Story of Christianity: Volume 1: The Early Church to the Reformation (The Story of Christianity)

by Justo L. González

All this may be seen in the various stages of the conflict. Caecilian was elected with the support of the romanized Christians of Carthage.

They were mostly Numidian and Mauritanian Donatist peasants who resorted to violence.

Although sometimes they have been depicted as no more than bandits masquerading as people driven by religious motives, the truth is that they were religious to the point of fanaticism.

The circumcellions became an important factor in the schism. Sometimes the Donatist leaders in the towns tried to disassociate themselves from this radical party. But at other times, when they needed activist troops, they appealed to the circumcellions.

As we shall see later on, shortly thereafter the Vandals invaded the area, thus putting an end to Roman rule.

It was only after the Moslem conquest in the seventh century that Donatism and the circumcellions finally disappeared.

From its very beginnings, Christianity had been involved in theological controversies.

After the conversion of Constantine, things changed. Now it was possible to invoke the authority of the state to settle a theological question.

Thus, the state soon began to use its power to force theological agreement on Christians.

Many of the dissident views that were thus crushed may indeed have threatened the very core of the Christian message. Had it not been for imperial intervention, the issues would probably have been settled, as in earlier times, through long debate, and a consensus would eventually have been reached.

As a result, many of those involved in controversy, rather than seeking to convince their opponents or the rest of the church, sought to convince the emperors. Eventually, theological debate was eclipsed by political intrigue.

At first sight, it is not a very edifying story. But on closer scrutiny what is surprising is not that theological debate became entangled in political intrigues, but rather that in the midst of such unfavorable circumstances the church still found the strength and the wisdom to reject those views that threatened the core of the Christian message.

But this was also a dangerous argument. It was possible that Christians, in their eagerness to show the kinship between their faith and classical philosophy, would come to the conviction that the best way to speak of God was not that of the prophets and other biblical writers, but rather that of Plato, Plotinus, and the rest.

Since those philosophers conceived of perfection as immutable, impassible, and fixed, many Christians came to the conclusion that such was the God of Scripture.

Allegorical interpretation

Thus, for instance, if the Bible says that God walked in the garden, or that God spoke, one is to remember that an immutable being does not really walk or speak. Intellectually, this satisfied many minds. But emotionally it left much to be desired, for the life of the church was based on the faith that it was possible to have a direct relationship with a personal God, and the supreme being of the philosophers was in no way personal.

Thus, according to Justin, when the Bible says that God spoke to Moses, what it means is that the Logos of God spoke to him.

The generally accepted view was that, between the immutable One and the mutable world, there was the Word or Logos of God. It was within this context that the Arian controversy took place.

the main issue at stake was whether the Word of God was coeternal with God.

“there was when He was not,”

Alexander held that the Word existed eternally with the Father; Arius argued that the Word was no...

Arius claimed that, strictly speaking, the Word was not God, but the first of all creatures.

Alexander argued that the Word was divine, and therefore could not be created, but rather was coeternal with the Father.

In other words, if asked to draw a line between God and creation, Arius would draw that line so as to include the Word in creation, while Alexander would draw it so as to separate all of creation on one side from the Father and the eternal Word on the other.

Arius, on the one hand, argued that what Alexander proposed was a denial of Christian monotheism—for, according to the bishop of Alexandria, there were two who were divine, and thus there were two gods.

Alexander retorted that Arius’ position denied the divinity of the Word, and therefore also the divinity of Jesus.

From its very beginning, the church had worshiped Jesus Christ, and Arius’ proposal would now force it either to cease such worship, or to declare that it was worshiping a creature. Both alte...

Thus,

the local disagreement in Alexandria threatened to divide the entire Eastern church.

When Hosius reported that the dissension could not be resolved by mere amicable entreaties, Constantine decided to take a step that he had been considering for some time: he would call a great assembly or council of Christian bishops from all parts of the Empire.

Besides dealing with a number of issues where it was necessary to set standard policies, this great council would resolve the controversy that had broken out in Alexandria.

It was the year 325 when the bishops gathered in Nicea, a city in Asia Minor within easy reach of Constantinople, for what later would be known as the First Ecumenical—that is, universal

order to understand that event as those present saw it, it is necessary to remember that several of those attending the great assembly had recently been imprisoned, tortured, or exiled, and that some bore on their bodies the physical marks of their faithfulness.

And now, a few years after such trials, these very bishops were invited to gather at Nicea, and the emperor covered their expenses.

But now, for the first time in the history of Christianity, they had before their eyes physical evidence of ...

Constantine is the first ruler of all time to have gathered such a garland in the bond of peace, and to have presented it to his Savior as an offering of gratitude for the victories he had won over all his enemies.

They approved standard procedures for the readmission of the lapsed, for the election and ordination of presbyters and bishops, and regarding the order of precedence of various episcopal sees.

Since Arius was not a bishop, he was not allowed to sit in the Council, and it was Eusebius of Nicomedia who spoke for him and for the position that he represented.

This small group was convinced that what Arius taught was so patently correct that all that was needed was a clear exposition of the logic of the argument,

Among his followers was a young man who, being only a deacon, could not sit in the Council, but who would eventually become famous as the champion of Nicene orthodoxy: Athanasius of Alexandria.

Most of the bishops from the Latin-speaking West had only a secondary interest in the debate, which appeared to them as a controversy among eastern followers of Origen.

“patripassianism,” that is, that the Father and the Son are the same, and that therefore the Father suffered the passion. These bishops agreed that Arianism was wrong, but their own doctrines were also rejected in the later course of the controversy, as the church began to clarify what it meant by Trinitarian doctrine.

when the bishops heard his explanation, their reaction was the opposite of what Eusebius of Nicomedia had expected.

The assertion that the Word or Son was no more than a creature, no matter how high a creature, provoked angry reactions from many of the bishops: “You lie!” “Blasphemy!” “Heresy!” Eusebius was shouted down, and we are told that his speech was snatched from his hand, torn to shreds, and trampled underfoot.

The mood of the majority had now changed. Whereas earlier they hoped to deal with the issues at stake through negotiation and compromise, without condemning any doctrine, ...

Arianism in the clearest wa...

At first the assembly sought to do this through a series of passages of Scripture. But it soon became evident that by limiting itself to biblical texts the Council would find it very difficult to ex...

It was then decided to agree on a creed that would express the faith of the church in such a way that ...

Constantine suggested that the word homoousios—to which we shall return—be included in the creed.