The saint of Antioch

Anxious Bench is taking time off its "He Gets Us" pontifications to discuss Saint Eustathius' role in First Nicaea (not the historian). Our saint did not like Arius, true. Why he didn't like Arius, is at issue. Adam Renberg moots that Eustathius told us why.

Eustathius first mooted his concerns, as Patriarch, at the AD 325 synod of Antioch. This became his proving-ground for what he'd bring to Nicaea a few months later. Renberg points out that before Constantinople had really taken off as Rome II, the great Petrene sees were Antioch and Alexandria at least as much as moribund Rome I. Eustathius could claim to be heir to no less than Saint Ignatius. His see also owned that Biblical text which the critics will call "Byzantine" and KJV-bros, textus receptus.

Eustathius insisted on a human nature in Christ. Looking in on Nicaea today, you'd think that was... kind of the point of Arius and his Eunomian followers including the Emperor. It may however be that, at the time, Arius and Eusebius of Caesarea were arguing for Christ as a created parahuman. As Marian veneration might exist to sidestep having to utter theotokos; hailing Christ's superhumanity might avoid ghayr makhluq (so to speak). Also it would become important to Dyotheletism that some humanity might exist in the Godhead to ground at least the Church. Renberg sees the true heir to Eustathius' foil not in Eunomianism but in Apollinarius.

As to Eustathius' heirs, I can draw this line to John Chrysostom and the Oriental Church; thence to, uh, Nestorius. It would be at Chalcedon that Saint Eustathius, finally, won.