Saint Athanasius

Introduction

The purpose of this essay is to investigate the theology of Athanasius as ordered by certain portions of the Nicene Creed.

Athanasius began writing theology when quite young. His earliest works, Against the Heathen and his Incarnation of the Word, were written when he was some twenty years old. These works show an appreciation of the presence of God the Word in the man Jesus. His later works continue his emphasis on God's full presence in Christ, while at the same time presenting a stronger sense of Christ's humanity. In the body of this essay, however, I will not discuss the development of his thought. Rather, I will begin with his mature theology. Further, I will seek the underlying intelligibility of that theology, the simplest and most rational way to get out the underlying pattern of his thinking. In other words, my treatment will be theological rather than historical.

Athanasius has been called the "Father of the Nicene Creed." The Nicene Creed takes its name from the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. At that time a creed was adopted, in part motivated by a desire to deny the Arian heresy. Athanasius was the great defender of the faith against Arius and key elements of his defense are found in the Nicene Creed, especially the second paragraph. An expanded version of a creed similar to that of Nicea was accepted at the Council of Constantinople in 381. This expanded Creed was later accepted by the universal church sitting in council at Chalcdeon in 451. It was given the title "Nicene Creed" because it reflected the spirit and truth of the earlier creed of Nicea, especially in the wording of its second paragraph. This creed is said every Sunday in many Christian churches under the title "Nicene Creed." It is the primary theological standard of the faith. J.N.D. Kelly describes it with the these words,

Of all existing creeds it is the only one for which ecumenicity, or universal acceptance, can be plausibly claimed. Unlike the purely Western Apostles' Creed, it was admitted as authoritative in East and West alike from 451 onwards, and it has retained that position, with one significant variation in its text, right down to the present day. So far from displacing it, the Reformation reaffirmed its binding character and gave it a new lease of life and an extended currency by translating it into the vernacular tongue.(1)

Structure of the Creed

Before introducing Athanasius' theology, I will diagram aspects the Nicene Creed. This diagram will help to present Athanasius' theology in an orderly fashion.

The Creed is organized into three articles. The first article deals with the Father and creation, the second with the Son and incarnation, the third with the Holy Spirit, the church, and the life of the world to come.

1.                  The One Living God
                 /                 |                     \
                /                   |                       \
               /                    |                         \
2.     The Father       The Son                 The Holy Spirit
3.   as pure origin   eternally begotten    proceeds from the
             |
             |                of the Father              Father and the Son
            |                      |                                        |
             |                     |                                      and
4.      makes            incarnate                enlivens that revelation
             |                      |                                  /        \
             |                       |                                /           \
             |                      |                         to form     and bring
            |                      |                              |                 |
5.     creation        Jesus Christ             (church)    the world to come

Inside and Outside God

When thinking of God, Athanasius recognized that there was a correspondence between what occurs in God and what God did outside himself. He knew that God was one, but he also claimed that God was internally three persons as seen in lines 2 and 3. By correspondence, outside himself, the one God did three things as seen on lines 4 and 5. By contrast, Arius thought that God was essentially one, or to put it another way, he did not believe in the complexity of three persons within God. From this it followed that God did only one thing outside himself, create the world and sustain it as ground.

In the theological controversy between Athanasius and Arius, the real issue was columns 1 and 2, the relations between Father and Son, creation and incarnation. The divinity and work of the Spirit was not at the forefront of the conflict. Athanasius recognized the Holy Spirit, considered the Spirit to be God, but did not focus on the Spirit's work. He did, however, lay the foundation for understanding how a complexity of persons could exist in God. This complexity eventually led to the inner triune relations of Father, Son, and Spirit, each distinct from yet related to the others. At Nicea, the third article of the Creed simply read, "and in the Holy Spirit." As mentioned above, the elaborations of today's Nicene Creed occurred later.

In light of Athanasius' notion of inside and outside God, the diagram can be understood as follows: Lines 1, 2, and 3 refer to what happens in God. God is one, line 1, and inside the one God, there are three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, line 2. God the Father is pure origin, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from both as seen on line 3. The ways in which the Son comes from the Father, and the Spirit from both, are called "issues." There are two issues in God, the begetting of the Son by the Father and the procession of the Spirit from both. All this happens inside God, in the one God of three persons related by two issues.

Lines 4 and 5 describe God's acts outside himself. God acts in three different ways, line 4, by making the world as Father, becoming incarnate as Son, and by being sent as Spirit. This leads to three primary acts of God outside God: the making of creation, the incarnation of Jesus Christ, and the life of the world to come. These are listed on line 5. The church is included on line 5 in parentheses. It is in parenthesis since it is derivative from the other three primary divine acts.

The diagram doesn't show everything. For example, since God is one and triune, all God's acts must involve all three persons. Therefore, when the first article of the Creed states that God the Father created the world, the Creed will also state that it was made through the Son, second article. The Spirit was also active in creation since the Spirit gives life, article three, and life was first given in the making of creation. Similarly, in the second article concerning the Son, the Father eternally begets the Son, and the Son is born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. Therefore, both Father and Spirit are involved in the work of the Son. Similarly, in the third article. The Spirit proceeds from Father and the Son so both are involved in the Spirit's work. In short, each person of the Trinity is involved in the work of the others, although the Creed assigns each person within God to a specific act outside God. The assigning of specific acts of God to a particular person of the Trinity, with the understanding that all persons are involved in each act of God, is called the doctrine of appropriation.

Inside and Outside God Correspond

For Athanasius, what God does outside himself must correspond to God inside himself. If God inside himself is not who he is outside himself in his actions, then God has not truthfully revealed himself in his actions. The faith has always claimed that God is truthful, his acts reveal his person. Therefore, God in his actions is God in himself and conversely.

Since Father, Son, and Spirit are all distinct within God, creation, incarnation, and world to come must all be distinct outside God. Further, inside God, the three persons of the Trinity are related by the two issues. Therefore, creation, incarnation, and final day must have similar relations. For example, outside God, in Eucharist, the Spirit takes the bread and wine of creation, consecrates it as the body of and blood of Jesus Christ, and uses it to feed the church and give a glimpse of the world to come. In this way the work of the Spirit proceeds from the Father (bread and wine of creation) and the Son (body and blood of incarnation), to feed the church and give a foretaste of the heavenly banquet (Spirit). In short, the structure of God inside himself must be reflected in his actions outside himself and conversely.

For this reason the horizontal lines reflect each other both up and down vertically. To confuse at one level is to confuse at another. For example, Arius blended the Father and the Son on line 2 by saying there was only the Father. Line five, however, reflects line 2. Therefore, on line 5, Arius was forced to blend creation and incarnation by saying God did only one thing, make creation and also make the spiritual being that became in incarnate in Jesus Christ. Or, suppose we blend creation and incarnation, line 5. Since line 2 reflects line 5, Father and Son must be blended on line 2. As a result, God is no longer triune. This latter example is probably the greatest theological failing of the church and is a form of the Arian heresy.

God is First Father, then Creator

The Creed begins with the phrase, "We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen." If Athanasius were reading this, he would notice that this article calls God "Father" rather than "Creator." Why not call God Creator rather than Father? That seems like a sensible thing to do since believers in God all know that he creates all things. If we did that, the Creed would then read, "We believe in God, the Creator, the maker of heaven and earth."

Athanasius, however, would have none of this. He knows that God is Creator and that he makes everything. But he wants to make a distinction, and that distinction is extremely important for Athanasius and the Christian faith. Athanasius made a distinction between God who makes creation and what we know of God in creation, and who God is in incarnation and what we know of God in Jesus Christ. Though related, the two are very different. They are different because creation and incarnation are different.

According to Athanasius, we can know that God is "almighty" by looking at creation. Anyone who believes that God created the universe with its billions of galaxies knows that God must possess astounding power. This amazing power to create is reflected in the ancient Christian claim that God creates out of nothing. How God can create from nothing is simply unimaginable. Not only is God almighty, he is also orderly. We know this by the fact that God created an orderly world. If there were no order, if everything were chaos, we could not have a world. The laws of science and common experience all attest to an orderly world. Athanasius states it as follows,

... that the God we worship and preach is the only true One, Who is Lord of Creation and Maker of all existence. Who then is this, save the Father of Christ, most holy and above all created existences, Who like an excellent pilot, by His own Wisdom and His own Word, our Lord and Savior Christ, steers and preserves and orders all things, and does as seems to Him best?(2)

Athanasius saw all these things and concluded that we could know God's power and order in creation, but that was not the most important thing to know about God. For Athanasius, the most stunning thing about God was the revelation in Jesus Christ. In Jesus Christ, Athanasius knew God as personal love, as a Father who loves his children. He is not like sinful earthly fathers, but the father as revealed in Jesus Christ. As John's gospel says, "As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love." Athanasius did not know God fully in creation because he did not see creation redeeming human life. In fact, due to sin and the fall, Athanasius believed evil, corruption, and death had entered the world and creation could do nothing about it. Something more was required. Only in Jesus Christ did he see God at work to restore, save, and redeem his children. As a result, Athanasius made a clear distinction between creation and incarnation.

The inability of creation to redeem was not the only reason Athanasius thought God was scarcely known in creation. Since he believed there was a profound difference between God and any created reality, how, he wondered, could we know God by looking at something he has made? For example, and this is an example that Athanasius uses, suppose someone built a house. Anyone could look at the house and see that its builder was intelligent enough to design it properly and possessed the resources to construct it. But no one could know the builder personally by observing the house. Such a claim would reduce the builder to the status of the building.

Similarly with creation. For Athanasius, God transcends the world. He is utterly different from his creation. This was important to Athanasius. He wanted a God who had originally created the world out of nothing, and therefore, was powerful enough to recreate it when it became corrupted by sin and death. Created objects do not create from nothing, and as a consequence, Athanasius held that there was no little similarity between God and created being. They are not alike because God has no origin. He is "unoriginate," whereas created things have an origin. They are "originated."

For what likeness has the originated to the unoriginate? (one must not weary of using repetition;) for if they will have it that the one is like the other, so that he who sees the one beholds the other, they are like to say that the Unoriginate is the image of creatures; the end of which is a confusion of the whole subject, an equaling of things originated with the Unoriginate, and a denial of the Unoriginate by measuring Him with the works ... (3)

God as Personal Revealed in Incarnation

But suppose the builder had a son. Suppose the son lived in the builder's house. Suppose he was just like the builder, and that he told wonderful stories about the builder. Then one could know the builder personally, even though the builder had never been seen or heard. This is the analogy Athanasius uses in regard to knowledge of God in creation and knowledge of God in Jesus Christ. Knowledge of God in creation is like a man constructing a building. It is a product of his will, his counsel and his determination to do it, and it is external to him. By contrast, a son reflects the true nature of a man, being his offspring by nature. For that reason, what is known by the Son revealing the nature of the man, transcends what is known of a man when he creates a house. By "transcends," Athanasius means knowledge of a higher order, revealing the essential nature of God. In this way the knowledge given in the Son is far superior to the knowledge of God given in creation. Here are Athanasius' words.

A man by counsel builds a house, but by nature he begets a son; and what is in building began to come into being at will, and is external to the maker; but the son is proper offspring of the father?s essence, and is not external to him; wherefore neither does he counsel concerning him, lest he appear to counsel about himself. As far then as the Son transcends the creature, by so much does what is by nature transcend the will. And they, on hearing of Him, ought not to measure by will what is by nature; forgetting however that they are hearing about God?s Son, ... (4)

Senseless are these Arians; for what likeness is there between Son and work, that they should parallel a father?s with a maker?s function? How is it that, with that difference between offspring and work, which has been shewn, they remain so ill-instructed? Let it be repeated then, that a work is external to the nature, but a son is the proper offspring of the essence; it follows that a work need not have been always, for the workman frames it when he will; but an offspring is not subject to will, but is proper to the essence.(5)

Thus does divine Scripture recognize the difference between the Offspring and things made, and shew that the Offspring is a Son, not begun from any beginning, but eternal; but that the thing made, as an external work of the Maker, began to come into being.(6)

This does not deny that one can know something of the builder by looking at the building. One can. Both the Creed and Athanasius, however, name God the Father who creates, rather than the Creator who later becomes a father of Jesus by incarnation. God is first Father, and then secondly, the maker of heaven and earth. Everyone knows, and Athanasius repeatedly uses this example, that children are far more important than anything a parent could make with their hands. Similarly, God's Son reveals God the Father as a person, something creation cannot do. Therefore, Athanasius calls God Father rather than Maker or Unoriginate.

Therefore it is more pious and more accurate to signify God from the Son and call Him Father, than to name Him from His works only and call Him Unoriginate . For the latter title, as I have said, does nettling [nothing] more than signify all the works, individually and collectively, which have come to be at the will of God through the Word; but the title Father has its significance and its bearing only from the Son. And, whereas the Word surpasses things originated, by so much and more doth calling God Father surpass the calling Him Unoriginate.(7)

As a result, Athanasius sees God the Father doing two distinct but related things. First, God the Father sends his Son, and in Jesus Christ reveals himself as a personal, loving Father. Secondly, this Father is also the "maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible."

An Idolatry -- Creation Reveals God as Personal

One way to deny that God's personal nature is revealed in the Son and not in creation is to attribute to creation personal qualities that belong only to the Son. In Athanasius' day, this confusion was expressed as the worship of idols. Idols were and are the forces of creation given personal form. For example, love is a part of creation. When love is personified as Athena and worshipped, that is idolatry. One can give personal allegiance to almost anything, the sun, the moon, the power within, the American way of life, success, anything. In fact, that is the essence of life in our time. Athanasius did everything in his power to convince people that the forces and powers of created nature were not personal, were not divine, and should not be worshipped.(8) He did this because he relied on Scripture. He took with utmost seriousness the first two commandments: "Thou shalt have no other gods but me," and "Thou shalt not make any graven image." These two commandments forbid the worship creation in any form.

But Athanasius was willing to worship God in Jesus Christ. In Jesus Christ, God took a personal form. That is because Athanasius understood incarnation as different from creation. In creation God did something outside himself, something external. Incarnation, on the other hand, was the incarnation of God's very self, the incarnation of God the Son who is the second person of the Trinity. The Son has the same character, the same nature, the same personality, as the Father who sent him. Creation doesn't. It only shows that God can create and design, that he has infinite power and wisdom. But it doesn't reveal God's true nature.

For now, we may summarize with four ideas: God the Father who creates out of nothing transcends the world and is the source of all things. 2. By creation, God the Father can be seen as "almighty," as orderly and as a supreme designer, but his personal nature is not found there. 3. The personal nature of God requires a second distinct act of God, the sending of his Son Jesus Christ who personally reveals God. 4. Creation and incarnation are two different things. They are related since God is one. The Father who sends the Son to be incarnate is also the one who makes the creation. We may now consider the second article of the Creed, the personal revelation of God.

The Eternally Begotten Inside God

The second article of the Creed begins as follows,

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.

The phrases, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father,? refer to what happens inside God and they seen unduly repetitious. These repetitious lines were a direct result of Athanasius' fight against Arius. Arius taught that the being that came forth from God to be incarnate in Jesus Christ was less than God, and therefore, the creed strongly emphasizes that the only Son within God was ?eternally begotten? and ?not made.? Let us investigate this a bit further.

One way Athanasius understood the inner life of God is by way of analogy. God's internal life could be compared to the sun, sunlight, and brightness. The sun is the source of light. Sunlight pours forth from the sun, and wherever that sunlight strikes, it produces a brightness that lights up everything. The sun is like God the Father. The Father is the source, the origin of all. The sunlight is like God the Son who forever comes forth from God, and the brightness is God the Holy Spirit shining forth in things upon which the sunlight falls. All three, the sun, the sunlight, and the brightness are light, and similarly, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all divine.

So again we see that the radiance from the sun is proper to it, and the sun?s essence is not divided or impaired; but its essence is whole and its radiance perfect and whole , yet without impairing the essence of light, but as a true offspring from it. We understand in like manner that the Son is begotten not from without but from the Father, and while the Father remains whole, the Expression of His Subsistence is ever, and preserves the Father?s likeness and unvarying Image, so that he who sees Him, sees in Him the Subsistence too, of which He is the Expression. And from the operation of the Expression we understand the true Godhead of the Subsistence, as the Savior Himself teaches when He says, ?The Father who dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works which I do; and ?I and the Father are one,? and ?I in the Father and the Father in Me.?(9)

Our sun, of course, will someday pass away. For Athanasius, however, the Son comes forth from God forever, as does the Holy Spirit who comes from both. The Creed expresses this by saying that the Son is "eternally begotten of the Father," rather than being begotten at a particular point in time. Further, the Son that eternally comes forth from the Father is God, just as sunlight and the sun itself are both light. This was absolutely critical to Athanasius, and this is what Arius denied. That is why the Creed is repetitious. The Creed says that the eternally begotten Son is "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made." All these phrases mean that, inside God, the Son that comes forth eternally from God the Father is fully God and not something less than God.

The Arian Heresy

Arius denied this. For him, there was no "eternally begotten" Son inside God. There was only God, one simple undifferentiated God who did nothing but make all things. Therefore, whatever became incarnate in Jesus Christ that enabled him to do his mighty works and speak with authority, must also have been made. This implies Jesus Christ was made. He was created, a creature. But if Jesus Christ was a creature and not God, then we do not know God in him, nor can Jesus Christ save us since only God can finally save. For Athanasius, however, God did more than just make. God the Father made "heaven and earth" outside himself, and inside himself, the God the Father eternally begat the Son. The eternally begotten Son was then sent by the Father to be "incarnate from the Virgin Mary."

We may use a part of our original illustration to compare Athanasius with Arius. On the left column we have the God of Arius. In the two right hand columns, we have the view of Athanasius in regard to the Father and the Son.

         Arius                                Athanasius

1.       God               Father   ---->     eternally-begets the Son
             |                      |                                |

             |                      |                                |
2.     makes              makes              becomes incarnate in
             |                      |                                |
             |                      |                                |
3.     creation           creation                Jesus