The purpose of this article is to examine
the philosophical and historical foundations of Arianism, a heresy named after
Arius, an Alexandrian Priest in the 4th Century AD. As is stated by
the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia “Arius in 318AD taught that God created,
before all things, a Son who was the first creature, but who was neither equal
to nor coeternal with the Father”[1]
That is, Arius taught that Jesus Christ was the first created creature, but was
not God. This relates to the fact that the early Church was examining (and
quite rightly) about the nature of Jesus Christ. Who and what was Jesus Christ
was the question that the Church Fathers from the time of St Justin Martyr and
Origen[2]
contended with.
From this arises what Our Lord asked His
Apostles “Who do you say that I am?”[3]
It is certainly a question that the Apostles themselves answered correctly but
not with the theological (nor philosophical) reasons behind their answer. Thus,
the Church Herself, for the first few centuries of Her existence needed to
answer. If Jesus Christ is truly God then how can He have a human nature, or
how could the Divine nature assume a human nature? These questions are of
tremendous importance since it relates to the question given by Our Lord “Who
do you say that I am?”[4]
Coupled with the question of ‘who’ which
relates to Person is also ‘what’ is Jesus Christ? What always relates to the
question of nature. To complicate the issue the nature (or what) of Jesus
Christ was in many respects the mystery that needed to be explored[5].
Is Jesus Christ a human being (and thus with a human nature), a Divine Being
with a Divine nature or both, a human and divine being? Or is He a Divine Being
with a human nature but is not a human person. These questions led to Arius
believing that Jesus Christ must have been a human being, certainly the first
son of God but a creature nonetheless and from his (Arius) human wisdom comes a
solution (false) to what is a very great mystery.
Since every error is the occasion for
truth, it cannot be the cause of truth. The Cause of Truth is Good thus evil
cannot be the cause since by definition evil is the lack of a due good[6].
The error of Arius was the occasion of the Church to examine this issue and
find exactly where the truth lies. As has been testified by numerous historians
we must pay homage and give thanks to St Athanasius, a Doctor of the Church,
Doctor of Orthodoxy, since if it was not for him the Church would have as
quoted by St Jerome “woken up on morning, lamenting and marveling to find
itself Arian”[7]
A closer examination of Arianism will find
that the idea of the exemplary cause (Son) being a creature can be credited
back to the Ancient philosopher Anaxagoras, the teacher of Socrates who
Aristotle credited as being “the sober one among the drunks”[8].
This is because Anaxagoras, in trying to explain nature, took the extrinsic
formal cause as to be the cause of the natural world. Since the ancient
philosophers were natural philosophers, they were concerned in understanding
the real world that they were living in.
In looking to understand the Arian heresy from a philosophical basis, the extrinsic formal cause is vital because this cause is the idea, or the exemplary cause[9], had in mind by the efficient cause. The early Church Fathers were grappling with the idea of the Mental Word, as St John in His Gospel tells us “In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God”[10] For the Church Fathers this Idea of the Mental Word was of paramount importance when examining the Trinity. Thus the Son is the Idea (or Word) of the Father, the Father speaks His Word. Yet, the idea that the extrinsic formal cause was created had come from the school of Anaxagoras, after all, when I make a table the idea associated when I have made that table is created.[11] Thus coupled with a philosophical basis, it logically follows that Arius took the position that Jesus Christ is the created Son of God – that is, a creature but cannot be God Himself.[12]
This idea was then further expounded and
developed by the Arab thinkers, Al Farabi[13]
and later on by Avicenna and Averroes when they were speaking about the Agent
Intellect, seeing it as a separate substance[14]
that is created. Thus when God creates, He creates through His Word, that is,
this ‘Word’ is a created substance and it is this created substance that is
Jesus Christ according to the Islamic thinkers (and implied by Arius)[15].
However, the problem with this
understanding is that, as was shown by Aristotle, the Agent Intellect is not
separated from the Potential Intellect. The human intellectual being has two
powers (in the natural order), one known as the Agent Intellect and the other
as the Potential Intellect. St Thomas Aquinas, like Aristotle, sees the agent
intellect as like a light that shines up the intelligibility of the thing,
abstracts the form of the thing[16]
and carries it to the potential intellect. The potential intellect, made in
act, acts and does the act of understanding.[17]
Thus we find in Catholic Trinitarian
Theology teaching that the Father has an Idea of Himself that is so perfect
that it is Himself. This Idea (Exemplary Cause) is none other than the Word
Himself[18],
and as St John in his Gospel tells us “The Word became flesh and dwelt among
us”[19]
But this great truth about the nature of Jesus Christ had to come through in
both the Council of Nicea in 325AD and ratified by the Council of Chalcedon in
431AD . And it is the great truth annunciated at the Council of Nicea through
the Nicene Creed that we recite every Sunday about Jesus Christ “…God from God,
Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten not made, consubstantial
with the Father, through Him all things were made…”[20]
What we see is that Arius misunderstood the
true concept of nature. Any mistake about nature leads to mistakes about God
and this is a major consequence of Arianism that is seldom heard.
Islam, whilst philosophically has its roots
in Anaxagoras’ understanding of the exemplary cause also has from its theological
roots (and even historical roots), that of both Arianism and Nestorianism. The
Nestorian heresy effectively makes Our Lord two persons, which is not just
false, it is blasphemous and it is this idea that leads Islamic thinkers to say
that Jesus Christ was brought down from the Cross before He died and another
man was put in place of Him.[21]
In summary, what can be seen are a number
of consequences that if made philosophically will affect one’s theology. Any
mistake about nature leads to mistakes about God[22].
This is shown from the philosophy of Anaxagoras who made an error in
understanding nature. When a theologian applies such thinking into theology
then mistakes about the nature of Our Lord Himself as for example, Arianism is
inevitable.
The heresy of Arianism shows the grave
importance of philosophy, as a handmaiden to theology. Whilst Sacred Theology
teaches us that there are three persons in One God, philosophy answers the
question of what a person is and in relation to the hypostatic union (the
second greatest mystery of the Church, claimed by some to be the greatest),
Jesus Christ is a Divine Person with two natures, a Divine nature and a human
nature. As has been within the history of the Church, every so-called ‘new’
error is just a return to old ones in the past but presented as if it were new
[1] Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th Edition, Q1 2014,
p1-1. 1p.
[2] Just to name two of the early Church Fathers.
[3] Matt 16:13-20, Mk 8:29; Lk 9:20
[4] The answer to this question is of paramount importance as will be
shown
[5] Since a mystery is a truth, which no created nor creatable
intellect can know from its natural power, the hypostatic union is the second
greatest mystery of the Church. But whilst it is a mystery that does not mean
we should not constantly look to penetrate this great mystery. Indeed it is of
our great benefit to constantly penetrate mysteries of the faith since love
follows knowledge. The more you know God (as much as you can in this life) the
more you love Him.
[6] St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae In Five Volumes, Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province, 1948, ST Ia-IIae, q. 18, a. 1
[7]Msgr. Philip Hughes The Church In Crisis: A History of the General
Councils, 325 – 1870, Chapter 2. Found at www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/HCONSTA1.TXT
[8] Aristotle, ‘Metaphysics’ I 3, 984b15-18. Taken from
www3.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext.hwp105.htm
[9] The exemplary cause is the idea of the thing had in mind. That is
when I make say a table, the Material and Formal Cause are on the side of the
Table (thus they are the intrinsic causes) whereas the Final and Efficient
Causes are the Extrinsic Causes (that is they are causes from outside the thing
which in this case is the table) Thus the Efficient Cause is the maker, and the
final cause is the reason why the Efficient Cause made the table (or thing).
The Exemplary Cause is the idea that is had in the mind of the efficient cause
[10] Jn: 1:1
[11] I use the term created in a very loose sense. Only God strictly
speaking can create. We can transform. Yet in our imagination, when under the
influence of our Intellect, we can be creative. Thus when I make a table, I
have an extrinsic formal cause in my mind that parallels to the form out there
in the real table.
[12] In other words, Arius did not understand that the extrinsic formal
cause and the efficient cause when dealing with the Trinity are consubstantial
(of the same substance), co-equal. As is testified with the Nicene Creed it
states “God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten not
made consubstantial with the Father through Him all things were made”. This
statement is attributed to St Athanasius since this was to combat the mistake
and ultimate heresy of Arius.
[13] Was regarded as the second Aristotle
[14] Even Aristotle called the Agent Intellect a separate substance but
his understanding of separate was very different to that of the Arab thinkers
[15] Thus do we see that Islamic scholars reject Jesus Christ as God
Himself. They agree that He is a son of God, but this ‘son’ is actually created
following from the Arab thinkers such as Al Farabi and Ibn Sine who see the
agent intellect as created. In many respects, the agent intellect for the Arab
philosophers is for Catholic Theologians and philosophers, the ‘Word’
[16] Knowledge is form received in form supraphysically, objectively and
incompositively. For a full treatment of knowledge see Dr Austin Woodbury in
his Philosophical Psychology texts
[17] This has great consequences as it is another proof for the
existence of God. A good example of the Agent Intellect is like the Moon on a
clear dark night sky. It shines up everything on the earth. But where does the
Moon get its light from? Obviously in the natural order it is from the Sun but
the Agent Intellect is like the participation in the Divine Light. It needs the
Divine Light, just as the Moon needs the Sun to get its light. Furthermore, we
see also in the natural order that when we see things, it is through
illuminated color (as that is the formal object of sight) and yet the color is
virtually contained in the light
[18] We can see here that from a philosophical viewpoint unless you have
the correct concept of nature and therefore the correct understanding of causes
you can see that the extrinsic formal cause has to be in the efficient cause.
When speaking about God, this analogy falls short (since God is One) but it
gives a better understanding (not a full understanding) on how, in many
respects the greatest mystery of the Church (the Trinity) works.
[19] Jn: 1:14
[20] Taken from http://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm : In this
translation it states One in Being with the Father. This is incorrect, the
strict Latin translation is consubstantial which I have changed to make the
meaning more precise
[21] This idea comes from the Gnostic Gospels and was developed by
Islamic thinkers. This is because for the Gnostics they believed that the body
was evil thus Simon had took on Jesus’ form and died instead of Christ. For a
treatment of this and the Islamic idea expounded Cf. http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/jesus_survived_cross.htm
[22] First expounded by Aristotle and fully developed by St Thomas,
since nature is ordered to operation and essences are ordered to be and since
God is pure act (He is BE itself), it means that any error on the essential
order will necessarily lead to errors concerning the existential order and
ultimately to pure Act itself (God). For a full treatment of this see Aristotle’s
Metaphysics Book 12 and St Thomas Aquinas ‘On Being and Essence’
No comments:
Post a Comment