Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 05-18-2007, 01:57 PM

What is the dispute about again?

Quote:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages.

(From Nicene Creed thread)

Quote:

Arius' Letter to Alexander of Alexandria (excerpt)
320 CE
(from Athanasius, De Synodis, 16. LNPF ser. 2, vol. 4, 458)
Our faith from our forefathers, which also we have learned from thee, Blessed Pope, is this:--We acknowledge One God, alone Ingenerate, alone Everlasting, alone Unbegun, alone True, alone having Immortality, alone Wise, alone Good, alone Sovereign; Judge, Governor, and Providence of all, unalterable and unchangeable, just and good, God of Law and Prophets and New Testament; who begat an Only-begotten Son before eternal times, through whom He has made both the ages and the universe; and begat Him, not in semblance, but in truth; and that He made Him subsist at His own will, unalterable and unchangeable; perfect creature of God, but not as one of the creatures; offspring, but not as one of things begotten; nor as Valentinus pronounced that the offspring of the Father was an issue; nor as Manichaeus taught that the offspring was a portion of the Father, one in essence; or as Sabellius, dividing the Monad, speaks of a Son-and-Father; nor as Hieracas, of one torch from another, or as a lamp divided in two; nor that He was was before, was afterwards generated or new-created into a Son, as thou too thyself, Blessed Pope, in the midst of the Church and in session has often condemned; but, as we say, at the will of God, created before times and ages, and gaining life and being from the Father, who gave subsistence to His glories together with Him. For the Father did not, in giving to Him the inheritance of all things, deprive Himself of what He has ingenerately in Himself; for He is the Fountain of all things. Thus there are Three Subsistences. And God, being the cause of all things, is Unbegun and altogether Sole, but the Son being begotten apart from time by the Father, and being created and founded before ages, was not before His generation, but being begotten apart from time before all things, alone was made to subsist by the Father. For He is not eternal or co-eternal or co-unoriginate with the Father, nor has He His being together with the Father, as some speak of relations, introducing two ingenerate beginnings, but God is before all things as being Monad and Beginning of all. Wherefore also He is before the Son; as we have learned also from they preaching in the midst of the Church. So far then as from God He has being, and glories, and life, and all things are delivered unto Him, in such sense is God His origin. For He is above Him, as being His God, and before Him. But if the terms 'from Him,' and 'from the womb,' and 'I came forth from the Father, and I am come' (Rom. xi. 36; Ps. cx. 3; John xvi. 28) be understood by some to mean as if a part of Him, one in essence or as an issue, then the Father is according to them compounded and divisible and alterable and material, and, as far as their belief goes, has the circumstances of a body, Who is the incorporeal God.
Source :
http://ecole.evansville.edu/arians/arius2.htm

(Same thread)

And how did they come to a judgement about this? Why is one view allegedly wrong? Is it correct Constantine and his family were Arians until Ambrose taught them the errors of their ways?

(Lovely bath by the way)

GakuseiDon · 05-18-2007, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

What is the dispute about again?

IIRC: Can a god come into existence and still be a god? Or does a god have to be always eternally present? And if Christ is subordinate to God, how can he have always been eternally present? Is he, in fact, a created entity (which implies he didn't exist at some stage and exists as something different to God) or a begotten one (which implies he is of the same nature as God)? The discussion had been around since the 2nd C, but seems to have become vitally important at the time of Constantine.

andrewcriddle · 05-19-2007, 03:10 AM

The issue was that Arius and his opponents could both in good faith profess the traditional Christian creeds of their day but they meant different things by the same language.

Non traditional language such as 'of the same substance' had to be added to the creed to distinguish their positions.

Arius in the quoted passage is explaining why in his opinion ideas like 'one in essence' are unacceptable. His opponents disagreed.

Most people on both sides wanted to say
a/ the Son of God is truly divine
b/ The Father and Son are truly distinct.
Arius emphasised point b/ so much that he was regarded by his opponents as compromising point a/ while some of his opponents were in danger of compromising point b/

Arius' detailed position was always very much of a minority. However Constantine (to some extent) and his immediate successors (particularly Constantius) tended on the whole to emphasize b/ rather than a/ in a way that differs from what became later orthodoxy.

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle · 05-19-2007, 05:59 AM

Quote:

And how did they come to a judgement about this? Why is one view allegedly wrong?

??

What has minority perspective (was it?) got to do with a perspective that is logically correct?

Why was "who begat ...before eternal times" not an acceptable compromise? This is all mumbo jumbo, why fight over one set than another? What was it that caused such hatred? Was the heresy that Arius attempted to approach this logically?

mountainman · 05-21-2007, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

??

What has minority perspective (was it?) got to do with a perspective that is logically correct?

Why was "who begat ...before eternal times" not an acceptable compromise? This is all mumbo jumbo, why fight over one set than another? What was it that caused such hatred? Was the heresy that Arius attempted to approach this logically?

We observe that the victorious historians are compelled to
reveal that Arius was considered "clever in disputation", so
we might reasonably conclude he was at least a logician.

The trouble is, we have IMO nothing left of him apart from
his words etched on the disclaimer clause of the Nicaean
Oath, and that in his banishment, before he was poisoned
finally c.331 (See Isaac Newton's analysis of this) he
composed "The Songs of Arius", which were probably
hunted down and stamped out.

Arius presents us with a paradox.
Which is yet to be fully understood.

Peace.

Huon · 05-23-2007, 12:20 AM

Here is a list of the bishops of Constantinople between 313 and 380.

Alexander of Constantinople (313 or 317–337) ortho bishop
Paul I (337-339) ortho bishop
Eusebius of Nicomedia (338-341) arian bishop (d. 341)
Paul I (341-342) ortho
Macedonius arian bishop Macedonian (342-346)
Paul I (346-351) ortho (d. c. 351)
Macedonius (351-360) arian Macedonian
Eudoxius (of Antioch) (360-370) arian bishop (d. 370)
Demophilus (370-380) arian bishop (d. 386)
Evagrius ortho bishop (d. c. 380)
Maximus (380 – opponent to Gregory of Nazianzus) anti-arian
Gregory of Nazianzus (380 –381) ortho bishop d. 389

The dates contain possibly some discrepancies of one year or so.
This list shows clearly that the Arian controversy lasted well after Nicaea. When one looks at the details of the struggle between the two parties, it appears clearly that the stake was "power". Who would be the bishop of Constantinople ? The rest of the controversy can be qualified as "logology".

This controversy happens also during the Constantinian dynasty, ending in 363 with Julian. Here also, we find a superb list of murderers !

Clivedurdle · 05-23-2007, 10:49 AM

But Mountainman, if Eusebius was Arian, is that not a fatal flaw in your argument because he was a heretic and on the losing side?

mountainman · 05-24-2007, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

But Mountainman, if Eusebius was Arian, is that not a fatal flaw in your argument because he was a heretic and on the losing side?

1. Eusebius was on Constantine's side: he probably had little choice.
2. Did Eusebius follow Arius into banishment? Not at all.
3. Arius presents us with a paradox: he was the voice of opposition.
4. What were the words of Arius, wise and clever in disputation.
5. He may have claimed that Jesus did not exist before Constantine.
6. Thus he and his writings were righteously destroyed.
7. Massive turbulence, social chaos. What was the Arian controversy?
8. Who really won? And who reported the "ecclesiatical history"?
9. See Vlassis.
10. See Ammianus.

Huon · 05-24-2007, 01:10 PM

Eusebius of Nicomedia and Constantinople, (d. 341) was a bishop of Berytus (modern-day Beirut) in Phoenicia, then of Nicomedia in Bithynia, and finally of Constantinople from 338 up to his death in 341.

He enjoyed the complete confidence both of Constantine and Constantius II and was the tutor of the later Emperor Julian the Apostate; and it was he who baptized Constantine the Great on May 22, 337. The Arian influence grew so strong during his tenure in the Imperial court that it wasn't until the end of the Constantinian dynasty and the appointment of Theodosius I that Arianism lost it's influence in the Empire.

Like Arius, he was a pupil of Lucian of Antioch, and it is probable that he held the same views as Arius from the very beginning; he was also one of Arius' most fervent supporters. He was the first person whom Arius contacted after the latter was excommunicated from Alexandria by Alexander. Eusebius of Nicomedia was the leader and organizer of the Arian party.

At the First Council of Nicaea, 325, he signed the Confession, but only after a long and desperate opposition in which he "subscribed with hand only, not heart" according to ancient sources. It was a huge blow to the Arian party since it was surmised that the participants in the First Council of Nicaea were evenly split between non-Arians and Arians. His defense of Arius angered the emperor Constantine, and a few months after the council he was sent into exile due to his continual contacts with Arius and the exiles.

After the lapse of three years, he succeeded in regaining the imperial favor after by convincing Constantine that Arius and his views did not conflict with the Nicene Creed. After his return in 329, he was able to exile three key anti-Arian bishops, Eustathius of Antioch in 330, Athanasius of Alexandria in 335 and Marcellus of Ancyra in 336. Another major feat was his appointment as the Bishop of Constantinople by expelling Paul I of Constantinople. Paul returned as Bishop (341-342) after Eusebius' death, and was expelled by Macedonius.

He is not to be confused with his contemporary Eusebius of Caesarea, the author of a Church History.

(excerpts of Wiki, Eusebius of Nicomedia).

Huon · 05-25-2007, 06:44 AM

The history of France (Gaul), Italy, and Spain shows that the Visigoths, the Ostrogoths, and the Lombards were Arians during a long period, which ended in Gaul in 507 (Battle of Vouillé), in Spain in 587 (conversion of Reccared), and in Italy during the second part of the VIIth century.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-19-2007, 03:10 AM	#3
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	The issue was that Arius and his opponents could both in good faith profess the traditional Christian creeds of their day but they meant different things by the same language. Non traditional language such as 'of the same substance' had to be added to the creed to distinguish their positions. Arius in the quoted passage is explaining why in his opinion ideas like 'one in essence' are unacceptable. His opponents disagreed. Most people on both sides wanted to say a/ the Son of God is truly divine b/ The Father and Son are truly distinct. Arius emphasised point b/ so much that he was regarded by his opponents as compromising point a/ while some of his opponents were in danger of compromising point b/ Arius' detailed position was always very much of a minority. However Constantine (to some extent) and his immediate successors (particularly Constantius) tended on the whole to emphasize b/ rather than a/ in a way that differs from what became later orthodoxy. Andrew Criddle

05-23-2007, 12:20 AM	#6
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	Here is a list of the bishops of Constantinople between 313 and 380. Alexander of Constantinople (313 or 317–337) ortho bishop Paul I (337-339) ortho bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia (338-341) arian bishop (d. 341) Paul I (341-342) ortho Macedonius arian bishop Macedonian (342-346) Paul I (346-351) ortho (d. c. 351) Macedonius (351-360) arian Macedonian Eudoxius (of Antioch) (360-370) arian bishop (d. 370) Demophilus (370-380) arian bishop (d. 386) Evagrius ortho bishop (d. c. 380) Maximus (380 – opponent to Gregory of Nazianzus) anti-arian Gregory of Nazianzus (380 –381) ortho bishop d. 389 The dates contain possibly some discrepancies of one year or so. This list shows clearly that the Arian controversy lasted well after Nicaea. When one looks at the details of the struggle between the two parties, it appears clearly that the stake was "power". Who would be the bishop of Constantinople ? The rest of the controversy can be qualified as "logology". This controversy happens also during the Constantinian dynasty, ending in 363 with Julian. Here also, we find a superb list of murderers !

05-23-2007, 10:49 AM	#7
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	But Mountainman, if Eusebius was Arian, is that not a fatal flaw in your argument because he was a heretic and on the losing side?

05-24-2007, 01:10 PM	#9
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	Eusebius of Nicomedia and Constantinople, (d. 341) was a bishop of Berytus (modern-day Beirut) in Phoenicia, then of Nicomedia in Bithynia, and finally of Constantinople from 338 up to his death in 341. He enjoyed the complete confidence both of Constantine and Constantius II and was the tutor of the later Emperor Julian the Apostate; and it was he who baptized Constantine the Great on May 22, 337. The Arian influence grew so strong during his tenure in the Imperial court that it wasn't until the end of the Constantinian dynasty and the appointment of Theodosius I that Arianism lost it's influence in the Empire. Like Arius, he was a pupil of Lucian of Antioch, and it is probable that he held the same views as Arius from the very beginning; he was also one of Arius' most fervent supporters. He was the first person whom Arius contacted after the latter was excommunicated from Alexandria by Alexander. Eusebius of Nicomedia was the leader and organizer of the Arian party. At the First Council of Nicaea, 325, he signed the Confession, but only after a long and desperate opposition in which he "subscribed with hand only, not heart" according to ancient sources. It was a huge blow to the Arian party since it was surmised that the participants in the First Council of Nicaea were evenly split between non-Arians and Arians. His defense of Arius angered the emperor Constantine, and a few months after the council he was sent into exile due to his continual contacts with Arius and the exiles. After the lapse of three years, he succeeded in regaining the imperial favor after by convincing Constantine that Arius and his views did not conflict with the Nicene Creed. After his return in 329, he was able to exile three key anti-Arian bishops, Eustathius of Antioch in 330, Athanasius of Alexandria in 335 and Marcellus of Ancyra in 336. Another major feat was his appointment as the Bishop of Constantinople by expelling Paul I of Constantinople. Paul returned as Bishop (341-342) after Eusebius' death, and was expelled by Macedonius. He is not to be confused with his contemporary Eusebius of Caesarea, the author of a Church History. (excerpts of Wiki, Eusebius of Nicomedia).

05-25-2007, 06:44 AM	#10
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	The history of France (Gaul), Italy, and Spain shows that the Visigoths, the Ostrogoths, and the Lombards were Arians during a long period, which ended in Gaul in 507 (Battle of Vouillé), in Spain in 587 (conversion of Reccared), and in Italy during the second part of the VIIth century.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.