Athanasius VS Arius
Here is a bit on how (in the 300's AD) Athanasius stood for the biblical understanding of Jesus the Son of God and Salvation against the powerhouse (but wrong), Arius.
How does Athanasius’ account of salvation differ from that of Arius?
When we discuss Athanasius and Arius, typically, we are drawn to their disagreement concerning the Son of God. However, we soon realize their respective beliefs concerning God cannot be limited to this issue alone. Salvation is at the heart of their differences. Indeed, we find that Athanasius and Arius see a difference in the purpose, means, and result of humanity’s salvation. This paper seeks to show how Athanasius and Arius’ particular understanding of salvation surfaces in the way they see creation, incarnation, and redemption.
Beginning with how they define God, Athanasius and Arius indicate how they see salvation as they progress through these three issues mentioned above. To Athanasius, salvation was directly related to the Son’s identity and His being one with the Father. Salvation would come from true God taking on flesh for the purpose of union with humanity. Arius would begin with an emphasis on Christ being created by the uncaused God. Being created by God, Christ wholly and willfully would obey the Father. By this, Christ shows the way of salvation through an obedient and holy will.
Immanence and Transcendence
The primary difference between Arius and Athanasius' theology, which affects their view of salvation, flows from their understanding of God’s immanence and transcendence. To Arius, God’s transcendence is most essential to His identity. When it comes to Arius’ theology, the “fundamental premiss…is the affirmation of God's absolute uniqueness and transcendence, the unoriginated source…of all reality.”[1] One necessary outcome of Arius’ definition of God in this way is the relational distance between God and the means, purpose, and result of salvation.
Athanasius, though, believed that God can be both transcendent and immanent. This is evident in creation and displayed by how salvation is accomplished in Christ. God is transcendent, utterly different from creation. Yet God is near the act of creation, present in the incarnation, and this immanence culminates in the redemption of humanity to Himself. To Athanasius, all things, certainly the means and purpose of salvation, are not distant from God. Anatolios reflects on the uniqueness of God’s otherness and nearness working toward salvation as early as creation when he says, “This convergence has its source in Athanasius’ doctrine of God. God is beyond all created being, as uncreated, but his nearness to creation has its basis also in his very nature, as supremely good and loving.”[2]
Salvation and Creation
How Arius and Athanasius understand God’s transcendence and immanence (and if they can work together) directly affects both men’s concept of salvation. This is evident in their understanding of God’s plan for creation. For Athanasius, creation leads to the cross. When Scripture says, “all things were made by and for him” (Col. 1:16), it speaks of the Son and His redemptive purpose in creation. Because Athanasius begins with a view of God that joins His transcendence and immanence, he sees “the whole world has come into being by and for the Savior Jesus Christ, and …is maintained in existence only by his providential activity.”[3] He is not just saying that the Son is the Creator and Sustainer, but even more, the primary reason for creation is Jesus' redemptive and saving work of creation through the cross.
Athanasius understands the purpose of salvation as determined before creation. Speaking about Jesus, he says, “How then, or in whom, was it prepared before we came to be, save in the Lord who ‘before the world’ was founded for this purpose; that we, as built upon Him, might partake…the life and grace which is from Him?”[4] Dealing with the creation/salvation relationship, he suggests God made humanity, from the start, with the capacity to know Him, but because of sin this was lost. Now, without the ability to remedy this, humanity needs the incarnation of the Son of God.[5] Athanasius held a view of God’s combined “beyondness and divine love” that reveals “God’s relation with created humanity from the very beginning of creation.”[6] It is the salvific relational purpose of God that Athanasius will trace from before creation to the cross.
When Athanasius deals with the creation of humanity, he suggests that though man was created good, he was corruptible and would need redemption. Michael Reeves comments on Athanasius’ view of creation and the fall, leading toward salvation, by saying, “One almost senses Athanasius suggesting that that was inevitably going to happen, for God’s great purpose was to unite humankind to his own incorruptibility, so giving them incorruptible life.”[7] Athanasius sees the purpose of salvation from the beginning, not in Adam, but in a redeemed humanity through Christ. Because of Christ, death would no longer have dominion over humankind like it did in Adam.
“Athanasius is emphasizing the fact that human beings are not created in their complete and final state. There is nothing inherently wrong with the creation. On the contrary, it is good. Yet creation as it comes from the mouth of God at the beginning is not yet fulfilled. It is created mobile and mutable, and thus designed to move from glory to glory. When church fathers like Athanasius say that the creation is fragile, balanced on the edge of existence, not stable, they are pointing to the fact that creation has a built-in eschatology.”[8]
Arius would not share the view that God created man for this salvific union. Instead, because Arius sees God primarily as alone and transcendent and defines this as God’s chief characteristic, he logically assumes that creation must be a step away from God. God is so other and holy that even creation must happen through an intermediate created being, the Son. Therefore, the Son was the means of creation because the Father was too transcendent to interact with things created directly.[9] The distance Arius places between God and creation necessarily affects how he views salvation. This God would not and could not create humanity for fellowship but, due to His transcendence, would create the Son, who created humanity to obey, serve, and, in so doing, be saved.
As early as creation, the means and purpose of salvation take different trajectories in Athanasius' and Arius’ respective views. To Athanasius, God is revealed as the creating Father and Son, and their union is foundational to understanding salvation’s union. It is union that defines the relationship between redeemed humanity and God that fulfills God’s salvific intent. Athanasius argues that only a God who is eternally Father would seek to bring humanity to this filial purpose. Arius’ understanding of God necessarily means He would not seek fellowship with creation. And because the Son was created himself, He could not bestow true union with God but instead needs humanity to follow Him toward salvation, thus validating His own existence. Antolios helps us see how the perspective of creation in view of salvation colors both men’s soteriological conclusions when he writes,
“Further, Arius’ connection of God’s creation to humankind’s salvation in this way creates a God who needs something. In the first case, according to Athanasius, Jesus Christ is the natural Son of the Father who creates us out of loving condescension and then redeems us to the point that we become divine by grace, sharing in the divine sonship of the Son. In the second case, however, Jesus Christ does not directly represent divine condescension and gratuity, since he himself owes his being to us—as if our existence is a sufficient end in itself, but the Son's existence is functionally oriented toward our existence.”[10]
Salvation and Incarnation
Following their distinctive takes on creation, the separation between Arius and Athanasius widens at how the incarnation affects salvation. For both men, the incarnation was the means of salvation. For Arius, the incarnation made salvation attainable for those who imitate Christ’s example. For Athanasius, the incarnation and work of the Son made salvation possible for all through faith. When viewed together, it becomes evident they see the incarnation working in different directions. “For Arius, salvation was an upward action: first the Son and then His followers had to rise up to God. For the bishops at Nicaea—indeed for the Christian faith as a whole—salvation involved the downward action of one who was truly God coming to earth to live as truly human.”[11] Their views on the incarnation lead to different ways and purposes of salvation. Athanasius uses the incarnation to set their views and aim at odds by saying that Jesus is either the true God who humbled Himself to bring us to God, or He is rewarded with promotion to divinity because of His work in the flesh.[12]
Athanasius sees in the incarnation how the “incorporeal and incorruptible and immaterial Word of God comes to our realm, howbeit he was not far from us before.”[13] The eternal Word, because of God’s lovingkindness, takes on the nature of our bodies, and because we are all under the penalty and corruption of death, offers His body in the stead of all.[14] Salvation is tied to “the solidarity of Christ with human beings: by sharing a body with us, he enables those who share in his body to partake also of his life and resurrection.”[15] In the incarnation, the eternal Word comes, and, for humankind, defeats death by Himself dying, and raising incorruptible makes it possible for humanity to be brought, through Him, in the same way to the Father. He was made man that we might be made God.[16]
Arius, though, does not see the incarnate Son as the eternal God. The Son is first and chief among creation but still a creature from the Father. Because of this, the incarnation has more to do with man serving God than God alone redeeming humanity. Of course, these views are antithetical to one another. For, argues Athanasius, salvation is truly knowing God, which can only be accomplished if the incarnate Son is truly God.[17] If salvation is communion with and knowing God, the incarnate God alone can make this possible. However, if the incarnate Son is himself a creature, He cannot bring us to true union with God, as the Son Himself does not have it. Salvation, in Arius’ view, sees the incarnation as a way for the Son to share ethical changeability with humanity.[18] And in so sharing our changeability, He is rewarded for His obedience and moral excellence, as will those who follow His example.
Salvation and Redemption
Salvation’s end is the redemption of humanity. This is primarily, and ultimately, for Athanasius, a matter of being “joined” to God.[19] In redemption, God unites man to Himself by grace through faith. God then, from creation to redemption, comes close to mankind. Redemption rests on the fact that God has taken on our flesh and redeemed every part of us. Salvation, due to its relational nature, cannot be bestowed from a distance, but rather, the Creator Himself in whose Image man was made, must come and renew the broken image and restore communion between God and man.[20] The common union of His flesh with humanity made His death and victory in effect ours.[21]
Arius’ account of salvation puts Christ forward as humanity’s example and provides the opportunity to please God by following Him in like manner. Remembering that the “unconditional independence and freedom of the one God is both the presupposition and conclusion of Arius’ theology,” we can be sure that union with God is not the goal.[22] Arius presents Christ as one set apart from God and other creatures. Christ is the Creator of the world and humanity, and because of His obedience, can lead us up to God “as one creature rising up so that other creatures could follow him and rise up themselves.”[23]
Between these two views lies a world of difference. For Athanasius, salvation was the Father seeking, through the Son and Spirit, fellowship with humanity. The purpose of creation and the reason for the incarnation was humanity's redemption, resulting in a union between man and God. To Arius, God alone, transcendent and ungenerate, provides a way in Christ for humanity to please and be accepted by God through obedience and holy service. Following these paths, the end of salvation rests in recapitulated fellowship or earned acceptance.
Bibliography
Anatolios, Khaled. Athanasius. 1st ed. London: Routledge, 2003. Perlego edition.
Anatolios, Khaled. Athanasius. The Coherence of His Thought. 1st edition. London ; New York: Routledge, 1998.
Behr, John. Formation of Christian Theology, Vol. 2: The Nicene Faith. First Edition. Crestwood, N.Y: St Vladimirs Seminary Pr. 2004.
Fairbairn, Donald, and Ryan M. Reeves. The Story of Creeds and Confessions: Tracing the Development of the Christian Faith. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2019. Perlego edition.
Gregg, Robert C, and Dennis E Groh. 1977. “Centrality of Soteriology in Early Arianism.” Anglican Theological Review 59:260–78.
Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines: Revised Edition. 5th Revised ed. edition. San Francisco: HarperOne, 1978.
Leithart, Peter J. Athanasius: Foundations of Theological Exegesis and Christian Spirituality. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011. Perlego edition.
Schaff, Philip, ed. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series, Athanasius: Selects Works and Letters. Cosimo Inc. 2007.
[1] J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: HarperOne, 1978) 227.
[2] Khaled Anatolios, Athanasius: The Coherence of His Thought (London: Rougtledge, 2005) 41.
[3] John Behr, Formation of Christian Theology, Vol. 2: The Nicene Faith (N.Y: St Vladimirs Seminary Pr. 2004) 182.
[4] Athanasius, Against the Arians. 2.22.76 (NPNF 4:389).
[5] Athanasius, Incarnation of the Word. 13.7 (NPNF 4:43).
[6] Khaled Anatolios, Athanasius (London: Rougtledge, 2005) Perlego edition, Introduction,
“God and Creation.”
[7] Michael Reeves, Introducing Major Theologians, (Nottingham: Inter-Varsity, 2015) 68.
[8] Peter J. Leithart, Athanasius, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), Perlego edition,
ch. 4, “Beginnings.”
[9] Reeves, Introducing Major Theologians, 73.
[10] Anatolios, Athanasius, “Introduction: The Drama of Divine Descent.”
[11] Donald Faribairn and Ryan M. Reeves The Story of Creeds and Confessions. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019), Perlego edition, ch. 4, “The Nicene Creed.”
[12] Anatolios, Athanasius, “Introduction: The Drama of Divine Descent.”
[13] Athanasius, Incarnation of the Word. 8.1 (NPNF 4:40).
[14] Ibid, 9.1.
[15] Behr, Formation of Christian Theology, 197.
[16] Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 65.
[17] Reeves, Major Theologians, 74.
[18] Robert C. Gregg and Dennis E. Groh, “The Centrality of Soteriology in Early Arianism,” Anglican Theological Review 59:260–78.
[19] Antolios, Athanasius: Coherence of His Though, 126.
[20] Athanasius, Incarnation of the Word. 14.1, 2 (NPNF 4:43).
[21] Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 380.
[22] Behr, Formation of Christian Theology, 148.
[23] Faribairn and Reeves, The Story of Creeds and Confessions, ch. 4