One time, while I was at Mass, the presiding priest gave an outstanding homily that indirectly, yet coincidentally, fit with the Trinitarian controversy in the fourth century. That is, the homily’s main message (largely based on the Mass readings) was we should recognize and fully embrace that we are *children* of God: we are His creation; we were created in his likeness; we are to be *one* with Him – we are to be in an eternal, family relationship with Him.
At one point the priest likened this to the eternal relationship that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have had as the one God in three persons. The idea here is that God wanted to share this relationship with creation, and that we are to strive to be a mirror of that eternal relationship. Or maybe it’s my overactive imagination that leapt to comparing the homily to Arius and Athanasius debating whether Jesus was eternally begotten or begotten as an agent of creation. Still, I think there is a clear, overarching explanation to Christology, without falling deep into a philosophical abyss.
To begin, Arius, a student of Lucian, believed that Jesus was not eternally begotten of the Father, yet was still an agent of creation, and therefore was the Logos that would save His creation (Irvin and Sunquist 175). While this was not yet the majority position when Arius first proposed it in ~318 AD, the interest in it soon spread like wildfire. This grew out of Arius’ debates with Alexander, who hosted discussions about the Trinity as part of ongoing, religious education. After several contentious conversations about Christ’s nature, finger pointing between the two camps soon ensued, with the Melitians also taking notice and then wanting Arius ousted from Alexandria (Irvin and Sunquist 174, 175).
Yet the Arian movement’s exile wouldn’t not last for too long: Constantine was persistent in having a unified Christianity, one in which both the Eastern and Western Churches could produce a common belief statement. Therefore, in 325, the Council of Nicaea was formed for that very purpose. However, getting close to achieving that purpose meant once again hearing out both sides of the argument. This time, though, Arius faced off with Athanasius, a deacon and skilled theologian scholar (Irvin and Sunquist 177) who had clearly done did his homework to prepare for the debate and potentially demolish Arius’ position.
As you mentioned in your post, homoousis was at the center of the debate – and Athanasius was apparently ready to hit a home run with his defense of this subject. His bottom-line point was this: Salvation would not make sense if God were not directly involved as a mediator. Namely, if Jesus had been created as part of creation, so that He could be an agent of creation, then wouldn’t He too need a mediator between creator and creation? (Irvin and Sunquist 178)? Or are we thoroughly confused yet?
Athanasius then used this logic to solidify his case for homoousis. After all, ruling out Jesus as subordinate to God basically left the one other option: that Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit were in fact consubstantial — of one God. As you also pointed out, Athanasius used Scripture to back up his case – though he had to combine this philosophy in order to make a more logical case (Irvin and Sunquist 178).
Nevertheless, Athanasius’ mastery of Scripture helped show the holes in the Arian claim about Jesus’ nature. In his work, First Discourse Against the Arians, Athanasius gives a barrage of mic drop type rebuttals, often using Scripture to back up his arguments. Whether he is quoting from the Gospel of John (“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God”), Baruch (O Everlasting God, I will cry unto the Everlasting”), Psalm 34 (“Thy kingdom is a kingdom of all ages”), Athanasius shows an ongoing relationship between Son and Father, one that must have preexisted (par. 11, 14).
From this relationship, Athanasius explains it this way: “And if this be unseemly or irreligious, when the Father says, “This is My Beloved Son, and when the Son says that God is His own Father, it follows that what is partaken is not external, but from the essence of the Father (par. 14).
A couple of paragraphs later, Athanasius then makes a point that ties into my opening comments about our *family* / oneness relationship with the triune God: “And thus of the Son Himself, all things partake according to the grace of the Spirit coming from Him; and this shews that the Son Himself partakes of nothing, but what is partaken from the Father, is the Son; for, as partaking of the Son Himself, we are said to partake of God; and this is what Peter said ‘that ye may be partakers in a divine nature;’ as says too the Apostle, ‘Know ye not, that ye are a temple of God?’ and, ‘We are the temple of a living God” (par. 16).
Lastly, Athanasius’ use of Scripture makes for a compelling argument. But it’s also his logic that makes the argument a sort of occam’s razor type response. And though he makes this point repeatedly – just the first two paragraphs alone in First Discourse pretty much level the Arian position – he couldn’t be accused of not being thorough about it!
Works Cited
Irvin, Dale T., and Scott W. Sunquist. History of the World Christian Movement: Earliest Christianity to 1453. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2001.
St. Athanasius of Alexandria. First Discourse Against the Arians, Chapters IV–X (paragraphs 11–36). https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204/npnf204.xxi.ii.i.x.html