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

to threaten their opponents with the certainty of eternal hell fire. However, this
was not the first, or certainly the last, academic debate in history where personal
emotions have transcended reflective argument. Just as interesting was the
efficiency by which new ideas, arguments and ripostes were being spread
through the circulation of texts. Many of the participants must have employed an
army of scribes in order to keep up with the demand for copies of their works.
An equivalent circulation of ideas of such complexity, across such a wide region,
would probably not be seen until the invention of printing in the late fifteenth
century.
As the controversy continued, the issues became more closely defined and
fresh insights were added, particularly in the works of the Cappadocian Fathers.
According to Ramsay MacMullen: ‘How they [the questions] multiplied! And as
they did so they imposed sharper choices of belief to be made at a deeper level
of understanding and with more complex consequences in logic.’ 26 This was, of
course, a reflection on the relative freedom within which the discussion took
place. However, the chances of the theologians themselves coming to a
consensus on the Nicene issue were very slim. Participants had the scriptures
and the legacy of Greek philosophy at their disposal, but these could not be used
to provide incontrovertible evidence either way for an ‘event’—the creation or
non-creation of Jesus - that was clearly beyond the reach of human
understanding. Left to itself, the controversy might eventually have fizzled out
as the participants realised that further discussion would never lead to a
resolution.
Yet it was just at this moment that Theodosius’ edict reached Constantinople.
No one knew at this stage whether its condemnation of the subordinationist side
of the debate as heretical would be translated into law. For the time being the
freedom to discuss the issues was preserved, but all this would be threatened if
the emperor used his coercive powers to enforce the edict.