Christians and Softball

[nrajeff]

Actually, IIRC every Eastern emperor between Constantine and Julian - a stretch of something like 45 years - was Arian - and Constantine himself sympathized with the Arians.

Yes. And what effect did that have on the Christians?

[Little Shepherd]

Yes. And what effect did that have on the Christians?

Considering the overwhelming nature of the vote and the official beliefs of the Church Universal(both east and west) for the next 1700 years) . . . apparently not much of one, if any.

[nrajeff]

Considering the overwhelming nature of the vote and the official beliefs of the Church Universal(both east and west) for the next 1700 years) . . . apparently not much of one, if any.

What about the accounts of chaotic, sometimes violent contentions between the two factions of Christians over the issue. What about the famous comment "The Christian world awoke to find itself Arian" ?

[One Bad Pig]

What about the accounts of chaotic, sometimes violent contentions between the two factions of Christians over the issue.

Much of that was in Alexandria, which had been a violent place given to mob violence for centuries (coincidentally, Arius was from there). When Christianity became the de facto religion of the Roman empire, it took a while for the populace to become thoroughly Christianized. You may recall accounts of chaotic, sometimes violent contentions between early Mormons and frontier settlers (who, by and large, were not known for their Christian piety).

What about the famous comment "The Christian world awoke to find itself Arian" ?

That's a splendid example of something called "hyperbole."

[nrajeff]

Much of that was in Alexandria, which had been a violent place given to mob violence for centuries (coincidentally, Arius was from there).

And so were Bishop Alexander, and St. Athanasius, IIRC.

When Christianity became the de facto religion of the Roman empire, it took a while for the populace to become thoroughly Christianized.

That is of course true. But we are talking about clashes between Christians over which group's Christology/theology was the correct one. And that internal strife continued even after the first Council of Nicea, so it hardly settled the matter. If a Council ended up threatening excommunication to any Christian who rejected homoousion Trinitarianism, I have to wonder whether even that made Trinitarians out of the entire ekklesia, since there were bound to have been some who remained believers in Arianism but kept silent about it. As one would expect to find analogs of in most churches, including even the LDS.

You may recall accounts of chaotic, sometimes violent contentions between early Mormons and frontier settlers (who, by and large, were not known for their Christian piety).

Yes. So those contentions were analogous to the conflict over theology that occurred within Early (3rd-5th-century) Christianity? Do early LDS count as Christians who subscribed to one of several Christologies that were competing for "most correct" status within Christianity? It's an interesting way of looking at it, as being comparable to the competing doctrines of Early Christianity.

[One Bad Pig]

And so were Bishop Alexander, and St. Athanasius, IIRC.

I don't recall them inciting mobs to violence, or using catchy tunes to further their ideology. Bishop Alexander was Arius' superior, to whom he should have submitted. Instead of submitting to a local council of nearly 100 bishops, he fled to continue his teachings elsewhere.

That is of course true. But we are talking about clashes between Christians over which group's Christology/theology was the correct one. And that internal strife continued even after the first Council of Nicea, so it hardly settled the matter.

That strife was unnecessarily prolonged by Constantine and his immediate successors, and was also attributable to the flood of recent converts after the legalization of Christianity (all those new converts also necessitated a change in the way the Eucharist was distributed in the East). Arianism in the East (the Goths in the West were Arian for another couple centuries) was pretty much finished by the end of the 4th century - and there were other heresies flourishing beyond that point, so active persecution doesn't seem to have been what caused Arians to disappear once its charismatic leaders were gone.

If a Council ended up threatening excommunication to any Christian who rejected homoousion Trinitarianism, I have to wonder whether even that made Trinitarians out of the entire ekklesia, since there were bound to have been some who remained believers in Arianism but kept silent about it. As one would expect to find analogs of in most churches, including even the LDS.

Possible, but that would mean lying at every liturgy before the distribution of the Eucharist, and one was not supposed to partake with unconfessed sin; they'd also be lying to their priest every time they confessed their sins and omitted that one. Partaking of the Eucharist in an unworthy manner could cause sickness, and even death (1 Cor 11:29-30). I just don't see many people withstanding that strain for very long.

Yes. So those contentions were analogous to the conflict over theology that occurred within Early (3rd-5th-century) Christianity? Do early LDS count as Christians who subscribed to one of several Christologies that were competing for "most correct" status within Christianity? It's an interesting way of looking at it, as being comparable to the competing doctrines of Early Christianity.

I see the physical violence more as people who aren't very well grounded in their faith seeking to impose their will by force. While theological disputes over varying points continued beyond the 4th century, I don't recall the violence continuing much longer - and St. Athanasius, the champion of Trinitarianism (who was himself the victim of violence), is honored for his theological treatises, not for directing the abuse of Arians (which he did not do, after all).