[net.religion] Nicean Council, part 3

russ@dadlab.UUCP (05/28/84)



Let us continue this examination of the Trinity doctrine by looking at what
took place at the council at Nicea which Constantine had called.  The bishops
deacons and assistants arrived in May of 325 AD, but the council did not
start until Constantine arrived in June to preside.  (Once again, remember
Constantine is not a Christian, nor does he behave like a Christian)

"The opinions (of the members of the Council) followed three directions: The
Egyptians and the Occidentals defended the orthodox doctrine  (Athanasian) --
Athanasius was the spokesman for Bishop Alexander of Alexandria; the majority
of the Orientals (the moderate group) held for the divinity of Christ, but
hesitated to recognize his perfect equality with the Father; about twenty
adherents of Arius declared the Verb (Jesus) a simple creature."[1]

For Arius the Father and Son were distinct personages and the Son was
subordinate to the Father.  The Arians used the following scriptures:

  "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of
  old" Prov. 8:22

  "but of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are
  in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." Mark 13:32

  "for my Father is greater than I." John 14:38

  "and this is life eternal, that they may know thee, and Jesus Christ, whom
  thou hast sent." John 17:3

  "The Son can do nothing of himself." John 3:19

  "Why callest thou me good?  There is none good, but one, that is God."
  Mark 10:18

  "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name that is
  above every name." Philippians 2:9

  And also passages that represented Jesus suffering, growing in wisdom etc.
  Luke 2:52; John 11:33, 38; Matthew 26:39

Athanasius, for whom the Father and the Son were of one substance, used the 
following passages:

  "I and my Father are one." John 10:30

  "The Father is in me and I in the Father." John 10:38

  "He who has seen me has seen the Father." John 14:9 

After Arius had spoken, it was clear that his case was lost and the two
Eusebius had to intervene with the emperor from taking measures against
Arius.  From this time the friends of Arius tried to get the council to
vote a formula that would leave open speculations concerning the origin
and nature of Jesus Christ.  Whereas, Athanasius and his friends tried to
get the third (moderate) party to come out for or against the traditional
(?) doctrine.

After a couple suggestions by Eusebius of Nicodemous, Eusebius of Caesarea
then proposed the baptismal formula in use in his own church.

  "We believe in One God, Father, all-Sovereign, Creator of all things
  whatsoever, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ,
  the word of God, God of God, Light of Light, Life of Life, only-begotten
  Son, the First-born of all creation, begotten of God the Father before
  all the ages, by whom also all things came into being, who became flesh
  for our salvation, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again
  the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory
  to judge the living and the dead.  We believe also in one Holy Ghost.
  (We believe) that each of these is and subsists: the Father truly as
  Father, the Son truly as Son, the Holy Ghost truly as Holy Ghost; as our
  Lord also says when he sends his disciples to preach: Go and make all
  nations disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
  Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

"The Athanasians were objected to the inference that there was a lack of
union of the Son with the Father--"each of these is and subsists."  They
also refused to accept the expression "the first-born of all creation"
[which I find interesting since that is a direct quote of Col. 1:15]
and "begotten of the Father before all the ages," since they claim that
the Son was co-eternal with the Father.

To prevent false interpretation by the Arians, it was suggested that Jesus
be declared to be of the essence (eks ousis) of the Father.  Athanasius, it
appears, would have been content with this statement, but someone, thought
to have been Hosius, proposed the term omoousios, composed of two words, of
which one meant the same and the other substance."[2]

"This creed of Eusebius was however accepted as the basis of the new symbol,
but in an amended form.  There was only one way of making Arianism impossible,
and that was use a word, which was not only unscriptural, but which was in
bad repute as having been used by the heretics Valentinus and Paul of
Samosata. [and condemned by the Third Council of Antioch]  The Son must be
declared to be of one substance or essence (omoousios) with the Father, in
order to exclude Arius from the Church. . . . The (h)omoousion left no room
for Arianism.  If our Lord was declared to be of one substance with the
Father, the whole theory of Arius, that He was of a lower nature, and capable
of change and even sin, entirely fell to the ground."[3]

The formula decided upon was the famous Nicene creed:
  "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things, both
  visible and invisible: and in one Jesus Christ, the Son (Word) of God,
  begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is of the essence (substance)
  of the Father.  God from God, Light from Light, (Life from Life), very
  God from very God, begotten not made, of one essence (substance) with
  the Father, (omoousion to Patri) through whom all things came to be,
  both things in heaven and things on earth; Who for the sake of us men
  and for our salvation came down, and was made flesh, and became man,
  suffered, and rose on the third day, ascended into the heavens (to the
  Father), is coming to judge living and dead; and in one Holy Ghost."[4]

It turns out that this compromise position was imposed by Constantine.
"At the beginning of the council, the party of moderate Arian views, of
which Eusebius of Nicomedia was the most influential member, was in the
majority, and '(h)omoousios' (one substance) had some difficulty in securing
acceptance; it was imposed rather than accepted.  Hosius supported it
energetically; the same was true of the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch.
The Emperor made it known that he desired the use of the word.  This was, for
many, a capital argument."[5]

"When they placed before the Emperor the formula of the synod, he regarded it
as inspired by God, as revealed by the Holy Spirit speaking through the saints,
and threatened to exile anyone who would not sign.  We have seen the effect of
these threats.  The Emperor carried them out without delay, and exiled Arius to
Illyria, the two bishops Secundus and Theonas, who had refused to sign, and the
priests who were attached to them.  He commanded at the same time to deliver to
the flames the books of Arius and of his friends, and threatened with the
penalty of death those who would conceal them . . . Later Eusebius of Nicomedia
and Theognis of Nicea were also deposed and banished, because, while admitting
the symbol, they did not recognize the deposition of Arius and had admitted the
Arians among them.  At the same time the churches of Nicea and Nicomedia were
invited by the Emperor to elect orthodox bishops in the place of the bishops
who had been sent into exile."[6] p. 449-450

After seeing this type of information, some are inclined to try and show that
this concept of God was believed by the early Church Fathers.

"The historical exposition of J. Kuhn . . . as free as it is learned, frightened
the Anglican Bullus, who thought the faith of the high church had been attacked
and who sought with great expense of erudition to demonstrate that which is not
capable of demonstration: namely, that before the Council of Nicea all the
Fathers had clearly and exactly professed the doctrine of Nicea"[6] p. 337-338

Russell Anderson
tektronix!dadla-a!russ

P.S. An epilog to follow

------------------------------------
[1] Albers-Hedde, Manuel d'Histoire Ecclesitique, vol. 1, p. 153

[2] James L. Barker, The Divine Church (Deseret News Press, 1951) vol. 2, p. 52

[3] Foakes Jackson, History of the Christian Church to A.D. 461, pp. 312, 313

[4] Bartlett and Carlyle, Christianity in History, p. 265

[5] Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de l'Eglise, vol. II, pp. 154, 155

[6] Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles, tome I, 1 re partie