Arianism

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

Your correct on the political motivations of the Arian movement, although the Edict of Milan had nothing to do with Christian unrest and everything to do with Constantine believing the Christian god had aided, along with other gods, in his victory. Constantine gave sacrifice to 4 different Roman gods after his victory, and didnt become Christian until he lay on his death bed. still though, the point of this post is on target, there were alot of political motives for the Arians.

In the 92 years from the death of Commodus (AD 192) to the comming of Diocletian (AD284) the throne of the Ceaser had been occupied by 28 Emperors, of the 28, 22 were murdered. This period was a period of huge civil unrest and pretenders in distant provinces gaining local support and then making a bid for the throne. It was in the last half of this period that the interlectual elite, who despratly wanted stabilaty to return to goverment, felt that one of the causing factors of this instability was the fact that through Romes acceptence of other deities and religions a centralised focus in worship had been diluted as the empire continued to expand.
Gradualy a solution to this problem started to emerge. Building on the writtings of the Neoplatonist Porphyry heir to the teachings of Plotinus a hierarchical confederation of gods all under one supreme god or an all embracing supreme principle began to gain ground and acceptance. This syncrectic process culminated in the god Sol. In this one god the sun gods of the Greeks and Orientals (Helios & Baal) could all be united and placed among the official Roman pantheon.
It was the Emperor Aurelian in 274 who first minted coins with himself recieving a globe from the god Sol indicating world wide rule and the words Deus et Dominus on them, making him sol’s representative on earth or if you like the son of Sol.
After Diacletian gained the throne in 284 and after stabalising the empire it came to his attention that this more than reasnoble solution which had basicaly been embraced by all citizens no matter whom they worshiped had still been rejected by the Christians. What to do ?
Being a reasnoble man and finaly bringing a shakey peace to the empire he tried to avoide persicution at all cost it was in the mid 290’s that Hierocles, govner of Palmyra and latter Prefect of Bithynia published his work “A Friendly Discourse in Truth Directed to The Christians” This work was a friendly persuasive invitation to the christians to accept and conform to these more than reasnoble official beliefs of the Empire. The work was complete with logical arguments about the Sun being the light of the world, sustaining all things etc and these arguments were backed up by scripture such as Jn. 1:9 which called Christ “the true light which enlightens every man” which he reasoned after all was the work of the sun. and also Hebrew scriptures such as Mal. 4:2 which called the Messias “the sun of justice”. Being an appostate Christian Hierocles made good sound arguments and his work was summerized in pamphlet form and spread through out the entire empire.
In 297 after nearly ten years of trying to get the Christians to see reason the persicutians begun.
They started first in the army with those who would not make the official sacrafice (Burning of incense) at the alter in front of the deified son of god (the empror) along with the accompnying Oath to be striped of all rank and dispersed to the most troubelsem spots along the frontier on half pay.
It took about 5 years to make sure Christians could not unite in armed malitia before the wide spread persicutions realy begun.
In 303 the first ever official state wide law against christianity was posted. All Clerics from Bishops on down were to be imprisoned imidiatly, all official places of worship were to be demolished, all sacred books burnt, any one who would not make the official sacrafice thier property was forfit to the state treasury, they were not allowed to enter the market place and upon interigation under torture if they still did not recant they were sent to the mines as forced laboure.
In 304 after a failed bungle on the Emprors Life the Death sentence was introduced for these persicutions and the bodies were denied burial and flung into the sea.
For 10 years this was an official State wide Progrom.
In the West Constantines farther who ruled then was the most leniant in this respect and refused to take out an extermination Progrom in his area.

This whole process devolved into a blood bath in the East and it was during this period that Constantine emerged the victor in what was basicly a East V West civil war, and this terible Progrom against the Christians was officialy stoped with the edict of Milan in 313.

The two herisies to come from this were Donotism and Arianism.

The frame work for Ariuses arguments had already been put forward and promoted officialy to Christians by the State the seditious part of what Arius did was putting those arguments forward in orthodox language to a war weary and embateled christian community. It is interesting to note that he promoted his idieas in the same way the state did through pamphlets etc.

The best book I have found on this period is by Giuseppe Ricciotti a Benadictien Monk and Bible & Christian historian. Called the Age of Martyres Chritianity from Diocletian to Constantine. With a special in depth study of the two formost herasies of the time Donatism and arianism…

 

[Regardless]

With the little I have read about Arianism it seems as though at one point the movement had quite a lot of followers in the East including many Bishops. I was wondering if its followers disputed the Gospel of John.

Hello.

If by Arianism you mean the understanding: “Jesus is the son of God and subject to the Father.” Then there are many, many scriptures in the book of John that agree with that.

I looked up wikipedia to check I had the right understanding of Arius and it says: The Arian concept of Christ is that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created by—and is therefore distinct from—God the Father. This belief is grounded in the Gospel of John passage “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." (verse 14:28)[3] (underlining mine)

As one of Jehovah’s Witnesses I often use the gospel of John to proove Jesus is not his Father.

All the best.

 

[Regardless]

In the 92 years from the death of Commodus (AD 192) to the comming of Diocletian (AD284) the throne of the Ceaser had been occupied by 28 Emperors, …
The best book I have found on this period is by Giuseppe Ricciotti a Benadictien Monk and Bible & Christian historian. Called the Age of Martyres Chritianity from Diocletian to Constantine. With a special in depth study of the two formost herasies of the time Donatism and arianism…

Wow! You are well read on this! I might look up that book you recommend!

Can I get your opinion please: Do you understand Constantine was a Christian at Nicea?
Did he set up the council of Nicea for religious of political reasons?

I have always understood it was largely a political thing to unite his empire. Am I correct?

If you have time I would love a history lesson on this one!

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

Wow! You are well read on this! I might look up that book you recommend!

Can I get your opinion please: Do you understand Constantine was a Christian at Nicea?
Did he set up the council of Nicea for religious of political reasons?

I have always understood it was largely a political thing to unite his empire. Am I correct?

If you have time I would love a history lesson on this one!

Constantines father Constantius was appointed Ceasre to Maximan, Augustus of the Western Empire by the Emperor Diaclitian. His seat of power was in Londinium, in the province of Britania. He was a pagan with Christian sympathies due to Constantines mother being a Christian. When the persicutions got fully underway he refused to implement the decree to destroy all church property including scriptures and to imprison all clergy and to torture the faithfull etc, however he could not stop over zelos majistrates from doing so. This is one of the reasons why today we have older latin manuscripts in exsistance than greek ones.
Obviosly this left an impression on Constantine and he had no particular reason to dislike the Christians or Christianity and he left all christians serving in his army unmolested.
On the eve of the final battle he prayed with the christians to thier God along with praying to the variouse pagan gods although the legend has it that he recieved a particular sign from the christian God.
After the Edict of Millan which ended the persicutions and legalised Christianity in the Empire he was faced with two heracies that mainly effected the Eastern Church and divided the Christian communities in the East. These were Donatism and Arianism of these two the main problem was Arianism.
Constantine was a brilliant administrater and he realised that he did not have the knowladge to settle this problem and reconcile the church however he did realise that he had the power and authority to bring the factions together and work it out. This was the Council of Nicea.
To Constantines mind the theological question seemed trivial and came down to the fact of was the Son of like substance with the Farther or of same substance with the Farther.
Constantines roll was minor he opened the proccedings and appointed a Chair in his abscence he played no roll in the ensuing debates or in the writting of the creed.
To Constantine his motivation for the Council of Nicea was completly political he was not baptised a christian until he was on his death bed some years latter and this was pollitical as well, being the Emperor he was also the Pontifix Maximus or the Earthly head of the pagan religions and this position would not allow him to become a christian.
Constanines main aim was to unite the Empire he got rid of the split Empire system and brought the Empire under onr ruler from the new capital Constantinople.
It is interesting to note that after the council of Nicea there was never again an emperor in Rome.

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

Hello.

If by Arianism you mean the understanding: “Jesus is the son of God and subject to the Father.” Then there are many, many scriptures in the book of John that agree with that.

I looked up wikipedia to check I had the right understanding of Arius and it says: *The Arian concept of Christ is that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created by—and is therefore distinct from—God the Father. This belief is grounded in the Gospel of John *passage “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." (verse 14:28)[3] (underlining mine)

As one of Jehovah’s Witnesses I often use the gospel of John to proove Jesus is not his Father.

Regarding “The Farther is greater than I” it must be rememberd the Jesus is God known or reveald as it says in Jn1:18 “it has been left upto the only begoten Son who dwells within the boosem of the Farther to make him known”.
In other words as limited human beings the incarnation of God as Christ is all that we are capable of recieving, Christ as the Son is God known, he is not, staring into the abyss of the infinite glory and majesty of God, which is rightly pointed out by Mosses in Dueteronamy that no man could look upon and live. However this does not mean that Christ is not of the same substance as God, the incarnation which allows us to recieve God on a personal level does not make Christ any less God.

All the best.

 

[Regardless]

Constantines father Constantius was appointed Ceasre to Maximan, …
It is interesting to note that after the council of Nicea there was never again an emperor in Rome.

Thanks for replying! Very interesting.

That is pretty much how I understood it. (Though I hoped his baptisim might have been a last minute change of heart)

Though one contradiction with your account: I have an encycloedia Britanica quote: “Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed ... the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, ‘of one substance with the Father’ ... Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination.”

So did he “personally propose” the “same substance” clause? or is there more to it? (I might need to track down the encyclopedia and read the whole article in context)

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Matt Guitar Man:

Constanines main aim was to unite the Empire he got rid of the split Empire system and brought the Empire under onr ruler from the new capital Constantinople.
It is interesting to note that after the council of Nicea there was never again an emperor in Rome.
Reply With Quote

That was only temporary. The Western Emperor reappeared shortly afterwards.

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

Thanks for replying! Very interesting.

That is pretty much how I understood it. (Though I hoped his baptisim might have been a last minute change of heart)

Though one contradiction with your account: I have an encycloedia Britanica quote: “Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed ... the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, ‘of one substance with the Father’ ... Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination.”

So did he “personally propose” the “same substance” clause? or is there more to it? (I might need to track down the encyclopedia and read the whole article in context)

This is the crucial point What exactly was Constantines involvement. Typicaly those who try and find milage from pushing the “church fell into apostacy” at this point, portray constantines role as an active participant even to the point of defining the Son’s relationship with the Farther and writting the creed.
Nearly all credible sources however give Constantines roll as an observer and adjudicator only. When the council was dragging on without the reculcitrant Bishops conceading to the view of the majority and the overwhelming weight of the historical orthadox position. Constantine quite rightly in his position as chair and adjudicator brought the proccedings to a head.
The frustating part to my mind for some one not fully up to speed with the theology of the faith is that it all came down to a dipthon “Like Substance” or “Same Substance” The Arians pushing the Like Substance position portrayed themselves as hard done by an over ridged and unbending Church. The like substance position allowed for a wide ranging interpritation of the Son’s relationship to the farther from so alike to be of the same substance all the way to so unalike to be nothing like the Farther and just another fellow creature with the rest of creation. Those not fully conversant with the consequences of this position could easily be swayed into thinking that this position was acceptable because it could be made to appear inclusive for all the faithfull, we could all work out the Sons relationship with the Farther for ourselves and all positions could be acceptable to an all inclusive church.
However those of the orthadox position knew that this was a completly unacceptable position because no matter how like the Farther was to the Son unless they were of the same substance they were completly unalike and it was this same substance clause that forced the Arians into a position that could not be manipulated to mean something else.
The Farther and the Son were the same or completly unalike there is no middle ground after all only God can be compared with himself.
It must be remmeberd if Constantine tryed to push the Same substance position then why did he appoint as his closest adviser on church issues Eusubius an Arian sympathiser.
Also why is it that people trying to get milage out of the Council of Nicea to push a sectarian position never look at the historical context inside of and outside of the Church.
If this perspective is taken into account it clears up a lot of missunderstanding.
Nearly all the early conflict in the church was about the diety of Christ and his relationship to the Farther and in all of these the current position held by the church today won out in these disputes of hundreds of years ago. Why is that?
Christ will forever be that rock that those who refuse to belive will stumble against. this proved true in the first centuary, it proved true at Nicea and it is true today.

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

That was only temporary. The Western Emperor reappeared shortly afterwards.

I did not know this. What was the Western Emperor’s relationship with Constantinople?
And how was the political position between the two played out? Were there spheers of responsability that remained seperated or was it a more subjagated position?

 

[Matt_Guitar_Man]

Hello.

If by Arianism you mean the understanding: “Jesus is the son of God and subject to the Father.” Then there are many, many scriptures in the book of John that agree with that.

I looked up wikipedia to check I had the right understanding of Arius and it says: *The Arian concept of Christ is that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created by—and is therefore distinct from—God the Father. This belief is grounded in the Gospel of John *passage “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." (verse 14:28)[3] (underlining mine)

As one of Jehovah’s Witnesses I often use the gospel of John to proove Jesus is not his Father.

All the best.

The orthadox position also ackowladges that Jesus is not his Farther. Jesus and the Farther are different persons but both are one God. i.e different persons, same substance or if you like the Son is one in being with the Farther.

It has been held by many theologians that the great test of Angelic virtue, the issue of which decided the eternal fate of each of the Celestial host, was the Vision of the incarnate God. Those spirits who, bowing thier glorious intelligences, adored a nature so inferior to thier own yet hypostatically united to the eternal Word, were by that humiliation exalted for ever - even to the participation of that Word’s Divine Nature. They who on the contrary, refused - sank by their refusal into eternal ruin. So it is again now. Christ is ever that stone on which they who stumble shall be broken. As in the begining of God’s creation this mystery was the point at issue between the obedient and disobedient angels, so in God’s new creation - the Church. Those who hold fast to the great declaration of St. John - “The Word was God… and the Word was made flesh” - were safeguarded against all the manifold forms of error, while those who refused to sacrafice old forms of thought and old prejudices to the Divine revelation of God Incarnate, fell into one or other fantastic heresy. ML Cozens “A Handbook of Heresies”