Category: Arianism

Posted on

STANDARD BLOCK

. 

grys = #f5f5f5

 

Show More

. e4eff7

N5 Other Articles

Show More

. 
. #fcfcdc

Heading 4. 
Paragraph 1166BB. 

Father, Son, and Spirit are each a distinct hypostasis 789aff

.
. 

Show More

—

. #edf0c2

—

. f0efc2

—

. 

—

. #fff2c9

—

. The “divided kingdom” is a fragmentation of the fourth empire

—

. The “divided kingdom” is a fragmentation of the fourth empire

—

. #FFE599 . The “divided kingdom” is a fragmentation of the fourth empir

—

. #FFE599. The “divided kingdom” is a 

—

. f0efc2 

LIGGROEN #E7FFE7

. f0efc2 

ORANJE FFD966

. 

fff2c9

. 

dddd

. fff2c9mentation of 

 

aaaaaaaaaa

ddddffffff

. #fce9ae. Thedivided kingdom” is a fragmentation of the fourth empir

f0ebd1 summary block

Donker oranje vir teks c24f02 or c75000 or C00000

 

.

 

. f2f2f2

 

 
. 

Show More

Show More

This article is relatively complex because it requires understanding several parts of the Book of Revelation. The green blocks provide summaries of sections. To reduce complexity further, more detailed explanations are hidden in ‘read more’ blocks.

Read Article

Show More

Show More

Show More

 

Show More

 

Articles in this series

Other Articles

The Seven Seals

Other

  • I recommend Jon Paulien’s commentary on Revelation for further reading. For general theological discussions, I recommend Graham Maxwell, who you will find on the Pineknoll website.

Articles on Revelation 12

Other Articles

There is but one God,
the Father,
from whom are all things,
and we exist for Him;		 And one Lord,
Jesus Christ,
By whom are all things,
And we exist through Him.

KORT S3 Authors Quoted

The fourth-century Arian Controversy resulted in the Church accepting the Trinity doctrine. However, during the 20th century, scholars have discovered that the traditional account of that Controversy, of how and why the church accepted the Trinity doctrine, is history according to the winner and a complete travesty. Show More

This article series is based mostly on the writings of scholars of the last 50 years, reflecting the revised account of that Controversy. Although most quotes are hidden in ‘read more’ sections, given the controversial nature of this subject, these quotes form a crucial part of this article. Show More

, different articles in discuss different errors in the traditional narrative.

.

 

 

t

.

.
. #f5f5f5
.#edf0c2

Vier vlakke

      • Opsom – 2 reels – Groen blok
      • Moet lees
      • Quotes se dieselfde – Read more
      • Nice to haves – mfn

I am currently rewriting this article. Sorry for any inconvenience.

I am currently editing this article. Sorry for any inconvenience.

 

 

Daniel 2 Gold (Babylon) Silver Brass Iron
Daniel 7 Lion Bear Leopard Dreadful beast
Daniel 8 Ram
(Medo-Persia)		 Goat (Greece)

 

The Nicene Council

Traditional Account True History

Purpose

The fourth-century ‘Arian’ Controversy produced the Trinity doctrine. However, recently scholars have discovered that the traditional account of that Controversy – of how and why the Church accepted that doctrine – is a complete travesty, casting doubt on its legitimacy. Different articles in this series discuss different aspects of the traditional account. Show More

The current article addresses the false belief that ‘homoousios’ was the key term in the Nicene Creed. It shows that the term was not mentioned by anybody for decades after the Council of Nicaea. It wasn’t until the 350s, some 30 years later, that it became an important part of the controversy. This article discusses why the term homoousios was not mentioned during the decades after Nicaea, and how and why it became part of the Controversy 30 years later.

LANG AUTHORS QUOTED LAQ1

AUTHORS QUOTED

Scholars explain the fourth-century Arian Controversy today very differently compared to 100 years ago.

A main barrier to understanding the fourth-century ‘Arian’ Controversy is the fragmentary nature of the ancient sources. However, a store of ancient documents has become available over the last 100 years.

Show Quotes

Due to this new information and research, scholars today conclude that the traditional account of the Controversy – of how and why the church accepted the Trinity doctrine – is history written by the winner and fundamentally flawed. In some instances, it is the opposite of the true history. (Read More)

Show Quotes

Older books and authors who do not specialize in the Arian Controversy often still offer the 19th-century version. 

For example, in the traditional but flawed account, the Trinity doctrine was established orthodoxy but Arius caused the Controversy by developing a novel heresy, winning many supporters. While despotic emperors supported the Arians, Athanasius bravely defended orthodoxy, which ultimately triumphed at the Council of Constantinople in 381.

Unfortunately, many still accept the false account of the Arian Controversy because rejecting it would raise questions about the Trinity doctrine, which many regard as the mark of true Christianity, as opposed to the Mark of the Beast.

Show examples of the Traditional Account

This article series is based on books by world-class Trinitarian scholars of the last 100 years. 

Following the book by Gwatkin at the beginning of the 20th century, only a limited number of full-scale books on the fourth-century Arian Controversy were published, of which R.P.C. Hanson’s book published in 1988 is perhaps the most influential. This was followed in 2004 by a book by Lewis Ayres, which built on Hanson’s book. This series also quotes from the 2002 book by Rowan Williams, which focuses more specifically on Arius.

Show details of the books quoted

 

 

Show details

No Arians

Arius did not have followers. Athanasius invented the ‘Arian’ concept as a polemical device. 

Arius was already dead when Athanasius wrote. However, he used Arius as a stick to beat his opponents with. He called his opponents ‘Arians’, meaning followers of Arius, and then selectively quoted Arius as an attack on his opponents.

But his opponents were not followers of Arius. Arius did not leave behind a school of disciples. He had very few real followers. Nobody regarded his writings worth copying. His theology played no part in the Controversy after Nicaea. The term ‘Arian’, therefore, is a serious misnomer. The only reason so many Christians believe Arius was important is because they accept Athanasius’ distortions. (Read more)

In reality, Arius was part of a group we may call the ‘Eusebians’; followers of Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia. (Read more) Consequently, this article series often refers to the anti-Nicenes as the Eusebians rather than ‘Arians’.

 

4

The green blocks are summaries.

The articles in this series quote extensively from leading scholars. Since not all readers are interested in the technical details, the green blocks provide summaries. The reader might prefer to first only read these summaries.

This article series quotes extensively from leading scholars. Since not all readers are interested in detail, the green blocks summarize the longer sections. 

Reading only the green blocks should provide a sufficient overview of this article.

Reading only the green blocks should provide an adequate overview of this article.

The green blocks in the sections below are summaries. 

This email is sent to you as a subscriber of ‘From Daniel to Revelation’. The fourth-century Arian Controversy led to the formulation of the Trinity doctrine. Over the past few years, I have made an in-depth study of that Controversy to understand who made what decisions and why. Consequently, I have focused on revising many of my existing articles instead of publishing new content.

This email serves to notify you that I have thoroughly revised the article concerning the meaning of ‘homoousios’. The Nicene Creed employs this term to say that the Son is of the same substance as the Father, a central issue in the Arian Controversy. It is traditionally interpreted as meaning ‘one substance,’ asserting that the Father and the Son are a single Being. However, recent scholarship seem to agree that was not the meaning. This article explains what the term meant in the centuries before Nicaea, why it was included in the Nicene Creed, and the post-Nicaea repercussions.

This is a very long article (38 page) but begins with a 3-page summary.

To UNSUBSCRIBE from similar emails, please return this email with UNSUBSCRIBE in the header. 

 

SABELLIANS

This email is sent to you as a subscriber of ‘From Daniel to Revelation’. The fourth-century Arian Controversy led to the formulation of the Trinity doctrine. Over the past few years, I have made an in-depth study of that Controversy to understand who made what decisions and why. Consequently, I have focused on improving my existing articles instead of publishing new content.

This email serves to notify you that I have thoroughly revised the article on the fourth-century Sabellians. Sabellians taught a single divine Person with a single divine mind. Jesus is merely an inspired human being. This mere man suffered, died, was resurrected, and now sits at God’s right hand. The Sabellians significantly influenced the Nicene Creed, were rejected by the anti-Nicene East but were embraced as orthodox by the pro-Nicene West.

To unsubscribe from similar emails, please return this email, saying UNSUBSCRIBE. 

 

ORTHODOXY

This email is sent to you as a subscriber of ‘From Daniel to Revelation’. The fourth-century Arian Controversy led to the formulation of the Trinity doctrine. Over the past few years, I have made an in-depth study of that Controversy to understand who made what decisions and why. Consequently, I have focused on improving my existing articles instead of publishing new content.

This email serves to notify you that I have thoroughly revised the article on the orthodox view at the beginning of the Arian Controversy. In the traditional account, today’s Trinity doctrine was accepted orthodoxy when the Controversy began. However, before and during the fourth-century Controversy, until Basil of Caesarea, all theologians regarded the Son as subordinate. That was the orthodoxy.

To unsubscribe from similar emails, please return this email, saying UNSUBSCRIBE. 

 

DANIEL 7

To present an overview of world history, from the Babylonian Empire until Christ’s return, Daniel 7 uses four animals to symbolize four successive empires. From the fourth and last animal, 10 horns grew. After them, an 11th horn grew up by uprooting three of the previous horns. It was small at first but grew and eventually dominated the other horns. It is different from the others because it blasphemes God and persecutes His people. It will only be destroyed when Christ returns. This 11th horn is the main character in Daniel 7. The only reason that Daniel 7 mentions the preceding four empires and ten kingdoms is to enable the reader to identify the 11th horn.

COMPARE ANIMALS

Daniel 8 uses two animals as symbols, explicitly identified as the Medo-Persian and Greek empires. Daniel 7 uses four animals but does not identify them. Another article identifies them by comparing them to the animals in Daniel 8. It concludes that the main character in Daniel 7 and 8, symbolized as an evil horn-king, grew out of the Roman Empire.

THE DRAGON

The Beast, whose Mark in the time of the end will be put on the foreheads of people (Rev 13:15-16), receives its authority from the Dragon. The Dragon is one of three seven-headed beasts in Revelation. Another article shows first that these beasts are more detailed explanations of Daniel’s animals. It then shows that the Dragon and Daniel’s fourth animal are two symbols of the same power. Therefore, since a previous article already identified Daniel’s fourth animal as the Roman Empire, the Dragon symbolizes the Roman Empire. 

THRONE OF THE BEAST

The fifth plague angel pours his bowl out on the Throne of the Beast (Rev 16:10). A throne symbolizes the authority to rule. The Beast received its throne from the Roman Empire (Rev 13:2), but it was not military might. Neither was it the power of money. Another article provides evidence that the Throne of the Beast symbolizes Christian religious authority. This conclusion is based on the flow of thought in the plagues, the general nature of conflict in Revelation as a war of worship, the description of the persecuting powers as a woman, as lamb-like and as a false prophet performing wonders and signs, and the fact that it always is False Religion that persecutes true religion.

FOOTNOTES

  • 1
    Trevor Hart wrote about this book: “While contributions have not been wanting, nothing comparable in either scale or erudition exists in the English language … treating in considerable detail … the so-called ‘Arian controversy’ which dominated the fourth century theological agenda.”
  • 2
    Kermit Zarley described Hanson as “the preeminent authority on the development of the church doctrine of God in the 4th century.”
  • 3
    Lewis Ayres, Emory University, wrote that this book “has been the standard English scholarly treatment of the trinitarian controversies of the fourth century and the triumph of Nicene theology.
  • 4
    Lewis Ayres wrote that Williams’ book “offers one of the best recent discussions of the way scholarship on this controversy has developed. (Ayres, 12)
Posted on

How did Arians interpret Colossians 2:9?

The Question

Colossians 2:9 says:

“The entire fullness of God’s nature dwells bodily in Christ” (HCSB).

“In Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (NASB).

Somebody asked: How did Arius interpret this verse? And how did Arius view the Greek word Θεότητος, sometimes translated as “God’s nature” and “Deity” in this verse?

The Answer

Arius was not important.

To answer this question, we must firstly forget about Arius:

In the Traditional Account of the Arian Controversy, Arius was important. He developed a new heresy, gained many converts, and his theology dominated the church for much of the fourth century.

But none of that is true. Arius was not important. Not even his fellow ‘Arians’ regarded his writings as worth preserving and he did not leave a school of disciples.

For example, the scholars say:

“Arius’ own theology is of little importance in understanding the major debates of the rest of the century” (after Nicaea). (LA, 56-57) 1LA = Lewis Ayres Nicaea and its legacy, 2004 Ayres is a Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology

“We are not to think of Arius as dominating and directing a single school of thought to which all his allies belonged.” (RW, 171) 2RW = Archbishop Rowan Williams Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987

“Those who suspected or openly repudiated the decisions of Nicaea had little in common but this hostility … certainly not a loyalty to the teaching of Arius as an individual theologian.” (RW, 233)

The title ‘Arian’ is a misnomer.

We still refer to the ‘Arian’ Controversy because Athanasius coined the term to insult his opponents by tarring them with a theology that was already rejected:

After Athanasius was exiled for violence against the Egyptian Melitians, he developed “a masterpiece of the rhetorical art,” “the full flowering of a polemical strategy that was to shape accounts of the fourth century for over 1,500 years” (LA, 106-7).

“One key technique in his polemic was to offer an account of Arius’ theology and then present later credal decisions and the writings of his enemies as those of ‘Arians’.” (LA, 431)

In other words, Athanasius used the straw man tactic. He said that his opponents were followers of Arius – which they were not – and then he attacked Arius, pretending that he was attacking his opponents.

Unfortunately, for 1500 years, the church had accepted Athanasius’ polemical strategy. It was only during the last about 100 years that scholars, with better access to ancient documents and much progress in research, can see what really happened. For example, around the year 2000, Lewis Ayres wrote:

“A vast amount of scholarship over the past thirty years has offered revisionist accounts of themes and figures from the fourth century” (LA, 2).

“The four decades since 1960 have produced much revisionary scholarship on the Trinitarian and Christological disputes of the fourth century. It is now commonplace that these disputes cannot simply be understood as … the Church’s struggle against a heretic and his followers grounded in a clear Nicene doctrine established in the controversy’s earliest stages. Rather, this controversy is a complex affair in which tensions between pre-existing theological traditions intensified as a result of dispute over Arius, and over events following the Council of Nicaea.” (LA, 11-12)

The Eusebian View

Since Arius was unimportant, Ayres refers to the anti-Nicenes as ‘Eusebians’. Eusebius of Caesarea is a famous historian and was the leader of the theological mainstream. Therefore, to answer the question above, we must ask how the Eusebians understood Colossians 2:9. In this regard, I quote as follows:

“It is perhaps possible to speak of a broad insistence on the part of many eastern theologians during these years that there is a basic distinction between Father and Son that must be protected in theological formulation. However, at the same time, we consistently see an insistence that there is an ineffable closeness between Father and Son such that the Son’s being can be said to be from the Father in some indescribable sense, and that the Son is (to use one prominent phrase cf. Wisd 7:25; Heb 1:3) ‘the exact image of the Father’s substance’.” (LA, 432)

Ayres describes this as “the broad eastern tradition.” (LA, 432, 5) The majority of the Easterners were anti-Nicenes (Arians). The Dedication Creed of 341, which was formulated by an Eastern Council, will help to explain how the ‘Arians’ understood Col 2:9. Firstly, they opposed Arius’ views. But they also opposed the Nicene Creed because they regarded it as modalist:  

“Many of those who … were able to sign up to the ‘Dedication’ creed of 341 at Antioch … probably found both Arius’ language and the Athanasian/Marcellan theology unacceptable. Nicaea appears to have seemed dangerously modalist to many of them.” (LA, 432) 3Modalism is the view that the Father and Son are a single Person. That is what pro-Nicenes such as Marcellus and Athanasius believed. (Read more)

That creed said that the Son is “exact image of the Godhead and the ousia and will and power and glory of the Father.” (Read more) Note particularly the word “ousia,” which means ‘substance’. In other words, the Son is the image even of the Father’s substance. Nevertheless, the title ‘Image’ means He is distinct from and subordinate to the Father. The following are further quotes to explain how the ‘Arians’ interpreted Col 2:9:

“The Son is theos because he is image, because the Father has given to him an unparalleled share in his own godhead.” (Eusebius of Caesarea – RW, 171)

“The Son enjoys the most perfect participation imaginable in the life of the Father, and so too the fullest degree of access to the unknowable Father, but this results from the Father’s decision” (Eusebius – RW, 172).

“Many participants supposedly on different sides … (insisted) that one must speak of the Son’s incomprehensible generation from the Father as a sharing of the Father’s very being.” (Ayres, p. 4-5)

So, to summarize the above, and to explain how the Eusebians understood Colossians 2:9, they believed that the Son is ineffably close to the Father, that His being is from the Father in some indescribable sense, that He is the exact image of the Father’s Godhead, and that He shares in the Father’s own Godhead and life.

But they also believed that the Son received all of this from the Father. It is important to note that Col 2:9 says “the entire fullness of God’s nature dwells bodily in Christ” but Col 1:19 says that He received that fullness from the Father:

“It was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him.” (Col 1:19)

In conclusion, forget about Arius. That approach simply perpetuates Arius’ straw man tactic.

Above I quote:

RW = Archbishop Rowan Williams Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987

LA = Lewis Ayres Nicaea and its legacy, 2004 Ayres is a Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology

For more information, see – Athanasius invented Arianism

Other Articles

FOOTNOTES

  • 1
    LA = Lewis Ayres Nicaea and its legacy, 2004 Ayres is a Professor of Catholic and Historical Theology
  • 2
    RW = Archbishop Rowan Williams Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987
  • 3
    Modalism is the view that the Father and Son are a single Person. That is what pro-Nicenes such as Marcellus and Athanasius believed. (Read more)
Proudly powered by WordPress

Table of Contents

→ TABLE OF CONTENTS