I have been listening to a lecture series “The History of Christian Theology. I am struck by arguments made during the seven great Councils begining with Nicea in 325 CE. It seems to me that the fundamental doctrines of orthodoxy were presented by a few bishops, and then agreed-upon by the other attending bishops at these council. The first council at Nicea was called by emperor Constantine (all of the councils were called by emperors) and resulted in resolution of the Arian issue. Arias had been preaching that although Jesus was God, he was a lesser entity than the eternal God of creation. As I understand it, the council at Nicea agreed that the Godhead was a Trinity of eternity and that though three hypostases, was indeed a single essence. This is the notion of the trinity that establishes God the father, God, the son, and God, the Holy Spirit. Subsequently other councils were called to resolve issues within evolving Christian orthodoxy. The council at Ephesus in around 431CE resolved an issue regarding the incarnation of God in flesh. Reading the arguments of bishop Cyril regarding the incarnation is very reminiscent to me of the complexity, and imaginative cognition of the gnostic aeons emanations story. All in all the arguments substantiating fundamental doctrines of Christianity, strikes me as mythological as anything I have ever encountered. I present this to this forum for any input, thoughts, or discussion that members here may have.
Although I’m not a believer I am totally fascinated by the concept of the Trinity. I don’t think there are enough books written about it from a historical/critical perspective. Interestingly enough, at least to me, I only really became fascinated after I stopped believing. When I was a believer I suppose I just accepted it without really thinking about it.
Just some random thoughts.
The concept of the Trinity predates Nicaea. It’s origins rise out of obscurity in the second century, a period of the development of Christian thinking about which we know a lot less than we would like.
Nicaean Trinitarianism is unimaginable without Greek philosophy. (I wish I was qualified because a really good book needs to be written about this.)
The Trinity is not meant to be rationally understood. (Every attempt to explain it rationally has resulted in a heresy.) It’s not a puzzle or a theorem. It is a Holy Mystery, contemplation of which will raise the consciousness of the adherent to a hyper-rational state. Like a Zen koan. What is the sound of one hand clapping? What did your face look like before you were born? Philosophical Surrealism. Dream consciousness, where even the irrational makes perfect sense.
And here’s the kicker folks. It works whether you believe in it or not! Try it. Meditate on the Trinity for a while and see what happens.
The thing I find fascinating about the doctrine of the Trinity is that, so far as I can see, believing the doctrine is only intelligible if it is taken as a thing surely revealed by God. The doctrine makes no sense taken by itself; like you say, it’s not a puzzle to be solved but a mystery to be contemplated.
If you look at the development of the doctrine, it seems to me that it could only take place with a pretty robust sense of the inerrancy of Scripture already in place. It was only by looking at the little passing mentions of the three persons scattered throughout the NT, some of which are contradictory, and then trying to mash them together so they could all be true that you get the Trinity (and simultaneously proto-Chalcedonean Christology). But you only engage in that exercise if you are already convinced all those passing mentions are accurate.
The best way I’ve heard it described is, the NT does not contain the doctrine of the Trinity but contains passages that were used later to create the doctrine of the Trinity. Trinitarian thought did develop relatively early. The dominant Christology of the second century was a form of “monarchical subordinationism”, meaning Jesus was the first and greatest of all God’s creations. Monarchianism as it’s come to be called, was indeed trinitarian, but the Son and the Holy Spirit were not equal to God the Father. Far from being a radical heresy, Arianism was simply the old fashioned view. It was Nicaean Trinitarianism that was new-fangled and recent.
@Stephen “Far from being a radical heresy, Arianism was simply the old fashioned view. It was Nicaean Trinitarianism that was new-fangled and recent.”
Why then was there so much discussion about Arius’s views? Why did the emperor order Arius’s books to be burned? Why was it called Arianism?
Justin Martyr believed there was only one god
“There will be no other God, O Trypho, nor was there from eternity any other existing, but He who made and disposed all this universe. Nor do we think that there is one God for us, another for you, but that He alone is God who led your fathers out from Egypt with a strong hand and a high arm. Nor have we trusted in any other (for there is no other), but in Him in whom you also have trusted, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob.”
He further believed that this one god was Jesus.
“Permit me, further, to show you from the book of Exodus how this same One, who is both Angel, and God, and Lord, and man, and who appeared in human form to Abraham and Isaac, appeared in a flame of fire from the bush, and conversed with Moses … Have you perceived, sirs, that this very God whom Moses speaks of as an Angel that talked to him in the flame of fire, declares to Moses that He is the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob?”
This was the old fashioned view – Arianism was the new fangled philosophy.
Arianism, considered as a distinct movement, was an invention of Arius’ enemies. The “movement” didn’t exist until after it was already declared a heresy. Arius simply held views similar to all the early church Fathers going back to the NT. Justin Martyr’s views, for example, can be summarized as follows-
God the Father begot the Son in the beginning out of His substance, distinct from Him and subordinate to Him. God the Father created all things through the Son (The Word, The Logos). The Son (Logos, Word) appeared in the OT as the Angel of the Lord. (Justin had no views about Jesus having multiple natures or if the Holy Spirit was a person. These developments came later.)
By Nicaea this view, Monarchical Trinitarianism, was dominant in eastern Christianity and was the view of the Christians who first converted Europe. Constantine considered the arguments trivial. He later recalled Arius, who died before he could return. His son Constantius II was an Arian.
The dominant Christology of the 2nd century was Subordinationism. Arius and others objected to Nicaean Trinitarianism precisely because they were monotheists. With Nicaea one sniffs a bit of an accommodation with polytheism.
Where do you stand on the dating of Easter? Nobody ever works up any enthusiasm for that argument.
@Stpehen **”Arianism, considered as a distinct movement, was an invention of Arius’ enemies. The “movement” didn’t exist until after it was already declared a heresy.”**
Why was Arius the focus of his enemies. If it wasn’t a distinct movement why was Arius picked out as the one to name it after? Why was Arius and his teaching the focus of Nicea?
The letter of the council to the church in Alexandria reads “In the first place, then, the impiety and guilt of Arius and his adherents were examined into, in the presence of our most religious emperor Constantine: and it was unanimously decided that his impious opinion should be anathematized, with all the blasphemous expressions he has uttered, in affirming that ‘the Son of God sprang from nothing,’ and that ‘there was a time when he was not”
**”Arius simply held views similar to all the early church Fathers going back to the NT. Justin Martyr’s views, for example, can be summarized as follows- God the Father begot the Son in the beginning out of His substance, distinct from Him and subordinate to Him. God the Father created all things through the Son (The Word, The Logos). The Son (Logos, Word) appeared in the OT as the Angel of the Lord. (Justin had no views about Jesus having multiple natures or if the Holy Spirit was a person. These developments came later.)”*
The first sentence of your summary is all orthodox. Arius taught that the son was created out of nothing and that God had existed without the existence of the son.
Re Jesus having two natures Justin says “that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein … Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten, and power; and, becoming man according to His will.” ie is both divine and hum
Re the spirit he says “we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove … in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.” and “He speaks as from the person of God the Lord and Father of all; sometimes as from the person of Christ” ie the father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are distinct, they all share the divine name and Justin labels this distinction with “person”.
**”The dominant Christology of the 2nd century was Subordinationism. Arius and others objected to Nicaean Trinitarianism precisely because they were monotheists. With Nicaea one sniffs a bit of an accommodation with polytheism.”**
Everyone at Nicaea believed Jesus was god (the god who created the universe, who exited before all ages). “one-substance” was suggested precisely to avoid polytheism. Arius’s views makes polytheism unavoidable (that’s why his opponents disliked it so much).
**”Where do you stand on the dating of Easter? Nobody ever works up any enthusiasm for that argument”**
Because it depends on what calendar you use and doesn’t particularly matter. You can celebrate it every day if you want.
Why was Arius the focus of his enemies. If it wasn’t a distinct movement why was Arius picked out as the one to name it after? Why was Arius and his teaching the focus of Nicaea?.
The controversy came to a head as a squabble between Arius and Athanasius. “Arianism” became like “Darwinism” is today for creationists, a construct to identify the other guy and his suspect ideas. By identifying the viewpoint as “Arianism” it made it seem like an errant movement in order to best marginalize and diminish it.
Justin and Arian were both Subordinationists like all the ante-Nicene Fathers but that doesn’t mean all their views were identical. In this case Justin thought that the Son came from the substance of the Father and Arian did not. Both agreed that the Son was distinct and subordinate.
Re the spirit he says “we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove … in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.” and “He speaks as from the person of God the Lord and Father of all; sometimes as from the person of Christ” ie the father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are distinct, they all share the divine name and Justin labels this distinction with “person”.
So you now agree that Justin was a Subordinationist?
The passage about the Spirit means just the opposite of what you think it means. Some ante-Nicene Fathers thought that the Spirit was a person and some did not. All agreed that the Spirit was subordinate to the Father and the Son.
Everyone at Nicaea believed Jesus was god (the god who created the universe, who exited before all ages). “one-substance” was suggested precisely to avoid polytheism. Arius’s views makes polytheism unavoidable (that’s why his opponents disliked it so much).
Everyone at Nicaea believed Jesus was divine. The Nicaeans incorporated concepts from Greek philosophy to define the Trinity as distinct Persons identical in substance. The Mystery here is how both could be true.
**”Where do you stand on the dating of Easter? Nobody ever works up any enthusiasm for that argument”**
Because it depends on what calendar you use and doesn’t particularly matter. You can celebrate it every day if you want.
So brenmcgists don’t think it matters when Easter was? Shame! Time for another council.
@Stephen
**”The controversy came to a head as a squabble between Arius and Athanasius. “Arianism” became like “Darwinism” is today for creationists, a construct to identify the other guy and his suspect ideas. By identifying the viewpoint as “Arianism” it made it seem like an errant movement in order to best marginalize and diminish it.”**
Well it began with the bishop Alexander but why would a squabble between an obscure priest and his bishop make the controversy come to a head? Surely the same arguments going on elsewhere? Why did over 99% of bishops vote against Arius and his teachings? There may have been other theological controversies going on but Nicaea specifically addressed Arius and his teachings.
**”Justin and Arian were both Subordinationists like all the ante-Nicene Fathers but that doesn’t mean all their views were identical. In this case Justin thought that the Son came from the substance of the Father and Arian did not. Both agreed that the Son was distinct and subordinate.”**
There are two understandings of “Subordinationism”, one orthodox and one heretical. In the orthodox understanding the Son is generated from and obeys the father and is in that sense subordinate. In the heretical sense the son’s being or deity is subordinate – a lesser god than the true God. Justin held to the orthodox view of subordinationism not the heretical view.
**”The passage about the Spirit means just the opposite of what you think it means. Some ante-Nicene Fathers thought that the Spirit was a person and some did not. All agreed that the Spirit was subordinate to the Father and the Son.”**
Here’s another quote for Justin Martyr – Dial with Trypho ch36 “And the Holy Spirit, either from the person of His Father, or from His own person, answers them, ‘The Lord of hosts, He is this King of glory’.”
So Justin believes the Father Son and Holy Spirit are all separate persons who all share in the divine name. He believes “Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts”
**”Everyone at Nicaea believed Jesus was divine. The Nicaeans incorporated concepts from Greek philosophy to define the Trinity as distinct Persons identical in substance. The Mystery here is how both could be true.”**
The new testament incorporates elements of greek philosophy so hardly surprising that the NC does too.
Bart Ehrman – “everyone at the council already fully believed Christ was God”
Robert, like Marcus Captolinus I consulted the sacred geese of Juno and they said it was time to wrap it up.
Brenmcg, here’s my overall.
Many of the fundamental doctrines of the Christian Church, including Nicaean orthodoxy, developed over centuries.
The doctrine of Nicaean orthodoxy was impossible to formulate outside a Greek philosophical framework.
At the time of Nicaea the dominant Christology was a form of Subordinationism.
If you disagree with any of this your argument is with historical/critical analysis, not me.
I feel that response was a little too . . . pat.
Many of the fundamental doctrines of the Christian Church, including Nicaean orthodoxy, developed over centuries.
Well, obviously so, if we are talking about Nicaean orthodoxy in its fully formulated form. I think Bren would reasonably question whether the thought had developed in some strains of Christianity well before the final formulation.
The doctrine of Nicaean orthodoxy was impossible to formulate outside a Greek philosophical framework.
On the one hand this is trivially true: yes the language of Nicean Orthodoxy is taken from Greek Philosophy. But two points need to be added. First, Christianity was using the language of Greek philosophy from quite early (see for an eminent example the prologue to John). Second, though the language of Nicaean orthodoxy was taken from Greek philosophy, it is not as though the terms were being used in an established and unequivocal way. A big part of the problems was that the terms were damned vague. What exactly is ousia and what does it mean to be homoousios with another? What exactly is an hupostasis? Again, what exactly does phusis name? These were words for exceedingly abstract ideas, and different people (philosophers and then theologians) used them to mean different things. Sorting thought that lingusitic mess, figuring out what everyone meant when they used various abstract terms was a big part of what drove the early Trinitarian and Christological controversies. Consider that declaring the Son homoousios with the Father was heresy (Paul of Samosata used it to express Sabellianism) before it was orthodoxy. Consider later the verbal differences between Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch. It’s worth nothing we see the same problem if we look at the formulas used in English by different philosophers: frequently philosophers use the same abstract language but with different meanings; part of learning a specific school of philosophy includes figuring out what that school means by the terms it uses.
At the time of Nicaea the dominant Christology was a form of Subordinationism.
Sure, but Bren argued that “subordinationist” is vague. Everyone (including Athanasius) admits that there are obviously subordinationist passages in Scripture, and so everyone admits that in some respect the Son is subordinate to the Father. The question in in which respects.
I feel that response was a little too . . . pat.
Probably. But summations do tend to oversimplification.
*Many of the fundamental doctrines of the Christian Church, including Nicaean orthodoxy, developed over centuries.*
Well, obviously so, if we are talking about Nicaean orthodoxy in its fully formulated form. I think Bren would reasonably question whether the thought had developed in some strains of Christianity well before the final formulation.
I’m happy to be corrected but my impression is that brenmcg thinks that Paul believed that Jesus was co-equal with God the Father and of one substance with him.
*The doctrine of Nicaean orthodoxy was impossible to formulate outside a Greek philosophical framework.*
On the one hand this is trivially true…
I’m happy that you come from a tradition where this perception can be seen as true, trivially or otherwise. If I belabor the point it’s because the dominant view among evangelical fundamentalists in the USA is that there is a pure, unchanging faith reaching back to the NT that was only later corrupted by alien philosophies. What can Athens have to do with Jerusalem?
…it is not as though the terms were being used in an established and unequivocal way. A big part of the problems was that the terms were damned vague.
Yes sometimes ambiguity is extremely useful. Unequivocal definitions are self limiting.
*At the time of Nicaea the dominant Christology was a form of Subordinationism.*
Sure, but Bren argued that “subordinationist” is vague. Everyone (including Athanasius) admits that there are obviously subordinationist passages in Scripture, and so everyone admits that in some respect the Son is subordinate to the Father. The question in in which respects.
Once again I’m happy to be corrected but I believe that brenmcg believes that the NT teaches that Jesus was co-eternal with God the Father, co-equal and eternally begotten.
I’m happy to be corrected but my impression is that brenmcg thinks that Paul believed that Jesus was co-equal with God the Father and of one substance with him.
. . .
I believe that brenmcg believes that the NT teaches that Jesus was co-eternal with God the Father, co-equal and eternally begotten
I don’t know the backstory, but what I saw in this thread was him insisting–against your assertion that Arianism was the traditional view–that Justin Martyr held something closer to Nicaean orthodoxy than to Arianism. I won’t comment on anything he might hold about Paul’s view on the Trinity.
I’m happy that you come from a tradition where this perception can be seen as true, trivially or otherwise. If I belabor the point it’s because the dominant view among evangelical fundamentalists in the USA is that there is a pure, unchanging faith reaching back to the NT that was only later corrupted by alien philosophies.
Perhaps this is just an observation you habitually make, as a general reminder, in such discussions without a specific target, a sort of “certerum censeo”. I’d taken it as directed against bren, though he had already acknowledged the point: “The new testament incorporates elements of greek philosophy so hardly surprising that the NC does too.”
@Stephen
**” *Many of the fundamental doctrines of the Christian Church, including Nicaean orthodoxy, developed over centuries.*
Well, obviously so, if we are talking about Nicaean orthodoxy in its fully formulated form. I think Bren would reasonably question whether the thought had developed in some strains of Christianity well before the final formulation.
I’m happy to be corrected but my impression is that brenmcg thinks that Paul believed that Jesus was co-equal with God the Father and of one substance with him.”**
But the Nicene Creed never mentions co-equality.
It mentions “of one-essence” as a way to distinguish orthodoxy from Arianism, so the question would be what did they themselves mean by “one-essence”.
Here’s Eusebius in his letter to his own church. “And so too on examination there are grounds for saying that the Son is one in essence with the Father; not in the way of bodies, nor like mortal beings, for He is not such by division of essence, or by severance, no, nor by any affection, or alteration, or changing of the Father’s essence and power (since from all such the unoriginate nature of the Father is alien), but because one in essence with the Father suggests that the Son of God bears no resemblance to the originated creatures, but that to His Father alone Who begot Him is He in every way assimilated, and that He is not of any other subsistence and essence, but from the Father.”
So is Paul’s own view orthodox or Arian with regards to this understanding of “one-essence”. Is the Son like the Father bearing no resemblance to created beings.
“Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form”
So for Paul Christ was in the form of god and had to empty himself to take on the form of humans. So non-arian.
Does Paul believe Christ was creation of god? No. Rather he wrote that “there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”
So for Paul God the father creates all things through the Lord Jesus. That’s how he creates. The Son needs to exist in order for the father to create anything.
If you want to claim Arianism as a earlier form of christianity than nicene orthodoxy you’ll need to show someone earlier than Paul saying the son was created by god, or the son is in nature like all created beings.
The Original Nicene Creed of 325
We believe in one God, the Father almighty, Maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begoAen,
begotten of the Father before all ages.
Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made,
of one essence with the Father by whom all things were made;
who for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven,
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became man.
And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
and suffered, and was buried.
And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures;
and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father;
and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead;
whose Kingdom shall have no end.
And in the Holy Spirit.
Can the Son be of one essence with the Father and not be equal?
Some of the “Arians”, like Eusebius and Justin*, believed that The Son was created out of the substance of the Father and some, like Arius himself, believed that The Son was created out of nothing. All agreed, contra-Nicaea, that there had been a time when the Son did not exist.
Paul clearly believes that the Son was created by the Father and while certainly divine, was not created equal to the Father. Otherwise why would he say at the conclusion of Philippians 2 that the Son was exalted because of his service?
*And like the author of the gospel of John?
@Stephen
**”Can the Son be of one essence with the Father and not be equal?”**
You’re trying to draw an inference from the Nicene creed here, which is fine, but you then need to accept the drawing of inferences from the NT. So what exactly is meant by “equal”?
By calling jesus the son of god does that make him equal with the father? The author of john seems to think so. “but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” John also says “whatever the Father does the Son also does” or “All that belongs to the Father is mine” is that equality?
Or Matthew “All things have been handed over to me by my Father” “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” are these statements of equality?
**”Some of the “Arians”, like Eusebius and Justin*, believed that The Son was created out of the substance of the Father and some, like Arius himself, believed that The Son was created out of nothing. All agreed, contra-Nicaea, that there had been a time when the Son did not exist.**
Here’s Justin on Plato “Time, accordingly, was created along with the heavens; in order that, coming into being together, they might also be together dissolved, if ever their dissolution should take place. Had he not learned this from the divine history of Moses? For he knew that the creation of time had received its original constitution from days and months and years. Since, then, the first day which was created along with the heavens constituted the beginning of all time for thus Moses wrote, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
So for Justin “time” was a creation, created along with heaven and earth. And for Justin Christ is “The Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all things, and Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and the Glory of the Begetter, will bear evidence to me, when He speaks by Solomon the following: If I shall declare to you what happens daily, I shall call to mind events from everlasting, and review them. The Lord made me the beginning of His ways for His works. From everlasting He established me in the beginning, before He had made the earth, and before He had made the deeps, before the springs of the waters had issued forth, before the mountains had been established. Before all the hills He begets me.”
So for Justin the Son is begotten before, and is the creator of, ‘Time’ itself.
Same for Eusebius who says speaking of the mysterious generation of the son “It is equally perilous to take the opposite road, and say thus without qualification that the Son was begotten of things that were not, similarly to the other begotten beings; for the generation of the Son differs from the Creation through the Son. But yet as Holy Scripture first says that He is the Firstborn of every creature, speaking in His Person, “The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways,” and then says that He is the Begotten of the Father in the words: “Before all the hills he begets me”; here we, too, may reasonably follow and confess that He is before all ages the Creative Word of God, One with the Father, Only-begotten Son of the God of the Universe, and Minister and Fellow-worker with the Father, in the calling into being and constitution of the Universe.”
It was Arius who came up with the claim that although the Son was generated before all ages he was nevertheless generated at some point in time. It is this nonsense claim that forces Arians into either polytheism or lowering their christology until the son is no longer divine but just another creature. And it was for this exact reason that more than 99% of bishops in 325 had a serious problem with his teaching.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)