. |
grys = #f5f5f5
|
. e4eff7 |
. |
—
. #edf0c2 |
—
. f0efc2 |
—
. |
—
. 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 |
—
. fff2c9mentation of |
. #fce9ae. Thedivided kingdom” is a fragmentation of the fourth empir |
f0ebd1 summary block
Donker oranje vir teks c24f02 or c75000 or C00000
. |
. f2f2f2 |
. |
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
Articles in this series
N4 Other Articles
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
-
- The woman, the dragon, the child, and the war in heaven
- What are the stars of heaven in Revelation 12:4 – angels or people?
- When was Satan thrown out of heaven?
- HOW did Christ’s death win the victory in the war in heaven?
- They overcame Satan by the word of their testimony. (Rev 12:11)
- Why did God not make an end to evil after the Cross?
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.
“The fundamental problem in understanding the course of these controversies stems from the nature of our sources. … The documentary evidence from this period is, in many cases, fragmentary.” (Ayres, p. 2) “In the first few decades of the present (20th) century … seminally important work was … done in the sorting-out of the chronology of the controversy, and in the isolation of a hard core of reliable primary documents.” (Williams, p. 11-12) “Schwartz has established much of the chronology of the period more securely. Bell has published the papyrus which throws such a lurid light on the behaviour of Athanasius in his see. … so important for our estimation of Athanasius’ character. … The existence of the Synod of Antioch of 325 has now been brought to light. … A store of Arian literature hitherto unknown or little known has been made available by Turner, Gryson and others.” (Hanson, p. xx)
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)
Ayres wrote in 2004: “A vast amount of scholarship over the past thirty years has offered revisionist accounts of themes and figures from the fourth century” (Ayres, p. 2). “The four decades since 1960 have produced much revisionary scholarship on the Trinitarian and Christological disputes of the fourth century.” (Ayres, p. 11) R.P.C. Hanson, perhaps the foremost English scholar on the fourth-century Arian Controversy, described the traditional account as a complete travesty. (Read More) “The diatribes of Gwatkin and of Harnack (published around the year 1900) can today be completely ignored.” (Hanson, p. 95)
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.
“ELEMENTARY TEXTBOOKS often paint a clear and dramatic picture of the “Arian” controversy, more or less as follows. Shortly before 318, in Alexandria, Arius began to preach that the Son of God is a creature. In 318 a synod convoked by the bishop, Alexander of Alexandria, condemned Arius’ teaching. Arius then withdrew to Asia Minor, where he won many converts to his doctrines, especially from among the Sylloukianistai, his fellow pupils of the martyr Lucian of Antioch. In 325 the Council of Nicaea decisively rejected Arianism and proclaimed the orthodox doctrine in its creed and particularly in the renowned word homoousion. But the majority of Eastern bishops continued to adhere to the Arian heresy in subtler and subtler forms; and Arianizing emperors, especially Constantius, conspired with these bishops to force Arius’ heresy on the whole Church. At first, resistance to Arianism came almost singlehandedly from Athanasius of Alexandria, who, despite persecution and exile, indefatigably defended Nicene orthodoxy. The year 360 marked the nadir: “The whole world groaned and marveled that it was Arian,” wrote Jerome. Constantius’ death in 361 was a turning point. The three Cappadocian Fathers received the baton of orthodoxy from Athanasius and continued the defense of the Nicene doctrine. The ascendancy of Arianism was definitively ended by the Council of Constantinople in 381, and orthodoxy triumphed.” (Lienhard)
“Many summary accounts present the Arian controversy as a dispute over whether or not Christ was divine, initially provoked by a priest called Arius whose teaching angered his bishop, Alexander of Alexandria. Eventually, this traditional account tells us, the controversy extended throughout the century—even after the decisive statements of the Council of Nicaea—because a conspiracy of Arians against the Nicene tradition (represented particularly by Athanasius) perpetuated Arius’ views.” (Ayres, p. 13)
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.
Hanson wrote around 1988: “Gwatkin nearly a century ago in the last full-scale book written in English on the Arian Controversy …” (Hanson Lecture) Ayres confirmed the importance of the books by Simonetti and Hanson: “Richard Hanson’s The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (1988) and Manlio Simonetti’s La Crisi Ariana nel IV secolo (1975) remain essential points of reference.” (Ayres, p. 12) (Simonetti’s book is only available in Italian.) Ayres’ book is based on the books by Hanson and Simonetti and “in some measure advances on their texts.” (Ayres, p. 5) This article series relies mainly on the following authors: Hanson, Bishop RPC Williams, Archbishop Rowan Ayres, Lewis Anatolios, Khaled Specific articles: Lienhard Joseph T – The “Arian” Controversy: Some Categories Reconsidered, a 1987 article Pier Franco Beatrice – The word “homoousios” from Hellenism to Christianity.)
These articles were not developed by studying the primary sources (ancient documents) but by studying the writings of world-renowned specialists (all Trinitarians) and, therefore, quote extensively from such authors.
The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God –
The Arian Controversy 318-381, (1988)
Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987
Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (2004)
Retrieving Nicaea, 2011
Hanson, Bishop RPC Williams, Archbishop Rowan Ayres, Lewis Anatolios, Khaled
This article series relies mainly on the following authors:
The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God –
The Arian Controversy 318-381, (1988)
Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987
Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (2004)
Retrieving Nicaea, 2011
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
- 1Trevor 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.”
- 2Kermit Zarley described Hanson as “the preeminent authority on the development of the church doctrine of God in the 4th century.”
- 3Lewis 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.
- 4Lewis Ayres wrote that Williams’ book “offers one of the best recent discussions of the way scholarship on this controversy has developed. (Ayres, 12)