روایت و نقد آگوستین بر مسیح شناسیِ آریوسی (با تأکید بر رساله «درباره سخن آریوسی ها و ردّ آن») (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
مسیحیت از آغازشکل گیری خود پیوسته با بدعت هایی روبه رو بوده است که تهدیدی برای اعتقادات راست کیش کاتولیک به حساب می آمدند. در این بین، آریوس به عنوان شخصیتی که نگاهی نو به مسیح و جایگاه او دارد چالشی برای کلیسای کاتولیک محسوب شده است. او معتقد بود مسیح زاده پدر است و از این رو، در ذات با او برابر نیست. وی این اعتقاد خود را بر پایه آیاتی از عهد جدید بنا نهاده است و درباره آنها استدلال می کند. به اعتقاد متألهان مسیحی همچون آگوستین، این رویکرد آریوس سبب تخریب مبانی مسیحیت، به ویژه الوهیت مسیح می شود. در این پژوهش، با تأکید بر «رساله درباره سخن آریوسی ها و ردّ آن » که بخش نخست آن به مثابه منشوری آریوسی است، ابتدا به طور دقیق رویکرد آریوس درباره مسیح را بر پایه آیاتی که به آنها تمسک می جوید بررسی می کنیم و در ادامه با طرح انتقادات آگوستین به رویکرد وی، نشان می دهیم چرا و چگونه آریوس با تکیه بر آیاتی از عهد جدید، هم جوهریِ مسیح و خدا را نمی پذیرد و مسیح را به مثابه مخلوق خداوندْ می انگارد. در نهایت، انتقادات آگوستین به استدلال های آریوسی ها درباره شخص مسیح را تحلیل و بررسی می کنیم و نشان خواهیم داد آنها فاقد وجاهت لازم برای پذیرش هستند و دشواره آریوسی همچنان با وجود تلاش های آگوستین برای سنت مسیحیت، امری بی پاسخ است.Augustine’s Narrative and Critique of Arian Christology (With an Emphasis on the Treatise on the Arian Sermon and its Refutation)
Since its earliest centuries, Christianity has faced various doctrinal challenges, among which Arianism posed a significant threat to the orthodox understanding of Christ’s divinity and His relationship with the Father. Arius, relying on both New Testament passages and rational arguments, proposed that Christ was a created being and not consubstantial with the Father—a view condemned as heretical in Catholic theology. This study examines Augustine’s response to the Arian controversy, focusing particularly on his treatise On the Arian Sermon and Its Refutation . Drawing on his letters, sermons, and theological writings, the study explores how Augustine systematically dismantles Arian doctrine and defends the divinity of Christ within the framework of Nicene orthodoxy. Moreover, the research evaluates Augustine’s theological reasoning and rhetorical strategies, highlighting both their strengths and internal inconsistencies. While Augustine accuses Arians of doctrinal deviation, his own theological approach occasionally permits the attribution of divine names to non-divine entities, undermining the absoluteness of his critique. This analysis concludes that, although Augustine’s arguments significantly shaped the development of orthodox Christology, the core theological dilemmas raised by Arius—particularly concerning the nature of Christ’s subordination—remain partially unresolved within Christian theology. Keywords: Arius; Augustine; Christian Theology, Christ, Father, the Treatise on the Arian Sermon and Its Refutation . Introduction The patristic period represents a crucial phase in the formation of Christian theology. During this time, key doctrinal developments took place: the New Testament canon was solidified, and major creeds such as the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed were formulated (McGrath, 2016, p. 12–13). These advances were often reactions to theological disputes, especially those involving figures deemed heretical by the Orthodox Church. Arius stands as one of the most controversial of these figures. In this study, we investigate Arius’s Christological claims through the lens of Augustine’s theological response, with a particular focus on his treatise On the Arian Sermon and Its Refutation . The study argues that Augustine’s critique, though foundational to Catholic doctrine, is not without internal tensions and that some of Arius’s central objections remain theoretically unresolved in the broader landscape of Christian theology. Materials and Methods This study employs a descriptive-analytical method based on library research. The primary source is Augustine’s treatise On the Arian Sermon and Its Refutation , supplemented by other relevant works such as De Trinitate . The research involves close textual analysis of both Augustine’s arguments and the theological claims advanced by Arius and his followers. Research Findings Augustine critiques Arian exegesis for attributing divine names (e.g., יְהוָה/YHWH) to Christ while maintaining that Christ is a created being—a move Augustine equates with theological dualism or polytheism. However, a careful review of Augustine’s own writings reveals a notable inconsistency: he himself allows for divine titles to be applied to non-divine beings, as evidenced in De Trinitate (3.1:177–179), where he interprets Abraham’s encounter with divine messengers (Genesis 18) as involving non-divine agents who are nonetheless addressed as “the Lord.” This suggests a precedent within Scripture for attributing divine titles without asserting ontological divinity. Consequently, Augustine’s rejection of the Arian distinction between the Logos and the Father appears less justified on purely lexical grounds. Furthermore, Augustine introduces the term In Persona Dei (“in the person of God”) to justify attributing divine language to angels as God’s spokesmen ( De Trinitate , 3.19:188). His allegorical exegesis in this case contradicts the literalism with which he critiques the Arians. While he grants lexical and theological flexibility to his own interpretations, he denies the same to the Arians—revealing a methodological double standard. Discussion of Results and Conclusion The Arians based their theology on a literal reading of Scripture, citing passages such as Colossians 1:15 and Proverbs 8:22 to argue that Christ was:A created entity, distinct from the Father’s essence;Devoid of an independent will, acting in full obedience to the Father;Not divine in Himself, but subordinate in nature and status;Sent by the Father, and thus ontologically derivative.They understood Christ’s “likeness” to God (John 5:19) as arising from a unique, ineffable act of generation—without equating Him with the uncreated God. Augustine, by contrast, condemned Arianism as eisegetical (imposing preconceived doctrines onto Scripture) and carnal (lacking spiritual insight). However, comparative analysis shows both camps used selective literal and allegorical interpretations to defend their positions.Arians literalized texts affirming Christ’s subordination (e.g., John 14:28),Augustine allegorized those same texts but literalized verses affirming Christ’s divinity (e.g., John 10:30).This discrepancy stems not from divergent hermeneutical frameworks but from theological presuppositions rooted in Nicene orthodoxy. Augustine’s methodology, while theologically rigorous, sometimes lacks consistency, particularly when defending divine unity while also employing flexible exegetical methods.Despite the ecclesiastical rejection of Arianism through the Councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381), some of its philosophical questions persist:If Christ is “begotten, not made”, how is this metaphysically distinct from being created?Why is Arian literalism disqualified when applied to Christ’s subordination, yet accepted in discussions of His humanity (e.g., Philippians 2:7)?These unresolved tensions illustrate the limitations of patristic theology in harmonizing Scriptural language with metaphysical monotheism. Augustine’s legacy remains foundational, yet his anti-Arian polemics invite continued theological and philosophical scrutiny.
تبلیغات
