Source:Robert Morey, Chapter 21, p. 469ff
A full analysis of the history of Arianism is far beyond the limits of this chapter. The most we can do is to present a brief historical overview of the man Arius, his beliefs, and some of the movements which his theology spawned throughout the history of the Church.
Arius was a presbyter who lived in Alexandria, Egypt from A.D. 260 to A.D. 336. His preaching was noted for
its vivid imagination and philosophic speculation. He showed great promise at first and could have done much to strengthen
Christianity in Egypt. But his views of Christ and the Holy Spirit not only fractured the unity of the Church for
generations to come, but prepared the way for Islam to conquer Egypt He first publicly objected to the orthodox doctrine
of Christ in the year 318 while listening to a sermon by Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, in which he stressed the
co-eternity of the Father and of the Son. In his letter to Eusibius of Nicomedia, Arius tells him what he found
objectionable in the sermon:
All this because we do not agree with him when he states in public, "Always God, always Son," "At the same time Father, at the same time Son," "The Son ingenerably co-exists with God," "Ever begotten, ungenerated-created, neither in thought nor in some moment of time does God proceed the Son," "Always God always Son," "The Son is from God himself."—Quoted in William G. Rusch, The Trinitarian Controversy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1980), 29
Bishop Alexander was clearly preaching the orthodox doctrine of the deity of Christ in the context of the Trinity The eternal pre-existence of Christ with the Father is clearly stated. The Son partakes of the divine nature and attributes of the Father. Words cannot be clearer. Since it was Arius who was objecting to what was being taught in the Church, several things are evident.
First, Arius was reacting to orthodoxy. Thus, orthodoxy had to be in existence before Arianism. This is confirmed by Alexander's (of Alexandria) letter to Alexander of Thessalonica. In it he complained that Arius was "attacking the orthodox faith" and "denounced every apostolic doctrine" and "denied the deity of our Savior."
Second, no less than eighteen church councils were held on this issue beginning in 319 and ending with the Council of Constantinople in 391. Due to the constant interference from the Roman Emperors, the theo-political battle raged back and forth. But in the end, Arius and his followers were excommunicated as heretics by both the Eastern and Western Churches.
How can we explain the violent reaction to Arius? How can we explain what Alexander said in his sermon? Why all the church councils? Why all the fuss? The only adequate explanation is that Arius was attacking the established orthodox teaching of the Christian Church.
It is also obvious Alexander did not make up such sophisticated statements dealing the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son on the spur of the moment. As a matter of fact, a literary analysis of what he said reveals that he did not make up the statements. They were parts of various ancient creeds and hymns.
In Bishop Alexander's letter to Alexander of Thessalonica, he complains:
They denounced every pious apostolic doctrine; they organized in a Jewish manner a work group contending against Christ. They deny the divinity of our Savior. 3
Alexander points out that the deity of Christ was an "apostolic doctrine" and that Arius' denial was blasphemous. Thus, it is clear that the Church was already worshipping the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is why all the Creeds which followed defended all Three members of the Trinity.
On the other hand, if we assume that no one had ever heard of the Trinity, as modern Arians claim, we are left with no
explanation for all the controversy which followed. This observation refutes those who claim that the Trinity doctrine was
not invented until the ninth century.
Third, while the worship of the Triune God had always been part of Christianity from the very beginning the Church was now
forced to give philosophic and sophisticated answers to Arius' philosophic and sophisticated questions about the
relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Since these questions were posed in philosophic language
borrowed from contemporary Greek philosophy, the Church had to respond using the same language.
In all fairness, we must point out that when the Nicene Fathers borrowed philosophic terms from contemporary culture in order to respond to the heresy of Arianism, they were not doing something inherently wrong. After all, the words "covenant" in the Old Testament and "Word" (Logos) in the New Testament were borrowed from contemporary culture by the biblical authors. All of us use terms which come from modern as well as ancient philosophy.
The fact that the Church was now forced to use Platonic or Aristotelian terminology does not mean that they were Platonists or Aristotelians. The noted Harvard scholar Prof. Harry Wolfson comments:
On the whole, it is not historically correct to arrange the Fathers into groups, to dress them in the uniform of the Academy or Lyceum or the Porch, to make them march under the banner of Plato or of Aristotle or of the Stoics and sing the songs of those schools. The Fathers did not regard themselves as followers of the various schools of Greek thought. They did not think in terms of contrasts between the different systems within philosophy; they thought only in terms of contrasts between Scripture and philosophy. Within philosophy itself there were to them only right doctrines, which were in agreement with Scripture, and wrong doctrines, which were in disagreement with Scripture, though on certain doctrines they found some philosophers were more often in agreement with Scripture than others.
Until the last century, the only record of Arius theology was found in the fragments recorded in the works of Athanasius and other orthodox Fathers who quoted him in order to refute him. Since Arius may have been misquoted or taken out of context, there was some confusion as to what he really believed. But the discovery by Bell, Mai, Turner, Gryson and others of new manuscripts now allows us access to Arius own writings.
In the opening lines of the Thalia, Arius applied the word γνῶσις (knowledge) to himself. This was a favorite term used by the Gnostics when they wanted to emphasize that they and they alone had "secret knowledge." Perhaps this is why the Gnostic attitude "we have secret knowledge" has always afflicted Arianism.
In his letter to Alexander of Alexandria, Arius states: