This is part 12 of the Early Church History class.
Today we begin a two part series on the Christological controversies of the fourth century. Our focus for this episode is the conflict between Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, and his presbyter, Arius. You may be surprised to learn that Arius was not some youthful outsider spouting off obvious heresy. Rather than depending on what modern historians and biased apologists say, we’ll depend on ancient historians and the surviving letters from Arius, Alexander, and Constantine to reconstruct what really happened. You may be surprised what we find.
Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts
—— Links ——
- See other episodes and posts about Arius
- More Restitutio resources on Christian history
- See other classes here
- Support Restitutio by donating here
- Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF
- Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air
- Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library.
- Who is Sean Finnegan? Read his bio here
—— Notes ——
Bishop Alexander of Alexandria (bishop from 313-326)
- Authoritarian bishop (in the steps of Demetrius 80 years prior)
- Called together a meeting of clergy wherein “with perhaps too philosophical minuteness”[1], he explained the unity of the Father and the Son.
Arius of Libya (260-336)
- Presbyter of ancient Baucalis Church in Alexandria
- Austere, ascetic, older man
- Highly intelligent and an expert logician
- Objected to Alexander’s teaching about the unity of the Father and the Son, thinking it sounded like Sabellianism
Investigation
- Alexander held two rounds of debates among clergy in which Arius participated.
- Alexander found both sides convincing but ended up siding with the eternal Son position.
- Alexander held a council of bishops and requested Arius to sign a confession of faith.
- Arius denied; Alexander excommunicated him
- 89 others left with Arius.
Letter Wars
- Alexander wrote letters to other bishops against Arius.
- Alexander wrote an encyclical against Arius.
- Arius wrote letters looking for support.
- Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea had Arius write a conciliatory letter to Alexander.
- Constantine wrote Alexander a letter which requested him to make peace with Arius.
Arius’ Theology
- Word/Son is first created being (before the ages)
- He is superior to all other created beings and objects.
- “There was when he was not.”
- God begat/created Christ out of nothing.
- Arius’ Thalia[2]
“According to the faith of the chosen ones of God, the knowledgeable children of God, the holy orthodox ones who have received the Spirit of the holy God, I have learnt these things from those who share wisdom, smart people, taught of God and wise in every way; in the steps of these I have come, I going along with them, I, the well-known, who have suffered much for the glory of God, who have learnt wisdom from God, and I know knowledge.”[3]
“God then himself is in essence ineffable to all. He alone has neither equal nor like, none comparable in glory; We call him Unbegotten because of the one in nature begotten; We raise hymns to him as Unbegun because of him who has a beginning. We adore him as eternal because of the one born in time.
The Unbegun appointed the Son to be Beginning of things begotten, and bore him as his own Son, in this case giving birth. He has nothing proper to God in his essential property, for neither is he equal nor yet consubstantial with him.”[4]
Escalation
- 321 – Council in Bythinia (Eusebius of Nicomedia)
- 322 – Council in Alexandria (Alexander)
- 324 – Council in Alexandria (Hosius)
- 325 – Council in Antioch (Hosius)
- 325 – Council in Nicea (Constantine)
Review
- Bishop Alexander of Alexandria began teaching that the Son of God was eternal.
- Presbyter Arius objected, teaching instead that because the Son of God was begotten, there was a time when he was not.
- After multiple debates, Alexander held a council and insisted Arius sign his confession or face excommunication. Arius refused.
- When Alexander ejected Arius from the churches in Alexandria, 89 others left with him, including clergy.
- Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea tried to convince Alexander to reinstate Arius.
- Alexander wrote letters to bishops around the world, warning them not to accept Arius or those who believed like him.
- Although both Alexander and Arius were subordinationists, Alexander believed God was only greater than his Son in that he was unbegun, though both were eternal.
- Arius believed God’s begetting of the Son was a creative act, though the Son was still supreme over every other creature.
- Arius did not invent the idea that the Son had a beginning, but his distinctive insistence that the Son was made from nothing (instead of from God) was new.
- Alexander’s heavy-handed tactics polarized churches on this issue, resulting in emperor Constantine’s involvement.
[1] Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 1.5-6.
[2] Thalia means abundance in Greek.
[3] Beginning paragraph of Thalia cited from Athanasius, Orationes contra Arianos 1.5-6 in R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for a Christian Doctrine of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 12.
[4] Athanasius, On the Synods of Arminium and Seleucia 15, trans. Stuart Hall in A New Eusebius, ed. J. Stevenson, rev. ed. (London: SPCK, 2013), 374-5.
Excellent! Simply presented and summarized. I am very thankful, Sean, for your presentation of these enlightening matters.
Your implied perspective that we seek a more Restorationist point of view is so necessary (Romans 14:1, 22). I think, however – and perhaps it is not compromise to be creative – within a tolerant-biblical world view, there is room for righteous and evangelistic creativity and empathy, becoming “all things to all persons, so that by all possible means we might save some” (1 Corinthians 9:19-23).
We don’t need to fight in holding reasonable opinions. That’s one main takeaway from the study of church history.
Thank you for your fresh contribution to the people of God.
Another great presentation.
A thought popped into my head as you mentioned Alexander seeking to “control” the Christians. This is by definition the Nicolaitan Doctrine. Of course, not the definition created by “the church.” Rather, the understanding one develops when studying the actual meaning of the word.
Arius the logistician becomes illogical. Arius saying Jesus was “begotten” before time does not allow any “reproductive process.” Being “begotten from nothing” negates the term “begotten”, which requires two to tango. Also, if “the son”, before he was actually “Jesus” was “begotten before time” we still have to depend on “incarnation” in order for “the son” to “become human.” Incarnation is the common pagan tradition of how gods “walk among men” and is directly associated with Platonism.
How was Jesus “brought into existence through the reproductive process” without a “mate” for God to use in that process? Begotten “from what was not” might be the most “illogical” statement a “logistician” could make. What becomes clear as you study the Nicaean Creed is the “double speak” and “mutually exclusive” terms that were coined in order to eventually conclude what cannot not otherwise make any sense, e.g., the nonsense of “eternally begotten.” What is worse is the explanation that “we just cannot fully comprehend this concept because God’s thoughts are higher than ours.” This has nothing to do with “God’s thoughts.” They are man’s thoughts that are nowhere articulated in, and therefore not supported by, scripture.
Alexander’s use of “godhead” in his letter to Alexander. I am curious what word was translated as “godhead” since the word godhead did not come into being until the 12th century.
Constantine’s letter was most entertaining. Written like a true politician. Yet, this “doctrine” is considered by many to be so important that it is one of the “essentials” for salvation. One is not “truly saved” if they deny the trinity.
Sebelius’ modalism is really trinitarianism (or binitarianism until the holy spirit was included in 381). The idea of “god’s taking on human flesh” in order to walk among us is the same concept in modalism and trinitarianism. Trinitarians simply “gave” the human form a separate status.
You certainly did not “overstep.” When you follow the truth wherever it leads you can never “overstep.” You might step on someone’s toes – but then, “the truth has nothing to fear.” Danny’s point above in the comments about not needing to “fight” is certainly true, and I wish it could be a reality. But simply introducing these truths in any Bible study usually results in one no longer being welcome in that group. Remember, it was Alexander who “called for war”, then it was Theodosius 1 who fully engaged after 381 AD. The “fighters” are on the side of trinitarianism.