tanya

But, before Nicea, weren't both Constantine and Eusebius also followers of Arius? Why did Constantine change his mind about Arius?

Duvduv

Roger, why and where did it just burn out in the empire when it continued outside the empire? And where is legal or anecdotal information about all the other heresies opposed by the orthodox?

Huon

Duvduv, look at the history of the Wisigoths, the Ostrogoths, and the Lombards.

Roger Pearse

You do realise that you've just asked for a history of Christianity to the year 400, plus one of the Roman empire in the same period? A little much for a FRDB post, hey?

Arianism continued among the Germans because that was the brand of Christianity that they learned when they converted. Their religion was tribal rather than personal.

Why did Arianism burn out? Every fad has its day, you know: we're not wearing bell-bottoms any more.

Now I'm not a theologian, whom you must consult in order to get a definitive answer, and the answer must also involve a history of the politics over a period of some 60 years. But my understanding is that Arianism in the beginning was not clearly understood, even by Arius himself, who describes Christ as "fully God". But the implication of it *was* that the Son wasn't really God, if he was not of the same substance as the Father; and that this implication was correct became clear during the Arian ascendancy, when some of the extreme Arians started to adopt clearly unbiblical positions in this area.

A heresy is simply a situation where people start to advocate things which ultimately derive their basis from contemporary society, rather than arising naturally from Christianity itself.

In origin, it referred to ideas coming in from the philosophical schools (='haereses') -- pop-pagan speculation, essentially. Tertullian in the 2nd century lists the gnostic heretics (in De praescriptione haereticorum, 1-7), giving in each case the pagan philosopher whom they were ripping off, and demanding that Christians base themselves on Christian teaching, not, at bottom, on something else.

The term has got confused in general contemporary usage, when it tends to mean nothing more than "non conformist". But this is the meaning in the ancient world, and use of the modern meaning simply confuses things.

Lists of heresies are given by Epiphanius in the Panarion, by Augustine in De haeresibus, and in other patristic writings.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Duvduv

I realize that the orthodox benefited from official state patronage which ensured that they would not burn out, and I realize that for a time this was also the case for the Arians instead of the Orthodox in the 4th century. However, all I wonder about is what the relationship between the church/state and the heretical sects was in terms of practical policy and law.
Not only Arians, but the gnostics and the rest. Where were they, what did the state do to any or all of them, and how did the masses give up on them? Especially if they were geographically distinct.

By contrast we see that in Egypt despite official persecution the Copts/Nestorians managed to survive in their geographic location. So either the official church/state was making more propaganda than was deserved because other sects were very small and/or involved elements of the elite, or because the masses in the 4th or 5th centuries didn't really care either way which church in town followed which doctrine, even if there were certain practical implications for beliefs about whether Jesus was a physical man or an angelic figure (i.e. christology) and for which texts would be accepted.

But I assume that at least most of the known sects including Arians and Nestorians accepted the canonical texts, which must have made it easier for people to drop one sect and join the orthodox.

Duvduv

I am also intrigued by the fact that in Philostorgus' history and in the letter(s) from Arians, they never rely on doctrine or dogma from the pauline epistles in their battle with what the History refers to as the "homoousios faith".

By contrast, the orthodox such as Alexander and Athanasius seemed particularly partial to invoking GJohn with an occasional reference from the epistles.

I don't recall if the heresiologist writers (especially Eusebius) ever accused the Arians or others of REJECTING any of the canonical texts or betraying Paul, etc.

andrewcriddle

One should note that Philostorgius was a radical Arian. Most Arians held a less extreme position.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Yes you are right. There was another Euzoius fellow student with Gregory later bishop of Caesarea. See Lives_of_Illustrious_Men/Euzoius_the_bishop

Andrew Criddle