.0 Arian controversy……………………………………………………………………………8 4.1 Arius position………………………………………………………………………9 4.2 St. Alexander’s position……………………………………………………………10 4.3 The debate results………………………………………………………………..…10 5.0 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………......11 6.0 Bibliography..………………………………………………………………………….……12 Athanasius and Arius in light of Nicaea council 1.0 Introduction The development of the Trinity doctrine might be said to have been the refinement’s history of philosophical and terms categories. The proper terminology could be said to have been the primary ecumenical council’s issue of the 4th and 5th centuries, together with the thought precision as well as the philosophical categories that had been used in order to mark the Christological and Trinitarian doctrines. Nicaea council may be said to have the Jesus deity question although might have resulted to a further dissent as regards the divine and human natures of Jesus. The issues may be said to have sprouted within a doctrine’s expression at Chalcedon (Leithart, 426). The impressive debate and thought that swept over the Councils of Chalcedon and Nicaea might have come up with biblically sound and intellectually virtuous doctrines. Bruce F. F. may be noted to express the significance of an accurate language within the respective creeds. From these, it might be crucial to mention that the development of doctrines may require extremely rigorous, intellectual skills together with sound philosophic categories in order to make accurate use of the revelation from God. Thomas Torrance may also have been noted to underscore the significance of making use of intelligent reasoning into theology in order to ensure that God’s rationality spreads its maximal light on the entire area covered by the human knowledge and experience. The fight for clarity as regards thoughts and terms within the orthodoxy expression of Christology and the Trinity may also be said to be characterized by the soundness of its philosophy. The rational doctrines’ development might be considered a considerable example that relates creative interchange between philosophy and theology where both of these doctrines may be said to be equally significant. 1 2. 0Thesis statement This paper would like to review Arius and Athanasius issues in the light of Nicaea Council. In order to have a clear understanding of the context and depth of the happenings, I would like to review two key questions throughout my essay: How can Origen’s view of the relationship between the Incarnate Logos and the supreme God be understood? Athanasius and Arius held different stands on this issue. Which of these stands coheres with the Bible? Which of these stands can present the purpose of God in his salvation offered by His own Son? 3.0 Oregon’s contribution Improper and inefficient exegesis might be said to have been the key cause for the heresies, which arose immediately after the church’s early period. The persons’ plurality’s denial often referred to as Monarchianism within the trinity might be said to have limited its citations only towards the texts which might have taught individuals concerning God’s unity yet neglecting the texts that might have implied his real yet inadequately modal trinity. Arius may be said to have tracked down the second extreme with a one sided exegesis hence he asserted the outstanding personality belonging to the Son hence compromising his unity with his father. It had been crucial for the Nicaea Council to make use of an exegesis that might be all encompassing of the data from the biblical texts and assert hypo statistical and accountability distinction. This entire process might have not only called for a sound exegesis but also an accurate translation into categories and terms which expressed the biblical data. It might be said to have required philosophical acumen and sophisticated linguistic.6 The work of Oregon might be said to have characterized a crucial milestone within the Trinity’s doctrinal expression. Origen could be said to have provided teachings at Alexandrians Catechetical School, which might have attained its Zenith in the arms of his tutelage. He might have been noted to have focused on the hypothetical distinctions that might have existed between the Trinity persons; he might have laid the framework for a number of radical errors, which may have called for an entire century’s discussion in order to make them work. In fact, Arius claimed that Origen could have been his authority in the struggle to support his argument that the Son could be created and finite. It might be evident that actually God does work within the world although the agency of intermediary might be of the Son and Spirit. However, Oregon might be said to be extremely far from the notion of a Lazy God to which a couple of tendencies and behaviors within the philosophy of the Greeks had been drifting as God’s impassibility have acquired an exaggeration. From his minister, the Son, then via the Holy Spirit he might be considered to be the one acting. It might be said that, from him, the Trinity’s actions might have emerged; hence it would be appropriate if he had been considered the core of that will-based unity, which might be said to guide the three person’s activity. His role may be said to be primordial as regards the Trinity’s internal operations, the Son’s generation and the Holy Spirit’s procession, within creation, the rational cultures’ diversion, providence as well as the last things or occurrences. All these may be said to be covered in relation with the collaborator and minister of the father, who might be said to be the son. Within the manner of the son’s generation, it may be crucial to protect against arising dilemmas from anthropomorphisms. In case there might be am imagination of divine freedom, immediately after human freedom pattern, then it could be logical for one to deduce that either the father might freely beget the son (from which a conclusion could be drawn that there might not have existed a Son), or deny the same fact and that there might be no more or less than taking his divinity away through the imposition of a necessity meant to govern him. Origen might be said to have escaped falling into the trap. Within one view, he notes that the son, born of his farther so as to stand as his will that proceeds from the intelligence he might posses. The son’s generation may thus be said to be a free act on the party of the father. This might be in accordance to Oregon’s claims that the father’s intention must always suffice in order to ensure that the will of the father comes to pass. He goes ahead to claim that the father’s goodness may be considered the ultimate source or origin from which the son might have originated together with the proceeds of the spirit. He deduces that the son’s generation could be based on the free act as regards the father’s perspective of which, it could be a requirement due to the fact and requirement and freedom within the confines of God may be said to coincide.5 In order to acquire have an understanding of his incarnation logos and how they relate to the supreme God, one would be required to have a full understanding of the bible scriptures in order to make a manual refer with the text. Origen may be said to have severally made use of the scripture so as to meditate on the son’s generation’s ineffable mystery by the father. As a result of the church’s stoic materialism that had begun infiltrating within simple sections, and impacting on a significant theologian called Tertullian, he might have aimed at wiping off all the bodily connotations. It had been noted by Oregon that just as the reflection may be begotten by light, so might the son be by the father since he might be viewed to continue from the intellect emitter word or by the intellect itself. It might also be crucial for one to attempt comparing this episode of Oregon’s meditations with the book titled Wisdom in the Book of Wisdom. He tactically applies the titles accorded to this book to the generation of the son; his eternal light’s breath of radiance, God’s activity’s stainless mirror together with is the goodness image. Similarly, Col 1:15 might be said to give an account of God’s invisible image together with the fact that it may be the first to be born of every ktsisis’, a unique term that might not, as earlier discussed, express for creation only, but may be used within the contexts of every object or element that might originate from God. Indeed Heb 1, 3, states that his image together with his glory’s effulge might be enough to be his substance’s image. In contrast to what Aryanism offered, this generation’s eternity could be clearly affirmed since it might be inconceivable for the father to have ever lived or be in existence without any form of wisdom, reason and word, all of which, as discussed, may denote the son. Nor would anyone say that the father just began taking up the role which may not have existed before because all God’s changes may be said to be conceivable. Once within the Commentary on the Epistles to the Romans and twice within the Treatise on First Principles it may be found that there had been a recurrence of the use of the famous statement against those Arians: ouk en hoti ouk en meaning that there might not be any time when the son ceased to exist. These may not have been the way they may often be perceived and translator additions as regards the 2nd text from the Treatise on First Principles could be quoted by Athanasius in Greek who might have been explicitly attributed to Origen by him having the formulation already reproduced here.5 External yet continuous generation may be said to depict at every instance that the father actually begets the son, the same way the radiance could often be emitted by the light. Through continuity and eternity, Origen may be said to express the concept of eternity as being perceived as an instant, unique form of which he might not have an extremely clear notion. The key words, aionos and aion might at times denote an extremely long period of time for him at times, an endless duration. The son’s generation could have been recognized with the father’s profound activities’ uninterrupted contemplation, which might in turn enable the son, or in a different perspective, the son could be viewed as being constantly fed by his father who maintains a continuous communication with him at all instances of his divinity. A couple of texts that make use of different image types, in the form that might be continuous or dynamic instead of ontological, might be able to compel the realization of the fact that Origen might be expressing the similarity of the Nicene homoousius. His violent attacks towards the valentinian prolatio or proble, which might give one the information concerning the making of divine and human generation, through the separation of the begetter from the begotten, may not have been occasioned by the mere fact that it would implicitly mean a process that involves the human body together with the fact that such a way of viewing the situation might imply that the begotten originates from the begetter, hence turns into an external being to him. The son might not have originated from the father but may be said to have a dwelling within the father, and the father does the same in him, even within the incarnation when his son had been on earth, at the same period in his human soul. All things that may belong to the father might as well be said to belong to him. They may then be said to be objects and subjects of love. Hence, the son in this context may be considered an object of his father’s glory, and may be said to perform the entire will of his father. Since he might be considered God’s exact image, he might be said to possess all the dimension of the father. Origen explains that they might be equated to identical and single almightiness. This could be said to be affirmed by a considerable clarity within the Address of Thanks written by Thaumaturgus, bringing out the teaching perceived: the son had been made one with his father hence he might be said to wrap himself within him through his power, which may be said to be identical to his father’s. 2 4.0 The Arian controversy This controversy might have been an extremely christological disagreement that started within Alexandria between St. Alexander’s followers called Homoosias and the Arians. Alexander together with his followers may be said to have had a conviction that the son possessed an equivalent substance as his father, who might be further considered coeternal with him. On the other hand, the Arians might be said to have had an extremely considerable conviction on the fact that the son and his father had distinct qualities and characteristics and that although the son might be considered one of creations’ perfect creatures, he might have only been a mere creature of God, his father. Later on, a third group attempted to reach a compromise, claiming that the son and his father had been of equivalent substance. The debate that ensued between these two sides might be said to have lasted approximately two months, with each of the sides making diverse references to the scripture in order to justify its claims. In accordance with several accounts, the argument or debate turned into an extremely heated session such that, at a certain instance, Arius could be said to have been given a slap by Myra’s Nicholas who later, would be canonized.4 A considerable section of the debate may be said to have been hinged in the distinctions that existed between the terms created and born. The Arians may be said to have viewed the two as essentially equal yet Alexander’s followers could not believe that. The clear and exact implications of the several words that had been utilized within these debates at Nicaea may be said to bear an unclear perspective to other language speakers. The words of Greek including substance (hypostasis), person (prospon), essence (ousia) and nature (physis), might have born a number of implications that had been drawn from the philosophers of the pre-Christian word referred to as homoousia, had attained an initial dislike from several bishops due to its diverse association with heretics who might have been considered Gnostic (and made use of it within their theology), together with the impacts of its condemnation at the Synods of Antioch in 264-268.4 4.1 Arius position The Nicaea council may be said to have been motivated by the views of the Trinitarian arguments surged by Arius’ views. The council’s purpose may be said to have been to seek effective clarity on the Trinity’s orthodox doctrine. Arius maintained that God’s son had been a creature that had been modeled from nothing, hence that he qualified to be the First Production of his father, even before every age. He argued that all other things could have been made through this son; hence he may be said to have been directly begotten and made or created by his father, God; thus, there had been a period in time when he might not have existed. Arian may be said to have had an extremely considerable conviction that Gog’s son, otherwise called Jesus, might have, as a result, been able to do his own free will; wrong or right and that he had he to be a son in his truest sense, he had to come after his father thus logically, the period had been when he had not thus he had been considered a finite being, under his father. The Arians extensively referred to the scripture making quotes that included John 14:28 that states highlights the son’s speech claiming that his father had been greater than hm. Also, another quoted verse could be said to be Col 1:15 that claims that the son could be the first born in all of God’s creation.4 4.2 St. Alexander’s position The Alexander’s followers may be said to have believed and argued that the fatherhood of the father as regards every attribute that he might possess had been eternal. Hence, the father remained a father while the son often existed and co-existed with him. They considerably believed that following the Arian position would practically pose destruction to the Godhead unity that already existed since it gave the son an unequal position to the father, thus contradicting the scriptures including John 10:30 that states that the father and son are one and the same thing. The scripture further explains that both may be one; in scripture, the words of the son clearly depict that the father could be in him and he (the son) could be in his father in order for the entire world to believe that he sent him to save mankind.4 The compromise proposal from Alexander’s followers later in the course of the debate proposed that there had been similarities between the son and the father although the difference had been that they may not have possessed the same substance. The proposal might not have had much support as regards evidence of proof of the scriptures thus it had been dropped.4 4.3 The debate’s result As earlier stated, the council’s sole purpose had been to express the scriptures’ teachings faithfully and make clarity on the Trinity doctrine as entirely as possible. Both sides may be said to have taken the pain in demonstrating that their arguments and beliefs had been apostolic and biblical in origin. Nicaea may be said to have created a creed, which would effectively serve as an extremely authoritative guide to scripture reading and interpretation. The view of their faith may be said to have comprised of rational activity; it had been associated with recognition, conception and apprehension acts of an extremely intuitive, basic kind, within the responsible form of truth’s mind inherent within God’s revelation to human beings.4 The council, after intense considerations and scrutiny of the scriptures as the basis for support, settled for the fact that the son and his father might possess equal substance and may be co-eternal, on the basis of the declaration within the view that his had been a formulation of Christian, traditional belief passed from his apostles. Within the influence of Constantine, this belief had been exclusively expressed by the bishops within what would be commonly referred to as the Nicene Creed.6 In view of all the happenings, I would like to concur with the Arian view point. The scripture that states that the father begets his son, light of light, God of God, and could not be made but begotten. This statement may be used in the light of all the happenings stating that it could provide an addition to the idea of the fact that the son’s generation had been a necessary, internal together with eternal will of God. This might then preclude the possibility of a misinterpretation in order to create a finite and temporal substance or secondary substance’s generation of hybrid types. The scripture further discerns that the purpose of the son might not have been accidental but intentional as regards the sole purpose of the father towards his entire creation.6 5.0 Conclusion The early church might be said to have taken rationality and the bible seriously. The text from the bible could be said to have been the source and authority of doctrine. However, this early church might not have been fideistic; it incorporated intellectual and rigorous efforts in order to aid in the working out of doctrinal details within the Trinity together with the effects such an act may have had on Christology. This approach may be said to have been fundamental in the definition of orthodoxy and the defense of this early church against heresy. Hence, the bible might be the key witness to the Trinity concept and individuals having two distinct natures together with the doctrines might be said to tolerate under the scrutiny of philosophy. We have seen how Arianism posed a great danger on the church and its unity. We have seen how Athanasius showed that a fully human fully divine being is the only way to salvation. The Bible was on Athanasius side as well as the tradition. Arius was defeated as well as his followers and the message and hope of Christ prevailed in the end.3 Bibliography 1. Ayres, Lewis. Nicaea and its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004; 522-545. 2. Barnes, Timothy D.Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire. New York: The President and Fellows of Harvard College, 1993; 644-794. 3. Davis, Leo Donald. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils: Their History and Theology. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1983; 765-825. 4. Leithart, Peter J..Athanasius. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 2011; 422-543. 5. Piper, John. Contending For Our All: Defending Truth and Treasuring Christ in the lives of Athanasius, John Owen, and J. Gresham Machen. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006; 223-305. 6. Weinandy, Thomas G.Athanasius: A Theological Introduction. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2007; 792-956. Read More