STANDARD BLOCK

. 

grys = #f5f5f5

 

[Show More]

. e4eff7

[Show More]

. #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

 

 

[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

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

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)

Justinian and the Byzantine Papacy squashed Arianism.

Overview

In the fifth century, Germanic nations wrestled Europe from the Romans but claimed to remain part of the Roman Empire, subject to the emperor in the East. Although they were Arians, they treated the Roman Church in the West (the Papacy) with respect. This allowed the Papacy to grow in strength for reasons such as its central organization, compared to the fragmented Germanic nations. 

In the Roman view, Church and State were One, with the Emperor as the Head, with the right and duty to protect and regulate the Church. Justinian was the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Emperor from 527 to 565. In his view, his duty to protect and rule extended also to the Papacy in the West. He sent troops to liberate the Papacy and subjected the three Arian nations that were immediate threats to the Papacy. By 553, his troops had dispersed the Vandals to the fringes of the empire, forced the Ostrogoths back north to South Austria, and barricaded the Visigoths with the new province of Spania. 

His conquests began a period of two centuries known as the ‘Byzantine Papacy’ because of the extent to which the Byzantine (Eastern) monarchs dominated the Papacy. One example is the massive growth of Greek speakers in the Papal hierarchy over this period; from almost zero to the majority. During the Byzantine Papacy, the Eastern Empire ruled not only the Papacy but also the Western nations through the Papacy. This continued for two centuries, transformed the Roman Church into a very powerful political organization, and converted the remaining Arian kingdoms to Catholicism.

In conclusion, the Trinity doctrine dominates today because the Roman Empire made it its State Religion and because the Empire dominated. 

Daniel 7 foresaw these events and identifies the Papacy as the 11th horn. 

Fifth Century

In the fifth century, Germanic nations subjected Europe but remained ostensibly under part of the Roman Empire
Arian and Chalcedonian kingdoms in 495
Arian and Chalcedonian kingdoms in 495

In the fifth century, Germanic peoples, who had migrated into the Western Roman Empire over the preceding century or more, became a dominant force within the Western Roman Empire due to their large numbers and military supremacy. They revolted against the severe conditions under which they were allowed to remain in the Empire, sacked Rome twice, and deposed the last Roman Emperor. Through wars, they divided up the territory of the Western Empire into Germanic kingdoms. However, these nations claimed to be part of the Roman Empire—under the governance of the Eastern Emperor.

These Germanic peoples were Arians but treated the Roman Church (the Papacy) with respect

There are at least two reasons why the Germanic peoples might have opposed the Roman Church (the Church of the Roman Empire):

Firstly, the Roman Church was part of the Roman government. There was no separation of Church and State. The Roman Church was like a government department, accountable to the Roman Emperor.

Secondly, the Germanic peoples, including the Ostrogoths, the Visigoths of Spain, and the Vandals in North Africa, were Arian Christians because they converted to Christianity due to the missionary efforts of the fourth-century Arian Church (Read Article).

Despite these facts, since these immigrants wished to remain part of the Roman Empire, they allowed the Roman Church to remain in the West and even showed respect to it.

Despite being subjected to Arian rule, the Papacy grew in strength for reasons such as its central organization

After the Western Roman Empire was divided into these kingdoms, the Roman Church had to depend on the Arian nations for physical protection. However, the Roman Church grew in strength. The reasons include the following:

1. Previously, the Roman Church was subject to the Roman Emperor. Now, it had more independence.

2. The Roman Church’s centralized and superior organization, administration, and expertise in statecraft, from years of being part of the Roman Government, gave it an advantage over the various Germanic nations, which had no centralized control.

3. The Germanic nations desired to remain part of the Empire. As the official religion of the Roman Empire, the Roman Church had a certain status.

Unity of Church and State

Justinian was the Eastern Roman Emperor from 527 to 565.

Justinian I, also known as Justinian the Great, was the Eastern Roman emperor from 527 to 565, ruling from Constantinople; the capital of the empire. Due to his religious preferences and actions, he is venerated by the Roman Catholic and some other churches.

The Byzantine Empire is another name for the Eastern Roman Empire after the Western Empire fell.

This article often refers to the “Byzantine Empire.” Byzantium was an ancient Greek colony in early antiquity that later became Constantinople; the capital of the Roman Empire.

The Byzantine Empire is simply another name for the Eastern Roman Empire after the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD and, therefore, was the continuation of the Roman Empire.

Byzantine Empire is a term created after that empire ceased to exist. Its citizens referred to their empire simply as the Roman Empire and to themselves as Romans.

Church and State were One, with the Emperor as the Head, with the right and duty of protecting and regulating the Church

It is important to understand that no separation of Church and State existed. A Cambridge article explains the relationship between church and state in the Byzantine Empire:

“The idea of papal sovereignty was foreign to the Byzantines. … unintelligible, unreasonable, and unhistorical. … (in) their concept of the order of the Christian world … The Christian Roman Emperor was the elect of God and God’s vice-gerent [God’s agent on earth] on earth … His patriarchs or supreme bishops of the Christian Empire … were the spiritual heads of the Christian world, acting in harmony with him. Church and State were therefore one, indissoluble and interdependent.”

In other words, the Emperor was the head of the Roman Church. Similar to his predecessors, Justinian believed that “he had the right and duty of regulating by his laws the minutest details of worship and discipline, and also of dictating the theological opinions to be held in the Church”.1Ayer, John Cullen, ed. (1913). A Source Book for Ancient Church History. Mundus Publishing (2008 reprint). p. 553 Emperor Justinian regulated everything:

At the very beginning of his reign, he promulgated by law the Church’s belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation and threatened all heretics with the appropriate penalties. [Justinian’s Codex Iustinianus, i. 5.]

He made the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan creed the sole symbol of the Church: “We direct that all Catholic churches, throughout the entire world, shall be placed under the control of the orthodox bishops who have embraced the Nicene Creed.” (Codex Justinianus)

He felt entitled to settle disputes in papal elections, as he did when he favored Vigilius and had his rival Silverius deported.

As a result, the church within the Eastern Roman Empire had become firmly tied with the imperial government. Church and State were one with the emperor as the HeadModern readers may find this concept difficult to grasp but, unless we do, we fail to understand the history of the church or the process through which the Trinity doctrine became accepted.

In Justinian’s view, his right and duty were not limited to the East but extended to the Papacy in the West

.The First Council of Nicaea in 325 affirmed that the bishop of a provincial capital had a certain authority over the other bishops of the province. It also recognized the authority of the sees of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch and granted special recognition to Jerusalem. The First Council of Constantinople in 381 added the see of Constantinople.

Emperor Justinian assigned to those five sees (in other words, including Rome) a superior ecclesial authority that covered the whole of his empire. In other words, in Justinian’s view, the Church included the Western Roman Church and he, as emperor, had the right and duty also to protect and regulate it. 

He had a genuine interest in the church. 

Over the course of his reign, he authored a small number of theological treatises. He was indeed a “nursing father” of the Church. Both the Codex and the Novellae contain many enactments to benefit the church. Just in Constantinople, he built 25 churches (see traditioninaction). Justinian also rebuilt the Church of Hagia Sophia, with its numerous chapels and shrines, gilded octagonal dome, and mosaics.

He suppressed heretics with violence and even death. 

Emperor Justinian protected the ‘purity’ of the church by suppressing heretics. For example:

The Codex contained two statutes that decreed the destruction of paganism. (Codex, I., xi. 9 and 10) These provisions were zealously enforced.

At Constantinople, on one occasion c.450, several Manicheans, after strict inquisition, were executed in the emperor’s very presence: some by burning, others by drowning. 2Sarris, Peter (2023). Justinian: emperor, soldier, saint. London: Basic Books. p. 279. ISBN 9781529365399. [Show More]

Monophysitism opposed the two-natures theory. Some emperors tolerated it. Justinian was undecided. 

One of the major diverging views in his empire was Monophysitism, which had adherents in Syria and Egypt. While the Council of Chalcedon in 451 concluded that Jesus Christ has two natures; a divine and a human nature, Monophysitism maintained that Jesus Christ has one divine nature; a divine nature, or a synthesis of a divine and human nature. Some previous emperors and the Patriarch of Constantinople tolerated Monophysitism and allowed the appointment of Monophysites to church offices. However, this caused tension with the bishop of Rome. 3Meyendorff 1989, pp. 207–250. (Meyendorff, John (1989). Imperial unity and Christian divisions: The Church 450–680 A.D. The Church in history. Vol. 2. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press. ISBN 978-0-88-141056-3.

Justinian’s predecessor (Justin I) reversed this policy, confirmed the Chalcedonian doctrine, and openly condemned the Monophysites, reestablishing relations between Constantinople and Rome. 4(Meyendorff 1989, pp. 207–250.)

Justinian’s efforts alternated between attempts to force Monophysites to accept the Chalcedonian creed by persecuting their bishops and monks – thereby embittering their sympathizers in Egypt and other provinces – and attempts at a compromise that would win over the Monophysites without surrendering the Chalcedonian faith.

Justinian’s wife Theodora favored the Monophysites unreservedly. While Theodosius’ wife is venerated in the Catholic Church because she was a fervent supporter of the Nicene Creed, Empress Theodora, for Catholics, was “one of the most … deplorable figures of ancient history,” for “she became an enemy of the Faith and a supporter of the heresies, and she strove to make Justinian enter into conflict with the Holy See at the end of his life” (Tradition in Action). 

Wars against the Western Arian Nations

While subject to Arian rule, the Papacy was unable to dominate or compel people to comply with its dictates

After the Germanic peoples divided the territory of the Western Empire between them in the fifth century, the Western Roman Church was subject to their laws. 

The Catholic website Tradition in Action states that the Catholics at the time were groaning under the yoke of the barbarians. But the Jewish Encyclopedia states: “In contrast with the domination of the orthodox church, the Arian was distinguished by a wise tolerance and a mild treatment of the population of other faiths” (Kohler et al, ARIANISM). 

We can conclude, at least, that the Roman Church was unable to dominate or compel the population in Europe to comply with its doctrines.

Justinian considered it his God-given duty to liberate the Papacy. He sent troops and subjected three Arian nations

As an ardent supporter of the Nicene church in Rome, Justinian considered it his God-given duty to restore the Roman Empire to its ancient boundaries and to liberate the Western Roman Church from Arian domination. Justinian never personally took part in military campaigns, but one of the most spectacular features of Justinian’s reign was the recovery of large stretches of land around the Western Mediterranean basin that had slipped out of Imperial control in the 5th century.

Through these wars, Justinian subjected the three main Arian nations that were immediate threats to the Papacy:

In 533–534, his troops dispersed the Vandals of North Africa to the fringes of the empire

The first Arian Christian kingdom that Justinian’s armies attacked was the Vandals in North Africa. Again, from a Catholic perspective, “that whole area had been taken over by the worst barbarians, the Vandals” (Tradition in Action). Although the Arians generally tolerated other faiths, the Vandals, for several decades, tried to force their Arian beliefs on their North African Nicene subjects, exiling Nicene clergy, dissolving monasteries, and exercising heavy pressure on non-conforming Nicene Christians. This might be why Justinian attacked them first.

General Belisarius defeated the Vandals in the Vandalic War of 533–534. They were dispersed to the fringes of the empire and became lost to history.

After a protracted war, Justinian defeated the Ostrogoths in Italy in 553. They returned to South Austria.

Justinian next attacked the Ostrogoths; another Arian Christian nation. This war may be divided into three phases:

In 535, Belisarius invaded Sicily and advanced into Italy, sacking Naples and capturing Rome in 536. In 540 he reached the Ostrogothic capital Ravenna and reclaimed it for the Empire.

But Belisarius was recalled in the face of renewed hostilities by the Persians to the East. While military efforts were focused on the east, the Ostrogoths made quick gains in Italy. They reconquered the major cities of Southern Italy and soon held almost the entire Italian peninsula.

The third phase of the war in Italy (from 541 to 554) followed after a truce was agreed upon with the Persians. Following their final defeat at the Battle of Mons Lactarius in 553, the Ostrogoths returned north and (re)settled in South Austria. Through the Gothic War, Justinian restored Dalmatia, Sicily, Italy, and Rome to the empire after more than half a century of Ostrogoth rule.

In 552, Justinian recovered a strip of land that barricaded the Visigoths from being a threat to the Roman Church in Italy

In 552, Justinian dispatched a force of 2,000 men to invade Visigothic Hispania: another Arian Christian Germanic nation. This short-lived conquest recovered only a small strip of land along the Mediterranean coast, known as the new province of Spania before being checked by the Visigoths. This campaign marked the apogee (apex) of Byzantine expansion. Spania kept the Visigoths as a threat to Hispania alone and not to the western Mediterranean nor Africa.

It is remarkable that Justinian attacked the Christian nations in the west, yet he was prepared to negotiate peace with the pagan nations to the east. In the long term, that was a mistake. These pagan nations later embraced Islam and overran much of the former Eastern Empire’s territories.

Byzantine Papacy

Justinian’s conquests began two centuries called the ‘Byzantine Papacy’ because the Byzantine monarchs dominated the Papacy

After Justinian conquered the Italian peninsula and delivered the church in Rome from Arian domination, he replaced the incumbent pope and appointed the next three popes. In this way, Justinian put the Papacy firmly under the control of the Byzantine monarch. His successors continued this practice for the next two centuries. The Papacy in the years 537 to 752 is known as the Byzantine Papacy because the Byzantine monarch claimed the right to approve the appointment of the bishop of Rome and, therefore, dominated the Papacy also in other ways. This is consistent with the traditional Roman view that the Emperor is the real head of the Church under God.

One indication of Eastern domination is the massive growth of Greek speakers in the Papacy

One indication of the dominance during these years of the Byzantine Empire over the church in Rome is the Greek dominance of the Roman Church:

The two halves of the Empire always had cultural differences. For example, the Western Empire spoke Latin and the East Greek. During the Byzantine Papacy, large numbers of Easterners rose through the ranks of the clergy in Papacy. Easterners constituted less than one percent of the papal hierarchy at the end of the sixth century. In contrast, according to Ekonomou, over a century later, between 701 and 750, “Greeks outnumbered Latins by nearly three and a half to one”.

This confirms that the church in the West was now once again firmly subject to the authority of the (Eastern) Roman Emperor. 

The Eastern Empire now ruled the West through the Papacy, converting the Papacy into a politically powerful institution

After Justinian defeated the Arian Germanic nations, the Roman Church no longer depended on them for protection. With the protection and status it received from the Byzantine Empire, the Papacy became a powerful social and political institution in Europe. 

This relationship also allowed the Byzantine Empire, through the Church, a certain level of control over the Germanic nations in the West. To some extent, the Roman Empire was reunited.

The domination of the Eastern Empire and the Papacy caused the Arian nations to convert to Catholicism

The Franks entered the Western Roman Empire as Pagans. In 496, before the time of Justinian, the pagan king of the Franks Clovis I, was the first important non-Roman ruler to convert to Catholicism rather than to Arianism. After that, he forcibly converted the Franks to Chalcedonian Christianity.

After Justinian began to rule the Germanic tribes through the Papacy, they incrementally abandoned Arianism in favor of Catholicism. The first Germanic ruler to convert from Arianism to Chalcedonian Christianity was Reccared I of the Visigoths in Spain. He converted in 587. Visigothic Spain followed him at the Third Council of Toledo in 589. 

Pope Gregory I reigned from 590 to 604; a few decades after Justinian. He was perhaps the best-known pope of the Byzantine Papacy. Britannica describes him as the first of the medieval popes. With the support of the Byzantine Empire, he reformed the ecclesiastical structures and administration, launching renewed missionary efforts to convert the peoples of northern Europe as far north as Ireland. These efforts were able to convert the Arian peoples to Catholic (Nicene) Christianity:

The Anglo-Saxons of Southern Britain were the predecessors of the English. They had never been part of the Empire and were pagan, but were forcibly converted by their king Æthelberht of Kent, following the work of missionaries sent by Pope Gregory the Great. In turn, the Anglo-Saxons sent missionaries to northwestern Europe – to what is now the Netherlands. 

Aripert I of the Lombards converted to Catholicism in 653. Grimwald, King of the Lombards (662–671), and his young son and successor Garibaldi (671) were the last Arian kings in Europe. By 700, the Lombards in northern Italy have converted from Arianism to Catholicism.

By the 8th century, Arianism had ceased to be the mainstream belief of the Germanic people. Justinian’s goal was achieved through the sword.

Conclusions

The Trinity doctrine dominates today because the Roman Empire made it its State Religion and because the Empire dominated. 

This article confirms that the Trinity doctrine was advanced by the military might of the Roman Empire. The decision to adopt the Trinity doctrine was not taken by Church Councils but by the Roman Emperors; particularly Constantine, Theodosius, and Justinian. If Justinian had not subjected the Arian nations, and if the Byzantine Empire, through the ‘Byzantine Papacy’, had not squashed Arianism in Europe, it might still have dominated Europe and, therefore, the Church today. [Show More]

Daniel 7 foresaw these events and identifies the Papacy as the 11th horn. 

Secondly, this article helps to identify the little horn of Daniel 7 as the Roman Church; the Church of the Roman Empire:

The fourth beast of Daniel 7 symbolizes identified as the Roman Empire. (Read article)

The 10 and later 11 horns that grow out of that beast are the fragments of the Empire as it collapsed. While the previous empires (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece) were followed by another great empire, Rome was not. It was fragmented.

The first 10 horns describe the Fall of Rome in the fifth century. It was fragmented into several Germanic kingdoms. The current article mentions some of them, such as the Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, Franks, and the Anglo-Saxons.

The 11th horn that comes up later, uprooting three other horns as it came up (Dan 7:7, 24), describes the birth of the Papacy a political organization in the sixth century. The three uprooted horns are the three nations Justinian conquered: the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, and the Vandals. The Papacy was not able to dominate before Justinian.

The 11th horn will become larger than the others, persecute the saints, and attempt to change the law. This describes the High Middle Ages, when the Papacy dominated the rulers of Europe. See Article.

Other Articles

FOOTNOTES

  • 1
    Ayer, John Cullen, ed. (1913). A Source Book for Ancient Church History. Mundus Publishing (2008 reprint). p. 553
  • 2
    Sarris, Peter (2023). Justinian: emperor, soldier, saint. London: Basic Books. p. 279. ISBN 9781529365399.
  • 3
    Meyendorff 1989, pp. 207–250. (Meyendorff, John (1989). Imperial unity and Christian divisions: The Church 450–680 A.D. The Church in history. Vol. 2. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press. ISBN 978-0-88-141056-3.
  • 4
    (Meyendorff 1989, pp. 207–250.)
TABLE OF CONTENTS