Does anyone have suggested (online titles if possible) that cover this controversy in the early Church?

Thank you.

j

Yeah, who let white folk into the Church? Or is that Aryanism...

Arianism - Research and Read Books, Journals, Articles at Questia Online Library

The Online Books Page: Studies of Arianism: Chiefly Referring to the Character and Chronology of the Reaction Which Followed the Council of Nicaea, by Henry Melvill Gwatkin

I have not read these books or articles, so I cannot speak to their quality. But I would think it could be a good place to start. The #9 selection on the first website looks hopeful, as it is from a volumed set on church history. Fairly unbiased, perhaps. Hope these are helpful in some way.

Blessings!

Eusibius's Church History. Google it and you will find many place's it's online. Great book written by an eyewitness!!!!!!

Links and Downloads Manager - Educational Links - Historical Theology -- William Cunningham - The PuritanBoard

Is there any truth to this statement?

Indeed, Trinitarian Christianity was literally forced upon the various tribes by the sword. Arianism is interesting and included a large number of tribal groups throughout Europe and North Africa who ascribed themselves to Christianity.

Originally Posted by JM

Is there any truth to this statement?

Indeed, Trinitarian Christianity was literally forced upon the various tribes by the sword. Arianism is interesting and included a large number of tribal groups throughout Europe and North Africa who ascribed themselves to Christianity.

Arianism was in favor with most of the civil rulers in the Roman world at the time of the Nicean council. For instance, Athanasius was deposed from his office, and banished by the civil magistrate several times. Arius had the full power of the civil sword, while the orthodox had the power of the Sword of the LORD.

Also, the idea that Constantine or Charlemagne used the sword to advance the faith is naive, or a simple lie. The patience of Charlemagne with the Germanic peoples was great, and his employment of the sword was only after several failed attempts to get them to quit incest, canibalism and human sacrifice. Also, it downplays the roles played by simple missionaries, such as Boniface:

Saint Boniface - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read in particular about "Thor's Oak".

Cheers,

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Also, the idea that Constantine or Charlemagne used the sword to advance the faith is naive, or a simple lie. The patience of Charlemagne with the Germanic peoples was great, and his employment of the sword was only after several failed attempts to get them to quit incest, canibalism and human sacrifice. Also, it downplays the roles played by simple missionaries, such as Boniface:

Saint Boniface - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read in particular about "Thor's Oak".

Cheers,

The Franks were simply imposing the morality which the pagan Roman empire would have imposed. The Gauls and Celts had already been forced by the pagan empire to give up human sacrifice when they were conquered before. Charlemagne was simply extending the empire - now considered the Holy Roman Empire - farther.

Boy, my European History is rusty! I wonder, do they teach that in schools anymore?

Originally Posted by JM

Does anyone have suggested (online titles if possible) that cover this controversy in the early Church?

Thank you.

j

Foundations of Social Order by RJ Rushdoony

Local legend has it that they ate at least part of St Boniface. It's an old Frisian tale that my father told me.

Originally Posted by JM

Does anyone have suggested (online titles if possible) that cover this controversy in the early Church?

The very best book I've read on this subject from a historical perspective is The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381 by R. P. C. Hanson. It is published by T & T Clark Ltd., and is 931 pages in length. It is the most exhaustive modern day treatment of which I am aware. Hanson was an Anglican, and a very good historian, though admittedly does not represent the kind of theological conservatism to which many of us here would adhere. But on this subject, his historical work is first rate.

Granted, it cannot be obtained online, but for the serious student on this subject I regard it as a necessity.

DTK

Originally Posted by turmeric

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Also, the idea that Constantine or Charlemagne used the sword to advance the faith is naive, or a simple lie. The patience of Charlemagne with the Germanic peoples was great, and his employment of the sword was only after several failed attempts to get them to quit incest, canibalism and human sacrifice. Also, it downplays the roles played by simple missionaries, such as Boniface:

Saint Boniface - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read in particular about "Thor's Oak".

Cheers,

The Franks were simply imposing the morality which the pagan Roman empire would have imposed. The Gauls and Celts had already been forced by the pagan empire to give up human sacrifice when they were conquered before. Charlemagne was simply extending the empire - now considered the Holy Roman Empire - farther.

Boy, my European History is rusty! I wonder, do they teach that in schools anymore?

No, not here in Canada (they don't even teach a systematic Canadian history), and not in the Netherlands either... at least not the way they used to, as it is not politically correct...

People that forget their history are doomed to repeat it...