Tag: Arianism

Posted on

The Sabbath was part of the Arian Controversy.

INTRODUCTION

Arian Controversy lasted many centuries.

The Arian Controversy, over the nature of Christ, was the most severe internal struggle the Church had so far experienced.

It lasted many centuries. It is often claimed that Arius caused the Controversy by developing a new heresy. It is then said that Arius was the founder of Arianism. That is false. Scholars now recognize that Arius was a conservative. He did not develop a new theology.

In other words, the dispute between Arius and Alexander, at the beginning of the 4th century, continued the controversy of the preceding centuries. 

This article will show that the controversy over the nature of Christ already began in the 2nd century, and that Arianism was only finally eliminated after the Eastern Emperor Justinian, in the 6th century, defeated the Arian kingdoms.

Sabbath dispute also lasted many centuries.

Christianity began in the Greek East. After Jesus’s death, for several years, the Church consisted of Jews only, functioned as a sect of Judaism, and was confined to Jerusalem. All Christians continued to live like Jews, strictly adhering to the Law of Moses, including the Sabbath (see here).

According to the church historian Socrates, in the 5th century, all Christians in the Eastern Church still observed the Saturday-Sabbath. Therefore, the Sabbath Controversy, over which day must be observed, Saturday or Sunday, like the Arian Controversy, lasted for many centuries.

Sabbath was part of the Arian Controversy.

The purpose of this article is to show that the dispute over the Sabbath was part of the Arian Controversy. It first shows that the opposing sides in the two controversies were the same.

Books Quoted

Hanson, R.P.C., The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381 (1987)

Ayres, Lewis, Nicaea and its legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (2004)

De Kock, Edwin, The Truth About 666 and the Story of the Great Apostasy (Revised edition, 2012) (download)

SIDES IN THE CONTROVERSY

For the purpose of this article, one needs to define the ‘sides’ in the Arian Controversy. This will not be discussed in detail here. However, another article explains the core issue in the Controversy as follows:

Subordination did not define the sides.

It is often claimed that Arianism is the view that the Son is subordinate to the Father. That is false. The core issue was not whether the Son is subordinate to the Father, because all theologians, Arian and Nicene, until the end of the 4th-century Controversy, believed the Son to be subordinate to the Father. The Nicenes regarded the Son as an internal aspect of the Father and, therefore, ontologically subordinate to the Father. Equality of the Father and Son developed after the Controversy had ended.

Arius’s theology did not define the sides.

As stated, Arius did not develop a new theology, was not the founder of Arianism, and did not cause the Controversy. His peers did not regard him as important. He later became perceived as important because Athanasius used him as a straw man. Athanasius called his opponents ‘Arians,’ meaning followers of Arius, and attacked them by attacking Arius (see here). However, as discussed below in more detail, the so-called Arians did not follow Arius.

Since Arius was not important, and since the controversy over the nature of Christ already began in the 2nd century, to call it the ‘Arian’ Controversy is a serious misnomer.

Created/divine was not the issue.

It is also often claimed that Arianism described the Son as a created being. However, the question of whether the Son was a created being or divine was also not the core issue.

The sharp distinction that we today make between created and divine did not exist during the Arian Controversy. All sides regarded the Son as created in some sense, namely, as generated by the Father. And all sides also regarded the Son as divine. In the Arian view, specifically, the Son is the Second Being of the Godhead, the only Being generated by God directly, and the Creator and God of all other beings, even though the Father is His God (e.g., Eph 1:3; Rev 1:6; 3:12).

Core Issue: Is the Son a distinct Being?

The real core issue was whether the Father and Son are distinct Beings, as the Arians believed, or a single Being, as the Nicenes held. All other differences between the two sides, such as whether the Son is immutable, impassible, immortal, and eternal, can be traced back to this core issue. 

The Arians, following Origen and Logos-theology, confessed three hypostases, meaning three distinct Persons in the Godhead. See here.

The anti-Nicenes were Eusebians, not Arians.

As stated, the so-called Arians did not follow Arius. Based on Newman’s writings, De Kock distinguishes between Arians and Semi-Arians. He describes the Germanic peoples as Semi-Arians. Experts refer to De Kock’s “Semi-Arians” as ‘Eusebians,’ but the idea is the same. 

The real leaders of the Arians were Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia. Therefore, a better name for the Arians would be Eusebians. They were not ancient Jehovah’s Witnesses. While Jehovah’s Witnesses seem to emphasize that the Son is a creature, the Arians emphasized the divinity of the Son. They refused to call the Son a creature, rejected Arius’s view that the Son was created out of nothing, and held that the Son was begotten of the Father. According to the Arian creeds, the Son had existed before all time, God of God.

The so-called Arians acknowledged a Trinity of three distinct divine Beings, perhaps with a certain similarity of substance, but with a gradation of the Beings within the Trinity. For them, the Son is the second Being of the Godhead.

They denied the Nicene view that the Son is homoousios with the Father, which the Nicenes understood as meaning ‘one substance.’

The great majority of delegates at Nicaea did not follow Arius, but should rather be called Eusebians. This theology was not a new development. They continued the pre-Nicene Origenistic party.

Conclusion

Both the true Arians and the Eusebians believed that the Father and Son are two distinct beings, in opposition to the Nicenes, who believed that the Father and Son are a single Being. The conclusion remains that the core issue in the Arian Controversy was not whether the Son is subordinate to the Father, or a created being, or divine, but whether the Son is a distinct Being.

Although the term ‘Arian’ is a serious misnomer, this article continues to describe the anti-Nicenes as ‘Arians’ because that is the term most people know.

ARIANS OBSERVED THE SABBATH.

We will now show that the Arians, who believed that the Father and Son are two distinct divine Beings, observed the Sabbath. The following groups can be classified as ‘Arian:’

1st-century Church

Two Beings

According to the definition above, the 1st-century Jewish-dominated church was Arian because it regarded the Father and pre-incarnate Son as distinct Beings. It may have regarded the Son as divine in some sense, but nobody thought of the Father and Son as a single Being. The view that the Father and Son are a single Being (a single Mind or Center of Consciousness) first originated in the 2nd-century in the form of Monarchianism.

Sabbath

Christianity began as a sect of Judaism. At first, all Christians were Jews. For example, John the Baptist, Jesus, and the apostles were all Jews. At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit fell only on Jews. They observed the Law of Moses fully, “zealous for the Law” (Acts 21:20), including the Sabbath (see here). 

Since Christianity originated in the East, and since, according to Socrates, all Christians in the East, five centuries later, still observed the Sabbath (see quotes below), it is beyond doubt that the first-century Jewish-dominated church observed the Sabbath.

Pre-Nicene Eastern Church

Before Christianity was legalized in 313, most Christians lived in the East and spoke Greek. The Eastern Church, according to the definition above, was Arian. It continued to believe that the Father and Son are distinct Beings, and observed the Sabbath:

Two Beings

The Church became Gentile dominated in the 2nd century. Beginning in that century, Logos-theology dominated in the Greek Eastern Church. In this theology, the Son is a second divine Being, distinct from the Father. Monarchianism originated at that time, but was rejected by most. Logos-theology remained the standard view of Christ until the 4th-century controversy began.

Sabbath

The Eastern Church also observed the Sabbath. The church historian Socrates, writing in the 5th century, stated:

“For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this” (De Kock, p. 167). 

In this quote, the term ‘sabbath’ refers to Saturday. The ancient fathers and historians always called Sunday ‘the Lord’s day,’ never ‘Sabbath.’ This article also uses the term ‘Sabbath’ only for the Saturday-Sabbath.

Socrates’s statement means that, in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries, all Christians in the East, both Nicenes and Arians, observed the Sabbath.

4th-century Arians

Two Beings

The group in the 4th century that is commonly called Arians was simply a continuation of the Eastern Church. They continued the view that the Father and Son are two distinct Beings. Athanasius coined the term ‘Arian,’ claimed that Arius developed a new theology, and called the Eastern theology Arianism, but, as stated, that is false. Arius was a conservative.

Sabbath

And, as discussed, as Socrates confirmed, in the 4th century, the Eastern Church, the home of Arianism, still observed the Sabbath.

Germanic Tribes

After the Eastern Emperor Theodosius, the growing dominance of Rome’s theology was interrupted when Germanic tribes, in the 5th century, conquered and ruled the Western Roman Empire. 

They were Arians.

For example, Ulfilas, the famous missionary to the Goths, was a drastic Homoian. However, generally, they allowed the Roman population of the Western Empire religious freedom to continue Rome’s theology. In other words, while the Germanic leaders observed the Sabbath, their Roman subjects observed Sundays.

They had converted from paganism to Arian Christianity before they migrated into the Empire. 

Sabbath

The quote from Socrates, who said that, in the 5th century, all churches in the world, except Rome and Alexandria, observed the Sabbath, means that the Germanic peoples, who ruled the Western Empire in the 5th century in the East, observed the Sabbath. We have proof for that. For example, Bishop Sidonius Apollinaris, who spent some time at the Visigoth court of Theodoric II, who reigned from 453 to 462, referred to the king’s “sabbatarian sumptuousness.”

According to De Kock, we don’t know whether Germanic Christianity also observed Sundays. 

Ecumenical Councils

Incidentally, these Germanic peoples were not invited to the so-called Ecumenical Councils. These councils were called and controlled by the Roman Empire, not by the Church. They made decisions only for the Roman nation, not for the Church in general.

NICENES OBSERVED SUNDAY.

As stated, the Nicenes held that the Father and Son are one single Being. We may call this Christian Monotheism. The following groups, according to the definition above, are classified as Nicene and observed Sundays:

Nicene theology originated in Rome.

Both Sunday observance and Christian Monotheism began in the 2nd century in the church in Rome in the Latin West:

One Being

Rome believed that the Father and Son are a single Being because, according to scholars, it adopted Monarchianism, the view that the Father and Son are one and the same Person. Since Monarchianism was strong in the late second and early third centuries, Rome probably adopted this view at that time. 

We also have direct evidence that the Church in Rome taught Monotheism. Around the year 260, in a dispute with Alexandria, Rome taught one hypostasis in the Godhead, which means that the Father and Son are one Person. 

Sunday

As quoted above, Socrates, writing in the 5th century, stated that, on account of some ancient tradition, Rome and Alexandria had ceased observing the Sabbath. In other words, the practice of not observing the Sabbath began long before the 5th century. It probably began during the first three centuries.

The Western theologian Tertullian, writing in the early 3rd century, stated that the West, at that time, had already switched to the Lord’s day. This implies that Rome switched to Sunday observance already in the 2nd century.

In the 2nd century, the Romans crushed the Jewish Bar Kokhba Revolt using scorched-earth tactics, leading to the near-total depopulation of Judea and the destruction of Jerusalem in 135 AD. Jews were forbidden to enter Jerusalem. Circumcision, Torah study, and Sabbath observance were banned (Wiki). In that context, there would have been immense pressure on the Christians in Rome to show that they were not Jews. Therefore, it is likely that Rome switched to Sunday observance after the Empire outlawed Sabbath observance in the 2nd century.

The quote from Socrates, above, does not mention Sunday. It only said that Rome and Alexandria ceased to observe the Sabbath. However, elsewhere Socrates wrote that Easterners observed both Saturdays and Sundays. By implication, Rome and Alexandria observed Sundays. 

In summary, both Sunday worship and Monotheism became generally accepted, for the first time, in the church in Rome in the 2nd century. The Eastern Church, like the 1st-century church, continued to observe the Sabbath and held that the Father and Son are distinct Beings.

Alexandria followed Rome.

Alexandria, where the 4th-century Controversy began, was Nicene because it followed Rome:

One Being

During the first three centuries, while Christianity was still illegal and persecuted, and while most Christians were still in the East and spoke Greek, the influence of the (Latin) church in Rome was limited. The Eastern Church did not have to submit to Rome. Nevertheless, the church in Rome, being the capital of the Empire, had significant influence in the West.

For example, in the 3rd century, around 260, some Sabellians in Libya used the term Homoousios. Alexandria, which taught three hypostases in the Godhead, opposed them. The bishop of Alexandria wrote a letter to the Sabellians in which he rejected the term homoousios. The Sabellians complained to the church in Rome. As already stated, Rome taught one hypostasis in the Godhead, meaning that the Father and Son are one single Person. In this dispute, Rome was able to persuade Alexandria to accept the term. 

Sixty years later, at the Nicene Council, that same term homoousios was a core issue. At the time, Alexandria accepted it, if it did not champion it. This shows that the church in Alexandria continued to follow Rome. (See here for a discussion of the term homoousios.)

Tertullian, who wrote at the beginning of the third century, is another example of Rome’s influence. According to Britannica, Tertullian, an African, became interested in Christianity while in Rome. Britannica states that Tertullian was impressed by the uncompromising belief in one God. Tertullian explained the Son as a portion of the Father’s substance. Therefore, like Rome, he believed that the Father and Son are one single Being or Person. 

Another possible indication of Rome’s influence is that Athanasius, after he was deposed by the Eastern Church in 335, appealed to the church in Rome. Rome declared him orthodox and innocent at a council in 341 (see here). This implies that Rome was the source of his theology. Two years later, at the Council of Serdica, Athanasius was part of the Western delegation (see here).

In the mid-3rd century, Alexandria, in the person of its bishop Dionysius, held that the Father and Son are distinct Beings. A hundred years later, in the mid-4th century, in the person of bishop Athanasius, Alexandria believed that the Son is an internal aspect of the Father. Since Rome was able to persuade Alexandria to accept homoousios, it is probable that Alexandria shifted to Monotheism under Rome’s influence.

Sunday

As Socrates stated in the 5th century, both Rome and Alexandria had long ago ceased Sabbath observance. Given the strong influence Rome had on other churches in the West, Alexandria probably received that practice from Rome.

Emperor Constantine

In the early 4th century, Constantine became both a Christian and emperor of the Western Empire. He was Nicene because, after he had taken his seat in Rome and legalized Christianity in 313, he adopted Rome’s theology. He also made Rome’s theology mandatory:

Constantine’s Sunday Law

Seeing that both Christians and Pagans venerated Sundays, in 321, Constantine passed the first known Sunday Law. It was not a law for Christians alone. All Western Romans had to rest. His law reads as follows:

“On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits” (De Kock, p. 156-7).

Constantine’s Sunday law did not mention the Sabbath, the seventh day of the week. He did not make observing the Sabbath illegal. As discussed above, in the East, Christians continued to observe the Sabbath.

Why did he issue a Sunday Law?

What problem was he trying to solve?

At the time, Constantine was emperor only of the Western Empire. As stated, Rome no longer observed the Sabbath. Perhaps some in the West still did, and Constantine’s intention was to ensure consistency in the Western Empire.

On the other hand, his law did not refer to Sunday as ‘the Lord’s Day,’ but as “the venerable Day of the Sun,” implying that it was in honor of the solar deity Mithras, and not intended to be part of Christian religious practice. Constantine was previously a Sun worshiper, and perhaps still was to some extent (see here). Perhaps Constantine’s purpose was to strengthen his regime by exploiting the fact that both sun worshipers and Christians venerated the first day of the week. For Sun worshipers, it was dies solis, the day of the sun, or Sunday. For Christians, it was the day of the resurrection. 

One Being

Constantine did not issue a law to enforce Monotheism. However, he conquered the Eastern Empire in 324 and was determined to also conquer the Eastern Church. He called the Nicene Council in 325. It was essentially an Eastern Council. Only the chairperson, Ossius, who was also Constantine’s agent, was from the West, and perhaps one or two others. 

By various means, such as his own formidable presence, participation, and control of the council, appointing his religious advisor as chairperson, and the knowledge that he would exile all who refused to accept the creed, he ensured that the Council accepted a creed he thought best, which was a creed consistent with Rome’s Monotheism. 

One indication of monotheism in the Nicene Creed is that it explicitly anathematizes the view that the Father and Son are distinct hypostases, meaning that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis (Person). 

Constantine insisted on Homoousios.

One example of both Rome’s theology and Constantine’s dominant role is that the Creed describes the Son as homoousios with the Father. This term was a startling innovation. It is not found in the Holy Scriptures, did not appear in any previous creed, was not part of the standard Christian language of the day, but was borrowed from pagan philosophy. 

The Council opposed the term, but Constantine insisted. He “pressed for its inclusion” (Hanson, p. 211). “The emperor exerted considerable influence. Consequently, the statement was approved” (Erickson). 

Constantine had led armies to several victories on the battlefield. He must have had an extremely commanding presence. At Nicaea, to enable this Eastern council to accept the term, he thought it appropriate to explain it to this assembly of bishops. He explained that it does not mean all the bad things they thought it meant. 

Ecumenical Councils

Constantine’s dominant role at the Nicene Council requires elaboration. The so-called Ecumenical Councils of the 4th century were not even Church Councils. They were not called or requested by the Church. They were called and controlled by the emperors for their own purposes. In the Christian Roman Empire, the Emperor was the head of the Church and the ultimate judge in doctrinal disputes. These councils were the means by which the emperors forced the Church to comply with their wishes.

Conclusion

Although the Nicene Creed was not a formal law, it was not much different. It was like a law formulated in consultation with the party that would oppose it. Constantine ensured that the Council accepted a creed consistent with Rome’s theology.

Therefore, Constantine had a key role in both the Arian and Sabbath Controversies. Rome was the first to accept both Monotheism and Sunday observance, Alexandria followed Rome in both doctrines, and Constantine enforced both.

4th-century Western Church

A Single Being

Constantine’s attempt to ensure unity failed. For the next 50 years, generally known as the Arian Controversy, the Church was divided broadly between the Greek East and the Latin West. While Arianism dominated in the East, the Western Church followed Rome and Alexandria.

This can be seen in the creeds formulated during this period. Most of the creeds of the 4th century, including the Nicene Creed, were corrupted by emperor-interference. The emperors always chose sides between the East and West and exercised pressure in one or the other direction. However, during the 340s, the Empire was divided between Eastern and Western emperors. This allowed the Eastern and Western Churches to express their views freely. Therefore, the creeds formulated during this decade illustrate the views of the East and West, respectively:

The Eastern Church formulated the Dedication Creed, which was a clear Arian statement, confessing three hypostases in the Godhead, meaning that the Father and Son are distinct Beings.

In response, the Western Church formulated the Serdica Manifesto, explicitly claiming that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis, meaning a single Person.

Nicene Theology taught one hypostasis.

The ‘one hypostasis’ in the Nicene Creed and in the Serdica Manifesto was consistent with original Nicene theology, as taught, for example, by Athanasius. As already stated, he believed that the Son is an internal aspect of the Father. Consequently, the Father and Son are a single hypostasis. Original Nicene theology was, therefore, not the same as the later Trinity doctrine, in which the Father, Son, and Spirit are three equal hypostases.

Sunday

Furthermore, following the lead of Rome and Alexandria, which had switched to Sunday observance already before the 4th century, the Western Church continued to observe Sunday.

(e) Emperor Theodosius

One Being

The major turning point came when Theodosius, who was committed to Rome’s theology, became emperor in the East in 379.

Theology evolved on both sides of the Controversy. The final form of Arianism was Homoianism. When Theodosius became emperor, Homoianism dominated in the East, while Nicene theology dominated in the West.

Theodosius did what no other emperor had done. In 380, through the Edict of Thessalonica, he brought the Arian Controversy to an end by making Nicene theology the Roman State Religion. It was not a church creed. It did not specify what the Church must believe. It was a Roman law. It specified what all Romans must believe. It required ALL Romans to be Christians, specifically, Nicene Christians. The Edict explicitly refers to the Father, Son, and Spirit as “one God.”

Theodosius enforced Rome’s theology.

As quoted above, Socrates indicated that Rome and Alexandria, in ‘ancient’ times, had ceased to observe the Saturday-Sabbath. Similarly, the Edict of Thessalonica explicitly mentioned the bishops of Rome and Alexandria as norms for acceptable theology. This confirms that those two churches were in alliance against the rest of the church. It also confirms that the Edict made Rome’s theology the Roman State Religion.

Formed the Roman State Church

The Edict outlawed Arianism, threatening punishment. In the subsequent years, Theodosius banned “heretics” from settling in cities, from owning or using churches, and from meeting for worship in towns or cities. (See here.) In this way, Theodosius eliminated Arians from the church hierarchy and created the Roman State Church.

Theodosius’s persecution was as severe as the persecution before Christianity was legalized, but it was now persecution of Christians by Christians. This set the precedent for the persecution of God’s people during the Middle Ages.

Second Ecumenical Council

In the next year, 381, Theodosius called a council in Constantinople to rubber-stamp his Edict. It is today known as the Second Ecumenical Council. However, since he had already outlawed Arianism, he invited only Nicenes. And since he was emperor only of the Eastern Empire, he invited only Easterners. To ensure an acceptable outcome, Theodosius appointed one of his unbaptized civil servants as bishop of the Capital, Constantinople, and as chairperson of the Council. (See here.)

Enforced Sunday Observance

A few years later, in 386, Theodosius made Sunday observance a legal requirement for all Romans. He issued a stricter version of Constantine’s Sunday law. 

Made Sunday part of Christian worship

Constantine’s law referred to Sunday as “the venerable Day of the Sun,” implying that it was in honor of the sun god. However, Theodosius’s law referred to Sunday as “the Lord’s day,” indicating that he made Sunday observance part of the Christian religious practice of the Roman State Church. 

Like Constantine, Theodosius did not mention or prohibit the Sabbath. But it is important to note that both Constantine and Theodosius enforced both Sunday observance and Monotheism.

An Addendum to the Nicene Law

De Kock proposes that Theodosius had to issue Sunday legislation due to the influx of the Visigoths, who were Arians and kept the Sabbath. However, as argued above, all Arians kept the Sabbath. Therefore, since Arianism dominated until the time of Theodosius, at least in the Greek Eastern Church, he had to issue Sunday laws to force the general population to observe Sunday; it was not only for the Visigoths.

This means that Theodosius’s religious laws formed a package. Both his Nicene edict of 380 and his Sunday law of 386 implemented the religious policy of the church of Rome. The Sunday law is effectively an addendum to the Nicene law.

We will now discuss the further developments after Emperor Theodosius had put an end to the Controversy by law and persecution.

FURTHER HISTORY

5th-Century Eastern Empire

In the 5th-century Eastern Empire, the previously predominantly Arian population was now subject to laws requiring Monotheism and Sunday observance. Arians were forced underground. They were not allowed to meet for worship in the cities.

Socrates wrote that, in the 5th century Eastern Church, all Christians, both Nicenes and Arians, held church services on both Saturdays and Sundays (the seventh and first day of the week). This seems to refute the main thesis of this article, namely, that Arians observed Saturdays and Nicenes observed Sundays. 

Eastern Nicenes observed the Sabbath.

J.P. Migne confirmed that the Nicenes in the East sanctified both the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day. He quotes, for example, Gregory of Nyssa, the famous Cappadocian father from the late 4th century, who was an Easterner, and Asterius, another Easterner, who died c. 410, recognized as a saint by the Catholic Church. This practice, therefore, existed already in the 4th century. 

It was argued above that Nicenes observed Sundays. Why did the Eastern Nicenes in the 5th century observe the Sabbath? Theodosius’s law of 386 made Sunday observance compulsory, but it did not ban the Sabbath. Therefore, because the Eastern Church, which was traditionally Arian, had always observed the Sabbath, the Eastern Nicenes continued to observe the Sabbath.

Eastern Arians also observed Sundays.

It was argued above that the Arians, generally, observed the Sabbath. However, in the 5th century, the Eastern Arians rested on Sundays, not as part of their Christian worship, but simply because the law of the land prohibited work on Sundays. Already in the early 4th century, Emperor Constantine issued a law requiring all Romans to rest on Sundays, not as part of Christian worship, but as “the venerable Day of the Sun.”

Emperor Justinian

The 6th century was the beginning of the end of both Arianism and Sabbath observance. In that century, the reign of the Germanic tribes was brought to an end. One of the major tribes, the Visigoths, was defeated in 507 by the Franks, who converted to Roman theology. Later, in the 530s, the Eastern Emperor Justinian defeated the Arian kingdoms and re-conquered the territory previously lost. Over the subsequent two centuries, the Eastern Empire ruled the West militarily and through the Roman Church. Consequently, the defeated Arian kingdoms, one by one, converted to Roman theology. (See here.)

The Roman (State) Church

The theology that originated in the church of Rome eventually triumphed, but it triumphed through the military muscle of the Roman Empire. Theodosius outlawed Arianism and made Rome’s theology a legal requirement for all Romans, followed by severe persecution. The Arian Controversy began soon after Constantine suspended persecution, but the Controversy was ended when Theodosius resumed persecution, this time persecution of Christians by Christians.

The Roman State Church was the organization that was subsequently formed within the Roman Empire. After the Eastern Empire, in the 8th century, was effectively neutralized by Muslim conquests, the Roman State Church survived. By this time, all kingdoms in Europe had converted to Roman theology. They now supported the Roman State Church, which became the Roman Church.

Individuals continued to teach Arianism and to observe the Sabbath, but the Roman Church, through the power it had over the nations and people, gradually eliminated Sabbath observance and Arianism over the subsequent centuries. The Roman Church was sustained by the most cruel persecutions. The Roman Church caused millions of God’s people to be killed, imprisoned, and tortured.

One way of explaining the history is to say that the Roman Empire forced the Church to adopt certain views. But that assumes that the Roman State Church was the same as the Church, which is not true. The Roman State Church was a formal organization to which all Romans were required to belong, whether or not they believed. And it excluded countless numbers of God’s people who were not Romans.

It is more accurate to explain history by saying that the Empire made Rome’s theology the Roman State Religion, and that the Roman State Church triumphed and became the Roman Church, which still dominates Christianity today. Initially established by decisions of the Roman emperors, the Roman Church brought with it the Sabbath and Monotheism.

Overview of the History

Originally, the Church believed that the Father and Son are distinct Beings and observed the Sabbath.

Both Sunday observance and Monotheism originated in the 2nd century in Rome. Both doctrines also spread from Rome to other churches in the Western Empire, including Alexandria.

After Christianity was legalized, Emperor Constantine attempted to implement both of Rome’s doctrines, but failed. This was followed by the Arian Controversy, a period of about 50 years.

Emperor Theodosius put an end to the Controversy by making both doctrines legal requirements for all Romans. He eliminated Arianism from the church hierarchy. In this way, the Roman State Church was formed within the Roman Empire.

However, in the next (5th) century, Arian Germanic tribes conquered and ruled the Western Empire.

After Emperor Justinian, in the 6th century, had defeated the Germanic Arians, the Arian kingdoms converted to Roman theology. Conversion was top-down. Religion was enforced by the kings.

After the Eastern Roman Empire, in the 8th century, was effectively neutralized by Muslim conquests, the Roman State Church survived. It now became the Roman Church and was supported by the kingdoms that had previously converted to Roman theology.

Individuals continued to teach Arianism and to observe the Sabbath. However, over the subsequent centuries, the Roman Church, through severe persecution, gradually eliminated both doctrines.

CONCLUSIONS

The Sides were the Same.

The analysis above has shown that the sides in the Arian and Sabbath Controversies were the same:

The Arians, as defined, believed that the Father and pre-incarnate Son are two distinct divine Beings and observed the Sabbath. The Arians included (a) the 1st-century Church, (b) the Eastern Church until the Roman Empire outlawed this theology at the end of the 4th century, (c) the Arians of the 4th century, and (d) the Germanic nations that ruled the Western Empire in the 5th century.

The Nicenes held that the Father and Son are one single Being and observed Sunday. Both doctrines (a) originated in Rome, probably in the 2nd century, (b) spread to Alexandria and other parts of the Western Empire, (c) were enforced by Emperor Constantine at the beginning of the 4th century, (d) were held by the Western Nicenes in the 4th century, (e) were made law by Emperor Theodosius later that century, and (f) continued in the Roman Church after the Roman Empire collapsed.

Monotheism Evolved

The view that the Father and Son are a single Being, with a single mind, evolved. Initially, in the 2nd century, the church in Rome adopted it in the form of Monarchianism. It evolved into Sabellianism in the 3rd century, Nicene theology in the 4th, and, eventually, into the Trinity doctrine. No two of these views were exactly the same:

    • Monarchianism made no distinction between the Father and Son.
    • Sabellianism identified the Son as the Logos, a temporary Word of the Father.
    • Nicene theology identified the Son as an internal aspect of the Father, namely, His own and only Wisdom and Power. Effectively, that means that the Son is the Father, just like your wisdom and power are really you.
    • In the Trinity doctrine, the Father and Son are equal modes of existing as God, often misleadingly explained as ‘Persons.’

Sabbath was part of the Arian Controversy.

As discussed, the sides in the Arian and Sabbath controversies were the same, and the two controversies underwent the same phases. However, while abundant writings survived from the Arian Controversy, very little survived from the Sabbath dispute. That implies that the Sabbath dispute was never a controversy in its own right, but merely a facet of the Arian Controversy. Sunday observance was merely one aspect of the theology of the church in Rome, which, over many centuries, became the theology of the entire Roman Empire and, today, is the theology of almost the entire Christian Church.

History written by the Winner

The Arian Controversy is a prime example of history written by the winner. Over the centuries, through the selective copying and even purposeful destruction of writings, this history was lost and distorted, and the Church’s original view became ridiculed and derided as Arianism. It was only over the last 100 years or so, through the discovery of ancient documents and intense research, that scholars were able to piece together a more balanced view of the Controversy:

“The study of the Arian problem over the last hundred years (the 20th century) has been like a long-distance gun trying to hit a target. The first sighting shots are very wide of the mark, but gradually the shells fall nearer and nearer. The diatribes of Gwatkin and of Harnack (published at the end of the 19th century) can today be completely ignored” (Hanson, p. 95).

Other Articles

Other articles in this series

Trinity Doctrine

Arian Controversy

Pre-Nicene Fathers

Arius

The Nicene Council (AD 325)

The Divided Empire (340s)

Arianism

Nicenes

Emperor Theodosius

Later Centuries

Other Article Series