The Gates of Hades Prevaileth Not: Heresies, Schisms, & Other Errancies Renounced by the Eastern Church

By Anthony of the Desert

The Gates of Hades Prevaileth Not encompasses an exhaustive examination of Church Councils, Church Fathers, and heresies (e.g., Monophysites, Nestorius, Arius, Pelagius, Sabellius, et al.) defeated by the early Church. Realms of discourse include:

*Christological & Trinitarian Theology *Sacred Scripture *Church Development *Baptism & Restoration of the Lapsed *And much more

This work possesses a unique ability to synthesize wide-ranging topics into a comprehensible whole -- what has ordinarily required volumes of books has within the Gates of Hades been condensed into a single tome that presents a concise portrait of the early Church without sacrificing thorough treatment of such a voluminous field. Discrete, easy to navigate sections are supported by a comprehensive digest, making coverage of Church history in the Gates of Hades Prevaileth Not a joy to read and lenient to assimilate.

• Language: English
• Publisher: iUniverse
• Release date: Jan 12, 2012
• ISBN: 9781462058631

Anthony of the Desert

Anthony authored West of Jesus (Regina, 2006), Spiritual Alchemy (Xlibris, 2011), And the Two Shall Become One; earned a masters degree, is a National Writer's Association member, and is pursuing a theology degree. For over a decade he has labored toward purification under Archmandrite Paisios (Abbott, St. Anthony's Monastery; Florence, AZ).

Book preview

Copyright © 2012 by Anthony of the Desert.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the publisher except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

iUniverse books may be ordered through booksellers or by contacting:

iUniverse

1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN 47403

www.iuniverse.com

1-800-Authors (1-800-288-4677)

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

ISBN: 978-1-4620-5862-4 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-4620-5863-1 (ebk)

Printed in the United States of America

iUniverse rev. date: 12/08/2011

Contents

Preface

Chapter One

Christology 

Chapter Two

Trinitarian Theology 

Chapter Three

Church Development 

Chapter Four

Sacred Scripture 

Chapter Five

Baptism and Restoration of the Lapsed 

Chapter Six

Pascha 

Chapter Seven

Additional Errancies 

Digest

Sacred Scripture

Ecumenical Councils

Sources

About the Author

For my precious wife Sarah

"The church of the living God,

the pillar and ground of the truth."

(1 Tim. 3:15)

Preface

In a territory such as the United States of America, where Protestantism carries the day, there unfortunately resides miniscule knowledge of Church history—not only by Protestantism’s lay community but also by a plethora of its clergical constituency. It often seems as if the West acknowledges the first century life of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles and then leaps ahead some fifteen hundred years (past what those in the West sometimes reference as the dark ages) to the Protestant reformation when, according to Protestants, Martin Luther resurrected Christianity. Rarely does any consciousness of the Church Fathers, councils, the unbroken chain of apostolic succession, and other integral components of the Church established by the Lord Jesus Christ dwell in the Western mind. That is to say that all too often when Protestants are confronted with references to saints of the Church (St. Athanasius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, et al.), councils (both Ecumenical and regional, as well as those by individual Church Fathers), heresies (Arianism, Monophysitism, et al.), and other components of the early Church life with alarming frequency their response is but a blank stare.

The Gates of Hades Prevaileth Not intends to remedy this tragic deficiency by visiting heresies and schisms, which is to construct a portrait of the early Church by which Protestants can then develop awareness of the pillar and ground of the truth. Such a template of how the Holy Eastern Orthodox Church has soundly defeated infernal errancies will then enable the West to witness the enterprises of Church Fathers and will thusly facilitate their acquaintance with Church history as well as with the councils, decrees, and other elements of our Holy Orthodox Church. And not only will this equip Western minds with a sound comprehension of the Church’s post-first century life—will turn the blank stares by Protestants (when confronted with commentary on the early Church) into knowledgeable smiles—but watchfulness against straying into similar errancies will accrue. For instance, when examining apostolic canons (teachings by the Apostles in the first century), and their demand that only wine mixed with water be used for the Lord Jesus Christ’s Blood during Divine Liturgy, there will ensue a more complete understanding of the abominable nature of Protestantism’s widespread development of employing grape juice in their Communion services. Or consider the modern West’s pervasive proffering of a future (post-tribulation) literal thousand year reign of Christ Jesus and the early Church’s repudiation of this millennialist (or chiliast) errancy.

Consequently, The Gates of Hades Prevaileth Not humbly endeavors to restrain the West from previously disavowed, defeated deviances via an apprenticeship in the history of our Holy Eastern Orthodox Church.

Prior to embarking upon our voyage through Church history please bear through a few technical matters. While a bibliography will issue in the addenda it should now be mentioned that the predominant authority for intelligence on Church Fathers, councils, heresies, etc. in The Gates of Hades Prevaileth Not will be The Rudder (or The Pedalion), a compilation of Church canons by St. Nicodemus and St. Agapius (published in 1957 by the Orthodox Christian Educational Society). Moreover, insofar as the scriptural citations herein, the Orthodox Study Bible (published in 2008 by the St. Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology) functions as the sole expounder.

A final notation, many names are dependent on dialect for their endings. That is, many names herein would in the Greek take on an-ios ending (e.g., Athanasios, Demetrios, Epiphanios, Nectarios, et al.), however, The Gates of Hades Prevaileth Not has opted for the more common Eastern-ius ending (or Athanasius, Demetrius, Epiphanius, Nectarius, et al.).

Now, without further ado, let us set sail upon our journey across the vast and endless sea of Holy Orthodoxy.

Anthony of the Desert

Florence, AZ

Christology

Chapter One

Christology 

Introduction

Arianism

Anomeans and Semi-Arians

Antiochene Christology

Alexandrian Christology

The Nestorian Heresy

Doctrine of Eutyches

Monophysitism

Monotheletism

Other Christological Heresies

a. The Soul of Christ

b. Christ’s Kingdom

c. Docetism

d. Psilanthropism

Nicene Creed

Figure 1 = Original Nicene Creed

Figure 2 = Changes to the Nicene Creed

Figure 3 = Nicene Creed’s Final Form

Introduction

"[I believe] in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father, begotten before all ages. Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father, and through Whom all things were made.

"Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and became incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man.

"And was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried.

"And rose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures.

"And ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father.

And shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, and Whose kingdom shall have no end.

The above quoted portion of the Nicene Creed (the Symbol of Faith) captures the Eastern Orthodox Church’s belief on the composition of Christ, a constitution that includes:

• Jesus Christ as eternal, He has always existed (so was not created or born in time).

• God the Father and God the Son (Jesus Christ) are alike, both are God.

• The Father and the Son are of the same essence (are coessential, that is, of the same substance).

• The Son and God the Father are separate persons, thus, the Son is a distinct person (hypostasis).

• Jesus Christ has two natures, the divine (incarnate of the Holy Spirit) and the human (incarnate of the Virgin Mary)—He is not only one nature of the divine.

• Jesus Christ is simultaneously God and man—at times having functioned as God while at other times like a man (His divine and human natures continually switched back and forth).

• Jesus Christ is one person with two natures (not two persons).

• Jesus Christ possessed both a human soul and body, He was not merely the Logos (the Word) clothed in human flesh; Christ cannot heal what He did not assume.

• The functions of Jesus Christ’s soul came from both His divine and human nature (not just from His divine will).

• Jesus Christ had one nature before His incarnation and two natures after His incarnation.

• The kingdom of Jesus Christ is without end.

With these qualities of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in mind we can now more coherently approach the ensuant discussions on Christological heresies the Church has had to confront. The purpose of examining these errancies is to try and learn from how even onetime devout Orthodox Christians (laypersons as well as presbyters and bishops) became susceptible to adapting falsehoods about the Son of God once they exchanged the truth (apostolic teaching) for intellectual prowess. As we observe their misconceptions we will gain a powerful caution against embracing deviations as well as against falling into any other snare laid by the pernicious serpent. Additionally, we can also begin to appreciate how the Eastern Orthodox Church has stood unchanged for nearly two thousand years as we witness how She has endured even the most vile attacks against Her very foundation, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself—and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it [the Church] (Mt. 16:18).

Moreover, by analyzing Christological heresies we can then adhere to correct belief and will also reinforce our faith. Consequently, in contemplating the three catechetical domains of the Orthodox Church (Faith, Hope, and Love) we are able to apprehend how it is by prayer and the careful study of both the realities and the deceptive asservations about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ that we increase in Faith.

It is with these intentions that the following commentaries are lovingly and humbly offered. May we always keep the traditions just as the Apostles delivered them (cf., 1 Co. 11:2) and continue steadfastly in the Apostles’ doctrine (viz., Ac. 2:42). Amen.

Arianism

A huge controversy erupted in the fourth century over heretical claims by Arius, who was born in Libya c. 250 and was ordained as a presbyter by Alexander (Bishop of Alexandria from 311-326). Around 318 Arius proposed that Jesus Christ (the Son) had a beginning, or was born in time, which was to say that there was a time when He was not. In other words, according to the heretic Arius, the Son of God was a created being. This teaching, known as Arianism, was a by-product of errant Paulinist pretenses; fallacies in the mid-third century by Paul of Samosata that contended there existed no separate Jesus Christ or Holy Spirit (Paul proclaimed that the Son did not come down from heaven and that Christ Jesus was a mere man). As a consequence of his specious teaching Arius was condemned and exiled by Bishop of Alexandria Alexander before then having been excommunicated c. 321.

In 324 the conflict over Arianism became so disruptive that Constantine (the emperor from 306-337) sent letters to Arius and Bishop Alexander in an attempt to quell the difficulty, however, this effort failed and a council in 325 at Antioch was convoked. At this council the majority condemned Arius’ heretical teachings and a synodial letter was issued to denounce the view that Jesus Christ was a created being (that there was a time when He was not).

Unfortunately, 325 Antioch failed to deter Arianism and Emperor Constantine called another council in 325, this one was held in Nicaea (325 Nicaea was the First Ecumenical Council). This council deposed Arius and issued the Nicene Creed¹ to oppose Arianism and establish a statement of faith. Arius then swore to follow the Nicene Creed, and to believe as the Church believed (e.g., that Jesus Christ is eternal God), so he was reinstated as a presbyter after 325 Nicaea, however, c. 327 he ascribed to the heresy that the functions in Christ Jesus’ soul came from only His divine nature. In fact, at that time Arius also adopted the Anomean heresy that the Father and the Son were unalike, which was to profess that Jesus Christ was less than God; a fallacy in which he persisted until his death c. 336.

325 Nicaea and the issuance of the Nicene Creed served to somewhat restrain Arianism but the heretical beliefs of Arius—that the Son was a created being, the functions of Christ’s soul resulted from only His divine nature, and the Son was unlike the Father—experienced widespread support. For instance, pro-Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia acted to have three influential anti-Arian bishops deposed; Eustace (the Bishop of Antioch) in 326, Athanasius (the Bishop of Alexandria) in 335, and Marcellus (the Bishop of Ancyra) in 336. Then Emperor Constantine died in 337 and his son, pro-Arian Constantius (the emperor from 337-361), took over as emperor… the Arian controversy was rekindled.

The ensuant conflict resulted in two major councils in 347. The first was the 347 Council at Sardica (in what is now Sofia, Bulgaria), which initially intended to include both Easterners and Westerners, but the Easterners ended up refusing to attend so Westerners proceeded without them. 347 Sardica issued the Tome of the Westerners, a pronouncement that confirmed the faith of the Nicene Creed and anathematized² any contrary belief. The second council was the 347 Creed of the Longlines and it served as the Easterners’ counterpart to the Westerners’ 347 Sardica. 347 Longlines condemned the Arian propositions that there was a time when the Son was not and that prior to His incarnation He possessed no distinction from the Father. 347 Longlines also confirmed a Trinity of three persons.

Despite these two mid-fourth century anti-Arian councils the scourge of Arianism persisted. In 359 two more councils occurred, however, each leaned toward Arian (or, actually, Semi-Arian) precepts; the Council of Ariminum (or Council of Rimini) and the Council of Seleucia. Then in 360 Emperor Constantius proposed a new creed, he claimed that the Nicene Creed was too complex and suggested the construction of a new, and decidedly pro-Arian, creed.

Soon thereafter, Emperor Theodosius I (379-395) battled Arianism by commanding concord between Rome’s Bishop Damasus and Alexandria’s Bishop Peter—an endeavor that was furthered when Theodosius issued the 380 Cunctos Populos Edict, this required adherence to apostolic teaching and a coessential Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—and by adopting the Nicene Creed.

In regards to the Nicene Creed, the 381 Council of Constantinople (the Second Ecumenical Council), that was called by Theodosius, reissued the Nicene Creed and effectively ended Arianism; the Neo-Nicene faith (expounded by the Nicene Creed as well as by St. Athanasius, St. Gregory the Theologian [or St. Gregory of Nazianzus], and St. Gregory of Nyssa) was declared to be the only permissible faith. St. Athanasius (c. 296-c. 373) was the Bishop of Alexandria from 326-373 (despite having been exiled several times during his reign) and in 340 he penned Three Orations Against the Arians and in 357 wrote his Apology Against the Arians. St. Gregory of Nyssa (330-395) was the venerable St. Basil the Great’s brother and the Bishop of Nyssa from 371-395 (the Arians deposed him in 376 and he was reinstated in 378). St. Gregory the Theologian (329-391) was a bishop in Cappadocia and, along with St. Basil the Great and St. John Chrysostom, was one of the three Church Hierarchs—he became the Patriarch of Constantinople in 378. In concert, these three giants of the Holy Eastern Orthodox Church helped to extinguish the Arian plague.

Anomeans and Semi-Arians

In the mid-fourth century a heresy known as Anomeanism broke out. The Anomeans were led by Bishop of Cyzicus Eunomius the Gaul (hence Anomeanism’s alternative name of Eunomianism) and the heresy professed that the Son was unlike the Father in all respects—the Greek anomoios, from whence comes the term anomean (e.g., the Anomeans), means unalike or dissimilar.

The Anomeans distorted the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father phraseology in the Nicene Creed to mean that the Father as unbegotten and the Son being begotten made God the Father the source of the Son; that is, once again presented Father and Son as unalike.

In many ways Anomeanism was considered to be a product of the Arian heresy, as can be observed by the Anomean Aetius’ proclamation that not only was the Son distinct (unalike in essence) from the Father but the Son was also of the created order.

A derivative of Anomeanism was the Semi-Arian heresy, led by Basil of Ancyra in the mid-fourth century. Semi-Arianism, unlike the Anomeans, agreed that the Son was like the Father; however, Semi-Arians contended that this did not indicate that the Son was coessential with the Father. This postulate opposed Orthodoxy’s Doctrine of Coessentiality that establishes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of the same essence, which, as it pertains to our current discussion on Christology, confirms that Jesus Christ is of the same essence as the Father—a truth that the Nicene Creed (please reference the section on the Nicene Creed) and the 341 Dedication Council of Antioch verifies. The Dedication Council expressed the typical Eastern Christology posture of Jesus Christ’s deity being in exact likeness to the Father and affirmed the statement that Jesus Christ was the one only begotten Son of God before all ages, subsisting and co-existing with the Father who begat Him.

Semi-Arians called Christ Jesus synousian, a term used to reference a union sans any distinction, as a way by which to support their claim that the Son was like, but not the same as, the Father in being. Moreover, Semi-Arians employed the term homoiousian; the homoi prefix means like but not the same as and ousian refers to being (essence). Thus, the Semi-Arian homoiousian intends to indicate that the Son was not God but rather only belonged to God; however, this Semi-Arian use of homoiousian was a purposely deceptive stratagem since the Semi-Arian homoiousian is craftily similar to the Orthodox homoousian. Homoousian possesses the prefix homo, which means the same as or coessential with. As such, homoousian references the fact that Jesus Christ (the Son) is of the same essence as the Father—Christ Jesus is God—while homoiousian serves as a Semi-Arian ruse saying the Son is not God but instead merely belongs to God the Father.

The Semi-Arian heresy, along with its fraudulent homoiousian formula—that, despite Semi-Arianism’s assertion that the Son was like the Father, emphasized a Father and Son distinction—received support from Eudoxius (who, as Bishop of Antioch from 357-360, ordained Eunomius as a presbyter) as well as from Euzoius (one of the three simultaneous bishops in Antioch c. 360-362). Moreover, the Dated Creed (or the Fourth Creed of Sirmium) proclaimed that the Son was like the Father, who begat Him but refused to use the term ousia (being, essence), which was to reject the truth that the Son is of the same essence as the Father. This fallacy was strikingly stated by Marcellus of Ancyra (a fourth century bishop of Ancyra) when he professed that the Son was merely an aspect of God that occasionally emerged and was then subsumed back into God. Finally, the 358 Convocation at Ancyra also concluded that the Son was like the Father in being (nota bene, the homoiousian like, not same, in being). Assuredly, the Semi-Arian heresy possessed widespread support and inflicted significant discord.

It must also be noted that the Dated Creed was reviewed in 359 by both Westerners and Easterners. At the Council of Ariminum (also known as the Rimini Council) Westerners agreed that the Son was like the Father who begat Him. And at the Seleucia Council Easterners debated the Dated Creed’s the Son is like the Father who begat Him statement vs. the Eastern majority’s the Son is like the Father in being proclamation. Because some Easterners complained that ousia’s like in being excluded Anomeans and Semi-Arians, 359 Seleucia ended up agreeing with the Dated Creed’s the Son is like the Father who begat Him position.

Anomeanism and Semi-Arianism was opposed by Neo-Nicene Christology; this will be discussed in the chapter on Trinitarian Theology but, briefly stated, it advances the three distinct persons (three hypostases) in one essence (ousia) stance of Eastern Christianity (the Holy Orthodox Church). The Orthodox Church’s posture was also expressed by St. John Chrysostom (John the Golden Mouthed, one of the three Church Hierarchs) when he stated that Jesus Christ is God and at the same time is whole in His humanity (cf., Isa. 9:5 where Sacred Scripture proclaims that For unto us a Child is born [Christ in His humanity], unto us a Son is given [Christ in His divinity]). St. John Chrysostom explained that Christ Jesus was twofold and at times acted as a man (such as when tired, hungry, or distressed) and at other times functioned from His divinity (as in when performing miracles or stating His Sonship).

Antiochene Christology

As evidenced by the teachings of some of Orthodoxy’s most preeminent Fathers (cf., St. John Chrysostom,