Copyright © Sergio N. Longoria, 2009. All Rights Reserved.

No part of this document may be reproduced without written consent from the author.

AUSTIN GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY

ATHANASIUS CONTRA ARIUS: ARGUING FOR THE DIVINITY

OF CHRIST FROM SCRIPTURE AND EARLY CHURCH PRACTICE

CHURCH HISTORY

MICHAEL WEED, Ph.D.

BY

SERGIO N. LONGORIA

AUSTIN, TEXAS

DECEMBER 3, 2009
Copyright © Sergio N. Longoria, 2009. All Rights Reserved.
1 author.
No part of this document may be reproduced without written consent from the

ATHANASIUS CONTRA ARIUS: ARGUING FOR THE DIVINITY

OF CHRIST FROM SCRIPTURE AND EARLY CHURCH PRACTICE

In the third and fourth century a group of Christians called Arians were

affirming that Christ was not divine. The Arians were following the teachings of

Arius. Arius argued for an interpretation of the Son of God focusing on

Scripture that seemed to indicate that Jesus, or the Son of God, had not

always been in existence. They claimed that there was a time when He was

not, that in fact, the Son of God had a beginning. This would make the Son

less divine than the Father. Much of Christendom of the time was following in

line with the teachings of Arius. But one man stood up to oppose him and

defend the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ: Athanasius.

In this paper I examine some of the claims of Arius (d. 336 A.D.). I will

look at one of the Scriptures that he used to support his argument, but more

importantly, I also examine the refutation made by Athanasius (d. 373 A.D.). I

will specifically focus on some aspects of his treatment of Proverbs 8:22 in his

Second Discourse Against the Arians which is part of his work, Orations Against

the Arians. I will principally focus on Athanasius’ method of refuting Arius

claims by use of Church tradition as embodied in Scripture and Church

practices. I will begin with a brief introduction to both Arius and Athanasius

and the nature of the controversy that led to Arius’ condemnation at the
Copyright © Sergio N. Longoria, 2009. All Rights Reserved.
2 author.
No part of this document may be reproduced without written consent from the

council of Nicea (325 A.D.). I will then present Arius’ specific case in Proverbs

8:22 as presented by Athanasius in the Second Discourse Against the Arians

followed by Athanasius’ refutation.

Arius

Arius was probably born in Libya around 260-280 A.D.1 He was

ordained into the diaconate by Bishop Peter of Alexandria. He was later

deposed for siding with a heretical group called Melitians. He later asked for

forgiveness and was re-instated and ordained a priest by Peter’s successor,

Bishop Achillas. Arius was put in charge of the Church of Baucalis. There he

gained a reputation for his ascetic life, his theological thinking and his skill in

logic. He had attractive qualities, was well educated, an able preacher, and

had a rather austere appearance.2 But according to Molly, Arius had other less

than admirable qualities such as, being proud, ambitious, insincere, and

cunning. This shortcomings not withstanding, Arius was a persuasive speaker,

with a good outward appearance, social grace and a pleasing voice that gained

him many followers.3

E. A. Livingstone, ed., Concise Dictionary of the Christian Church,

1

Revised Second Edition. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006), s.v.
"Arius.”

Michael E. Molloy, Champion of Truth: The Life of St. Athanasius (New

2

York, NY: Society of St. Paul, 2003), 14-15.

3 Ibid., 15.
Copyright © Sergio N. Longoria, 2009. All Rights Reserved.
3 author.
No part of this document may be reproduced without written consent from the

In 313 A.D., Alexander was consecrated the new bishop of the see of

Alexandria. This see included the church of which Arius was pastor or senior

presbyter. It seems that for a time Alexander and Arius maintained a cordial

relationship. Yet between 318 and 323 A.D. Arius and Alexander clashed over

the nature of Christ. It seems that during a gathering of clergy, Alexander took

the opportunity to teach them about the unity of the Father and the Son.

Alexander taught in accordance with the traditional teachings, but to this Arius

took exception and began to contradict the teaching of Alexander.4

Arius asserted that the Father and the Son were not equal and that any

appearance to the contrary found in scripture was just merely titles of honor

for Christ.5 Arius had reasoned erroneously from a human premise that since

God was a Father, there must have been a time when he had not yet had a

son.6 From this comes the famous Arian dictum, “there was once when he was

not”7 to signal that there was a time when the Son did not exist and was

4 Ibid.

Alister E. McGrath, Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of

5

Christian Thought (Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, Inc., 1998),

33.

6 Molloy, Champion of Truth: The Life of St. Athanasius, 16.

Walter A. Elwell, ed., The Concise Evangelical Dictionary of Theology

7

(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1991), s.v. "Arianism,” by V. L.

Walter.
Copyright © Sergio N. Longoria, 2009. All Rights Reserved.
4 author.
No part of this document may be reproduced without written consent from the

therefore created afterwards by God.8

Arius’ did not set out to oppose orthodoxy merely because he was evil as

it might be supposed. Rather, Arius had a zeal for maintaining monotheism

and he saw danger to this in the teaching of Alexander. But Arius’ ideas at

first seemed to preserve monotheism as well as uphold the divinity of the Son,

even when this was merely honorific or bestowed divinity, as distinct from the

inherent and eternal divinity of the Father. Arius’ ideas quickly gained

acceptance among the common converts of Alexandria.9 Alexander and his

assistant Athanasius saw much danger in what Arius was teaching.

Athanasius

Athanasius was born around 295-299 A.D. in Alexandria, one of the

great cosmopolitan cities of the Roman Empire. He received a classical and

theological education probably under the tutelage of Bishop Alexander.10 In

319 A.D., he was ordained a deacon and soon became the secretary of bishop

Alexander of Alexandria, who would be a major force at the Council of Nicea

when Athanasius was scarcely 30 years old or younger. Athanasius

8 Molloy, Champion of Truth: The Life of St. Athanasius, 16.

Mike Feazell, “Is Jesus really God? A look at the Arian controversy,”
9

http://www.christianodyssey.com/god/jesusgod.htm. Accessed, October 18,

2009.

Khaled Anatolios, Athanasius, ed. Carol Harrison (New York, NY:

10

Routledge, 2004), 4.
Copyright © Sergio N. Longoria, 2009. All Rights Reserved.
5 author.
No part of this document may be reproduced without written consent from the

accompanied Alexander to that council, where he seems to have participated in

some of the debates, although only the bishops voted. In 328 A.D., upon the

death of Alexander, Athanasius was elected bishop of Alexandria, but this was

immediately contested accusing him of being under the canonical age of 30 for

this office.11

Although Athanasius was aware of the inroads that Arianism was

making, he does not come to the forefront until after the Council of Nicea in

325 A.D. when Emperor Constantine calls in an Ecumenical council of the

Church to deal with the questions that Arianism was posing. Yet as early as

321 A.D., Alexander had called a council to deal with Arius. But even after the

council of Nicea in which Arius is officially condemned, Arianism remained and

continued to grow in the empire. Arianism also exerted a political force in the

empire with the result that Arian bishops exile and excommunicate apostolic

bishops and vice versa. Athanasius is also the subject of multiple exiles

directly or indirectly at the hands of Arian leaders or sympathizers. The result

of this is that the defense of orthodox Christianity spanned several councils

and many years of struggle even after Nicea. To deal with the growing heresy,

Athanasius spent much of his time, and his time in exile, writing to counteract

the Arian heresy. It is during his second exile ca. 339 A.D.-340 A.D. that he

writes his work, Orations Against the Arians.12

11 Ibid., 5.

12 Ibid., 87.
Copyright © Sergio N. Longoria, 2009. All Rights Reserved.
6 author.
No part of this document may be reproduced without written consent from the

The Controversy

The great controversy over the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ was

a controversy led by the bishops and their theologians in a political

background created by the interests of each Christian power center within the

political boundaries of the Roman Empire.13 It is well beyond the scope of this

paper to discuss the intricate theologico-political interrelationships developed

around the Arian controversy, but it is important to simply mention that the

controversy was not only theological, but also had elements of political

expediency. This is why we see Emperor Constantine intervening and calling

into session the council of Nicea in 325 A.D. At the center of the theological

debate rested the very essence of the understanding of the relationship

between God the Father and Son. It is from this council that we get the

orthodox confession which declares that Jesus was “begotten of the Father…of

the substance of the Father…begotten not made, of one substance with the

Father.”14 The council also anathematized Arius and his followers, but Arius

arguments had to be dealt with exegetically and not just by the power of the

state-church for years to come. That is, they had to be defeated in the arena of

ideas and not just under the threat of action by the state.

Charles Kannengiesser, “Athanasius of Alexandria and the Foundation

13

of Traditional Christology.,” Theological Studies 34, no. 1 (March 1973): 106-

107.

Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Grand Rapids,

14

Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000), 249.

Copyright © Sergio N. Longoria, 2009. All Rights Reserved.
7 author.
No part of this document may be reproduced without written consent from the

At Nicea the affirmation of the divinity of Christ was conceived largely by

the use of Greek philosophical categories. The “of the substance of the Father”

is the Greek term homoousios which orthodox adherents were using as opposed

to the Arians’ use of homoiousios which merely denoted the Son’s likeness in

substance or essence to that of the Father.15 Yet Athanasius refers to these

Greek words only once or twice in his refutation of the Arians and prefers to

stay close to the Biblical text.16

Arius did not argue in a vacuum or from a priori premises. In fact, Arius

and the Arians argued from Scripture. This made their arguments all the more

compelling. As Helyer points out, “the Arians relied primarily upon Scriptural

texts that seemingly asserted the createdness of Christ.”17

One such passage used by Arians is found in Proverbs 8:22. This

passage reads, “The LORD created me at the beginning of his work.” At the

time, Arian and orthodox exegetes did not have the benefit of modern methods

and essentially were unaware that this verse was not to be necessarily linked

with the Logos or Word of God. But in Arius and Athanasius times, everyone

McGrath, Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian

15

Thought, 32.

Kannengiesser, “Athanasius of Alexandria and the Foundation of

16

Traditional Christology.,” 111.

Larry R. Helyer, “Arius Revisited : The Firstborn over all Creation

17

(Col 1:15),” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 31, no. 1 (March
1988): 59.
Copyright © Sergio N. Longoria, 2009. All Rights Reserved.
8 author.
No part of this document may be reproduced without written consent from the

located the meaning of the text not so much in the intentions of the human

author, but in the objective reference to divine realities placed there by the

Spirit.18 So that everyone understood that Wisdom, the Logos and the Word

was essentially referring to Jesus. Anatolios explains that for Origen,

“Wisdom” was the primary designation for Christ.19 And so it was of absolute

expediency to deal with the Arian assertion that this verse implied that

Wisdom, as the Christ, was created at the beginning of God’s work. Meaning,

that God had created Christ rather than Christ being co-eternal with the

Father.

Athanasius’ Refutation

Athanasius argues that it is useless to argue a priori about the divinity of

the Son, or as a mere supposition of reason.20 Athanasius instead inquires

into Scripture and sees how it teaches us to discover the divinity of the Son

starting from the concrete confessions of the Church. Such clues can be

found, for example, in the confessions of the early Church, some of which

ended up recorded as Scripture. One such confession mentions the Father, the

18 Anatolios, Athanasius, 110.

19 Ibid.

Kannengiesser, “Athanasius of Alexandria and the Foundation of

20

Traditional Christology.,” 112.

Copyright © Sergio N. Longoria, 2009. All Rights Reserved.
9 author.
No part of this document may be reproduced without written consent from the

Son and the Holy Spirit in the baptismal formulas. But this approach to

Biblical inquiry is novel in Athanasius time; in fact, partially borrowed from the

Arians themselves who use Scripture to buttress their case.21

According to Arius, God is necessarily uncreated, unbegotten and

unoriginate, and hence he is absolutely incommunicable and unique. Since

Proverbs 8:22 clearly designates Wisdom, the Logos as created, Arius

concluded that the Logos cannot be true God. Although designated as Son of

God and even God in Scripture, the Logos enjoys this status either by

participation in grace or by adoption.22 In any case for the Arians Christ is

clearly a creature dissimilar in all things from the Father, a perfect creature

and immensely above all other created beings, but a creature nevertheless. In

response to Origen's view of an eternal generation from the Father, Arius

steadfastly asserted "there was when he was not."23

In his response to the Arian’s assertion that Proverbs 8:22 demonstrates

that the Son of God is a created being, Athanasius uses an impressive amount

of Scripture and rhetoric in his refutation of the Arian heresy. It is not possible

to go into detail here about all of them. It will be sufficient to show an example

21 Ibid.

22 Helyer, “Arius Revisited: The Firstborn over all Creation (Col 1:15),” 59.

23 Ibid.
Copyright © Sergio N. Longoria, 2009. All Rights Reserved.
10author.
No part of this document may be reproduced without written consent from the

of Athanasius’ strategy in order to appreciate the force of his arguments.

Athanasius wrote Second Discourse Against the Arians to deal with this

particular issue during his second exile.24

The Second Discourse Against the Arians is an extensive work comprised

of eighty-two chapters in which Athanasius deals specifically with confronting

the heresy around Proverbs 8:22. It can be seen in this work, as pointed out

above, that he makes liberal use of Scripture texts, and presents them along

confessions of the faith. For example, Athanasius rhetorically asks why did the

Church confessions include the Son along with the Father in the performance

of baptism if the Son is a creature?

Why too in the baptismal consecration is the Son named together with
the Father? For if they say that the Father is not all-sufficient, then their
answer is irreligious, but if He be, for this it is right to say, what is the
need of the Son for framing the worlds, or for the holy laver? For what
fellowship is there between creature and Creator? or why is a thing made
classed with the Maker in the consecration of all of us? or why, as you
hold, is faith in one Creator and in one creature delivered to us? for if it
was that we might be joined to the Godhead, what need of the creature?
but if that we might be united to the Son a creature, superfluous,
according to you, is this naming of the Son in Baptism, for God who
made Him a Son is able to make us sons also. Besides, if the Son be a
creature, the nature of rational creatures being one, no help will come to
creatures from a creature.25

24 Anatolios, Athanasius, 87.

Philip Schaff, ed., “Christian Classics Ethereal Library,” NPNF2-04.

25

Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/

schaff/npnf204.html. Or. Ar. 2:41.
Copyright © Sergio N. Longoria, 2009. All Rights Reserved.
11author.
No part of this document may be reproduced without written consent from the

Athanasius response establishes that the Son is in the Father and the Father

in the Son, not because God lacks anything, but because God wills it so. In his

response Athanasius uses other biblical texts to support his argument.

That the Son is named with the Father, not as if the Father were not all-
sufficient, not without meaning, and by accident; but, since He is God’s
Word and own Wisdom, and being His Radiance, is ever with the Father,
therefore it is impossible, if the Father bestows grace, that He should not
give it in the Son, for the Son is in the Father as the radiance in the light.
For, not as if in need, but as a Father in His own Wisdom hath God
founded the earth, and made all things in the Word which is from Him,
and in the Son confirms the Holy Laver.26

In this section of Athanasius response he makes reference to Proverbs 3:19

(The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he

established the heavens.) And there is also reference to wisdom literature as in

Wisdom 9:1 (O God of my fathers, and Lord of mercy, who hast made all things

with thy word). Athanasius then adds, “So it is because the Father is named

in baptism that the Son must also be named along with him.”27

The entire procedure of Athanasius in refuting the Arian interpretation of

Proverbs 8:22 is geared toward showing that the overall patterns of the

scriptural language clearly point to the Word as God and not as a creature and

that the overall theme of Scripture precisely involves a double account of the

Son referring alternatively to his divinity and humanity.28

26 Ibid.

27 Anatolios, Athanasius, 136.

28 Ibid., 111.
Copyright © Sergio N. Longoria, 2009. All Rights Reserved.
12author.
No part of this document may be reproduced without written consent from the

To further illustrate Athanasius’ use of scriptural references, the

following is also part of his refutation:

Now it is plain that our body is Wisdom’s house, which It took on Itself to
become man; hence consistently does John say, ‘The Word was made
flesh’ and by Solomon Wisdom says of Itself with cautious exactness, not
‘I am a creature,’ but only ‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways
for His works,’ yet not ‘created me that I might have being,’ nor ‘because I
have a creature’s beginning and origin.29

Conclusion

I have attempted to trace some of the issues involving the Arian

controversy of the fourth century by broadly outlining the position of Arius and

Athanasius. But more specifically, it was shown that Athanasius used

Scripture and early Christian practices in his refutation of the Arian position

concerning the divinity of Christ. In particular it was shown that Athanasius

continually refers to Scripture and on at least one occasion presented here, he

uses the baptismal formulas of the early Church as part of his refutation

against the Arian understanding of Proverbs 8:22. Even though Arianism

continued to make inroads in the Empire, in the end Athanasius’ orthodoxy

won the struggle. The important thing here is to show that rather than

focusing on Greek concepts and categories, Athanasius shows how to correctly

handle the Word of truth against those who choose to distort its meaning.

29 Schaff, “Athanasius: Select Works and Letters,” Or. Ar. 2:44.

Copyright © Sergio N. Longoria, 2009. All Rights Reserved.
13author.
No part of this document may be reproduced without written consent from the

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anatolios, Khaled. Athanasius. Edited by Carol Harrison. New York, NY:

Routledge, 2004.

Elwell, Walter A., ed. The Concise Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1991. S. v. "Arianism," by V.L.
Walter.

Feazell, Mike. “Is Jesus really God? A Look at the Arian Controversy.”
http://www.christianodyssey.com/god/jesusgod.htm./(accessed October
18, 2009).

Grenz, Stanley J. Theology for the Community of God. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000.

Helyer, Larry R. “Arius Revisited: The Firstborn over all Creation (Col 1:15).”
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 31, no. 1 (March 1988): 59-
67.

Kannengiesser, Charles. “Athanasius of Alexandria and the Foundation of

Traditional Christology.” Theological Studies 34, no. 1 (March 1973): 103-
113.

Livingstone, E. A., ed. Concise Dictionary of the Christian Church. Revised

Second Edition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006. S. v.
"Arius."

McGrath, Alister E. Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of

Christian Thought. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, Inc.,
1998.

Molloy, Michael E. Champion of Truth: The Life of St. Athanasius. New York, NY:
Society of St. Paul, 2003.

Schaff, Philip., ed. “Christian Classics Ethereal Library.” NPNF2-04.

Athanasius: Select Works and Letters.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.html.