Why the bishops lost in the arguments against Arianism.

Arianism follows the doctrine and teachings of Arius who stipulated, among other things, that Christ was not of the same substance, i.e. not co-substantial, with God and therefore was not God, and did not exist before he was born on earth and therefore was not co-eternal with God. Arius concluded that Jesus Christ was not divine and his teachings spread from Alexandria throughout the Christian world.

This caused considerable controversy, not least because Arianism had quickly become more popular than the Roman form of religion that was spreading in the early church but also because it challenged the power of the church in Rome which was catering to the pagans to bring them in along with the Emperor Constantine, to the point of breaking its own laws by deifying saints, introducing graven images and a pagan rites and rituals and ceremonies brought into the church; This was more compatible with the traditions of Rome from its ancient pagan religion. The dispute began when Arius, a presbyter (priest) from Libya announced, "If the Father begat the Son, then he who was begotten had a beginning in existence, and from this it follows there was a time when the Son was not." The argument caught on, and the bishop of Alexandria Alexander and chief deacon assistant Athanasius fought against Arius, arguing that Christ is not of a like substance to God, they argued, but the same substance.. To the chief deacon assistant Athanasius this was no splitting of theological hairs. Salvation was at issue, only one who was fully human could atone for human sin; only one who was fully divine could have the power to save us, but they failed in their attempts to hold back the beliefs of Arius.

There then ensued a 15 year long battle between Arius and the bishops led by the church leaders from Rome. Hoever, the teachings of Arius spread, and all over the empire, Christians could be heard taking the Arian view that, "there was a time when the Son was not." In every city, wrote a historian, "bishop was contending against bishop, and the people were contending against one another, like swarms of gnats fighting in the air." Word of the dispute made it to the newly converted Emperor Constantine, and he called a council of bishops and of the 1,800 bishops invited to Nicea in 325 AD, about 300 came and Arius himself attended, and twenty-two bishops, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, came as supporters of Arius. For about two months, the two sides argued and debated with each appealing to Scripture to justify their respective positions. Arius maintained that the Son of God was a Creature, made from nothing; and that he was God's creation, before all ages. And he argued that everything else was created through the Son. Thus, said Arius, only the Son was directly created and begotten of God; furthermore, there was a time that He had no existence. Arius insisted that the Father's divinity was greater than the Son's, and that the Son was under God the Father, and not co-equal or co-eternal with Him. The Council interrogated Arius using Scripture, only to find that he had a way of interpreting every verse they brought before him. Finally, they used the argument that Arius' view had to be wrong because it was new as they could not refute him with the scripture. Most agree that the Arians won most of the arguments from the scripture in use, but they lost the battle and under Constantine's influence, the majority of the bishops ultimately agreed upon a creed, known thereafter as the Nicene Creed.

Here is a description...
"The Arians came to the First Ecumenical Council with complete confidence, and with full expectation of victory.. The Alexandrians confronted the Arians with the traditional scriptural phrases which appeared to leave no doubt as to the eternal divinity of the Son. But, to their surprise, they were met with total acquiescence on the part of the Arians! Only as each scriptural test was propounded, it was observed that the Arians whispered and gesticulated to one another, evidently hinting that each scriptural phrase could be safely accepted... If the Arians were asked to assent to the phrase that the Son is "like the Father in all things," they would agree, with the reservation that all men, as such, are "in the image and likeness of God." When the Orthodox pointed out that the Son is called "the power of God", this only elicited-after some whispering among the members of the Arian party-the explanation that the host of Israel also was spoken of as "dynamis Kyriou" - "the power of God", and that even the locust and the caterpillar are called "the power of God" in the Holy Scriptures! The "eternity" of the Son was countered.. by the text, "We who live always..."*

The Fathers were baffled....The test of the word homoousios - "of one essence" - was being forced upon the majority by .. the Arian party. When the day for the decisive meeting arrived, it became apparent that the choice lay between the adoption of the word homoousios or the admission of Arianism to a position of toleration and influence in the Church.

But then, was Arianism all that Saint Alexander and the other Orthodox made it out to be? Was Arianism so terrible and so very intolerable, so that this test must be imposed on the Church? The answer came from Eusebius of Nicomedia. Upon the assembling of the bishops for their momentous debate, Eusebius (who sympathized with the Arians) presented the Fathers with a statement of his belief. This statement was an unambiguous assertion of the Arian formulas..

Eusebius of Caesaria came forward and produced a formula, not of his own devising; indeed, it was actually an ancient creed of his own church with an addition intended to guard against Sabellianism. The creed he recited was unassailable on the basis of Holy Scripture and Tradition. No one had a word to say against it, and the Emperor.. Constantine.. expressed his personal concern that it should be adopted, with the single improvement of the word homoousios - "of one essence". The suggestion thus quietly made was momentous in its result. The friends and allies of Saint Alexander had patiently waited their time, and now their time had come. But how and where was the necessary word to be inserted? And if some change must be made in the formula of Caesarea, would it not be in order to explain one or two other details as well? In fact, the creed proposed by Eusebius was carefully considered clause by clause, and eventually took a form materially different from that in which it was first presented, and with affinities to the creeds of Antioch and Jerusalem as well as Caesarea.

The adoption of the word homoousios was a momentous decision. The word was not scriptural. We are told "the Council paused". But the Council brought to mind all the previous discussions with the Arians, and they were reminded of the futility of the scriptural tests alone..."

The council condemned Arius as a heretic, exiled him, and made it a capital offense to possess his writings. However, Arius gained a chance to sway things his way, with Constantine calling him back from exile and commanding Athanasius to reconcile Arius with the Church. Athanasius refused to do this; and Arius gained entrance with the Emperor. After he presented his Creed, Constantine declared his works orthodox and ordered Alexander (Arius’ and Athanasius’ old bishop) to give Arius communion. But quite suddenly Arius died under unusual and mysterious circumstances, most likely murdered some say due to poisoning.

However, in 341 A.D. several church Councils were held in Antioch, and ninety-seven Bishops attended and laid down the foundations of the Arian doctrines of faith that opposed the Nicaean Creed.

Now the interesting thing is that Arius said he did not deny the divinity of Christ, but considered him a “lesser god”. And he was able to use accepted scriptures of the time to back himself up, and the scripture in use in Alexandria as well as Rome at the time were based on the Septuagint, and it was based on the Alexandrian codices which had been corrupted by changes and deletions which allowed, if not caused, the Arian heresy to start and spread.

Arius and Athanasius: Early Christian Disputes | Stranger in a Strange Land
Athanasius | Christian History

The issue had begun with Sabellius a priest and theologian who taught that the Father and the Son are a single entity (prosōpon). The Bishop Alexander of Alexandria and his deacon, Athanasius, believed there were three persons in one god. The Trinitarians were pitted against the Monarchianists, who believed in only one indivisible being. These included Arius, and Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia. Arius accused Alexander of Sabellian tendencies when Alexander accused Arius of denying the second and third person of the Godhead. Arius and his followers, the Arians, believed if the Son were equal to the Father, there would be more than one God.The sticking point at the Nicene Council was a concept found nowhere in the Bible: homoousion. According to the concept of homo + ousion, Christ the Son was con + substantial (the Roman translation for the Greek, meaning 'sharing the same substance') with the Father. The Greek term "homoousian", which Athanasius favored, was actually a term that was reported to be put forth and favored also by Sabellius, and was a term that many followers of Athanasius took issue with and were uneasy about. Their objection to the term "homoousian" was that it was considered to be "un-Scriptural, suspicious, and of a Sabellian tendency. Emperor Constantine had recently made Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire. This made heresy akin to revolt, so Constantine exiled the excommunicated Arius even though he felt Arius had won the argument.

We need to understand what these Gnostic ideas were which corrupted the Alexandrian text which teachings was spread by the Septuagint (based on the Alexandrian text) in Rome and other parts of the Empire which cause such confusion by the bishops and layman fighting against it and leading the arguments in the councils.

"... An Overview Of Gnostic Heresies
Let's look at some of the Early Heresies that developed in the days of the Apostles, and shortly afterwards. The beginnings of these heresies are alluded to in the Epistles John, Paul and Jude. Let's look at several of these places.
"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
Someone was promoting a false perverted letter or letters, and many in the church of Galatia were buying into the lie. Next, lets look at...
in the King James Bible -- "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God...."
The NIV says, "Every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not of God...." You see that the NIV leaves out the word "Christ." Why? It is because it was translated from the Alexandrian line of Greek texts that had been corrupted by the Gnostics. The so called "Christian" Gnostics believed in a dualistic Jesus Christ. Jesus was the physical Jesus and Christ was the spiritual Jesus. I will explain that more later in this paper. However, suffice it to say that this corrupt teachings influences some of the scribes who changed the Apostolic texts to reflect their Gnostic beliefs.
Next in your Bibles to...
"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." This verse makes it obvious that "ungodly men" were turning the "grace of our God into lasciviousness." That is what Gnostics did. They taught that the flesh was evil and therefore, it does not matter what you do with it.

Next, we are going to look at three early heresies - Gnosticism in general, Docetism, and Marcionism. Docetism and Mariconism are types of Gnosticism. There are others, but time will not allow us to consider them. But, know this, Gnosticism, had the biggest on early Christianity and also had a major influence on the transmission of New Testament, and accounts for many of the differences between the Apostolic-Traditional line and the Alexandrian-Western line of manuscripts.

GNOSTICISM IN GENERAL
I remind you of what was mentioned earlier in this paper: There was no unified doctrinal statement among Gnostic groups. There was no consensus on a Gnostic canon of scriptures. Gnostic groups had no scruples about rewriting and adapting other religions sacred writings to fit their fancy. Many of their own works were circulated in different versions. Various sects had their own preferred rendition.

While my research indicates that Carpocrates was the founder of the "Christian" Gnostics in the first half of the second century A.D., I do not know for sure that there were not others that preceded him. There were sects of Gnostics before him that used other religions and philosophies as their basis. However, we know that Carpocrates corrupted Christian teachings because of what Irenaeus wrote. The earliest and most vivid account of the Carpocratian Gnostics can be found in Irenaeus (130-202 A.D.) work titled Against Heresy. This sect did not believe Jesus was divine. His followers did not believe they had to follow the Law of Moses or any morality. They were very licentious (immoral) in their behavior.

Gnosticism, in all of its varieties, was the most influential heresy faced by the early Church. Not only did the Gnostic corrupt many readings found in the New Testament, but offered their own writings as inspired scriptures, such as the The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of Philip, The Gospel of Judas, The Gospel of the Ebionites, The Gospel of The Twelve, The Gospel According To The Hebrews (also called The Gospel According To Matthew, not to be confused with the real Gospel of Matthew), The Gospel According to the Egyptians, The Gospel of Mary (Magdalene), The Acts of Andrew, The Acts of Peter, The Acts of John, etc. Gnosticism had a variety of forms and sects, which broadened its base and growth. Historian Will Durant calls Gnosticism "the quest of godlike knowledge (gnosis) through mystic means" (The Story Of Civilization Vol. III, p. 604). Durant is correct. Gnosticism is thinly veiled Pantheism. Pantheism is the doctrine that identifies God with and in the whole universe, every particle, tree, table, animal, and person being are part of GOD. Or, to explain it in a very basic way, the Greek word pan = all. The Greek word theos = God). Therefore it literally means "God is All" and "All is God".
The Gnostics taught that the physical (material) is evil and the spiritual (non-material) is good. Thus, a good god (spiritual) could not have created a physical world, because good can not create evil (that is the spiritual would not create the physical). So the Gnostic god created a being (or a line of beings called aeons) removing himself from direct creation. One of these aeons, or gods, created the world. The so-called Christian Gnostics believed that Jesus was one of these aeons who created the world. Some Gnostic taught that Jesus did not have a physical body. When he walked on the earth, he left not footprints because he never really touched the earth (he being spiritual and the world physical). Others taught that only our spiritual bodies were important, so the physical body could engage in whatever acts they desired because only the spiritual body would be saved. Still other Gnostics taught that the physical body was so evil that it must be denied in order for the spiritual body to gain salvation, thus shunning marriage and certain foods ().

The influence of Gnosticism can be seen in some of the heresies of today. For example, many of the teachings stated above are found, in revised form, in the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses. To the Jehovah's Witness, Jesus is a created god, not God manifest in the flesh. It is no wonder that the Watchtower's New World Translation changes "God was manifest in the flesh" in 1 and replaces it with "He was made manifest in flesh." In the TR Greek which underlies our King James Bible reads it reads yeov (theos) (God) <2316> efanerwyh (Ephanerothe) (was manifested/revealed) <5319> (5681) en (in) <1722> sarki (sarki) (the flesh) <4561>. However, the Greek text which underlines the NWT has made a change, so it is natural for the Jehovah Witnesses to choose the reading which reflects their false doctrine. What is interesting is that the NIV, NASB, ESV, and perhaps others says "He" instead of "God," thus following part of the Gnostic corruption. Why, because the NWT, NASB, NIV and, ESV have as their base the corrupt Alexandrian text....."http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/Versions/gnosticism.htm

So almost every time the councils met, the Arians arguing their ideas would win them because the text being used by those in Rome and North Africa was based on the Septuagint or Alexandrian type text. It was hard to use this text to refute the Arian arguments and even the Emperor was convinced it was correct, so finally they had to just take the person behind it, but even so it was many centuries before the widespread Arian beliefs were stamped out, and we can see where some of it continues even today.

ace4 said:

That was a good read,
please help your brothers & sisters every chance you get!~

Click to expand...

As I was doing this study I came across a interesting thing on the Sabbath concerning Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria.
The 17th century historian William Cave reported that the early Christians, both Jews and those in Asia Minor, kept the Sabbath. Notice his report:

...the Sabbath or Saturday (for so the word sabbatum is constantly used in the writings of the fathers, when speaking of it as it relates to Christians) was held by them in great veneration, and especially in the Eastern parts honoured with all the public solemnities of religion. For which we are to know, that the gospel in those parts mainly prevailing amongst the Jews, they being generally the first converts to the Christian faith, they still retained a mighty reverence for the Mosaic institutions, and especially for the sabbath, as that which had been appointed by God himself, (as the memorial of his rest from the week of creation,) settled by their great master Moses, and celebrated by their ancestors for so many ages, as the solemn day of their public worship, and were therefore very loth that it should be wholly antiquated and laid aside. For this reason it seemed good to the prudence of those times, (as in others of the Jewish rites, so in this,) to indulge the humour of that people, and to keep the sabbath as a day for religious offices. Hence they usually had most parts of the divine service performed upon that day; they met together for public prayers, for reading the scriptures, celebration of the sacraments, and such like duties. This is plain, not only from some passages in Ignatius and Clemens's Constitutions, but from writers of more unquestionable credit and authority. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, tells us, that they assembled on Saturdays, not that they were infected with Judaism, but only to worship Jesus Christ, the Lord of the sabbath (Cave William, D.D. Primitive Christianity: or the Religion of the Ancient Christians in the First Ages of the Gospel. 1840 edition revised by H. Cary. Oxford, London, pp. 84-85).