Dr Paul Allen

The Arian controversy in the fourth century was arguably the greatest theological controversy in the history of the church. As Protestants, we might think that the Reformation controversies of the sixteenth century were the most momentous. Without wishing to minimize their importance, however, the Arian controversy was greater, because it went deeper.  The Reformers were arguing about how we receive the benefits of Christ; the men of the fourth century were arguing about something even more basic—who Christ is. Unless the right foundation is laid in the person of the Redeemer, little is gained in disputing about His benefits. The Arian controversy was sparked, not by Arius himself, but by the outstanding Christian thinker of the previous century, Origen (185–254). Origen had fought vigorously and successfully against one of the gravest threats to the orthodoxy of the third century—Modalism (or “Sabellianism”, after one of its leading advocates). Modalism tried to solve the mystery of h

Magyar: Arius (Areios) (260, Líbia - 336, Konstantinápoly) püspök, az arianizmus tanának szellemi létrehozója. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Arius is said to have been Libyan by descent, and he was probably born around 256 AD. We know little about his early days except that he studied under Lucian, the presbyter of Antioch . He later returned to Alexandria and became a presbyter there where he quickly became both prestigious and popular. Arius’ difficulties began in 318 when he clashed with Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria. Alexander believed in the co-eternality of the Word of God while Arius taught that the Word was created by God. Because Alexander understood this as a dangerous threat to the church, he publicly condemned Arius’ teaching and removed him from all church posts. However, Arius refused to accept Alexander’s judgments and appealed to the people of the city and to other eastern bishops. In this way the dispute spread and became a severe threat to church unity. Seein

English: Icon from Mount Athos depicting the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) This question prompted the First Council of Nicaea started in 325 and concluded with the Second Council of Nicaea in 787.  Setting   &  Purpose The First Council of Nicaea was convened in 325 by the Roman Emperor Constantine . Constantine had hoped to unite his empire under the banner of Christianity, but now saw such unity threatened by a grave theological dispute. Hosius of Cordoba recommended a council as the means to address the brewing controversy and Constantine responded by calling church leaders to Nicaea in Bithynia (modern-day Iznik, Turkey). Somewhere between 250 and 318 bishops from across the Roman empire attended, and the council began its formal deliberations on  May 20 . The major issue the council was charged with addressing was the nature of Christ‘s divinity, and in particular, the relationship between the Father and the Son. As a secondary mat

Stained glass at St John the Baptist's Anglican Church http://www.stjohnsashfield.org.au, Ashfield, New South Wales. Illustrates Jesus' description of himself "I am the Good Shepherd" (from the Gospel of John, chapter 10, verse 11). This version of the image shows the detail of his face. The memorial window is also captioned: "To the Glory of God and in Loving Memory of William Wright. Died 6th November, 1932. Aged 70 Yrs." (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) John 1:1–18 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God , and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God” (vv. 1–2). In the history of Christian doctrine, the cities of Antioch and Alexandria stand out as centers of theological development in the early church. Many of the major promoters of heresy hailed from these cities, but defenders of orthodoxy came from both cities as well. When it came to the debates over the  deity of Christ , Antioch, which is located in modern Turkey, was a c

English: Santa Claus with a little girl Esperanto: Patro Kristnasko kaj malgranda knabino Suomi: Joulupukki ja pieni tyttö (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Santa Claus was a fourth-century pastor named Nicholas of Myra who was later considered a saint by the medieval Roman Catholic Church . He was a favorite of Dutch sailors who called him, “ Sinter Klaas ” (or “Saint Nicholas”) which then came into English as “Santa Claus.” The modern version of Saint Nicholas bears absolutely no resemblance to the fourth-century pastor from Asia Minor. The real Nicholas did not live in the North Pole. He was not Scandinavian. He did not drive a team of magical caribou. He did not work with elves. Nor did he travel the world every Christmas Eve exchanging presents for milk and cookies. He was a pastor. He worshipped the Lord Jesus Christ . And he would have been appalled at the way his legacy has been used to obscure the true meaning of Christmas. There are several historically-based legends about Ni

English: Icon of Jesus Christ (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Three hundred and twelve bishops gathered. In the center of the room, on a throne, lay the four gospels. The emperor himself, dressed in a purple gown and wearing a silver diadem, opened the council. It was he who had called them together. "I rejoice to see you here, yet I should be more pleased to see unity and affection among you." The place was Nicea. It was on this day, May 20, 325. The next few days would be devoted primarily to one purpose: finding a way to describe exactly who Jesus was. Arius had preached that Christ was a creation of God, the first of all his creatures, to be sure, but a creation nonetheless. He was not of the substance or nature of God. "There was a time when the Son was not," he and his followers insisted. They even made up songs with catchy tunes to propagandize their ideas among the masses. Bishop Alexander of Alexandria was horrified. Jesus, the Word, had co-existed eter

Image via Wikipedia What does it look like when a church starts to assume that people can be saved without faith in Christ ? If I had been left to guess, I might have said it would look much the same, only a bit flabbier: comforted by the thought that good Buddhists and religious Hindus will be saved, the church would lose its evangelistic zeal, of course – but otherwise, life would go on. However, the situation in Britain today proves that guess wildly over-optimistic.  In the last few decades, the belief that people can be saved without trusting Christ has come to be the standard assumption here, even in relatively conservative Christian circles. And wherever that idea reigns, I am seeing a sickness that goes much deeper than apathy. More than no evangelism, it means no real evangel. Quite simply, that is because if ‘salvation’ is thought of as something other than being brought to know Christ, then that ‘salvation’ is something quite different to what Christ himself offers.