Arianism in the ascendant -Provinces of Illyria became strongholds of Arianism due to Arius’ banishment -Then the Visigoths adopted Arian Christianity -Valens of Mursa influenced Constantius during the 350s -A creed from Sirmium was published in 357 that banned philosophical words like ousia -Basil reacted against this -Basil’s supporters were misleadingly called semi-Arians -they supported homoiousios (of the same subsance) over homoousios (of one substance) which distinguished the Father from the Son -Constantius’ reign ended with a moderated Arianism dominant -Hilary was the lone decent remaining -Constantius extorted from councils at Rimini and Seleucia a creed that confessed the son to be homoios (like the father) -Athanasius called a synod at Alexandria in 362 and they agreed that the Creed of Nicea should be confessed without additions and that hypostasis did not mean tri-theism or Sebellianism -Since 330, and the deposition of Eustathius, Antioch remained extremely divided and its official bishops were Arians -Meletius’ supporters formed an anti-Arian congregation -Athanasius’ also communed with the “Old Nicenes” under Paulinus -Valens, the Eastern Emperor (364-78) backed the creed with homoios and there was a 2nd Arian persecution -Apollinarius and the teaching of the Pneumatomachians/ fighters against the spirit/ Macedonians were popular -Athanasius, because he was blind or indulgent toward his friends and supporters, did not properly stand up to Arianism, but he welcomed later changes by people like Basil of Ancyra, Meletius, and Basil the Great.
Ben cited the "2nd Arian persecution" of emperor Valens, but I was a little foggy about what this meant (Dowley 173). It seems that this was a persecution conducted BY Arians and not against them. Dowley says that both "old" and "new" Nicenes suffered alike under this persecution and Athanasius was exiled (even if not for very long). "The emperor (Valens) devestated congregational life and heretical groups proliferated."
Arianism in the ascendant
ReplyDelete-Provinces of Illyria became strongholds of Arianism due to Arius’ banishment
-Then the Visigoths adopted Arian Christianity
-Valens of Mursa influenced Constantius during the 350s
-A creed from Sirmium was published in 357 that banned philosophical words like ousia
-Basil reacted against this
-Basil’s supporters were misleadingly called semi-Arians
-they supported homoiousios (of the same subsance) over homoousios (of one substance) which distinguished the Father from the Son
-Constantius’ reign ended with a moderated Arianism dominant
-Hilary was the lone decent remaining
-Constantius extorted from councils at Rimini and Seleucia a creed that confessed the son to be homoios (like the father)
-Athanasius called a synod at Alexandria in 362 and they agreed that the Creed of Nicea should be confessed without additions and that hypostasis did not mean tri-theism or Sebellianism
-Since 330, and the deposition of Eustathius, Antioch remained extremely divided and its official bishops were Arians
-Meletius’ supporters formed an anti-Arian congregation
-Athanasius’ also communed with the “Old Nicenes” under Paulinus
-Valens, the Eastern Emperor (364-78) backed the creed with homoios and there was a 2nd Arian persecution
-Apollinarius and the teaching of the Pneumatomachians/ fighters against the spirit/ Macedonians were popular
-Athanasius, because he was blind or indulgent toward his friends and supporters, did not properly stand up to Arianism, but he welcomed later changes by people like Basil of Ancyra, Meletius, and Basil the Great.
-BV
Ben cited the "2nd Arian persecution" of emperor Valens, but I was a little foggy about what this meant (Dowley 173). It seems that this was a persecution conducted BY Arians and not against them. Dowley says that both "old" and "new" Nicenes suffered alike under this persecution and Athanasius was exiled (even if not for very long). "The emperor (Valens) devestated congregational life and heretical groups proliferated."
ReplyDeleteAm I understanding this correctly?
-CL