Ad Honorem: Athanasius' Stand for Orthodoxy

"The sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth." -Athanasius, Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D.

Romans 13:7 says, "Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed (emphasis mine)." In light of this, we have begun a new series of articles that will be entitled ad honorem which means simply, "for the honor." In our first edition, we will examine the life of the great champion of orthodoxy, Athanasius of Alexandria.

Athanasius was born somewhere around 298 A.D. in Egypt. He became bishop of Alexandria on June 8, 328 and despite five exiles from the powers of the Roman Empire, he was considered the bishop by the people until his death in 373. Unlike many ancient saints, Athanasius is not credited with having performed any miracles. What Athanasius is famous for rather is a steely, steadfast alleigance to the truth of Scripture. This gives men like myself hope knowing that one's profitability for the kingdom rests on life and character and not on the spectacular. Athanasius' entire life was a testimony to how God works through the seemingly plain and ordinary resoluteness of conviction.

The culmination of this conviction is found in Athanasius' rugged, never-give-up, dogmatic defense of the deity of Christ. I say "rugged" because his defense was full of trial and hardship. He was exiled FIVE TIMES. I say "never-give-up" because it seemed at times as if the whole world was abandoning orthodoxy. Arius' view of Christ as a created being had spread like a tumor throughout the ancient church. The phrase "Athanasius contra Mundum", which literally means "Athanasius against the world", finds its origins in the Arian controversy. And I say "dogmatic" because Athanasius was precisely that: he defended the orthodox expression of the deity of Christ in the Nicaean Creed against the heretics who tried to twist its wording so as to allow for the continual spread of Arianism. This kind of defense has earned him the title of "Father of Orthodoxy."

It must be admitted that "Father of Orthodoxy" is somewhat anachronistic considering that orthodox refers to the historical, official teaching of the church. Until the Council of Nicaea, there had not been a formal, creedal statement of the doctrine of the Trinity. This is not to say what some liberal scholars have wrongly inferred however. The doctrine of the deity of Christ (and likewise the doctrine of the Trinity) was not invented at Nicaea. What the Arian controversy, like all other church controversies in church history, did serve to do was to elicit an official, clear-cut, creedal statement of the deity of Christ. Often what is meant by the moniker "Father of Orthodoxy" is that Athanasius is the first prominent figure in church history to contend against a widespread, heretical movement in the church by lucidly articulating the truth of Scripture. This is most certainly accurate.

What lessons do we learn from this man's life? FIRST, we would do well to observe the resiliency of his faith. In an era where trendiness is more virtuous than truth, there is a stunning dearth of godly men who will "tow the line" for Biblical doctrine. At worst, we face public ridicule or ostracization for our alleigance to truth yet in the ancient world the stakes were much higher. Consider what Athanasius was up against. He fell in the hands of Emperors who could have easily have executed him rather than exiled him. He was outrageously slandered time after time. Some said he used magic and once he was even accused of cutting off a bishop's hand. Even after the formal, creedal statement at Nicaea, the majority of the Eastern Empire was Arian. Such steadfastness amidst overwhelming adversity is stunning. I pray the Lord would raise up such men in our generation.

SECOND, we learn that the gospel without doctrine is no gospel at all. In today's evangelicalism, how often have we heard the phrase "don't give me doctrine, just give me Jesus" triumphed? I think that Athanasius would be grieved to hear such maxims being thrown around in the church today. He understood that to contend for the gospel meant to contend for sound, Biblical doctrine. He recognized that there were certain doctrines that if people embraced, it would send them to Hell. In a letter entitled, "To the Bishops of Egypt", while referring to the past saints who had shed their blood in defense of the deity of Christ, Athanasisus in essence said, "We are contending for our all." He grasped the weight of the doctrine of the deity of Christ. He understood that it meant everything. To lose this doctrine was to lose the gospel. Today, when evangelicals chant phrases like the one mentioned before, they misunderstand that a Christ without doctrine is a Christ without content. They have replaced a proposition for a word. Athanasius would likely ask them, "Okay, which Jesus do you want to be given?"

THIRD, we learn that the younger generation may be more Biblically faithful than the older generation. Arius, who was born in 256, presented a letter to bishop Alexander claiming that if the Son of God were really a Son he must have a beginning. Athanasius was in his early twenties when this controversy broke out, over forty years younger than Arius. In an age steeped in philosophy, Arius was making a logical deduction concerning the nature of Christ. Athanasius, however, clung to the Scriptures, which he had been heavily disciplined in from his youth. Gregory of Nazianzus commends his rigorous, Biblical training:

He was brought up, from the first, in religious habits and practices, after a brief study of literature and philosophy, so that he might not be utterly unskilled in such subjects, or ignorant of matters which he had determined to despise. For his generous and eager soul could not brook being occupied in vanities, like unskilled athletes, who beat the air instead of their antagonists and lose the prize. From meditating on every book of the Old and New Testament, with a depth such as none else has applied even to one of them, he grew rich in contemplation, rich in splendor of life.

The same could be said of our generation. With robust, Biblical conferences like Resurgence and Together for the Gospel drawing a wide gathering of youth, it seems that God may be guiding this generation back to a strong alleigance to the Word of God. The Bill Hybels, Rick Warrens, and Joel Osteens of the "baby boomer" generation are waning. Preachers like John Piper, Mark Driscoll, John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, Derek Thomas, Ligon Duncan, Al Mohler and Mark Dever are rising. When the church returns to the precious, sound doctrine of Scripture, the rain of revival is not far away. Let us pray that the Lord sends the rain.

In conclusion, we can see that Athanasius was a man who consistently battled for the truth of Scripture. For sixty years following the Nicaean Council the controversy raged. It was not until the Council of Constantinople in 381 in which the Nicaean Creed was confirmed and refined that the battle subsided. Athanasius died in 373. He never saw the fruit of his labor. We, however, are indebted to his life and stand on his shoulders. Thank God for men like Athanasius, who doggedly contend for the truth of the deity of the glorious, eternal Son of God! Soli deo gloria!