RPC Hanson – A lecture on the Arian Controversy

Hanson describes the conventional account of the Arian Controversy as a complete traversy and explains that, when the controversy began, there was no “orthodoxy” on the doctrine of God, that the pre-Nicene fathers described the Son as subordinate to the Father and as the the nous or Second Hypostasis of contemporary Middle Platonist philosophy, that errors were made on both sides of the controversy, that the creed of 325 did not solve the controversy because its use of the words ousia and hypostasis was ambiguous, and that it was the Nicene Creed that broke with the tradition of the pre-Nicene Fathers.

How did the early church fathers interpret Daniel 9?

This article discusses Jewish views and surveys the interpretations of 12 Christian writers of the first four centuries. The purpose is to determine how their views compared to those of modern interpreters. It shows that there was a strong consensus among the early church fathers that Daniel’s seventy weeks prophecy was fulfilled in Christ.