The Cappadocian Fathers (Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa) judged Arius completely unjustly. Arius explicitly stated in his letters that the Son was begotten timelessly as a unique, supreme Mediator—“not as one of the creatures.” The Nicene camp created a false dilemma, completely erased this biblical middle ground, and flatly accused him of turning Christ into an “ordinary creature” just to make his views easier to condemn. They judged a biblical thinker by the rules of secular Greek philosophy.
There is a glaring intellectual hypocrisy in the figures you praise. Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa completely rejected, ignored, or cast aside John’s Apocalypse from their official biblical canons because they didn’t like its genre. They granted themselves total freedom to discard actual scriptural texts, but denied Arius the freedom to interpret biblical language using its own native Semitic or functional categories.
How can you trust the theological judgment of the Cappadocians when they treated the Book of Revelation as a forbidden text?
Bottom line: it is the exact same ancient political cynicism we find in John 11:50. Just as Caiaphas and the religious authorities sacrificed Christ to buy a fragile peace with the Romans, the Nicene establishment sacrificed the original biblical truth and crushed Arius to secure the stability of the Roman Empire.
- Why I am an Antiochene: I align with the School of Antioch because it prioritized the historical, rational, and literal truth of Scripture over the mystical allegories of Alexandria.
- The Legacy of St. Lucian: Arius was not a lone rebel; he was part of a brilliant network of thinkers trained by the martyr Lucian of Antioch, who fought to protect biblical monotheism.
- The Antiochene Reality: To an Antiochene, when the New Testament shows Christ weeping, suffering, and obeying the Father, it describes a functional and relational reality.
- The Rejection of Greek Fiction: Forcing the Greek metaphysical term Homoousios (one substance) onto these texts was viewed by Antioch as an infiltration of pagan philosophy that destroys the distinct reality of the Persons.
- Our Verdict on Arius: Consequently, rather than viewing him as a heretic, we praise Arius as a faithful biblical theologian who bravely stood up to defend the unique majesty of God the Father against imperial and philosophical corruption.
First, on “orthodox.” Before you arrived, this thread had been using the word to mean what came out of, roughly, the first four ecumenical councils. That wasn’t my private definition; it is a common and accepted meaning of the term. It is the meaning the the thread had been using to define its own scope. You showed up and decided it meant something else, and thereby effectively changed the topic of conversation. You don’t get to walk into an established discussion, redefine the term that itself sets the topic, and then cite the redefinition as grounds for correcting everyone who was using it the way it had already been used.
Second, on Orthodoxy as proper noun: even granting you everything. Say you were baptized Orthodox. Say you hold the liturgy dear. Fine–none of that is in dispute and none of it is my business. I’m not preventing you from identifying culturally with whatever label you find resonates with you. But no Orthodox patriarch, synod, or canonical body on earth would recognize a tritheist Arian as in communion with them. That’s not gatekeeping on my part. It’s just what the word has meant, institutionally and historically, since 325. You can claim the personal attachment, but that doesn’t give you the authority to speak for the Orthodox communion.
Third, on doxa. You’ve built an entire argument on doxa–in “orthodoxy”–meaning “worship” to the exclusion of “belief.” That’s not a neglected second meaning you’ve recovered–it’s an inversion of the primary and accepted sense of the word ‘orthodoxy’, in which doxa is taken as principally, if not exclusively, opinion or belief. “Right worship, no content required” isn’t a live and accepted meaning of the term.
Fourth, as to what Arius held. You quoted your own material, from 139, back at me, so let’s look at it again–
>> To defend Arius’s theology, the Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia contains a key phrase that uses an if-then structure to argue that the Son, having been begotten, must have a beginning, and therefore ‘was not’ before that point. The quote, “If the Father begat the Son, then he that was begotten had a beginning of existence; and from this it is evident, that there was [a state] when the Son was not,” supports this position. This argument highlights a strict, one-God theology and uses scriptural phrasing that depicts the Son as being brought forth prior to time.
The thing is, I’m fairly confident that that text was generated by AI. And it is correct. But you misinterpreted it as saying it was a mere hypothetical, rather than Arius using the Trinitarian party’s own position against them to derive his own conclusion. The force is: If the Son was begotten, as Athanasius and co. say, then it follows he had a beginning in time, as I say.
But you missed that and glossed it as “the analogy in which he does NOT claim anything, but sets a structure IF-THEN”
And it’s why “not as one of the creatures” in your last post doesn’t survive the sniff test. Arius said the opposite–ktisma, created out of nothing, first and greatest of creatures, but a creature. There was a when when he was not. That was his well documented position. You quoted parts of this yourself. You just didn’t understand what you’d posted.
Fifth, on the Cappadocians and Revelation. I never asked you to trust them. I’m not Orthodox. I’m not a believer. I never suggested anyone ought take them as authorities.
brenmcg said
It was Arius who came up with the claim that although the Son was generated before all ages he was nevertheless generated at some point in time. It is this nonsense claim that forces Arians into either polytheism or lowering their christology until the son is no longer divine but just another creature. And it was for this exact reason that more than 99% of bishops in 325 had a serious problem with his teaching.
-
- They introduced a massive innovation into the tradition.
- But to keep Apostolic authority, they had to pretend they weren’t changing anything.
- They forced future generations to read later, complex Greek philosophy back into early texts where it simply didn’t exist.
- do you want me to play the song THE PRETENDERS?
Porphyry said
I’m not preventing you from identifying culturally with whatever label you find resonates with you. But no Orthodox patriarch, synod, or canonical body on earth would recognize a tritheist Arian as in communion with them.
Third, on doxa. You’ve built an entire argument on doxa–in “orthodoxy”–meaning “worship” to the exclusion of “belief.” That’s not a neglected second meaning you’ve recovered–it’s an inversion of the primary and accepted sense of the word ‘orthodoxy’, in which doxa is taken as principally, if not exclusively, opinion or belief. “Right worship, no content required” isn’t a live and accepted meaning of the term.
The thing is, I’m fairly confident that that text was generated by AI. And it is correct. But you misinterpreted it as saying it was a mere hypothetical, rather than Arius using the Trinitarian party’s own position against them to derive his own conclusion. The force is: If the Son was begotten, as Athanasius and co. say, then it follows he had a beginning in time, as I say.
The entire force of his logic is simple: If the Son was begotten—as Athanasius and company claim—then it naturally follows that he had a beginning in time, just as I say. You can’t handle that Arius exposed the logical self-destruction of your own position, so you are looking for an excuse to ignore it.
>> We need to agree on definitions first.
I already pointed out that there was functional agreement in this thread about what the term was being used to indicate–until you came and began using a different meaning.
>> you are completely wrong to insinuate it is just a ‘cultural label.’
I’m not claiming that is the only or even primary meaning. I am claiming it is a meaning, and it is a meaning in which you could fairly claim the label.
>> The ‘fathers’ picked that name based on dox-ology.
Which fathers, specifically, are you appealing to?
>> By reducing Orthodoxy to what a modern patriarch or canonical body recognizes, you are completely missing the original meaning of the word.
You are the one who claimed to speak for the Orthodox–capitalized as a proper noun. You are the one who name-dropped your patriarch as though that gave you standing to speak for the Orthodox. You are the one who claimed to have never belonged to another denomination. You can’t have it both ways.
Ecce: “Do you know the name of my orthodox patriarch and do you think he is respected as expected?” “His name is your nick-name, just spelled little bit different [Porfirije]. . . . now accept that I don’t lie when I claim orthodoxy. Baptized long time ago, and never belonged to any other denomination.”
>> Your dictionary definition completely misses how the word doxa actually functioned in early Christianity.
In classical Greek, it meant ‘opinion.’ But in the Christian tradition, doxa underwent a radical transformation to mean Glory and Praise (translating the Hebrew Kavod).
A word can have multiple senses current together.
>> Orthodoxy is not about checking boxes on an abstract list of intellectual opinions; it is about ortho-dox-ology—the correct, aligned praise of the living God.
Simply repeating your point doesn’t make it truer.
>> You are trying to reduce ancient faith to a cold, scholastic system of ‘correct opinions,’ while completely ignoring the actual liturgical and spiritual heart of the word.
Does the liturgical heart of orthodoxy include the Synodikon of Orthodoxy on Orthodoxy Sunday? Does it include the Nicaean Creed? Does it include the Liturgy of St. Basil? Does it include celebration of Athanasius’s feast day?
>> You can’t handle that Arius exposed the logical self-destruction of your own position, so you are looking for an excuse to ignore it.
Once again, it is not my position. I am not a believer, as I have said before.
I already pointed out that there was functional agreement in this thread about what the term was being used to indicate–until you came and began using a different meaning.
I offered let’s say alternative meaning.
I’m not claiming that is the only or even primary meaning.
So, why am I the problem here? Just because I think this one is primary, mine?
I am claiming it is a meaning, and it is a meaning in which you could fairly claim the label.
To prove they had correct opinion, they needed someone with incorrect, heretical.
First, on “orthodox.” Before you arrived, this thread had been using the word to mean what came out of, roughly, the first four ecumenical councils. That wasn’t my private definition; it is a common and accepted meaning of the term. It is the meaning the the thread had been using to define its own scope. You showed up and decided it meant something else, and thereby effectively changed the topic of conversation. You don’t get to walk into an established discussion, redefine the term that itself sets the topic, and then cite the redefinition as grounds for correcting everyone who was using it the way it had already been used.
But where this leads?
…VS MY DISRUPTION
What is the actual point of saying I disrupted the conversation? Do you view orthodoxy merely as a tool to fight against Protestantism or Roman Catholicism? Or are you using it as a tool to completely deconstruct the faith, since you are an atheist?
You are the one who claimed to speak for the Orthodox–capitalized as a proper noun
So you are talking about the teaching, and not about the undivided Church?
Check again the topic: Evolution of the central doctrines of the undivided Orthodox Church
I, as a believer have the right to question even the dogma, and the narrative how it evolved. You, as an atheist, are taking things for granted.
A word can have multiple senses current together.
The Eastern Orthodox claim they are katholikos (universal) too, but why did the Western world never claim the title of “Orthodox” for itself? Why did Rome double down on Catholic while the East claimed Orthodox? If this doesn’t tell you my point, nothing will.
>> I offered let’s say alternative meaning.
>> So, why am I the problem here? Just because I think this one is primary, mine?
You did not just offer an alternative meaning. You presumed a meaning other than what everyone else had been using to define the scope of the topic, then told us all we were wrong and didn’t understand what we were talking about.
You told us to “leave the Trinity doctrine aside, it is a separate subject – topic, and has nothing to do with this matter” even though the Trinity was explicitly one of the doctrines listed as the topic of the thread.
You have told us that doctrine is accidental to orthodoxy–worship is what matters–even though the topic of the thread is explicitly about orthodox doctrines.
And you used your alternative meaning, repeatedly, to claim authority. Even there though you are inconsistent: to claim authority, you identify yourself with the institutional Orthodox communion, while at the same time saying that Orthodoxy is not about institutions and patriarchs. In other words, you claim institutional affiliation for authority, while arguing that the institution and its commitments are irrelevant.
>> Are you going to acknowledge that the “orthodox” kept the correct opinion?
No, I’m using the term as a conventional description, not as a judgement. I am not endorsing orthodox theology as true. I am recognizing that ‘orthodox’ (in the context of historical Christianity) is generally used–as it is here–to mean the mainstream theological consensus that emerges from the first few centuries of Christianity.
I can refer to the pope as “His Holiness” without thinking he is in fact holy. I can talk about the Latter Day Saints without believing they are actually saints. I can call the Russian Orthodox Church “Orthodox” without thinking its beliefs (or its worship) is actually correct. So too, I can call the theology that emerges from the first few ecumenical councils “orthodox” without thinking it is actually right.
I say this charitably, but it occurs to me that we may be hitting a linguistic problem here; you may not be aware how broadly the word ‘orthodox’ is used in English.
>> So you are talking about the teaching, and not about the undivided Church?
I’m talking about teachings because the thread is concerned explicitly with teachings–“doctrines.”
>> The Eastern Orthodox claim they are katholikos (universal) too, but why did the Western world never claim the title of “Orthodox” for itself? Why did Rome double down on Catholic while the East claimed Orthodox? If this doesn’t tell you my point, nothing will.
I have no idea what point you mean to make here.
All that said, I note you have not addressed a few of my earlier questions:
>> Does the liturgical heart of orthodoxy include the Synodikon of Orthodoxy on Orthodoxy Sunday? Does it include the Nicaean Creed? Does it include the Liturgy of St. Basil? Does it include celebration of Athanasius’s feast day?
In case it eluded you, my point here was that Orthodox liturgy is steeped in doctrine. You can’t practice recognizably Orthodox liturgy without voicing doctrine or showing honor to some of the very fathers you disavow.
>> Which fathers, specifically, are you appealing to?
Again, if the significance wasn’t obvious, you appeal to the fathers, but disown many of them. So which ones are you claiming?
Porphyry said
>> I offered let’s say alternative meaning.
>> So, why am I the problem here? Just because I think this one is primary, mine?
You did not just offer an alternative meaning. You presumed a meaning other than what everyone else had been using to define the scope of the topic, then told us all we were wrong and didn’t understand what we were talking about.
Why did you backpedal saying:
I’m not claiming that is the only or even primary meaning.
I was trying to explain the origin of the word ortho-dox, primary meaning, by me and Church’s continual life through centuries, no matter if majority thinks otherwise. I realized you are talking about opinion, but it was too late…
You told us to “leave the Trinity doctrine aside, it is a separate subject – topic, and has nothing to do with this matter”
I meant in the context of orthodoxy, because the Trinity was built-in in the Gospel. That is why it has nothing to do with orthodoxy, which is later invention – blame heterodox, or heresies, whatever.
even though the Trinity was explicitly one of the doctrines listed as the topic of the thread.
And I was discussing the doctrine from the perspective of the Gospel and what Jesus said, without involving ortho vs hetero-doxy in that subject.
You have told us that doctrine is accidental to orthodoxy–worship is what matters–even though the topic of the thread is explicitly about orthodox doctrines.
No way I said TRINITY is accidental, I just distinguished that Gospel doctrine from later Church’s authorities and their interpolations, incl. orthodox, heterodox, you name it. Further, when the Western imperium of Roman Catholics figured out they missed one verse of John’s Gospel, they introduced the Filioque [using that exact forgoten verse], which was their legitimate right. But then I had to ask: how come the Nicene ‘fathers’ forgot about that particular verse? Also, I think we have Protestants who are Trinitarians, so my point was that Orthodoxy never had a copyright on that doctrine.
And you used your alternative meaning, repeatedly, to claim authority. Even there though you are inconsistent: to claim authority, you identify yourself with the institutional Orthodox communion, while at the same time saying that Orthodoxy is not about institutions and patriarchs. In other words, you claim institutional affiliation for authority, while arguing that the institution and its commitments are irrelevant.
Interesting point. but you have to know this also: The Roman Catholics had the dogma of papal infallibility, and that he is God’s representative on earth, while the Orthodox do NOT.
>> Are you going to acknowledge that the “orthodox” kept the correct opinion?
No, I’m using the term as a conventional description, not as a judgement. I am not endorsing orthodox theology as true. I am recognizing that ‘orthodox’ (in the context of historical Christianity) is generally used–as it is here–to mean the mainstream theological consensus that emerges from the first few centuries of Christianity.
Fair enough. I am just not the part of that consensus
I can refer to the pope as “His Holiness” without thinking he is in fact holy. I can talk about the Latter Day Saints without believing they are actually saints. I can call the Russian Orthodox Church “Orthodox” without thinking its beliefs (or its worship) is actually correct. So too, I can call the theology that emerges from the first few ecumenical councils “orthodox” without thinking it is actually right.
Crystal clear, but then you would just ad that these are just their claims, and I have the right to disagree with them.
I say this charitably, but it occurs to me that we may be hitting a linguistic problem here; you may not be aware how broadly the word ‘orthodox’ is used in English.
>> So you are talking about the teaching, and not about the undivided Church?
I’m talking about teachings because the thread is concerned explicitly with teachings–“doctrines.”
…of whom? The thread is clear, blame me, my english, but it says -of-the-undivided-orthodox-church
>> The Eastern Orthodox claim they are katholikos (universal) too, but why did the Western world never claim the title of “Orthodox” for itself? Why did Rome double down on Catholic while the East claimed Orthodox? If this doesn’t tell you my point, nothing will.
I have no idea what point you mean to make here.
They didn’t care for how we read the word of orthodoxy today – the point is – we have to understand how they read it.
All that said, I note you have not addressed a few of my earlier questions:
>> Does the liturgical heart of orthodoxy include the Synodikon of Orthodoxy on Orthodoxy Sunday? Does it include the Nicaean Creed? Does it include the Liturgy of St. Basil? Does it include celebration of Athanasius’s feast day?
- The Liturgical Anchor: You think listing St. Basil’s liturgy traps me, but it does the exact opposite. St. Basil’s liturgy famously relies on a strictly pre-Nicene, high-anaphora focus on the Father as the unique Source, reflecting a structure very different from later flat, interchangeable Western dualisms.
In case it eluded you, my point here was that Orthodox liturgy is steeped in doctrine. You can’t practice recognizably Orthodox liturgy without voicing doctrine or showing honor to some of the very fathers you disavow.
Why not? Athanasius tried to force the Apocalypse into the liturgy, aside from the canon, or accept the Council of Trullo, which explicitly claims it both, with and without. How do I read TRULLO? I, or we have the right to reject that book, the same right provided to those who are accepting it.
>> Which fathers, specifically, are you appealing to?
Again, if the significance wasn’t obvious, you appeal to the fathers, but disown many of them. So which ones are you claiming?
The Antiochian. I only recently figured out Jesus’ words, that is the city on the hill. Bellow is googled out:
- The Literal/Historical Baseline: The ** you do not have permission to see this link **]
- The Original Geographic Anchor: Antioch is literally where the disciples were first named Christians (** you do not have permission to see this link **]
- The Textual Rejection: By claiming Antioch, I don’t bow to imperial Roman or Alexandrian council structures. I anchor my position in the school that prioritized the actual human, historical Messiah over cosmic, state-enforced dualisms. [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
Keep the faith, question authority—that is my credo, or creed. Remind yourself of what Jesus said: don’t call anybody on earth father (Matthew 23:9). Exactly how they called themselves. Anybody wonder why? Jesus surely meant it in a spiritual sense, because God is Spirit (John 4:24).
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)