Church History
6/17/25
Schaff, Philip. (2014). "Chapter IX. Theological Controversies, and Development of the Ecumenical Orthodoxy." In History of the Christian Church. (The Complete Eight Volumes in One). Volume 3, Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity A.D. 311-600, from Constantine the Great to Gregory the Great. (pp. 2327-2561). (Original work published 1889). Amazon Kindle Edition. (Personal Library). (sections 117-160).
"§125. Semi-Arianism." (pp. 2374-2375).
In the years following the Nicene council, Schaff observes that some tried to hold a moderating point of view between that of the orthodox and the Arians. These "simi-Arians" were, in Schaff's view, attempting to use tactics of political compromise to gain acceptance of their subordinationist teachings when couched in vague language (Schaff 2014, p. 2374). The teaching did reject the stark affirmation of Christ having a different nature than the Father (hetero-ousion), but it also makes no insistence on Christ having the same nature as the Father (homo-ousion). The term "similar" (homoi-ousion) is preferred. There is an assertion of the eternal generation of the Son, and that he is not a created being (Schaff 2014, p. 2375). The Athanasians rejected the Semi-Arian position as there is not a middle point in essence. Either the Son has the same essence as the Father or he does not.
"§126. Revived Sabellianism. Marcellus and Photinus." (pp. 2375-2378).
In the course of the dispute with Arianism, another error arose. As is often the case, this one was used by the advocates of orthodoxy. Marcellus, from Ancyra, "so pushed the doctrine of the consubstantiality of Christ that he impaired the personal distinction of Father and Son, and, at least in phraseology, fell into a refined form of Sabellianism" (Schaff 2014, p. 2376). In effect, he held to such a unity of the Father and Son that they could be seen as one person until the incarnation. Marcellus therefore became a polarizing figure as he entered into error due to his strong stance against another error. Schaff describes the logical process which led to his error in some detail (Schaff 2014, p. 2377).
6/17/25
Schaff, Philip. (2014). "Chapter IX. Theological Controversies, and Development of the Ecumenical Orthodoxy." In History of the Christian Church. (The Complete Eight Volumes in One). Volume 3, Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity A.D. 311-600, from Constantine the Great to Gregory the Great. (pp. 2327-2561). (Original work published 1889). Amazon Kindle Edition. (Personal Library). (sections 117-160).
"§125. Semi-Arianism." (pp. 2374-2375).
In the years following the Nicene council, Schaff observes that some tried to hold a moderating point of view between that of the orthodox and the Arians. These "simi-Arians" were, in Schaff's view, attempting to use tactics of political compromise to gain acceptance of their subordinationist teachings when couched in vague language (Schaff 2014, p. 2374). The teaching did reject the stark affirmation of Christ having a different nature than the Father (hetero-ousion), but it also makes no insistence on Christ having the same nature as the Father (homo-ousion). The term "similar" (homoi-ousion) is preferred. There is an assertion of the eternal generation of the Son, and that he is not a created being (Schaff 2014, p. 2375). The Athanasians rejected the Semi-Arian position as there is not a middle point in essence. Either the Son has the same essence as the Father or he does not.
"§126. Revived Sabellianism. Marcellus and Photinus." (pp. 2375-2378).
In the course of the dispute with Arianism, another error arose. As is often the case, this one was used by the advocates of orthodoxy. Marcellus, from Ancyra, "so pushed the doctrine of the consubstantiality of Christ that he impaired the personal distinction of Father and Son, and, at least in phraseology, fell into a refined form of Sabellianism" (Schaff 2014, p. 2376). In effect, he held to such a unity of the Father and Son that they could be seen as one person until the incarnation. Marcellus therefore became a polarizing figure as he entered into error due to his strong stance against another error. Schaff describes the logical process which led to his error in some detail (Schaff 2014, p. 2377).
RSS Feed