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”.[1] He was
born around 296 CE[2]
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.[3]
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.[4] 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.[5]
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.[6]
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.[7]
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.[8] 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.[9]
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.’[10]In
fact, Sozomen actually states that Athanasius sought to decline being appointed
bishop by flight.[11]
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.”[12]
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.[13]
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.[14]
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.”[15]
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.[16]
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.[17]
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.”[18]
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.[19]
Moreover, Arius began to seek opportunities to have conflict with Alexander.[20]
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.[21]
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.[22] 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.[23]
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.[24]
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.”[25]
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.”[26] 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.)”[27]
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.[28]
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.”[29]
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.[30]
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.[31]
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.”[32]
St. Athanasius’ writings are provided by the eleven Readings used in the
Liturgy of the Hours as published in 1971.[33]
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.[34]
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”.[35]
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).[36]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.[37]
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.[38]
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’.[39]
According to him, the Logos is a created being, not eternal, different from the
Father in substance, and subject to change.[40]
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.[41]
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”.[42] 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.[43]
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.”[44]
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.”[45]
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.[46]
To discover the Arius standpoint, it is pertinent to review his work Thalia. Thalia literally means
“abundance,” “good cheer,” or “banquet”.[47]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.”[48]
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”.[49]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);[50]
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.[51]
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.[52]
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.[53]
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.”[54]
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.”[55]
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.[56]
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.[57]
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.”[58]
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.[59]
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.”[60]
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.[61]
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.[62]
When a series of pro-Arian emperors arrived on the scene, Arianism spread like
wildfire.[63]
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.[64]
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.[65]
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.[66]
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.[67]
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.[68]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).[69]
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.[70]
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.[71]
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.[72]
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.[73]
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.[74]
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.[75]
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.”[76]
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).[77] 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.[78]
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....[79]
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.[80] 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.”[81]
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.[82] 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.[83]
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.[84]
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.”[85]
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.”[86]
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.[87]
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.”[88]
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.[89]
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.[90]
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).[91]
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.”[92]
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.’[93]
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).[94]
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.”[95]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.[96]
“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.”[97]
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.’”[98]
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.[99]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.[100]
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?”[101]
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.[102]
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”.[103]
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.”[104]
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.[105]
Athanasius returned to Alexandria in 338 and that day became an annual festival
as declared by clergy.[106]
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.[107]
Athanasius was able to disprove the two allegations.[108]
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.[109]
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.[110]
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.[111]
When the opposition came to depose Athanasius they brought a plentitude of
soldiers and he voluntarily left for the safety of the people.[112]
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.[113]
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.[114]
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.[115] 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.[116]
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.[117]
Sadly, during this time Bishop Potammon was beaten in such a severe fashion
that he never recovered.[118]
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.[119]
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.[120]
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.[121]
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.”[122]
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”.[123]
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.[124]
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”.[125] 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.[126]
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.[127]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”. [128]
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.[129]
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.[130]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.[131]
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.[132]
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.[133]
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.[134]
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).[135]
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.[136] 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.[137]
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.”[138]
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.[139]
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.[140]
Homilies should have the force of anointing where the Word of God is given its
proper place.[141]
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.[142]
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.
[1] C. RENGERS, The 33 Doctors of the Church, Tan, Illinois, 2000, 1
[2] T.
WIENANDY – D. KEATING, Athanasius and his
Legacy: Trinitarian-Incarnational Soteriology and its Reception, Fortress
Press, Minneapolis (MN) 2017, 1.
[3]
ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA, The Famous
People, https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/athanasius-of-alexandria-36852.php (accessed
on December 15, 2020)
[4] ST.
ATHANASIUS, https://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=336 (accessed on
December 20, 2020)
[5] B.
Litfin, “Athanasius: Guarding Against Heresy and Holding Fast to Sound
Doctrine,” Credo Magazine, Volume 10, Issue 2, June 22, 2020.
[6]B. Litfin, “Athanasius: Guarding Against Heresy and Holding Fast to Sound Doctrine,” Credo Magazine, Volume 10, Issue 2, June 22, 2020.
[7] C.
RENGERS, The 33 Doctors of the Church,
1.
[8] C. RENGERS, The 33 Doctors of the Church,2.
[9] W. BUSH, St Athanasius: His Life and Times, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London 1912, 80.
[10] H. HOUGH, Athanasius the Hero, Abingdon Press, New York 1906, 60.
[11] S. SOZOMEN, Church History: The Greek Ecclesiastical Historians, Samuel Bagster and Sons, London 1844, Book II, Chapter 17.
[12] H. HOUGH, Athanasius the Hero, 60
[13] K. ANATOLIOS, AthanasiusThe Early Church Fathers,Routledge, London 2004, 5.
[14] W. Bush, St. Athanasius: His Life and Times, 81.
[15] W. Bush, St. Athanasius: His Life and Times, 83.
[16] K.
RAHNER, Encyclopedia of Theology: A
Concise Sacramentum Mundi, Staples Printers Rochester Limited, Herder KG
Freiburg-im-Breisgau 1993, 296.
[17]K. RAHNER,
Encyclopedia of Theology: A Concise
Sacramentum Mundi , 299.
[18] L. AYRES,
Nicaea and its Legacy, Oxford
University Press, Oxford 2004, 15.
[19] D.
BARNES, Athanasius and Constantine,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge 1993, 14.
[20]P. SCHAFf - H. WACE, Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 3, Christian Literature
Publishing Co., New York (NY) 1892, 1.
[21] B.
LONERGAN, The Way to Nicaea,
Westminster Press, Philadelphia 1976, 69.
[22] K.
ANATOLIOS, Athanasius: The Early Church
Fathers, 141
[23] M. NOLL, Turning Points, Baker Books;
Inter-Varsity Press, England 1997, 48.
[24] E.
FORTMAN, The Triune God Wipf and
Stock Publishers, Michigan 1999, 65.
[25] M. NOLL, Turning Points, 48.
[26]Ukessays, https://www.ukessays.com/essays/theology/the-men-of-the-nicaea-council-theology-religion-essay.php (accessed
on January 13, 2021)
[27]M. NOLL, Turning Points, 51.
[28]P. SCHAFF - H. WACE (ed), Nicene
and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 2., 1.
[29]P. SCHAFF - H. WACE (ed), Nicene
and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 2., 1.
[30] P. SCHAFF, Niceneand Post-Nicene Fathers: Series
II/Volume II/Socrates/Book II/Chapter 25,
Https//:en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Nicene_and_Post-Nicene_Fathers:_Series_II/Volume_II/Socrates/Book_II/Chapter_25
[31]Ibid
[32]
Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 2 Danbury, Connecticut: Grolier Incorporated,
1997.
[33] C.
RENGERS, The 33 Doctors of the Church,
7
[34]Athanasius
of Alexandria, https://www.gracenotes.info/documents/topics_doc/athanasius.pdf( accessed
on January 3, 2021)
[35] T.
BARNES, Athanasius and Constantius,
Harvard Univsersity Press, London 1993, 6.
[36]R. Tixeront, Handbook of Patrology, B. Herder Co, London 1923, 141.
[37]F. Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon, Baker Academic, North America 2010, 42.
[38]Arius and Athanasius https://www.ukessays.com/essays/theology/arius-and-athanasius-theology-essay.php.(accessed on February 5, 2021)
[39]W. Michael, Dictionary of Christian Biography, the Liturgical press, Collegeville (MN) 2001, 91.
[40]W. Michael, Dictionary of Christian Biography, 91
[41]W. Michael (ed), Dictionary of Christian Biography, 91
[42]R. McBrien (ed), Encyclopedia of Catholicism, HarperCollins, New York 1995, 92
[43] R. MCBRIEN (ed),Encyclopedia of Catholicism, 93
[44]P. Leithart, Defending Constantine, Intervarsity Press, Downers Grover (IL) 2010, 165.
[45]K.Bihlmeyer, Church History, The Newman Press, Westminster 1968, 247.
[46]R. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, T&T Clark, Edinburgh 1988, pp 3-19.
[47] Fourth Century Christian, https://www.fourthcentury.com/arius-thalia-intro/ (accessed on February 10, 2012).
[48]H. GWATKIN, The
Arian Controversy: Epochs of Church History, Forgotten Books, Charleston
2007, 7.
[49]Arius' Thalia, in Athanasius' Contra Arianos 1:5.
[50] Steven J. Davis, The Importance of Athanasius and the Views of His Characterhttps://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2678&context=doctoral (accessed February 10, 2021.)
[51]R. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology, InterVarsity
Press, Downers Grove 1999, 143.
[52]S. Harvey - D. Hunter, The Oxford Handbook of Early
Christian Studies, Oxford University Press,Oxford 2008, 238.
[53] R. Gregg and D. Groh, Early Ariansim-A View of
Salvation, Fortress Press, Philadelphia 1981, 1.
[54]R. Gregg and D. Groh, Early Ariansim-A View of
Salvation, 1
[55]R. Gregg and D. Groh, Early Ariansim-A View of Salvation, 2
[56]A. Newman, A Manual of Church History, Judson Press, Valley Forge (PA) 1933, 326.
[57]K. King, What is Gnosticim?, Harvard University Press, London 2003, 26.
[58]E. Harrison, Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, Baker Book House, Washington DC 1960, 63.
[59]R. Gregg, Arianism: Historical and Theological Reassessments, Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, Philadelphia 1985, 182.
[60]H. Gwatkin, The Arian Controversy, Longmans, Green and Company, New York 2006, 4.
[61]R. Eze, ‘“Global Science, The Heresy of Arianism in Contemporary Scholarship,” Volume 8, issue 3, 2020.
[62] Christian History,https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-85/how-arianism-almost-won.html(accessed on February 2 2021.)
[63] Christian History,https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-85/how-arianism-almost-won.html(accessed on February 2 2021.)
[64]Hyattraction, https://hyattractions.wordpress.com/2016/08/16/aranism-and-its-influences-in-the-modern-church/(accessed on February 3, 2021).
[65] The Decablog, https://thedecablog.wordpress.com/2013/10/30/arianism/ (January 31, 2021.)
[66]The Decablog, https://thedecablog.wordpress.com/2013/10/30/arianism/ (January 31, 2021.)
[67]S. Davis, “The Importance of Athanasius and the Views of His Character,”https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2678&context=doctoral. (accessed on March 12, 2021)
[68]FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA, https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/f/First_Council_of_Nicaea.htm#:~:text=The%20purpose%20of%20the%20council,substance%20as%20God%20the%20Father. (accessed on March 8, 2021)
[69]https://notesfromthewest.wordpress.com/tag/patmos/ (accessed on March 8, 2021)
[70]The Nicene Creed http://community.vcoins.com/nicene-creed-june-19-325/ (accessed on March 27, 2021)
[71] FULLER, “The next Faithful Step” https://www.fuller.edu/next-faithful-step/resources/athanasius/ (accessed on March 28, 2021)
[72] T. Weinandy-d. Keating, Athanasius and his Legacy: Trinitarian-Incarnation Soteriology and its Reception, Fortress Press, Minneapolis 2017, 7.
[73] T. Weinandy-d. Keating, Athanasius and his Legacy: Trinitarian-Incarnation Soteriology and its Reception, 19.
[74]T. Weinandy-d. Keating, Athanasius and his Legacy: Trinitarian-Incarnation Soteriology and its Reception, 9
[75] T. Weinandy-d. Keating, Athanasius and his Legacy: Trinitarian-Incarnation Soteriology and its Reception, 9
[76]N. Mark,Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of
Christianity,
InterVarsity Press, London1997, 57.
[77]N. Mark,Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity,57.
[78]J. White, WHAT REALLY HAPPENED AT NICEA? In www.equip.org/PDF/DN206.pdf, (accessed on April 11, 2021).
[79]J. White, WHAT REALLY HAPPENED AT NICEA? In www.equip.org/PDF/DN206.pdf, (accessed on April 11, 2021).
[80] Cf. Titus 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:1, John 1:1-14, Col. 1:15-17, Phil. 2:5-11
[81]Athanasius, De Synodis, 6, as found in Philip Schaff and
Henry Wace, eds., Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series II (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), IV:453.
[82]J. White, WHAT REALLY HAPPENED AT NICEA? In www.equip.org/PDF/DN206.pdf, (accessed on April 11, 2021).
[83]The Catholic Churhes of Immaculate Concption with Hoy Trinity in https.www.immaculate-conception.org.uk/ClientArea/files/bulletins/12th July 220.pdf (accessed on June 15, 2021)
[84]H. GWATKIN, The Arian controversy sixth impression, Longmans, Green and CO., London 1908, 33.
[85]Aloys Grillmeier, Christ in
Christian Tradition, From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon, Sheed and Ward, New
York 1965, 267.
[86]C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, HarperCollinsNew York 2012, 134.
[87]Jan-Heiner Tuck, 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 2015,14.
[88]J.N.D. Kelly,Early Christian Doctrines, R&R Clark, Edinburgh 1965, 227.
[89]“The Arian Controversy vis-à-vis the Council of Nicea and inculturation of the faith”http://othes.univie.ac.at/45787/1/47629.pdf (accessed on March 27, 2021)
[90]“The Arian Controversy vis-à-vis the Council of Nicea and inculturation of the faith”http://othes.univie.ac.at/45787/1/47629.pdf (accessed on March 27, 2021)
[91]TODAY IN THE WORD, Begotten not Made: Theology Matters, John Koessler, https://www.todayintheword.org/issues/2016/6/theology-matters/(accessed on Marc h 30, 2021)
[92]C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, HarperCollins, New York 2012, 134-135.
[93]The Arian Controversy vis-à-vis the Council of Nicea and inculturation of the faith”http://othes.univie.ac.at/45787/1/47629.pdf (accessed on March 27, 2021)
[94]The Arian Controversy vis-à-vis the Council of Nicea and inculturation of the faith”http://othes.univie.ac.at/45787/1/47629.pdf (accessed on March 27, 2021)
[95]T. Lane, A Concise History of Christian Thought, Baker Academics, Grand Rapids MI 2006, 32.
[96]T. Lane, A Concise History of Christian Thought,
[97]B. Harold , Heresies, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., Peabody MA 1984, 108.
[98]H.Bettensen, The Early Christian Fathers, Oxford University Press, London 1956, 381.
[99] BROWN, Heresies, 118.
[100]E. Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome. Harcourt, New York: 2000, 69.
[101]Mirea Mara, Religious freedom and constraint – theological-historical landmarks –https://www.academia.edu/5878092/Identity_Assimilation_and_Church_Separation_in_the_Serbian_Banat_in_the_Second_Half_of_the_19th_and_Early_20th_Century (accessed on April 18, 2021)
[102]Francis Opoku, Constantinne and Christianity: The Formation of Church/State Relations in the Roman Empire, Ilorin jounal of Religious Studies, Vol. 5 No.1, 2015.
[103]C. Rengers, The 33 Doctors of the Church, 70.
[104]H. Hough, Athanasius
the Hero, Abingdon Press, New York 1906, 74.
[105]W. Bush, St.
Athanasius: His Life and Times, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,
London 1912, 114.
[106]W. Bush, St.
Athanasius: His Life and Times, 115.
[107] Unam Sanctam Catholicam, http://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/history/79-history/559-oedience-of-athanasius.html (accessed on December 23, 2020)
[108]W. Bush, St.
Athanasius: His Life and Times, 116.
[109]W. H. Arnold, The
Early Episcopal Career of Athanasius of Alexandria, The University of
Durham, England 1991, 171.
[110]Unam Santam Catholicam, http://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/history/79-history/559-obedience-of-athanasius.html (accessed on December 30, 2020)
[111] Unam Sanctam Catholicam http://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/history/79-history/559-obedience-of-athanasius.html (accessed on January 16, 2022)
[112] New Advent, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26023.htm (accessed on January 10, 2021)
[113]W. Bush, St.
Athanasius: His Life and Times, 122.
[114]Church History (Book II), www.newadvent.org/fathers/26012.htm. (accessed on January 10. 2021)
[115]C. F. Cruse, Trans., Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, Hendrickson Publishers, Massachusetts 1998, 103.
[116]C. F. Cruse, Trans., Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, 103
[117]W. Bush, St.
Athanasius: His Life and Times, 123.
[118]W. Bush, St.
Athanasius: His Life and Times, 123.
[119]T. Wienandy
– D. Keating, Athanasius and his
Legacy,, 4.
[120]H. Hough, Athanasius
the Hero, 95.
[121]H. Hough, Athanasius
the Hero, 112.
[122]H. Hough, Athanasius
the Hero, 112
[124]W. Bush, St.
Athanasius: His Life and Times, 188.
[125] Athanasius- The Black Dwarf:https://discover.hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Athanasius-The-Black-Dwarf
(accessed on January 10, 2021)
[126]C. Rengers, The
33 Doctors of the Church, 2.
[129]International Journal of Arts and Humanity file:///C:/Users/hp/AppData/Local/Temp/184030-Article%20Text-468368-1-10-20190301.pdf (accessed on April 15,2021)
[130] C. ELE, “Catholicism in the Face of Pentecostalism in Nigeria: An Advocacy for a United Christianity,” International Journal of Arts and Humanities: Vol. 8 No. 28.2019.
[131] B. UKUTEGBE- E. ANAGWO,(ed) et al., CALAN: Abuses in the Liturgy and the Nigerian Contexxt today, Floreat Systems, Benin 2018 21.
[132] B. UKUTEGBE- E. ANAGWO, (ed) 19.
[133] E. ANAGWO, Litugucal Norms and Good Governace: The imperative of the Rule of Law, Areopagus, 2013, 25
[134] J. OGUEJIOFOR, “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) 105.
[135]The Origin and Presence of False Teaching, https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2018/04/origin-presence-false-teaching/ (accessed on April 20, 2021)
[136]The Origin and Presence of False Teaching, https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2018/04/origin-presence-false-teaching/ (accessed on April 20, 2021)
[137]The Origin and Presence of False Teaching, https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2018/04/origin-presence-false-teaching/ (accessed on April 20, 2021)
[138] S. DAVIS, The Importance of Athanasius and the Views of his Character, Liberty University, Virginia (VA) 2017, 273.
[139] S. Davis, 274.
[140] VATICAN II, The Consitution on the Sacred Liturgy Sacrosanctum Concillium (4 December 1963), n. 24
[141] VATICAN II, Sacrosanctum Concillium, n. 24
[142]S. UDOIDEM, Pope John Paul II on Inculturation: Theory and Practice, Lanham, University Press of America, 1996, 70.
No comments:
Post a Comment