Category: Schaff 2014 - Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry

Alexandria and Jerusalem

11/11/2025

Church History
11/11/25

Schaff, Philip. (2014). "Chapter X. Church Fathers, and Theological Literature." 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. 2562-2700). (Original work published 1889). Amazon Kindle Edition. (Personal Library). (sections 161-180).

"§167. Didymus of Alexandria." (pp. 2610-2611).
Didymus of Alexandria, dubbed "Caecus" due to his blindness from the age of four, cultivated his knowledge in Scripture, philosophy, rhetoric, and mathematics alike (Schaff 2014, p. 2611). Nominated to teach by Athanasius, he worked in this role in Alexandria for close to 60 years, having many students who were themselves illustrious scholars. Though Didymus took strong stands against Arian beliefs, his acceptance of Origen's views about the pre-existent nature of human souls earned him condemnation after his death by several councils. Schaff lists a number of his extant works, mostly exegetical in nature.

"§168. Cyril of Jerusalem." (pp. 2612-2614).
Cyril, who became presbyter in Jerusalem in 350, was involved in the Arian controversy for much of his life. "His metropolitan, Acacius of Caesarea, an Arian, who had elevated him to the episcopal chair, fell out with him over the Nicene faith and on a question of jurisdiction, and deposed him at a council in 357" (Schaff 2014, p. 2612). He was restored to office in 361, then Acacius converted to Nicene views in 363 (Schaff 2014, p. 2613). After being restored from an exile in 379, Cyril continued working with the church in Jerusalem until his death in 386. His catechetical lectures from about 347 are well known. They provide significant insight into the preparation converts of his time would have prior to baptism (Schaff 2014, p. 2614).

Gregory and Gregory

11/4/2025

Church History
11/4/25

Schaff, Philip. (2014). "Chapter X. Church Fathers, and Theological Literature." 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. 2562-2700). (Original work published 1889). Amazon Kindle Edition. (Personal Library). (sections 161-180).

"§165. Gregory of Nyssa." (pp. 2592-2597).
   Gregory of Nyssa, brother of Basil the Great, considered earthly wealth and lineage to be unimportant (Schaff 2014, p. 2593). He became an ascetic in Pontus after a brief time as a rhetorician. Although he was married, he endorsed a life of celibacy as a means of freedom from worldly distractions (Schaff 2014, p. 2594). He viewed the spiritual dedication to God as a true sort of virginity, developing a life of freedom.
   In 372, Basil urged Gregory to move to Cappadocia and engage in active interactions to combat Arian beliefs (Schaff 2014, p. 2594). This resulted in a two year exile beginning in 376. After his return from exile he endured the death of all his brothers and sisters, who served as examples to him of the godly life (Schaff 2014, p. 2595). Schaff provides a substantial prayer written by Gregory after the death of his sister, indicating the depth of his repentance and dedication to God.
   Gregory of Nyssa was present at the council of Constantinople. There arose a tradition, which Schaff considers erroneous, that he composed the addition to the Nicene Creed adopted at Constantinople (Schaff 2014, p. 2595). Because of his prominence as a theologian he was sent to tour numerous Christian communities to evaluate and strengthen their faith (Schaff 2014, p. 2596). He died around 395. Schaff lists many of his known works. They show a strong influence of Origen, and stress human freedom (Schaff 2014, p. 2597).

"§166. Gregory Nazianzen." (pp. 2597-2610).
   Gregory Nazianzen is also referred to as Gregory the Theologian. He is a contemporary in both time and place with Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa (Schaff 2014, p. 2598). Gregory defended Nicene orthodoxy while embracing the arts, poetry, and contemplation.
   Gregory was born about 330, making him a year younger than the emperor Julian (Schaff 2014, p. 2599). His Christian mother was a strong formative influence on him. In Schaff's analysis, she was a woman of broad interests and abilities, able to concentrate her attention in a singular manner (Schaff 2014, p. 2600).
   Trained in the Scripture and in science, Gregory then moved into a study of rhetoric (Schaff 2014, p. 2600). As a teacher in the church he followed and endorsed the custom of his time, living a celibate life (Schaff 2014, p. 2601). He received training in Cappadocian Caesarea, then in Caesarea in Palestine, followed by studies in Alexandria and Athens. It was in Athens that Gregory became a close friend of Basil. His relationship with his fellow student, Julian (the apostate) was quite the opposite, resulting in ongoing antagonism (Schaff 2014, p. 2602).
   After studies in Athens, Gregory returned to his parents' home with his brother, a physician (Schaff 2014, p. 2602). After receiving baptism he entered a strict form of asceticism. Schaff illustrates Gregory's progressive move into the life of contemplation in this period. In 361, against his will, Gregory was ordained as a presbyter (Schaff 2014, p. 2603). He began service as a presbyter in Nazianzum in 362. Basil subsequently ordained Gregory as a bishop, with responsibility to care for the small town of Sasima. There is some doubt as to whether Gregory actually took up that office, as he is known to have been assisting his father in 372 (Schaff 2014, p. 2604).
   After the death of Gregory's father in 374, he entered a life of solitude in 375 (Schaff 2014, p. 2605). The death of Basil in 379 pushed Gregory into a period of depression. At this time, he was called to the orthodox church in Constantinople, which city had succumbed to Arian thought (Schaff 2014, p. 2606). Through his labors, Nicene orthodoxy came to prominence in Constantinople. Gregory's trinitarian discourses from this time period were well known and received. Schaff considers the edict of Theodosius in 380, deposing Arians, to have been inspired by the work of Gregory, whom he placed over the cathedral church of Constantinople (Schaff 2014, p. 2607). Gregory was placed as bishop of Constantinople in 381. He subsequently resigned due to the political intrigue caused by his elevation (Schaff 2014, p. 2608). Gregory remained active in writing and engaged in human care ministries through the remainder of his life (Schaff 2014, p. 2609). He died in 390 or 391.

Athanasius and Basil

10/28/2025

Church History
10/28/25

Schaff, Philip. (2014). "Chapter X. Church Fathers, and Theological Literature." 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. 2562-2700). (Original work published 1889). Amazon Kindle Edition. (Personal Library). (sections 161-180).

"§163. Athanasius the Great." (pp. 2574-2583).
   After an extensive bibliography which includes information about works of Athanasius discovered and published in the 19th century, Schaff asserts that Athanasius should be seen as great in theological and churchly matters similarly to Constantine in political and secular issues (Schaff 2014, p. 2575). Athanasius proved his convictions through many years of standing in the face of opposition. Despite hostility on all sides he was willing to stand for the truth (Schaff 2014, p. 2576). He had been brought into training in 313 by the bishop Alexander of Alexandria, whom he served for many years, accompanying him to the Nicene Council. He became the successor to Alexander in 328 despite his youth.
   Immediately upon his elevation as bishop, Athanasius became intimately involved with the Arian controversy (Schaff 2014, p. 2577). He was exiled five times due to his stance in favor of Nicene orthodoxy. After his fifth exile ended in 369, Athanasius was able to live and write in peace until his death in 373 (Schaff 2014, p. 2678).
   Schaff describes Athanasius as having tremendous acumen and insight, attributed by supporters to divine assistance and by detractors to the devil (Schaff 2014, p. 2578). All accounts suggest he endured good and bad circumstances equally well. Because of his view that Arian belief was completely contrary to Christianity, Athanasius was inflexible in his opposition to the Arians (Schaff 2014, p. 2579). He spoke and wrote against them in forceful terms but never endorsed violence or persecution against the Arians.
   Athanasius' writings, in Schaff's estimation, showed theological depth and rhetorical excellence, as well as the marks of a superior intellect (Schaff 2014, p. 2581). Schaff provides a categorized list with brief descriptions of his written works (Schaff 2014, pp. 2581-2583).

"§164. Basil the Great." (pp. 2583-2592).
   Schaff (with many others) recognizes Basil the Great and "the two Gregories" from Cappadocia as distinguished in a high degree (Schaff 2014, p. 2583). Basil, born to a wealthy and pious family in Caesarea about 329, was raised in piety. Two brothers and a sister are considered saints in the East, one of them being Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, one of the two Gregories. His friendship with Gregory of Nazianzen, began between 351 and 355, in schooling at Athens (Schaff 2014, p. 2584). He and Gregory, unlike their classmate Julian (the Apostate), held fast to their Christian convictions. Schaff observes that Basil and the two Gregories showed broad knowledge and appreciation for the natural world (Schaff 2014, p. 2585). This set them apart from many philosophers, who took little interest in the created order.
   Schaff suggests that the Cappadocian Fathers may have favored the beauty of nature over that of art due to pagan abuses of artwork (Schaff 2014, p. 2567). The beauty of God's creation transcends all our imitations of beauty.
   After his studies in Athens, Basil taught and practiced rhetoric in Caesarea, but in 360 he traveled to Syria and Egypt in order to explore monasticism (Schaff 2014, p. 2588). This became the pattern for his life. The separation from temporal cares and events struck Basil as a blessed life. In 364 Basil was appointed as presbyter, then bishop of Caesarea in 370 (Schaff 2014, p. 2590). A difficult life of asceticism, along with the stresses of hostility in community contributed to Basil's death in 379 (Schaff 2014, p. 2591). Schaff briefly describes a number of Basil's written works.

Church Historians of the Third to Fifth Centuries

10/21/2025

Church History
10/21/25

Schaff, Philip. (2014). "Chapter X. Church Fathers, and Theological Literature." 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. 2562-2700). (Original work published 1889). Amazon Kindle Edition. (Personal Library). (sections 161-180).

"§161. Eusebius of Caesarea." (pp. 2562-2569).
   After a substantial bibliography pertaining especially to Eusebius, Schaff observes that this period, which he considers the third in the Church, saw many good and influential teachers (Schaff 2014, p. 2563). He sees the roots of classical rhetoric and the strength of Christianity coming together in these authors. Eusebius emerges as "the 'father of church history,' the Christian Herodotus" (Schaff 2014, p. 2563).
   Born after the middle of the third century in Palestine, Eusebius was influenced in his education by the work of Origen (Schaff 2014, p. 2563). After some education, he settled in Caesarea, where he was involved in a theological school (Schaff 2014, p. 2564). In 335 or 336, Eusebius, presiding over a council in Tyre, opposed Athanasius. At this time he was accused of cowardice in the face of persecution, having emerged unscathed. Eusebius served as bishop of Caesarea from about 315 until his death in 340.
   Eusebius was a party to the Arian controversy, though unwillingly (Schaff 2014, p. 2565). He attempted to hold to a middle ground. Schaff considers Eusebius to have been more allied with Arius than with Athanasius in the dispute. Yet Eusebius was silent about this controversy in his writings. Rather, his focus was on Constantine's political victories at the same period. Schaff describes Eusebius as "not a man of controversy, but of moderation and peace" (Schaff 2014, p. 2566), choosing not to take a solid stance on either side of the Arian dispute.
   Schaff considers Eusebius' character to be flawed by indecision as well. He proved a loyal court theologian, adapting to the views desired by Constantine (Schaff 2014, p. 2566).
   The wide reading and collecting of information carried on by Eusebius sets him apart (Schaff 2014, p. 2567). While his theological statements may be lacking in depth, he demonstrated a considerable breadth of knowledge, making his historical writings an outstanding source to this day. Despite this, Schaff considers his collection of information to be more compelling than his analysis of that information. Schaff describes Eusebius' various works in brief.

"§162. The Church Historians after Eusebius." (pp. 2569-2574).
   After a substantial bibliography, Schaff notes that Eusebius was followed by church historians who carried his work on through the end of the sixth century (Schaff 2014, p. 2570). Like Eusebius their analysis may have been lacking in rigor but their collation of source documents was significant. They did nothing to correct or expand Eusebius' work through the third century. All focus on the East, except when the West was in direct contact with the East.
   Schaff describes Socrates of Constantinople, born in 380 (Schaff 2014, p. 2570). He provided extracts from source documents covering 306-439). Hermeas Sozomen, from Palestine but working in Constantinople, provided a history covering 323-423, without apparent influence of Socrates (Schaff 2014, p. 2571). Theodoret of Cyrus, who became embroiled in the Christological controversies noted in the previous chapter, composed a history of 325-429 in five books (Schaff 2014, p. 2572). He recorded substantial information about hermits and monks, as well as a description of heresies, among many other works. Evagrius of Antioch, living about 536 until after 594, wrote an ecclesiastical history covering 431-594, describing political events, bishops, public buildings including churches, and earthquakes and other calamities. Thomas Lector of Constantinople, as well as writing a history from 431-518 also compiled abstracts of other authors. Schaff moves next to mention Nicephorus Callistus, of the 15th century (Schaff 2014, p. 2573). He picked up histories in the 6th century and brought them up to his time, though with more detail from the 10th century onward. In the West, Schaff notes only Rufinus of Aquileia, 330-410 (Schaff 2014, p. 2573). He translated and annotated Eusebius and moved his accounts forward to 392. Cassiodorus, in the sixth century, abstracted some of the Eastern historians (Schaff 2014, p. 2574). Jerome's biographies of important men also receive mention in brief.

Laying Pelagianism to Rest

10/14/2025

Church History
10/14/25

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).

"§159. Semi-Pelagianism." (pp. 2550-2557).
   Schaff identifies semi-Pelagian thought as attempting to mediate between Pelagius and Augustine (Schaff 2014, p. 2551). This system takes a synergistic and somewhat legalistic approach to conversion and sanctification, normally requiring man to make the first step. Semi-Pelagian thought never coalesced into its own sect during our period.
   After Pelagianism was condemned as heresy, those who objected to an Augustinian view of predestination wrote about their understanding of security in Christ (Schaff 2014, p. 2652). Followers of Augustine responded with writings of their own. The writings of Prosper and of Haliarius particularly rejected the growing semi-Pelagian views (Schaff 2014, p. 2653). The semi-Pelagians held that while man was sick with sin he was not dead, and that he was able to cry out for divine assistance, with which he needed to cooperate (Schaff 2014, p. 2654). Among the semi-Pelagians Schaff considers John Cassian to be pre-eminent. Prosper of Aquitane emerged as the chief Augustinian to write against Cassian (Schaff 2014, p. 2585). Schaff describes a number of their writings in brief.

"§160. Victory of Semi-Augustinianism. Council of Orange, A.D. 529." (pp. 2557-2561).
   In the previous segment, Schaff made brief mention of synods in 472 and 475 in which an Augustinian predestination was condemned (Schaff 2014, p. 2557). These were provincial synods which resulted in a schism. Augustinian doctrine was by and large upheld. By the middle of the sixth century, semi-Pelagianism was not widely accepted (Schaff 2014, p. 2558). The Synod of Orange, in 529, approved an Augustinian outlook, articulating doctrines in some detail. Schaff provides numerous extracts (Schaff 2014, pp. 2558-2560). The Acts of the council were endorsed by numerous dignitaries and were forwarded to Rome, where pope Boniface II confirmed them in 530 (Schaff 2014, p. 2560). The controversy between Augustinian and Pelagian thought has resurfaced now and then, though not with as great an overall impact on doctrinal articulation as clear in the Middle Ages.

Grace and Election in Augustine

10/7/2025

Church History
10/7/25

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).

"§157. Augustine's Doctrine of Redeeming Grace." (pp. 2538-2544).
   Schaff takes Augustine's argument for the redemptive grace of God to come first from an argument "upwards from below" (Schaff 2014, p. 2538). Here, because mankind is so unable to merit God's favor, redemption must be a gift from above. Secondly, arguing "downwards from above" he sees that as God is intimately involved in the natural world, he would also be involved in the spiritual world. God's presence pervades all creation, though never in a pantheistic sense (Schaff 2014, p. 2539). God's grace is taken to transform man, though granting forgiveness and life (Schaff 2014, p. 2540). Schaff does observe that in Augustine's usage justification includes some level of moral progress which most Protestants would take to be sanctification.
   Augustine, counter to Pelagius, considered the grace of God indispensable for creating and maintaining Christian virtue (Schaff 2014, p. 2540). By its nature, grace is unmerited (Schaff 2014, p. 2541). This turns the understanding of the Chrsitian life into the opposite of Pelagius' belief. We receive grace not because of our belief but so that we may believe. Grace is the cause. Belief is the effect. It is God's grace that changes us, rather than being our belief that changes God (Schaff 2014, p. 2542). The grace of God, by its very nature, draws people to God. This does not mean that humans cannot resist God. However, the grace of regeneration is something which is received by default.
   Augustine understood that grace "removes all the consequences of the fall' (Schaff 2014, p. 2543), but gradually. The change occurs over time. All the conversion, sanctification, and preservation of the Christian is a work of grace. Finally, Augustine saw that grace develops in man a self-determination to do good (Schaff 2014, p. 2544). This is the true freedom of the Christian.

"§158. The Doctrine of Predestination." (pp. 2544-2549).
   Augustine found that God's grace led him to understand an eternal and gracious purpose in calling people to himself. He therefore viewed predestination as "a necessary attribute of the divine will" (Schaff 2014, p. 2545). Schaff admits the problematic nature of predicating any actions, decisions, or willings of the eternal and omniscient God in terms of "before" or "after." Yet from a human vantage point we assign times to elements of a plan. There is therefore in every Christian some conception of God's grace as an eternal element which influences us in temporal matters. What set Augustine apart was his attempt to describe it in a systematic way (Schaff 2014, p. 2546). Schaff notes that while Calvin saw predestination as the starting point for his explanation of God's grace, Augustine saw it as the consummation. Augustine "recognizes simply a decree of election to salvation" rather than any form of double predestination (Schaff 2014, p. 2547).
   Pelagians, predictably, considered Augustine's view of predestination to be fatalistic (Schaff 2014, p. 2547). They took exception to his view of the fallen nature which resulted in condemnation. The election to salvation seemed arbitrary, as some are saved but not all. Yet Augustine insisted God could not be the author of sin. He knows all our sin from eternity, but only permits it, rather than causing it (Schaff 2014, p. 2548). Schaff recognizes in Augustine the concept that not all are elect.They will eventually show their lack of election through failing to persevere. Yet it is always due to the fault of the sinful human, never the sinless God. All people are to be called to repentance and faith, as we never know who the elect are.

Pelagians' Charges, Augustinian Responses

9/30/2025

Church History
9/30/25

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).

"§155. Arguments for the doctrine of Original Sin and Hereditary Guilt." (pp. 2530-2533).
   Schaff moves on to consider the means used by Augustine to reach his conclusions about original sin (Schaff 2014, p. 2530). Many of his arguments were based on the Vulgate version of Romans 5:12, which affirms that in Adam's sin all have sinned, though Schaff takes the "in which" to refer to the nature of the world, rather than the nature of Adam personally to have led all into sin. However, Schaff agrees that Augustine rightly found a causal tie between sin and death. Augustine's exegesis does include other passages which make the picture clearer.
   Augustine further made arguments from the ancient practice of infant baptism "for remission of sins" (Schaff 2014, p. 2531). This practice signified an acceptance of the universality of sin in all humans. In contrast, while the Pelagians continued to baptize infants, they made it simply a ritual which confirmed the goodness of a good nature. The Pelagian reaction to Augustine's point of view was utter rejection.
   Schaff observes that Augustine, as well as other authors, while affirming the necessity of baptism, still would soften his view as to the nature of torment to which those unbaptized who died in early childhood would endure (Schaff 2014, p. 2532).
   A third branch of Augustine's argument was based on human experience (Schaff 2014, p. 2532). It is easily observed, and even among non-Christian observers, that humans are not as good by nature as we might wish (Schaff 2014, p. 2533).

"§156. Answers to Pelagian Objections." (pp. 2533-2538).
   Augustine did not write in a vacuum. He was engaged with Pelatians, interacting with them regarding their differences. Schaff cites Julian of Eclanum as a primary voice of Pelagianism (Schaff 2014, p. 2533). Julian's argument against Augustine was based on five points conceded by Augustine. Man is created by the good God. Marriage is good. If baptism remits sins, children of the baptized are good. If God is good, he holds nobody responsible for another person's sins. If humans can be perfectly righteous they cannot be inherently sinful.
   The first point, in Julian's opinion, forced Augustine to fall into a Manichaean dualism (Schaff 2014, p. 2534). However, Augustine held that humans are appropriately good in their nature, but the fall has introduced evil vice which clings to the nature.
   The argument about baptized people bearing sinless children is based on evil having no actual substance. Augustine maintained that baptism removed guilt, but that sin (concupiscentia) remained. This reality remains through generations (Schaff 2014, p. 2534). Despite the existence of lust within marriage, marriage is not to be condemned. It does not remove sin from a next generation (Schaff 2014, p. 2535).
   Pelagians would affirm it as unrighteous for God to condemn one man for another man's sin (Schaff 2014, p. 2535). Augustine, however, views humanity as one whole. Therefore, he sees all humans as participants in Adam's sin (Schaff 2014, p. 2536). In Augustine's view you cannot separate one generation from the whole context.

Augustine's Understanding of the Fall

9/23/2025

Church History
9/23/25

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).

"§153. The Augustinian System: The Fall and its consequences." (pp. 2521-2526).
   Schaff, describing the Augustinian view of the human nature, considers it to be predicated on the "unity of the human race," an understanding of the nature of the first Adam and Christ as the second Adam, and a concept of all humans partaking of Adam's sin (Schaff 2014, p. 2522). Augustine takes all humans as personally sinning in Adam. The penalty of sin imposed on Adam is also imposed on all subsequent humans.
   In Augustine's view, there was one imperfection in the created order, the ability of humans to enter into sin (Schaff 2014, p. 2522). Falling prey to Satan's temptation, Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. The rejection of obedience to God's command proved to be the sin which ruined all humanity (Schaff 2014, p. 2523).
   As Augustine saw the serious nature of the first human sin, he understood the penalty of sin to be commensurate (Schaff 2014, p. 2523). Schaff categorizes Augustine's list of consequences of sin in seven parts. He first identifies a loss of free choice. This consequence of sin is that the fallen human will necessarily sin (Schaff 2014, p. 2524). Second, human knowledge is hindered. Learning has become difficult. Third, free will is bound so that the sinner does what he does not desire. Paradise is closed to mankind, creating severe difficulties in life. Fifth, the desires of fleshly pleasure are elevated. This concupiscence interferes with all our endeavors (Schaff 2014, p. 2525). The higher and lower desires are at war against each other. A sixth result of the fall is the introduction of physical death in the world (Schaff 2014, p. 2526). Finally, the topic to be considered in the next section is "original sin and hereditary guilt in [Adam's] whole posterity" (Schaff 2014, p. 2526).

"§154. The Augustinian System: Original Sin, and the Origin of the Human Soul." (pp. 2526-2530).
   Schaff continues his evaluation of Augustine's anthropology by noting that Augustine considers all the descendants of Adam, apart from Christ, to be bent toward evil, thus to engage in actual sins themselves (Schaff 2014, p. 2527). Because of this corruption by original sin, all human thoughts and actions are, in some way, sinful. Augustine does, however, allow for there to be "different degrees both of sinfulness and guilt" (Schaff 2014, p. 2537).
   Because Augustine considered sin to be the universal condition of humans, he evaluated the various explanations of its transmission (Schaff 2014, p. 2528). A Traducian theory describes the soul originating along with the body. Thus, a sinful soul comes to be in conjunction with a fallen body. Under a second theory, each soul is created by God, not through procreation. This creationism sees God implementing the soul in the body at some point. Hence, the soul becomes corrupt by being connected with a body. The third theory, Platonic in origin, is that of pre-existence. Here, the soul was created in another world and sinned, thus being bound to a body as punishment. The first point of view was held by Augustine, the second by Pelagius, and the third by Origen. Schaff clarifies, that the historic Traducian view admits that the soul may have existed "in the thought and purpose of God" but not in any other way (Schaff 2014, p. 2629). All three views have some kernels of truth, and all have drawbacks.

Pelagius and Augustine on Human Nature

9/16/2025

Church History
9/16/25

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).

"§151. The Pelagian System Continued: Doctrine, of Human Ability and Divine Grace." (pp. 2511-2516).
   Continuing to discuss the historical Pelagian movement, Schaff notes that Pelagians consider the state of humans to be the same before and after the fall (Schaff 2014, p. 2511). They see the difference in human nature to be nonexistent among different faiths except for an assistance by grace in the Christian. The basic good of the human nature will often be asserted based on the rather universal tendency of humans to do good deeds. Augustine would counter that such good deeds outside of the Christian faith on some level are self-serving. For this reason, they are not rightly seen as good works (Schaff 2014, p. 2512).
   Pelagians would counter the Augustinian view by defining good in terms of power to do something, will to do it, and the nature of the act (Schaff 2014, p. 2512). In Schaff's view, this separates the nature of man from his will or his actions. God, further, becomes a spectator who has no power or control over his creation (Schaff 2014, p. 2513).
   Rather than denying God's grace, since God doesn't really seem to be in charge of his universe, Pelagius affirms a sort of natural grace as well as a supernatural grace which enlightens and assists humans (Schaff 2014, p. 2513). Again, Schaff points out that the Pelagian understands free will to mean we can choose to imitate Christ. This makes Christ into an example (Schaff 2014, p. 2514). While grace is helpful to us, it is not necessary, since we have an example and a free will. In the end, Schaff finds that Pelagian thought has no logical need for the existence of God or for redemption in Christ (Schaff 2014, p. 2516).

"§152. The Augustinian System: The Primitive State of Man, and Free Will." (pp. 2516-2521).
   Before the rise of Pelagianism, Augustine had articulated his view of human nature, sin, and grace (Schaff 2014, p. 2516). Schaff does observe that, after his Confessions (400), Augustine did refine and clarify some of his views (Schaff 2014, p. 2517). However, in essence, they were unchanged to the end of his life.
   In his original state, Augustine describes mankind as innocent (Schaff 2014, p. 2517). This original state could be described as "the undeveloped germ" of perfection (Schaff 2014, p. 2518). Because there was no offense or disobedience, there was a sort of grace present, but not of a redemptive nature (Schaff 2014, p. 2518). The perfect state of innocence is not seen as exactly heavenly, as a child is not a mature human. Human powers, seen as gifts from God, could be developed for good or not. A foundational element in Augustine's thought was the "distinction between the possibility of not sinning and the impossibility of sinning" (Schaff 2014, p. 2519). Man's freedom before the fall still allowed for falling into sin. Augustine saw man as originally free in terms of action. Whether sinful or not, we have freedom to do this or that (Schaff 2014, p. 2519). A slightly different type of freedom is a freedom of choice. Here, counter to the Manichees, Augustine affirms that prior to the fall man could choose to sin or not to sin. This is specifically a freedom of the will. After the fall, this free will was limited. In Augustine's view it now applies to choice "between individual actions within the sphere of sinfulness and of justitia civilis" (Schaff 2014, p. 2520). A third freedom exists to the Christian, that of "the free self-decision or self-determination of the will toward the good and holy" (Schaff 2014, p. 2521). This is only available to Christians, made free by the Son of God. It is true freedom.

Pelagianism Bites the Dust (Sort Of)

9/9/2025

Church History
9/9/25

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).

"§149. Position of the Roman Church. Condemnation of Pelagianism." (pp. 2500-2504).
   After two councils in North Africa in 416, the condemnation of Pelagius was forwarded to Pope Innocent, both in the official conciliar documents and a 'more confidential letter" (Schaff 2014, p. 2501). While Innocent agreed with the condemnation, he died in 417. His successor, Zosimus, received an explanatory letter from Pelagius, then heard a presentation by Coelestius, defending less controversial doctrines. Zosimus then censured the North African bishops for their rejection of Pelagius. Schaff concludes that this event marked the first of a number of instances of popes accepting some form of Pelagianism (Schaff 2014, p. 2502). Though remaining respectful, the Africans held a council in Carthage in 418, defining their opposition to Pelagius in eight or nine canons, which Schaff summarizes briefly.
   Zosimus, persuaded by the canons produced in Carthage, accepted them and condemned Pelagius and Coelestius (Schaff 2014, p. 2503). Numerous Italian bishops rejected the new position of Zosimus, resulting in ongoing tensions within the Church regarding Pelagianism. The Pelagians, in exile, continued to press their point, and, in 429 were received by the patriarch Nestorius in Constantinople (Schaff 2014, p. 2504). Schaff notes that Nestorius, along with Theodore of Mopsuestia, engaged in writing opposing Augustine's view of anthropology. With the death of this generation, Schaff sees Pelagianism as "externally vanquished" around 430 (Schaff 2014, p. 2504). There remained adherents, but there was no success as a sect.

"§150. The Pelagian System: Primitive State and Freedom of Man: the Fall." (pp. 2505-2510).
   Schaff concedes that Pelagian views of anthropology do make sense in a certain way. If human nature is understood empirically, it is reasonable to assume that humans are free in terms of moral will (Schaff 2014, p. 2505). The Pelagian view of ancient man takes Adam to be created in a sinless state and to be morally competent (Schaff 2014, p. 2506). His free will allowed him to serve God, and could be seen as the foundation of all ability to serve God. With this as the foundational premise, Pelagius took it as necessary that human freedom must include the ability to choose good or evil. Otherwise, it is not true freedom.
   The human will, in the end, is seen to become accustomed to making choices for good or for evil. In Pelagian thought, this moves people down the path of godliness or sinfulness (Schaff 2014, p. 2507). Freedom of choice must be used properly, so as to make a man holy. If practiced regularly, eventually a man could no longer sin.
   Pelagius viewed physical death as a necessity, which would occur even in the absence of sin (Schaff 2014, p. 2508). The connection between sin and death he took to indicate that since all people choose sin, at least occasionally, the result is that all people die. While Adam's sin led to his death, it merely serves as a bad example, rather than creating an inherited sinful state. The sin in the world is a learned pattern, as we see examples of sin in others. This results in growing habits of sin (Schaff 2014, p. 2509).
   In Pelagius' view, as with Adam, so also with Christ. The merit of Christ serves only as an example for the free will of the person who would desire to be good (Schaff 2014, p. 2510). Sin and righteousness are both choices we make.

Outworkings of Pelagianism

9/2/2025

Church History
9/2/25

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).

"§147. External History of the Pelagian Controversy, A.D. 411-431." (pp. 2495-2497).
Schaff observes that Pelagius, a monk from Britain, was well read, intelligent, and showed a good character of which Augustine was respectful (Schaff 2014, p. 2495). However, his morality was framed in legalism which rejected Augustine's view that it was by God's power that we could obey God's commands. We were to keep God's commands by our own effort. Having settled in Rome, Pelagius and his colleague Coelestius left from Rome in 411, going to Africa and missing seeing Agustine at Hippo. After a brief correspondence, Pelagius continued to Jerusalem while Coelestius sought a post as bishop in Carthage (Schaff 2014, p. 2497). Coelestius, facing opposition of his views at Carthage, was excluded from communion, went to Ephesus, and became a presbyter there.

"§148. The Pelagian Controversy in Palestine." (pp. 2497-2500).
In Palestine, where Pelagius had gone, a controversy broke out in 414 (Schaff 2014, p. 2497). Pelagius' views were gaining traction, and becoming publicly known. The opposition was led by Jerome and Orosius. Jerome penned several books refuting the doctrinal claims of Pelagius (Schaff 2014, p. 2498). Schaff considers the views expressed by Jerome themselves to be semi-Pelagian in nature (Schaff 2014, p. 2499). At the same time, Orosius, a Spaniard, was sent to Jerome by Augustine bearing letters which spoke of the controversy. In a council in 415, Pelagius was viewed favorably. Because of Pelagius' facility in argument, he gained further favor, despite Jerome's misgivings (Schaff 2014, p. 2500).

Monophysite Sects and Pelagians

8/26/2025

Church History
8/26/25

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).

"§145. The Monophysite Sects: Jacobites, Copts, Abyssinians, Aremenians, Maronites." (pp. 2476-2489).
   After a substantial bibliography, Schaff notes the persistence of Monophysite doctrine, as the sects had remained until his time (Schaff 2014, p. 2477). This stands in contrast to other erroneous sects, which have tended to die out. Schaff briefly entertains the advantages and disadvantages of the presence of Nestorian and Monophysite sects. Both have often served as an entry way to orthodoxy for Jews and Muslims. He briefly describes the many similarities they have to more orthodox Christianity.
   Schaff identifies "four branches of the monophysites: the Syrian Jacobites; the Copts, including the Abyssinians; the Armenians; and the less ancient Maronites" (Schaff 2014, p. 2479). The Jacobites trace their lineage to a sixth century patriarch of Antioch. They have a succession tracing back to the sixth century (Schaff 2014, p. 2480). The Copts, ethnically tied to ancient Egypt, though with influences from Greece and Arabia, built a patriarchy in Alexandria, dating back to the sixth century, though the patriarch normally lives in Cairo. The patriarch is always a monk and must be elected against his will (Schaff 2014, p. 2481). Coptic and Catholic Christians were at enmity with one another, with the Copts siding with the Saracens in the sixth century. They were later persecuted by the Saracents. The Coptic Christians have remained a small and impoverished underclass. The subgroup of Copts in Abyssinia tend toward syncretism and often hold to Jewish feasts (Schaff 2014, p. 2482). The Armenian Monophysite sect traces its origin to Mount Ararat and the fourth century (Schaff 2014, p. 2483). They are credited with developing the written version of the Armenian language. The Armenians split with the Greek church in 552, having been excluded from the council of Chalcedon (Schaff 2014, p. 2484). The empire, in the time of Schaff, was in the hands of Turkey and of Russia. Schaff compares their reception and treatment in the East to that of Jews in the West (Schaff 2014, p. 2485). Schaff notes that (in the 19th century) Protestant missionary work has been fairly successful in Armenian communities. The fourth branch of the Monophysites Schaff discusses are the Maronites, primarily located in Syria (Schaff 2014, p. 2486). This group, since the late 12th century, has tended to move toward Western Christianity and the Roman church.
   Schaff moves on to discuss controversy regarding anthropology, beginning with the Pelagian controversy (Schaff 2014, p. 2487). He provides a copious annotated bibliography of original source and later commentary (Schaff 2014, pp. 2487-2489).

"§146. Character of the Pelagian Controversy." (pp. 2489-2495).
   Schaff observes the distinction between the practical and concrete theology of the West over against a more speculative and developmental theology of the East (Schaff 2014, p. 2489). A study of biblical anthropology was not undertaken until the time of Augustine (Schaff 2014, p. 2490). Rather, Schaff sees the Greek fathers stressing human freedom in cooperation with divine grace, while the Latin fathers stressed human hereditary guilt versus God's grae. Pelagianism placed the responsibility on the human will, which must seek salvation. Augustine emphasized the divine will in conversion. After the death of Augustine, a semi-Pelagianism arose, which was more similar to the orthodoxy in the East (Schaff 2014, p. 2491). Both Augustinian and Pelagian influences continue in Christianity to the present time. Schaff treats each theologian charitably. In the end he recognizes, "The soul of the Pelagian system is human freedom; the soul of the Augustinian is divine grace" (Schaff 2014, p. 2492). He goes on to contrast the two systems in numerous foundational aspects.

Two Natures in One Person - Still Difficult

8/19/2025

Church History
8/19/25

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).

"§143. The Monophysite Controversies." (pp. 2466-2472).
   While the council of Chalcedon was an attempt to bring a resolution to the Monophysite controversy, it was not immediately accepted, particularly in Palestine and Egypt (Schaff 2014, p. 2467). The concept of one nature in Christ was not easily overcome by orthodoxy. Though some would accept a composite nature of some sort, they would not accept two complete natures in the one person of Christ (Schaff 2014, p. 2468). The opponents of the confession of Chalcedon objected that the two natures would necessarily result in two separate persons. As a confessional reaction, the Monophysites were careful to confess that God was crucified for us. This confession was accepted by the Chalcedonian faction with the qualification that it was in the same sense that God was born of Mary.
   Citing recent research in his time, that of Giesler, Baur, and Dorner, Schaff describes a number of plots and intrigues which influenced the overall situation with Monophysitism (Schaff 2014, p. 2470). After the council of Chalcedon, the monophysite movement in the East proved schismatic, establishing separatist churches. The revolutionary group engaged in riots and armed conflicts for some thirty years. The monophysites fragmented further depending on how willing they were to admit some degree of a human nature in Christ (Schaff 2014, p. 2471).

"§144. The Three, Chapters, and the Fifth Ecumenical Council, A.D. 553." (pp. 2472-2476).
   Schaff describes a connection between the Monophysite controversy and emperor Justinian I (Schaff 2014, p. 2473). One of Justinian's hallmarks was to attempt to reconcile heretics and others who were separated from orthodoxy. Justinian's wife, who was a monophysite, attempted to obtain positions of authority for monophysite bishops. Meanwhile, Justinian's desire for reconciliation led him to issue statements and decrees which could be taken as accepting a variety of heretical views (Schaff 2014, p. 2474). Justinian's compromises included condemnation of some Antiochians who had been accepted as orthodox, a complaint about the followers of Cyril in Edessa, and a denial of the communicatio idiomatum (Schaff 2014, p. 2474). This became known as "the Three Chapters." Surrounded by this controversy, Justinian called an ecumenical council (the fifth), in 553, in Constantinople (Schaff 2014, p. 2475). Despite efforts to clarify doctrines, reconciliation was not complete. Schaff observes that the schismatic groups continued, though most gradually reconsidered their views or eventually died out. It was not until the time of Pope Gregory I that most bishops were again in agreement.

Orthodoxy Emerging from a Firestorm

8/12/2025

Church History
8/12/25

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).

"§141. The Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451." (pp. 2451-2457).
   The events discussed previously, through the Robber Synod, resulted in Eastern Christianity being held by the Eutychians and monophysites (Schaff 2014, p. 2451). Pope Leo, who had been deposed by decree of the Robber Synod (though not in fact), responded by urging a synod in Italy, even as he circulated his Epistola Dogmatica, dealing with the matters of Christology which were taken as the cause of the Robber Synod. In the East, the death of Theodosius in 450 caused a political shift in favor of Leo and a desire for peace throughout the empire (Schaff 2014, p. 2452). Leo's original request for a council in Italy was replaced by a council at Nicaea scheduled for September of 451.
   The council which convened in Nicaea was shortly moved to Chalcedon due to "turbulent conduct" (Schaff 2014, p. 2453). In Chalcedon it was more possible for high government officials to attend and for disruptive conduct to be stopped. Approximately 500 or 600 bishops, almost all from the East attended. The group quickly sorted into those favorable to and those opposed to the Eutychians (Schaff 2014, p. 2453). Schaff notes that the discussion would not have been consistent with the forensic decorum accepted at his time (Schaff 2014, p. 2454). Dioscurus and the supporters of the Eutychians were rejected quickly (Schaff 2014, p. 2455). On October 22, a positive decree was passed, which is quoted by Schaff (Schaff 2014, p. 2455). The concept of the Son as one person but with two complete natures was central to the confession (Schaff 2014, p. 2456). Schaff notes that troubles with monophysitism would continue later (Schaff 2014, p. 2457).

"§142. The Orthodox Christology - Analyses and Criticism." (pp. 2457-2466).
   Schaff observes that while the first council at Nicaea dealt with the nature of the preexistent Christ, the fourth ecumenical council, at Chalcedon, dealt with the incarnate Logos and the relation of humanity and deity in Christ (Schaff 2014, p. 2457). The pseudo-Athanasian Creed likewise articulated the nature of the human and divine in Christ, and later, in the sixteenth century, became a confession held by all Protestants. The creed articulated at Chalcedon, as well as the pseudo-Athanasian creed, makes no effort at exhaustive explanation, but rather at specific description (Schaff 2014, p. 2458). In Schaff's view, the Chalcedonian creed strikes a mean between monophysitism and Nestorianism (Schaff 2014, p. 2459). He goes on to discuss the important points in turn.
   The second person of the Trinity was truly incarnate due to God's love, so as to redeem fallen humanity (Schaff 2014, p. 2459). In the incarnation, true man and true God exist in one person. The development of Christ in the womb of Mary remains a mysterious process which the creed does not explain (Schaff 2014, p. 2460).
   In the creed, nature and person are held to be separate from one another. "Nature of substance is the totality of powers and qualities which constitute a being; person is the Ego, the self-conscious, self- asserting, and acting subject" (Schaff 2014, p. 2460). There is one divine nature manifest in three persons in the Trinity. At the same time, there is one person of the Christ, but with both a human and a divine nature. Because Christ took on human nature, rather than assuming one particular human to himself, he was able to redeem human nature as a whole.
   Christ is, above all, one person, both divine and human (Schaff 2014, p. 2461). He remains one person, though having two natures. His self-consciousness is undivided, since he is just one person.
   The distinction of the human and divine natures in Christ is an important element in the Chalcedonian creed. The divine and human are not mixed or separated. Each remains what it is for eternity, never creating some third kind of nature (Schaff 2014, p. 2461).
   Christ, though having two natures, is one and only one person (Schaff 2014, p. 2462). His unity is no sort of illusion. There is no division in his person. In a similar way, we cannot divide a Christian into separate physical and spiritual persons.
   Because of this unity of persons, the works of Christ are not to be separated into those of his divinity and those of his humanity (Schaff 2014, p. 2463).
   To avoid any suggestion that, by taking on humanity in Christ, the Logos destroyed the trinity by bringing in a fourth person, the impersonality of the human nature in Christ is of importance. The second person of the Trinity remains the eternal Logos who had a personality and never lost it (Schaff 2014, p. 2463). In taking on humanity, he took on a nature, not a human person (Schaff 2014, p. 2464). The term used in this discussion is enhypostasia, a term which indicates that the human nature, with the divine nature, was never absent from the Logos.
   Schaff notes that criticisms of the Chalcedonian conception have risen over the years. However, "these imputations neutralize each other" (Schaff 2014, p. 2465). The creed is well balanced and serves to reconcile criticisms. At the same time, the creed leaves an open door for a broad range of studies.

More Pendulum Swinging in the 5th Century

8/5/2025

Church History
8/5/25

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).

"§139. The Nestorians." (pp. 2442-2445).
   Schaff notes that, unlike most early heresies, those of Nestorianism and Monophysitism have continued (Schaff 2014, p. 2442). In his time, there were self-conscious groups of Nestorians who distinguished themselves from the Greek Orthodox. He outlines their characteristics in brief. Aside from distinctions in hierarchy, these groups particularly reject "the council of Ephesus . . . Mary as mother of God . . . use of images . . . purgatory . . . and transubstantiation" (Schaff 2014, p. 2443).
   The Nestorians descend from a group which gained asylum in Persia in the fifth century (Schaff 2014, p. 2443). These groups, Nestorian in belief, refer to themselves as Chaldean or Assyrian Christians. Schaff suggests that Mohammed's knowledge of Christianity may have come from contact with a Nestorian monk (Schaff 2014, p. 2444). In Schaff's time the sect was mostly resident in Kurdistan and Armenia. Another group, claiming descent from the work of the apostle Thomas, is in East India (Schaff 2014, p. 2445).

"§140. The Eutychian Controversy. The Council of Robbers, A.D. 449." (pp. 2445-2451).\
   The council at Ephesus, identified as the third ecumenical council, condemned Nestorianism but failed to articulate positive doctrinal stands (Schaff 2014, p. 2446). Peace was formed between Antioch (home of Nestorian thought) and Alexandria, but it was not a lasting peace. Alexandria moved in the opposite direction from Nestorian thought into "Eutychianism or Monophysitism, which urged the personal unity of Chrsit at the expense of the distinction of natures, and made the divine Logos absorb the human nature" (Schaff 2014, p. 2446). Here, while the Logos has human attributes, there is no human nature (Schaff 2014, p. 2447).
   In Schaff's opinion, the controversy was made more severe due to the successor to Cyril of Alexandria, Dioscurus, who sought supremacy for Alexandria (Schaff 2014, p. 2447). He worked with the monophysites to assail the Antiochians and gain greater power. The monophysite theologian Eutyches, whose name was attached to the heresy, stressed the divine nature in Christ as the object of worship, ultimately denying the remaining of the human nature in Christ after the incarnation. Theodoret, on the Antiochian side of the controversy, insisted on Christ having two natures in one person (Schaff 2014, p. 2448). In 448 Eutyches was deposed and banned by the church (Schaff 2014, p. 2449).
   The Synod of Ephesus in 449 assembled, presided over by Dioscurus, who appeared with monks and soldiers. Theodoret was excluded from the discussion (Schaff 2014, p. 2450). In this synod, Eutyches was affirmed, while all the Antiochians were rejected and hardly dared to speak. This synod, the second one in Ephesus, has typically been referred to as the "Council of Robbers."

Nestorius and Nestorianism

7/29/2025

Church History
7/29/25

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).

"§137. The Nestorian Controversy, A.D. 428-431." (pp. 2427-2435).
   After providing numerous lightly annotated bibliographical references, Schaff reminds the reader of the nature of the Apollinarian heresy, which so emphasized the unity of person in Christ that the understanding of the human nature was jeopardized (Schaff 2014, p. 2428). In contrast, Antiochian theologians such as Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia held the natures apart to such a degree that Christ could seem to be two persons. This separation led to the teaching of Nestorius, from Antioch and then patriarch of Constantinople beginning in 428 (Schaff 2014, p. 2429).
   Nestorius sought to collaborate with the emperor Theodosius II to rid the world of heretics (Schaff 2014, p. 2479). He was accepting of the Pelagian error. As a result, when Nestorianism was condemned, so was Pelagianism. The move against Nestorius took opportunity from his unapologetic use of the term "mother of God" for Mary (Schaff 2014, p. 2430). Nestorius' detractors interpreted him as saying that Mary was the one involved in the origination of the divine Logos (Schaff 2014, p. 2431). In an apparent attempt at conciliation, Nestorius began accepting Mary as "mother of Christ."
   Schaff notes that Nestorius, as others in the Antiochian school of thought, was clear that God was never born, and that Christ had two natures in just one person (Schaff 2014, p. 2432). However, he did hold to some means by which the divine could assume the human nature and that the human could be indwelt by the divine. This unity is not "a personal unity, but only a moral unity" (Schaff 2014, p. 2432).
   Because of the assumption that Nestorius was teaching that the divine Logos was born of Mary, Nestorius was broadly attacked and condemned by 429 (Schaff 2014, p. 2433). The battle intensified with the move of Cyril of Alexandria to have Nestorius overthrown (Schaff 2014, p. 2434). Through a letter writing campaign, Cyril warned many, including Pope Celestine, of Nestorius, who was then condemned in 430 (Schaff 2014, p. 2435). Cyril wrote twelve anathemas against Nestorius, who responded in kind. The controversy resulted in an ecumenical council.

"§138. The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431. The Compromise." (pp. 2435-2441).
   In response to the Nestorian controversy, Emperor Theodosius II called a council in Ephesus in 431 (Schaff 2014, p. 2436). In contrast to the first two ecumenical councils (325 and 381), this third one was passionate and resulted in only negative decisions, specifically, the condemnation of Nestorianism. Both Nestorius and the Alexandrian leaders, all with numerous supporters, were present. Because Nestorius refused to appear in public until all the bishops were assembled, the Alexandrian party anathematized Nestorius in the absence of his testimony (Schaff 2014, p. 2437). Arriving a few days later, supporters of Nestorius condemned and anathematized the statements of Cyril (Schaff 2014, p. 2438). The council of Ephesus was eventually dissolved late in 431, with the combatants set free with a command to return home (Schaff 2014, p. 2439). Two years later, a brief creedal statement composed by Theodoret was released, confessing the two natures in the one person of Christ (Schaff 2014, pp. 2439-2440). Nevertheless, Nestorian thought was condemned. He lived on until at least 439. Teachers who had influenced Nestorius were also broadly condemned (Schaff 2014, p. 2441).

Alexandria and Antioch - Two Natures in One Person

7/22/2025

Church History
7/22/25

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).

"§135. General View. Alexandrian and Antiochian Schools." (pp. 2418-2421).
Schaff acknowledges the connection of Christology and the doctrine of the Trinity (Schaff 2014, p. 2418). The incarnation is the link between the two studies. It is impossible to reach a sound view of redemption in Christian thought without an understanding of the Christ, as he is the redeemer. I Schaff's estimation, there are four essential elements in "the orthodox doctrine concerning Christ: He is true God; he is true man; he is one person; and the divine and human in him, with all the personal union and harmony, remain distinct" (Schaff 2014, p. 2419). Rejection of any one of these elements was at the heart of all manner of controversy in early Christianity.
   In the conflict between the Alexandrian and Antiochian schools, the Alexandrian point of view held the divine and human in Christ so close that there was danger of the humanity being lost (Schaff 2014, p. 2420). The Antiochian point of view, on the other hand, was in danger of separation of the divine and human. The challenge was to reach a thoughtful assertion of "the personal unity and the distinction of the two natures in Christ with equal solicitude and precision" (Schaff 2014, p. 2420). The controversies and disputes took place over approximately 200 years. Schaff sees it progressing in five stages, each with a name (Schaff 2014, p. 2421). The Apollinarian, Nestorian, Eutychian, Monophysite, and Monothelite controversies, in that order, began after the council at Nicea in 325 and continued until the council of Constantinople in 680. He goes on in future segments to discuss them in detail.

"§136. The Apollinarian Heresy, A.D. 362-381." (pp. 2421-2427).
   Apollinaris was the bishop of Laodicea. In his attempt to deal with the soul or spirit of Christ, he provoked theological discussion which had never happened previously (Schaff 2014, p. 2422-2423). Athanasius considered Apollinaris highly, yet wrote forcefully against his error.
   Apollinaris, wishing to guard against considerations of Christ having a split personality, and holding to a view that humans consist of a body, a soul, and a spirit, "attributed to Christ a human body, and a human (animal) soul, but not a human spirit or reason; putting the divine Logos in the place of the human spirit" (Schaff 2014, p. 2423). This view denied the complete humanity of Christ. Apollinaris defended his view based on Scriptures which indicate the Word becoming flesh, not spirit. The view of Apollinaris was rejected by Gregory Nazianzen and by Epiphanius (Schaff 2014, p. 2424). The doctrine was rejected by a council at Alexandria in 362. From 375 until his death in 390, Apollinaris worked with a sect of his own, pursuing his view. Schaff notes that Apollinaris' writings are lost, except for fragments quoted by his opponents (Schaff 2014, p. 2424).
   Apollinaris, denying the possibility of two natures in one Christ, asserted that the spirit, as the place where sin resides, must have been divine, while the soul, which lacks a will, and the body, would be human (Schaff 2014, p. 2425). Apollinaris further considered the suffering of Christ in only his humanity to be inadequate to work salvation. Thus the divine spirit suffered. In response to this idea, Apollinaris' opponents accused him of making the deity die. In Schaff's view, the doctrines of Apollinaris were adequately complex to make his disciples teach a wide variety of views (Schaff 2014, p. 2425).
   The Church refused the views of Apollinaris, especially because they could lead to a partially Docetic view and ruin the humanity of Christ, an essential element in the doctrines of salvation. "Athanasius, the two Gregories, Basil, and Epiphanius combated the Apollinarian error, but with a certain embarrassment, attacking it rather from behind and from the flank, than in front, and unprepared to answer duly its main point, that two integral persons cannot form one person" (Schaff 2014, p. 2426). This was a development of later orthodoxy. The Apollinarians were condemned in councils in 377, 378, and 381, and by imperial decrees in 388, 397, and 428 (Schaff 2014, p. 2426).

Controversy Surrounding Origen

7/15/2025

Church History
7/15/25

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).

"§133. The Origenistic Controversy in Palestine. Epiphanius, Rufinus, and Jerome, A.D. 394-399." (pp. 2411-2415).
   Schaff depicts the disputes which led to Origen's eventual condemnation as frequently petty and personal in nature (Schaff 2014, p. 2412). In Schaff's view, the move of a great mind, such as Origen's, often provokes further attempts to determine whether ideas are orthodox. An idea may appear unorthodox or even heretical at first glance. Further testing of the idea leads to acceptance or rejection.
   In the case of Origen, "independent followers of Origen drew from his writings much instruction and quickening, without committing themselves to his words, and, advancing with the demands of the time, attained a clearer knowledge of the specific doctrines of Christianity than Origen himself, without thereby losing esteem for his memory and his eminent services" (Schaff 2014, p. 2413). Others followed Origen but blindly, assuming he was right regardless of evidence which could be brought to the contrary. Similar in approach, but opposite in outlook, some opposed any idea articulated by Origen, and also condemned any discussion and debate about the ideas. Schaff finds the polemics from this perspective to be quite forceful (Schaff 2014, p. 2414). We note that these polemics, in large part, occurred after the death of Origen.

"§134. The Origenistic Controversy in Egypt and Constantinople. Theophilus and Chrysostom A.D. 399-407." (pp. 2415-2418).
   In Egypt, the bishop Theophilus of Alexandria, originally a supporter of Origen's views, after a dispute with other supporters of Origen, rejected Origen in forceful terms (Schaff 2014, p. 2415). This controversy eventually led to Chrysostom being drawn into the dispute, though he was not a philosophical theologian in any way. The dispute then came to be one between Theophilus and Chrysostom (Schaff 2014, p. 2416). Amid political intrigue, Chrysostom was banished and eventually was compared with John the Baptist in his death (Schaff 2014, p. 2417).
   After these controversies, Schaff finds theological inquiry and development in the Greek church to have come to a halt (Schaff 2014, p. 2418). The Christological controversies progressed no more in the East.

The Interrelationship of the Persons of the Godhead

7/8/2025

Church History
7/8/25

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).

"§131. The Post- Nicene Trinitarian Doctrine of Augustine." (pp. 240-2404).
   Schaff observes that the Greek church largely ended inquiry about the Trinity with the Nicene Creed. However, in the West, Augustine carried the work farther, pointing toward the development of the Athanasian Creed, which Schaff takes to be dated in the fifth century (Schaff 2014, p. 2400). Schaff summarizes Augustine's developments.
   First, Augustine demonstrated that consubstantiality rejected subordinationism. While God is of one substance in three persons, the essence is unified, so no person of the Trinity is inferior to another (Schaff 2014, p. 2400). The persons of the Trinity do not subsist individually, but as a whole.
   Augustine taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, though primarily from the Father (Schaff 2014, p. 2401). He interpreted the Nicene Creed's statement of the Spirit proceeding from the Father as a polemical statement against those Pneumatomachi, who would make the Spirit part of the created order. In general, Augustine's view of the role of the Son in sending the Holy Spirit was broadly accepted in the West and in many parts of the East. The controversy over the filioque arose in the ninth century, in the context of debate about its inclusion in the creed as an alteration (Schaff 2014, p. 2403). Schaff considers the root of the controversy not to be the actual doctrine. Rather, in his view, the issue is "the contrast between the conservative and stationary theology of the East . . . and the progressive and systematizing theology of the West" (Schaff 2014, p. 2403).

"§132. The Athanasian Creed." (pp. 2404-2411).
   Schaff provides a substantial bibliography for the Athanasian Creed. This creed is regularly considered the third of the ecumenical confessions, and signals the end of the orthodox development of description of the Trinity (Schaff 2014, p. 2405). Schaff presents it both in Latin and English, also including "parallel passages from Augustine and other older writers" (Schaff 2014, p. 2405).
   The Athanasian Creed is not considered to be by Athanasius or even from his time period. Schaff finds no trace of it through the third or fourth centuries (Schaff 2014, p. 2408). In the Greek church it first appears in the eleventh or twelfth century. Tellingly, those manuscripts omit the concept of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son (Schaff 2014, p. 2409). Schaff dates the composition to the mid fifth century, no later than 570, and probably in Gaul (Schaff 2014, p. 2409).
   The brief articles of the Athanasian Creed sum up the relationship of the persons of the Trinity to one another in such a way as to answer the various Christological debates of the early church (Schaff 2014, p. 2410). The Trinity is one in substance but three in persons. Christ has the entirety of a divine and a human nature. Those who deny these tenets are condemned. It is necessary to believe in the real and living triune God who saves through the divine/human Jesus.
   Schaff closes the segment with a brief bibliography of works concerning the controversies about Origen (Schaff 2014, p. 2410-2411) He proceeds in section 133 to discuss that controversy from the end of the fourth century.

The Importance of Accurate, Specific Terminology in Theological Discussions

7/1/2025

Church History
7/1/25

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).

"§129. The Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creed." (pp. 2388-2391).
   A comparison of the Nicene Creed and the Constantinopolitan Creed may serve as a useful summary of the theological debates of the fourth century. Schaff provides a parallel version, signifying differences by use of brackets and italic type (Schaff 2014, pp. 2388-9). The electronic version which I have in my library does not reflect the columns and has trouble with the Greek text, so is of rather little use at this point. After the Greek there is an English translation, which is easier to compare. Schaff considers the creed of Constantinople to be "a considerable improvement on the Nicene" (Schaff 2014, p. 2390). He particularly favors the expansion of the third article, which creates more symmetry. After the council of Chalcedon in 451 the Constantinopolitan version generally replaced the Nicene version (Schaff 2014, p. 2391). In the West, the addition of the filioque statement added in Toledo in 589 provoked disputes which endure to the present (Schaff 2014, p. 2391).

"§130. The Nicene, Doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinitarian Terminology." (pp. 2391-2400).
   Because of the articulation of the full deity of the Holy Spirit, during the fourth century it became possible to move toward articulations of the Trinity (Schaff 2014, p. 2391). Fourth century Fathers, such as Gregory of Nyssa, saw the doctrine of the Trinity as an effectual guard against polytheism and an unthinking or abstract monotheism such as might be seen in the Sabellians or the later Deists (Schaff 2014, p. 2392). In the end, the orthodox Christians confessed that while the Trinity could be described it evaded explanation.
   Schaff goes on by summarizing essential elements of the doctrine of the Trinity. First, "there is only one divine essence or substance" (Schaff 2014, p. 2393). God is not separable into different types of being. The three persons of the Godhead are also not three specific individuals as we observe among humans. They are still one God (Schaff 2014, p. 2394).
   Second, in the divine essence "there are three persons or, to use a better term, hypostases, that is, three different modes of subsistence of the one individual and indivisible whole" (Schaff 2014, p. 2394). Each person is fully divine and in agreement with each other person (Schaff 2014, p. 2395). This sets orthodox Christianity apart from both Sabellianism and from modalism. While analogies of the Trinity abound in creation, all fall short of describing the Trinity (Schaff 2014, p. 2396).
   Another element of Trinitarian explanation (Schaff numbers this as fourth, though I find no third point) is that the persons interpenetrate one another (Schaff 2014, p. 2397). They do this constantly and without hindrance.
   Fifth, the Trinity may be seen in both of two ways. One is the constitution, what the persons are made of . The other is of manifestation, what the persons appear to be (Schaff 2014, p. 2397).
   Sixth, in some way there is a subordination among the persons of the Trinity. However, this is not a subordination of essence but only of hypostasis. It is functional rather than inherent in the divine nature (Schaff 2014, p. 2398). This distinction has historically been very challenging to make, as analogies are few and far between.

The Persons of the Trinity As Having One Substance

6/24/2025

Church History
6/24/25

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).

"§127. The Nicene Doctrine of the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father." (pp. 2378-2384).
   Schaff, identifying Athanasius as the most powerful representative of the Nicean view of the nature of Christ, observes that this dispute was at the center of the dispute between Arians and orthodox teaching (Schaff 2014, p. 2378). At issue was the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. In negative terms, orthodoxy denies that the Son is, by nature, part of the created order. In positive terms, the Nicene Creed asserts the full essential deity of Christ (Schaff 2014, p. 2379). The reality of the Father and the Son, of one substance, rejects the idea that Father and Son are indistinguishable (Sabellianism). God can be one God in three persons of the same nature. Each person of the Godhead remains fully God (Schaff 2014, p. 2380).
   The Nicene view requires that generation and creation be distinguished from one another. "Generation is an immanent, necessary, and perpetual process in the essence of God himself, the Father's eternal communication of essence or self to the Son; creation, on the contrary, is an outwardly directed, free, single act of the will of God, bringing forth a different temporal substance out of nothing" (Schaff 2014, p. 2381). Of special significance to our understanding of divine generation is that while human generation produces "a new essence of the same kind," in divine generation "the begotten is identical in essence with the begetter" (Schaff 2014, p. 2381). Further, implicit in the divine nature, both Father and Son are eternal (Schaff 2014, p. 2382).
   The nature of God as redemptive requires that rescue from sin be performed by God. Schaff summarizes that "[i]f Christ were a creature he could not redeem other creatures from sin and death" (Schaff 2014, p. 2383). Athanasius described the concept of the Father without the Son as self-contradictory. The Son cannot be separated from the Father. For this reason, the Son is worthy of worship, as he is entirely divine (Schaff 2014, p. 2384).

"§128. The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit." (pp. 2384-2388).
   In Schaff's estimation, the issue of the deity of the Holy Spirit is tied to that of the Son (Schaff 2014, p. 2384). Because the Arians took the Holy Spirit to be a creation of the Son and thus subordinate to the Son as the Son to the Father, they held a radically different view of the Trinity from that held in orthodox Christianity 2385). Schaff notes that there were also adherents to Nicene Christianity who viewed the Holy Spirit as "an impersonal power or attribute of God" (Schaff 2014, p. 2385). The difficulty may have been rooted in an inability to find biblical passages in which the Holy Spirit is called God in unambiguous terms (Schaff 2014, p. 2386). Yet the historic baptismal formula, benedictions, and doxologies affirmed a divine triad. Therefore, the fourth century theologians worked to demonstrate the equal divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
   To demonstrate the consubstantial essence of the Holy Spirit with the Father and Son, theologians observed the fact that the Holy Spirit is never considered as part of the created order (Schaff 2014, p. 2387). He is omnipresent, eternal, and omniscient. He does "the divine work of regeneration and sanctification" (Schaff 2014, p. 2387), and is treated in all ways as God, equal to the Father and the Son. As an attempt to defend against confusion that could suggest God has two sons, a distinction was made between the Son being begotten and the Spirit proceeding (Schaff 2014, p. 2387).

Bad Doctrine as a Reaction to Bad Doctrine

6/17/2025

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).

What Makes Arianism So Poisonous?

6/3/2025

Church History
6/3/25

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).

"§123. The Theological Principles Involved: Import of the Controversy." (pp. 2367-2369).
   Schaff here begins to review the theological challenges, rather than political and personal issues involved in the conflict between Arian and orthodox thought (Schaff 2014, p. 2367). Though the dispute in Nicea seemed to center around a difference made by an iota in a word, the philosophical implications of the dispute are enormous. At issue was the relationship of the Father and the Son, which is central to the understanding of the very nature of Christianity. In the orthodox understanding, particularly as described by Athanasius, if God the Son is not absolutely the very God, he is relegated to a role in the created order and is not able to restore fallen man to God (Schaff 2014, p. 2367). The Arian concept further separates man from God. Schaff considers Arian thought to be governed by human reason, political intrigue, and not by divine revelation (Schaff 2014, p. 2369). This may well explain the Arian operation in the political world, as opposed to being primarily a biblical discussion.

"§124. Arianism." (pp. 2370-2374).
   After cataloging a number of names used of Arians, tied to leaders or specific content of particular doctrines, Schaff summarizes the doctrine (Schaff 2014, p. 2370). At issue is the contention that the Father is the only true God and that the Son is in some way a contingent being, though the creator of the world. He was created out of nothing, and as a created being he does not share the essence of God. It is important, in Schaff's estimation, to affirm Arianism as far superior to a number of older heresies as well as to deism or rationalism. The Son is personal and exists before all worlds. Yet he is still part of creation, so not God (Schaff 2014, p. 2370).
   Arius limited God the Son in "his duration, his power, and his knowledge, and expressly asserted that the Son does not perfectly know the Father" (Schaff 2014, p. 2371). As Arian thought was developed, its advocates brought further inconsistencies into theology. Rationalism was applied to the Arian doctrine, but was unable to resolve the central difficulty, that of a Son who was not entirely God (Schaff 2014, p. 2372). Schaff finds that the Arian arguments are based on Scriptures which indicate Christ doing things such as growing, not knowing some things, becoming weary, or being sorrowful (Schaff 2014, p. 2372). Athanasius, in his opposition to Arius, has a tendency to assign all these characteristics to Jesus' human nature. He then responds to Arius with texts attributing divinity to Jesus (Schaff 2014, p. 2373). The Arians primarily argued by denial of orthodox affirmations. The orthodox normally laid out a positive case for their point of view.

Arian Reaction to Orthodoxy

5/27/2025

Church History
5/27/25

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).

"§121. The Arian and Semi-Arian Reaction, A.D. 325-361." (pp. 2358-2364).
   Schaff identifies the outcome of the Council of Nicea as a victory, but of limited effect. Numerous subscribers to the Nicene Creed were marginal in their support or were acting out of deference to the emperor rather than from a conviction of truth (Schaff 2014, p. 2358). After the council, the Arians sought to consolidate their political power and promote their view. These moves regularly resulted in contentious councils and bloodshed (Schaff 2014, p. 2359). The controversy outlived Constantine, Arius, and Constantine II. Charges of intolerance were lodged against both sides, as a third, "semi-Arian" party arose (Schaff 2014, p. 2360). Over time, the dispute came to have a geographic element as well. The East tended to follow the Arian beliefs, while the West was more likely to adhere to the Nicene creed (Schaff 2014, p. 2361).
   After 350, the emperor Constans, who had briefly (under pressure from his brother) supported Athanasius, summoned three synods which took a moderately favorable view of Arianism. He subsequently pressured the church in the West to adopt these views (Schaff 2014, p. 2361). This soft form of Arianism was thus established, though with much controversy, throughout the imperial church (Schaff 2014, p. 2362). In the ongoing conflicts, Schaff notes the imprisonment or exile of numerous orthodox bishops.
   While the Arian heresy seemed to have won the day, it then separated into two factions. One contended that the Son was of similar but not identical essence with the Father (Schaff 2014, p. 2363). The other faction contended that the essence of the Father was not "similar" but "different." Beginning in the late 350s numerous councils attempted to understand this issue.

"§122. The Final Victory of Orthodoxy, and the Council of Constantinople, 381." (pp. 2364-2367).
   The policy of Julian the Apostate, who released orthodox bishops from exile, in Schaff's opinion, was intended to provoke the Christian factions to destroy each other (Schaff 2014, p. 2364). Rather, the Christians united against the common enemy of paganism. Arianism tended to decline as orthodoxy brought out robust arguments in multiple synods.
   With the death of Athanasius in 379, Arianism arose again in a violent manifestation (Schaff 2014, p. 2365). In response to this unrest, the emperor Theodosius I, who ascended to the throne in 379 and was orthodox in his convictions, required all subjects to pursue orthodoxy. He further convened the council of Constantinople in 381. Among other actions, the Nicene Creed was confirmed, with the additions to the third article which are used today (Schaff 2014, p. 2366). A variety of heresies, including Arianism, were specifically condemned. This spelled the end of Arianism as a formally recognized belief system, though some cells of Arian belief remained in existence for several centuries (Schaff 2014, p. 2367).

Arian Thought and the Council of Nicea

5/20/2025

Church History
5/20/25

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).

"§119. The Arian Controversy down to the Council of Nicaea, 318-325." (pp. 2344-2348).
   The Arian controversy, though mostly focused on Christ, also makes claims about the Holy Spirit (Schaff 2014, p. 2344). For this reason it was very important to all Trinitarian thought. As Schaff evaluates the issue, "If God is one and if Christ and the Holy Ghost are distinct from the Father and yet participate in the divine substance, God must be triune" (Schaff 2014, p. 2345). The concepts, though not the word 'trinity," can be found throughout the Scriptures.
   Schaff deals with the Arian controversy in three stages. He first discusses the emergence of the controversy and the period to the council of Nicea, where orthodoxy was reaffirmed (Schaff 2014, p. 2346). Next he treats reactions to the Nicene decisions up to the death of Constantius in 361. Finally, he reviews the final battles up to the council of Constantinople in A.D. 381. While Arianism was rejected in the councils of Nicea and Constantinople, it remained a minority view, particularly gaining strength in the Germanic nations for over 200 years (Schaff 2014, p. 2346).
   Schaff considers the contradictory views of Origen along with poorly communicated elements of discussion between Antioch and Alexandria to have led to the rise of Arianism (Schaff 2014, p. 2346). The hints at subordinationism and the question of whether the Son was generated as a secondary substance could lead to a denial of the eternity of the Son.
   Arius, who served as a presbyter of Alexandria starting in 313, had a reputation for disputations. He pressed the views stated by Origen to their breaking point, affirming that, though Crhist was the creator of the world, he himself was part of the created order (Schaff 2014, p. 2347). Arius and his followers were excommunicated in 321, as they denied the deity of Christ. Arius continued to teach and write in Palestine and Nicomedia (Schaff 2014, p. 2348). He was defended by some bishops and condemned by others. The groups of bishops then engaged against one another, creating a theological and diplomatic crisis. Under the influence of Constantine, the parties were brought to seek a clear answer based on definitive truth rather than on political influence. This led to the Nicene council of 325.

"§120. The Council of Nicaea, 325." (pp. 2349-2358).
   Schaff, after a fairly extensive bibliography, introduces the reader to Nicea, which has fallen into decline, but at his time still existed as Isnik, in Turkey (Schaff 2014, p. 2350). In 325 it was a thriving city, easily accessible. The emperor Constantine called for the council in 325, offering transportation and lodging expenses for each bishop, and for each bishop to bring "two presbyters and three servants" (Schaff 2014, p. 2350). The emperor was strictly unwilling to hear personal complaints, but protected the purpose of the gathering to discuss the theological matters for which the council was called.
   Only about a sixth of the estimated 1,800 bishops attended, all but seven of the attendees being from the Eastern regions.
   The council was formally opened by the arrival of the emperor (Schaff 2014, p. 2351). Schaff notes the substantial change in tone from the recent persecutions to the presence of an emperor who showed considerable courtesy and respect toward Christianity (Schaff 2014, p. 2352). Among the notable people at the council we number Eusebius of Caesarea, who served to moderate some discussions, from a post next to the emperor, and Athanasius, who, at the time, served as an archdeacon (Schaff 2014, p. 2353). Many of the participants bore signs of persecution or of the hardship of an ascetic life.
   In the council, the orthodox were, at first, the minority (Schaff 2014, p. 2354). The Arian view was represented by about twenty bishops. The majority, following Eusebius of Caesarea, gradually moved their alignment from a centrist position toward orthodoxy.
   Schaff describes presentation of several versions of creeds, some of which had been used in other regions in the past. Versions of a creed which was acceptable to the Arians were considered suspect by the Orthodox partisans. After a number of revisions and counter-proposals, the version which is now in use, but ending with "we believe in the Holy Ghost" was adopted. The remainder was added in the council of Constantinople. Bishops who approved physically signed the creed, the first time such an action is known to have been performed in Christianity (Schaff 2014, p. 2356). Arians and two others who refused to sign were banished to Illyria. Schaff noted this as the first known civil punishment for heresy.
   The council of Nicea also spoke to the dating of Easter and a schism in Meletia, which Schaff discusses elsewhere. There were a total of twenty canons and the creed published, but no definitive account of the deliberations (Schaff 2014, p. 2356). The emperor further promulgated the decisions as law (Schaff 2014, p. 2357).