ATHANASIUS AND ARIANISM: BUILDING FOUNDATION FOR DOCTRINAL HARMONY IN ECCLESIA COMMUNITY.
BY
OBUMKANEME VALENTINE M.
SSPP/THEO/18/0737
BEING AN ESSAY SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THEOLOGY, SEMINARY OF SS. PETER AND PAUL, BODIJA-IBADAN, IN AFFILIATION WITH THE PONTIFICAL URBAN UNIVERSITY, ROME, IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF BACHELOR’S DEGREE IN SACRED THEOLOGY.
BODIJA, IBADAN
JUNE, 2021
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that this Essay titled: ATHANASIUS AND ARIANISM: BUILDING FOUNDATION FOR DOCTRINAL HARMONY IN ECCLESIA COMMUNITY, submitted to the Department of Theology, Seminary of Ss. Peter and Paul, Bodija-Ibadan, in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of a Bachelor’s Degree in Sacred Theology, is a record of original research carried out by OBUMKANEME VALENTINE M.
______________________ ____________________________
Date Moderator
Rev. Fr. Dr. Adesina Kenneth,
Lecturer, Theology Department,
Ss. Peter and Paul,
Bodija-Ibadan
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to the Church leaders in Nigeria.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Blessed be the holy and undivided Trinity now and forever. Amen. My gratitude goes to the creator and director of the cosmos, the one eternal, immutable, immortal and infinite God, through his Son, the “LOGOS” in union with the Holy Spirit the Paraclete, for the gift of life throughout the course of my theological studies.
In a very special way I thank my Regional Superior, Fr Joseph Kandachamkunnel SSP, Fr Robert Correa SSP, my local Superior, Fr Gerard Tanko SSP, and Fr Praveen Chirathara SSP and all the members of our Region for their encouragement and support. My brothers in the community Rev Paschal Mbah SSP, John Okoh SSP and Postulants, you have been a source of blessings to me and I pray your efforts never go unrewarded. I also thank Sixtus Onuoha SSP, for always closing a big gap left for many conferrers, may God bless you richly. I can’t forget to thank Michael Muogbo SSP, my brother and classmate for his positive suggestions and assistance, May God bless you with the wisdom that sits by His throne. Amen
I owe a planet-sized gratitude to my wonderful Moderator, Rev. Fr. Dr. Kenneth Adesina, the very hands that chiseled this project to its present form; he patiently and gently guided my thoughts and also made his e-library available for me. I thank the great seminary of Saints Peter and Paul Bodija, Ibadan under the leadership of Rev. Fr. Dr. Anthony Ewherido (Rector) for nurturing my vocation.
To my family from whom my seed sprang up to see the beautiful light of the universe, I tender my profound gratitude to you, Late Mr. Vincent Obumkaneme and Mrs. Roseline Obumkaneme, My beloved Mother, and my siblings may God keep sustaining you. I am greatly indebted to Fr John Okosa, Fr Ubaka (My Parish priest), Fr Abedem, Fr Centus Moughalu, Fr Kingley Umeadi OMD, May the eternal high Priest renew your strength. I thank Br. Augustine Onyeji HFFB, Mrs Ifeoma Chukwurah, Mrs Victoria Soyanwo and all those whose name could not make it to this page, be rest assured that your names are boldly written in a place that can never rust nor decay, your names are engraved in my heart and I will forever pray for you.
Obumkaneme Valentine Mmaduabuchukwum, SSP
June, 2021
ABSTRACT
Athanasius is a prominent figure in the history of the Church. His was outstanding in the fight against Arianism; defending and upholding the authenticity of the faith doctrine. The Arian heresy threatened to forever impact the church. Athanasius was able to effectively combat this trend but he suffered greatly for it; he was exiled five times during his forty-five years Episcopacy in Alexandria. Having struggled for centuries, the doctrine regarding the divinity of Christ is still under attack by many people of today. Our present day defenders of the faith need to speak out and hold on to the traditions of the church like Athanasius.
However, the thrust of this paper is to examine how Athanasius response to Arianism can be a foundational stone for Doctrinal harmony in ecclesia community. Athanasius unshakable stance on the Arian controversy and the decisions of the Nicaean council on the person of Jesus Christ serves as prototype for ecclesia community. Amidst challenges and difficulties, the Church maintains her stand on the Trinitarian doctrine without compromise and therefore upholds a doctrinal harmony. Thus, the teachings, strength and vigor of Athanasius are needed in our present day church.
TABLE OF CONTENT
Title Page……………………………………………………………………………..……i
Certification…………………………………………………………………………….…ii
Dedication………………………………………………………………………………...iii
Acknowledgment…………………………………………………………………………iv
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………...vi
Table of content……………….…………………………………………………………vii
GENERAL INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………….1
0.1 Statement of Problem………………………………………………………………..2
0.2 Aims and Objective………………………………………………………………….3
0.3 Scope of the Study…………………………………………………………………..3
0.4 Methodology………………………………………………………………………...3
CHAPTER ONE: ATHANASIUS: THE MAN, HIS TIME AND WORKS
1.1 The Person of Athanasius………………………………………………………5
1.2 The Episcopacy of Athanasius……………………………………………………8
1.3 Pre-Nicaea Council………………………………………………………………10
1.4 The Council of Nicaea…………………………………………………………...12
1.5 Proponent and Exponent of Arianism…………………………………………...14
1.6 Athanasius Works and Writings…………………………………………………15
CHAPTER TWO: AN OVERVIEW OF ARIANISM
2.1 The Person of Arius……………………………………………………………..18
2.2 The origin of Arianism…………………………………………………………..19
2.3 The Thalia of Arius………………………………………………………………21
2.4 Tenets of Arianism: Arius’ Attitude to the Scripture……………………………23
2.4.1 The Scriptural Standpoints of Arius……………………………………….27
2.5 Doctrinal Impact of Arianism on the ecclesia community………………………28
2.5.1 The negative impacts of Arianism…………………………………………….28
2.5.2 The positive impacts of Arianism…………………………………………….30
CHAPTER THREE:THE BATTLE FOR DOCTRINAL HARMONY: ATHANASIUS AND ARIANISM
3.1 Athanasius and the Council of Nicaea………………………………………….33
3.1.1 The Nature, Objective and Relevance of the Council……...…34
3.1.2 The Place and Role of Athanasius in the Council……………35
3.1.3 Core Teaching of Nicaea……………………………………...37
3.1.4 The Symbolum of Nicaea / The creed of Nicaea……………..41
3.1.4.1 From the essence of the Father……………………………………43
3.1.4.2 True God from True God…………………………………………44
3.1.4.3 Begotten not Made………………………………………………45
3.1.4.4 Homoouious………………………………………………………46
3.2 The Christological impact of Athanasius position in the Church……………47
3.3 The Politics of Arianism………………………………………………………49
3.4 Exilic Experiences of Athanasius………………………………………….…51
3.4.1 First Exile………………………………………………………………..…51
3.4.2 Second Exile………………………………………………………………53
3.4.3. Third Exile…………………………………………………………………55
3.4.4 Fourth Exile…………………………………………………………………56
3.4.5 Fifth Exile………………………………………………………………..…57
3.5 The Ecclesiology of Athanisus…………………………………………………58
3.5.1. Oneness of the Church-Unity…………………………………………….…58
3.5.2 The Holiness of the Church-Unity………………………………………..…59
3.5.3 The Catholicity of the Church-Unity………………………………………..59
3.5.4 The Apostolicity of the Church-Unity………………………………………60
CHAPTER FOUR: The Quest for Doctrinal Harmony in Today’s Church
4.1. The Contemporary Church today…………………………………………………61
4.1.1 The emergence of New Churches in Nigeria…………………………………61
4.1.2 Liturgical Abuses in Catholic Church………………………………………63
4.2 The Doctrinal Challenges…………...……………………………………….64
4.3The Ecclesia Community in the Light of Athanasius’ legacy………………………69
CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………….77
BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………80
INTRODUCTION
Discord and disharmony besiege the ecclesia community today; an apparent theological disorientation, distorted spirituality and violated ideals. Old errors cast their shadows to the present, destroying hopes, doctrines and values. There are lapses and deviations from doctrinal harmony. Our age has become unfortunate and Christianity has become a paradox of many churches. Some Catholics move from one Church to another in search of wealth and they seem to have forgotten the creed which is the symbol of their faith. Our failure to live and proclaim our faith has consequences: the world has become stained with alarming indices of war that stirred up intrigue and bloodshed that shook Christianity to its depths; drums of terrorism now sound with accompanying lyrics of hatred; religious war now looms on account of conflict of creeds. The question that comes to a Christian mind is: who then can teach the faith without fear and how could the faith be taught? To tame these errors we must rewrite our methodological and catechetical profiles by imitating Athanasius who was engaged in endless battle in proving the Divinity of Christ. His doctrinal impacts in the first ecumenical council brought to live the Nicaea creed. The Council resolved disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of the Son in his relationship to the Father: in particular, whether the Son had been ‘begotten’ by the Father from his own being, and therefore having no beginning, or else created out of nothing, and therefore having a beginning. With the first council, the Church started to develop its faith, to answer seriously the heresies, to issue disciplinary decrees, and to be the voice of divine truth in the world. This research will present the different ways Athanasius fought hard for the defense of the divinity of Jesus Christ; for he truly believed that only the divine Lord could save humanity, and how our modern day Church can sustain this doctrinal harmony.
0.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The idea of sincerity of doctrinal formation is one that is rarely viewed as important in the Church but this earnest belief is the element that drove Athanasius to stand for truth in the theological sense and in his teachings. The teaching on the divinity of Christ has being an issue among Christians of different epochs. This doctrinal teaching is almost losing it weight as a result of oversight from our present day defenders of faith and multiplicity of doctrine from every corners of the earth by different Church. Church needs defenders and educators of Faith who will tenaciously uphold the faith. Athanasius was a lone figure among prominent theologians who did not relent but continued to uphold the veracity of the Nicene doctrines. He persisted in writing treatises altercating in favor of and confirming the divinity of the Son and the Trinitarian idea. Christians today have this theological battle to fight and build up doctrinal harmony in our ecclesia community. Do we still have teachings, attitude or practices, that like Arianism tend to diminish the divinity of Christ? This work examines Arianism and how Athanasius contended with it as a pastor.
0.2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
This study is aimed at a theological study of Arianism and the outcome of the council of Nicaea, using the doctrinal impact of Athanasius in establishing growth in the ecclesia community. It would also concern itself with the doctrinal harmony and its challenges in the contemporary Church which will be resolved with the thread of Athanasius.
0.3 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
It is necessary to ascertain that the scope of this study is all encompassing in giving a full foundation of doctrinal harmony in the Church today. Precisely, this work is a theological interpretation and contribution of Athanasius in formulating the Nicaea creed which we use today in our churches. This enables us to appreciate and continues the doctrinal formation in every spheres of life.
0.4 METHODOLOGY
Obviously, the verse theological interpretation of Faith (Creed) makes it seemly impossible to be exhausted in this study. To this effect, this study shall adopt an expository and analytical approach that seeks to synthesize the findings of the study from a theological perspective. This will be embarked upon with a view of understanding the subject matter. In line with this, this work shall be in four chapters. The first chapter will focus on person of Athanasius, the chapter two shall focus on an overview of Arianism, chapter three shall expose the battle for doctrinal harmony, and the last chapter shall express the quest for doctrinal harmony.
CHAPTER ONE
ATHANASIUS: THE MAN, HIS TIME AND WORKS
1.1 THE PERSON OF ATHANASIUS
Athanasius of Alexandria is also known as “The Father of Orthodoxy” “orthodoxy” meaning “right teaching”. He was born around 296 CE in Alexandria, Egypt. It is assumed that he belonged to an upper-class family, as his early theological writings point to a kind of education accessible to only wealthy people. He was greatly influenced by Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, a well-known theologian. Athanasius was educated by Alexander. He came from a prominent Christian family; he received a wonderful Christian education in Christian doctrine, Greek literature, philosophy, rhetoric and jurisprudence. He was well studied in the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian texts. A legend has it that Bishop Alexander, while waiting by the window for his guests, noticed some boys playing outside and they were enacting Christian baptism. He sent for the children and realized that the one playing bishop had actually baptized his playmates. He was Athanasius, whom Alexander decided to train for a clerical career. Such was the beginning of Athanasius’s long and illustrious pastoral career.
However, Athanasius received sacrament of baptism with his mother during youthful age. In 318, he was both a deacon in the Church and secretary to Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria. Around 318, he wrote treatises which discuss incarnation and the relationship between God and Christ, which are still quoted in Christian studies. With Alexander’s encouragement, he travelled through Egyptian deserts and met several ascetics, including St. Anthony. Later, Athanasius wrote the biography of St. Anthony. In 325, he accompanied Alexander to the Council of Nicaea, a meeting of Christian bishops that has become renowned as the first ecumenical council of the Church. The council was summoned by Emperor Constantine to deal with a controversy that had first arisen between Bishop Alexander and Arius, a presbyter at Alexandria. The Council, which defined the full divinity of the Son of God, shaped the whole of Athanasius’s theology, and his defense of the Nicene doctrine became the political catalyst for his later exiles. Starting from the date of his birth, St. Athanasius, defender of Christ’s divine Son-ship, is the earliest Doctor of the Church. His whole life was shaped around his defense of the divinity of Christ at a time when powerful imperial forces and church-heads joined the Arians.
Alexander died five months after the Council of Nicaea. The bishops of Egypt spurred on in part by the enthusiastic cries of the people: “Give us Athanasius! He will be a bishop indeed,” elected the youthful Athanasius to be the Bishop of Alexandria. He was about 30 years old. He died on the 2nd of May AD, 273. Athanasius inherited a very complex ecclesial and social situation. Because of the leniency with which Athanasius’s predecessors treated those who had lapsed during the Diocletian persecution in 313, Bishop Melitius of Lycopolis and his followers protested Athanasius’s election, instigating a schism within the Egyptian church. Alexandria was one of the most vibrant cities in the Roman Empire, being a major port and the agricultural capital of the empire.Additionally, Alexandria was composed of pagan, Christian, Jewish, Gnostic, and Manichaean religious communities. This cosmopolitan mix of peoples, philosophies, and religions led to inevitable friction and even riots everyone passionately competing for their rightful place within the polis. As the Christian bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius had to not only shepherd his own flock but also defend it within the chaotic civic life that was the Alexandria of his day.
1.2 THE EPISCOPACY OF ATHANASIUS
When Bishop Alexander of Alexandria died in 328, Athanasius was not there.It appears likely that Athanasius was not in Alexandria because he did not desire to be appointed the new bishop. Bishop Alexander made it clear that he wanted Athanasius to succeed him as bishop. Following the usual practice where each bishop is expected to recommend someone who would replace him after his death. Added to that, the laity of Alexandria also wanted Athanasius to be the next bishop as they referred to him as ‘the good,’ ‘the pious’ and ‘one of the ascetics.’In fact, Sozomen actually states that Athanasius sought to decline being appointed bishop by flight. As well, Apolinarius writes that Bishop Alexander was aware that Athanasius did not desire to enter the theological conflict. Apolinarius quotes him as saying: “O Athanasius, you think to escape, but you will not escape.” Thus, an interesting aspect of Athanasius’ character is revealed. He decided not to be part of the growing theological conflicts because of his ascetic life. However, once he did enter the fray he was a formidable opponent and was willing to suffer for what he deemed to be the true doctrine of the church. In spite of his probable desire not to become bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius accepted the new post.
Consequently, those that did not agree with the Nicene Creed perceived, correctly as it turns out, that Athanasius would be a strong advocate against Arianism and, thus, they attempted to hinder him from becoming bishop. There were two ways that his opponents tried to blockade him from becoming bishop. One of the stories regarding his ordination is that seven bishops had secretly ordained him and another fanciful tale was that he had lured two bishops into a church and then proceeded to force them to ordain him. But the question is if he had to be that dishonest to force two other bishops to ordain him against their will, then why not simply lie and say that he had been ordained when he had not? One major weakness that can be ascertained in these charges is that they are in conflict with one another. Furthermore, He was charged over many things but all were discarded because the Egyptian bishops formally gave testimony to the fact that a majority of them had ordained Athanasius as the next bishop and that they had publicly done this in front of the laity of Alexandria.
Therefore, despite his opponents’ efforts and his own unwillingness, the desires of Alexander and the laity prevailed and Athanasius became the next bishop of Alexandria in 328. “For a brief moment he was allowed, quietly and without molestation, to carry out the work which he had so much at heart, namely, the evangelization of the heathen, and the edification of the Christian Church.” However, this time of reprieve was not to last as the enemy forces were not content to have their views taken out of contention.
1.3 PRE-NICAEA COUNCIL
The councils or synods are assemblies of representatives of the universal Church or local Churches for mutual consultations and for reaching decisions on Church affairs. Before the council of 325, there was a less participation on the basis of the imperial provincial system than of the relationship to the mother Church and the geographical distribution of Christian communities. Italy and Asia Minor developed their lively synodal activity towards the end of 2nd century while the Church of Gaul did theirs in the 4th Century. During the Antiochene synod of 252, 264 and 268, the Western Churches played no or little role. However, the group from the East was destined to arrange and provide majority of participants at Antioch in 324 for the Council of Nicaea. The first Ecumenical Council became a reality by the forms taken by a single assembly of bishops.
Arian conflict which was in view of the nature of Christ gave rise to the Council of Nicene. Bishop Alexander espoused and supported the teaching that Jesus had always been the Son, and that God had always been the Father. Alexander also believed that Jesus was the exact representation of the Father and that they were of the same essence. In contrast, Arius felt that there was somehow a conflict with the monotheistic idea in this teaching. “Arius saw his bishop’s teaching as implying two ultimate principles in the universe, and he taught that Alexander compromised the biblical insistence on the Father being alone God and alone immortal.”
Thus, Arius presented the alternate idea that Jesus was a created being and was not of the same essence as the Father. These two ideas were different at their core and their proponents became dogmatic enough to have open conflict. Bishop Peter excommunicated Arius and he was reinstated by the next bishop, Achillas, after Peter was martyred. Thus, by 313 Arius had established himself as a popular preacher at the Church of Baucalis which was situated near the harbor. Moreover, Arius began to seek opportunities to have conflict with Alexander. After two councils of the local clergy had met Alexander sided against Arius. Arius refused to accept the other position and Alexander rejected him from fellowship along with all those who sided with him. Those who supported Arius varied in their reasoning with some of them supporting him because they believed in his doctrine and some supporting him because they perceived that he had been unjustly excommunicated. Whatever the case, Arius refused to allow the conflict to dissolve and it became such a distraction that Emperor Constantine called for a church council to be convened at Nicaea with the matter to be one of the important topics decided upon. Athanasius was fully involved in the council of Nicene from the beginning as he supported the orthodox position of his bishop
1.4 THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA
Athanasius was a prominent spokesman for the orthodox movement and many of the bishops, theologians and emperors stood against him theologically, ecclesiastically and politically. He championed the Nicene Creed as a true expression of the Catholic faith. Emperor Constantine was heavily involved at Nicaea as he both called for the council and attended in modern Turkey. The council was convoked on May 20, 325 with about 230 bishops attending. The majority of the bishops that were present came from the east, but there were some, possibly five or six, that came from the west.
Thus, when trying to comprehend the importance of the Council of Nicaea it needs to be understood that is was the first time in centuries that the church as a whole had undertaken the task of creating a statement of faith and that Athanasius was an integral part of this. Those attending probably had no foreshadowing that it would come to be looked at as a turning point in history by future generations. “What made the council such an extraordinarily important turning point was not just the doctrinal question at stake but the way in which political and social forces combined with the critical theological issue.”
The Council of Nicaea also was notable because the various participants had different agendas. The council, according to Socrates, was convened at the request of Constantine, the current emperor of Rome, because the Christian sovereign hated discord, and he therefore set three tasks that he wants to resolve during this gathering.” To begin with, the primary goal of Constantine was to find stability. The council said “Peace is the object which we set before us.” He believed embracing Christianity could produce unity in the empire and he wrote of his reasons for the council: “My design then was, first to bring the diverse judgments found by all nations respecting the Deity to a condition, as it were, of settled uniformity (that is, to clarify doctrine for the sake of the church); to restore a healthy tone to the system of the world, then suffering under the power of grievous disease (that is, to end religious strife for the sake of the empire.)” Secondly, those who followed Bishop Alexander desired to settle the orthodox beliefs concerning Christ in a definitive way. Thirdly, the Arians were pushing for their beliefs about the deity of Christ to be legitimized as they believed it to be the correct view. Thus, the outcomes of the council that each party would see as a success did not coincide with one another. This, in turn, led to a situation that was ripe for conflict, and that is exactly what occurred as the council ended, after much heated arguing, with Arius, and his followers who would not recant, being condemned. Constantine condemned any books that Arius had written to be destroyed and declared that he and his followers were ungodly. Therefore, the idea that the Son was full deity and eternally existent became the official position of the church. Nicaea issued four documents: “A creed (Symbolum), a decree concerning the correct and ecumenically binding date of Easter, twenty canons on matters of discipline and a letter of the synod to communicate the results of the council to the fellow churches.” The council lasted for two months and twelve days.
1.5 PROPONENT AND EXPONENT OF ARIANISM
Bishop Alexander, Athanasius and the other orthodox believers were hoping for a time of peace that would be free from religious wrangling. For a short period, this seemed like a possibility, but Arius and his constituents would not allow the controversy to end. There are bishops who stood vehemently in support of Arian in the council. One of the most important advocates of Arius was Eusebius. Bishop Eusebius of Nicomidia was a very important ecclesial advisor to the sons of Constantine. He was so prevalent because he was politically connected and used political intrigue and relationships to promote Arian views. Arius also had help from Constantia, who was Constantine’s sister. She had a presbyter working in her home who was an Arian and she held him in high esteem. This man would speak to Constantia about why he believed the condemnation of Arius was unjust. When Constantia died, she recommended the presbyter to Constantine and the presbyter was also able to influence him. Emperor Valens was an active pro-Arian. Like Constantius, he issued imperial edict to drive all the anti-Arians out of Egypt.
1.6 ATHANASIUS WORKS AND WRITINGS
Athanasius works and writings are rooted from his firm adherence and clear exposition of the doctrine that Christ is the true Son of God. From his First Letters to Serapion, he held on to “the tradition, teaching, and faith proclaimed by the apostles and guarded by the fathers.” St. Athanasius’ writings are provided by the eleven Readings used in the Liturgy of the Hours as published in 1971. His letter to Epictetus was written in answer to questions put by Epictetus, Bishop of Corinth. It concerns the relationship of the historical Christ to the Eternal Son; it was used in the council of Chalcedon in 451AD. He held that not only is the Son of God consubstantial with the Father, but so is the Holy Spirit, which had a great deal of influence in the development of later doctrines regarding the Trinity. Athanasius’ “Letter Concerning the Decrees of the Council of Nicaea” (De Decretis), expresses theological account of the proceedings of that council, and another letter from 367 is the first known listing of all those books now accepted as the New Testament.
Athanasius’ polemical writings against his theological opponents includeOrations against the Arians, his defence of the divinity of the Holy Spirit (Letters to Serapion in the 360s, and On the Holy Spirit), Against Macedonianism and On the Incarnation. Athanasius also wrote a two-part works; against the Heathen and The Incarnation of the Word of God. They served as first classic work of developed Orthodox theology. In his work on against the Heathen, Athanasius attacks several pagan practices and beliefs. The second part presents teachings on the redemption. Also in these books, Athanasius put forward the belief that the Son of God, the eternal Word through whom God created the world, entered that world in human form to lead men back into the harmony from which they had earlier fallen away. Athanasius also wrote several works of Biblical exegesis, primarily of volumes in the Old Testament. Excerpts remain of his discussions concerning the Book of Genesis, the Song of Solomon, and Psalms. His biography of Anthony the Great entitled “Life of Antony” became his most widely-read work. Translated into several languages, it played an important role in the spreading of the ascetic ideal in Eastern and Western Christianity. His most important works used to garner historical data of the period include the Encyclical Letter of 339, “Defense Against the Arians”, “On the Council of Nicaea”, “Defense Before Constantius”, Letter to the Bishops of Egypt and Libya of 356, “Defense of His Flight, History of the Arians” and “On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia”.
CHAPTER TWO
AN OVERVIEW OF ARIANISM
2.1. THE PERSON OF ARIUS
Arius was one of the most prominent but controversial theologians of the fourth century. Arius was born, probably in Libya, towards the middle of the third century (256).He died in Constantinople in 336. He had been in Alexandria for a number of years at the time the conflict developed between him and Bishop Alexander. He became a popular priest in Antioch because of his new interpretations on Christology. Arius was one of the chief theological rivals of Athanasius in the theological controversy prevalent at the time. He studied under the martyr Lucian of Baucalis at Alexandria. He was highly gifted and well educated, austere and grave in his deportment; he rapidly gained a popularity which he later abused. It is known that his father taught him three languages: Latin, Greek and Hebrew.He was said to have been fluent in Greek and Latin and well-informed about the Hebrew language. He concentrated on theological and Christological concepts.
However, his interpretation on Logos began since 318. Under Alexander the bishop, he came forward as a champion of subordinationist teaching about the person of Christ set forth in his most important work, the ‘Thalia’ in which the principal object was firmly to establish the unity and simplicity of the eternal God: the Son may surpass other created beings, he remains himself a created being, to whom the Father before all time gave existence formed out of ‘not being’. According to him, the Logos is a created being, not eternal, different from the Father in substance, and subject to change. His approaches to Christological issues later resulted in his excommunication by the bishops who refused to subscribe to his teachings. Lastly, Arius died suddenly while walking in the streets of Constantinople, the day before he was to have been formally reconciled.
2.2 THE ORIGIN OF ARIANISM
Arianism is derived from the name of Arius, to designate the most tenacious and dangerous Trinitarian heresy, one which caused deep depression in the fabric of Christianity and mutual condemnations by members of various local Churches in the course of the fourth century. Arianism is a fourth-century movement declared heretical by the Church at the Council of Nicaea (325) for denying the True Divinity of Christ. Arius the Alexandrian priest from whom the movement derived its name, taught that the primary characteristic of God is to be “unbegotten”. Arianism built its arguments upon Scripture passages like Prov 8: 22 (“The Lord created me at the beginning of his work”) and Col 1:15 (“the first born of all creation”). Arianism expressed that the Son of God possessed a Dignity superior to human dignity. Thus, Jesus Christ was truly Saviour through the examples he provided.
This lends even more credence to the notion that many bishops living in the fourth century made their ecclesiastical decisions based on politics rather than a consideration of the veracity of an idea. However, since it appears to be unanimous, it presents the impression that it is more likely that political expediency, rather than truth, was the real motivation.” Arius seemed to appeal his teachings to the common laymen. Moreover, he made use of pithy sayings put into the form of a rhyme that were easy to remember and, apparently, had an impact on common people. An example of such a whimsical utterance was: “There was a time when he was not.” This was in reference to Christ, and Arius utilized this saying, and other similar ones, to help spread his beliefs and endeared them to the minds of the people. There are some conflict as to how Arius received his education and who influenced him. Some believe that Arius sat under the teachings of Lucian and received his education at the school of Antioch.
2.3 THE THALIA OF ARIUS
Arius was not a great writer. Though, he wroteThalia in order to propagate his new theological opinion. Other sources of his ideas are his letters to Eusebius (he had enjoyed a friendship with Eusebius long before the letter was written and he was to become one of his staunchest supporters), his confession of faith to his bishop Alexander, and his letter to Constantine. More importantly, his adversaries: Alexander and Athanasius, in particular, gave a good documentation of his ideas. To discover the Arius standpoint, it is pertinent to review his work Thalia. Thalia literally means “abundance,” “good cheer,” or “banquet”.Thalia was a collection of poems by Arius which was designed to propagate his theological views in a popularized way. It was written in verse, in order to aid memorization and popular distribution of Arius’s ideas. The central focus of his idea was that Jesus was a created being. Arius wrote: “And before he was begotten, or created or determined or established, he did not exist, for he was not unbegotten.”
Consequently, Christ, as Arius contends in his Thalia, is not God. “Neither is the Logos true God”, compared to God the Father. This is why not only does he not know the Father perfectly, but neither does he know his own substance. Again Christ is not God, even when compared to human beings. He is only a “perfect creature”. He became a “strong god” through moral progress and the operation of divine grace. On the above basis, the present world begins with the creation of the Son. The Son is the first-fruits of creation. God did not create the world directly, but created the Logos so that the Logos may create the world. The Logos was created before all things. Ultimately, however, “the Logos came to be out of nothing and there was when he was not”.It is obvious from this letter that Arius believed that the Son was a created being and that there was a time when he did not exist.
Fortunately, more information can be gleaned from Arius’ major known theological work, the Thalia. The catalyst for the work appears to have been his desire to present to the followers of Eusebius something to unify the opposition to the Nicene faction. An interesting aspect of the Thalia is that it was written in verses with a metrical pattern. Thus, critics tend to trust quotations from the work that are given in verses and to question quotations that have been taken out of the metrical pattern as not being original. As well, all that is preserved from the Thalia has been obtained from Athanasius’ writing and, owing to Athanasius and Arius being bitter rivals, critics questions the validity of all that Athanasius quotes from the Thalia.
Nevertheless, Athanasius’ quotes of the Thalia are the best that can be obtained. Athanasius quotes Arius as stating: “God was not eternally a Father. There was a time when God was all alone, and was not yet a Father; only later did he become a Father.” In this passage Arius again makes it clear that he does not believe in the eternality of the Son. In addition, Arius is presented as believing that the Son could change and choose not to be good. Athanasius quotes the Thalia as saying: “…Like all others, the Word Himself also is subject to change (treptos); He goes on being good as long as He wants to, by his own free will. And then, when He wants to, He too, just like us, is able to change his ways, because he is changeable by nature.” Thus, the theology of Arius is quite different from orthodox theology as it intimates that the Word can change and decide not to be good and the Son is created. It is understandable why Athanasius perceived the need to battle against Arianism at all costs.
2.4 TENETS OF ARIANISM: ARIUS’ ATTITUDE TO THE SCRIPTURE
Arius was influenced by Greek philosophy, which believed that the perfection of deity effectively rendered impossible any change to its essential nature. Under that presupposition, to change is either to change for the better or for the worse. Change would therefore imply that God was either less than perfect before the change, or less than perfect after the change.
It should be duly noted that Arius and those in his theological camp held Christ in high esteem. They asserted that Jesus was the word of God, the power of God and the wisdom of God. However, the Nicene believers held to the doctrine that Jesus was God come in the flesh. In contrast, Arius continually affirmed the construct that Jesus was not God. In fact, Gregg and Groh remarked that if those who opposed Arius could state their difficulty with the movement in one statement it could read something like this: “…no matter how the Arians huff and puff, what they preach is a creature promoted to the status of a god.” Thus, this became the central contention between Arius and his opponents. For all the wrangling Arius did about having a high view of Christ, in the end he could simply not affirm that Jesus is God and in the minds of the Nicene followers this made him of the utmost danger. Partridge sums it up neatly: “…Arianism in that, while it affirms Christ’s status as Son of God and Savior, it denies his full Divinity, and therefore also denies the Trinitarian orthodoxy of Western Christianity.”
It is noteworthy that Arius did not only deny the Divinity of Christ but also, somewhat strangely, the humanity of Jesus. Arius believed that the humanity of the Logos was not a real humanity in the same fashion that it is for other humans. Interestingly, Arius postulated that Jesus was somehow only attached to a human body. According to Arius, the historical Christ did not have a human soul. Of course, this is in direct contrast to the doctrine of the incarnation and it follows that Jesus could not truly know the feelings of a human being because he remained aloof. As well, this doctrine of Arius was vocalized in previous centuries as the theological and philosophical ideas of Docetism and Gnosticism. Thus, it is entirely possible that the Docetic heresy had influenced Arius and that his teachings about the humanity of Christ were merely a rehashing of previous heretical ideas.
Another central tenet of Arius’ belief system was the idea of the eternality of Jesus. Arius believed that there was a time when Jesus did not exist. It also seems incoherent that Arius affirmed the truth of Scripture that Jesus created the world while at the same time he also believed that Jesus was created by God and that God presented Him with the task of creating the world. The denial of the eternality of Christ became one of the ideas that those of the Nicene faith, with Athanasius as their spokesman, would oppose most vehemently.
Arius took that presupposition and applied it to the implications of the incarnation. If Jesus Christ were fully God, preexistent from all eternity, then the incarnation would represent a change in His essential nature. Since that would represent a fundamental change in His nature, the immutability of God would be violated. According to Arius, that conclusion meant that Jesus could not have been God in human flesh.
Additionally, a teaching that was central to the Arian theology was the idea of the promotion of Jesus. Arius instructed the doctrine that Jesus had been promoted to the status of God at some time in history. Of course, Arius asserted that God the Father alone had the authority to elevate Jesus to the status of God. Thus, Jesus has a different station in existence than the Father because he was not God from the beginning of time. Therefore, Arius intimated that although Jesus did have a status that was above all other creatures, in the final analysis it was the same type of relationship of dependence. It is of interest that this idea had unintended consequences for Arius in that Christianity must now have a similar type of worship to pagans. Harrison explains: “In demanding worship for a created Christ, the Arians were in effect asserting the central principle of heathenism and idolatry, the worship of a creature.”
The Arians also had a variant view on the Holy Spirit. However, it is only by implication that it is believed that Arius also held this view. Nevertheless, the majority of Arians supposed that the Holy Spirit was the greatest and first of the creatures that were called into existence by the Son. Thus, it follows that in Arian teaching the Holy Spirit was not eternal, but depended on God the Father for His existence just as the Son depended on Him.
As stated previously, Arius depended heavily upon philosophy. Arianism rarely referred to Scripture as its foundation but instead the movement tended to utilize philosophical ideas to support the conclusions that it rendered about the nature of Jesus. Arianism appeared to be the philosophy of the time period simply being applied to Christianity. Gwatkin observes: “Nevertheless, this plausible Arian confession will not bear examination. It is only the philosophy of the day put into Christian dress.”
The Son Must Be a Creature, He was formed out of nothing by the Father’s fiat. He is a perfect creature, not to be compared with the rest of creation, but He owes His being to the Father’s will. The Son is not self-existent. The Son must have had a beginning; Arius distinguished between the Son, who had a beginning, and God, who is without beginning. Arians often said, “There was a time when He was not.”
The Son can have no communion with His Father since He is a creature, He is alien from and utterly dissimilar to the Father’s essence and individual being. The Word can neither see nor know the Father perfectly and accurately. The Son is liable to change and even sin. God in His providence foresaw that the Son would remain virtuous by His own steadfast resolution, and therefore bestowed this grace on Him in advance.
2.4.1 The Scriptural Standpoints of Arius
Arius used four lines of scriptural argument to support his position: (1) Passages that suggested that the Son was a creature; including Prov 8:22 (“The Lord created me”); Acts 2:36 (“God has made Him Lord and Christ”); Rom 8:29 (“The first-born among many”); Col 1:15 (“The first-born of all creation”); Heb 3:2 (“Who was faithful to Him who made Him.”). (2) Passages that represented God the Father as the sole veritable God; including John 17:3 (“This is life eternal, that they should know Thee the only true God, and Him whom Thou didst send, Jesus Christ”). (3) Passages that seemed to imply Christ’s inferiority to the Father. John 14:28 (“The Father is greater than I.”). (4) Passages that attributed ignorance, weakness, suffering or development to the Son of God.
2.5 DOCTRINAL IMPACT OF ARIANISM ON THE ECCLESIA COMMUNITY
The doctrine of Arianism impacted the church in different ways: negatively and positively. Being within the Church Arius was not seen so much as an enemy of the Church, but a cleric who in all innocence wants to give a convincing understanding of the trinity. However, he erred in his doctrine about the Son. Nevertheless, to err is human but Arius rather held-on to his convinced and refused correction. The erroneous doctrine of Arius triggered a solid doctrine of Christology.
2.5.1 THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF ARIANISM
Arianism threatened the unity and peace of the Church. The teaching re-awakened the radical Origenistic viewpoint of “Surbordinationism” or “Adoptionism” which reduced the Son to a secondary deity or a demi-god. The teaching also divided the church in its structures and religious practices as well as personnel (bishops some sympathized with Arius and some Athanasius). Most Arians formed their churches and declared ambiguously that the Son was unlike the Father. It contradicts salvation by grace. If Christ was a human being, then his blood cannot save; also Christ as a spirit, phantom, cannot shed blood.
But for decades after the council, it appeared that an Arian perspective on the person of Christ would carry the day and the conclusions of Nicaea would disappear in a theological and ecclesial dustbin. The Roman emperors were an important influence. A series of emperors (beginning with Constantine) understood their role to include the right to intervene in the affairs of the church, particularly when division within the church threatened the unity of the Roman Empire itself. Thus, if a Roman emperor was disposed favorably toward Arian ideas as Constantius and Valens were, bishops supporting the creed formulated at Nicaea could be severely punished, most often by being deposed and exiled. If an emperor favoring Nicaea was in power, Arian believers would suffer. When a series of pro-Arian emperors arrived on the scene, Arianism spread like wildfire.
Arianism did not simply influence several theologians in the early centuries of Christianity; its impact affected the emergence of Orthodoxy. The Arian controversy was the first controversy to be decided by an ecumenical council. This impact continues today with groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses who deny the deity of Christ.
Arianism undermined a tremendous impact on the early Church by causing it to define orthodoxy with a number of creeds. The doctrine of Christ had already been responsible for considerable agitation of the Church. Before Arius came on the scene, heresy had already played a major role in forcing the Church to express definite views of doctrine. Beginning toward the end of the first century and especially into the second and third centuries, Gnosticism pressured the Church fathers into defining and defending some of the major doctrines of Christianity; particularly concerning Christology (the person, nature, and work of Christ).
2.5.2. THE POSITIVE IMPACTS OF ARIANISM
The Lord has often used controversy and challenges to refine the biblical understanding of His church. Arianism is a blessing in disguise. While that wouldn’t make us contrarian, it should also make us aware that controversy isn’t always sinful and wrong. Sometimes it is for our providential purification and refinement. Not all controversy in the church has a dangerous effect, especially in the early years of Christianity. Arianism forced the Church to solidify its Christology. It led to the convocation of the first ecumenical council which became a pattern and reference point of policies in religious matters. Beginning with Nicaea and following through the arguments of Athanasius, the Church was able to defend and articulate the orthodox understanding of Christ’s divinity and eternality. Furthermore, the hypostatic union was defined thus answering the questions of the heretics about immutability and impassibility. The Church’s Trinitarianism was more narrowly defined, highlighting the divine mystery, yet emphasizing the unique personhood of each member of the Trinity while maintaining strict monotheism. The Historic creeds are not scholastic attempts to go beyond Scripture; they are orthodoxy’s defense against those who seek to solve what they see as logical fallacies in God’s Word. Typically, the creeds are simply preserving mystery and paradox against the onslaught of those who can’t humbly live with it.
Arianism has not gone; it still exists in this 21st century. “Arians” exist today (e.g. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses), but orthodox Christian believers can rightly worship Christ, not as a co-existent man, but as a sufficient Savior and mediator. Additionally, Christians can joyfully recite the Nicene Creed knowing it is a true statement of Christian belief having come through the fires of controversy to defend the true divinity and Personhood of the Son of God. “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).
Conclusively, the great lesson for today’s Church lies in the importance to stay firm in the Christian doctrines, preserved through the ages, so it will avoid falling prey of false doctrines. Just like the Arianism was a problem in the primitive Church, other issues can easily arise in the modern church when there is not solid foundation in sound doctrine.
CHAPTER THREE
THE BATTLE FOR DOCTRINAL HARMONY: ATHANASIUS AND ARIANISM
3.2 ATHANASIUS AND THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA
Athanasius had a great influence on the people of his time and subsequent centuries as well, through his exemplary life but also through his theological prowess in the council of Nicaea. He was able to combine his impeccable life, his brilliant theological mind and true love for the people in a unique fashion; and these characteristics made him a beloved bishop. Similar to this was that Athanasius went against the prevailing tides of his epoch by espousing that salvation was for the common man and not just the elite. As well, a critical idea that Athanasius embraced was the incarnation. He rightly believed that the incarnation was a crucial doctrine that was central to Christianity and he aptly defended it through his personal and ecclesiastical struggles as well as his astute theological treatises. At the council, doctrinal formulas were made to curb some of the controversies and heresy shaking the Church. This doctrinal formula was supported with some guidelines and clarity. The contribution of Athanasius in the council gave rise to the teaching of Faith. His relevance is highly conspicuous, having contributed in the core teachings of Nicaea. He also contributed in the formulation of creed which was sustained with canons as a form of guideline for the Church.
3.1.1 The Nature, Objective and Relevance of the Council of Nicaea
The general objective of the council of Nicaea was to make a sound teaching on the Divinity of Christ. This was necessitated by the debate between the Arianians (those who believe that God created Jesus, and that Jesus was not eternal or one with God) and anti-Arians (those who believe that Jesus was eternal and of the same essence with God). During the council, St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius defeated Arians. The leaders from every corner of the Church came together to resolve the disagreements in the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was of the same or merely of similar substance as God the Father.Also for the first time the emperor played a role, by calling together the bishops under his authority, and using the power of the state to give the Council’s orders effect.
The Council resolved disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of the Son in his relationship to the Father: in particular, whether the Son had been ‘begotten’ by the Father from his own being, and therefore having no beginning, or else created out of nothing, and therefore having a beginning. This ecumenical council was the first effort to reach consensus in the church through an assembly representing entire Christendom. The Council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250-318 attendees, all but two agreed to sign the creed and these two, along with Arius, were banished to Illyria). They successfully came out with the first part of the Nicaea creed which is the symbol of every Christian faith. Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Christological issue of the divine nature of God the Son and his relationship to God the Father. The true nature of Christ (Human and Divine) was expressed and documented. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent local and regional councils of bishops to create statements of belief. Also the Arian heresy was sidelined; there was mandate uniformity in observance of the date of Easter. They promulgated the first canon law that will be of guide to all Christendom.
3.1.2 The Place and Role of Athanasius in the Council
The Council of Nicaea was convoked by Emperor Constantine in 325 to discuss the ‘Divinity of Christ’ which was hotly debated between Arians and the Church. Athanasius of Alexandria came to be known as one of the staunchest defenders of the Christian faith as it was defined at the Council of Nicaea over and against the heresy of Arianism. Athanasius attended this Council as the chief deacon of Alexander, where he vehemently opposed Arius whose views were against the Divine nature of Christ. In the Council some of the bishops, theologians, and emperors stood against Athanasius theologically, ecclesiastically, and politically but he resolutely endorsed and championed the Nicene Creed as a true expression of the Catholic faith. His argument was made more explicit in his doctrinal defense on the Son’s true divinity, why the Son is God as the Father is God. Even within the early refutation of Arianism and exposition of the Nicene doctrine, Athanasius argues that the Father and the Son are not distinct and separate natures but one and the same ousia.
During the council some theologians went in different directions. Some stressed the unity between the Father and the Son and so the full divinity of the Son; others emphasized the distinction between the Father and the Son and the Son’s subordination to the Father, and therefore minimized his divinity. Similarly, he defended the doctrine of the trinity both through written word and action. In a similar vein, he stood against modalism while maintaining the balance with the teaching that Jesus and the Holy Spirit was fully God. In fact, Athanasius was monumental in promoting the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is fully God and of the same essence as the Father and Son. This seemingly irreconcilable tension, a tension that was percolating over several generations, gave rise to the crisis that confronted the Council of Nicaea and indulged Athanasius into the protracted theological, ecclesial, and political fray. Athanasius perceived that because of the revelation of Jesus as the Son of God and the sending forth of the Holy Spirit, the conceptualization of who the one God is, needs to be radically reconceived and this took place at the Council of Nicaea. With his argument he left a theological legacy. He helped clarify the nature of the Trinity, which also pertains to the identity of Christ. It is difficult to fathom the impact that Athanasius’ theological stances have had on the history of Christianity, particularly since he existed in such a pivotal period.
3.1.3 Core Teaching of Nicaea
In many ways, Nicaea marked a starting point for the church as she began to more fully explain and clarify her beliefs, demonstrating that doctrinal orthodoxy and fidelity to scriptural understanding of it could be established through the use of non scriptural terms. The principal teaching in the council centres on the nature of Jesus Christ. Within the church at that time there were several questions as to Christ’s deity. Is He more divine or more human? Was Jesus begotten or created? What does that mean? Is He equal to God the Father, or lower in status? Another question was about the Trinity. What is the Trinity? Is the Father the one true God, or are the Spirit, Jesus Christ and the Father the one true God together somehow?
The Council of Nicaea decided the answers to these questions based on the biblical teachings. A priest called Arius argued that Jesus Christ was not an eternal being, but that instead He was created by the Father at a point in time. Other bishops, notably Alexander and a deacon called Athanasius, argued the opposite: Jesus is eternal, and was with the Father “in the beginning” and was the agent by which all things were created (John 1:1-5). However, here we would be considering the core teaching of Nicaea in the light of our subject matter which is
The Nicene Creed, in its entirety, affirmed belief “. . . in one God, the Father almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost.”
The actual concern of the council was clearly and unambiguously the relationship between the Father and the Son. Is Christ a creature, or true God? Thus, the core teaching of Nicaea is summed up in the Nicene Creed which stated Jesus was homoousios (Son is coequal, coeternal, and consubstantial with the Father). The truth of how the council came to use the term is not difficult to discern. Athanasius notes that the gathered bishops truly desired to express their faith in primarily scriptural language, and they tried to do so. But every time they came up with a statement that was limited to biblical terms, the Arians would find a way of “reading” the statement so as to allow for agreement. They were forced to see that they needed to use a term that could not be misunderstood, that would clearly differentiate between a belief in the full deity of Christ and all those positions that would compromise that belief. Therefore, they focused on the term homoousios as being completely antithetical to the Arian position, and at the same time reflective of the scriptural truth that Jesus Christ is not a creature, but is fully God, incarnate deity.
The term homoousios does not compromise the existence of three Persons, but instead safeguards the full deity of the Persons, and in particular, the Son. The creed, being the core teaching of Nicaea, signed by all except Arius and two Bishops, was clear in its position
We believe...in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one substance (homoousios) with the Father, through Whom all things were made....
The creed of Nicaea did not propose something new. Belief in the deity of Christ was as old as the apostles themselves, who enunciated this truth over and over again. Nicaea was not creating some new doctrine, some new belief, but clearly, explicitly, defining truth against error. The council had no idea that they, by their gathering together, possessed some kind of sacramental power of defining beliefs: they sought to clarify biblical truth, not to put themselves in the forefront and make themselves a second source of authority. This can easily be seen from the fact that Athanasius, in defending the Nicene council, does so on the basis of its harmony with Scripture, not on the basis of the council having some inherent authority in and of itself. Note his words:
“Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.”
While the creed of the council was its central achievement, it was not the only thing that the bishops accomplished during their meeting. Twenty canons were presented dealing with various disciplinary issues within the church. The authority of the Nicene Creed, including its assertion of the homoousion, is not to be found in some concept of an infallible church, but in the fidelity of the creed to scriptural revelation. It speaks with the voice of the apostles because it speaks the truth as they proclaimed it.
Nicaea enacted twenty canons, many of which are concerned with church discipline and organisation. They dealt five with different categories namely: ecclesiastical structures, the dignity of the clergy, public penance (reconciliation of the lapsed), the readmission of schematics and heretics, and Liturgical regulation. The council of Nicaea set many precedents: it provided Christendom with a statement of faith, and a foundation stone that future councils would build upon in the struggle against heresy. In summation, at the Council of Nicaea, the true nature of the Catholic faith (Nicaea Creed) and guidelines against heresies (canons) were publicly acknowledged as church doctrine, and Arius' argument was deemed a heresy.
3.1.4 The Symbolum of Nicaea / The Creed of Nicaea
The Nicene Creed which is also called Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed or Icon/Symbol of the Faith (symbolum) is professed every Sunday at Mass in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. In the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church and among separated Orthodox brethren, this same Creed is professed in its original formulation. The Nicene Creed arose from the first two ecumenical councils of the Church. The first ecumenical council is the First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. and the second is the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. The council’s main issue was to clarify theologically and pin down in an ecclesiastically binding way belief in the Trinity in confrontation with the theology of Arius. For the first time the council fathers render the creed in a declarative form rather than interrogative. The Nicene Creed according to its content can be said to be a direct and comprehensive response against Arianism. It responded to every claim or thesis of Arius so as to leave no stone unturned. The creed of Nicaea:
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets. He has spoken through the prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
3.1.4.1 ‘From the essence of the Father’
This phrase can be translated also as from the essence (ousia) of the father, is a direct response against the Arian statement which says that ‘the son was created from the will of the father’. According to this Arian perspective, the son derives his existence from the father by the pure act of will and not through begetting or separation or emanation. The reason for this view is because “coming forth as a result of the will guarantees the divine immutability and indivisibility.” It was unfathomable for Arius to conceive of the father being split into two substances. In order to maintain the immutability of the father, he did not pay attention to the ontological status of the Son. This contrasts the description of the son in the gospels as the only-begotten Son of the Father (John 3:16). Begetting implies having a common nature between the begetter and the begotten. So the son, as begotten of the Father, is of the same substance with the father. C.S. Lewis expresses that “What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man.” Jesus, the only-begotten son of the Father, is therefore not just from any other substance but from the substance of the Father who begot him. What the council is trying to correct here is that the son is not coming out of nothing (ex nihilo) or from the substance that once was not, but of the eternal substance of the Father, born of the father in eternity. In order to rule out the begetting or generation of the son as the creation of a creature, the council opined that the son is originally consubstantial with the father. And Consubstantiality could mean being of the same ontological nature with the father, the son shares thereby the same ontological dignity with the father. He is on the same ontological level with the father. The council makes thereby a distinction between Jesus and the rest of creation.
3.1.4.2 ‘True God from true God’
Arius did as well repeat this thought under the seven statements of ‘who alone’ phrases in his creed in the following statement; “we acknowledge one God… who alone is true.” The word ‘true’ is here tied to the word ‘alone’, and the word alone for Arius in his creed almost always pointed to the Monad. Arius had also regarded Jesus as a subordinate Divinity when he made a direct parallel identification of the demiurge from the middle platonic cosmological scheme with Jesus. And this demi-god of Arius belonged to the realm of creatures and is radically subordinate to the father. This demi-god together with all other beings, have God as their source. Therefore, to remove all ambiguity from the statement of God from God, it was necessary that the council fathers carefully and with precision added the phrase that he is not a false God but rather ‘true God from true God.’ By so declaring, the council fathers’ single intention was unmistakably made known, which was to emphasize that the son is God in an unequivocal sense. They thus locked or closed this statement from being open to any other interpretation. There is no more room for speculation and ambiguity. They thereby rescued Jesus from the realm of creatures and from the radical subordination to the father as Arius had portrayed him and they placed him on the same level with the Father.
3.1.4.3 ‘Begotten not made’
This is considered as one of the greatest scores of the council of Nicaea, which made great strides in terms of precision of words, was its drawing of a line between these two terms, distinguishing them from each other: ‘begotten’ not ‘made’. The Nicene Creed countered the false teaching by describing Christ as “begotten not made” and as being “of one substance with the Father.” The creed echoed what Scripture had already revealed. John characterizes Jesus as God’s “one and only” Son five times in the New Testament (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). This language emphasizes Jesus’ unique relationship to the Father; it does not imply that God created Him. This cleared the confusion of understanding the two terms and did thereby refute Arius' position that the son was created. This distinction, therefore, drove home a point that Jesus, as begotten of the father, is distinguished from the rest of the creatures which came into being by creation. This distinction between begotten and created is even more sharply expressed by C.S. Lewis in the statement; “What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man.” What is made does not bear the same nature as its maker, but what is begotten has the same nature as its begetter.
3.1.4.4 Homoousious
Consubstantiality with the father emphasizes the unity of the father and the son. The son is not the father but is of the same substance with the father. The father and the son are one in substance. Being of one substance here entails having the same dignity, the same ontological status, and unity. The council did hereby strongly reaffirm the direct creation of the world by God as held from time immemorial by the biblical creation narratives. This is as clearly contained in the very first article of the Nicene Creed, where the father is said to be ‘creator of all things, visible and invisible.’ The Jewish-Christian cosmological scheme only has two layers; i.e. God the creator and on the other side, creation. By using this term homoousios, the council is furthermore reacting directly against the teaching of Arius which says that ‘the son is alien to the father.’ However, the council states on the contrary that Jesus belongs inside the Godhead and is not alien to the Father. Homoousios, though not a biblical term, expressed the scriptural description of who the son is. The council Fathers wanted to express a purely biblical presentation of the son using the language of the present time, and they found the word homoousios as a befitting expression that was faithful to scripture. “I and the father are one.”(John 10:30).
3.5 THE CHRISTOLOGICAL IMPACT OF ATHANASIUS POSITION IN THE CHURCH
The central tenet of Athanasius’ Christology was the idea of homoousios. It was an idea that was bitterly contested throughout most of his life and, also, an idea that involved suffering for Athanasius and most of those who affirmed it. Homoousios is the idea that Jesus is of the same essence as the Father. This was the doctrinal stance that was approved by the Council of Nicaea. The importance of this stronghold of Christian faith is critical. “Athanasius fought so hard for the deity of Christ because he saw that our salvation depends on it.”The opposing theological viewpoint that the Arians and other opponents favored was the idea of homoiousios. The difference in the meaning of the two words is great even though the variance between them seems small. Homoiousios meant that Jesus was of a different substance than the Father and, thus, it naturally follows that Jesus was not fully God in the same sense that the Father is God. “Orthodoxy, however, was persuaded that everything that is important depends on excluding the iota, on confessing Christ as of the same substance as the Father, not as of like substance.”
Thus, Athanasius argued against and rejected the idea that the Father and Jesus were merely of a similar substance as he was able to perceive that the acceptance of this construct would result in the termination of orthodox Christianity. In addition, Christianity would also lose the potency as a change agent in the world if Jesus were merely another created being. A typical quote from Athanasius is found in the Contra Arianos: “…we are forced to say that the Son is entirely that which is ‘of the substance of the Father.’”
An interesting aspect of the conflict between the advocates of homoousios and homoiousios is in those who adhered to and supported their doctrine. Those who affirmed the idea of homoousios were almost exclusively Christian while the supporters of homoiousios, generally referred to as Arians, had difficulty when it came to garnering support from Christians. However, they were able to gather endorsement among Jews and pagans.Moreover, the Jews and pagans did not believe in the basic tenets of Christianity and, thus, it is easily comprehended why they would be willing to support a theological system that does not affirm that Jesus is fully God. Therefore, it followed that the Arians were willing to seek support from groups that did not believe in the truth of Christianity.
3.6 THE POLITICS OF ARIANISM AND NICAEA
The impact of the Nicaea council was also felt in the political realm, as Constantine had convoked the council and would seek to enforce its decrees throughout the empire with the power of imperial law and not just Church law. One factor that is of utmost importance in understanding him is that he was an excellent politician. He was tremendously adept at making friendships with the correct people and, then, later using those relationships to further his agenda. In order to maintain the Roman Empire under his singular rule, Constantine believed that he would have to settle the religious differences that plagued the Empire’s newest and rapidly growing religion, Christianity. To maintain unity of the Empire, Constantine believed that he must maintain unity of the Christian Church. It was with that goal in mind that Constantine called the bishops to meet at the first Council of Niceae. Constantine’s goal at the council was to solve the major issues causing dissent among the different Christian leaders throughout the empire. The relationship between church and state had been brought sharply into focus at Nicaea. History has it that before the convocation of the council, Tertullian (c.160-220) had asked the question, “What has the emperor to do with the Church?” The proceedings at Nicaea had provided an outline of some kind of answer. However, Constantine’s conversionmarks the beginning of the intermingling of church and state, a relationship that would wax and wane with successive emperors seeking to exert their own degree of influence in church matters.
Yet, while we will never fully know the role that celestial beings played in the decisions made by Constantine and the Council of Nicaea, we can look at the historical and political factors that affected the decision makers at the Council. From historical and political knowledge and perspective we can argue that the decisions involving Christianity that Emperor Constantine made, from the Battle of Milvian Bridge through the First Council of Niceae, were made to increase the stability and security of the Roman Empire, an Empire that had been plagued by civil wars and competing emperors.
Following the council, Eusebius of Caesarea developed his own model of church/state governance. Eusebius' views alarmed many who sought a degree of independence of church and state. Some such as Ambrose of Milan (339-397) made their views explicit: “The emperor should be within the Church and not above it”. It was in some respects as a reaction to the political process that Nicaea embodied, that later Christians felt that that the church had compromised itself by being too closely aligned with imperial involvement, thus contributing to the rise of the Monastic ideal.
Constantius also used persecution and intimidation to forward his Arian views. This left Constantius in control of the entire empire and he banished Athanasius. Most of the bishops were disposed to do what the supreme and sole ruler of the empire bid them to do and reluctantly, as least for most of those in the west, moved to an Arian stance. However, there were three important bishops that would not accept the Arian ideology: Athanasius, Hosius of Cordoba and Liberius of Rome. Hosius and Liberius were exiled and tortured until they accepted the Arian creeds. However, as mentioned before, Athanasius remained in hiding and did not have to face the fury of Constantius directly. It is noteworthy for this study that Athanasius was singled out more than any other for persecution by Constantius and the Arians.
3.7 EXILIC EXPERIENCE OF ATHANASIUS
Athanasius was exiled five times by four Roman emperors: Constantine, Constantius, Julian and Valens, spending 17 of the 45 years he served as bishop of Alexandria in exile. His exilic experience turned out to be the future of the church by his writings and his theological enemies were “exiled” from the church’s teaching.
3.7.1 First Exile
St. Athanasius’ first exile from 335-337 was occasioned by complaints lodged against him by the Arian party of Meletius. A synod was convened in Tyre under the Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia, the foremost proponent of Arianism in the east. He gently spent two years in Treves and he longed to be with his congregation in Alexandria. Treves itself was a tranquil city with abundant beautiful scenery. Lynn Harold Hough asserts that “Better to be an exile in Gaul than a false bishop seated in full power in Alexandria.” It is important to note that Constantius, Constantine’s oldest son resided in that city and he believed in the Nicene Faith and that makes Athanasius exile to be shortened when he died in 337. The Three sons of Constantine met in Viminacium in 338 to decide that Athanasius should return to Alexandria. Athanasius returned to Alexandria in 338 and that day became an annual festival as declared by clergy.
Nonetheless, not everyone was pleased at his return and Eusebians had charges against him. The charges were that Athanasius was of insufficient age when he was consecrated, that he had attempted to levy linen taxes on his diocese, that he secretly practiced magic, that he had profaned the Sacred Mysteries, and even that he had murdered somebody. Athanasius was able to disprove the two allegations. There are few possible reasons for the first exile of Athanasius: the first could be that Constantine was convinced of the accusations leveled against Athanasius. The second reason could be that Athanasius was banished in order to restore unity to the church as Constantine knew that Athanasius would never accept Arius into communion. It is important to note that Athanasius was exiled but not excommunicated. Furthermore, his exile was imposed by the imperial court, not the Church. He was neither excommunicated nor deprived of faculties. He was received with joy by St. Maximinus of Trier and other orthodox exiles and celebrated the sacred mysteries in good standing with these men of faith.
3.4.2 The Second Exile
The continuity of the new emperor from the old emperor made Athanasius’ happiness short-lived because the new emperor was a staunch Arian and the faction of Eusebius of Nicomedia only grew in influence under the new regime. Athanasius was exiled by an imperial order, not ecclesiastical. Emperor Constantius II pronounced an edict of banishment against Athanasius in 338. But this was not without protest; in 340 a synod of one hundred bishops met at Alexandria and proclaimed Athanasius innocent of the charges brought against him. When the opposition came to depose Athanasius they brought a plentitude of soldiers and he voluntarily left for the safety of the people. Before Athanasius slipped out and move to Rome, he assembled people in a church at night to sing hymns. During his exile in Rome, he befriended Julius who was the Bishop of Rome.
While he was in Exile, Arius died after the help of Constantine and Eusebius of Nicomedia who assisted him to receive communion in the Orthodox Church. Eusebius of Nicomedia vehemently threatened Athanasius for not allowing Arius into fellowship but Athanasius redoubled his prayer and fasting to God that if Arius was not being truthful in accepting the Nicene Creed that he should die. Dramatically, Arius died violently right on his way to receive communion. This was an eye opener for Constantine by the violent and sudden death of Arius that he came to believe even more strongly in the Nicene faith.
Another noteworthy event of this period was that Eusebius became bishop of Constantinople after the death of Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, in 337. Gregory of Cappadocia became the next bishop in March of 339. Gregory proved to be an enemy to those of the Nicene faith. As well, the Eusebians urged Gregory to persecute those of the Nicene faith and to seize their property. Sadly, during this time Bishop Potammon was beaten in such a severe fashion that he never recovered. Bishop Julius desired to have a synod at Rome that would be recognized by the eastern churches. The synod was held in Rome in 341 and it did decide to reinstate Athanasius. However, the eastern bishops both refused to attend and to accept their declaration. With progress impeded between the eastern and western portions of the church, Constans, Constantine’s third son and now ruler of the western empire following the death of Constantinus in 340, proclaimed a church council at Sardica in 343. As the date for this council approached it was evident that the church was divided with the west being for Athanasius and the east being against him. Bishop Gregory who replaced Athanasius died in 345 and this helps Athanasius to return in 346. He bid farewell to Pope Julius and the church in Rome. Pope Julius desired to have a synod at Rome that would be recognized by the eastern churches.
About 170 bishops met at the Council of Sardica near the end of 343 with the majority of them being from the western church. The council was presided by Hosius, the bishop of Cordova, who had also presided over Nicaea and was originally sent by Constantine to investigate the conflict between Bishop Alexander and Arius. Thus, Athanasius and other Nicene bishops were found innocent at the Council of Sardica.
3.4.3 The Third Exile
The third exile began in 356 with a harrowing escape. Athanasius would spend much of this exile in hiding among the monks as the forces of Constantius continued to search for him. According to Hough, the Egyptian people cared for Athanasius during this exile: “The whole country became his protector. The emperor pursued him in vain. Egypt opened its sheltering arms and held him safe.” The new bishop appointed in Alexandria, George, severely persecuted the Nicene Christians. When the believers would not accept an Arian Creed they were beaten so severely that many of them died. One particularly cruel incident of persecution involved an Imperial officer, Sebastian, who sympathized with Bishop George, with 3,000 soldiers locating Nicene Christian worshipping in the countryside at night. At the time when the outlook seemed very dim for orthodox Christianity, Athanasius, although he was hiding in the desert, did not remain silent and took his argument to the manuscript and entered the most prolific period of writing in his career. His writings during that period included “Defense before Constantius”, “Defense of His Flight”,“History of the Arians”, “On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia”, “Life of Antony” and “Letters to Serapion”.
Thus, Athanasius was able to return once again to Alexandria in 362 after his six years in seclusion and desert asceticism. In characteristic grace, Athanasius urged that all of those who would once again profess the Nicene Creed would be restored to their position.
3.4.4 Fourth Exile
Athanasius had been returned in 362 to Alexandria for a brief eight months when the fourth exile began. Athanasius was again hidden by the people of Alexandria and by the ascetics. It is believed that he spent his fourth exile wandering through Egypt. Athanasius responded by convening a Council and producing a Synodal Letter which included the Nicene Creed, the biblical basis and agreement of the Creed and declared that a majority of churches agreed with it. He reconciled the Semi-Arians and the orthodox party. The emperor, who did not want peace in the Christendom, rebuked his idea and named Athanasius as a “disturber of peace and enemy of the gods”. Emperor Julian died in 363 AD, Athanasius returned to the region of Alexandria. At this point, Athanasius’ hope for the victory of the true faith probably seemed the highest it had been in well over thirty years.
3.4.5 Fifth Exile
The popular opinion of the people of Alexandria was robust against the exile of Athanasius so that there were once again riots and protests. However, Athanasius was again led by one of his beneficial premonitions and he disappeared on the very night that the officials broke into the Church of Dionysius in search of him. Athanasius began his fifth exile in the fall of 365. This exile was spent in the concealment of his ancestral tomb. The fifth exile would only last four months. On February 1, 366 an imperial notary ventured to Athanasius’ place of concealment and intimated that he would be allowed to once again return to Alexandria as bishop. Athanasius wrote several letters in these closing years which indicated his continued opposition to anything that might contradict the Nicene faith. These letters include the Letter to Adelphius which combats an Arian heresy that worshipped Christ’s manhood, the Letter to Maximus which attacks those who stated that Jesus was merely a saint and the Letter to Epictetus which combated those who said the body of Jesus was not truly human. He spent his remaining years of his life in peace and died on May 2, 373.
3.5 THE ECCLESIOLOGY OF ATHANASIUS
In the words of the Creed we profess ‘One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’. These four characteristics or ‘marks’ of the Church indicate the essential features of the Catholic Church, her origin and her mission in the world. The Church does not possess these characteristics; rather we believe that it is Christ who, through the power of the Holy Spirit, makes his Body, the Church, ‘one, holy, catholic and apostolic’. And this can be regarded as Athanasius ecclesiology.Jesus Christ makes the Church ‘one, holy, catholic and apostolic.' Only in fidelity to Jesus’ teachings and his saving mission can the Church realize fully each of these qualities (CCC 811-822).
3.5.1 Oneness of the Church-Unity
From the creed the Church is more importantly one than she is many. The Church is ‘ONE’ because of her founder and source: Jesus Christ. The unity of the Church is from the unity of God. But from its very beginning, the ONE Church is marked by a diversity that comes from the variety of gifts and the diversity of those who receive them. Among the Church's members there are different gifts, offices, conditions, and ways of life. (CCC 813-815). The oneness of the Church is held together by ‘bonds of unity’ or visible bonds of communion which are: above all charity, the profession of one faith received from the apostles, common celebration of the sacraments, and apostolic succession through Holy Orders (CCC 815).
3.5.2 The Holiness of the Church-Unity
We make the affirmation of the creed of Nicaea-Constantinople that the Church is holy: Credo in Sanctam Ecclesiam. The Church is the ‘HOLY’ People of God made holy by Christ, her founder. While being holy the Church is composed of sinful members who are constantly in need of conversion. (CCC 825-827). From time to time the Church canonizes saints, in whom the holiness of the Church shines. In canonizing saints the Church recognizes God's sanctifying power in the lives of holy men and women and offers them to us as models of Christian living. (CCC 828-829).
3.5.3 The Catholicity of the Church-Unity
The Church is ‘CATHOLIC’ meaning universal. Christ is present in the Church and she proclaims the fullness of faith to all peoples and is present everywhere in the world. (CCC 830-856). The word catholic does not exist or appear in scripture unlike the marks of one and holiness. It appears in the first post-apostolic age. For instance, St Ignatius of Antioch says “where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church”.
3.5.4 The Apostolicity of the Church-Unity
The Church is ‘APOSTOLIC’ in that she is founded on the faith of the apostles. She continues to be taught, sanctified and guided by the successors of the apostles, the bishops, assisted by priests, in union with the successor of Peter, the Pope (CCC 857-865). The officials of the Church hold their office as successors of the apostles.
CHAPTER FOUR OF ATHANASIUS
THE QUEST FOR DOCTRINAL HARMONY IN TODAY’S CHURCH
4.1 The contemporary Church today
The church has come a long way in history; she has been challenged and has risen above challenges. Though the church is not immune to challenges but no matter what challenge it is, the church stands on her feet always, faithful to the doctrines she had received. However, we must always endeavor to hand down the doctrinal teachings of the church to the new generations.
4.1.1 The emergence of New Churches in Nigeria
There is no doubt that Nigeria will be among one of the countries with the highest number of Churches in Africa. Churches and prayer houses are said to be a major ‘industry’ in the geo-political extraction of the country. There is no specific place of worship; Churches exist in family houses, uncompleted buildings, warehouses, and in any available space. In Nigeria, it is a common experience to see clusters of splinter churches in one street with specific emphasis over the microphone as scrambling for membership is the priority. Every new day comes with a new Church; hence it will continue to defy statistical conceptualization. Consequently, the continued and indiscriminate emergence of new Churches is a challenge to Christianity in Nigeria. The scenario raises puzzling questions concerning Christian commitment and faithfulness towards salvation. Pentecostalism produces appeal and gains popularity through its leaders who travel around the world conducting healing service and preaching to crowds. Humans as social beings are attracted to big shows, big occasions and big crowds. Some of the Pentecostal Church leaders move into stadia, auditoria and large spaces and their energetic preachers address them with effective public address systems. They have emotion booming music. The result is that Catholics attend these programs in large numbers with some leaving the Catholic Church afterwards. One may argue that they do not have doctrine and that they have only emotions. People have left their old churches and joined the Pentecostal churches where they occupy leadership positions or become influential followers.
In some Churches, members are paid for attending church services. Due to the deprivation, disorganization and defectiveness which are evidently real in the society in the forms of health questions and disease, unemployment, political instability, poverty and economic hardships, social vices and marital crisis make people run to the Pentecostal churches that promise them better life.These promises can be deceitful and elusive yet the perceived hopes they give make them dream of their prosperity and success in life. Today, Pentecostalism is growing fast in Nigeria and across the world. It may be true that Catholics are losing their members to them. The question then is: What should be the way forward in the face of this challenge?
4.1.2 Liturgical abuses in catholic Church
The contemporary Nigeria Church is engulfed by the quest for materialism prevalent in the society. Rather than finding solace in the Christian hope of eternal life, signs of total submission to capitalistic tendencies, especially in insatiable material acquisition, loom largely in Nigerian Churches. Spiritual growth and moral sanctity towards better eternity are thus fast giving way to material craving as the new idea of fulfillment of life and ultimate reality. The crazy tendency towards materialism in religion may not be peculiar in Nigeria but its rate is alarming. This aberration has given rise to the syndrome of 2nd and 3rd collections during some mass. Tithing is one of those unfortunate practices copied from some gullible Pentecostal pastors who are bent on impoverishing their members in order to enrich themselves. The fact that the hierarchy has not yet made any official statement on tithe does not make it right. The primary purpose of all liturgical celebrations, especially the Holy Eucharist (Mass) is the glorification of God and sanctification of humanity.
One of the worrisome practices is bad manner in which some priests handle the consecrated hosts. Some leave the Eucharist in their pockets as substitute for charms and talisman against armed robbers and evil people. Some use the Holy Eucharist to administer oath taking. These practices are signs of lack of reverence and respect for the Blessed Sacrament. Some priests invent their own liturgy, introduce extraneous gestures, icons, dances, secular greetings and invite the congregation to recite some parts of the Eucharistic prayer meant for the priest alone.
The generation of noise in the celebration of the centre and submit of the Church’s liturgy is as a result of the excessive epic mimicking of the Pentecostal TV preachers by some priests and even the lay faithful. Their excessive and emotional singing of choruses and dancing have left the Church’s liturgy half Pentecostal and half Catholic. The indiscriminate and frequent calling of God’s name, commanding Him and apparent physical manipulation of the Holy spirit with the noise and shouting that go with such invocations have turned the solemn liturgy into a noisy affair. The irony of the whole matter is that the more noise one generates, the more acceptable one becomes.
4.2. THE DOCTRINAL CHALLENGE
The Catholic Church is full of history, tradition and doctrine, backed by strong theological and rational considerations. It is the most consistent and developed religion the world has ever experienced. But our greatest challenges are imparting the catholic faith and continue fostering growth in it. In the past, priests were always with the faithful impacting the faith but today priests are hardly seen teaching the faith. It is true that the pulpit can be used, but it is practically meant for preaching. Consequently, many priests are losing at both ends; preaching and catechism respectively. The image and reputation of some clerics today are been marred because of their misplacement of priority. In the past, the catechesis was considered to be for clerics but today’s experience proves negative. Faith formation has been replaced by the love of money which is ‘the root of all evil’ (1 Tim 6:10). Integrity has been sacrificed on the altar of falsehood and hypocrisy. Priests engage in private business affairs that take the time of faith formation of the faithful. Some seldom follow the directives of their local ordinary. The converted must know what the faith is and what it demands of them; how it aids their lives. That is why the church hierarchy needs to enforce the good of the Church.
The idea of faith shared by all the Christian churches is rooted in the New Testament. However the New Testament idea of faith is not simple; indeed, it possesses a breadth of meaning that has led to varying understandings, even within a single Christian communion. Most modern interpreters of the New Testament would agree to the description of faith as the personal knowledge of God revealing himself in Christ. Yet it is doubtful whether the post-reformation theology of any Christian Church has presented faith simply in these terms.
Religious Pluralism is an approach that does not position Jesus as the only way to God the Father, despite the fact that He boldly asserted this (John 14:6). This is still a major problem today. All doctrinal issues are traceable to the fact that people have not authentically grasped the nature of the truth. The nature of truth is still a huge issue and this is also centered on Jesus because He is the very source of truth.
The particular challenges facing the church today cannot be exhausted in our discussion here. However, each challenge facing the church is an opportunity; the church has historically thrived when she is tested rather than comfortable. Some of these challenges touch at the core of what the church believes or stands for. Now is the time to address some of these issues with outlier responses so there is no incremental biblical or theological compromise against those matters which are of first importance. Nevertheless, the church retains her biblical and theological convictions and commitments to doctrinal fidelity and faithfulness. Irrespective of these challenges, the church remains strongly and thoroughly orthodox and evangelical in belief. However, there remains an ongoing need to address these challenges which will be somewhat accomplished through providing teachings and resources.
Today we see false teachers leading many astray, churches apostatizing, resulting in new religious organizations. False teaching is a real threat to the church; not only in certain circumstances, or only in churches with certain governmental structures, or only in certain places and cultures in the world. We must recognize it as a threat because the Bible continually warns us that it is a threat. Jesus warns us that false teachers will come from outside the community of believers, trying to hide their true intentions (Matt. 7:15–20). Peter tells us that false teachers can also arise from within the community of believers, bringing doctrines that are destructive and poisonous. St. Paul continually warned the churches that he served that if false teachers in their midst were left unchecked, the results would be disastrous (Gal 1:6-9). Simply put, false teaching is not just a problem for other people and churches out there; it is a problem about which all believers must be vigilant and against which they must be on guard. If doctrinal aberrations can spring up in churches that were nurtured with the teachings of the Apostles, what makes us think we are immune?
One major challenges facing the church today is the authority, clarity and sufficiency of the scriptures. To be a Christian means to believe that what God says in His Word is true, even if everyone around you disagrees. It seems some Christians pick and choose the Bible content they feel comfortable with and ignore the rest of God’s counsel. There is no strong biblical hermeneutic, perhaps the most “innocent” way that false teaching can come into the church is when someone attempts to find a new and innovative way to understand the Bible. The Bible is an ancient book that pastors, elders, and scholars have studied for millennia. It is hard to think of a biblical topic about which hundreds of books have not been written. On the most controversial of topics, such as baptism or eschatology, virtually every theological position has been staked out. Not every teacher is satisfied with describing various historical interpretations or presenting historically biblical truth in a clear and convincing fashion. For some, there is a need to blaze a path where no one has gone before, teaching the Bible in a way that is not dependent on any predecessor. Their teachings led to deviations from historical understandings of the church, the sacraments, and, in some ways, original sin.
For others, there is a desire to solve definitively a thorny biblical issue over which theologians have wrangled for centuries. This leads them into uncharted territory; expressing untested ideas and interpretations of the Bible. The Jesuit scholar Luis de Molina thought that he had discovered a way to reconcile the age-old conflict between theologians about free will and predestination in the new teaching of “middle knowledge.” In the end, all he accomplished was to confuse people about God’s will and His providential care. A more modern example would be those who have put forward the idea of “open theism” in an effort to protect God from being accused of responsibility for evil in the world. The result has been to present a God who is weak, unable to provide for His people, and ultimately at the mercy of the actions of men. We should be aware of this entry point for false teaching, both when others come up to convince us of a great new insight that has never been heard before and when we are tempted to make a name for ourselves with some new teaching. Our social doctrine is not shared or taught in a consistent and comprehensive way in too many of our schools, seminaries, religious education programs, colleges, and universities. We need to build on the good work already underway to ensure that every Catholic understands how the Gospel and church teaching call us to choose life, to serve the least among us, to hunger and thirst for justice, and to be peacemakers.
4.3 THE ECCLESIA COMMUNITY IN THE LIGHT OF ATHANASIUS’ LEGACY.
In today’s society, the problems of insecurity and killings have created lots of tension and uncertainty. And these problems have lead to decadence in evangelization in the life of the clerics. Nobody wants to die for the sake of the Gospel. Athanasius was a tremendous leader and there are several aspects of his life that serve as beneficial examples for Christians in subsequent centuries. A key lesson to be learned from his life is that he did not choose the alternative that was easiest or most beneficial to him personally. In order to be faithful to the truth in his epoch, it was necessary for him to embark on decisions that would cause him a myriad of difficulties in his personal life, but he did not hesitate to traverse in the most advantageous path for preserving the true Christian doctrines. Hough wrote of this: “The carrier of the letter had suggestions of terrible consequences if the request was not acceded to. Now we find Athanasius face to face with a difficult problem. Assailed by so wily and unscrupulous a foe, how easy it would have been to find safety in compromise. How many men would have consoled themselves with comforting and seemingly pious thoughts about the peace of the Church, and then have received Arius to communion. Athanasius firmly refused.” Thus, it is understood that Athanasius had alternatives to choose from and he resolved that supporting the truth, as he ardently believed in, was more consequential than his own comfort or sense of peace. Indeed, Athanasius suffered momentously for not relenting but he also procured a magnanimous victory for the genuine doctrines of Christianity.
Freedom is a God given gift. Catholic Church holds faith formation in a very high esteem and very faithful to doctrines and traditions. But there are many other churches who either mimic or condemn her teaching and for this reason efforts should be made to guard against religious disintegration; ecumenism should be encourage. A lesson that can be gleaned from a review of the life of Athanasius is that loyalty to friends and forgiveness of opponents is of critical importance. Athanasius refused to condemn his friends even when they erred as he must have realized that he also might be in need of understanding and forgiveness at some point. When Athanasius extends grace to those who have faltered in the faith, and even signed statements denouncing him, it reveals his authentic heart as a man of forgiveness. Christians from all centuries should regard Athanasius’ example in forgiving others and being gracious to those who have harmed them. It is noteworthy that Athanasius even forgave those who had falsely accused him of murder and this makes the offenses perpetrated against the majority of modern Christians pale in comparison.
Catholics should play their roles with more dynamism without losing the traditional values of doctrine and practice of the holy Mother church. There should be public witnessing in all spheres where Christ must reign as Lord and Savior. A few examples can suffice here: the use of mass media like radio broadcasting, televangelism, ability to preach with biblical spirituality in a way that the world is challenged withthe Word of God; and preaching too with our lives like praying the Divine Office, Angelus, Rosary and most especially the Holy Mass. Thus remain unchanged in bringing the goodness to the world. Athanasius’ life can be perceived from his faith that God will prevail in the end. There were numerous times in his life when the odds contrary to him and the genuine doctrines appeared insurmountable but his faith was ardent that God remained sovereign and was capable of delivering a victory when all hope appeared to have vanished. This visionary faith allowed Athanasius to not become discouraged at formidable circumstances. When he returned, following his fourth exile, he was only home for a brief eight months before he was subsequently exiled again. It would have been facile to be discouraged by this but he intimated to his followers to remain hopeful and steadfast because this dark cloud would also pass. Another incident that is especially prominent was in the late 350s, as alluded to earlier, when all of the other known bishops had recanted the Nicene faith and a powerful emperor was attempting to eradicate the idea that Jesus was fully God. It would have been indulgent for Athanasius to have been in despair and to have relinquished the struggle. However, he travailed for the truth because he comprehended that God was in authority. Aspects are never as somber as they appear to be when one is contending for God. Those living in this time should remember this and understand that the battle for truth must still be waged even when it appears as if the society is traversing in a direction far from that which God intended. God is still able to deliver a victory but He desires that Christians would remain in the foray and trust in Him to prevail in the altercation.
Adequate pastoral care through the Basic Christian Communities (zones) could be encouraged. With the pastoral care of Catholics for their fellow Catholics, the Church would be present, responsive and responsible in the face of needs. The basic Christian communities are pastoral arrangements that support shepherding effectively even as the Christ’slay faithful should care for one another. The role of pious societies and lay organizations cannot be overlooked. Today we have huge members of Catholics in South-East Nigeria, for instance, but let the tyranny of number not blindfold Catholics to neglect any member or fail to recognize the absence of any member, cleric or lay. A further lesson to be gleaned from a study of Athanasius is to be a theologian but possess a pastor’s heart simultaneously. It is often a characteristic of theologians of great intellect to focus solely on theological ideas. However, Athanasius served as an example because he obviously had a brilliant intellect and yet he never disposed of his love and compassion for those in his congregation. Athanasius truly cared for those placed in his stewardship and he believed that every foray he was travailing in was to safeguard their spiritual well-being. He truly understood the idea of Scripture that even if one achieves momentous accomplishments but they do not possess love they will be ineffective. Modern theological scholars and pastors should follow Athanasius’ example and never dismiss their passionate heart for the people.
It is true that none of the charges against Athanasius can be substantiated and there is, therefore, no reason to alter the traditionally laudatory view of him. However, this is not to say that Athanasius was a perfect man. If one examined him closely enough, he would be sure to find isolated instances in which Athanasius did not act in the manner of a sincere Christian, but this is true of virtually every Christian. No person can claim perfection; with investigative scrutiny each one has flaws. Thus, it is important when judging either a modern person or a historical figure that one discerns the overall impact and contributions the individual made to the Christian cause. In this regard, Athanasius should truly be regarded as an unsurpassed individual for his tenacity in defending Christian orthodoxy, his bravery in confronting difficulties, his love for the common man and his devotion to and exposition of theological truth. This implies that if Athanasius can boldly stand for what he believed, mindless of his “vices”, our human weakness should not deter us from standing on our doctrine or traditions which are the sources of our faith.
However, the great lesson for today’s church lies in the importance to stay firm in the Christian doctrines, preserved through the ages, so it will avoid falling prey of false doctrines. Just like Arianism was a problem in the primitive church, other issues can easily arise in the modern church when there is no solid foundation in sound doctrine. The liturgy in the Church should be vibrant and exciting. Here, priests and the religious should prepare the liturgy in such a way that the beauty of the conciliar and post-conciliar liturgy of the Second Vatican Council would be visibly enjoyed. The local music and instruments or even bands to enliven the celebrations are the in-thing now. Homilies should have the force of anointing where the Word of God is given its proper place. The Holy Spirit empowers such homilies and sermons where the preacher prepares and believes the Word. Well delivered homilies and the entire Holy Mass solemnly celebrated with faith and proper decorum have salvific effects such as healing, liberation, confirmation, anointing, etc. This is clear in the conciliar teachings of Sacrosanctum Concilium (the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy). Again, the Catholic Church should strive to realize the prospects of inculturation. All the cases of syncretism and relapses into African traditional religious practices and the influx into the Pentecostal Churches that have the features of religious pluralism could be addressed when inculturation is achieved and Catholic practices become people’s culture, that is, their way of life. In addition, there is need for proper Catechesis at all levels of Christian initiation and Post-baptismal stages like Sunday evening instructions, confirmation classes and marriage course. When pastors and Catechists take these programs more seriously, better results would be obtained. Furthermore, the civil government at all levels in Nigeria should enhance the positive peace values in the Country such as education, employment, poverty alleviation, public utility services and welfare schemes, regular payment of salaries, security and human progress generally in order to curb individual and societal crises, hallucinations, suicidal ideations and industrial strikes. The searches for solutions in prayer houses and founding of Churches in order to be employed as such would ease out by the government’s positive action in this regard.
Those who are not properly taught should be taught, Athanasius took his time to teach people. However, the Catholic Church should not be a sleeping giant. She should be awake to the responsibilities of her missionary mandate. She should maximize the grace of new evangelization to enable her remain truly a missionary Church to the modern mind and its challenges. The historic truths that Catholicism is the first Church and was the only Christian Faith in existence on the first Pentecost day as recorded in Acts chapter 2 should challenge her members to greater witnessing and holiness.
The primary work of bishops is visible in the life of Athanasius. He was primarily concerned with matters relating to his pastoral duties as the bishop of Alexandria. Though an intellectual powerhouse, evidenced by his prolific works, Athanasius was concerned with shepherding his flock more than satisfying his intellectual curiosities. Here we have a clear path to take regarding pastoral and Christian concerns. There are many fascinating theological ideas to entertain and nurture, but we should consider our trip to the heights of intellectual ruminations as shepherds first, seeking to read the times and provide biblical council to God’s Church. We have seen, as we review the life and times of Athanasius, the image of a bishop pursuing the fulfillment of his pastoral duties with all diligence.
CONCLUSION
The impact of Athanasius in the church cannot go unnoticed; it must be greeted with wide gratitude and appreciation. His effort in conserving the deposit of faith handed down is enormous. His work pushes us towards a firm rooting in the Christian understanding of the faith handed down through the ages. These doctrines serve as a caution as against a stumbling block of false teaching; protecting us from falling victims of them and having ourselves preyed on. Heretic teachings like Arianism and is like prey on the primitive church. Thanks to the fathers and noble men of the church who went through hardships, stress, pain and struggles to defend the faith of the church, protecting it with esteem and dignity; sometimes to the detriment of their own human comfort.
However, the effort of Athanasius and his like does not cancel out the possibility of issues arising in the modern church. However, the possibility of these issues coming up is stems from the lack of a solid foundational doctrine. There are tendencies and temptations to distort doctrinal teachings; it does not go unnoticed that there is in many cases a thin line than one can easily crossover from sound doctrine to a heretic one. Nevertheless, amidst these tendencies, the modern church must raise up men like Athanasius to continue the course of faith propagation in the authentic and right direction.
The church is in an era where doctrines and values are easily compromised for different interests and propaganda. This however is not a new trend; the emperors of old compromised and some clerics erred, while others were convinced about teachings that were not orthodox. Nevertheless, there were men like Athanasius who knew the road and was willing to walk it; Athanasius knew the right teaching, thought it, and was willing to defend it with his life. Yes, it cost to be right in the midst of people convinced about the wrong; however our consistency would pay at the end of the day. This make Athanasius a specific example for church leaders who are bent on defending the deposit of faith handed down to us against all odds.
Our orthodox beliefs are always in a balance but it is only our resilience and consistency that would gain us the greatest of weight. This is a necessity because the authenticity of our faith depends on the authenticity of our belief and the doctrines that uphold them. However, these are dependent on the orthodoxy of the teachers and their zeal in propagating the faith. Athanasius left us a rich theological legacy; firstly he was instrumental in sharpening and bridging the lapses in the Christological teachings in particular and generally he impacted the Trinitarian doctrine. When our present-day champions of the Faith speak out, they indeed stand on the shoulders and in the tradition of St Athanasius. He is, as Cardinal Newman says, “a principal instrument, after the Apostles, by which the sacred truths of Christianity have been conveyed and secured to the world.”
In our present situation, we fight to reinstate the authority, clarity and sufficiency of the scriptures. This is a struggle because of the lack in foundational scriptural hermeneutics; some of the faithful are left to their understanding of what they read. This should not be the case; new and innovative ways of understanding the scriptures mostly end up in error. Thus the greatest lesson for the church today is the importance to defend, maintain and propagate by teaching, the deposit of faith handed down to us. The heretics troubled the patristic church, and there are many other things that trouble the life of the church today. All the cases of syncretism and relapses into African traditional religious practices and the influx into the Pentecostal Churches that have the features of religious pluralism could be addressed when inculturation is achieved and Catholic practices become people’s culture.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ANATOLIOS Khaled, Athanasius: The Early Church Fathers, Routledge, New York (NY) 2004.
AYRES Lewis, Nicaea and its Legacy, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2004.
BARNES Timothy, Athanasius and Constantine, Harvard University Press, Cambridge 1993.
BETTENSEN Henry, The Early Christian Fathers, Oxford University Press, London 1956.
BUSH Wheeler R, St. Athanasius: His Life and Times, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London 1912.
FORTMAN Edmund, The Triune God, Stock Publishers, Michigan 1999.
Hanson Richard, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, T&T Clark, Edinburgh 1988.
Harold Brown, Heresies, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., Peabody MA 1984.
Harvey Susan and Hunter David, The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2008.
Karl Bihlmeyer, Church History, The Newman Press, Westminster 1968.
King Karen, What is Gnosticim?, Harvard University Press, London 2003.
LANE Troy, A Concise History of Christian Thought, Baker Academics, Grand Rapids MI: 2006.
LeithartPeter, Defending Constantine, Intervarsity Press, Downers Grover (IL) 2010.
LONERGAN Bernard, The Way to Nicaea, Westminster Press, Philadelphia 1976.
Newman Albert, A Manual of Church History, Judson Press, Valley Forge (PA) 1933.
NOLL Mark, Turning Points, Baker Books; Inter-Varsity Press, England 1997.
Olson Roger, The Story of Christian Theology, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove 1999.
RENGERS Christopher, The 33 Doctors of the Church, TAN Books and Publishers INC., Illinois (IL) 2000.
Rubenstein, Richard E. When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome. Harcourt, New York 2000.
SCHAFF Philip - WACE Henry (ed), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 2., Christian Literature Publishing Co., New York (NY) 1890.
WEINANDY Thomas–KEATING Daniel, Athanasius and his Legacy: Trinitarian-Incarnational Soteriology and its Reception, Fortress Press, Minneapolis (MN) 2017.
YOUNG Frances M., From Nicaea to Chalcedon, Baker Academic,Grand Rapids 2010.
SCHAFF Philip - WACE Henry (ed), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 2., Christian Literature Publishing Co., New York (NY) 1890.
CHURCH DOCUMENT
SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, The constitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concilium, (4 December 1963)
DICTIONARIES AND ENCYCLOPAEDIAS
RAHNER Karl, Encyclopedia of Theology: A Concise Sacramentum Mundi, Staples Printers Rochester Limited, Herder KG Freiburg-im-Breisgau 1993.
Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 2 Danbury, Connecticut: Grolier Incorporated, 1997.
W. Michael, Dictionary of Christian Biography, the Liturgical press, Collegeville, Minnesota
Harrison Everett, Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, Baker Book House, Washington DC 1960.
INTERNET SOURCES
ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA, The Famous People, https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/athanasius-of-alexandria-36852.php (accessed on December 15, 2020)
ST. ATHANASIUS, https://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=336 (accessed on December 20, 2020)
Ukessays, https://www.ukessays.com/essays/theology/the-men-of-the-nicaea-council-theology-religion-essay.php (accessed on January 13, 2021)
Athanasius of Alexandria, https://www.gracenotes.info/documents/topics_doc/athanasius.pdf( accessed on January 3, 2021)
Christian History, https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-85/how-arianism-almost-won.html (accessed on February 2 2021.)
JOURNALS/ OTHER PUBLISHED MATERIALS
ELE Christian O. (2019) “Catholicism in the Face of Pentecostalism in Nigeria: An Advocacy for a United Christianity,” International Journal of Arts and Humanities: Vol. 8 No. 28.
TÜCK Jan-Heiner, The Father without the Son would not be Father, in: Communio: International Catholic Review, “Our Father who art in Heaven”, Vol. XLII, No. 1. Spring 2015.
B. Litfin, “Athanasius: Guarding Against Heresy and Holding Fast to Sound Doctrine,” Credo Magazine, Volume 10, Issue 2, June 22, 2020.
OGUEJIOFOR Obi, “130 Years of Catholicism in Onitsha Archdiocese: Assessment and Contemporary Pastoral Challenges,” A Journal of Bigard Memorial Seminary, Enugu Nigeria, Vol. 38 NO. 2, 2018.
No comments:
Post a Comment