A True but Brief Hisotry of Early Christianity
by Don R. Hender
"Whether Christ sent his apostles to preach metaphysics to the
unlearned common people, and to their wives and children?" ~ Sir
Isaac Newton
Sorting through the fray to objectively reduce and abridge ancient
Christian History to a bare but precise and candid minimum must be a very
selective process. Merely to summarize the traditional scholarly skewed
histories is a fruitless exercise with little truth in it for it is solely
preached from the single perspective of the victor, having no objectivity
whatsoever about it.
For my self, I would like to begin with the consideration of what is
Christianity itself and thus persue a history of that. And to that end I would
first state a query of a leading scientist who wrote more words concerning
religion than he ever did about science. Sir Isaac Newton 'asked' 23 questions
respecting the controvery of Homoousios. I will begin with and end with but
the first for the purpose of this discussion. And that question is the one
qouted above.
Certainly Christ never did send his apostles out to preach the metaphysical
nature of the Godhead, if he had and if they did, they erringly went far
beyond the mark as did those who confess it [the trinity] to be a mystery
beyond their comprehension, and so if understanding God metaphysically is
beyond their ability, then they should not seek to have it make sense to
us either. (Berkhof pp. 87-90) That is the metaphysical nature of God the
Father, Jesus Christ the Son and the Holy Ghost has gone beyond the mark
and intended end of teaching the gospel of Jesus Christ and baptising souls
unto Christ in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Jesus Christ's charge to the apostles was to preach the gospel of Christ to
the nations of the world, that is the doctrine of Christ, converting the
people to Jesus and baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son
and of the Holy Ghost. (Matthew 28:19)
This was a part of the formula first prescribed at the Nicaea Coucil by
Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea. What that first formula was and the subsequent
events of the Nicea Council is best summarized in a letter of Bishop Eusebius
concerning that council to his own congregation, which will be given below.
Bishop Eusebius of Ceasarea was a great Christian scholar having the grand
Christian library of Caesarea to draw upon, not to mention those immediate
church scholars and Bishops who preceded him. Bishop Eusebius was the author
of the Ecclesiastical History of the Church [There is not better place
to begin to study a more detailed history of the Church than that of Bishop
Eusebius' History] as well as many other
authoratative works, many of which still exist today. In particular, one may
gain great insights into early Christian theology beginning with the first
book of that great Church History. In it, Eusebius reveals himself and the
depths of gospel understanding which he had. Being such a devoted Christian
scholar, it is easy to understand why he was trusted by Emperor Constantine
to sit next to him in the council of Nicaea and deliver the inaugeral formula
of Christianity to the intent of uniting the faith.
Bishop Eusebius' Letter Concerning the Events of the Nicene Council
"What was transacted concerning ecclesiastical
faith at the Great Council assembled at Nicaea you have probably learned,
Beloved, from other sources, rumour being wont to precede the accurate account
of what is doing. But lest in such reports the circumstances of the case have
been misrepresented, we have been obliged to transmit to you, first, the
formula of faith presented by ourselves; and next, the second, which the
Fathers put forth with some additions to our words. Our own paper, then, which
was read in the presence of our most pious Emperor, and declared to be good
and unexceptionable, ran thus:-
"`As we have received from the Bishops who preceded us, and in our first
catechisings, and when we received the Holy Layer, and as we have learned from
the divine Scriptures, and as we believed and taught in the presbytery, and in
the Episcopate itself, so believing also at the time present, we report to you
our faith, and it is this:-
"`We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things
visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from
God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages [Col.
1:15], begotten from the Father, by whom also all things were made;
who for our salvation was made flesh, 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 quick and dead, And we believe also in One Holy Ghost;
believing each of These to be and to exist, the Father truly Father, and the
Son truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord,
sending forth His disciples for the preaching, said, Go, teach all
nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost [Matthew 28:19]. Concerning whom we confidently affirm that so we hold, and so we
think, and so we have held aforetime, and we maintain this faith unto the
death, anathematizing every godless heresy. That this we have ever thought
from our heart and soul, from the time we recollect ourselves, and now think
and say in truth, before God Almighty and our Lord Jesus Christ do we witness,
being able by proofs to show and to convince you, that, even in times past,
such has been our belief and preaching.'
"On this faith being publicly put forth by us, no room for contradiction
appeared; but our most pious Emperor, before any one else, testified that it
comprised most orthodox statements. He confessed, moreover, that such were his
own sentiments; and he advised all present to agree to it, and to subscribe
its articles and to assent to them, with the insertion of the single word,
`One in substance' (omoousioj), which, moreover, he
interpreted as not in the sense of the affections of bodies, nor as if the Son
subsisted from the Father, in the way of division, or any severance; for that
the immaterial and intellectual and incorporeal nature could not be the
subject of any corporeal affection, but that it became us to conceive of such
things in a divine and ineffable manner. And such were the theological remarks
of our most wise and most religious Emperor; but they, with a view to the
addition of `One in substance,' drew up the following formula:-
"`We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible
and invisible:- And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the
Father, Only-begotten, that is, from the Substance of the Father; God from
God, Light from Light, very God from very God, begotten, not made, One in
substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, both things in heaven
and things in earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was
made flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended
into heaven, and cometh to judge quick and dead.
"`And in the Holy Ghost. But those who say, "Once He was not," and "Before
His generation He was not," and "He came to be from nothing," or those who
pretend that the Son of God is "Of other subsistence or substance," or
"created," or "alterable," or "mutable," the Catholic Church
anathematizes.'
"On their dictating this formula, we did not let it pass without inquiry in
what sense they introduced `of the substance of the Father,' and `one in
substance with the Father.' Accordingly questions and explanations took place,
and the meaning of the words underwent the scrutiny of reason. And they
professed that the phrase `of the substance' was indicative of the Son's being
indeed from the Father, yet without being as if a part of Him. And with this
understanding we thought good to assent to the sense of such religious
doctrine, teaching, as it did, that the Son was from the Father, not, however,
a part of His substance. On this account we assented to the sense ourselves,
without declining even the term `One in substance,' peace being the
object which we set before us, and steadfastness in the orthodox view. In the same
way we also admitted `begotten, not made'; since the Council alleged that
`made' was an appellative common to the other creatures which came to be
through the Son, to whom the Son had no likeness. Wherefore, said they, He was
not a work resembling the things which through Him came to be, but was of a
substance which is too high for the level of any work, and which the Divine
oracles teach to have been generated from the Father, the mode of generation
being inscrutable and incalculable to every generated nature. And so, too, on
examination there are grounds for saying that the Son is `one in substance'
with the Father; not in the way of bodies, nor like mortal beings, for He is
not such by division of substance, or by severance; no, nor by any affection,
or alteration, or changing of the Father's substance and power (since from all
such the ingenerate nature of the Father is alien), but because `one in
substance with the Father' suggests that the Son of God bears no resemblance
to the generated creatures, but that to His Father alone who begat Him is He
in every way assimilated, and that He is not of any other subsistence and
substance, but from the Father.
"To which term also, thus interpreted, it appeared well to assent; since we
were aware that, even among the ancients, some learned and illustrious Bishops
and writers have used the term `one in substance' in their theological
teaching concerning the Father and Son. So much, then, be said concerning the
faith which was published; to which all of us assented, not without inquiry,
but according to the specified senses, mentioned before the most religious
Emperor himself, and justified by the fore-mentioned considerations. And as to
the anathematism published by them at the end of the Faith, it did not pain
us, because it forbade to use words not in Scripture, from which almost all
the confusion and disorder of the Church have come. Since, then, no divinely
inspired Scripture has used the phrases, `out of nothing' and `once He was
not,' and the rest which follow, there appeared no ground for using or
teaching them; to which also we assented as a good decision, since it had not
been our custom hitherto to use these terms. Moreover, to anathematize `Before
His generation He was not' did not seem preposterous, in that it is confessed
by all that the Son of God was before the generation according to the flesh.
Nay, our most religious Emperor did at the time prove, in a speech, that He
was in being even according to His divine generation which is before all ages,
since even before he was generated in energy, He was in virtue with the Father
ingenerately, the Father being always Father, as King always and Saviour
always, having all things in virtue, and being always in the same respects and
in the same way. This we have been forced to transmit to you, Beloved, as
making clear to you the deliberation of our inquiry and assent, and how
reasonably we resisted even to the last minute, as long as we were offended at
statements which differed from our own, but received without contention what
no longer pained us, as soon as, on a candid examination of the sense of the
words, they appeared to us to coincide with what we ourselves have professed
in the faith which we have already published."3
But as may be seen by Bishop Eusebius' letter, the designning innovators of
the religion could not leave the simple initial formula alone with its basic
commission unto the apostles to preach the gospel of Christ and baptise those
who would believe on Jesus' name. Now as to which particular 'advisors/Bishops'
who did entice the Emperor to include and change, beginning with the single
word Homoousia is given by others but not here, and it was not the deacon
Athanasius. But after so doing 'they' further defined it and made it into a
demanded criteria to accept their self defined metaphysical nature of God,
which they themslves could not comprehend nor understand, it being but a
mystery to them. Yet they
would demand it of others' acceptance, going far beyond the mark of Christ's
intent and purpose of the simpleness of the way of the Gospel of Christ. Even
the Emperor Constantine himself would condemn them for the divisiveness which
their 'mental exercise' had done to the unity of the Faith of Christ.
~ Constantine’s Rebuke of Alexander and Arius ~
Eusebius Pamphilius: Life of Constantine
CHAPTER LXIX.—Origin of the Controversy between Alexander and Arius, and that these
Questions ought not to have been discussed.
[EMPEROR CONSTANTINE SPEAKING/WRITING] I UNDERSTAND, then, that the origin of the
present controversy is this. When you, Alexander, demanded of the presbyters what
opinion they severally maintained respecting a certain passage in the Divine law, or
rather, I should say, that you asked them something connected with an unprofitable
question, then you, Arius, inconsiderately insisted on what ought never to have been
conceived at all, or if conceived, should have been buried in profound silence. Hence it
was that a dissension arose between you, fellowship was withdrawn, and [p. 517] the
holy people, rent into diverse parties, no longer preserved the unity of the one body.
Now, therefore, do ye both exhibit an equal degree of forbearance, and receive the
advice which your fellow-servant righteously gives. What then is this advice? It was
wrong in the first instance to propose such questions as these, or to reply to them
when propounded. For those points of discussion which are enjoined by the authority
of no law, but rather suggested by the contentious spirit which is fostered by misused
leisure, even though they may be intended merely as an intellectual exercise, ought
certainly to be confined to the region of our own thoughts, and not hastily produced in
the popular assemblies, nor unadvisedly intrusted to the general ear. For how very few
are there able either accurately to comprehend, or adequately to explain subjects so
sublime and abstruse in their nature? Or, granting that one were fully competent for
this, how many people will he convince? Or, who, again, in dealing with questions of
such subtle nicety as these, can secure himself against a dangerous declension from the
truth? It is incumbent therefore on us in these cases to be sparing of our words, lest,
in case we ourselves are unable, through the feebleness of our natural faculties, to give
a clear explanation of the subject before us, or, on the other hand, in case the slowness
of our hearers’ understandings disables them from arriving at an accurate apprehension
of what we say, from one or other of these causes the people be reduced to the
alternative either of blasphemy or schism.
Emperor Constatine was quite correct, this mental exercise of discussing the
metaphysical nature of God ought not ever have occurred, little alone been
relied upon as constituting a 'doctrine' prescription which must be forced
accepted in order for one to come unto Christ. It had gone beyond the mark of
the simpleness of the way of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Being a Christian
did not depend upon coming to a conclusion concerning the metaphysical nature
of God. What the intent of the council of Nicaea was, was to be the uniting
of the faith. By going beyoud the mark of the commission given to the
apostles of preaching the gospel, the divisiveness of innovated opionion
entered into the pride of the Bishops to know more than the other in making
of God what they in their philosophical pride would imagine him to be. Even
as great as the apostles were, they did not go beyond the mark of ministering
the gospel and into this point of at best a 'mystery doctrine'.
"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear
what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him;
for we shall see him as he is." ~ 1 John 3:2
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"WHEN the Savior shall appear we shall see him as he is. We shall see that
he is a man like ourselves." D&C 130:1
Constantine's intent in the Nicene Council was to unify Christianity rather
than to divide it. Because of continued innovative Bishops who insisted upon
their 'deep' imagined opinions being Christian doctrine even though it was
upon such questions of which none could authoritatively substantiate rather
than to holding to the unifiying simple Gospel of Christ. And these wolves
of innovation would insist upon their 'mystery metaphysical' presumptions
even at the extent of violent pursecutions, tortures and even murders of
any who did not conform. This persisted through the ages of the 'Catholic'
Church at the expense of those who were more Christian in the treatment of
their fellow men.
The Trinity's traditional 'hero' was not Bishop Alexander, it is
considered to be Athanasius who was but
an attending deacon at the first council of Nicaea. During that period
following the Nicene Council all WAS NOT smooth sailing for the doctrine of
the Trinity. As here in stated, Constantine considered it divisive and not
worthy of considertation. During his reign and in part his son's reign,
Athanasius was exiled no less than seven times for his persistence in it.
In 335 A.D., He was deposed at the Synod/Council of Tyre and Jerusalem,
that is 'anaethematized', by Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, considered by
objective historians as so acting in concert with Constantine who agrees with
that council concerning Athanasius and so Athansiua is exiled to Trier by
the Emporer. Now a 'hero' of the Catholic Church, Athanasius during his life
time and under the rule of Constantine, was anything but the common
Christian hero seeking unity of the faith. Only the eventual 'winners'
who traded true Christianity of the Gospel of Christ for the metaphysics of
the nature of the Godhead have made a 'saint' of Athanasius. And they would
come to pursecute, torture and murder any
and all who would not accept their, Athanasius' metaphysical godhead, which
they so state that they cannot understand it themselves. This was not the
Gospel of Jesus Christ
which the Apostles did take to the world, converting and baptising all who
would believe in and accept Jesus as their Savior and Redeemer.
The True 'Father' of the Nicene 'Trinity'
Will the real 'Father of the Trinity' please stand up.
Be shuttled by the writings of history after the facts of the matter in a
compliance with the preferred perspective of the 'winners' or today's
Catholic skewed view, has been the 'true identity' of the 'father of the
Nicene Trinity'. Cutting to the essentials, Theodosius I 'the Great' was
Roman Emperor from 379 to 395 and ironically he was the last emperior to
rule over both the eastern and western halves of the Roman Empire. And also
of irony, he ruled out of Constantinople. At the beginning time of his rule
the 'Nicene Controversy' over the 'difference of one iota' betwix
'homoousios' and 'homoiousios' was still in hot debate. And any such
doctrines from 'three gods in one' to the extreme demonized concept that
Jesus was not even divine, so labeled by the Trinitarians upon the Arian
doctrine, were still in play. The moderate truth of the matter has been lost
in the historical contrivance of the history, which was according to the
History of the Church written by Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, that Jesus was
divine, the creator of heaven and earth under the direction of the Father, he
was the same as Jehovah the God of the Old Testament; and yet born of our and
his Heavently Father as His Only Begotten Son in the flesh. And that in truth
God the Father, Jesus Christ His Son and the Holy Ghost were three separate
and distinct beings. In Theodosius' day Christianity stood divided as ever
it was with several different Church factions that promoted alternative
'Christologies' which were still as threating to the Roman Empire as ever.
Thus Theodosius was to choose and father what was the acceptable flavor of
Christianity. On 27 February 380, Emperor Theodosius, who had come to
promote the now termed 'Nicene Trinitian Christianity' declared that this
was the only legitimate imperial religion, even the 'Universal or Catholic
Church'. Of further ironical notice is that when 'The Council of
Constantinople' was held as convened by Theodosius I to so settle the
Godhead doctrinal dispute, the Bishop, Father or papa(pope) of Rome, Damasus I
and all his legates 'declined' to attend. They were vacant. Thus it is to
Emperor Theodosius I that history must in fact look to be the defining father
of the Trinitarian doctrine of the Godhead so imposed by the Emperor's decree
that his approved brand of Christianity was the only legitimate and
acceptible flavor and brand of Christianity, the offical Christian Church of
the Roman Empire. In short it was Theodosius who made the Catholic Church
and the 'Nicean' Trinity the only official state religion.
In Summary of This Brief Christian History
Christianity is the spreading and preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ
and the administration of the ordiances of salvation such as baptism. That is
Christianity and Christian history ought to be centered in that work of
bringing men unto Jesus Christ and his gospel. That is the mainstrean of
Christ's gospel and delving in the backroads beyond that central stream and
cause of Christ is not primary to the Christianity of Jesus Christ. It is NOT
a requirement of being a Christian or of Christianity to have a metaphysical
understanding concerning the nature of God. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is
simple enough that a child might understand it—And was ever meant to be so.
So when men teach of the Traditional History of the Christian Church in terms
of such as the Nicene Creed and so forth, it is not Jesus' Christianity of
which they speak but the backroads history of the designs of the inovations
of men, which one has been drawn into. The whole of that is but an over stuffed
quazi-history, 'having a form thereof', but not having the true simple
history of the Christianity of Jesus Christ at all.
|