CLAS / PHIL 2610. Paganism to Christianity

Reading Guide 10. Emperors and Heresy (for Fri. Aug. 3)

Reading

Chadwick pp. 129-51; 192-212 (NB you do not have to read pp. 33-41 as originally printed on the syllabus)

Lane and MacMullen 16.1-2 (pp. 204-6)

Norlin Reserve: Socrates Ecclesiastical History 1.5-9 or at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-02/Npnf2-02-06.htm#P173_39581

Arius was born in Alexandria c. AD 260. He rose to prominence as a priest in the city of Baukalis where, c. 320, he began to diseminate his own peculiar ideas about the nature of the Holy Trinity (the three persons of God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Falling back on greek philosophical learning, Arius assumed that there could be only one true god who was whole and complete in nature. In an attempt to explain how Christ, the Son, related to this one God, Arius was thus forced to assume that Christ the Son was distinct from God the Father and inferior to him. Christ, Arius claimed, did not exist from all time, as the Father had, but had his beginning in time through the generation of the Father. This meant that Christ was not of the same substance as the Father.

Arius’ new doctrine met with support from some and resistance from others. Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia in Asia, agreed with Arius’ interpretation and began supporting him. At the same time, Alexander Bishop of Alexandria - near Arius - held a local council at which he condemned Arius and his new teachings. The controversy boiled over into the wider world of the eastern Mediterranean so that in 325 the emperor Constantine felt compelled to convoke a General Ecumenical Council at Nicaea to deal with the issue. The Council, consisting of c. 300, mostly eastern bishops, condemned Arius and anathematized his teachings. In an effort to clarify the Church’s position on the person of Christ, it also issued a creed which stated in no uncertain terms what the council believed about Father and Son. This Nicene Creed is still in use today in most Christian churches as the standard statement of faith.

Questions

1. What are the key tenets of Arius? What are the criteria he and other clerics use for distinguishing true from false doctrine? What does this controversy tell us about rational, open debate among 4th C Christians?

2. Why was sentiment so strong over this question? Do you think that average people really understood the controversy?

3. How did the Council of Nicaea work? Who sponsored it and who came? How did the emperor treat the bishops and how did the bishops treat the emperor?

4. How closely was Constantine involved in settling the dispute? How does this reflect a change in Imperial policy toward Christianity? How much control could Constantine have had in imposing his beliefs?

5. How would you characterize authority in the church at this time: unified or divided? What tools were available to bishops and priests who wanted to assert their authority?

6. Does Constantine seem to be more concerned about arriving at true doctrine or establishing unity in the church?