This is a paper I wrote last year on the great church Father Athanasius. He was a theologian, church father, and defender of Trinitarian Christianity. Athanasius was an important figure at the Council of Nicea and his defense of Nicea still impacts society today.
 |
| Athanasius from Wikipedia |
The settlement of Christian doctrine was not wholly final by the Fourth Century. Doctrinal disputes rocked churches and conflict between bishops divided believers. At the heart of these disputes lay the nature of Jesus Christ. The question of the divinity of Jesus is central to the very nature of the Christian faith. The rise of Arianism in the fourth century led to intense struggle and division as the church battled over the future of Christian theology. The scuffle over the nature of Christ led to the great church council of Nicaea, called by Emperor Constantine with the goal of ending the deep division within Christianity.
Another question vital to Christian doctrine and unity during the fourth century was the question of the New Testament canon. The idea of a list of authoritative books rose in the battle over heresy. From its earliest days, the Christian church accepted the Old Testament as authoritative and used Christians writings alongside the Jewish Scriptures. The first to propose a list of fixed authoritative books was possibly Marcion. Marcion’s goal was a pure Christianity stripped clean of any Jewish influence. He believed that the God of the Old Testament was wrathful and the author of evil, while the God of the New Testament was the God of grace and love. In an attempt at expunging Christianity of its Jewish influence, Marcion composed a canon composed of ten epistles of Paul minus the pastoral epistles, and the Gospel of Luke. [1] The church rejected Marcion as his teaching ripped Christianity from its Old Covenant roots, but the teaching of Marcion forced the church to contemplate more deeply about the books it believed were authoritative.
By the fourth century, Athanasius became an essential figure in the settling of orthodox doctrine held by the church. His involvement at the Council of Nicaea and his later insistence for orthodox doctrine regarding the divinity and humanity of Christ is one reason for the orthodox theological victory triumph in the church. At a time when it appeared that the theological domination of Arianism was inevitable, the insistence of Athanasius on theological orthodoxy prodded the church toward Nicaean orthodoxy. Athanasius’ was also an important force in the question of the Christian canon. His list of canonical books in his 39th Festal Letter is an important marker in the acceptance of a New Testament canon. This paper will examine the role of Athanasius in establishing the orthodox position currently held by all branches of the Christian church regarding the nature and person of Jesus Christ. Further, an exploration of Athanasius’ role in solidifying the acceptance of the New Testament canon is an important part of his position in history.
 |
| Alexandria, Egypt from: http://www.mrdowling.com/604-alexandria.html |
Athanasius was born in the large Egyptian city of Alexandria between 296 and 298. Alexandria was a large, wealthy mercantile city during this time which shipped grain to the important cities of the time. [2] His parents were likely wealthy, and Athanasius received a Christian education grounded in the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint. While incapable of understanding Hebrew, Athanasius possessed a thorough knowledge of the Septuagint [3] and his command of the Scriptures served him well during tumultuous debates. Athanasius’ life in Alexandria brought him under the influence the theology developed within his hometown. There is little available which indicates the origin of Christianity in Alexandria though Eusebius credits the apostle Mark as the first to carry the message of Jesus to Egypt.[4] The Alexandrian school of theology traces back to the influence of Clement and Origen where a catechetical school taught new believers. Clement of Alexandria was well grounded in the Greek philosophy of the time, and he employed his philosophical knowledge in his theology. Clement stressed the power of reason, and because Jesus is the Logos as stated in the first chapter of the Gospel John, then Jesus is the true philosophy. He chided philosophers to abandon their superstitions which were merely “an image of an image,” and follow Christ who as the Logos is the true image of God.[5] Clement believes that the Logos is the “point of contact between pagan philosophers” and Christianity.[6]
Like Clement, Origen also placed great stress on Christ as the true Logos. Origen believed that “God begat his Wisdom or Logos eternally,” therefore the Logos is the mediator between God and His creation.[7] In reaction to the teaching of Monarchianism which emphasized the complete unity of God, Origen believed that the Godhead existed in a distinct ordered relationship with the Son subservient to the Father and the Spirit subservient to the Son. Origen will at times refer to the Son as a creature, but he uses that word only as the Son is subordinate to the Father.[8] While the possibility exists that Origen’s Platonist drives much of his theology, Origen’s belief that the mission of Christ is salvation becomes influential within Alexandria.[9] The stress upon the divinity and mission of Christ as Logos becomes central to Alexandrian theology and plays a powerful influence upon Athanasius in his writings and his encounters with Arianism.[10]
Athanasius came to the attention of Alexander the bishop of Alexandria at a young age. Tradition reports that Alexander first noticed Athanasius when a boy and other children playing church, Athanasius pretended he was a bishop.[11] Alexander mentored Athanasius and ordained him as a deacon while also using Athanasius as a secretary. It was in this role that Athanasius first found himself embroiled in one of the hardest fought controversies in the Christian church. Arian a presbyter from Alexandria began teaching doctrine that divided the church and dominated theological debate throughout the Fourth century. Arius was likely a disciple of Lucian of Antioch, who was a martyr and disciple of Paul of Samosata. The rivalry between Antioch was profound and led to interchanges and charges of heresy[12]. Arius led the church at Baucalis a district of Alexandria.It is possible that the influence of Monarchian impacted his theology, as well as the teaching by Origen which stressed the hierarchical nature of the Trinity and the eternal submission of the Father to the Son. While the use of the word creature is unclear with Origen, it is clear that Arius taught that the Son is a created being lower than the Father. Arius viewed the Son as a lesser god, begotten by the Father and attaining a status below God the Father. Christ was not “fully God nor fully man, but a tertium quid between.”[13] Arius believed that while Christ redeemed humanity, he believed full divinity damaged the essence of God. Arius feared that granting the Son full equality with the Father would present God as changeable and mutable thereby corrupting the transcendence of God. According to Arius, if the transcendence of God demanded that the creation of the Son as any point of contact between Father and Son threatened the oneness of God.[14] In a letter of Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia found in Theodoret’s Church History, he says,
Before he was begotten, or created, or defined, or established, he did not exist. For he was not unbegotten. But we are persecuted because we have said the Son has a beginning but God has no beginning. We are persecuted because of that and for saying he came from non-being. But we said this since he is not a portion of God nor of anything in existence. That is why we are persecuted; you know the rest.[15]
For Arius and his followers, the absolute and transcendent nature of God required that the Father and Son exist as separate. If the Logos existed with the same nature, then the Logos must be impassible.[16] The Father is immutable and incapable of pain and suffering.
 |
| Bishop Arius from http://www.arian-catholic.org/arian/arius.html |
Arius’ teaching brought him into conflict with Bishop Alexander about 320. The spark which began the theological controversy is difficult to determine. It is possible that Arius reacted negatively to a sermon on the Trinity preached by Alexander which led Arius to believe that Alexander sounded like a Sabellian. Epiphanius explained that Alexander received a report about the dubious nature of Arius’ doctrine.[17] Like Arius, Origen influenced Alexander, but Alexander stressed the Origen’s insistence on the eternal nature of the Son. While the position of Alexander appears confusing the differences with Arius are obvious.[18] In a letter to Alexander, Arius expresses his theological views regarding the relationship between The Father and Son,
Thus there are three hypostases, God being the cause of all is without beginning, most alone; but the Son, begotten by the Father, created and founded before the ages, was not before he was begotten. Rather, the Son begotten timelessly before everything, alone caused to subsist by the Father. . . But God is thus before all as a monad and cause. Therefore he is also before the Son, as we have learned from you when you preached throughout the midst of the church.[19]
In response to Arius, Alexander called a synod of one hundred Egyptian bishops who condemned the teaching of Arius. But this did not stop Arius as he sought help and refuge from a sympathetic bishop, Eusebius of Nicomedia. Nicomedia was an influential city, and Eusebius was a powerful ally who could gather support for Arius.[20] In spite of leaving Alexandria theological concepts of Arius spread and began to divide the Eastern Church with accusations hurling from both sides.
The theological debate may have gone unnoticed in the Roman Empire had not Constantine professed faith in the truth of Christianity. The dispute over Arius threatened to disrupt the unity the church which Constantine so badly wanted. A divided church contributed to a divided empire. While Constantine likely had little understanding of the theological issues, he did see the need for a resolution to the theological division within Christendom. His response to the crisis was a call for a church council. In reply to Constantine’s request, bishops gathered in the city of Nicaea in 325. The reports regarding the size of the gathering are contradictory, but the Eastern bishops far outnumbered the Western bishops. Athanasius accompanied Alexander to the council and served as his secretary. The exact role of Athanasius at the council is unclear, but his close relationship with the elderly Alexander is apparent. Athanasius’ work, The Incarnation of the Word may have impacted the council and pointed the council away from the Arian position.
The Incarnation of the Word is the most well-known writing by Athanasius and is a clear call away from Arian theology. At the heart of Athanasius’ argument lies humanity’s need for salvation. He connects the creation of humanity and their existence as fallen creatures to the necessity of the Incarnation. God became incarnate as a human with the goal of restoring humanity. Athanasius says, “For of His becoming Incarnate we were the object, and for our salvation He dealt lovingly as to appear and be born in a human body.”[21] Humans created in the image of God marred the image of God in their sin and disobedience. According to Athanasius, “the race of man was perishing; the rational man made in the image of God was disappearing, and the handiwork of God was in the process of dissolution.”[22] The desperate situation of humanity then moves God toward intervention and the seriousness of dilemma requires God’s direct action. Athanasius reveals the nature of the Incarnation. Christ takes a body “no different sort from ours” and gives it over to death in the stead of all.”[23] The debt is so great that the solution requires the Incarnation as Athanasius explains,
For being over all, the Word of God naturally by offering His own temple and corporeal instrument for the life of all satisfied the debt by His death. And thus He, the incorruptible Son of God, being conjoined with all by a like nature, naturally clothed all with incorruption, by the promise of the resurrection. For the actual corruption in death has no longer holding-ground against men, by reason of the Word, which by His one body has come to dwell among them.[24]
Athanasius further explains the necessity for the Son to die such a humiliating death upon the cross. He asks why Christ could not die privately and in a more worthy manner. Athanasius states that the death of Christ was necessary because the Son needed to bear the curse and demonstrate his victory through the Resurrection. A public Resurrection public death which demonstrated the power and Lordship of the Son.[25] The Resurrection confirmed the victory of Christ over death. Death was no longer a fear for the followers of Christ, and the cross is sign of victory not shame. Athanasius declares that “death is destroyed, and that the Cross has become the victory over it.”[26] The relation of the believer to death changes because of the cross and the triumph of the Son in the Resurrection. The believer inherits the victory which Christ won. Death holds no terror for faith in Christ is a greater treasure than life.
For of old, before the divine sojourn of the Saviour took place, even to the saints death was terrible, and all wept for the dead as though they perished. But now that the Saviour has raised His body, death is no longer terrible; for all who believe in Christ tread him under as nought, and choose rather to die than to deny their faith in Christ. For they verily know that when they die they are not destroyed, but actually [begin to] live, and become incorruptible through the Resurrection.[27]
Athanasius confirms his belief in the Incarnation and demonstrates that only a divine Savior could accomplish the mission of saving fallen humanity. “For He was made man that we might be made God ; and He manifested Himself by a body that we might receive the idea of the unseen Father.”[28]
Athanasius strong assertion for the divinity of the Son in The Incarnation of the Word points to the struggles within the Council of Nicaea and the eventual resolution. The goal of the council was to reach a united agreement regarding the Christological views of Arius. Early during the proceedings Arius’ supporter, Eusebius of Nicomedia worked to survey support for Arius by presenting his church’s creed. Eusebius faced firm rejection from the majority of the bishops.[29] The attempt by supporters of Alexander to limit the Council’s statements to Scriptural terms failed as Arius co-opted much of the biblical arguments with his unique interpretations. Arians attempted to insert Colossians 1:15 which describes Christ as the “firstborn of all creation.”[30] The orthodox believed that Scripture misused by the Arians was heresy. Intervention by the emperor helped bring a solution. The proposal to use the word, homoousios, led the Council to declare the full divinity of the Son. The use of the word Homoousios proclaims that God the Father and God the Son are of the same substance thereby implying that the Son is fully God. The creed affirms the orthodox position about Christ when it says,
one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.[31]
The creed makes it clear that Arianism was no longer an option. The phrases, “very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father” clearly rejects the Christology of Arius. The foundation underneath the confession was the proposition that the Son must be God if He created the world and gained salvation for humanity.[32]
 |
| Council of Nicea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea |
The council condemned Arianism, but the crisis did not end. In the following year's bishops who had signed the creed began to hold doubts about their support. They feared that the creed lent support to Sabellians who held to a modalistic view of the Trinity. Constantine eager to promote unity in the church and empire allowed Arian clergy back to their parishes. Eusebius of Nicomedia became especially adept at utilizing his growing relationship with the Emperor to solidify his position within the church and society.[33] As the Arians adjusted to a post-Nicene world, their strategy was not to attack the Nicene Creed but rather to attack the defenders of the creed.[34] At the forefront of the defenders of Nicaea was Athanasius who succeeded Alexander as bishop of Alexandria in 328. Because of his young age and continuing condemnation of Arianism, Athanasius faced continued attacks regarding his legitimacy as a bishop. Eusebius of Nicomedia viewed Athanasius as his chief opponent in his campaign to restore Arius to his former position of honor.[35]
Upon his return, Arius presented himself before the Emperor with a creed ambivalent on the Christological doctrines of Nicaea. Constantine ordered Athanasius to reinstate Arius to his former pastoral position in Alexandria. Athanasius refused, and Constantine ordered Athanasius banished to Gaul. While Athanasius was banished, preparations began to restore Arius into fellowship but he died before the formal ceremony. The difficulties for proponents of orthodoxy continued when Constantine received his baptism from the Arian bishop, Eusebius of Nicomedia.[36] With the chief defender of Nicaea banished, the prospects for orthodoxy appeared dim.[37]
During his exile to Gaul, Athanasius wrote his fifth and sixth Festal Letters. He urged believers to celebrate Easter because the holy day bears witness to the cross and gathers believers in a “unity of spirit.”[38] Easter has a holy purpose of building the faith of the believer, uniting the community, and spreading the message of the cross to the outer world. Athanasius encourages believers saying,
For it is God, my beloved, even the God Who at first established the
feast for us, Who vouchsafes the celebration of it year by year. He both
brought about the slaying of His Son for salvation, and gave us this reason
for the holy feast, to which every year bears witness, as often as at this
season the feast is proclaimed. This also leads us on from the cross
through this world to that which is before us, and God produces even now
from it the joy of glorious salvation.[39]
As in his other work, Athanasius believes that the will of God is salvation and he trusts that Easter glorifies God as it points to the cross and the Son as the means of salvation.
Before his death in 335, Constantine ordered that Athanasius return to Alexandria. With the empire divided between the three sons of Constantine, Athanasius found himself under the rule of Constantius. Theodoret reported that Athanasius was,
Before his death in 335, Constantine ordered that Athanasius return to Alexandria. With the empire divided between the three sons of Constantine, Athanasius found himself under the rule of Constantius. Theodoret reported that Athanasius was,
"welcomed both by the rich and by the poor, by the inhabitants of cities, and by those of the provinces. The followers of the madness of Arius were the only persons who felt any vexation at his return. Eusebius, Theognis, and those of their faction resorted to their former machinations, and endeavored to prejudice the ears of the young emperor against him."
Even with the return of Athanasius, Eusebius of Nicomedia still ruled as the most dominant bishop in
the East. Through his influence Athanasius was replaced by an Arian bishop, Gregory of Cappadocia
and Athanasius bolted to Rome where he received a welcome from Roman Christians sympathetic to
Nicean theology.[40] Upon arrival in Rome Athanasius presented his defense before in his
Defence Before Constantius,
This certainly is sufficient for proof, yet suffer me nevertheless to lay before you an account
of my travels, which will further lead you to condemn the unfounded calumnies of my
opponents. When I left Alexandria, I did not go to your brother's head-quarters, or to any
other persons, but only to Rome; and having laid my case before the Church (for this was
my only concern), I spent my time in the public worship. I did not write to your brother,
except when Eusebius and his fellows had written to him to accuse me, and I was compelled
while yet at Alexandria to defend myself; and again when I sent to him volumes containing the
holy Scriptures.[41]
Athanasius is careful to declare that he did not journey to Rome to win favor from the Western emperor,
Constans. He laid his case to Bishop Julius of Rome who examined the circumstances behind the
banishment and found Athanasius innocent of any wrongdoing.[42] Athanasius identified his
banishment and difficulties with Arians as the suffering and persecution believers receive when they
stand for the truth. In his Tenth Festal Letter Athanasius identifies his sufferings a battle for the truth,
I have been hindered by those afflictions of which you have
doubtless heard, and severe trials have been laid upon me, and a great
distance has separated us; while the enemies of the truth have followed our
tracks, laying snares to discover a letter from us, so that by their
accusations, they might add to the pain of our wounds; yet the Lord,
strengthening and comforting us in our afflictions, we have not feared,
even when held fast in the midst of such machinations and conspiracies, to
indicate and make known to you our saving Easter-feast, even from the ends
of the earth.[43]
Further, in the letter, Athanasius goes as far as declaring his opponents guilty of treason against the Lord. Athanasius viewed his suffering and that of his followers as reflecting the suffering of Christ.
Oh! my dearly beloved, if we shall gain comfort from afflictions, if
rest from labours, if health after sickness, if from death immortality, it
is not right to be distressed by the temporal ills that lay hold on
mankind. It does not become us to be agitated because of the trials which
befall us. It is not right to fear if the gang that contended with Christ,
should conspire against godliness; but we should the more please God
through these things, and should consider such matters as the probation and
exercise of a virtuous life…
Now because they did not thus consider these matters, the Ario-
maniacs, being opponents of Christ, and heretics, smite Him who is
their Helper with their tongue, and blaspheme Him who set [them] free, and
hold all manner of different opinions against the Saviour.[44]
The Western emperor Constans convinced his brother Constantius to allow Athanasius to return to Alexandria after the death of Gregory in 345. Arriving in Alexandria in 346, Athanasius began a ten year period of ministry as bishop. This period is often called his Golden Age due to his long continuous ministry. Athanasius paid special attention to the ministry of the Egyptian monastics and took notice of the monastics, Pachomius and Antony.[45] After the death of the Western Emperor Constans, Constantius continued his pro-Arian measures, and Athanasius fled into exile for the third time. This banishment spent in the desert among the monastic community was a period of great literary output for Athanasius. While in the desert, Athanasius wrote his theological work Orations Against the Arians. His work, The Life of Antony, brought attention throughout the church of the spiritual benefits of a solitary life of prayer. He continued to keep his eye on the Alexandrian church from a distance and directed letters and communication through friends to the church.[46]
Constantius died in 361 thereby leaving the throne to his cousin Julian. The position of the Arians began to show cracks and weaknesses during the rule of Julian. Those influenced by Origen looked upon Nicaea as suspect because they alleged that the origin of homoousios was Sabellian. These conservatives while suspicious of homoousios, were willing to use the word homoiousios. The Son and Father are not one substance but an equality or similarity of substance.[47] The return of Athanasius to Alexandria allowed the opportunity, “not only for the full definition of the doctrine of the Trinity, but for the New-Nicene orthodoxy, with its Godhead in one essence (substance) and three hypostases.”[48] Athanasius’ return was shortlived as Julian renounced Christianity and attempted to return the Empire to the older pagan religions. Christians lost their special status, and Julian attempted neutrality among the combatting forces in the Eastern church. Athanasius continued his stubborn independence which vexed Julian who forced Athanasius into a Fourth exile. He traveled to upper Egypt and spent his banishment with the desert monastics once again until the death of Julian in June 363. Athanasius’ exiles in the desert not only increased the appreciation for the monastic life throughout the church, but also broke any relationship between the Arians and the desert monks. Athanasius’ life among the monks, as well as his teaching and courting of them, prevented any temptation towards Arian theology.[49]
The new emperor Jovian restored Athanasius to his ecclesiastical office and allowed him to return to Alexandria. The letter of restoration Athanasius received from the new emperor revealed the high regard he held Athanasius,
To the most religious and friend of God, Athanasius, Jovian: Admiring exceedingly the achievements of your most honourable life, and of your likeness to the God of all, and of your affection toward our Saviour Christ, we accept you, most honoured bishop. And inasmuch as you have not flinched from all labour, nor from the fear of your persecutors, and, regarding dangers and threats of the sword as dung, holding the rudder of the orthodox faith which is dear to you, are contending even until now for the truth, and continue to exhibit yourself as a pattern to all the people of the faithful, and an example of virtue:— our imperial Majesty recalls you, and desires that you should return to the office of the teaching of salvation. Return then to the holy Churches, and tend the people of God, and send up to God with zeal your prayers for our clemency. For we know that by your supplication we, and all who hold with us [the Christian faith], shall have great assistance from the supreme God.[50]
Athanasius reply to the emperor reveals both his solid commitment to the Nicene formula as well his steadfast opposition to Arianism,
Since then your Piety desired to learn from us the faith of the Catholic Church, giving thanks for these things to the Lord, we counselled above all things to remind your Piety of the faith confessed by the Fathers at Nicæa. For this certain set at nought, while plotting against us in many ways, because we would not comply with the Arian heresy, and they have become authors of heresy and schisms in the Catholic Church. For the true and pious faith in the Lord has become manifest to all, being both 'known and read ' from the Divine Scriptures. For in it both the saints were made perfect and suffered martyrdom, and now are departed in the Lord; and the faith would have abode inviolate always had not the wickedness of certain heretics presumed to tamper with it. For a certain Arius and those with him attempted to corrupt it, and to introduce impiety in its place, affirming that the Son of God was from nought, and a creature, and a thing made and changeable. But with these words they deceived many, so that even 'they that seemed to be somewhat were carried away ,' with their blasphemy.[51]
The fierce opposition to Arius and his theology continued as he grew older with no softening from exile. The hostility of Athanasius to Arianism continued because he believed the survival of the orthodox faith was at stake. According to Athanasius, the orthodox faith is “true and pious” while Arianism is wicked and corrupt. While generous with his gratitude toward Jovian, Athanasius is firm with the emperor regarding the obligation to uphold the “coessential” character of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. A relationship seen “in the one faith of the Holy Triad, because there is in the Holy Triad also one Godhead.”[52]
Upon return to his office, Athanasius called for a synod to reaffirm the Nicene formula. The synod which met in 363 in the Syrian city of Antioch. The gathering affirmed the truth of the Nicene Creed and declared that the word “homoousios means simply that the Son is like the Father according to his essence, and that its only purpose is to condemn the Arian heresy, which turns the Son into a creature.”[53] In an explanation to Emperor Jovian, the bishops explained the motives for their theological discussion being, “the subversion of what Arius impiously dared to assert concerning Christ.”[54]
After the death of Jovian, the Roman army named Valentinian emperor. The new emperor ruled the West, and he appointed his brother Valens as ruler in the East. Valentinian appeared to possess a consideration for orthodox Nicene faith, but his brother Valens demonstrated Arian sympathies due to the influence of the Arian clergy in Constantinople. He condemned Athanasius into a fifth and final exile. This banishment was a brief exile as Athanasius hid for four months in an ancestral tomb.[55] The escape of Athanasius appeared to be providential to his followers who petitioned for his return. The historian Sozomen reflects the amazement of the people in his Church History,
The governor of Egypt and the military chief took possession of the church in which Athanasius generally dwelt, and sought him in every part of the edifice, and even on the roof, but in vain; for they had calculated upon seizing the moment when the popular commotion had partially subsided, and when the whole city was wrapped in sleep, to execute the mandate of the emperor, and to transport Athanasius from the city.
Not to have found Athanasius naturally excited universal astonishment. Some attributed his escape to a special revelation from above; others to the advice of some of his followers; both had the same result; but more than human prudence seems to have been requisite to foresee and avoid such a plot.[56]
Valens allowed Athanasius to return to Alexandria either because of popular support for the bishop or pressure from the Western emperor Valentinian.[57] Athanasius’ literary and ecclesiastical work continued unabated. In 369 an African synod comprised of bishops from Libya and Egypt met to confirm the Nicene Creed. A portion of the synod’s goal was a refutation of a previous council which met at Ariminum in Northern Italy. The Ariminum synod met in 359 and offered a mediating position instead of a strict adherence to the Nicene Formula.[58] The work of the African bishops affirmed the Nicene Formula, then sent as an encyclical letter to Bishop Damasus of Rome. Athanasius composed the letter which affirmed Nicaea and attacked Arianism as a damnable heresy,
And so let them escape the Arian heresy. And we are confident that in sincerely anathematising these views, they ipso facto confess that the Son is of the Father's Essence, and coessential with Him. For this is why the Fathers, having said that the Son was coessential, straightway added, 'but those who say that He is a creature, or made, or of nothing, or that there was once a time when He was not,' the Catholic Church anathematises: namely in order that by this means they might make it known that these things are meant by the word 'coessential.'[59]
Athanasius’ vigorous defense and attacks upon Arians continued throughout his long reign as bishop. Some of his strongest attacks upon Arius and his followers appear in his work Orations Against the Arians. Athanasius most likely wrote Orations during his third exile during circumstances when Arianism appeared to possess the upper hand in the theological debate dominating the Eastern Empire. But Athanasius refused to compromise. He rejected any deviation from the theology agreed to at Nicaea. Athanasius’ motive was to protect salvation won by Christ on the cross. He believed that any compromise of the full Godhead of the Son eliminated the ability of Christ to pay the debt of sinful humanity. In his defense of orthodoxy, Athanasius did not hesitate to condemn his opponents in the harshest language available. Because of their departure from Nicaen orthodoxy, Athanasius quickly pronounced his foes damnable. In Orations, he compares the orthodox theology with Arian writing,
Which of the two theologies sets forth our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Son of the Father, this which you vomited forth, or that which we have spoken and maintain from the Scriptures? If the Saviour be not God, nor Word, nor Son, you shall have leave to say what you will, and so shall the Gentiles, and the present Jews. But if He be Word of the Father and true Son, and God from God, and 'over all blessed for ever.’[60]
Athanasius quickly compares Arian doctrine as vomit while orthodox doctrine remains biblical. According to Athanasius, Arianism is evil and detestable because it removes the power and ability of the Son to save.
Athanasius’ opponents accused him of more than just theological error. His foes accused him of all types of crimes. Bribery, assault, destruction of Melitian churches, and even murder of a Melitian bishop. Other reports allege that Athanasius controlled grain shipments bound for Constantinople from Alexandria and threatening to prevent the grain from sailing.[61] In his book, Constantine and Eusebius author T.D. Barnes accuses Athanasius of being an "ecclesiastical gangster."[62] There is no doubt that the debate and conflict between the orthodox were extremely intense. Violence and retribution likely occurred as emotions ran high. Both sides believed that the outcome of the conflict had eternal consequences.
Accusations of distortion of his opponent’s viewpoints often get thrown at Athanasius. Eusebius of Nicomedia often appears as the victim of Athanasius’ theological distortions. Eusebius eagerly uses politics and connections in an attempt to isolate and banish supporters of Nicaea. Political weapons were used in 330 to obtain the condemnation of Eustathius and the same weapons fired at Athanasius. Athanasius did utilize every means available to secure his restoration during his exiles.[63] He was not above the use of politics and flattery to secure his goals. Athanasius may not have been a brilliant theological innovator, but his tenacity and stubbornness are a primary reason for the triumph of Nicene orthodoxy over Arianism.
For Athanasius ultimate reality points to Christ who is “the eternal Word of the Father who became flesh,” along with the “Creator God, the Father who creates and maintains all things through his own Word and Spirit.” [64] His opponents believed that the suffering of the Son disqualified Him from being God. Athanasius believed that objections to the suffering of the Son were an effort to match the Son and creature which was another form of Arianism.[65]
The final adoption of the Nicene Creed is not the only contribution that Athanasius made to Christian orthodoxy. A longstanding need during the debates over doctrine was a recognition of which biblical books were final and authoritative. From the beginning, the ancient Christian church accepted the Hebrew Scriptures as the inspired and authoritative Word of God. After the Apostolic period, churches began compiling and using the Christian Scriptures. By the second century, churches and Christian communities possess writings that they begin to recognize as equal in authority to Scripture.
The recognition that the church needed a canon of Scripture first arose during the appearance of Marcion and his attempt to strip away all traces of Jewish influences from the Christian Scriptures. Athanasius was the first to utilize the term canon and to speak about a closed canon.[66]
Paschal letters were epistles Athanasius wrote on the occasion of Easter to inform them of the dates of Lent and Easter and to help his flock prepare for the coming festival. In all Athanasius wrote forty-five Paschal letters on a variety of subjects to encourage and prepare the church. Many of the letters attack and warn his people about the dangers of Arianism. In his Thirty-Ninth Paschal Letter Athanasius produced a list of Old and New Testament books which he recognized as canon. Athanasius’ desire for a closed canon overlaps with his desire to prevent the spread of Arianism and heretical teaching. He believed that human teachers not rooted in the Scriptures easily deviated from the faith and were susceptible to Arianism.[67] Athanasius begins his letter warning of outside revelation that leads astray saying,
They have fabricated books which they call books of tables, in which they show stars, to which they give the names of Saints. And therein of a truth they have inflicted on themselves a double reproach: those who have written such books, because they have perfected themselves in a lying and contemptible science; and as to the ignorant and simple, they have led them astray by evil thoughts concerning the right faith established in all truth and upright in the presence of God.[68]
According to Athanasius, Scripture should safeguard the flock and protect it from false teachers. He lists the Jewish Scriptures minus the book of Esther with Jeremiah having the additions of Lamentations with Baruch and the apocryphal Epistle of Jeremiah.
In his list of the New Testament books he includes,
Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.[69]
He also mentions apocryphal books offered for instruction but not inspiration including “The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd.”[70]
Inclusion in the New Testament canon usually depended upon either apostolic authorship or an associate close to the apostles such as Luke. Another criterion was usage. Books included in the canon found recognition because of their use in the churches. Read as Scripture and used for formation of doctrine. Then finally there was the test of sound doctrine. Correct Doctrine was a great concern for Athanasius and a primary reason for his list of canonical book. Athanasius’ Thirty-Ninth Paschal Letter was not the end of the debate, but it was the first step toward recognition of the inspired books the church was already using widely.
Athanasius was an integral figure in establishing orthodox Christian doctrine and the triumph of orthodox theology over Arianism. His stubborn resistance and refusal to compromise with Arian teachers and theologians made many enemies and caused personal suffering as many years exiled took him away from his Alexandrian home. His steadfastness along with his writings and preaching did more than any other individual to achieve victory for the Nicene position. During a time when Arianism seemed to be ready to overtake the orthodox Nicene Creed; Athanasius stood firmly against doctrine that would have transformed Christianity, making it unrecognizable from the form it took in the following centuries. His interaction with the Egyptian monastics and his Life of Antony promote the solitary, monastic life dedicated to god well outside of Egypt. In his Thirty-Ninth Paschal Letter, Athanasius laid out a canon of inspired books as both a spiritual foundation and protection against aberrant teaching. Athanasius’ importance in shaping orthodox theology held by members of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant churches is undeniable.
 |
| https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/people/theologians/athanasius.html |
Bibliography
Athanasius, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers; Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Peabody, MA, Hendrickson Publishers, 1892.
Athanasius, Letter 56 To the Emperor Jovian concerning the Faith, edited by Kevin Knight, New Advent, www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806056.htm. Accessed 3 Dec. 2017.
Brakke, David. "Athanasius." The Early Christian World, edited by Philip F. Esler, London, Routledge, 2000.
Bruce, F.F. The Spreading Flame. Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1958.
Dimaio, Jr, Michael. "Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire." Classical World 88, no. 3 (January 1980): 228.
Gonzalez, Justo L. A History of Christian Thought. Vol. 1, Nashville, Abingdon, 1970, 3 vols.
Grant, Robert M. "Religion and Politics at the Council at Nicaea." The Journal of Religion, vol. 55, no. 1, Jan. 1975, pp. 1-12.
Leithart, Peter J. Athanasius. Grand Rapids, Baker Academic, 2011.
MacCullogh, Diarmaid. Christianity The First Three Thousand Years. New York, Viking, 2009.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1971.
Rusch, William G. editor and translator. The Christological Controversy. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980.
Tyson, John R. The Great Athanasius. Eugene, Cascade Books, 2017.
Walker, Williston. A History of the Christian Church. New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1959.
[1] Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1959), 54-55.
[2] John R. Tyson, The Great Athanasius (Eugene, Or: Cascade Books, 2017), 1.
[3] Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers; Athanasius: Select Works and Letters vol.4, (Peabody, MA, Hendrickson Publishers, 2012), xiv.
[4] David Brakke, “The East (2): Egypt and Palestine,” The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies, edited by Susan Ashbrook and David G. Hunter, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 346.
[6] Justo L. Gonzalez, A History of Christian Thought, Vol 1, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1970), 232.
[7] Richard A. Norris Jr., The Christological Controversy, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 15.
[8] F.F. Bruse, The Spreading Flame, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1958), 259.
[10] Robert A. Case II, “Will the Real Athanasius Please Stand Up?,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 19, no. 4 (1976): 293.
[11] Shaff and Wace, xiv.
[12] Bruce, 302.
[13] Walker, 107.
[14] Pelikan, 195.
[15] “Letter of Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia”, Wisconsin Lutheran College, www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-1/. Accessed 2 Dec. 2017.
[16] Pelikan, 198.
[17] Tyson, 24.
[18] Walker, 107.
[19] Arius, The Trinitarian Controversy, William G. Rasch ed and trans, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980),31-32.
[20] Diarmaid MacCulloch, Christianity The First Three Thousand Years, (New York: Viking, 2009), 241.
[22] Schaff and Wace, 39.
[24] Schaff and Wace, 41.
[25] Schaff and Wace, 48.
[26] Schaff and Wace, 50.
[28] Schaff and Wace, 65.
[29] Robert M. Grant, "Religion and Politics at the Council at Nicaea," The Journal of Religion, vol. 55, no. 1, (Jan. 1975), 8.
[30] Col. 1:15, ESV.
[32] Pelikan, 203.
[33] David Brakke, “Athanasius,” in The Early Christian World, ed. Philip Francis Kelly (London: Routledge, 2000), 1107.
[34] Gonzalez, 281.
[36] Walker, 110.
[37] The term orthodox is used not to determine the truthfulness of the doctrine but to represent what eventually became accepted Christian doctrine.
[38] Schaff and Wace, 518.
[40] Walker, 112.
[41] Schaff and Wace, 239.
[43] Schaff and Wace, 527.
[44] Schaff and Wace, 230-231.
[46] Tyson, 151.
[47] Walker, 114.
[48] Walker, 115.
[49] Christopher Haas,"The Arians of Alexandriia" Vigiliae Christianae, 47, no. 3 (September 1993), 238.
[50] Athanasius, Letter 56 To the Emperor Jovian concerning the Faith, ed. Kevin Knight, New Advent, www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806056.htm. Accessed 3 Dec. 2017.
[52] Athanasius, Letter 56 To the Emperor Jovian concerning the Faith.
[53] Gonzalez, 292.
[54] Gonzalez, 292.
[56] Tyson, 161-162.
[57] Tyson, 161.
[59] Athanasius, Ad Afros Epistola Synodica, ed. Kevin Knight, New Advent, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2819.htm. Accessed 3 Dec. 2017.
[60] Schaff and Mace, 311.
[61] Brakke, 1117.
[62] Michael Dimaio, Jr, "Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire." Classical World 88, no. 3 (January 1980): 228.
[63] Brakke, 1110.
[65] Leithart, 145.
[66] David Brakke, "Canon Formation and Social Conflict in Fourth-Century Egypt: Athanasius of Alexandria's Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter," The Harvard Theological Review 87, no. 4 (October 1994), 397..
[67] David Brakke, "Canon Formation and Social Conflict in Fourth-Century Egypt: Athanasius of Alexandna's Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter,"405.
[68] Schaff and Mace, 550.
[70] Schaff and Mace, 550.
No comments:
Post a Comment