We know of the works of the Cappadocian Fathers as they developed a terminology in support of the Trinity and have been honoured for this in the Orthodox Christian tradition. However, there are other, now mostly forgotten, intellectuals who argued with as much intensity on the other side of the question. Eunomius, another Cappadocian, but of more humble background, made himself the target of the Fathers by the relentless way in which he used logic to clarify theological issues, arguing that it was the distinction between Father and Son that mattered, not the “one in substance” of the Trinitarians. He was taunted for having the philosopher Aristotle as his bishop and inspired a rush of responses “contra Eunomium” ”” against Eunomius.
This fertile tradition of debate was infused by the richness of pagan thought but not diminished by it. It faded at the end of the century, largely through the legislation of the emperor Theodosius I (379-95). The Eunomians and those who believed Jesus had seen himself as subordinate to the Father were declared heretical by law and pagans were silenced. A great deal was lost.
I am not a theologian but I do try to read some theology to understand the issues in contemporary debate. All too often I get stuck on sentences that mean nothing even on the third or fourth reading. As a historian I am often frustrated to be told that there is only one historical explanation for a supernatural event when the evidence is insufficient to support any at all. I have seen theologians taken to task for a wholly inappropriate use of logic. Very often theologians seem unaware of how weak their arguments are to anyone with a philosophical background. It is then that I think of the wisdom and confidence of Basil of Caesarea. His broad training in “profane” subjects served only to enrich his theology and strengthen his arguments and did nothing to diminish his Christian compassion.
A bit confusing. Someone lost a theological battle and that is justification for broad education?! Or Basil was a great guy on the whole who out-thought Eunomius and the latter fell an unwonted obscurity despite his great education? A great deal was lost? As with Arius, what was lost was an inadequate understanding of the the nature of God. Perhaps it was lost because the argumentation of the Cappadocians was superior and that Eunomius’ argument was inferior – which is the way even the most brilliantly educated arguers’ debates often end up: winner or loser. Despite the amount of philosophy they bring to the table or bar of judgment or whatever.
I too am slightly perplexed by some of this. The last 20 years, if anything, have seen a renaissance of philosophically sophisticated theology in the Anglophone world. Doubtless, as in all areas of reasoning, theological arguments can be vitiated by overlooking simple errors. It has not been my experience that theologians are any more prone to such than historians or non theistic philosophers.