The Trinitarian Controversy
The Trinitarian controversy lasted from 318 to 382. There was tension between how we understand God which exists today. This controversy existed at an early stage; a period which is known Arianism. Arius was a Christian in Alexandria, Egypt. Arius wrote a letter to his Eusebius addressing this tension and his stance. He was opposed to the views of Eusebius regarding the trinity and the nature of Christ. Arius believed that God is with out a beginning and that the son has a beginning… “Before he was begotten…He was not” (Hardy, pg 333). Although somewhat obscure, Arian then made a confession which addressed Alexander of Alexandria. In his confession, he stated there is only one God, the only begotten without a beginning. …show more content…
The west resurrected Tertullian’s view in the debate in that Christ was two natures in one person. This reasoning balanced and helped a compromise to be reached between the East and its notions but the controversy was still not over. The Nicene Creed which took place prior in the Trinitarian Controversy was still an issue. Apollinaris of Laodicea who was a strong supporter of the the Nicene Creed believed he could help the situation. He formulated a doctrine which stated that Christ had no human spirit. He claimed that “in Jesus, the Word of God, the second person of the Trinity, took the place of the rational soul ( Gonzalez pg297)”. This formulated the word “logos”. Which means the word of God- took the place of the human spirit and performed its normal …show more content…
Once again there were opposing views but a formula of union was established between Cyril and John of Antioch. The Formula of Union is an important step in the Chalcedonian Decree. Cyril continued to announced that he holds fast to his teaching of Athanasius and of the fathers of Nicaea and sends John a correct copy of Athanasius’ Letter to Epictetus since corrupt versions were circulating (Hardy pg358). In 433, an agreement between Antioch and Alexandria was reached. The division increased between the two parties increased. Cyril represented the majority of the Eastern Church. He emphasized the divine in the person of Christ. Although he rejected Apollinarianism, his tendency was that of Apollinaris. Cyril died in 444 and was succeeded by Dioscurus. Dioscurus faced many oppositions and planned attacks to in favor of his belief while the bishop of Constantinople, Flavin did not (Gonzalez, 300). This controversy was later settled by a second council meeting in Ephesus where it was decided that Christ is divine and
The Trinitarian controversy lasted from 318 to 382. There was tension between how we understand God which exists today. This controversy existed at an early stage; a period which is known Arianism. Arius was a Christian in Alexandria, Egypt. Arius wrote a letter to his Eusebius addressing this tension and his stance. He was opposed to the views of Eusebius regarding the trinity and the nature of Christ. Arius believed that God is with out a beginning and that the son has a beginning… “Before he was begotten…He was not” (Hardy, pg 333). Although somewhat obscure, Arian then made a confession which addressed Alexander of Alexandria. In his confession, he stated there is only one God, the only begotten without a beginning. …show more content…
The west resurrected Tertullian’s view in the debate in that Christ was two natures in one person. This reasoning balanced and helped a compromise to be reached between the East and its notions but the controversy was still not over. The Nicene Creed which took place prior in the Trinitarian Controversy was still an issue. Apollinaris of Laodicea who was a strong supporter of the the Nicene Creed believed he could help the situation. He formulated a doctrine which stated that Christ had no human spirit. He claimed that “in Jesus, the Word of God, the second person of the Trinity, took the place of the rational soul ( Gonzalez pg297)”. This formulated the word “logos”. Which means the word of God- took the place of the human spirit and performed its normal …show more content…
Once again there were opposing views but a formula of union was established between Cyril and John of Antioch. The Formula of Union is an important step in the Chalcedonian Decree. Cyril continued to announced that he holds fast to his teaching of Athanasius and of the fathers of Nicaea and sends John a correct copy of Athanasius’ Letter to Epictetus since corrupt versions were circulating (Hardy pg358). In 433, an agreement between Antioch and Alexandria was reached. The division increased between the two parties increased. Cyril represented the majority of the Eastern Church. He emphasized the divine in the person of Christ. Although he rejected Apollinarianism, his tendency was that of Apollinaris. Cyril died in 444 and was succeeded by Dioscurus. Dioscurus faced many oppositions and planned attacks to in favor of his belief while the bishop of Constantinople, Flavin did not (Gonzalez, 300). This controversy was later settled by a second council meeting in Ephesus where it was decided that Christ is divine and