The Seventy's Course in Theology, Third Year / The Doctrine of Deity

by B. H. Roberts

"And in this Trinity none is afore, or after, other; none is greater, or less than another; but the whole three Persons are co-eternal together, and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He, therefore, that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.

"Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess: that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance of his Mother, born in the world; perfect God, and perfect man; of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting; equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching his Manhood. Who, although he be God and Man, yet he is not two, but one Christ; one, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God; one altogether, not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ; who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty; from whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At Whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works." (Common Prayer, Church of England.) (For comment upon this creed, see Year Book II, Lesson xxxvii.)

3. Pro Et Con of the Arian Controversy: The orthodox doctrine of deity for the Patristic period, is found in the last two creeds quoted, still it is well enough to give each side of the controversy, out of which the creeds were born, opportunity to state its own case. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, states the orthodox side. He first represents Arius, leader of the opposition, as:

"Denying the divinity of our Saviour, pronounced him on a level with all other creatures. He says that they held, there was a time when the Son of God was not; and he who once had no existence, afterwards did exist; and from that time was, what every man naturally is; for (say they) [the Arians] 'God made all things of nothing, including the Son of God, in this creation of all things, both rational and irrational; and of course, pronouncing Him to be of a changeable nature, and capable of virtue and of sin.'" Then, affirmatively, Alexander gives his own views as follows:

"We believe, as the Apostolic Church does, in the only unbegotten Father, who derived his existence from no one, and is immutable and unalterable, always the same and uniform, unsusceptible of increase of diminution; the giver of the law, and the prophets, and the gospels; Lord of the patriarchs and apostles, and of all saints; and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, not begotten from nothing, but from the living Father; and not after the manner of material bodies, by separations and effluxes of parts, as Sabellius and Valentinian supposed, but in an inexplicable and indescribable manner, agreeably to the declaration before quoted: 'Who shall declare his generation?' For His existence is inscrutable to all mortal beings, just as the Father is inscrutable; because created intelligences are incapable of understanding this divine generation from the Father—'No one knoweth what the Father is, but the Son; and no one knoweth what the Son is, but the Father.'

"He is unchangeable, as much as the Father; lacks nothing; is the perfect Son, and the absolute likeness of the Father, save only that He is not unbegotten. * * * Therefore, to the unbegotten Father, His proper dignity must be preserved. And to the Son, also, suitable honor must be given, by ascribing to Him an eternal generation from the Father."

Arius, making complaint that he is persecuted by Alexander—states first the position of his adversary thus: Arius and his friends are persecuted—"Because we do not agree with him, publicly asserting that God always was, and the Son always was; that He was always the Father, always the Son; that the Son was of God himself." Then stating his own position affirmatively, he says:

"We have taught, and still teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor a portion of the unbegotten, in any manner; nor was He formed out of any subjacent matter, but that in will and purpose, he existed before all times and before all worlds, perfect God, the only begotten, unchangeable; and that before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, He was not; for He was never unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say, the Son had a beginning, but God was without beginning. We are also persecuted, because we say, that He is from nothing; and this we say, inasmuch as He is not a portion of God, nor formed from any subjacent matter. Therefore we are persecuted. The rest you know." (Mosheim, Vol. I, p. 288—Notes).

The Differences Summed Up: Summing up the differences between the two parties, Murdock, the able translator and annotator of Mosheim, says: "According to these statements, both the Arians and the orthodox considered the Son of God the Saviour of the World, as a derived existence, and as generated by the Father. But they differed on two points. (1.) The orthodox believed His generation was from eternity, so that he was coeval with the Father. But the Arians believed there was a time when the Son was not. (2.) The orthodox believed the Son to be derived of and from the Father; so that He was of the same essence with the Father. But the Arians believed that He was formed out of nothing, by the creative power of God. Both, however, agreed in calling Him God, and in ascribing to Him divine perfections. As to His offices, or His being the Saviour of sinful men, it does not appear that they differed materially in their views." (Ibid).

4. Origin of These Metaphysical Difficulties: Undoubtedly it was contact with Oriental and Greek philosophical vagaries, and seeking to harmonize the facts of revelation, with these vagaries, that led to the intellectual difficulties of patristic Christianity. The temptation to seek such harmony, was strong. Already a similar work had been done for the Jews at Alexandria, under the leadership of Philo. He found, in the lofty speculations of Plato, the wisdom of Moses and of Solomon; and in the second century of the Christian Era, Numenius could ask "What is Plato but Moses talking Attic?" "The arms of Macedonians," remarks Gibbon," diffused over Asia and Egypt the language and learning of Greece"; and with that language and learning, and as part of the latter, went the philosophy of Plato, until among the learned and influential it was largely the ground plan of their thinking. The Christians, in the first three centuries of their existence, had been despised sectaries, with no standing among those who made any pretensions to learning; so that when there came opportunity to show identity between the holy trinity of the Christian faith, and the supposed trinity of Plato's philosophy; and identity of the "word" of John's Gospel with the "Logos" of Plato's divine "being," it was seized upon with avidity, not alone, it is to be feared, because of the semblance of truth that was seen in the two things, but also because of the advantages that struggling Christianity would secure by linking the theology of the church with the philosophy of the Academy. "The lofty speculations," says Gibbon, "which neither convinced the understanding nor agitated the passions of the Platonists themselves, were carelessly overlooked by the idle, the busy, and even the studious part of mankind. But after the 'Logos' had been revealed as the sacred object of the faith, the hope, and the religious worship of the Christians, the mysterious system was embraced by a numerous and increasing multitude in every province of the Roman world. Those persons who, from their age, or sex, or occupations, were the least qualified to judge, who were the least exercised in the habits of abstract reasoning, aspired to contemplate the economy of the divine nature; and it is the boast of Tertullian, that a Christian mechanic could easily answer such questions as had perplexed the wisest of the Grecian sages. Where the subject lies so far beyond our reach, the difference between the highest and the lowest of human understandings may indeed be calculated as infinitely small, yet the degree of weakness may perhaps be measured by the degree of obstinacy and dogmatic confidence." What more is necessary to know upon this topic, can be learned from the note entitled "Patristic Doctrine of God of Pagan Rather than of Christian Origin," and Lesson xxxvii, in Year Book II.