Arius and athanasius
Arius and athanasius

Arius and athanasius

Available Only on StudyHippo
  • Pages: 10 (4836 words)
  • Published: October 10, 2017
Text preview

SYPNOSIS

Arius and Athanasius were archrivals of the Arian contention. Arius was the taking male parent in Arianism whilst Athanasius was the guardian of the Nicene Theology for Orthodox Christianity against Arianism. As Arianism rejects the deity of Christ, redemption to mankind was at interest. Athanasius advocates the consubstantiality of the three individuals of the three which was important statement to support the deity of Christ. Consequently Athanasius had built the land of the Trinitarian and Christological philosophy which together with the humanity of Christ represents the complete Trinitarian divinity.

I. Introduction

The 4th century church experienced a major crisis in understanding God ‘s godly nature, features and relationship with members of the Godhead. This Arian contention centred upon two archrival theologists, Arius and Athanasius.1 The contention represented a new stage of doctrinal development of the Godhead and led to the Council of Nicaea in 325 and the Church ‘s first oecumenic statement of the Trinity. 2 Athanasius was the title-holder of Nicene Theology, who greatly defended the traditional Christianity against the Arian

...

heresy.3 Section II of this essay will briefly discourse the background of Arius, and sum up his basic divinity. Section III will supply an overview about Athanasius ‘s life, Athanasius ‘ divinity in concurrence with his defense mechanism against the Arians ‘ heretic claims. Finally, the decision will be drawn in Section IV.

II. THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY

The ‘Arian contention ‘ ignited in 318, when Arius openly taught his heretic instructions that denied the full deity of the Son. Consequently, Arius challenged his bishop ( Alexander of Alexandria ) and instructors of Alexandria to an Christological conflict.4 The contention lasted for about half a century and became the confrontation between the two archrivals, the ‘Nicene party ‘ and Origenists.5 Athanasius coined the names ‘Arian ‘ and ‘Arians ‘ as dyslogistic political and theological slurs against Arius and his oppositions, who disagreed with him on the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, and those meant the Son as a animal or held fast to Arius ‘ basic place. Cf. Thomas G. Weinandy, Athanasius: a Theological Introduction ( Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing, 2007 ) , 51-52. Donald K. McKim, Theological Turning Points: Major Issues in Christian Thought ( Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1988 ) , 14.

Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of The Reformation ( 3 vols. ,

New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1984, Vol. 1 ) , 173. Johannes Quasten, Pathology: The Golden Age of

Grecian Patristic Literature. From the Council of Nicaea to the council of Chalcedon ( Utrecht, Netherlands:

Spectrum Publishers, 1963, Vol. III ) , 66.

Bruce L. Shelly, Church History in Plain Language ( 2nd Ed. , Dallas, Texas: Word Publishing, 1995 ) , 100.

Everett Ferguson ( ed. ) , Encyclopaedia of Early Christianity ( New York: Garland Publishing Inc. , 1990 ) , 8485, 92.

The contention roots lay deep in “the differences

View entire sample
Join StudyHippo to see entire essay
View entire sample
Join StudyHippo to see entire essay

of the ante-Nicene philosophy of the

Logos, ” particularly in the two contradictory half truths of Origen ‘s Christology, which was

claimed by both archrivals ? the full deity of Christ and his ageless sharpness from

the Father.6 Conclusively, the Arians were the accelerators, instead than the chief participants.7

II.1. ARIUS AND HIS DOCTRINE

Trained in the Lucian School, Arius was called one of the dissident male parents of Arianism.8 Arianism was a dissident philosophy of theological rationalism, based on the instructions of Lucian of Antioch, Paul of Samosata, and Neoplatonic theory of subordinationism.9 Arius wrote really small and merely a few fragments survived. Thalia was his lone ain authorship which Athanasius recited.10 Most information about Arius ‘ life and his philosophy came from Athanasius ‘ writings.11

Influenced by Origen, Arius rejected the term ????????? ( consubstantial ) and insisted the concrete and distinguishable three individuals ( ??????? ) of the Godhead, a separate kernel and the subordination of the Son to Father.12 Nicene split the church into two major groups: 1 ) The ‘Nicene party’? consisted of the West, the school of Antioch and other in the East like Athanasius. They affirmed the full divinity of Jesus Christ, but were less clear on the ageless threeness of the Godhead. They did non deny the differentiation between Father, Son and Holy Spirit ( i.e. they were non Monarchians ) , but they did non province it every bit forcefully as the Origenists wanted and so appeared to them to be Monarchian. ( 2 ) The Origenists ? were strong on the threeness of the Godhead, but less clear on the divinity of Jesus Christ. They were non Arians ( i.e. they did non see Jesus Christ as a animal made out of nil ) , but they held him to be inferior to the Father and so appeared Arian to the Nicene party. Cf. Tony Lane, A Concise History of Christian Thought ( Rev. ed. , London: T & A ; T Clark, 2006 ) , 30. Philip Schaff, ‘Arianism ‘ in A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology ( 3rd erectile dysfunction. ; Toronto, New York & A ; London: Funk & A ; Wagnalls Company, 1894, Vol. 1 ) 134137. Cf. hypertext transfer protocol: //www.earlychurch.org.uk/arianism-schaff.html ( 29 April 2010 ) .

Tony Lane, A Concise History of Christian Thought, 30-31. Philip Schaff, ‘Arianism ‘ in A Religious

Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology, 134-137. Cf.

hypertext transfer protocol: //www.earlychurch.org.uk/arianism-schaff.html ( 29 April 2010 ) .

Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 7.

Ephiphanius, Panarion 69,4. Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica, 1,4. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 15.

Note: Scholars still debate over the ideological precursor of Arius ‘ philosophy, whether it was derived from the

theories of Origen, or of Paul of Samosata, or of Lucian of Antioch. Cf. Johannes Quasten, Pathology, 2, 6-8.

Athanasius, Orationes contra Arianos, I.5,6 ; Athanasius, De Synodis, 15. R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for

Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381 ( Edinburgh: T & A ; T Clark Ltd. , 1988 ) , 11.

And a few beginnings from the church historiographers of the 4th and 5th centuries, and from the

View entire sample
Join StudyHippo to see entire essay