Emperor Constantine and The Council of Nicea

[sk0rpi0n]

Hello all, this is my first post here.
(It also happened to be my last post at another christian site. I found myself banned a short while after starting the thread. (The reason given for my banning was that I was being hostile to christianity.)


Anyway...

I am, using a christian site...as the foundation of this topic :

http://www.gotquestions.org/council-of-Nicea.html

(Please go through their statement of faith here : http://www.gotquestions.org/faith.html)

The main theological issue and focus had always been about Christ. Since the end of the Apostolic Age and beginning of the Church Age, saints began questioning, debating, fighting, and separating over the question,
“Who is the Christ?� Is He more divine than human or more human than divine? Was Jesus created / made or begotten? Being the Son of God, is He co-equal and co-eternal with Father God, or less and lower in status than the Father? Is the Father the One and only True God, or are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit the One true God? “True God of True God,� “One Being, Three Persons�, a tri-unity called “Trinity�? Jesus said, “Who do you say that I am?� (Matthew 16:15).]

Here, we understand that Early Christians were debating on various issues that involved the nature of Jesus. (Ref : Points in bold)

Once the Nicea Council meeting was underway Constantine demanded that the 300 bishops make a decision by majority vote defining who Jesus Christ is. Constantine commanded them to create a “creed� doctrine that all of Christianity would follow and obey, a doctrine that would be called the “Nicene Creed,� upheld by the Church and enforced by the Emperor.

Here we understand that crucial issues in Christian theology was settled on a vote.


This site goes on to say that "the Council of Nicea did not invent these doctrines. Rather, it only recognized what the Bible taught, and systematized the doctrines."... but this is highly debatable as there were Christians (who read from the same scriptures) but did not believe in concepts such as the trinity and had a different understanding of the nature of Jesus.

Look up : Arianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

The Arian concept of Christ is that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created by—and is therefore distinct from and inferior to—God the Father. This belief is grounded in John 14:28 "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Points for discussion (for trinitarian christians only)

1. How do you percieve this event : that a mere vote by 300 men, none of who were prophets or apostles, under the command of a pagan emperor settled on crucial issues basis a mere vote. How confident are you that these people voted right... and why?

2. Does it ever bother you that Constantine was not yet baptized when he, at the Council of Nicea, "settled" matters on theological issues? (And was also part of a pagan cult called Sol Invictus.)

3. Also, how do you deal with the fact that the first christian emperor, Constantine happened to be part of a pagan cult called "Sol Invictus".

4. On a more personal note, had the Councils vote ended differently, say, they decided that the trinity was unbiblical, would it have changed any of your beliefs? If not... why?

Please address these 4 points.

NOTE : We are mostly discussing pure history here.... in regard to the formation of modern day Christian doctrine. Try and keep your replies as objective as possibles.

[theopoesis]

1. How do you percieve this event : that a mere vote by 300 men, none of who were prophets or apostles, under the command of a pagan emperor settled on crucial issues basis a mere vote. How confident are you that these people voted right... and why?

Several bullet points here:

(1) Arianism represented a new development in Christian thought. Most early heresies suggested that Christ was either only God, or only man, or a pure man who was made a pure God. Arianism suggested Jesus was something inbetween God and man. Thus, in rejecting Arianism Nicea did not redirect the course of the historical trajectories of the development of Christianity.

(2) Nicea did not resolve the issue. It's not like there was a vote and suddenly everything changed. For example, another council at Chalcedon was required to further clarify the issues. Moreover, after Nicea the Arians still had lots of power, and some emperors after Constantine even rejected Nicea. History isn't as neat as you present it.

(3) Nicea did not invent any doctrines that had not already been suggested by one Christian writer or another. Many of the ideas in Nicea can be found verbatim in early Christian writings (with the possible exception of "homoousios", but I think that was there too).

(4) Previous emperors had attempted to persecute Christianity in the past, but Christianity had survived. If the move away from Arianism was solely explainable through imperial intervention, we must wonder why this intervention succeeded here and not in the past. I will grant that there was some government intervention in favor of orthodoxy, but I think this was primarily against Donatism in North Africa.

(5) I've read several treatises by Athanasius, as well as by Cyril of Alexandria, Alexander of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Basil the Great. These were the main thinkers of the side that carried the day in Chalcedon and Nicea. I think they offer better arguments than their alternatives, taking into account exegesis, history, theology, and philosophy.

These points together make me reject your notion that one single 300 person democratic vote decided the issue. It was much more complex, and imperial intervention and the vote at Nicea played a role, but were not decisive factors.

2. Does it ever bother you that Constantine was not yet baptized when he, at the Council of Nicea, "settled" matters on theological issues? (And was also part of a pagan cult called Sol Invictus.)

Constantine didn't "settle" the matter. See above.

3. Also, how do you deal with the fact that the first christian emperor, Constantine happened to be part of a pagan cult called "Sol Invictus".

I suppose I question his Christianity, as do many other Christians. There is a large move to recover a pre-Constantinian ethic, but the main thing historical analysis by these groups suggests is not that the historical course of Christian doctrine was changed, but rather that the historical modes of power of the church changed. Constantine shifted Christians from being martyrs to being popes with more political power than kings. I, too, question Constantine's legitimate faith as producing this historical shift.

4. On a more personal note, had the Councils vote ended differently, say, they decided that the trinity was unbiblical, would it have changed any of your beliefs? If not... why?

Please address these 4 points.

NOTE : We are mostly discussing pure history here.... in regard to the formation of modern day Christian doctrine. Try and keep your replies as objective as possibles.

Other councils did vote differently than orthodox councils. For example, the "robber council" was rejected by the church as a whole. I consider the arguments behind Nicea to be the best, and that is why that council of 300 was not ultimately rejected by the orthodox church as a whole. Some smaller groups did reject it, but the arguments carried the day, not the vote.

If Nicea voted differently and if I still had the education to read the early theologians I have read, I would still vote against the Arians. If Nicea said Jesus was not fully God and fully man, I would reject Nicea. I reject other councils (for example Trent, Vatican II, Nicea II, The Five Articles of the Remonstrants, Lateran IV).

[bjs]

For the most part I disagree with this take on historical events.

1. How do you percieve this event : that a mere vote by 300 men, none of who were prophets or apostles, under the command of a pagan emperor settled on crucial issues basis a mere vote. How confident are you that these people voted right... and why?

This is too simplistic of a way of looking at history. Yes there were only a few hundred men, but they were men who had spent their lives in service to God. They knew the scriptures and they had been active leaders in the church. They were not chosen at random. Christians from across the known world said, “These are guys we trust. We agree with what they say and they speak for us.�

Also, the issues covered at the council had been around for awhile. The council was the completion of a discussion that had been going on for at least 150 years. In many ways the council was a foregone conclusion – Arian never stood a chance. Details needed to be worked out, but the big issues (divinity/humanity of Christ, what was inspired scripture) were pretty well decided. All that was left was to get everybody together and make it official.

It is misleading to say that the council was “under the command� of Constantine. In the US Congress, when it is time for a vote the Speaker of the House calls for a vote because that is her job. She is the only one who can call for a vote. This doesn’t mean that she forcing the congress to vote, it is just procedure. In a similar way Constantine was the official leader of the council and called for a vote, but that is not the same thing as commanding the council. Constantine did not even attend large portions of the council. Though brilliant in military strategy and able to get people to follow him, Constantine was not skilled enough in theology to keep up with men in the council and often left them to do the job without him.

I address the issue of him being “a pagan emperor� below.

2. Does it ever bother you that Constantine was not yet baptized when he, at the Council of Nicea, "settled" matters on theological issues? (And was also part of a pagan cult called Sol Invictus.)

Constantine did not put off baptism because of a lack of faith. A common ancient belief was that baptism washed away all sins that had been committed before the baptism. Any sins committed after the baptism would have to be worked off in purgatory. The common practice was to put off baptism as long as possible. We know that we will never be completely without sin, so if baptism comes later in life then it will wash away more sins and mean less time in purgatory. (Augustine of Hippo wrote about this practice in a couple places, including his Confessions. It took a few centuries, but his writings got the ball rolling that would eventually put an end to the practice of delaying baptism.)

As for Sol Invictus, see question three.

3. Also, how do you deal with the fact that the first christian emperor, Constantine happened to be part of a pagan cult called "Sol Invictus".

Constantine was raised in Sol Invictus, but did not remain in it. Unless we are saying that someone who is raised in a pagan belief is a part of it for life and cannot convert, the claim that Constantine was part of Sol Invictus is false.

After his famous conversion Constantine was a Christian. He established religious tolerance during his reign as emperor and did not try to destroy Sol Invictus, but with only a couple of exceptions he did not participate in pagan rituals for most of his adult life.

4. On a more personal note, had the Councils vote ended differently, say, they decided that the trinity was unbiblical, would it have changed any of your beliefs? If not... why?

This is almost impossible to answer because the trinity is biblical. It is like asking, “If all the great mathematicians in the world said that two plus two equals five, what would that mean?� How can we answer this? Two plus two equals four. Anyone who says differently could never become a great mathematician in the first place.

[fredonly]

Points for discussion (for trinitarian christians only)

1. How do you percieve this event : that a mere vote by 300 men, none of who were prophets or apostles, under the command of a pagan emperor settled on crucial issues basis a mere vote. How confident are you that these people voted right... and why?

Roman Catholics perceive this event as giving voice to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Case closed, for them. The council got it right, and there's no way the council could have gotten it wrong.

I don't understand what Protestants who embrace Sola Sriptura think of it. In the Sola Scriptura debate topic (in this subforum) I pointed out that the formulation of the Trinity is vague in the Bible - so in the absence of the Church guidance, there's no way to know the truth. I didn't get a real answer, just the surprising assertion:

I don't believe that the concept of the Trinity is merely inferred, nor do I believe that it is vague. I haven't always been a Trinitarian. I finally reached the point where that particular truth was inescapable, so instead of shelving it, I embraced it.

Of course, it is not truly clear in the Bible. If it were, these various points of view about Jesus would not have been debated -the answers would have been clearly available in Scripture.

2. Does it ever bother you that Constantine was not yet baptized when he, at the Council of Nicea, "settled" matters on theological issues? (And was also part of a pagan cult called Sol Invictus.)

I don't know why this should bother anyone. He didn't dictate the answer, he just demand that an answer be provided. There's a chance he had a political motivation -perhaps seeing the benefit of uniting the empire with a common belief system. Even if true,this doesn't have any implication on the correctness, or incorrectness, of the doctrine. One could still assume the Holy Spirit motivated Constantine to do this, regardless of the superficial motives he had on the forefront of his mind.

3. Also, how do you deal with the fact that the first christian emperor, Constantine happened to be part of a pagan cult called "Sol Invictus".

Irrelevant. Regardless of Constantine's personal reasons for calling the Council, he did not manufacture or dictate doctrine.

4. On a more personal note, had the Councils vote ended differently, say, they decided that the trinity was unbiblical, would it have changed any of your beliefs? If not... why?

As I said previously, Catholics have faith that the Holy Spirit provides guidance to the Church - so an alternative outcome could not have occurred unless God himself were different than they know him to be.

Sola Scriptura Protestants who accept the Nicaean formulation of the Trinity would probably just say that their faith is not dependent on the vote of a council: actual history says the council got it right; hypothetically, a different vote by the council would simply mean the council got it wrong - but it wouldn't change the truth, and it wouldn't change what they believe (my impression is that they do not believe that that their beliefs are merely dictated; they believe they hold the truth in their hearts).

[yourfriendrick]

1. How do you percieve this event : that a mere vote by 300 men, none of who were prophets or apostles, under the command of a pagan emperor settled on crucial issues basis a mere vote. How confident are you that these people voted right... and why?

2. Does it ever bother you that Constantine was not yet baptized when he, at the Council of Nicea, "settled" matters on theological issues? (And was also part of a pagan cult called Sol Invictus.)

3. Also, how do you deal with the fact that the first christian emperor, Constantine happened to be part of a pagan cult called "Sol Invictus".

4. On a more personal note, had the Councils vote ended differently, say, they decided that the trinity was unbiblical, would it have changed any of your beliefs? If not... why?

1. The vote was dealing with matters of spoken doctrine, as opposed to mystical experience. Certainly it would have been nice if they had all had Pentecostal fires on their heads, but that's not how it shook out.
2. Constantine was not perfect. He didn't have to be. The church doesn't regard him as speaking with absolute perfection, just as someone who did a good-enough job.
3. The Sol Invictus cult was not perfect; neither was Judaism. However, there is no reason to be prejudiced against the Sol Invictus guys just because they weren't Jews. St. Paul himself quoted pagan hymns to Zeus in Acts 17:28. And for that matter, ancient Judaism was clearly influenced by ancient paganism, so pagan elements aren't poison; they just require guidance from the Holy Spirit.
4. At the end of his life, Thomas Aquinas was found burning various documents. His distressed colleagues couldn't understand his actions. Aquinas told them that compared to infused contemplation, all of his writings deserved to be burnt with dust and straw.

Likewise, if the doctrine of the Trinity, and all the other theological books turn out to be imperfect - they are speakable. They are not mystical experiences. They are not infused contemplations or direct actions of the Holy Spirit. Any mistakes involved are mistakes of human intellect - so, it's best to avoid mistakes if possible, but when it's not possible, I don't stress out.

[KennethM]

4. On a more personal note, had the Councils vote ended differently, say, they decided that the trinity was unbiblical, would it have changed any of your beliefs? If not... why?

This is almost impossible to answer because the trinity is biblical. It is like asking, “If all the great mathematicians in the world said that two plus two equals five, what would that mean?� How can we answer this? Two plus two equals four. Anyone who says differently could never become a great mathematician in the first place.

This isn't necessarily true. The trinity isn't biblical, at least not in any real sense. The only place in the NT which explicitly describes the trinity is an addendum to 1 John 5:7-8. It doesn't appear in the oldest MSS or in the Codex Sinaiticus. Even today the RSV, ESV and NIV all omit the offending passage or relegate it to a footnote. Since the Codex Sinaiticus postdates the Council that means that this particular addition to the first epistle of John was not universally known/accepted, the Council very well could have ruled differently on the nature of trinitarian theology.

[Cathar1950]

4. On a more personal note, had the Councils vote ended differently, say, they decided that the trinity was unbiblical, would it have changed any of your beliefs? If not... why?

This is almost impossible to answer because the trinity is biblical. It is like asking, “If all the great mathematicians in the world said that two plus two equals five, what would that mean?� How can we answer this? Two plus two equals four. Anyone who says differently could never become a great mathematician in the first place.

This isn't necessarily true. The trinity isn't biblical, at least not in any real sense. The only place in the NT which explicitly describes the trinity is an addendum to 1 John 5:7-8. It doesn't appear in the oldest MSS or in the Codex Sinaiticus. Even today the RSV, ESV and NIV all omit the offending passage or relegate it to a footnote. Since the Codex Sinaiticus postdates the Council that means that this particular addition to the first epistle of John was not universally known/accepted, the Council very well could have ruled differently on the nature of trinitarian theology.

The Trinity is more accidental then Biblical.
There is no Trinity in the Bible as it had not been formulated and had someone said more or less it would be different.
There is a Trinity such as Abraham, Issac and Jacob, Abraham is the Father, Issac the sacrifice and Jacob or Israel the activity of God or the offspring of the exalted father.

[Shermana]

Perfectly stated, the Trinity is more accidental than Biblical.

The only Biblical arguments they have are out of context (Generally John 10:30 is quoted most often, but they generally refuse to address 10:34, 36, and 39 or 17:21 in response) or flat out inventions like 1 John 5:7 and John 20:28 (John originally ended around 20:10 and appears to have a series of 'epilogues" added on).

"The Father is greater than I"

And then they'll say Jesus said "I am" when the Name is actually "I shall be as I shall be"

Trinitarianism is one of the grandest hoaxes of all time, an attempt to deify the Jewish Moshiach for political purposes.

The original Trinitarians like Tertullian were DUALISTS. The idea of a Trinity is a much later idea.

[Shermana]

"that a mere vote by 300 men, "

I've mentioned this in another topic. The council was rather selective. 300 Trins, 2 Arian. However ,there were MANY Arians in the Empire, including the ArchBishop of Constantinople.

Of the 2000 Bishops in the empire, probably half or more were Arian. But to make sure the Boat didn't get rocked in a way Rome didn't want, they rigged the vote to only include 2 token Arians.

Many Trinitarians use this vote to think there were few if any Arians in the Empire and the grand majority were Trin. This is exactly what the Romans were trying to do by rigging the vote 300 to 2 as if that was anywhere close to the demographic.

Once again, the ARCHBISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE was Arian. And he was quite problematic politically as well..........

[Cathar1950]

"that a mere vote by 300 men, "

I've mentioned this in another topic. The council was rather selective. 300 Trins, 2 Arian. However ,there were MANY Arians in the Empire, including the ArchBishop of Constantinople.

Of the 2000 Bishops in the empire, probably half or more were Arian. But to make sure the Boat didn't get rocked in a way Rome didn't want, they rigged the vote to only include 2 token Arians.

Many Trinitarians use this vote to think there were few if any Arians in the Empire and the grand majority were Trin. This is exactly what the Romans were trying to do by rigging the vote 300 to 2 as if that was anywhere close to the demographic.

Once again, the ARCHBISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE was Arian. And he was quite problematic politically as well..........

Odd how so many voices were not represented.
They soon learned after the council not to say to much about what you believed and more about what was wrong with others. Later when the Arians gained the upper hand has they eradicated the others as was done to them the orthodox might all be Arian. The last time the non-Arians got the power they found Arian enemies in the Barbarians hat happened to have been converted before the controversy and by default were Arians.