Scripture and God in Christianity

that He was made,' or-is (was) changeable or mutable are anathematized by the Catholic and Apostolic
Church of God." 605
The central phrase of this fundamental Christian confession, to Paul Tillich, is homoousios "of
one substance with the Father." Though obviously a theological term, writes E. R. Hardy, "it was
in a way layman's term for those who wanted to say undeniably that Christ is divine - something
like the phrase of our modern Faith and Order Conference, "Jesus Christ as God and saviour,"
which is reasonably clear statement but not precisely the way a theologian would want to put
things." 606 This decisive statement, observes Tillich, is "not in the scheme of emanation but in
the scheme of Monarchianism. Consequently it was accused of being Sabellianism; and so were
the main defenders, Athanasius and Marcellus." 607 Arians argued that such an analogy and identity
was absolutely inappropriate in regard the relationship between God and the Logos. They
forwarded three reasons to substantiate their position. "An essential property of God is that he is
self-existent (unoriginated). God the Father cannot give this property to the Son since he is produced
by the Father. Secondly, if the Father is unbegotten and unbegettable, then following Origen's
principle, the Son whom he begot must also be unbegotten and unbegettable, but this makes
no sense at all. Finally, if the Son has all the same properties as the Father, he must likewise generate
a Son, and that Son another and so on ad infinitum." 608 The answers given by Athanasius
were self-contradictory. It made the Son both unbegotten and begotten, "unbegotten as part of the
whole of Deity, begotten of the Father as a relationship inside the Trinity." 609 Harnack rightly argues
that there is " in fact, no philosophy in existence possessed of formulae which could present
in an intelligible shape the propositions of Athanasius." 610 The same can be argued about the
subsequent Christian trinitarian thought at large.
All bishops subscribed with the exception of two; Theonas of Marmarika and Secundus of Ptolemais,
alongside Arius. Arians were condemned and called "Porphyrians", their works ordered to
be burned because, in the words of Julius of Rome, "For theirs was no ordinary offense, nor had
they sinned against man, but against our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, the Son of the Living
God." 611 The Emperor gave his final approval arguing, "what satisfied the three hundred bishops
is nothing else than the judgment of God, but most of all where Holy Spirit being present in the
thought of men such as these and so ripe in years, made known the Divine will." 612 A majority of
modern traditional Christian scholars view these historical dogmatic developments as an illustration
of "how the Holy Spirit brings about a gradual increase in the Church's actual consciousness
of the mysteries revealed by Jesus Christ." 613
A. Harnack, on the other hand, views them as an outcome of lack of understanding and education,
"As regards the composition of the Council, the view expressed by the Macedonian Sabinus
of Heraclea ( Socr. 1. 8), that the majority of the bishops were uneducated, is confirmed by the
astonishing results. The general acceptance of the resolution come to by the Council is intelligible
only if we presuppose that the question in dispute was above most of the bishops." 614 Neil
Buchanan, commenting on Harnack's statement, observes that " With the exception of the bishops
whom their contemporaries and our earliest informants have mentioned by name, there do
not seem to have been any capable men at the Council." 615
75