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.
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.
RSS Feed