Replies

One has to look at the Synod, or Council of Nicaea as a court. They took up Arius’ case and ruled against him. Their judicial opinion took the form of the Credal statement. You do not recognize their authority, of course, and want the Bible to decide the matter. But of course that makes you the Court.

As to the battle royal that followed: Arius may or may not have been assassinated, but Constantius was a member of his party, and so those who held with Athanasius were out of favor. Efforts to reverse Nicaea came to nought. Julian, raised amidst the contentions of a royal court not unlike that Of that moral monster Henry VIII, wanted nothing to do with either side. He hoped to restore the ancient Roman polity, but hardly got the chance. The matter was not decided in favor of Nicaea until 380 and enforced by Theodosius, the first “Catholic” emperor.

As to Unitarianism, my point is that it is an elitist religion. Which is why the German kings who took over in the West were unable to impose it on the people. Likewise the liberal protestantism of Washington, Adams etc. Protestant evangelical became the relgious of the people by 1860. Read Ray Billington’s “the Protestant Crusade.” Of course, the progressives and their social Gospel have in the hands of the elites, changed all that, and in the last part of the 20th Century adopted secularism as their creed.

RobbyS: "One has to look at the Synod, or Council of Nicaea as a court.
They took up Arius’ case and ruled against him.
Their judicial opinion took the form of the Credal statement.
You do not recognize their authority, of course, and want the Bible to decide the matter.
But of course that makes you the Court."

They were Emperor Constantine's Court, and I would recognize their authority to the same degree that I recognize Constantine as my emperor: not so much.

Nor am I the "Court" here, since my opinion is that both sides make reasonable arguments, all of which are only remotely related to what the Bible actually says, and are therefore irrelevant to the Bible's message.
So I make no judgment because no judgment is required in this case.

RobbyS: "The matter was not decided in favor of Nicaea until 380 and enforced by Theodosius, the first “Catholic” emperor."

All of which demonstrates that these issues were far more political than anything concerned with Jesus, his followers and New Testament authors.
So they should be of no concern to us.

RobbyS: "As to Unitarianism, my point is that it is an elitist religion.
Which is why the German kings who took over in the West were unable to impose it on the people.
Likewise the liberal protestantism of Washington, Adams etc.
Protestant evangelical became the relgious of the people by 1860."

So let's see if I understand you correctly: the homoousian creed of Roman Emperor Constantine are not "elitist", but any Unitarian ideas of our Founding Fathers were "elitist"?

So why do you call yourself a conservative?
Do you confuse American conservatives with European statists who go by the label "conservative"?