gstafleu

Terry Jones, in his Barbarians, has a section (pp205-207) on the Nicaean developments in Christianity. In the council of Nicaea "The philosophical question of how to describe the difference between Jesus and God became savage." As to the outcome of that debate he says:
He then says that, with the brief exception of Julian, "every emperor from Constantine to Valens subscribed to Arius theology."

Then 50 years later, in 374, Ambrose became the Bishop of Milan.
According to Jones "Up until his ordination Ambrose had at first been naturally inclined to support the official version of Christianity, Arianism, but that soon changed." His position changed for political reasons: he wanted to move power from Constantinople to Milan. He "wildly caricatured" the official form of Christianity, Arianism, as evil. Part of the background seems to be that the Empire was under threat from the Goths, and they were Arians. Jones' final paragraph on the matter is worth quoting if only for Jerome's remark:
So:

1. The council of Nicaea at first resulted in Arianism as the official Christianity.
2. Arianism did not include the Trinity.
3. The Trinity was a post-Nicaean development .
4. The Trinity became official as a result of Ambrose's efforts. Hence an important bit of what we now know as Catholicism (and much of Protestantism), the Trinity, became official not at Nicaea but 50 years later.
5. A question: did the idea of the Trinity only come into existence after Nicaea, or does it have earlier roots?

Any comments?

Gerard Stafleu

Roger Pearse

Why "savage"?

True, although a bit telescoped, and Constantine did not endorse Arianism.

This is a bit misleading. The emperors are Constantine (no); Constantius II (yes); Julian (N/A); Valentinian (not really) and Valens (yes). So we have just two emperors.

Nonsense as stated. Tertullian lays out the Trinity doctrine, name and detail, ca. 215.

We might reasonably ask on what this is based.

This would need to be backed up with quotes, if true. It sounds very doubtful to me.

Not really.

All nonsense, I'm afraid.

I would recommend reading the Evans translation of Tertullian, Adversus Praxean online at http://www.tertullian.org.

I also have Ambrose's Letters in the Additional Fathers.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

robto

Jones's account seems hopelessly garbled. I'd recommend When Jesus Became God (or via: amazon.co.uk), a very readable account of this period of church history.

While the Trinity concept (one God in three persons) goes back to Tertullian's time, it seems fair to say that the Trinity as official church doctrine is post-Nicea. The Nicene Creed doesn't mention the Trinity, though it is phrased in Trinitarian language. (This creed is actually the one approved at the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. The creed of the Council of Nicea is different, and even less Trinitarian, but it is certainly not Arian.) The Trinity was formalized in the "Athanasian Creed" (actually from c. 500 AD).

gstafleu

All nonsense? It seems to me that "Arianism did not include the Trinity" stands, "The Trinity was a post-Nicaean development" does not stand and "The Trinity became official as a result of Ambrose's efforts" does stand. To be fair, Jones does not say anything that precludes earlier development of the Trinity idea. So, so far we have that Nicaea resulted in a more or less Arian version of official Christianity, without the Trinity. The non-Arian version including the Trinity became official 50 years later. Correct?

Gerard Stafleu

Casper

But phrasing it like that seems to imply that there was some preceding "official version". Was there?

I know the Goths weren't always Arians (because they weren't always christians) so while the threat they posed was real, it wasn't a theological threat.

Or maybe it was, later on? After accepting Christianity, the story has the Ostragoths migrating West with little Rome could do to stop them. In all they probably don't outnumber the gallic legions. Which I always found curious, because they could have been destroyed fairly easly I assume. But not if they were considered Christians and had more in common with regional populations than with Rome proper I guess. Political correctness and all.

gstafleu

Correct, thanks for pointing that out. I should have said "so far we have that Nicaea resulted in a version of official Christianity that was more or less Arian,..."

Gerard Stafleu

robto

No, this is completely backwards. Nicea took an anti-Arian position, and became the rallying point for the anti-Arian branch of the church. Other councils did take positions that were more pro-Arian, but since there was a mix of pro and anti councils I don't think it's fair to claim that Arianism was "official" at any time.

A couple other points:

Arius was never a bishop. (Some of the "Arians" objected to that term: how could bishops be the followers of a mere priest?)

I don't think it's right to say that Arians were non-Trinitarian. The question was the relationships of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not their divinity. There was a group called the "spirit-fighters", led by Eustathius, who denied the the divinity of the Spirit, but they were within the anti-Arian segment of the church.

Casper

hmmm, like everything else it gets more complicated the more you dig.

Gerard, I wasn't criticising, honestly just asking if there was some kind of concensus. I think you and I are often on the same wavelength though.

mountainman

THE INVITATION to NICAEA (325 CE)
Letter from a Savage thug ...

"That there is nothing more
honourable in my sight
than the fear of God,
I believe is manifest to every man.

Now, because the Synod of Bishops at Ancyra, of Galatia,
consented at first that it should be, it now seems on many
accounts that it would be well for a Synod to assemble at Nicea,
a city of Bithynia, both because the Bishops of Italy
and the rest of the countries of Europe are coming,
and also because of the excellent temperature of the air,
and also because I shall be present as a spectator
and participator of what is done.

Wherefore I signify to you, my beloved brethren,
that I earnestly wish all of you to assemble
at this city which is named, that is at Nicea.

Let every one of you therefore, considering that which is best,
as I before said, be diligent without any delay speedily to come,
that he may be present in his own person as a spectator of what is done.
God keep you, my beloved brethren."

ACTION ITEMS FROM THE AGENDA AT NICAEA:
Letter from a Savage Thug ...

Constantine the King
to the Bishops and nations everywhere.

Inasmuch as Arius imitates the evil and the wicked,
it is right that, like them, he should be rebuked and rejected.

As therefore Porphyry,
who was an enemy of the fear of God,
and wrote wicked and unlawful writings
against the religion of Christians,
found the reward which befitted him,
that he might be a reproach to all generations after,
because he fully and insatiably used base fame;
so that on this account his writings
were righteously destroyed;

thus also now it seems good that Arius
and the holders of his opinion
should all be called Porphyrians,
that he may be named by the name
of those whose evil ways he imitates:

And not only this, but also
that all the writings of Arius,
wherever they be found,
shall be delivered to be burned with fire,
in order that not only
his wicked and evil doctrine may be destroyed,
but also that the memory of himself
and of his doctrine may be blotted out,
that there may not by any means
remain to him remembrance in the world.

Now this also I ordain,
that if any one shall be found secreting
any writing composed by Arius,
and shall not forthwith deliver up
and burn it with fire,
his punishment shall be death;
for as soon as he is caught in this
he shall suffer capital punishment
by beheading without delay.

Savage christian theologian
Constantine in his own words

S.C.Carlson

:notworthy: The :devil1: is in the details.