A.D. 381 heretics, pagans, and the dawn of the monotheistic state ( PDFDrive )

responsibility for proclaiming the Nicene faith, rather than the imperial laws that
accompanied it and that provided the framework without which it would never
have been enforced.
In short, there are two different approaches to AD 381. The first is theological,
rooted in the fifth and sixth centuries, articulated in the works of Augustine and
preserved in the theology of both the Roman Catholic and Protestant traditions:
that what happened at Nicaea and Constantinople was no less than a revelation
of God and as such totally independent of any historical process. This approach
is strengthened by the assertions that the bishops were in consensus and that
there was no possible theological alternative to Nicaea as it was developed in
381. It is to be found in most standard introductions to theology and omits any
reference to the role of Theodosius.
The second is that this is a historical issue like any other, in which the
evidence, from the contemporary accounts of the council and the lawmaking of
the emperor, and its interpretation must take central place. It is not clear from
Torrance’s approach how one should actually deal with this evidence: The
Trinitarian Faith seems to suggest that it should be ignored altogether. Yet can
one obliterate the historical factors that shaped the making of Christian doctrine,
in favour of doctrine being ‘revealed’ by God? Torrance’s approach appears to
create a philosophical impasse.
It is the central argument of this book that the events of 381 cannot be
airbrushed from the narrative. It is time to sum up, for a historical perspective,
the consequences of Theodosius’ imposition of the Nicene Trinity in 381.
It is impossible to believe that the Church would itself have come to an
enforceable consensus on the Trinity if an emperor had not provided the legal
framework within which the Nicenes could be privileged over the various groups
of ‘heretics’ who opposed them. Theodosius’ role was crucial. His powers and
status as a quasi-divine figure transcended those of his rivals in any case, but the
Church was beset by its own internal tensions, which would have precluded
consensus. What Theodosius achieved was the championing of one Christian
faction over another and the strengthening of its position by ostracising its rivals,
both Christian and pagan. He was helped by the disunity of those who opposed
the resurgent Nicenes and the immense patronage he could divert to those
Nicenes who took over the bishoprics after the expulsion of the ‘Arians’.
The theocracy of the emperor, initiated, of course, by Constantine some
seventy years before Theodosius’ edict, was sustained by the imperial
intervention in the council of 451 at Chalcedon, which led to the Chalcedonian