Council of Nicea (325 A.D.)

[_Wisdom Seeker]

It is said that Constantine was under direction of the Emperor to settle the disputes between those in the church who believed Jesus was God incarnate and those who believed Jesus and God are separate. While I still think the Arius viewpoint makes more sense, I mean why would God check out for some 30 years, why should Constantine and or the Emperor even care?

Do you think Constantine or the Emperor wanted to capitalize upon the division of the church?

Would the religious landscape look any different if there was no Nicene creed?

[_moksha]

I think Constantine was the Emperor.

An unfortunate spin-off of this first ecumenical council was that almost all the non-canonized texts were lost to us. What a tragedy.

Constantine 0
Utah 24

[_Aristotle Smith]

It is said that Constantine was under direction of the Emperor to settle the disputes between those in the church who believed Jesus was God incarnate and those who believed Jesus and God are separate. While I still think the Arius viewpoint makes more sense, I mean why would God check out for some 30 years, why should Constantine and or the Emperor even care?

Constantine was the emperor. You are misrepresenting both the Nicene position and the Arian position, giving it a Mormon twist.

Do you think Constantine or the Emperor wanted to capitalize upon the division of the church?

No, the whole point of the Nicene council was the reduce division in the church and in the empire.

Would the religious landscape look any different if there was no Nicene creed?

Probably. But, although the council of Nicea settled the issue theologically, there was still a mammoth struggle to get it accepted by all the bishops as official theology. Up until the first council of Constantinople (381 CE) there was a string of Arian emperors and a large contingent of bishops who refused to go along with Nicea. In fact even though Nicea was the official theology, Nicene bishops such as Athanasius were persecuted for their Nicene views through the 4th century.

There is this common Mormon myth that Nicea was this rape of pure Christianity by a power hungry emperor, and that the evil apostate bishops and priests just went along because all they cared about was power. This is just bad history and I cringe every time some misinformed GA goes spouts this crap in a general conference talk. Don't get me started on how they bungle the Reformation as well.

[_Wisdom Seeker]

As you can see, I don't know much about it but I am in discussion with a Evangelical Pastor friend in regards to the Trinity.

His point is that Jesus is God incarnate. My argument with his point is that just because a group of religious leaders get together and have a majority opinion, does not necessarily make that opinion true. Sure it can be a theological standard, but it still represents an opinion.

I am probably looking at this through a flawed LDS viewpoint, but I am also trying to look at it through reason. Majority opinion does not make things exactly true, but does provide the best possilbe theory based upon what knowledge is available at that time.

My last question had more to do with a thought I had about how Satan would use a council to destroy the church. Again only a thought and an opinion not gospel truth and far from actual truth.

[_basilII]

The beliefs on Christ put forward in the council of Nicaea were not pulled out of thin air but were the culmination of centuries of reflection of what it meant to believe in only one eternal uncreated God (this was a non-negotiable for both sides in the debate, something that Mormons who try to appropriate Arius' view seem to forget), and at the same time to say that Jesus, the son of God, is divine. Now, I am in no sense a theologian, but the way I see it is that the council was basically saying that Jesus is fully God. That when when we divide things into created (us, the universe) and uncreated (God) categories, Christ belongs in the uncreated category, along with (but distinct from) the Father. So when the council said that Jesus is consubstantial with the Father they meant that Jesus is God in the same sense that the Father is God. Now how that squares with the unity/oneness of God is where the 'mystery' part of the Holy Trinity comes in.

If you are really interested in doctrinal development in the early church, up to and including Nicaea, a comprehensive introduction is 'Early Christian Doctrine' by Kelly. (Just a warning, the tone is rather academic). There is also a website, earlychristianwritings.com, that has many 'noncanonized' documents (both 'orthodox' and 'heretical') that predate the Nicaea.

[_Aristotle Smith]

As you can see, I don't know much about it but I am in discussion with a Evangelical Pastor friend in regards to the Trinity.

EV's are not the strongest on explaining Trinitarian beliefs. Your pastor friend may be different. If he's not, you may need to do some independent research on the subject.

I find raw theoretical/philosophical explanations of the Trinity to simply leave the matter just as murky as they found it. I find starting with why the whole subject was even an issue to be enlightening, and then proceeding with the history leading up the creed to clarify lots of issues.

The root cause of the whole Trinitarian debate is actually pretty simply stated as this: OK, Christians believe in the Old Testament and the New Testament. How do you reconcile the conflicting views of God?

There are several solutions. One was that of the Marcionite Christians. They threw out the Old Testament and stuck with a subset of the New Testament. Problem solved.

However, the more orthodox Christians wanted to preserve the Jewish roots of Christianity, which meant keeping the Old Testament. So the issue becomes how to make the strict monotheism of Judaism's interpretation of the Old Testament mesh with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Nicea was the attempt to do that. Given the restrictions they set for themselves (preserve Jewish monotheism of the Old Testament and New Testament), something like Nicea was the foregone conclusion.

Mormons solve the problem by throwing away the dominant Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament and go back to the older Israelite henotheism. Though instead of allowing for other deities like Baal and Marduk, the Mormon universe gets populated with a progression of Gods. This is another solution to the problem, but you don't preserve monotheism.

I am probably looking at this through a flawed LDS viewpoint, but I am also trying to look at it through reason. Majority opinion does not make things exactly true, but does provide the best possilbe theory based upon what knowledge is available at that time.

All very true. One of the things you will find is that the Trinitarian thinkers of the 4th century were very reason based. They went through a long and complicated set of arguments to settle on the Trinity as the best explanation for God. Even if you end up rejecting it, it would probably be enlightening to see why they settled on the Nicene creed, at least as a way to clarify your own thinking.

[_basilII]

As you can see, I don't know much about it but I am in discussion with a Evangelical Pastor friend in regards to the Trinity.

His point is that Jesus is God incarnate. My argument with his point is that just because a group of religious leaders get together and have a majority opinion, does not necessarily make that opinion true. Sure it can be a theological standard, but it still represents an opinion.

I am probably looking at this through a flawed LDS viewpoint, but I am also trying to look at it through reason. Majority opinion does not make things exactly true, but does provide the best possilbe theory based upon what knowledge is available at that time.

My last question had more to do with a thought I had about how Satan would use a council to destroy the church. Again only a thought and an opinion not gospel truth and far from actual truth.

Well, from an evangelical Protestant point of view the creed is, in a sense, only opinion and contains truth only to the extent that it can be backed-up by prooftexts from the Bible. The Catholic and Orthodox churches would view the creed as authoritative and binding because the ecumenical church councils are protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error. They would argue that it is not the majority opinion of a group of randomly selected individuals, but rather Christ speaking to us through his church. It comes down to how one views the church and its role in Christian life.

[_Wisdom Seeker]

Thanks to both of your replies, very informative.

The wife of the EV Pastor told me she still has a hard time believing in the Trinity (former LDS), but has come to a point where she feels it is simply not important to her for her salvation.

Question for you then: If Christ is a creation of God for good, is evil a creation of God also?

[_basilII]

Question for you then: If Christ is a creation of God for good, is evil a creation of God also?

The point of the council was that Christ, although the son of God, is not a creation of God: Christ is uncreated in the same way the Father is uncreated, they are both God. It was the Arians who argued that Christ was a created being (albeit the first and highest created thing, closest to God, etc).

The problem of evil is deep water for me to swim in, but I'll take stab at the second part of your question. The traditional Christian answer would be no, evil is not a creation of God. God 'permits' evil to occur, evil being understood as not a thing in itself, but an absence of the good. The hope is that being all-powerfull and all-wise God can somehow draw good out of evil, as impossible as that may seem to us now. The crucifixion would be the pattern and promise of this.

[_Wisdom Seeker]

Was the universe uncreated?