So it goes ...
- Reaction score
- London UK
That's the point. Arius 'went public'. It was no longer a few scholars disagreeing.Not at all. Constantine wouldn't have been concerned about a few elites having a squabble.
LOL, I'm not going down that rabbit-hole again.That's the official line, naturally, "Arius was the culprit"
And Arius agreed with him. But Origen argued the Son was co-eternal with the Father, and Arius said he was not, and that was the key to the whole dispute. 'There was a time when he was not' became the battlecry of the Arians.He was not the only one with a subordinate "Christology" .. on the contrary, it was a majority view.
No, it wasn't a problem in the west. It began in Alexandria, and spread, according to Eusebius's The Life of Constantine, from there into almost all the African regions...not just Alexandria .. it was an "east meets west" problem, that did NOT start with Arius, in reality.
But I honestly fail to see why you make so much of this.
From the Arian council documents you quote, Arians are Trinitarians, just with a stricter hierarchy.