Arianism

by T.M. Hyland, Birkenhead | Category: Departure From The Faith | Apr 1972

In former articles in this series we commented on some of the early challenges to the Christian Faith; in particular from legalistic Judaism on the one hand, and philosophical Gnosticism on the other. These were powerful groups in the world at that time and the apostolic message was unacceptable to their mode of thought. But the teaching committed by our Lord to His apostles was not subject to modification-it was to be handed on in its purity to succeeding generations. There was no possibility of compromise; the Christian Faith could never come to terms with human ideals and philosophies. It was not simply an advance on rival concepts; man bad no part at all in its formulation. It came to men as revelation, originating with God and demanding childlike, unquestioning obedience. Its claim to total acceptance was an affront to human pride. Only those prepared to receive it in bumble faith were enlightened and enriched by it.

The battle against error waged by the apostles in those early days of Christian outreach is recorded in the New Testament writings for our encouragement and guidance. We have already observed that the heresies they combated were symptomatic and have recurred in various forms right down to the present day. Hence the continuing need to "contend earnestly for the Faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints". The writings of the apostles and prophets of the New Covenant are the gift of the ascended Lord - a once for all legacy to His saints. We can praise God for His unerring wisdom in giving us this treasure, and for its preservation; the more so when we consider the flood of error which threatened the Christian Faith in the post-apostolic period. it is to this period we now turn our attention.

In attempting some orderly account of departure from the Faith in this period we have to decide the best method of presenting it. This is necessary because there was deviation in two directions. First, in fundamental doctrine; and, second, in church constitution and practice. These two trends were connected and concurrent, but for the sake of clarity we propose to deal with them separately. We will look first at some of the main doctrinal heresies and later give some attention to the development of the professing church which culminated in the union of Church and state.

We noted last month that the subversive teaching of the Gnostics impugned the reality of our Lord's Manhood by postulating that His human body was but a phantom which only 'seemed' to exist. This heresy is adequately refuted in the writings of the apostles. The authentic Christ was a real man-no honest reader of the New Testament could have any doubt about that. But the Gnostics were not the only false teachers to assail the true doctrine of our Lord's Person. There were many others who propounded theories which misrepresented the teaching of the New Testament on this fundamental truth.

If our Lord's essential Manhood lies revealed in the New Testament writings, His claim to full Deity is equally patent and has the united witness of His apostles. Yet there were some early teachers who advanced the theory that Jesus of Nazareth was a man who at some point, His birth, baptism or resurrection, was endowed with the Spirit of God and adopted into the Godhead as the Divine Son. This meant that He was not God from eternity, and therefore had no equality with the Father. This theory came to be known as Adoptionism. There were several variations of it. While it asserted that Christ was truly man it detracted from His full Deity. Adoptionist theories stand condemned by many passages of Scripture which plainly assert our Lord's existence prior to His birth at Bethlehem (e.g. John 1:1-3; 17:5; Phil. 2:6; Col. 1:17; 2:9).

Undoubtedly the most subtle and powerful attack on the true doctrine of our Lord's Person came from the heresy known as Arianism. It is associated with the name of its protagonist, Anus, a learned and influential churchman of Alexandria. He was an able and astute man, a popular figure, regarded by many as forward-looking - a 4th century modernist. His teaching brought about a crisis in Christendom of such a magnitude that in A.D. 325 the Roman Emperor Constantine, who by this time had embraced Christianity and become the patron of the Church, invited the bishops to a council at Nicaea, a town in Bithynia, 'in the hope that they would settle their differences. The Emperor was not unduly concerned about the true doctrine of the Faith; he does not appear to have grasped the essentials of the controversy. For political reasons he desired peace in the Church. Over three hundred bishops from all parts of the Roman Empire attended the council which met in a room at the royal palace, Constantine himself giving them a formal welcome.

Anus contended that the Son was not quite God. He maintained that if the Son was begotten He must have had a beginning; that consequently there was a time When He was not; although as the first of created beings He was far above all angels and men. The Arian Christ was neither truly God nor truly Man. "Had Arianism triumphed 'it would have drastically altered Christianity, if not destroyed it" (Hammond).

At the Council of Nicaea the chief contender against Anus and his followers was a young man of thirty years of age, Athanasius, a deacon of the Church and secretary to the Bishop of Alexandria. In spite of grave departure from the Faith in many directions there were in Christendom men who were prepared to stand firm on the Scripture doctrine of our Lord's Person. Moule says of Athanasius that he stood firm "against the world". At least it can be said that he stood against a large proportion of the professing Church backed at some stages of the struggle by the nominally Christian state.

The debates at the Council of Nicaea occupied about two months and culminated with an agreed statement which reads:

We believe in one God the Father All-sovereign, maker of all things visible and invisible: and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made, things in heaven and things on earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, and became man, suffered, and ~rose again the third day, ascended into the heavens, is coming to judge the quick and the dead . .

And those that say "There was when He was not", and, "Before He was begotten He was not"

and that, "He came into being from what-is-not", or those who allege, that the Son of God is "Of another substance or essence", or created", or changeable" or alterable", these the Catholic Church anathematizes.

This statement differs in part from what is popularly known as the Nicene Creed which is an enlargement of it (see Documents of the Christian Church, Oxford University Press).

All the bishops present at the Council consented to sign this creed except five, and three of these later consented with reservations. Thus the Arians were decisively defeated, but they did not give up. For 46 years Anus and his supporters contended with Athanasius and eventually succeeded in getting him exiled. Constantine himself later supported the Arians and the heresy of Arianism nearly captured Christendom. But after the death of Constantine, Athanasius was restored to office and the greater number of those who supported Anus abandoned his teaching and submitted to the Creed of Nicaea.

It may be appropriate to comment here on the form and phraseology of the Nicene Creed and to consider the import of such formularies of belief. The seemingly hair-splitting propositions of the Creed may appear pedantic and abstruse to our ears. Against this it has been said that the Creeds are signposts against heresies; that the need for precise formulation of Christian belief arose from the circulation of misunderstandings and the prevalence of false interpretations. This, of course, is true. It is also true to say that heretical teaching has stimulated Christian thinkers to examine more carefully the basis of their faith and to interpret New Testament teaching in precise intellectual terms. On the other hand we must keep in mind that these early controversies "are wrongly seen if they are thought to be concerned with superscientific discoveries about God, as though the Fathers had some special highpowered telescope with which to inspect the Godhead" (Ian Ramsey).

We stressed earlier in this series of articles that the Creeds of Christendom are not authoritative merely because they have the support of tradition. Neither the early Ecumenical Councils nor the more recent ones have divine authority. Scripture alone is the basis of the Christian Faith. And in Scripture there is a "thus far and no further". Where Scripture is silent, to venture beyond what is written is to enter the field of speculation. Any statement of belief that goes beyond that point is worthless-all must be brought to the bar of Holy Scripture.

One further observation on credal formularies should be made here, that is, the danger of their misuse. Mere assent to a form of words, apart from a work of divine grace in the soul, does not make a Christian. A Christian, in the sense of a born again believer, is "begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God" (1 Pet. 1:23), and by no other means. Mere intellectual assent to an ancient formulary has produced more 'nominal' Christians than any other cause.

This brief, considered view of the Creeds may riot have the assent of all our readers. But we have tried to hold the balance between their use and abuse. If it is thought by some that we have overstressed the dangers, this will not be disadvantageous if it provokes thought. In our view this side of the question has not received sufficient emphasis.

The heresies of the sub-apostolic age have their present-day counterparts. Arianism 'is a basic doctrine of some modern cults. Take, for example, so-called Jehovah's Witnesses. The following statement unmasks the heresy:

"Did you know that Jesus had a glorious existence long before he was born as a human here on earth? The Bible informs us that he is God's 'firstborn' Son. This means that he was created before the other sons of God's family. He is also God's 'only-begotten' Son, in that he is the only one created by Jehovah God; all other things came into existence through him as God's Chief Agent. Thus, before being born on earth as a male child 'he served in the heavens, where he was known as 'the Word', God's spokesman."

This excerpt is from the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society publication, The Truth that leads to Eternal Life. It is claimed on the flyleaf of this book that it is published in 28 languages and that, in all, 23,000,000 copies have been printed. Such is the extent of the present-day challenge from the ancient heresy of Arianism. It emphasizes the need for all true believers to be fortified against this 'pernicious attack on the Scripture doctrine of our Lord's full deity and perfect humanity.

"Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ: for in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:8,9)

T.M. Hyland, Birkenhead | Apr 1972
Departure From The Faith