1. Divine Suffering in the ‘Arian’ Crisis 1.Gavrilyuk deconstructing Gavrilyuk. 2.Five interpretations of Arianism. 3.The logic of Athanasius’s christology (seminar).

2. Dr G. deconstructing Dr G. 1.Should we leave the historical losers by the side? 2.What about the pre- Nicene christologies? 3.Hegel redivivus? 4.…Enter your objections here… Pablo Picasso, The Poet (1911)

3. Five interpretations of Arianism 1.Eclectic subordinationism. 2.Strict monotheism. (J. H. Newman; Thomas Kopecek). 3.Literalist biblicism (Maurice Wiles). 4.Exemplarist soteriology (Robert Gregg and Denis Groh). 5.The passibility of the Logos (Maurice Wiles and Richard Hanson).

4. Thomas Kopecek on Arianism: Arianism “emerged from and was nourished by a conservative eucharistic liturgical tradition which was pronouncedly Jewish-Christian in character.” –Kopecek, “Neo-Arian Religion: the Evidence of the Apostolic Constitutions”, Arianism: Historical and Theological Reassessments (1985), 155

5. Select NT texts ‘The Father is greater than I.’ Jn 14: 28. ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.’ Mk 10:18. ‘Of that day or that hour no one knows, …nor the Son, but only the Father.’ Mk 13: 32. ‘Then the Son himself will also be subjected to Him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to everyone.’ 1Cor 15: 24. ‘For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus’ 1Tim 2: 5. ‘In the beginning was the Word… and the Word was God.’ Jn 1: 1-2. ‘No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.’ Jn 1:18. The words of ‘unbelieving’ Thomas: ‘My Lord and my God.’ Jn 20: 28. ‘In him (Christ) the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.’ Col 2: 9.

6. Five interpretations of Arianism 1.Eclectic hierarchical cosmology. 2.Super-strict ‘Judaizing’ monotheism. (J. H. Newman; Thomas Kopecek). 3.Literalist biblicism (Maurice Wiles). 4.Exemplarist soteriology (Robert Gregg and Denis Groh). 5.The passibility of the Logos (Maurice Wiles and Richard Hanson).

7. A public dimension of the Arian controversy “The whole city is full of controversy, the squares, the market places, the cross-roads, the alleyways; men in old-clothes, money changers, food sellers: they are all busy arguing. If you ask someone to give you change, he philosophizes about the Begotten [Son] and the Unbegotten [Father]; if you inquire about the price of a loaf, you are told by way of reply that the Father is greater and the Son inferior; if you ask ‘Is my bath ready?’ the attendant answers that the Son was made out of nothing.” Gregory of Nyssa, On the Deity of the Son (PG 46:557B).

8. Range of arguments deployed in the controversy: 1.Theories of analogy, meaning, reference and the limitations of religious language. --example: what is meant by “begotten”? 2.Interpretation of the Bible: titles of Jesus; consideration of individual passages; the overall purpose of scripture. 3.The logic and meaning of the local baptismal creeds. 4.The appeal to the precedents of conciliar agreements (after Nicaea). 5.Large scale metaphysical presuppositions & “fittingness” arguments. 6.The implicit theologies of the sacraments of baptism and Eucharist. 7.The implications of worshipping Christ and addressing prayers to him. 8.The ascetic experience of liberation from the power of evil by means of the invocation of the name of Jesus. 9.The logic of salvation (i.e., what kind of Savior is needed to accomplish reunion between God and humanity). 10.Reductio ad heresim, accusations of immorality, political pressure.

9. Hanson-Wiles interpretation Richard Hanson: “at the heart of the Arian Gospel was a God who suffered.” Maurice Wiles: “The mainspring and primary motivation of the [Arian] movement should be seen in its determination to safeguard the presentation of Christ’s passion and crucifixion as unequivocally the passion and crucifixion of God.”

10. Gr. Nyssen against later Arians: “Both sides believe in the economy of the passion. We [the Orthodox] hold that the God who was manifested by the cross should be honored in the same way in which the Father is honored. For them [the Eunomians] the passion is a hindrance to glorifying the only- begotten God equally with the Father who begot him… For it is clear that the reason why he [Eunomius] sets the Father above the Son, and exalts him with supreme honor is that in the Father is not seen the shame of the Cross. He insists that the nature of the Son is inferior because the reproach of the Cross is referred to the Son alone, and does not touch the Father.” –Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium, 3. 3. 691-696 (J ii. 118- 120).