Arguably the most destructive heresy in the first 1000 years of church history was that of Arianism. This heresy denied Christ's deity and equality in nature with God the Father. It started with its namesake, Arius. However, it is rarely discussed as to what influenced Arius to argue that Christ was not truly God. In this article, I wish to discuss this issue and seek to figure out what were the origins of Arianism.
Harry Wolfson, in his book The Philosophy of the Church Fathers argued that Philo had a significant influence on Arius' thought. However, due to the ambiguity of the nature of Philo's Logoi theology, we cannot view him as a predecessor of Arianism. Others have suggested Clement of Alexandria, since he used the word "creature" to describe the Son. However, he meant this in a different way than Arius did, especially since he elsewhere teaches the eternality of the Son.
Within Gnosticism, there are some teachings that resemble some aspects of Arius' thought. For example, Ptolemy spoke of the Father as the only being who is agennetos (unoriginated), while the Demiurge is generated (gennetos). However, there were once again significant differences between Arius and Gnostic thinkers in the way they articulated these respective concepts.
Things get a bit more difficult when we think the intellectual relationship between Origen and Arius. A link between Origen and Arianism existed during the 4th century (in which the Arian controversy took place). Marcellus of Ancyra (who later was revealed to have semi-Arian tendencies) accused his Arian opponents of being too heavily influenced by Origen (Eusebius of Caesarea, Contra Marcellum, 1.4.17-18).
Epiphanius also directly connected Origen with Arianism (Panarion, chapter 64). He also quotes a passage from one of Origen's commentaries on the Psalms, cited in the Philokalia, where Origen says "so that you might approach and pray to the God and Father of all through our Saviour and High-priest, the originated God."
"Origen taught in the Peri Archon that the Son cannot see the Father nor the Spirit the Son nor angels the Spirit nor men angels; he refused to allow that the Son is from the ousja of the Father, for he is altogether alien from the father, created, and only a Son by grace." (R.P.C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy [318-381], pg. 61)
However, there were other points on which Origen and Arius differed drastically. For example, Origen thought that the human soul of Jesus before the Incarnation existed eternally (in consequence of his view that all human souls had eternally existed), whereas Arius (Apollinaris) denied that Christ had any human soul at all.
There are three main points concerning Origen's influence on Arius where it is more difficult to determine:
[1]. The will of God - Origen taught that the Father's will supports the Son's existence (Peri Archon, 1.2.6). While both Origen and Arius tried to avoid anthropomorphism when speaking of the Son's (non-eternal) generation from the Father, Arius thought of the Son as not in any way partaking of the Father's nature. On the other hand, Origen thought of the Father as imparting His will and nature to the Son.
[2]. Ousia and Hypostasis - Origen viewed these terms as synonymous for the concept of a "distinct individual entity". He never uses ousia to mean essence or substance. However, this differed from Arius' concept of three distinct hypostases (without recognizing their unity of essence).
[3]. The Son's knowledge of the Father - Both Origen and Arius in some sense placed limitations upon the Son's knowledge of the Father. However, Arius thought of the Son's participation in the Father as by appointment, rather than by nature.
"This survey of the relation between the thought of Origen and that of Arius, then, suggests that though Arius probably inherited some terms and even some ideas from Origen, whether by direct acquaintance with his works or indirectly, he certainly did not adopt any huge or significant part of Origen's theology. We would not be justified in saying that Origen explained Arius in any but comparatively minor details." (R.P.C. Hanson)
The next possible person to have influenced Arius would be Paul of Samosata. Tons of scholars view him as a influencer of Arius. Lorenz lists nine points of similarity between Arius and Paul of Samosata in terms of their theology. However, some other scholars have said that Paul of Samosata was an ancestor of a school of thought very much opposed to Arianism, that of Marcellus of Ancyra and Eustathius of Antioch.
While Paul of Samosata and Arius are similar in their basic denial of the deity of Christ, they differ in how they view the Son's supposed non-eternality. While Paul of Samosata denied that Jesus pre-existed in any sense whatsoever, Arius did grant Jesus a prior existence to His life on earth, just not an eternal one.
Another possible "predecessor" of Arius would be Dionysius of Alexandria (d. 265 AD). Pseudo-Didymus of Alexandria confirms that Arians did cite Dionysius of Alexandria in support for their view (De Trinitate 3.8). In particular, there is a passage from one of Dionysius' anti-Sabellian letters where he speaks of the Son as "generate" and calls Him a "creature". Athanasius responds that Dionysius was speaking of Christ's human nature, rather than His divine nature. Basil says that Dionysius unintentionally sowed the seeds of Arius' thought, going too far in his anti-Sabellian stance. This seems to be the more sensible conclusion.
"If, as seems likely, Arius put together an eclectic pattern of theology in order to attain the particular ends which he had in mind, Dionysius of Alexandria certainly· contributed to that pattern." (R.P.C. Hanson)
Another figure which many scholars harp as Arius' predecessor is his teacher, Lucian of Antioch. The problem is that we have little to no knowledge of Lucian's actual theology. We do, however, have one useful piece of information:
"There is one fact, and one fact only, which we can with any confidence accept as authentic about Lucian's doctrine. The statements of Epiphanius that Lucian taught that the Saviour at the Incarnation assumed a body without a soul is confirmed by the fact that this doctrine becomes an invariable feature of Arian teaching after Arius, and that Eustathius of Antioch, a contemporary of Arius, attributes it to his followers." (R.P.C. Hanson)
The final person to consider in our study of the possible influences of Arianism is Methodius of Olympus, a 3rd century bishop. He calls God alone "ingenerate" and speaks of the Son's dependence on the Father.
Philosophical Background
Middle Platonist philosophy is a likely candidate for the philosophical background of Arius. It held to the concept of pre-temporal time. This idea comes to mind when we remember that Arius believed that the Son existed before all ages, but yet there was "a time when the Son was not."
Another Middle Platonist concept which we find Arius' thought is that of the Monad and the Dyad. In his Letter to Alexander, Arius refers to God as the "monad" and as the "triad".
Conclusion
"We can at the end of this lengthy review of Arius' ideas conclude with some confidence that he was eclectic in his philosophy. He fits neatly neither into a wholly Platonic nor into a wholly Aristotelian nor Stoic picture. though he certainly has traits taken from the first two at least. And one of his most startling doctrines, that of the creation of the Son out of non-existence, has no parallel in Greek philosophy at all. He was not without influence from Origen, but cannot seriously be called an Origenist." (R.P.C. Hanson)
No comments:
Post a Comment