Arianism again ...

[Thomas]

Got any particular emperor in mind?

Not really ... they're all cut from the same cloth, more or less.

You want to see Arius = Good, Athanasius = Bad, that's up to you.

For me, history is never quite black or white. I think the miracle of orthodoxy is that it managed to avoid total corruption by the Roman state.

Constantine I – promoted Nicene, baptised by a relative, Eusebius, pro-Arianism.
After Constantine I's death, his sons arrange the slaughter of an uncle, father-in-law and various cousins, by the army. The three brothers then divide the empire among themselves.

Constantine II 337-340 (Arian) receives Gaul, Britannia and Hispania, killed fighting Constans.
Constantius II 337-361 (Arian) receives the East.
Constans 337-350 (Nicene) gets Italia, Africa and Illyricum.
Magnentius 350-353 assassin of Constans, killed by Constantius II
Nepotianus 350
Vetranio 350
Julian 361-363 (greco-Roman polytheism).
Jovian 363-364 (Nicene)
Valentinian the Great 364-375 (Nicene)
Valens 364-378 (Arian)
Gratian 367-383 (Nicene)
Magnus Maximus 383-388 (Nicene)
Valentinian II 375-392 (Christian)
Eugenius 392-394 (Christian)
Theodosius 379-395 (Nicene)
By the close of the century, Arianism was old news, surviving beyond the borders ...

Brief history:
The Council of Nicaea did not end the Arian controversy, and after Constantine's death (337), open dispute resumed again.

Constantius II – Eastern Emperor – actively set out to reverse the Nicene Creed, advised by Eusebius of Nicomedia. Exiled bishops and executed martyrs. In 355, becoming sole emperor, he extended his Arian policy toward the western provinces, frequently using force, exiled Pope Liberius and installed Antipope Felix II.

Attempting an acceptable formula, three camps evolved among the Nicene opponents – semi-Arians, all invoking Arius. Constantius wavered between the first two while harshly persecuting the third.

After Constantius's death (361) Julian favoured neither faction.

Valens revived Constantius's anti-Nicene policy, exiling bishops and often using force.

The continued use of force by the emperors united moderate Nicenes and Arians, so they were more inclined to seek a peaceful solution. It becomes increasingly evident the church is seeking a solution of its own, not one imposed by force. Arianism was failing because of internal argument.

Valens died 378 and was succeeded by Theodosius I, a Nicene Creed. He and Gratian had published an edict that all their subjects should profess the faith of the bishops of Rome and Alexandria (ie, the Nicene faith), or be handed over for punishment for not doing so.

Although much of the church hierarchy in the East had opposed the Nicene Creed, at the second Council of Constantinople, a group of mainly Eastern bishops assembled and accepted the Creed of 381, which was supplemented in regard to the Holy Spirit. This is generally considered the end of the dispute in the empire.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Not really ... they're all cut from the same cloth, more or less.

You want to see Arius = Good, Athanasius = Bad, that's up to you.

I don't. I don't believe that this issue is about the beliefs of Arius .. or two men

Although much of the church hierarchy in the East had opposed the Nicene Creed, at the second Council of Constantinople, a group of mainly Eastern bishops assembled and accepted the Creed of 381, which was supplemented in regard to the Holy Spirit. This is generally considered the end of the dispute in the empire.

Hmm .. more like the beginning of persecution by trinitarians against others.

On February 27, 380, the Roman Empire officially adopted Trinitarian Nicene Christianity as its state religion. Prior to this date, Constantius II (337-361) and Valens (364-378) had personally favored Arian or Semi-Arianism forms of Christianity, but Valens' successor Theodosius I supported the Trinitarian doctrine as expounded in the Nicene Creed.

On this date, Theodosuis I decreed that only the followers of Trinitarian Christianity were entitled to be referred to as Catholic Christians, while all others were to be considered to be practicers of heresy, which was to be considered illegal. In 385, this new legal authority of the Church resulted in the first case of many to come, of the capital punishment of a heretic, namely Priscillian.

In the several centuries of state sponsored Christianity that followed, pagans and heretical Christians were routinely persecuted by the Empire and the many kingdoms and countries that later occupied the place of the Empire, but some Germanic tribes remained Arian well into the Middle Ages.
Christianity_in_late_antiquity - Wikipedia

..so we see that Arians did not pronounce any particular creed as "the state religion", and did not declare others to be heretics, and order capital punishment upon them.
..and you ask me why I "make a lot" about anti-Arian Emperors??

 

[Thomas]

..so we see that Arians did not pronounce any particular creed as "the state religion", and did not declare others to be heretics, and order capital punishment upon them.
..and you ask me why I "make a lot" about anti-Arian Emperors??

Only because it's so one-sided. The Arians held a succession of state-sponsored councils which dictated Doctrine ... the world believes what the emperor believes, if it knows what's good for it!

But the point clearly is, neither Arian or Nicene emperors determined what was believed – the Church determined that and withstood emperors when emperors tried to dictate doctrine. If emperors had stayed out of it, there would have been a lot less fuss.

You make a lot of anti-Arian Emperors because that's your thing. History holds a more balanced view.

 

[muhammad_isa]

But the point clearly is, neither Arian or Nicene emperors determined what was believed – the Church determined that and withstood emperors when emperors tried to dictate doctrine. If emperors had stayed out of it, there would have been a lot less fuss.

You make a lot of anti-Arian Emperors because that's your thing. History holds a more balanced view.

I think that the reality, is that we both believe in our particular creeds.
..so we both have a bias towards a certain stance .. as did our ancestors.

What I am doing, is pointing out the history, with refs. from wikipedia.
Now .. you say that "the church" determined what was believed.
It doesn't look that way to me..

When Theodosius ascended to the imperial throne in 380, he began on a campaign to bring the Eastern Church back to Nicene Christianity. Theodosius wanted to further unify the entire empire behind the orthodox position and decided to convene a church council to resolve matters of faith and discipline.
First_Council_of_Constantinople - Wikipedia

First of all, he outlawed all creeds except for 'Trinitarian Nicene' in Feb 380.
That sets the background.

Theodosius' strong commitment to Nicene Christianity involved a calculated risk because Constantinople, the imperial capital of the Eastern Empire, was solidly Arian. To complicate matters, the two leading factions of Nicene Christianity in the East, the Alexandrians and the supporters of Meletius in Antioch, were "bitterly divided ... almost to the point of complete animosity".
First_Council_of_Constantinople - Wikipedia

His idea was therefore to force the Arians to submit to the one creed of the state.

The incumbent bishop of Constantinople was Demophilus, a Homoian Arian. On his accession to the imperial throne, Theodosius offered to confirm Demophilus as bishop of the imperial city on the condition of accepting the Nicene Creed; however, Demophilus refused to abandon his Arian beliefs, and was immediately ordered to give up his churches and leave Constantinople. After forty years under the control of Arian bishops, the churches of Constantinople were now restored to those who subscribed to the Nicene Creed; Arians were also ejected from the churches of other cities in the Eastern Roman Empire thus re-establishing Christian orthodoxy in the East.
...
Thirty-six Pneumatomachians [Arians] arrived but were denied admission to the council [381] when they refused to accept the Nicene creed.
First_Council_of_Constantinople - Wikipedia

The council was heavily loaded against the Arians.
..so there we have it. "Orthodoxy" was not established by "the church" .. it was established by force.

 

[Thomas]

I think that the reality, is that we both believe in our particular creeds.
..so we both have a bias towards a certain stance .. as did our ancestors.

Quite probably.

What I am doing, is pointing out the history, with refs. from wikipedia.

OK. In which case I'll go with wiki's view on the early expansion of Islam:
"The spread of Islam spans about 1,400 years. Muslim war conquests, genocide, ethnic cleansing and forced conversions of indigenous Central Asians and South Asians following Muhammad's death led to the creation of the caliphates, occupying a vast geographical area; forced conversion to Islam was boosted by Arab Muslim forces conquering vast territories and building imperial structures over time."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_Islam

So pots and kettles chum ... you're hardly in a position to criticise.

 

[muhammad_isa]

OK. In which case I'll go with wiki's view on the early expansion of Islam:
"The spread of Islam spans about 1,400 years. Muslim war conquests, genocide, ethnic cleansing and forced conversions of indigenous Central Asians and South Asians following Muhammad's death led to the creation of the caliphates, occupying a vast geographical area; forced conversion to Islam was boosted by Arab Muslim forces conquering vast territories and building imperial structures over time."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_Islam

So pots and kettles chum ... you're hardly in a position to criticise.

How sad .. rather than replying to the points made in my post, you change the subject.

Is that what you think, that both Christianity and Islam were spread by force?
That would explain a lot .. it explains why people believe different things.
They have inherited such beliefs from their ancestors, in most cases.

 

[Thomas]

How sad .. rather than replying to the points made in my post, you change the subject.

I'm not, I agree that we have different perspectives, and was offering an example.

I'm not utterly enamoured of some aspects of our early history – and less so of later days – but nor do I see Arians as angels and the tragic victims.

Arius philosophy was just too Platonic, essentially hierarchical polythesm – and as such Arian Christianity would be as unpalatable to Islam as Nicene Christianity.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I'm not utterly enamoured of some aspects of our early history – and less so of later days – but nor do I see Arians as angels and the tragic victims.

Arius philosophy was just too Platonic, essentially hierarchical polythesm – and as such Arian Christianity would be as unpalatable to Islam as Nicene Christianity.

Nobody is "an angel" except for angels.
You accuse non-trinitarians of polytheism, but..

..since many persons are disturbed by questions concerning what is called in Latin substantia, but in Greek ousia, that is, to make it understood more exactly, as to 'coessential,' or what is called, 'like-in-essence,' there ought to be no mention of any of these at all, nor exposition of them in the Church, for this reason and for this consideration, that in divine Scripture nothing is written about them, and that they are above men's knowledge and above men's understanding;
(Second Sirmium Confession)
Semi-Arianism - Wikipedia

..but no .. the trinitarians weren't having any of that. They insisted that Jesus is God, and went on to develop a complicated trinity doctrine .. "fully God, fully human" etc. etc.

Arians did not believe that "Jesus is God", and the discourse about "ousia" was thrust upon them.

 

[Thomas]

OK. Let's read further the Second Simium Confession:

that in divine Scripture nothing is written about them, and that they are above men’s knowledge and above men’s understanding; and because no one can declare the Son’s generation, as it is written, ‘Who shall declare His generation?’ (Isaiah 53:8)

OK, but then this suggests that the Arian's declaration of generation is as uncertain as the Nicene?

For it is plain that the Father only knows how He generated the Son, and again the Son how He has been generated by the Father. And to none can it be a question that the Father is greater. For no one can doubt that the Father is greater in honor and dignity and Godhead, and in the very name of Father, the Son Himself testifying, ‘The Father that sent me is greater than I’ (John 10:29, 14:28) And no one is ignorant, that it is catholic doctrine, that there are two persons of Father and Son, and that the Father is greater, and the Son subordinated to the Father together with all things which the Father has subordinated to Him, and that the Father has no beginning, and is invisible, and immortal, and impassible;

OK.

but that the Son has been generated from the Father, God from God, light from light, and that His origin, as aforesaid, no one knows, but the Father only.

If 'Gof from God then one can reasonably argue that as God has no beginning, God the Father has no beginning and God the Son has no beginning, because God is atemporal. Thus Arius' statement: 'There was a time when He (Jesus) was not' suggest God proceeds from God in time.

This is why Origen argued that the Son proceeds from the Father before time, that it is not a time-bound, but atemporal, eternal, generation.

And that the Son Himself and our Lord and God, took flesh, that is, a body, that is, man, from Mary the virgin, as the Angel preached beforehand; and as all the Scriptures teach, and especially the apostle himself, the doctor of the Gentiles, Christ took man of Mary the virgin, through which he has suffered.

Yes, now in the Incarnation we are in time.

And the whole faith is summed up, and secured in this, that a Trinity should ever be preserved, as we read in the Gospel, ‘Go and baptize all the nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost’ (Matthew 28:19).

Here the council affirms the Trinity! Something that is not mentioned in Scripture.

And entire and perfect is the number of the Trinity; but the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, sent forth through the Son, came according to the promise, that He might teach and sanctify the Apostles and all believers.

 

[muhammad_isa]

OK. Let's read further the Second Simium Confession:

that in divine Scripture nothing is written about them, and that they are above men’s knowledge and above men’s understanding; and because no one can declare the Son’s generation, as it is written, ‘Who shall declare His generation?’ (Isaiah 53:8)

OK, but then this suggests that the Arian's declaration of generation is as uncertain as the Nicene?

Well, that is the whole point I'm making..
With what authority does anybody have to suggest that Jesus has an "essence"?
..and argue that Jesus is God, being of the same essence?

but that the Son has been generated from the Father, God from God, light from light, and that His origin, as aforesaid, no one knows, but the Father only.

If 'Gof from God then one can reasonably argue that as God has no beginning, God the Father has no beginning and God the Son has no beginning, because God is atemporal. Thus Arius' statement: 'There was a time when He (Jesus) was not' suggest God proceeds from God in time.

Let's not make it all about one man, and what he is "claimed" to have said, eh?

This is why Origen argued that the Son proceeds from the Father before time, that it is not a time-bound, but atemporal, eternal, generation.

I don't know what Origen argued precisely, because his original works were ordered to be burnt.
We have Latin "translation", yes..

And the whole faith is summed up, and secured in this, that a Trinity should ever be preserved, as we read in the Gospel, ‘Go and baptize all the nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost’ (Matthew 28:19).

Here the council affirms the Trinity! Something that is not mentioned in Scripture.

And entire and perfect is the number of the Trinity; but the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, sent forth through the Son, came according to the promise, that He might teach and sanctify the Apostles and all believers.

The trinity, as in "baptise in the name of", yes .. not as a sophisticated doctrine, no.

PS Don't forget, that this translation from Athanasius, De Synodis is against the Arian viewpoint
A lot of texts on the Arian position were ordered to be destroyed.

 

[Thomas]

Well, that is the whole point I'm making...

I know, and I've pointed out the inherent contradiction.

Let's not make it all about one man, and what he is "claimed" to have said, eh?

C'mon ... Let's not make Arianism about ... Arius?

I don't know what Origen argued precisely, because his original works were ordered to be burnt.

Convenient.

The trinity, as in "baptise in the name of", yes .. not as a sophisticated doctrine, no.
PS Don't forget, that this translation from Athanasius, De Synodis is against the Arian viewpoint
A lot of texts on the Arian position were ordered to be destroyed.

Sorry, this is getting boring ...

But also , if so, why do you argue in defence of something you cannot know?

 

[muhammad_isa]

C'mon ... Let's not make Arianism about ... Arius?

If the so-called "Arian creed" had become Orthodox, then they would presumably be called Christians.

But also , if so, why do you argue in defence of something you cannot know?

You seem to want to make it all about what they believed, whereas I am pointing out what they did NOT believe.
..and as we all know, it would be the trinitarian camp that asserted all was heresy except the Nicene belief.
They then built on that foundation, constructing a precise theology, backed up primarily with a philosophical piece of prose that forms the prologue in the Gospel of John.

Is it such a coincidence that Origen's works were denounced as heresy, and replaced with the "prime Christological" Gospel?

 

[Thomas]

If the so-called "Arian creed" had become Orthodox, then they would presumably be called Christians.

But were they not called Christians anyway?

You seem to want to make it all about what they believed, whereas I am pointing out what they did NOT believe.

How can you know what they believed or didn't believe when you dismiss all the evidence?

..and as we all know, it would be the trinitarian camp that asserted all was heresy except the Nicene belief.

Yep. And the Arian camp asserted Nicene belief was a heresy. tick-tock

They then built on that foundation, constructing a precise theology, backed up primarily with a philosophical piece of prose that forms the prologue in the Gospel of John.

Well more than that. An inspired philosophical piece of prose, summing up the Incarnation in the light of Jewish mystical speculation.

Is it such a coincidence that Origen's works were denounced as heresy, and replaced with the "prime Christological" Gospel?

What coincidence do you see?

 

[muhammad_isa]

But were they not called Christians anyway?

They were then, but after the Council of Constantinople, they were heretics .. non Christians.
In the same way as they are pretty much considered today.

How can you know what they believed or didn't believe when you dismiss all the evidence?

I do not dismiss all the evidence.
If I did, I would not be quoting wikipedia.

Yep. And the Arian camp asserted Nicene belief was a heresy. tick-tock

No, that does not represent accurate historical events.
It was trinitarian Nicene Emperor Theodosius I who "saw off" the Arians, and established Orthodoxy.

What coincidence do you see?

Well, here is an example .. Theodosius made all beliefs illegal, except for "Jesus is God", in 380AD.
Origen of Alexandria died ~253AD, and was highly respected in Early Christianity.

In 399, the Origenist crisis reached Egypt. Pope Theophilus I of Alexandria was sympathetic to the supporters of Origen and the church historian, Sozomen, records that he had openly preached the Origenist teaching that God was incorporeal. In his Festal Letter of 399, he denounced those who believed that God had a literal, human-like body, calling them illiterate "simple ones". A large mob of Alexandrian monks who regarded God as anthropomorphic rioted in the streets. According to the church historian Socrates Scholasticus, in order to prevent a riot, Theophilus made a sudden about-face and began denouncing Origen. In 400, Theophilus summoned a council in Alexandria, which condemned Origen and all his followers as heretics for having taught that God was incorporeal, which they decreed contradicted the only true and orthodox position, which was that God had a literal, physical body resembling that of a human
First_Origenist_Crisis - Wikipedia

He was on thin ice .. it was illegal to believe that Jesus was not God, and the full trinity doctrine was yet to be established.
As time passed, there was to be a second crisis, in which all his original works were destroyed,
by Justinian in the sixth century.

 

[Thomas]

If I did, I would not be quoting wikipedia.

The content of the Second Sirmium Council and its creed is from Athanasius.
EDIT: My error – it's also contained in Hilary of Poiiter's De Synodis but he was the 'Hammer of the Arians' so I'm not sure what credence you afford him.

No, that does not represent accurate historical events.

I've detailed the history. You make no mention of Constantius' persecution of Nicene Christianity.

Origen of Alexandria died ~253AD, and was highly respected in Early Christianity.

And is so now.

In 399, the Origenist crisis reached Egypt.

I don't see the coincidence between Origenist teachings and what we're discussing?

He was on thin ice ..

Sorry, who was on thin ice?

As time passed, there was to be a second crisis, in which all his original works were destroyed, by Justinian in the sixth century.

Another emperor who did a lot of good, and a lot of harm ... and yet some of his works survived, which shows that emperors are not always followed to the letter ...

Origen is held in high regard in the Church, his reputation being largely restored, scholars pointing out that the Church was at pains to point out that certain ideas were condemned, but not the man. Further scholarship argues that the ideas were not his, but his interpreters' take on his teachings.

In light of the current discussion, Origen was the champion of the eternity of the Second Person of the Trinity.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I've detailed the history. You make no mention of Constantius' persecution of Nicene Christianity..

I have not claimed that Arian Emperors were not guilty of "favouring their own" and persecuting others.
What I AM claiming, is that they did not make Arian belief a "state religion" and declare trinitarian belief illegal.

I don't see the coincidence between Origenist teachings and what we're discussing?

Do you not?
Why weren't Origen's "heretical" beliefs brought to light before it was illegal to hold other than the Nicene creed?

Sorry, who was on thin ice?

Pope Theophilus I of Alexandria of course.
First of all he makes the statement "those who believe that God had a literal, human-like body, are illiterate simple ones" in his Festal Letter of 399.

In the year 400, Theophilus summoned a council in Alexandria, which condemned Origen and all his followers as heretics for having taught that God was incorporeal, which they decreed contradicted the only true and orthodox position, which was that God had a literal, physical body resembling that of a human.

It seems that his job was on the line .. Origen of Alexandria became a heretic all of a sudden.
Notice, that this happened in Alexandria, Egypt. That's not far from Jerusalem, relatively speaking.

Further scholarship argues that the ideas were not his, but his interpreters' take on his teachings.

In the second crisis, that is indeed what is claimed.

 

[Thomas]

This is interesting: N.T. Wright on Paul's Trinitarian theology.

What I AM claiming, is that they did not make Arian belief a "state religion" and declare trinitarian belief illegal.

Both Arians and Nicenes are technically Trinitarians.

Do you not? Why weren't Origen's "heretical" beliefs brought to light before it was illegal to hold other than the Nicene creed?

If you want to go into Origen, that's a whole other can of worms. I see your point, but you have to factor in a whole lot of evidence of political gamesmanship – arguments between the Coptic and Eastern Churches, interference of Justinian, Pope Vigilius being held hostage by the emperor and refusing to take part in the Council ... a whole messy affair.

But Origen was not challenged on grounds of being anti-Nicene – he was a victim, as so often happens to a genius, he was misunderstood.

If orthodoxy were a matter of intention, no theologian could be more orthodox than Origen, none more devoted to the cause of the Christian faith.  Henry Chadwick, scholar of early Christianity, in the Encyclopædia Britannica.

Suffice to say that had Arianism emerged as the orthodox teaching, then Origen would have been condemned for his doctrine of the co-eternity of the Son with the Father.

Pope Theophilus I of Alexandria of course.

Oh yes. Not the brightest moment of the Coptic Church. Not a nice man at all ...

It seems that his job was on the line .. Origen of Alexandria became a heretic all of a sudden.

In the Coptic Church, yes. His authority ends there.

In the second crisis, that is indeed what is claimed.

That all his works be burnt? So much survives, even though so little of his entire corpus. It's a great loss.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If you want to go into Origen, that's a whole other can of worms.

I don't want to "go into Origen", because as you know, his works were condemned and suppressed.

But Origen was not challenged on grounds of being anti-Nicene

Epiphanius attacked Origen in his anti-heretical treatises Ancoratus (375) and Panarion (376), compiling a list of teachings Origen had espoused that Epiphanius regarded as heretical.
...
Epiphanius particularly objected to Origen's Subordinationism, his "excessive" use of allegorical hermeneutic, and his habit of proposing ideas about the Bible "speculatively, as exercises" rather than "dogmatically".
Origenist_crises - Wikipedia

The Niceno-Constantinopolita creed emphasises that Jesus is EQUAL to the Father, and that Mary is the "Mother of God".
Subordination is a contrary opinion.

Suffice to say that had Arianism emerged as the orthodox teaching, then Origen would have been condemned for his doctrine of the co-eternity of the Son with the Father.

Can you prove that he believed that, through his original Greek writings?
What does that mean, anyway?
It is the Nicene "lot" that insist on a particular, precise understanding of the Divinity of Christ.

 

[Thomas]

I don't want to "go into Origen", because as you know, his works were condemned and suppressed.

OK.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Apart from complaining about Arius in the first place, the laity had very little to do with it. Really it was Eusebius and Constantine's successors who kept the controversy going.

Not at all. Constantine wouldn't have been concerned about a few elites having a squabble.

Christological debate had been going on for decades in theological circles.

Well, it's bound to .. it always does.

Arius made it public by preaching and rousing public support, although his congregation complained to the bishop that his teaching was herectical .

That's the official line, naturally, "Arius was the culprit"
As I have already said in the other thread, Origen was highly respected in Alexandria .. he was born there.
He was not the only one with a subordinate "Christology" .. on the contrary, it was a majority view.

That it became a public matter was what annoyed Constantine, it was disturbing the peace in Alexandria.

..not just Alexandria .. it was an "east meets west" problem, that did NOT start with Arius, in reality..
..and continued until the "Arians" were forced out 50 years later by a Nicene Emperor's authority, Theodosius.