What was the main issue debated during the Arian controversy? Why did Arius' opponents regard this as being of such importance?

This remains a fundamental issue in Christian theology, the relationship of the soteriological to the Christological requiring a Trinitarian formulation and one that we will see resurface time and time again.

Why was the introduction of fixed creeds widely regarded as a welcome development by many within the churches?

The influence of Gnosticism and the 'mystery' religions of the Ancient world demonstrated the need for continuity in understanding and even discerning Scripture. In both Christian Gnosticism (p 15) and wider mystery religions any initiate into a religion was given 'secret' knowledge pertaining to salvation or the mysteries therein. Early Christian communities faced the challenge of complex and secret interpretations of the bible and Christianity itself. The earliest response to this is much of the New Testament itself, namely the epistles of the various Apostles. In these, for example, the double process of clarification and correction occurs to disparate Christian communities whilst at the same time church government forms combat the same issue of radical interpretation and praxis. The creeds are the extension of this same impulse towards biblical correction and clarification on the Gospel. The creeds became limits or standards of interpretation of the bible. In doing so the creeds helped the early church to address non-Christian trajectories that arose from charismatic leaders and sects.

The role of tradition is dealt with more closely in chapter 6.

Why was it important to reach agreement on the canon of Scripture? What practical difference would this have made to theological debate at the time?

This may seem a peculiar issue to the contemporary mind, especially given our suspicion of 'canons' as being intrinsically and pejoratively exclusionary. This is complicated by the fact that some books of the New Testament and the entire bible held disputed status for centuries (even within Judaism). But this points to the tension in 'canon'. A canon establishes a mutual basis for description in theology. By agreeing on a canon, which itself was still somewhat fluid, the early church was able to agree on a basic core or trajectory from which to evaluate and to describe Christian worship, life and theology. It was, therefore, inclusive in that it allowed a common point of dialogue and allowed the disparate cultures, languages and people to establish a Christian community that reflected its confidence in the risen Christ and his Gospel.

The role of Scripture is dealt with more closely in chapter 6 and in regard to revelation in chapter 7.

The English historian Thomas Carlyle once suggested that history was basically the biography of great individuals. On the basis of your reading of this chapter, who do you think was the most significant person in relation to the shaping of Christian theology over this period?

This is a relatively personal question that can be answered on several levels. Given the later East-West split in the church the answer depends on the tradition from which one comes. For example, and from a Euro centric Christian perspective, the Christian West might nominate Augustine of Hippo as both magisterial Protestants and Roman Catholics see in his theology the common fount of much of their thoughts on the Trinity, sin and doctrine of the church. However, the Christian East might nominate the Cappadocians for their contributions in Trinitarian and Christological thought that form much of the Orthodox tradition. Both East and West, nonetheless, owe a common debt to earlier theologians such as Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen in establishing some of the common themes that will occupy theologians.

Why was there relatively little interest in the doctrine of the church in this early period? And why do you think the Donatist controversy broke out in the Western, rather than the Eastern, church?

Several reasons for the rise of the Donatist controversy in the West rather than the East are usually offered. It is likely a conflation of several factors. The 'usual suspects' are the historical placing of the controversy and the nature of the Western (Latin) mind over that of an Eastern mindset. The legalization of Christianity post-Constantine is offered as an explanation as to why the question of what was the church became important. The early church, having little to squabble over in terms of power and influence, was simply bent on preservation and questions such as the nature of the church were secondary to mere survival. This, however, is slightly romantic and perhaps historically naïve as it is becoming clearer that persecution was not as wide spread as originally thought and that there was more than adequate stability and even need for serious reflection on the nature of the church. Nonetheless, a regional persecution did make the issue salient in regard to the status of 'traitor' bishops.

The more likely answers lie in the direction of the specific nature of the Donatist influenced churches. The seminal work of the English historian Henry Chadwick revealed that the split of the Donatist church to non-Donatist church had a racial or ethic influence. Indigenous N Africans tended to be Donatist churches while Roman immigrants to the area tended to be non-Donatist. The question becomes whether there is a difference in outlook, particularly in legal and philosophical understanding, that influences the direction of the debate. The question remains in dispute amongst scholars but what is evident is that ethnicity and geography do seem to factor in at some fundamental level.

Another factor that focuses the issue to the West is the centrality of Cyprian of Carthage in the debate. Cyprian's understanding of the church and its identity was claimed by both groups to be formative in their positions. Were Cyprian not a popular and influential regional martyr-bishop, it might be that the controversy remained unimportant. However, as Cyprian was popular and known, his ideas became a flashpoint for the controversy with both sides claiming to be faithful to him.

To summarize, it seems likely that a range of issues precipitated the controversy.

Introductory Level:

1.

Locate the following cities or regions on map 1: Alexandria; Antioch; Cappadocia; Constantinople; Hippo; Jerusalem; and Rome.

Alexandria: In present-day Egypt, the city is located on the Mediterranean Sea.
Antioch: In present-day Syria, on the far Eastern coast of the Mediterranean.
Cappadocia: In present-day Turkey, between the Black and Mediterranean Seas.
Constantinople: In present-day Turkey, located at the mouth of the Black Sea.
Hippo: Located in North Africa, just below the island of Sardinia.
Jerusalem: In present-day Israel, between Alexandria and Antioch.
Rome: In present-day Italy, midway on the Western coast of 'the boot'.

Now find the Latin/Greek dividing line on the same map. Latin was the main language west of that line, and Greek east of it. Identify the predominant language in each of the cities mentioned in question 1.

Alexandria (Greek)
Antioch (Greek)
Cappadocia (Greek)
Constantinople (Greek)
Hippo (Latin)
Jerusalem (Greek)
Rome (Latin).

Which language would you associate with the following writers: Athanasius; Augustine of Hippo; Origen and Tertullian?

Athanasius: Wrote in Greek, being based in Alexandria.
Augustine of Hippo: Wrote in Latin, being based in the Roman colony of Hippo.
Origen: Wrote in Greek, having studied in Alexandria and living throughout the Near East.
Tertullian: Wrote in Latin, being based in North Africa.

The following movements were of major importance during the patristic period: Arianism; Donatism; Gnosticism; Pelagianism. Associate the controversies centering on each of these movements with one of the following theologians: Athanasius; Augustine of Hippo; Irenaeus of Lyons. (Note that one of these theologians is associated with more than one controversy.)

Athanasius: Arian controversy (p. 22).
Augustine of Hippo: the Donatist controversy (pp. 24 and see question 1 of chapter 15) and Pelagian controversy (pp. 24-25, and see question 1 of chapter 14).
Irenaeus of Lyons: Gnosticism (p. 11).