Proto-Orthodoxy Between The Arians And Proto-Orthodoxy

1504 Words 7 Pages
The hierarchy of the Trinity has been a controversial topic since the death of Jesus. Arians believed that the Son did not always exist but was begotten by the Father, at a point in time, Jesus was seen as a lesser entity. For the Proto-Orthodoxy believers, this was problematic because they believe that the Son (Jesus) always existed like the Father (God) there was no division. The contradiction of beliefs between the Arians and the Orthodoxy provides an understanding of why the Trinity was such a controversial topic within early Christianity. If one cannot explain the status of the Son then how can they explain the foundation of the Trinity? Much of the issue lies in the fact that it is hard to describe three aspects of God yet say he is still one. Many early Christian groups focused on the authority of Jesus compared to God focusing on his human aspects creating confusion. The Nicaea counsel took place within the Roman Empire presented the controversy regarding debates about the Son between the Arians and Proto-Orthodoxy. The argument between the Arians and Proto-Orthodoxy is not about the existence of the Trinity, but it focuses on if Jesus was begotten or unbegotton. (Eusebius) …show more content…
The Trinity is not an easy topic to explain especially from a carnal perspective. Speaking about spiritual things even the early Christians could not figure out the specifics and this has been a pattern throughout history. The topic of the Trinity does present a controversy from the time of Jesus even into modern times. The Nicaea Creed marks the changing of an era in the Roman Empire in regards to the rise of Christianity and the controversy of the Trinity. Even with the Arian controversy, Proto-Orthodoxy won in the end. Laying the foundation of beliefs in regards to the Son level within the Trinity and what those around the Empire

Related Documents