Tag: Atonement

Posted on

Incarnation and Soteriology in the Arian Controversy

Overview

This article compares the fourth-century Nicene and anti-Nicene (Arian) views of the Incarnation and Redemption.

While Nicene theology regarded the Father and Son as a single Person (one hypostasis), the Arians believed that the Son is a distinct Person. This difference resulted in very different views of the incarnation:

Nicene theology

Since the Father and Son are a single Person with a single mind, the Son cannot become incarnate. Rather, the Holy Spirit inspired a mere human being with the Word of God.

That human has a human mind. Some things Jesus said came from that human mind, for example, that he does not know the day or hour. At other times, it was God’s Word speaking, for example, when He said, the Father and I are one.

Since the Father and Son are a single Person, the Son is impassible, meaning He cannot suffer or die. It was a mere man who died, was resurrected, and ascended to heaven.

The Arian View

To redeem the world, God produced a distinct divine Person (the Son) with a lower divinity who could become incarnate, suffer, and die. Jesus does not have a human soul (mind). Rather, the Logos (the Son) functions as Jesus’ mind. Consequently, Jesus Christ is the same Person as the pre-incarnate Son of God. Everything Jesus said, was said by God’s eternal Son.

The Logos (the Son) experienced all of Jesus’ suffering and He died. The Creator and God of the earth was crucified, died, was resurrected, and ascended.

The term ‘Arian’

The term ‘Arian’ is a complete misnomer because Arius was insignificant and did not leave behind a school of followers. (Read More) Nevertheless, this article continues to use that term because most people are familiar with it. 

Authors

Following discoveries and research during the 20th century, scholars now explain the Arian Controversy very differently. R.P.C. Hanson described the traditional account of the Arian Controversy as a complete travesty. (Read More)

“The diatribes of Gwatkin and of Harnack (published around the year 1900) can today be completely ignored.” (Hanson, p. 95)

This article series is largely based on books published by world-class Trinitarian scholars over the last 50 years.  

Is the Son a distinct Person?

Different views of the nature of the Son of God result in different views of the incarnation. [Show More]

In their debates, the Greek church fathers used the term hypostasis to indicate a distinct existence. To say that the Father and Son are one hypostasis means they are one Person. 

In Nicene theology, the Father and Son are one single Person (hypostasis). The only ‘creed’ explaining pro-Nicene theology in the decades after Nicaea was the manifesto formulated by the Western pro-Nicenes in 343, and it explicitly confessed a single hypostasis. [Show More]

What Athanasius believed is another key indicator of Nicene theology. His theology is discussed here. In his view, the Son is IN the Father. This confirms that, in his view, the Father and Son are a single Person.

[Show More]

In contrast, in Arianism, the pre-existent Son or Logos is a distinct Person. [Show More]

Is the Son Passible?

All theologians accepted that God is impassible, meaning that He cannot suffer or die. In Nicene theology, since the Father and Son are a single Person, the Son has the same uncaused and unoriginated substance as the Father. Therefore, He also cannot suffer or die. He is impassible. In contrast, in the Arian view, to ensure the salvation of the world, God produced a Son with a lower divinity who could die. [Show More]

Who was incarnated?

In Nicene theology, since the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Person, they are inseparable. One cannot say that the Son resides in Jesus Christ because that would mean that the Father also resides in Him. The pro-Nicenes, therefore, argued that God’s Word resides in the man Jesus Christ through God’s Spirit. Effectively, the Spirit was incarnated. For example, the Western pro-Nicene manifesto formulated at Serdica in 343 declares:

“We believe in and hand down the Comforter the Holy Spirit which the Lord promised and sent to us. And we believe that he was sent. And he (the Spirit) did not suffer, but the man whom he put on, whom he assumed from the Virgin Mary, the man who was capable of suffering, because man is mortal but God immortal.” (Hanson, p. 302)

Reading this, “it is hard to avoid the impression that the Incarnation consisted of the Spirit taking a body which did the suffering, and that the Son is not distinguishable from the Spirit.” (Hanson, p. 303)

In Arianism, the Logos (God’s Son) became incarnate. That was not the first time that He appeared in a human body. The orthodox view of the first three centuries was that the one we know as Jesus Christ is the One who appeared to Israel as Yahweh:

“It is he who appeared in the Old Testament epiphanies. He took a body to appear under the New Testament as Saviour and Redeemer.” (Hanson, p. 103)

For the Eusebians, “the pre-existent Christ who appeared in the Old Testament on various occasions was the same as he who was crucified” (RH, 40, quoting Asterius, a leading early ‘Arian’)

Does Jesus have a human mind?

In the Nicene view, Jesus Christ has a human mind. In this view, at the incarnation, the Logos took on a complete human being with a human body and soul. For ‘soul’ we can read mind and emotions. For example, the Sabellians Eustathius and Marcellus, primary supporters of the Nicene Creed, taught that Christ had a human soul:

“Eustathius of Antioch … criticized the Eusebians for not allowing Christ a human soul. We may also be able to attribute a belief in Christ’s human soul to Marcellus of Ancyra.” (Ayres, p. 76-77)

“Marcellus had allowed Jesus a human soul.” (RH, 453)

Athanasius’ incarnation theory is discussed here. For most of his life, he refused to admit that Jesus had a human mind or soul. He describes Jesus as God in a human body, like an astronaut in a space suit. He said that Jesus only pretended fear and lack of knowledge. Only in the last decade of his life did Athanasius admit a human mind in Jesus.

The Arians denied that Jesus has a human soul (mind). In their view, the Logos or Son functioned as the human mind in Jesus. The eternal Son assumed a body without a human soul. For example:

“They insisted that, in becoming incarnate, the Son had taken to himself, not a complete human individual, but a body without a soul, meaning a body without a human mind and emotions” (Hanson, p. 26).

“The incarnate Word took to himself a body without a soul or mind” (Hanson, p. 110).

Show more such quotes

Consequently, the Son directly experienced the pain of Jesus’ suffering and death.

“Lucian and all the Lucianists deny that the Son of God took a soul (i.e., a human soul), ‘in order that … they may attach human experiences directly to the Logos.” (Hanson, p. 80, quoting Epiphanius)

Who spoke; divinity or a human?

In Nicene theology, some of the things Jesus said were said by His divine nature, such as ‘The Father and I are one.’ At other times the human mind spoke. For example:

      • ‘The Son of Man does not know the day and hour of His return’
      • ‘My Father is greater than I’.

In Arianism, everything Jesus said was said by the eternal Son of God. The incarnated Son of God is a single undivided “man:”

“The Arians dislike dividing Christ’s words and acts into those relevant to his human nature and those to his divine nature.” (Hanson, p. 103)

The pre-existent Son, who also appeared to the Jews as Yahweh, is one and the same as the incarnated Son:

“The pre-existent Christ who appeared to the Israelites … is exactly the same as he who was crucified.” (Hanson, p. 108)

In other words, the Arians believed that it was the eternal Son who said, “My Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28)

Who died?

In the Nicene view, a mere man died: 

The eternal Son of God did not suffer and die because He cannot. His human soul and mind were a buffer between the Son of God and His human experiences.

It was the man (His human nature – the human body and mind) who suffered, died, was resurrected, ascended to heaven, and sits at God’s right hand. For example, Eustathius, a keen supporter of the Nicene Creed, said:

“It is the man who sits at God’s right hand.” (RH, 214)

In the Arian view, the Creator and God of the earth was crucified and died.

Arians objected that, in Nicene theology, Christ’s death cannot save because a mere man died. Asterius, one of the leading ‘Arians’, said his opponents’ “interpretation of the person of the incarnate Son … (did) remove the Godhead from the act of redemption.” (Hanson, p. 40) In Arian view:

“The Gentiles and the peoples crucified the God of the four comers of the earth, and crucified him because he tolerated it” (Asterius, Hanson, p. 109).

“The Creator was crucified” (Asterius, RH, 38-39).

Show more such quotes

Conclusions

Nicenes avoided Soteriology.

In the few pages that had survived of his own writings, Arius said nothing about soteriology (how people are saved). (Hanson, p. 96) It used to be said that Arians ignored soteriology:

“Williams and Harnack denied that Arius had any soteriology. … It is understandable … because almost every word … by Arius that survives is concerned with the relation of the Father to the Son independently of the Incarnation.” (Hanson, p. 96)

However, “in their 1981 book Early Arianism: A View of Salvation Robert Gregg and Denis Groh argued that Arius was motivated primarily by soteriological concerns.” (Ayres, p. 55-56) In the Bible, God suffered on the Cross. The Arian system was designed to say this:

“It used to be thought that the Arians were so much interested in metaphysics and the relation of the Father to the Son that they ignored soteriology, whereas the pro-Nicenes, because of their concern to prove the divinity of Christ, paid more attention to the doctrine of salvation. Simonetti has rightly rejected this theory. The Arians were concerned with soteriology, and their ideas about the relation of the Son to the Father show this. They made a serious effort to meet the evidence of the Bible that God suffers, whereas the general impression which the writings of the pro-Nicenes produces is that this is the last admission which they wish to make.” (Hanson, p. 826-7)

It was the pro-Nicenes who avoided this topic:

“The Arians understood’ very well the necessity of allowing that in some sense God suffered in the course of saving mankind; the pro-Nicenes consistently tried to avoid this conclusion.” (Hanson, p. 870)

“Arian thought achieved an important insight into the witness of the New Testament denied to the pro-Nicenes of the 4th century, who unanimously shied away from and endeavoured to explain away the scandal of the Cross” (Williams, p. 21-22, quoting RPC Hanson).

The Nicenes allied with the Sabellians.

Both the Sabellians and Nicenes taught that the Father and Son are one hypostasis and that Jesus Christ has a human mind. At Nicaea, Alexander allied with the Sabellians and, a decade later, Athanasius allied with Marcellus. As discussed here,  the main dividing line in the Ariian Controversy was between one- and three-hypostases theologies, and the Nicenes and Sabellians were on the same side.

Other Articles

FOOTNOTES

  • 1
Posted on

Justification changes the person; it is not a mere legal process.

Summary

To be “justified” means to be right with God. Justified people have “peace with God” (Rom 5:1).

The controversy in Paul’s day

That controversy was about how Gentiles are justified. Some Jewish Christians maintained that Christians are justified “by the works of the Law” (Gal 2:16; 5:4). This means to be put right with God through the rituals of the Law of Moses, irrespective of whether you are a changed person.

Paul opposed this view and said that God justifies sinners “through faith” (Gal 2:16). To have faith means to be a changed person; one that trusts God to have mercy.

The Forensic View of Justification

We agree today that sinners are justified by grace through faith but we disagree about what that means. For some, the word “justified” implies some kind of legal process in the courtroom of heaven in which a person is put right with God irrespective of whether he or she is a changed person. In this regard, this view is similar to the Jewish view of 2000 years ago. The following are objections to this view:

Firstly, “justification” is one of several metaphors of salvation and must not be interpreted literally.

Secondly, the Imputation of Righteousness is just one of several Theories of the Atonement and not necessarily the right one.

Thirdly, in the Bible, to be justified means to be a changed person. For example:

        • “The doers of the Law will be justified” (Rom 2:13).
        • People are “justified by faith” (e.g., Gal 3:24).

A justified person, therefore, is a new creation (Gal 6:15) with “faith working through love” (Gal 5:6).

– END OF SUMMARY – 

Introduction

To be “justified” means to be right with God.

JustifiedStrong’s concordance defines the Greek word, which is translated as “justified,” as:

‘To show or regard as just or innocent’.

“Justified,” therefore, means that sinners are accepted and regarded by God as just. Justified people are described as:

“Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise” (Gal 3:29; cf. 3:7, 9, 14; 4:7),

“Sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:26; cf. 4:5), and as

Having “peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 5:1).

The Controversy on Paul’s Day

The Jews thought that people are put right with God through the rituals of the Law.

The great controversy in Paul’s day was about how Gentiles are justified. This controversy is particularly described in the letter to the Galatians. In it, Paul uses the words “justified” and “justify” several times (e.g., Gal 2:16-17, 3:8, 11, 24, and 5:4).

The Galatians were trying to be “perfected by the flesh” (Gal 3:3), meaning to work for salvation in your own power. More specifically, some Jewish Christians maintained that Christians are justified “by the works of the Law” (Gal 2:16; 5:4). This does not mean to try to be good. It means to be put right with God through the rituals and ceremonies of the Law of Moses, irrespective of what kind of person you are. Circumcision was the first of such rituals because it was the door to Judaism. 

Paul opposed this view and said that God justifies sinners “through faith” (Gal 2:16)

To have faith means to be a changed person. The word “faith” can also be understood as “trust.” To be justified by grace through faith is to trust God for what He can and will do for you, as opposed to trusting in what you can do for yourself through the “works of the Law:”

“God … will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith” (Rom 3:30).

“God would justify the Gentiles by faith” (Gal 3:8).

Paul taught a different law and a different means of justification.

The article – By Grace through Faith – discusses the Galatian controversy in more detail. In contrast to some Jewish Christians who were adamant that man is “justified by the works of the Law” (of Moses), Paul taught:

    • A different law (the Law of Christ) and
    • A different means of justification (by grace through faith).

The Forensic View of Justification

In the Forensic View, justification is a technical legal process.

We agree today that sinners are justified by grace through faith but we disagree about what that means.

For some, the word “justified” implies some kind of legal process in the courtrooms of heaven. Therefore, they use such legal undertones to explain how people are put right with God. They explain “justification’ as a technical legal process whereby Christ’s righteousness is imputed to believers. In this way, a person is put right with God irrespective of whether he or she is a changed person.

In this view, God has no option but the punish sin. However, Christ took our punishment so that we do not have to be punished.

This view is similar to the Jewish view of 2000 years ago because in both the person is ‘justified’ without being changed. 

But “justification” is one of several metaphors and must not be interpreted literally.

One objection to the Forensic View is that “justified” is only one of several different Metaphors of Salvation that Paul used to describe how sinners are put right with God. For example, another vital metaphor explains justification as reconciliation:

“Were reconciled to God through the death of His Son” (Rom 5:10; cf. 2 Cor 5:18, 20; Col. 1:20, 22). 

Paul drew these metaphors from different spheres of human experience. While the term “justified” may be used in a courtroom setting, Paul derived other metaphors from other parts of human life:

      • “Ransomed” implies that the sinner was held hostage.
      • “Redeemed” emphasizes our guilt before God.
      • “Reconciled” suggests that the sinner was estranged from God.
      • “Propitiation” implies that God was angry with the sinner.
      • Adopted as “sons of God” (Gal 3:26; 4:5-7) is a metaphor from human relations.

These metaphors are different ways of saying the same thing and we should not interpret them literally. Nor should we emphasize “justify” over the other metaphors. See the article Metaphors of Salvation for a discussion of these metaphors.

And Imputation of Righteousness is just one of several Theories of the Atonement.

A second objection to the forensic view is that several atonement theories have been proposed over the centuries. The idea that people are justified by imputing Jesus’ righteousness to them is only one of such theories and not necessarily the right one. The article Atonement Theories provides an overview of these theories and also suggests further arguments against the forensic view. See the articles:

for the explanation of atonement which, in my view, best fits the data from the Bible.

A Changed Person

In the Bible, to be justified means to be a changed person.

People with faith are justified.

Firstly, Paul said that nobody will be justified by the works of the Law but that people are “justified by faith” (e.g., Gal 2:16; 3:11, 24). Faith is not a legal technicality. Faith means that the person trusts God. Paul, therefore, did not think of justification as a legal process, irrespective of whether it is a changed person.

Doers are justified.

Secondly, Paul taught that “the doers of the Law will be justified” (Rom 2:13). This also does NOT mean that a person is “justified” on some technical legal basis. It means that God judges people by their deeds.

Man does not justify himself. God justifies people through His Spirit. 

Thirdly, Paul added that justification is something that God does: “God would justify the Gentiles by faith” (Gal 3:8). Justification, therefore, is not some legal technicality that justifies us before God. It is not something that I do myself or that Christ did to justify us before God. Rather, God Himself justifies people by changing them through His Spirit:

“God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts” (Gal 4:6). The Spirit is a power that is able to change us:

“Walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh” (Gal 5:16).

“The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness …” (Gal 5:22-23).

“The one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life” (Gal 6:6).

Conclusion – A justified person is a new creation

If “justified” meant that our sins are forgiven through some legal technicality, God will be populating heaven with pardoned criminals. But to be justified means to be changed. It means to be “a new creation” (Gal 6:15) with “faith working through love” (Gal 5:6).

A False Picture of God

The Forensic view presents a false picture of God.

Many theologians today still describe salvation as a legal process. They no longer propose that people are justified by the rituals of the Law of Moses. They now say that God demands that somebody had to suffer for our sins, and Christ suffered in our place. That theology presents God as an arbitrary tyrant. That view is inconsistent with the Bible. God does not need some legal technicality to save people:

Christ “gave Himself for our sins … according to the will of our God and father” (Gal 1:4). 

Or, stated even stronger, “God sent forth His Son” (4:4).

Christ’s death, therefore, did not make the Father willing to forgive or to be gracious. People who think that God needs a technical legal process to forgive people do not really worship the God of the Bible: They worship something created in their own image.

Key Conclusions

      • “Justified” means to be right with God.
      • Justification is not a legal process: A justified person is a “new creation.”

Other Articles

Listen to Graham Maxwell, a well-known preacher, as he explains, from the letter to the Galatians, his view of the Atonement and of Justification.

Proudly powered by WordPress