In summary, 2nd century Logos-theology taught that God's Logos was always part of God but later became a distinct Person. In 4th-century Nicene theology, the Son is the Father's only Mind. In Arian theology, the Father and Son are two distinct Minds. Did the Nicenes or the Arians follow the Logos-theologians in this regard? To explain in more detail: When the Church became Gentile dominated in the second century, the Apologists explained Jesus Christ as the Logos of Greek philosophy. In this philosophy, the Logos always existed as part of God but became a hypostasis (a distinct Person or Existence) when God decided to create. Through the Logos, the high God created and communicated with the creation: > “Ever since the work of Justin Martyr, Christian theologians had > tended to use the identification of the pre-existent Son with some > similar concept in contemporary Middle Platonism as a convenient > philosophical device” (Hanson, p 22-23). > > “They used to great effect several features of contemporary Greek > philosophy to enable them to construct their doctrines of God. They > identified the pre-existent Christ, thought of as manifesting himself > on critical occasions throughout the history of the Jewish people, > with the nous or **Second Hypostasis** of contemporary Middle > Platonist philosophy, and also borrowed some traits from the divine > Logos of Stoicism (including its name).” (Hanson Lecture ) > > "Greek-speaking theologians of the early fourth century had three > words for something that really exists, and exists in itself, as > distinguished from an accident or a quality. The words are ousia, > hypostasis, and hyparxis. ... As the fourth century progressed, > hypostasis became, more and more, the one term that was the center of > controversy." (Lienhard ) Logos-theology remained the dominant teaching right into the fourth century: > "The theological structure provided by the Apologists lasted as the > main, widely-accepted, one might almost say traditional framework for > a Christian doctrine of God well into the fourth century, and was, in > differing form, the basic picture of God with which the great majority > of those who were first involved in the Arian Controversy were > familiar and which they accepted" (Hanson ). Almost all delegates to Nicaea in 325 were from the East and the East maintained Logos-theology: > “Around 250–300 attended, drawn almost entirely from the eastern half > of the empire” (Ayres, p. 19). > > "The great majority of the Eastern clergy (at Nicaea) were ultimately > disciples of Origen. … they were simply concerned with maintaining the > traditional Logos-theology of the Greek-speaking Church" (Frend, > W.H.C. The Rise of Christianity. See also, Bible.ca). Alexander and Athanasius taught that the Son is the Father's only Logos or Wisdom. In other words, only one Logos existed: > “In Alexander, and in Athanasius … Christ is the one power and wisdom > of the Father” (Ayres, p. 54). > > Alexander stated that if, as Arius claims, there once was when the Son > was not, then “there was once when God was without wisdom, power, > brightness, and so on” (Anatolios, p. 87). > > Athanasius argued similarly that the Son is “present with Him (the > Father) as his Wisdom and his Word” (Ayres, p. 46). > > Athanasius wrote: “There is no need to postulate two Logoi” (Hanson, > p. 431), meaning two minds. > > “He (Athanasius) is appalled at the Arian statement that the Son > exercises his own judgment of free-will” (Hanson, p. 428). Origen, Arius, and the 'Arians' taught two Logoi. In other words, the Father has His own mind apart from the Son: > Origen argued that “Father and Son are two … in subsistence > (hupostasis), but are one in likemindedness, harmony … and … will” > (Williams, p. 132), implying two distinct minds. > > “Arius also talks of two wisdoms and powers, speaking of a Logos that > was not distinct from the Father's hypostasis, after whom the Son is > designated Word” (Ayres, p. 55). “God's own power and wisdom is the > source of Christ.” “The proper power of God Himself … is natural to > him and coexistent with him unoriginatedly” (Ayres, pp. 53-54, quoting > Asterius, a prominent early Arian). > > Asterius, a prominent early Arian, wrote: “There are … two Wisdoms, > one God's own who has existed eternally with God, the other the Son > who was brought into existence. … There is another Word in God besides > the Son” (Hanson, p. 13). My question is, therefore, did the Nicenes or the Arians follow second-century Logos-theology? The Nicenes taught one mind and the Arians two. Did Logos-theology teach one or two minds (Logoi)? I put a similar question to Bryan Litfin, a theologian who wrote in Logos-theology. He said: > The general idea of the Logos Theology is that there is only one > mind, which belongs to God. ... In his one, single mind, there is an > eternal existence which goes by several names. In particular, it can > be called Word, or Wisdom. What happens in Christian theology, due to > the 2nd century Logos Theologians, influenced by Stoicism and by > John's Prologue, is that the abstract Word/Wisdom of God comes to be > "hypostasized" as a separate Person, the Second Person of the Trinity. > He only becomes a Son when God decides to create the cosmos. Then > later, he becomes incarnate for salvation (at the virginal > conception). So the Word/Wisdom is eternal, residing in the eternal > mind of God. But Sonship is temporal, and so is Incarnation. If I understand this correctly, it seems to say that in Logos-theology, there is only one mind in God, which means that the Nicenes followed Logos-theology in this regard, while the Arians deviated from Logos-theology. Further insight will be appreciated.

What was the core issue in the Arian Controversy? ================================================= Whether the Son was God? ------------------------ It is often stated that it was about whether Jesus is God. But Lewis Ayres says that is not true. The so-called Arians also referred to Jesus as God and placed Him on the God side of the God-creation barrier. For example: > The creed of 357, which some regard as the high point of Arianism, > describes the Son as “God from God.” (Hanson, p. 345) > > “It is misleading to assume that these controversies were about ‘the > divinity of Christ’” (Ayres, p. 14) > > “A second approach that we need to reject treats the fourth-century > debates as focusing on the question of whether to place the Son on > either side of a clear God/creation boundary.” (Ayres, p. 4) Whether the Son was a lesser Being? ----------------------------------- One may counter and say, yes, the 'Arians' described Him as God but they also described Him as subordinate to the Father. That statement would be misleading because, as RPC Hanson stated, the pro-Nicenes also thought of the Son as subordinate. Ayres says that even Athanasius regarded the Son as subordinate to the Father. For example, he regarded the Son as part of the Father and would never say that the Father is homoousios with the Son. The first theologian to insist on full equality was Basil of Caesarea. For example: > Before Nicaea, all church fathers described the Son as subordinate, > e.g.,: The “conventional Trinitarian doctrine with which Christianity > entered the fourth century ... was to make the Son into a demi-god … a > second, created god lower than the High God” (Hanson Lecture). > > “With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and > West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year > 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement (end) of the > controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy.” (Hanson, p. > xix) > > Athanasius also described the Son as subordinate. He always described > the Son “as proper to the Father, as the Father's own wisdom,” meaning > that the Son is part of the Father, never the other way round. (Ayres, > p. 206)  > > Basil of Caesarea was the first to proclaim full equality: “In all the > previous discussions (before Basil of Caesarea) of the term > (homoousios) … a certain ontological subordination is at least > implied.” (Ayres, p. 206) “In Basil, the Father's sharing of his being > involves the generation of one identical in substance and power.” > (Ayres, p. 207) So, whether the Son was subordinate to the Father was also not the real main issue in the Arian Controversy. Was the Controversy about Arius? -------------------------------- The title 'Arian' Controversy implies that Arius caused it and that it was about Arius' teachings. However, Hanson and Lewis confirm that Arius was not the 'cause' but that it was the continuation of the controversy that raged during the previous century: > "He was the spark that started the explosion, but in himself he was of > no great significance.” (Hanson, p. xvii-xviii) > > “This controversy is a complex affair in which tensions between > pre-existing theological traditions intensified as a result of dispute > over Arius.” (Ayres, p. 11-12) Furthermore, the Controversy was not about Arius' teachings. He left no school of followers. After Nicaea, he was no longer mentioned. Nobody thought his writings were worth preserving. As Hanson, Ayres, and Williams confirm, it is called the 'Arian' Controversy only because Athanasius falsely accused his opponents, the anti-Nicenes, of being followers of Arius, which they were not. For example: > “The people of his (Arius’) day, whether they agreed with him or not, > did not regard him as a particularly significant writer. … Neither his > supporters nor his opponents thought them (his writings) worth > preserving. … He virtually disappears from the controversy at an early > stage in its course.” (Hanson, p. xvii) > > “It is virtually impossible to identify a school of thought dependent > on Arius' specific theology." (Ayres, p. 2) > > “The expression 'the Arian Controversy' is a serious misnomer.” > (Hanson, p. xvii) > > “’Arianism’ as a coherent system, founded by a single great figure and > sustained by his disciples, is a fantasy … based on the polemic of > Nicene writers, above all Athanasius.” (Williams, p. 82) > > “The textbook picture of an Arian system … inspired by the teachings > of the Alexandrian presbyter, is the invention of Athanasius’ > polemic.” (Williams, p. 234) So, what was the real core of the Arian Controversy? Was there a golden thread that ran through the controversy in the third and fourth centuries? Authors Quoted -------------- Following the last full-scale book on the Arian Controversy, published in English by Gwatkin at the beginning of the 20th century, R.P.C. Hanson in 1988 published perhaps the most influential book in modern history on the Arian Controversy. (Hanson RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381. 1988) This was followed in 2004 by a book by Lewis Ayres.(Ayres, Lewis, Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004) Ayres confirmed the importance of Hanson's book. > “Richard Hanson’s The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (1988) > and Manlio Simonetti’s La Crisi Ariana nel IV secolo (1975) remain > essential points of reference.” (Ayres, p. 12) Ayres’ book is based on those surveys and “in some measure advances on their texts.” (Ayres, p. 5) I also quote from another important book by Rowan Williams, focusing specifically on Arius.(Williams, Rowan (24 January 2002) . Arius: Heresy and Tradition (Revised ed.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8028-4969-4.)

In response to my question why Theodosius was successful in bringing the Arian Controversy to a close , @Anne gave me references to some articles. I have read one by Steven Wedgeworth . It is a very interesting article (for people with such morbid interests). It discusses the large number of creeds that were formulated in the decades after the Nicene Creed was accepted in 325, culminating in the Homoean creed that was accepted, under the ‘guidance” of Emperor Constantius, at the Council of Constantinople in AD 360. > (The Homoeans or Homoians were the people that maintained that the > Bible does not reveal anything about the substance (ousia) of God and, > therefore, to speculate about His substance is arrogance. This is in > contrast to the Nicene Creed that claimed that the Son is of the same > substance as the Father.) The creed of the Council of Constantinople in AD 360 became the official creed of the Christian Church. All use of ousia was forbidden and it seemed as if Arianism has triumphed. I am also currently reading RPC Hanson on the Arian Controversy. Some regard him as our greatest authority on that controversy (e.g., Hart ). Hanson and Wedgeworth present the same interesting historical facts, such as: - The decisive influence which the emperors had on the decisions of the church councils, - That Athanasius was guilty of violence , - That the Arian Controversy, to an extent, was a dispute between the East and the West, and - That, in 358, the anti-Nicene party split between the Homoiousians (similar substance) and the Homoeans (those who refused to talk about substance). But there is one contextual matter where Hanson and Wedgeworth seem to disagree: While Hanson claimed that no 'orthodoxy' existed when the controversy began and that orthodoxy was only created through that controversy, Wedgeworth speaks of Orthodoxy as something that already existed when the Arian Controversy began. To illustrate the difference in more detail: Steven Wedgeworth ----------------- Wedgeworth refers to “the **orthodoxy** of Athanasius,” “the **orthodox** bishops” in the year 360, and the “early church historians” who defended “the **orthodoxy**” at the Western council at Arminium in 360. He describes the Homoean synod of Constantinople in 360 as “the defeat of **Orthodoxy**.” Wedgeworth also refers to “supposed **orthodox** arguments (that) could perhaps be made against using “substance” language in regards to the godhead.” In this regard, he mentions Origen who have already rejected the term years before, and Paul of Samatosota who had been condemned for his use of homoousios, which the Church condemned as a Sabellian theology. > (Sabellianism is the teaching that the Father, Son, and Holy > Spirit are three faces of one single Person. For a discussion, see my > question on the difference between Modalism and the traditional > understanding of the Trinity doctrine .) In opposition to the orthodox writers and bishops, Wedgeworth referred to the “heretics.“ He said, for example, that “the heretics typically took pre-existing Christian or Jewish tradition, combined it with certain philosophical rhetoric.” RPC Hanson ---------- Hanson, in contrast to Wedgeworth, wrote (link ): > “At the beginning of the controversy nobody knew the right answer. > **There was no 'orthodoxy'** on the subject of 'how divine is Jesus Christ?', certainly not in the form which was later to be enshrined in > the Creed of Constantinople.” Hanson adds that the controversy raged for no less than sixty years. It is highly unlikely that a controversy will last that long if the orthodox form was perfectly well known when it began. Subordinationism ---------------- There is a third option, namely that, when the controversy began, there was a general agreement in the church that the Son is subordinate to the Father. Hanson explains the build-up to the Arian Controversy as follows: During the first three centuries, Greek philosophy was still a strong force in the Roman Empire. In that philosophy, God is immutable and is only able to communicate with our world of change and decay through an intermediary. For that reason, Middle Platonist philosophy postulated a nous or Second Hypostasis as an intermediary between the high God and the physical world. (link ) During those centuries, Christians were still being persecuted by the Roman Empire. The Apologists (the pre-Nicene fathers) defended Christianity before the Gentile peoples of the Roman Empire. For this purpose, they found it effective to identify “the pre-existent Christ … with the nous or Second Hypostasis.” (link ) Since the nous of Greek philosophy was “a second, created god lower than the High God,” (link ) the pre-Nicene fathers described Christ as “a subordinate though essential divine agent.” (link ) Therefore, as Hanson explains, going into the controversy, the orthodoxy was that Christ is subordinate to the Father: > The “**conventional Trinitarian doctrine** with which Christianity > entered the fourth century … was to make the Son into a demi-god.” > (link ) The pre-Nicene fathers did regard Christ as divine, but as Hanson noted: > “The word theos or deus, for the first four centuries of the existence > of Christianity had a wide variety of meanings. There were many > different types and grades of deity in popular thought and religion > and even in philosophical thought.” (link ) > > In the thinking of the pre-Nicene fathers, “of course Christ was > divine,” but since they assumed that many levels of divinity exist, > the question that started the Arian Controversy was: “How divine, and > what exactly did 'divine' mean in that context?” (link ) > > (Theos is the Greek word that is translated as "god" or "God," > depending on the context. Deus is its Latin equivalent.) In conclusion, although Hanson says that, at the beginning of the controversy, there was no 'orthodoxy' on the subject of 'how divine Jesus is, he does use phrases such as "traditional framework for a Christian doctrine of God" and "conventional Trinitarian doctrine with which Christianity entered the fourth century." In other words, there was no agreement on how divine Christ is, but there was agreement that He is not as divine as the Father. The Question ------------ So, my question is: What was the 'orthodox' view of God and Christ when the Arian Controversy began?: 1. The Trinity doctrine as per Wedgeworth; 2. None, as per Hanson, or 3. Subordinationism? Or am I making a category error? Why would Hanson state that the pre-Nicene fathers believed that Christ is subordinate to the Father but still say there was no 'orthodoxy' on the subject of 'how divine is Jesus Christ?' And why would Wedgeworth talk about 'orthodoxy' as if it is the present-day Trinity doctrine, already existing in 360 AD? Did he use the term 'orthodoxy' proleptically (the representation of a thing as existing before it actually does)?

“’Subordinationism’, it is true was pre-Nicene orthodoxy” [Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers p. 239.]. RPC Hanson (The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, p. xix.) even wrote: > “With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and > West, accepted some form of subordinationism **at least up to the year** > **355.**” If Hanson is right, then the delegates at Nicaea, who accepted the Nicene Creed, must have read that creed as consistent with their subordinationist views. The creed starts with the words: > “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty ... And in one Lord Jesus > Christ.” This seems to exclude the Son as that “one God” and as “Almighty.” But the creed goes on to describe the Son as: > "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God … homoousion with > the Father" This seems to describe the Son as equal with the Father and would be inconsistent with Hanson’s statement that the delegates at Nicaea were subordinationists. For that reason, I ask: What evidence is there that the original framers of the 325 Nicene Creed intended it to be read in subordinationist ways?

Recently, I stated in an article that Tertullian was a Sabellian. One person objected and quoted a passage that states that Tertullian was “one of the chief critics of Sabellianism.” Consequently, I removed that statement from my article, but I also continued to read and think. My response to this issue is now as follows: Tertullian’s Enemy ------------------ Tertullian did not oppose Sabellius as such. Tertullian (ca. 160–225) wrote slightly before Sabellius. For example: > “Shortly after Tertullian’s day, a theologian named Sabellius gave > ...” (Litfin ) (Bryan M. Litfin, University of Virginia, Professor of Theology at > Moody Bible Institute, Chicago) Tertullian’s enemies were the Monarchian theologians. For example: > “The treatise Against Praxeas is widely recognized as Tertullian’s > greatest work on the Trinity. The view apparently taught by Praxeas > has come to be called ‘**modalism**’, thanks to that designation appearing > in Adolf von Harnack’s History of Dogma (1897). Tertullian simply > calls his opponent a ‘**monarchian**’.” (Litfin) The following quote describes the theology of Tertullian's enemies: > Tertullian's "efforts were directed against a view whose chief error > was to conflate the Father and Son, meaning that, among other things, > the Father suffered on the Cross—a view known as ‘patripassianism’, > which Tertullian found abhorrent.” (Litfin) The Monarchians were the people who conflated Father and Son. They said that Father and Son are two names for the same Entity. For example: > “This ‘**monarchian**’ view was ... suggesting the Father and Son were > different expressions of the same being, without any personal > distinctions between them. In other words, **the Father is himself the > Son**, and therefore experiences the Son’s human frailties.” (Litfin) > > “In the words of Noetus: … the Father … Himself became His own Son.” > “It was therefore God who was born from a virgin and who confessed > himself to humankind as the Son of God. At the cross, God commended > his spirit to himself, as he acted to be dead, but he was not dead in > reality, although he raised himself on the 3rd day.” (Willem Oliver ) (Willem H. Oliver, Department of Christian Spirituality, Church History and Missiology, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa) > > “The Latin Fathers … called them 'patripassians' because they have > identified the Father and the Son to such an extent that they believed > that it was the Father who suffered and died on the cross.” (Willem > Oliver) As already mentioned above: > “Adolph Von Harnack coined the term 'Modalism' for this 2nd-century > doctrine, which referred to the Trinity as consisting of 'three modes > or aspects of one divine existence'.” (Willem Oliver) Logos-theologian ---------------- Tertullian was not alone in his war against the Monarchians. As from the late second century, following Justin Martyr, non-Jewish Christianity was dominated by Logos-theology. It taught a two-stage existence for the Logos: He always existed inside God but became a separate Being - a distinct Reality - when God decided to create. (See - The Apologists .) Consequently, in Tertullian's day, in the early third century, the two main competing Christological views were Logos-theology (the Apologists) and Monarchianism. Monarchians objected that: > "The theology of the Apologists involves a division in the being and > unity of God that is unacceptable.” (LA, 68) > > Logos-theology teaches two creators and two Gods (bi-theism), > “inconsistent with monotheism (Tertullian Praxeas, ch. 3)” (Stanford > Encyclopedia of Philosophy ). Tertullian was a Logos-theologian. ---------------------------------- For example, similar to the Logos-theologians: > “For Tertullian, the Son is second in order and comes from the Father > in connection with the Father's decision to create, he also insists > that the Son was always in the Father: the same **two-stage** conception > ...” (LA, 73-74) > > “Tertullian … believed and taught that, though the Son or Logos was > **eternally within the being of the Father**, he only became distinct … at a particular point for the purposes of creation, revelation and > redemption” (RH, 872) Tertullian, therefore, was one of the Logos-theologians: > “When he (Tertullian) is examined against the background of his > immediate predecessors, he falls into place as a typical > second-century Logos theologian.” (Litfin) > > “His ideas were essentially those of the Greek Logos theologians > combined with insights from Bishop Irenaeus.” (Litfin) As a Logos-theologian, he was one of those who opposed Monarchianism: > “Tertullian's targets here are Monarchian theologians for whom the > Word does not exist as a distinct existing thing.” (LA, 74) Ayres here uses the word “thing.” That is not meant to be disrespectful. In the context of the Arian Controversy with its ambiguous terminology, “thing” is a useful word because it is devoid of content. But, perhaps a more neutral word such as ‘entity’ would have been better. Sabellianism is Monarchianism. ------------------------------ So, Tertullian's enemy was Monarchianism. The purpose of this section, however, is to show that Sabellianism is another name for Monarchianism. Both systems refuse to acknowledge the distinct existence of the Persons. Both claim that Father, Son, and Spirit are simply three names for the same Reality. For example: > Hanson defines Sabellianism as the “refusal to acknowledge the > distinct existence of the Persons.” (RH, 844) > > Referring to the Dedication creed, Hanson says: “Its chief bête noire > [the thing that it particularly dislikes] is SABELLIANISM, **the denial > of a distinction between the three within the Godhead**.” (RH, 287) > > Ayres says similarly: “The [Dedication] creed clearly and strongly > argues against SABELLIAN emphases and those emphases were associated > with Marcellan theology. We see these emphases, for instance, in the > insistence that there are **three names which ‘signify exactly the > particular hypostasis** and order and glory of each’.” (LA, 119) > > “Paulinus was a rival of Basil's friend and ally Meletius. … Basil > suspected that Paulinus was at heart a SABELLIAN, believing in only > **one Person (hypostasis) in the Godhead**. Paulinus' association with the > remaining followers of Marcellus and his continuing to favour the > expression 'one hypostasis' … rendered him suspect.” (RH, 801) > > Basil of Caesarea “goes on to introduce another argument in favour of > homoousios: 'this expression (homoousios) also corrects the fault of > SABELLIUS for it excludes **identity of Person (hypostasis)** … for > nothing is consubstantial with itself. (RH, 694-5) Sabellianism, therefore, is another name for Monarchianism. For example: > “This movement called themselves 'Monarchians', the Greek Fathers > called them 'Sabellians', as Sabellius was the person who has put this > doctrine in its philosophical form, supplying its metaphysical basis.” > (Willem Oliver) Since Tertullian opposed Monarchianism, and since Sabellianism is another name for Monarchianism, Tertullian was a critic of Sabellianism. Sabellius was not a Monarchian. ------------------------------ Sabellius (fl. ca. 215) lived more or less at the same time in history as Tertullian (ca. 160–225). Sabellianism was named after Sabellius. It is often stated that Sabellius, as in Monarchianism, taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are simply three names for the same Reality. However, if we believe Von Mosheim, Sabellius also opposed that concept. None of Sabellius' writings have survived. Everything we know about him comes from the writings of his opponents and we know that one's enemies seldom give a fair reflection of one's views. So, we are not quite sure what he taught. But Von Mosheim made a study and concluded that Sabellius, while maintaining that Father, Son, and Spirit are one Reality, still managed to distinguish between them. Sabellius, namely, argued that Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct forms or portions of the one divine Being. For example: > “While he maintained that there was but one person in God, he yet held > that there are **three forms, or aspects of the one God**. Divers forms of > one and the same being involve some real distinction.” (page 218 ) > > “Sabellius …  believed that, as a man in just one person, and yet in > his person three things may be discriminated, not in thought only, but > as having a real existence, namely, **the body, the soul, and the > spirit, so, also, although there is but one undivided person in God**, > yet in that person, the Father, the Son, and the holy Spirit can be > discriminated, not in thought only, but they must be really > discriminated and kept distinct.” (219-220) > > “As Sabellius held to the simple unity of the person and nature of > God, and yet supposed the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, to differ > really from each other, and **not to be three names of the one God**, > acting in different ways; we are obliged to believe, that he > considered the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as being **three portions > of the divine nature**.” (220) Sabellianism teaches one hypostasis. ------------------------------------ So, if we are to define Sabellianism to include Sabellius' theology, it would be a wider concept than simply Monarchianism. Note that, in the descriptions of Sabellianism quoted above, it is twice defined as that **only one hypostasis exists in the Godhead**. Today, hypostasis is often translated as 'Person'. But the following quote explains the meaning of hypostasis during the fourth century: > “To defend themselves against charges of Sabellianism, the Nicenes > developed not just the language of three prosopa, or ‘roles’ within > the Trinity, but three hypostaseis, or distinct personalities. This > approach proved problematic … for the Greek word hypostasis … meant > ‘to stand under or among’, that is, ‘to be existent’. Such language > suggested **three distinct existences within the Godhead**, and this > sounded to nervous Christian ears like tritheism.” (Litfin) A hypostasis, therefore, is a distinct existence. Sabellius believed that "there is but one undivided person in God;" i.e., only one hypostasis. To believe, like the Monarchians did, that Father = Son = Spirit, means that only one hypostasis exists. However, as the Sabellius example shows, it is possible to believe in one hypostasis but still to distinguish between Father, Son, and Spirit. To define Sabellianism as the belief in one single hypostasis, therefore, is a wider concept. The question then is, if we use this wider definition of Sabellianism, was Tertullian a Sabellian? Did he teach one or more hypostases?  Tertullian's Theology ===================== Anticipates Nicene Consensus ---------------------------- “Tertullian is often portrayed as a prescient figure who accurately anticipated the Nicene consensus about the Trinity.” For example: > “He also offered a formula that, more than a century later, would > assume the status of doctrinal orthodoxy. God is unam substantiam in > tribus cohaerentibus, ‘one substance cohering in three’.” (Litfin) > > In Tertullians' theology, “while the Son does share the substance of > the Father, both are distinct Persons. This is precisely the > trinitarian terminology that would eventually win the day.” (Litfin) Logos Theologist ---------------- However, as shown above, Tertullian was a Logos-theologian. That has the following consequences: **SUBORDINATION** The Son and the Spirit are subordinate to the Father: > “He tended toward a profound theological subordination of the Son and > the Spirit. ... The Trinity, he believed, possessed a genuine, > stepwise ranking according to each Person’s gradus, forma, and > species. This is indeed a bold view of the architecture of the > Trinity, one that skirts close to Arian subordinationism.” (Litfin) > > “The Son and Spirit are emissaries of the Father’s will—not > ontologically inferior to him, yet ranked lower.” (Litfin) **THE FATHER WAS NOT ALWAYS FATHER.** In Logos-theology and Tertullian, the Logos always existed inside God and was only begotten to become a distinct entity when He was begotten from the Father: > “But even more problematic from an orthodox point of view was > Tertullian’s firm conviction that a relationship of fatherhood and > sonship is not intrinsic to the Trinity.” (Litfin) > > “The notion that the First Person was not essentially and eternally a > Father … became anathema to later generations. Yet this was precisely > what Tertullian believed, and for this reason his doctrine of temporal > paternity and filiation was closer to the Arian point of view.” > (Litfin) Conclusion ---------- > “Tertullian was not really a forward-thinking Nicene trinitarian born > a century out of time, but a typical theologian of his day. ... We > should not be too quick to anoint Tertullian as the Latin foundation > upon which the Greek edifice of Nicaea was going to be built.” > (Litfin) > > “Historical theologians need to start admitting that Tertullian was a > far cry from being fully Nicene.” (Litfin) Right Words ----------- Tertullian is regarded as important, not because of his theology, but for introducing certain words into the debate that later became 'orthodox', such as 'trinity', 'substance', and 'person'. For example: > “Why such enthusiasm for Tertullian’s trinitarianism? As the above > selections demonstrate, the answer is essentially terminological. > Historical theologians like to suggest that Tertullian’s use of the > term trinitas, and his one substantia/three personae formula, make him > a kind of proto-Nicene hero.” (Litfin) How many hypostases? -------------------- But, to determine whether Tertullian was a Sabellian, we need to determine whether he taught one single hypostasis. Tertullian and his fellow Logos theologians accused the Monarchians "of teaching that the Son and the Spirit do not have real independent existence and are in fact simply modes of the Father's being.” (LA, 68) In contrast: > “Tertullian argues for the true existence of the Son as a distinct > reality.” (LA, 74-75). > > “In Tertullian’s new trinitarian schema, God is characterized by a > single divine ‘substance’ of rulership over the cosmos. Yet he is > fundamentally arranged or disposed in three personae.” (Litfin) But the question is, was that a distinction within one hypostasis, as in Sabellius' theology? What is the nature of the personae in Tertullian? Part of the Father ------------------ Consistent with Logos-theology, “Tertullian … believed and taught that, though the Son or Logos was **eternally within the being of the Father**, he only became distinct … at a particular point for the purposes of creation, revelation and redemption.” (RH, 872)  However, to overcome the criticism of the Monarchians, namely that Logos-theology teaches two creators and two Gods, “inconsistent with monotheism (Tertullian Praxeas, ch. 3),” Tertullian adjusted the standard Logos presentation by saying that **the Logos did not become distinct from the substance of the Father**. He was formed from a portion of the Father's substance but that portion remained part of the Father. So, there is only one substance and only one God, and that is the Father. For example: > “Tertullian believed … (that) at a certain juncture, God, while not > ceasing to be what he always was, nonetheless extended himself or > projected himself forward, so that the three Persons became more > clearly distinguished. By means of these now-more-distinct Persons, > the one God creates the world, rules over it, and enters into it for > salvation.” (Litfin) The point is that the Son always was part of the Father and always will remain part of the Father. In the same way, the Holy Spirit is part of the Father. So, it is possible to distinguish between the Father and the Son but, if the Son is part of the Father, then there is only one hypostasis. For example: > "For the Father is the entire substance, **but the Son is a derivation > and portion of the whole**." (Against Praxeas, Chapter 9) How Tertullian used the term substance, it means one hypostasis. For example: > “The term substantia as Tertullian used it signified the existence of > a single, discrete entity (here, the One God).” (Litfin) > > "The word in Greek translation of Tertullian's una substantia would > not be the word homoousios but mia hypostasis (one hypostasis)." (RH, > 193) Is it, therefore, valid to classify Tertullian as a Sabellian, if one uses the wider definition of Sabellianism as that God is only one single hypostasis?

Prior to the First Council of Nicea was there any single meeting or ongoing group that attempted organization of the faith and its followers in any similar way ?

Nothing to add to the title: did any Apostolic or Ante-Nicene Fathers believe that Jesus was a created being? ______ Related questions: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/43266/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/82496/50422

**Do we know how many bishops attending the Council of Nicaea were actual victims of the Roman perscutions?** The Council of Nicaea opened on May 20, 325 AD. > The First Council of Nicaea, the first general council in the history of the Church, was convened by the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great upon the recommendations of a synod led by Bishop Hosius of Corduba in the Eastertide of 325, or rather convened by Hosius and supported by Constantine. > > Constantine had invited all 1,800 bishops of the Christian church within the Roman Empire (about 1,000 in the East and 800 in the West), but a smaller and unknown number attended. Eusebius of Caesarea counted more than 250, Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318, and Eustathius of Antioch estimated "about 270" (all three were present at the Council). Later, Socrates Scholasticus recorded more than 300, and Evagrius, Hilary of Poitiers, Jerome, Dionysius Exiguus, and Rufinus each recorded 318. This number 318 is preserved in the liturgies of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Coptic Orthodox Church. - [First Council of Nicaea](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea) The Roman perscutions ended with the Edict of Milan in February 313 AD. Do we know how many of the bishops, who attended the Council of Nicaea were persecuted by Roman authorities prior to 313 AD? Someone once told me that some of the bishops who attended the Council had been previously tortured and even mutilated in the Roman Persecutions. There is simply 12 years between the two!

Internet Encyclopedia (IE) article on Philo claims that Philo “laid the foundations for the development of Christianity … as we know it today.” It says, “Philo’s primary importance is in the development of the … foundations of Christianity.” > More specifically, it claims that the Logos theology , that became the > standard explanation of Jesus after the church became Gentile > dominated in the second century, was inspired by Philo, namely, that > Philo, by synthesizing Judaism and Greek philosophy, developed > concepts which formed the basis for the Christian interpretation of > Jesus Christ. IE mentions “Clement of Alexandria, Christian Apologists > like Athenagoras, Theophilus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and by > Origen” as Christian theologists who used Philo’s concepts to explain > the Biblical Son of God. > > Furthermore, and much more important, IE claims that Philo influenced the Bible itself. (Philo > lived and wrote a few decades before the writers of the New > Testament.) IE says, Philo “may have influenced Paul, his > contemporary, and perhaps the authors of the Gospel of John … and the > Epistle to the Hebrews.” To justify these statements, IE points to the following similarities between Philo and the New Testament: Same Titles ----------- In Philo, the Logos exists before everything else and, therefore, is called the “first-born” (IE), “the ‘first-born’ of God” (Blogos ), and the first-begotten Son of the Uncreated Father (IE). Consequently, both Philo's Logos and Jesus Christ are called: - Logos (the Word - John 1:1), - The first-born (Col 1:15; Heb 1:6), and - Son of God. Eternal ------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is eternal: > In the NT, the Son > "was" in “the beginning” (John 1:1-2) and is “the First and the Last” > (Rev 1:17). “His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of > eternity” (Micah 5:2). The Arians liked to add, “From everlasting I > was established” (Prov 8:23). > > Similarly, in Philo, the Logos was begotten from eternity (IE). The > Logos has an origin, but as God’s thought, it also has eternal > generation (IE). God begat the Logos eternally because it is a > manifestation of God’s thinking-acting (IE). Created and Maintains All Things -------------------------------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos created and still maintains all things: > In Philo, the Logos is “the organizing principle of matter” (Blogos), > the power by which God made and ordered all things (IE), and the bond > holding together all the parts of the world (IE). > > In John, God created all things through the Logos (John 1:1-3; cf. Col > 1:16; Heb 1:2; 1 Cor 8:6) and also maintains all things through His > Son (Heb 1:3; Col 1:17). Entrusted Power --------------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos receives His power from God: > In Philo, the Logos has no autonomous power, only an entrusted one > (Wikipedia ). > > Similarly, in the New Testament, the miracles which Jesus performed were > performed by God “through Him” (Acts 2:22). God “seated Him at His > right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority > and power and dominion” (Eph 1:17-21). The Angel of the Lord --------------------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is the Old Testament Angel of the Lord: Many Christians identify the Old Testament Angel of the LORD as the pre-existent Christ. Similarly, Philo describes the Logos as the revealer of God symbolized in the Scripture by an angel of the Lord (IE). Reveals God ----------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos reveals the invisible and incomprehensible God to the created things: > In Philo, “God is revealed to His creation through the Logos” > (Blogos). > > Similarly, in the New Testament, God “alone possesses immortality and > dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see” but > the Son is “the exact representation” of God’s nature (Heb 1:3); “the > (visible) image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15). Therefore, Jesus > said, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). Light ----- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos illuminates the soul: > In Philo, the Logos illuminates the human soul and nourishes it with a > higher spiritual food (Wikipedia ). In the mind of a wise man > thoroughly purified, it allows preservation of virtues in an > unimpaired condition. (IE) > > Similarly, Jesus said, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me > will not walk in the darkness” (John 8:12). And John wrote: “In Him > was life, and the life was the Light of men.” “There was the true > Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man” (John 1:4, > 9). Begotten -------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is neither uncreated as God nor created as men: > In Philo, "the ontology of the Logos would most closely resemble an > emanation from the divine essence” (Blogos), and “an extension of a > divine being” (IE). The Logos is more than a quality, power, or > characteristic of God; it is an entity eternally generated as an > extension (IE). Therefore, the Logos … is neither uncreated as God nor > created as men (IE). > > Similarly, in the NT, the Son is the only being ever “begotten” by the > Father. If we interpret this fairly literally, it seems to indicate > that He came out of the being of God. The Nicene Creed interprets > “begotten” as that He was not created but came from the substance of > the Father. The anti-Nicenes warn that humans do not understand what > “begotten” of God means and that we should not introduce non-Biblical > words or thoughts. Mediator between God and man ---------------------------- In both Philo and the NT, the Logos is the mediator between God and man: > In Philo, the Father is the Supreme Being and the Logos, as his chief > messenger, stands between Creator and creature (IE). The Logos is a > perfect being, procuring forgiveness of sins and blessings (IE); the > mediator between God and men (IE). “The Philonic Logos is the bridge > between the infinite God and finite creation” (Blogos). > > Similarly, in the New Testament, “there is one God, and ***one mediator*** > also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5; cf. Heb > 8:6; 9:15). Everything that the creation receives from God, including > existence, sustenance, knowledge, and salvation, flows through His > Son. Also, through Christ, we draw near to God and worship Him. Question -------- It is fairly common knowledge that the pre-Nicene Fathers (the Apologists ) explained the Son of God in terms of Greek philosophy. My main question is whether Philo influenced the formulation and contents of the New Testament. Perhaps I can frame the question like this: Jesus and Philo lived at the same time. Jesus said that all power and all judgment have been given Him but He never said that He is the Logos or that God created all things through Him. However, Philo, at that same time, taught that the High God created all things through His Logos. So, did John, Paul, and Hebrews get the idea that Jesus is the Logos and that God created all things through Him from Philo?

What was the ante-Nicene Fathers' view on **image veneration** and its use inside churches?

What did the Apostolic Fathers, Ante-Nicene Fathers and the Ante-Nicene Church in general believe about the continuation of the office of Prophet? Were they cessationists or continuationists with respect to the office of Prophet? Can this be reliably answered from the historical records of the Ante-Nicene period of the Church? ___ **Appendix - NT passages on Prophets** > 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 **built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets**, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:19-22 ESV) > 11 **And he gave the apostles, the prophets**, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. (Ephesians 4:11-14 ESV) > 27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. 28 **And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets**, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? **Are all prophets?** Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But earnestly desire the higher gifts. (1 Corinthians 12:27-30 ESV) > Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, **especially that you may prophesy**. (1 Corinthians 14:1 ESV) > 8 On the next day we departed and came to Caesarea, and we entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him. 9 **He had four unmarried daughters, who prophesied**. 10 While we were staying for many days, **a prophet named Agabus** came down from Judea. 11 And coming to us, he took Paul's belt and bound his own feet and hands and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, ‘This is how the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’” (Acts 21:8-11 ESV) ___ **Related questions** - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/90529/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86076/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/59538/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/84305/50422

What did the Apostolic Fathers, Ante-Nicene Fathers and the Ante-Nicene Church in general believe about the continuation of the office of Apostle? Were they cessationists or continuationists with respect to the office of Apostle? Can this be reliably answered from the historical records of the Ante-Nicene period of the Church? ___ **Appendix - NT passages on Apostles** > 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 **built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets**, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:19-22 ESV) > 11 **And he gave the apostles**, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. (Ephesians 4:11-14 ESV) > 27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. 28 **And God has appointed in the church first apostles**, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. 29 **Are all apostles?** Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But earnestly desire the higher gifts. (1 Corinthians 12:27-30 ESV) ___ **Related questions** - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/90559/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86076/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/90502/50422

Do any denominations consider the writings of any [Apostolic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Fathers) or [ante-Nicene](https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers) Father to be inspired and authoritative to establish doctrines? If so, what criteria are used to make such a determination?

**Gehenna according to [Strong's Concordance](https://biblehub.com/greek/1067.htm)** > geenna: **Gehenna**, a valley W. and South of Jer., **also a symbolic name for the final place of punishment of the ungodly** Original Word: γέεννα, ης, ἡ Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine Transliteration: geenna Phonetic Spelling: (gheh'-en-nah) Definition: **Gehenna, a valley west and South of Jerusalem, also a symbolic name for the final place of punishment of the ungodly** Usage: **Gehenna, and originally the name of a valley or cavity near Jerusalem, a place underneath the earth, a place of punishment for evil.** _____ **Gehenna in the Gospels** The Gospels record multiple instances of Jesus warning very emphatically about the severe punishment that awaits those who would not repent from their sins and depart from their wicked ways. Their final destination will be Gehenna: the final place of punishment of the ungodly. - 22 but I -- I say to you, that every one who is angry at his brother without cause, shall be in danger of the judgment, and whoever may say to his brother, Empty fellow! shall be in danger of the sanhedrim, and whoever may say, Rebel! shall be in danger of **the gehenna of the fire**. [Matthew 5:22 YLT] - 29 \`But, if thy right eye doth cause thee to stumble, pluck it out and cast from thee, for it is good to thee that one of thy members may perish, and not **thy whole body be cast to gehenna**. [Matthew 5:29 YLT] - 30 \`And, if thy right hand doth cause thee to stumble, cut it off, and cast from thee, for it is good to thee that one of thy members may perish, and not **thy whole body be cast to gehenna**. [Matthew 5:30 YLT] - 28 `And be not afraid of those killing the body, and are not able to kill the soul, **but fear rather Him who is able both soul and body to destroy in gehenna**. [Matthew 10:28 YLT] - 9 `And if thine eye doth cause thee to stumble, pluck it out and cast from thee; it is good for thee one-eyed to enter into the life, rather than having two eyes to **be cast to the gehenna of the fire**. [Matthew 18:9 YLT] - 15 `Wo to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye go round the sea and the dry land to make one proselyte, and whenever it may happen -- **ye make him a son of gehenna twofold more than yourselves**. [Matthew 23:15 YLT] - 33 \`Serpents! brood of vipers! how may ye escape from **the judgment of the gehenna**? [Matthew 23:33 YLT] - 43 \`And if thy hand may cause thee to stumble, cut it off; it is better for thee maimed to enter into the life, than having the two hands, to **go away to the gehenna, to the fire -- the unquenchable --** 44 **where there worm is not dying, and the fire is not being quenched**. 45 `And if thy foot may cause thee to stumble, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into the life lame, than having the two feet to **be cast to the gehenna, to the fire -- the unquenchable --** 46 **where there worm is not dying, and the fire is not being quenched**. 47 And if thine eye may cause thee to stumble, cast it out; it is better for thee one-eyed to enter into the reign of God, than having two eyes, **to be cast to the gehenna of the fire** -- 48 **where their worm is not dying, and the fire is not being quenched**; 49 for every one **with fire** shall be salted, and every sacrifice with salt shall be salted. [Mark 9:43-49 YLT] - 5 but I will show to you, whom ye may fear; Fear him who, after the killing, is having authority **to cast to the gehenna**; yes, I say to you, Fear ye Him. [Luke 12:5 YLT] James refers to Gehenna too: - 6 and the tongue [is] a fire, the world of the unrighteousness, so the tongue is set in our members, which is spotting our whole body, and is setting on fire the course of nature, and is **set on fire by the gehenna**. [James 3:6 YLT] ____ **The Lake of Fire in Revelation** The Book of Revelation offers similar descriptions of a Lake of Fire, where the Devil, his angels, and everyone who rebelled against God or died in unrepentant sin will be thrown into. The similarities are such that we can reasonably conclude that *the Lake of Fire* of Revelation and the *Gehenna* of Jesus are the same place. - 20 and the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet who did the signs before him, in which he led astray those who did receive the mark of the beast, and those who did bow before his image; **living they were cast -- the two -- to the lake of the fire, that is burning with brimstone**; [Revelation 19:20 YLT] - 10 and the Devil, who is leading them astray, was **cast into the lake of fire and brimstone**, where [are] the beast and the false prophet, **and they shall be tormented day and night -- to the ages of the ages**. [Revelation 20:10 YLT] - 14 and the death and the hades **were cast to the lake of the fire -- this [is] the second death**; 15 and if any one was not found written in the scroll of the life, **he was cast to the lake of the fire**. [Revelation 20:14-15 YLT] - 8 and to fearful, and unstedfast, and abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all the liars, **their part [is] in the lake that is burning with fire and brimstone, which is a second death**.' [Revelation 21:8 YLT] _________ **Tying this to the Early Church** As we can see, Gehenna is mentioned in most of the Gospels, which are among the earliest and most reliable Christian manuscripts in terms of authorship attribution (see [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/89662/50422)) . Moreover, the concept of an end-times fiery place of punishment symbolized by Gehenna was reinforced even more with the release of the Book of Revelation by the Apostle John. What does this mean? It means that the Early Church was surely aware from the very onset of *Gehenna* and the Apostolic teaching on the *Second Death*. They had to know. The subject was so important to Jesus that he brought it up in his preaching on numerous occasions, and early documents such as the Gospels & Revelation definitely contributed to the propagation of this teaching. _______ **Question** What did the Early Church (in the ante-Nicene period) believe about *Gehenna* and the *Second Death*? To help guide the discussion, here are some specific questions that would be interesting to answer: - What did the Apostolic Fathers believe about *Gehenna* and the *Second Death*? - What did the Ante-Nicene Fathers believe about *Gehenna* and the *Second Death*? - What about other extra-biblical documents from this period on this topic? - Did the Early Church believe in eternal conscious torment? - Did the Early Church believe in eternal conscious separation? - Did the Early Church believe in Annihilationism? ____________________ **Related questions** - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89518/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89140/50422

The process of formation of the Biblical canon(s) demonstrably required lots and lots of human intervention, judgement and discernment by the Early Church over the course of several centuries. According to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon) : > With the potential exception of the Septuagint, **the apostles did not leave a defined set of scriptures; instead the canon of both the Old Testament and the New Testament developed over time**. Different denominations recognize different lists of books as canonical, **following various church councils and the decisions of leaders of various churches**. > > For mainstream Pauline Christianity (growing from proto-orthodox Christianity in pre-Nicene times) which books constituted the Christian biblical canons of both the Old and New Testament was generally established by the 5th century, despite some scholarly disagreements, for the ancient undivided Church (the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, before the East–West Schism). The Catholic canon was set at the Council of Rome (382). > > In the wake of the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent (1546) affirmed the Vulgate as the official Catholic Bible in order to address changes Martin Luther made in his recently completed German translation which was based on the Hebrew language Tanakh in addition to the original Greek of the component texts. The canons of the Church of England and English Presbyterians were decided definitively by the Thirty-Nine Articles (1563) and the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), respectively. The Synod of Jerusalem (1672) established additional canons that are widely accepted throughout the Eastern Orthodox Church. > > Various forms of Jewish Christianity persisted until around the fifth century, and canonicalized very different sets of books, including Jewish–Christian gospels which have been lost to history. These and many other works are classified as New Testament apocrypha by Pauline denominations. > > The Old and New Testament canons did not develop independently of each other and most primary sources for the canon specify both Old and New Testament books. For the biblical scripture for both Testaments, canonically accepted in major traditions of Christendom, see [biblical canon § canons of various traditions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Canons_of_various_Christian_traditions) . Despite the obvious high levels of human intervention that were required, the overwhelming majority of Christians believe that some specific Biblical canon is divinely inspired, and that the process that led to its formation is trustworthy. And yet, almost paradoxically, many of these Christians are also skeptical of the writings of the Apostolic & Ante-Nicene Fathers, even in matters where there is broad agreement (e.g. [the deity of Christ](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/82496/50422) , [post-mortal consciousness](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89518/50422) , etc.). **Question**: What is the epistemological basis for trusting some specific Biblical canon and, at the same time, being skeptical of the writings of the Apostolic & Ante-Nicene Fathers? How do such Christians know that the process that led to the formation of some specific canon is trustworthy but the writings of the Apostolic & Ante-Nicene Fathers are not, even if there is broad agreement among them?

As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words: [(source)](https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/intermediate-state) The above link already makes some good arguments, but considering that the linked site could go down for unexpected reasons and that other people might be aware of different arguments, I ask: - What is the **biblical basis** for this "afterlife model", namely, that the righteous/saints in Old Testament times originally went to the compartment in Sheol for the righteous, but after Jesus' crucifixion, resurrection and ascension now all the saints go immediately to Heaven upon death? - What is the **patristic basis**? By this I mean what are the earliest [Apostolic Fathers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Fathers) , [Ante-Nicene Fathers](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers) & [Church Fathers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Fathers) in general that first proposed and/or endorsed this model? - Is there any evidence that this "afterlife model" was taught by the Apostles themselves? _________ Related questions: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/74231/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89518/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89140/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89207/50422 I also recommend checking out these BHSE questions on Luke 16:19-31: - [Luke 16:19-31 Lazarus and the rich man - literal, allegorical or a mixture of both?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/27088/38524) - [What are the origins of the different elements present in the setting of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31)?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/74270/38524) _________ **Appendix** Here is another picture: [(source)](http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/hades.htm)

What did the Apostolic and ante-Nicene Fathers believe about [Sheol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol) / [Hades](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_Hades) ? - Did they believe that it was a real supernatural place that houses the spirits of the dead? - Did they believe that it was a collective term / metaphor for the set of all the graves of the dead (i.e. just an abstract concept, nothing supernatural)? - Did they believe that it was a metaphor for the state of non-being / non-existence of the dead (see [Christian mortalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mortalism)) ? - Did they believe that [Abraham's Bosom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosom_of_Abraham) was a real compartment within Sheol? See Luke 16:19-31. - What about Heaven? Did they believe that Christians go to Sheol or Heaven at death? See https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89423/50422 _____________ **Note**: this question is related to but more specific than https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89140/50422 ________ *Other relevant discussions* - [What are the origins of the different elements present in the setting of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31)?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/74270/38524) - [Luke 16:19-31 Lazarus and the rich man - literal, allegorical or a mixture of both?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/27088/38524)

If two mutually contradictory doctrines A and B can both be defended through careful exegesis of different sets of passages, in such a manner that there is no obvious way to "prove" (in a more formal, "mathematical" sense if you wish) which one is wrong and which one is right, is there a name for solving that dispute by surveying the literature of the Ante-Nicene Fathers in order to find evidence of broad agreement one way or the other? As a toy example, let's suppose that the dispute is between A = *"there is no resurrection"* (Sadducees) & B = *"there is a resurrection"* (Pharisees). Let's say that we make our best intellectual efforts to interpret key Old Testament passages, but after months of pondering the best arguments from both sides of the debate we're still not quite sure whether A or B is true. Then we look at what the Apostles and subsequent generations of Christians wrote (i.e. New Testament + Patristics) and realize there is widespread consensus decidedly in favor of the resurrection position. We use this broad post-OT consensus to inform our interpretation, and decide to declare B (the Pharisee position) as the winner. What would an approach like this be called, formally speaking?

Inspired by the answers I received to my previous question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89140/50422 , I'm very curious about what proponents of Soul Sleep have to say on this topic. For example, the [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/89259/50422) I found most convincing and elaborate concludes (emphasis mine): > **The only topic raised in the OP where the Apostolic Fathers are abundantly clear is post-mortal consciousness--they are decidedly in favor of it**. > > Annihilationism does not find clear support in the Apostolic Fathers (but does find much opposition in the writings of their disciples), and proponents of bipartite & tripartite views are unlikely to find compelling evidence one way or the other. Whatever they conclude from reading the Bible will be relatively unchallenged by the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. > > *** > > **Numerous relevant statements were made by Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen**–however, I will exclude them from this post per the Meta guidance. **They are ante-Nicene Fathers**, but not Apostolic Fathers. A compilation of many of their relevant statements is found [here](http://www.earlychristiancommentary.com/early-christian-dictionary/dead/) . **Question**: What is the view of soul sleep adherents on statements from the Apostolic and ante-Nicene Fathers that seem to support post-mortal consciousness? EDIT: see also this [defense](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/74082/38524) of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus as set in reality -- multiple ante-Nicene Fathers are quoted.

Who first used the term "spirit of fornication" (*spiritus fornicationis*)? It appears in the Litany of the Saints (*Litaniæ Sanctorum*) : >A spiritu fornicationis,
>℟. libera nos, Domine.
>From the spirit of fornication,
>℟. deliver us, O Lord.