Arius’ Christology and the Question of Redemption

Markus Schmidt

doi:10.24071/tic.v2i1.12035

Arius’ Christology and the Question of Redemption

Markus Schmidt^(1*),

(1) Universität Innsbruck
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract

The Ancient Church celebrated the Council of Nicaea in 325. The main reason was to address the Christology of the presbyter Arius of Alexandria (Egypt), who promoted his unorthodox ideas about Jesus of Nazareth in view of his pastoral work. His Christological teachings became widespread and influenced faithful and clerics. As a result, they threatened the apostolic faith of the Church. Arius teaches that the Son of God cannot be God in the full sense of the word. He differs from the Father because he is not eternal or co-eternal and does not have his being with the Father. The Son did not exist before his generation, but was begotten before all things. Arius, thus, emphasizes God as a monad and the source of all beings. Therefore, the soteriological question arises how Jesus Christ can be the redeemer if he is not God. Arius' Christological concept cannot answer this question because in this view, Christ, without being God, cannot work out redeeming humanity. What needs redeeming is the human sin against God. For that, one must bridge the absolute abyss between God and humanity, but a human being cannot cross that boundary between God and humanity. Only God, as God, can perform this redemption, but for Arius, Jesus Christ is not God in the full sense of the word. Because of that, the Jesus Christ of Arius' teachings cannot save humanity. As a result, the soteriological consequence of Arius' Christology is tragic: because Christ is not God, he cannot be the redeemer. He cannot bridge the abyss between God and humanity. Thus, there is no way that human beings can win reconciliation with God because Jesus Christ is not the Messiah. Humanity will remain in its sinful state.

Keywords

Arius; Arianism; Christology; Soteriology; redemption; Council of Nicaea

Full Text:

PDF

References

Barnes, Michel R., and Daniel H. Williams, eds. Arianism After Arius: Essays on the Development of the Fourth Century Trinitarian Conflict. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993.

Böhm, Thomas. Die Christologie des Arius: Dogmengeschichtliche Überlegungen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Hellenisierungsfrage. Studien zur Theologie und Geschichte 7. St. Ottilien: EOS, 1991.

Brennecke, Hanns Christof, Uta Heil, and Annette von Stockhausen, eds. Athanasius Werke: II: Die “Apologien”. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006.

Fernández, Samuel, ed. Fontes Nicaenae Synodi: The Contemporary Sources for the Study of the Council of Nicaea (304–337). Contexts of Ancient and Medieval Anthropology 10. Paderborn: Brill Schoningh, 2024.

Gwatkin, Henry Melvill. Studies of Arianism: Chiefly Referring to the Character and Chronology of the Reaction Which Followed the Council of Nicaea. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Deighton Bell, 1900. https://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF Books/Studies of Arianism - Gwatkin.pdf.

Hanson, Richard Patrick Crosland. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318–381. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988.

Kannengiesser, Charles. “Bulletin de Théologie Patristique: 2ème Section: crise arienne”. Recherches de Sience Religieuse 70, no. 4 (1982): 597–612. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9817707h/.

Latinovic, Vladimir. “Arius Conservativus? The Question of Arius’ Theological Belonging”. In Papers Presented at the Seventeenth International Conference on Patristic Studies Held in Oxford 2015, edited by Markus Vinzent, 27–41. Studia Patristica, 95 vol. 21. Leuven: Peeters, 2017.

Metzler, Karin. “Ein Beitrag zur Rekonstruktion der ‘Thalia’ des Arius”. In Ariana Et Athanasiana: Studien zur Überlieferung und zu philologischen Problemen der Werke des Athanasius von Alexandrien, edited by Karin Metzler and Frank Simon, 13–45. Abhandlungen der Nordrhein-Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 83. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1991.

Opitz, Hans-Georg, ed. Athanasius Werke: III.1: Urkunden zur Geschichte des Arianischen Streites 318–328. Vol. 1. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1934.

———, ed. Athanasius Werke: III.1: Urkunden zur Geschichte des Arianischen Streites 318–328. Vol. 2. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1935.

Parmentier, Léon, ed. Theodoret Kirchengeschichte. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 44. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1954. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112486023.

Ritter, Adolf Martin. “Arius Redivivus? Ein Jahrzwölft Arianismusforschung”. Theologische Rundschau 55, no. 2 (1990): 153–87. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26153421.

Simonetti, Manlio. La crisi ariana nel IV secolo. Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 11. Roma: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 1975.

Sokrates. Kirchengeschichte. Edited by Günther Christian Hansen. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte, N.F. 1. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1995.

Wiles, Maurice F. Archetypal Heresy: Arianism Through the Centuries. Reprint of the first edition in 1996 with minor corrections. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Williams, Rowan. Arius: Heresy and Tradition. 2nd ed. London: SCM Press, 2001.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24071/tic.v2i1.12035