Posted on 04/26/2007 2:45:58 PM PDT by Sopater
You said — “I think we assume you’re aligned with someone who pays you by the word!”
If only it would be so....
P.S. — How much do they pay you to read those words?
seeing two men kiss each other would not appeal to me, as two women kissing seem to appeal to a lot of men...
Yeah, I was guessing that this might be the case for a lot of women. It’s really a strange dichotomy. I don’t know what to think about it — other than, perhaps, most men are perverted... LOL
Ahhhh..., one additional thing. I think I just came up with a theory for that.
It could be what the “end result” means to men, versus what the “end result” means to women. Now, to a woman, seeing two men kissing means (for the most part) that those kinds of men are “off limits” to women, and therefore “nothing to be desired”.
However, it could be that many men are looking at it differently (for the opposite sex). You see..., the two women kissing (to them) probably means a higher likelihood of sex with them — at least subliminally (since if they’re already acting that way, it looks like those women are “candidates” for “some action”...). Thus, for the men, those women represent a “higher potential” for sex.
Summing it up, for the women (looking at the men), it represent nothing for them, no attraction. For the men, it represents that these women have a higher potential for sex.
Like I said — just a theory, which might explain the dichotomy.
For whatever it’s worth...
P.S. — I don’t *even* know how I got down this track... LOL
Does your Bible include the Apocrypha? Or is there a particular version of the Bible that is actually the complete definition of the Bible?
So can I safely assume that you believe that Catholics who believe in their complete Bible are Christians? And everyone else are just pretenders?
You said — “So can I safely assume that you believe that Catholics who believe in their complete Bible are Christians? And everyone else are just pretenders?”
—
Actually, if you want to know what the Bible says about being a Christian, one brief explanation is given here —
Romans 10:9-10
9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
This is just one reference, as there are other references that help fill out the picture. It’s just an easy one to refer to and one that came to mind. If one wanted to do a study on what salvation is and represents in Christianity, I’m sure they could, but this verse just gets down to the basic point, without a long study or explanation.
.
As far as one particular denomination representing Christianity — denominations don’t provide Salvation — only Jesus does. Christianity came from the Bible (not denominations) and the Bible is the source for our knowledge of God and Jesus. The Bible is what tells us about salvation and what it entails.
And since there are many “denominations” which say the *exact same thing* about salvation as the Bible does, there’s not a problem with a lot of them. As long as a denomination points to the Jesus of the Bible and presents Jesus as the Bible does, they are doing fine in regards to salvation.
It’s not the denomination which has the power to offer “salvation” — but only Jesus, as the Messiah of Israel (that same Jesus that I described up above, in prior posts — and not the Jesus of Islam, for example or the Jesus of some “cult religions” — it’s only the Jesus of the Bible that Christians are referring to).
So, just remember, it’s not the denominations that “saves” (no Christian church does that). It’s *only* God who saves through Jesus Christ (that’s the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, through Jesus, the Messiah of Israel, as described specifically in the Bible). It matters *not* what denomination that you go to — as long as one is saved by the Jesus of the Bible. The *key* is the *real Jesus* (and not the “fake Jesus” of cults or of aberrant religions).
.
Finally, you said — “So can I safely assume that you believe that Catholics who believe in their complete Bible are Christians? And everyone else are just pretenders?”
Well, the first thing to say about that is that one must be absolutely clear on the fact that it’s not a ‘church” (or denomination) that “saves” (i.e., “offers salvation”). It is *only* the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who does that, through His Son, Jesus, the Messiah of Israel, who does that (the Jesus as described fully in the Bible and not a “fake Jesus” of cults or Islam).
So, the question is misleading right off the bat. It would give the impression that it’s a “church” that saves, and that’s totally false.
But, having settled that issue of “who saves” and “who offers salvation” we can talk about what the Bible is and what books it consists of.
If one wants to know what the “canon” of Scripture for Christianity is (and was), including the Catholic Church, one just needs to look back in history to see what the Christians of the beginning centuries agreed were the books of the Word of God. In other words, what books did they see, that they recognized the “hand of God” in these writings, through the authors that God picked?
And we see that these were the 66 books of the Bible (Genesis through Revelation) written by the 44 authors that God had picked. The Christians for over a 1,000 years -all- fully recognized these particular books. No one varied, until 1,200 years later. That was the Council of Trent, 4th Session, April 8, 1546, “Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures”.
It was there that a pronouncement was made. And it appears that this was a political move to counteract the Catholic monk, Martin Luther, who is recognized as having sparked the Reformation, which brings many of our present-day Protestant churches. It was found that Martin Luther had some very good arguments and some extra books were “brought in” to counteract some of his arguments. Thus, some books were added, at that time [1546], over 1,500 years after Jesus and His Apostles were on this earth — and long after all Christians had been settled on the issue.
So, there is some *serious* doubt about those books being “in the canon” of Scripture, and legitimately so. Otherwise, they are useful books to read.
BUT — the “saving grace”, in terms of Salvation — is — that it is not found in the Apocrypha (those extra books added 1,500 years after Jesus). Thank goodness for that. It’s found in the 66 books of the Bible that Christians had agreed to for 1,200 years and that most agree to today.
And since Salvation, in Christianity, is not based on a denomination (or a “church”) — but rather on Jesus Christ (of the Bible, as described in the Bible and not as described by cults or Islam) — one need not be concerned with what denomination they are in — as long as they preach the salvation of Jesus, from what the Bible says..
In terms of *salvation* — one only needs to be concerned about what the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob provides through His eternal, self-sufficient and uncaused Son — Jesus, the Messiah of Israel.
Denominations are of *absolutely no issue* when it comes to Salvation from the Jesus of the Bible.
So you don't have any problem with Jehovahs Witnesses, Mennonites, Mormons, Baptists, Greek Orthodox, Church of England, or any of them being called Christians?
You said — “So you don’t have any problem with Jehovahs Witnesses, Mennonites, Mormons, Baptists, Greek Orthodox, Church of England, or any of them being called Christians?”
—
Note that the issue of being saved is not membership or attendance in a church or denomination. That’s what we are talking about. And you’ll note that it’s knowing the true Christ as we find described in the Bible.
The reason why I say that is simply because Jesus Himself said there would be many who would come saying that he was Christ or another one was. Like, for example — Islam says, in that they respect Jesus, too — but not for who Jesus is, according to what God’s word says. Islam respects Jesus as simply a man, who did not even die on the cross. They said he did not die, but will return on the last day (and help get rid of all the Jews, too, in the process). Well, you might use the “name” Jesus — but you’re not describing the Jesus that the Bible says He is. You might as well be describing anyone else in history. That’s not Jesus. The Bible even says that if one does not accept the fact that Jesus did die and was raised from the dead, that a Christian’s faith is in vain (basically because that would mean there is no forgiveness for sins and we all are “yet” still in our sins and condemned by God).
And likewise, the Jews recognize Jesus but say he was not the Messiah of Israel, that he was not the Son of God (i.e, Son of God, specifically meaning being of the divine nature, having been always existent, there never having been a time when He did not exist, and so, the eternally, self-existent, uncaused being, an inseparable part of the eternal (i.e, before the time the universe and beings and other spirit entities ever existed) Godhead, of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
So, if they say he’s not the Messiah, he’s not part of the divinity of the Godhead — then they are not describing the Jesus of the Bible. They are describing someone else. And whoever that someone else is — does “not save” anyone from their sins.
And so, in all that, as long as whatever group a person goes to — preaches the Jesus of the Bible, for salvation — *that person* — who accepts *this Jesus* as His personal savior, is a Christian on the basis of what the Bible says. They are *not* a Christian on the basis of going to a church. They are not a Christian on the basis of belonging to a church. They are not a Christian because a “church” is Christian.
Churches are not “Christian”. Churches cannot be saved. Only people can be saved. All a group does is simply “teach” and “preach” the Word of God. Now, one can look at whatever is taught and see if it is — indeed — in the Bible or not. But, the church is not “Christian” because only people can be Christian. The church can (however) be said to teach Christian doctrines or not teach Christian doctrines. If one wants to know if that is so, simply compare what they preach and teach — to the Bible. You’ll find out.
Thus — if the person, himself or herself — accepts Jesus as Savior (the One described as the Messiah of Israel, as the eternally, uncaused, self-existent being of the Godhead, having been here, prior to the creation of the universe [as one part of the eternal Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit]) — that particular Jesus — then their sins are forgiven (that Jesus having paid the penalty) and they shall have eternal life with that Jesus.
I emphasize this, because there are so many “false Jesuses” out there, of the cult groups, or the completely non-Christian groups (like Islam), that one cannot simply say “Jesus” and be done with it. It’s the *Jesus of the Bible* that we’re talking about — no other.
THEREFORE, any group, any person, any church, any denomination who preaches *that Jesus* will be telling the listener what they need to know to become saved (the Salvation which is offered by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). And *that person* (i.e., the “listener” to that message of Jesus) will then be saved, according to what the Bible clearly tells us. The “church” or “denomination” will have *absolutely nothing* to do with them being saved — nothing at all.
It matters not who gives the message, what groups gives the message or what the name of the denomination is — as long as it’s the message that the Bible tells. That’s the key thing. And it’s not the church who saves, and it’s not the “church” who “is saved” (i.e., by being called “Christian”).
Churches (i.e., the institution and the “organization”) cannot be saved. They are inanimate objects. It’s only the *people* who can be saved. And they will be saved by accepting the *true Jesus* of the Bible — and no other.
Regards,
Star Traveler
I think you forgot to mention that the Christian God, the only true God, is a triune God: Father, Son, and HolySpirit. Jesus was the son of man and also the Son of God. Jesus Christ is Who makes us Christian.
Maybe that will make things a bit clearer to him.
>One is the true Creator God, and the other is simply Satan, who masquerades and pretends to be god (ie:Allah).<
You got that right.
See my post #69.
You said — “I think you forgot to mention that the Christian God, the only true God, is a triune God: Father, Son, and HolySpirit. Jesus was the son of man and also the Son of God. Jesus Christ is Who makes us Christian.”
—
Well, it’s not necessarily that I forgot exactly, but was rather trying to keep it within the bounds of simply comparing the “contrasting elements” of that god (or God). If it is shown that there are sufficient differences (in fact quite radical differences) — then it can be shown more clearly who the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is (as you explain, up above).
The thread actually started of not to show exactly who the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob actually is — but rather — to show *how different* He is from the other. And that was the reason for limiting it somewhat.
From that point, forward, we have gone down the track of several more questions.
—
And then — “Maybe that will make things a bit clearer to him.”
As we go down the list of questions, I would hope it will become clearer. As I was the one who started the whole thing off, the initial post was to make absolutely clear that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is a completely different God (*radically so*) than the god named Allah.
And, I think the *easiest* way was to demonstrate — one particular difference — in terms that everyone can readily appreciate — the Jews. On the one hand Allah will have all the Jews in the world killed (at least by the “last day”, as they say).
On the other hand, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob says that He will preserve a remnant and He gives the land of Israel to them in perpetuity, and that He will protect them forevermore, so that they will never again be driven off the land.
Just by that *one thing* — we see that we’re talking about — *two completely different beings* — totally.
That, by itself, was sufficient to show that they are not the same God or gods at all. But, the list of differences actually goes on and on. However, no need to go into all the other details about how different they are, when you have *such a stark contrast* with the Jews.
And thanks for giving the clear answer on who the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is...
You don’t have to explain yourself to me, ST. I know why and what you’ve posted. I just wanted to bring my Lord into it a bit. :o)
If the guy doesn’t get it yet, he never will.
Thanks...
It is also very enlightening that you describe a Christ that is different than the Christ described in the scriptures.
Thus — if the person, himself or herself — accepts Jesus as Savior (the One described as the Messiah of Israel, as the eternally, uncaused, self-existent being of the Godhead, having been here, prior to the creation of the universe [as one part of the eternal Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit]) — that particular Jesus —
There are no scriptures describing Christ as the Eternally, uncaused, self-existent being, prior to the creation of the Universe. The Jesus you are describing is not the "*Jesus of the Bible*".
Where is this triune God mentioned in the Old Testament? For that matter, where is this Triune God specifically described in the New Testament?
Do you believe that Christ was praying to himself all the time?
No, He was praying for YOU to the Father, LeGrande. He gave His life for YOUR sins so that you can have everlasting life. All you have to do is confess your sins, change your ways and accept Jesus into your heart as your Redeemer. God loves you so much that He gave His Son for you, LeGrande.
He was praying to someone else on my behalf, is that is what you are saying? You are making my point.
God loves you so much that He gave His Son for you, LeGrande.
Do you even think about what you are writing before you write it? You have completely disproven your triune God thing. Thank you.
Yes, Jesus was also praying for me, LeGrande. But Jesus prayed ONLY to God, the Father. He was praying to Him for ALL of us. He offers all of us His wondrous salvation. We can take it or leave it. It is up to each one of us to choose, LeGrande.
And to take it one step further, when we fall on our knees, repent our evil ways and vow to change them; when we accept Christ Jesus, He imparts us with the Holy Spirit, and we become a brand new person. With a brand new future. Praise God!
You said — “Now I think I understand ^_^ You don’t believe in the God of the Old Testament. All you believe in is the God of the New Testament. That is why you think your God is different than the God of the Jews or the Muslims.”
The examples of how the different views and descriptions of “God” are radically different were described up above in Posts #39, #45, #46, #55.
It was at Post #55 that you see the answer to your question of which church is right. And that is where it was pointed out the *radical differences* of who Jesus is — between the three major religions of Judaism, Islam and Christianity. Those different descriptions of Jesus were compared from Islam, to Judaism to Christianity.
And in Post #66, we see what the “Scriptures” are — being those 66 books of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, written under the Guidance of God, through 40 authors over a period of thousands of years, comprising that integrated book, called the Bible. This is the Bible that God says to not add to or take away from.
And since we’re talking about these Scriptures, it’s obvious that we’re not discussing Islam, because they use different foundational books. And we’re not discussing Judaism, because not only do they not use the New Testament in their teachings, they do not accept Jesus as “the Christ” — that is, the Messiah of Israel.
So, we’re not talking about Islam, we’re not talking about Judaism, and being that it’s Jesus Christ who we’re referring to, that means we’re talking about Christianity.
And, very obviously, we’re also not talking about any cult religions, who might use “other” books (other than the Bible) to justify any *aberrant* doctrines they may have. And the word “cult” is not a “word” that describes some oppressive and “whacked-out group”, necessarily — but rather — is used in the “Christian sense” in that it’s any group who does not describe the true Jesus or does not follow the method of Salvation, as described “in the Scriptures” (i.e., the Bible). The people may be very normal people (who subscribe to the “cult doctrines”) and that’s very well and good — but they simply do not subscribe to the Bible’s method of Salvation as being from Jesus alone, plus other abberant descriptions of Jesus and of God. IN SHORT — they are not Christian doctrines they teach and preach. And that’s the key — “not Christian teachings” from the Bible — and not, on the other hand — that they are some Jim Jones group (that’s not the point of this).
An example of two, which I pick simply because they are two of the biggest non-Christian cults in America — are the Jehovah Witnesses and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (i.e., Mormonism). And so, as long as we understand that we’re talking about “cult” in the Christian sense, then no one will get confused and think we’re talking about Jim Jones and koolaide. The “we” is simply referring to historic Christianity, as taught from the beginning centuries after Jesus was here on earth.
And, we’re simply referring to Christianity as taught from the Scriptures and from *no other sources* — meaning no other “canon” of Scriptures (i.e., something that is purported as coming from God, is the word of God, or coming from a “prophet of God”) — outside of the Scriptures, which are given by God — those 66 books of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation.
Thus, we will not be using (for example) the Book of Mormon or the Pearl of Great Price as any *authoritative source from God* or from some “so-called” Prophet of God, outside of those that the Bible describes. Nor will we be using the Watchtower materials in order to prove or disprove who the true Jesus is. I use those examples, because as I said up above, these are examples of the two largest (non-Christian) cults in America.
If we listen to anyone’s teachings (or writings), we will be gauging those teachings or writings by comparing it to what the Bible says, as it’s the Bible that is our authoritative source (at least for Christians — since we’ve already established that other groups use *different* authoritative sources). Christians only use the Bible for their authoritative source. Christians may listen to “teachings” from others, but these teachings will always be compared to the Bible to see if they are legitimate.
.
You then said — “It is also very enlightening that you describe a Christ that is different than the Christ described in the scriptures.”
The best place to start for understanding who this Jesus of the Bible is — is to start from what Christians of the early centuries, being the closest to the actual time of Christ and having the benefit of being a mere few generations away from the people who actually saw Jesus alive, directly themselves. We’re separated from that time by a couple of thousand years, although we do have the Bible to always refer to.
Here is what a large group of Christians established, that they understood that the Bible taught about Jesus. That group met at the Council of Nicea, in 325 A.D., describing a “doctrine” of the Christians of that time — which Christians for *all time* to the present, have accepted as 100% true, and taught from the Bible. In fact, it’s considered *so foundational* to the Christians of the world — that *this* is “one point” on which most *all cults* differ. This is one description, from which one can spot just about *all cults* (who are non-Christian) in the world. And that’s specifically the reason why the earily Christians of that time identified it so quickly. They were getting “their cults” popping up like weeds, too (as we are today in our society). It is called the doctrine of the Trinity and it explains Jesus’ position in the Trinity.
I’ll give a description of what they were talking about, by referencing another person’s work on the subject —
The doctrine of the Trinity is central to the uniqueness of Christianity. It holds that the Bible teaches that “God eternally exists as three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and each person is fully God, and there is one God.”{1} So central is this belief that it is woven into the words Jesus gave the church in His Great Commission, telling believers to “ . . . go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit . . .” (Matthew 28:19).
It is not surprising, then, that the doctrine of the Trinity is one of the most denigrated and attacked beliefs by those outside the Christian faith. Both Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses reject this central tenet and expend considerable energy teaching against it. Much of the instruction of the Jehovah’s Witness movement tries to convince others that Jesus Christ is a created being, not having existed in eternity past with the Father, and not fully God. Mormons have no problem with Jesus being God; in fact, they make godhood available to all who follow the teachings of the Church of Latter-day Saints. One Mormon scholar argues that there are three separate Gods—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—who are one in purpose and in some way still one God.{2} Another writes, “The concept that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God is totally incomprehensible.”{3}
Among the world religions, Islam specifically teaches against the Trinity. Chapter four of the Koran argues, “Say not ‘Trinity’: desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is One God: glory be to Him: (far Exalted is He) above having a son” (4:171). Although Muhammad seems to have wrongly believed that Christians taught that the Trinity consisted of God the Father, Mary the Mother, and Jesus the Son, they reject as sinful anything being made equivalent with Allah, especially Jesus.
http://www.probe.org/content/view/790/91/ [link to reference]
This understanding, is thus *absolutely central* to Christianity. Any departure from it — is a departure from Christianity, and a departure from the “Jesus of the Bible.”
And so, I’m including the complete article referenced above, so there is no misunderstanding on the *fundamental* nature of this to Christianity and to who the “Jesus of the Bible” is.
Understand this doctrine of the Christians from the time of Jesus to the present day, and you will understand what Christianity is. If anyone rejects the doctrine and teaching of Christians from the early time of Christians in Jerusalem to the present-day Christians — then that person rejects Christianity, itself and the Jesus of the Bible.
A summary of the result of the Council of Nicea is seen below —
The Nicene Creed, in its entirety, affirmed belief “. . . 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, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost.” {9}
The council acknowledged that Christ was God of very God. Although the Father and Son differed in role, they, and the Holy Spirit are truly God. More specifically, Christ is of one substance with the Father. The Greek word homoousios was used to describe this sameness. The term was controversial because it is not used in the Bible. Some preferred a different word that conveyed similarity rather than sameness. But Athanasius and the near unanimous majority of bishops felt that this might eventually result in a lowering of Christ’s oneness with the Father. They also argued that Christ was begotten, not made. He is not a created thing in the same class as the rest of the cosmos. They concluded by positing that Christ became human for mankind and its salvation. The council was unanimous in its condemnation of Arius and his teachings. It also removed two Libyan bishops who refused to accept the creed formulated by the Council.
[It’s the same referenced link as above]
And see an example of this in the Scriptures, in the book of John. Here, the Apostle of Jesus Christ (one of the 12 Apostles), describes Jesus, as “the Word”. Now, when he refers to “John” (in these verses), he’s referring to “John the Baptist” who baptized Jesus, at which time God the Father (in Heaven) confirmed that Jesus was the Son of God. So, the Apostle John is talking about “John the Baptist” in confirming Jesus as the Son of God and as the Messiah of Israel and as truly God of God, as in one substance and being with the Father in Heaven, not being created, but existing prior to anything that was made or created (verse 3, saying “All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made”)...
—
John 1:1-18
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend F1 it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’ “
16 And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace.
17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
—
And there you have it...
Regards,
Star Traveler
The referenced information regarding the fundamental doctrine of Christianity, in regards to Jesus — the Trinity...
The Council of Nicea
Written by Don Closson
Introduction
The doctrine of the Trinity is central to the uniqueness of Christianity. It holds that the Bible teaches that “God eternally exists as three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and each person is fully God, and there is one God.”{1} So central is this belief that it is woven into the words Jesus gave the church in His Great Commission, telling believers to “ . . . go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit . . .” (Matthew 28:19).
It is not surprising, then, that the doctrine of the Trinity is one of the most denigrated and attacked beliefs by those outside the Christian faith. Both Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses reject this central tenet and expend considerable energy teaching against it. Much of the instruction of the Jehovah’s Witness movement tries to convince others that Jesus Christ is a created being, not having existed in eternity past with the Father, and not fully God. Mormons have no problem with Jesus being God; in fact, they make godhood available to all who follow the teachings of the Church of Latter-day Saints. One Mormon scholar argues that there are three separate Gods—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—who are one in purpose and in some way still one God.{2} Another writes, “The concept that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God is totally incomprehensible.”{3}
Among the world religions, Islam specifically teaches against the Trinity. Chapter four of the Koran argues, “Say not ‘Trinity’: desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is One God: glory be to Him: (far Exalted is He) above having a son” (4:171). Although Muhammad seems to have wrongly believed that Christians taught that the Trinity consisted of God the Father, Mary the Mother, and Jesus the Son, they reject as sinful anything being made equivalent with Allah, especially Jesus.
A common criticism by those who reject the doctrine of the Trinity is that the doctrine was not part of the early church, nor a conscious teaching of Jesus Himself, but was imposed on the church by the Emperor Constantine in the early fourth century at the Council of Nicea. Mormons argue that components of Constantine’s pagan thought and Greek philosophy were forced on the bishops who assembled in Nicea (located in present day Turkey). Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the Emperor weighed in against their view, which was the position argued by Arius at the council, and, again, forced the church to follow.
In the remaining portions of this article, we will discuss the impact the three key individuals—Arius, Constantine, and Athanasius—had on the Council of Nicea. We will also respond to the charge that the doctrine of the Trinity was the result of political pressure rather than of thoughtful deliberation on Scripture by a group of committed Christian leaders.
Arius
Let’s look first at the instigator of the conflict that resulted in the council, a man named Arius.
Arius was a popular preacher and presbyter from Libya who was given pastoral duties at Baucalis, in Alexandria, Egypt. The controversy began as a disagreement between Arius and his bishop, Alexander, in 318 A.D. Their differences centered on how to express the Christian understanding of God using current philosophical language. This issue had become important because of various heretical views of Jesus that had crept into the church in the late second and early third centuries. The use of philosophical language to describe theological realities has been common throughout the church age in an attempt to precisely describe what had been revealed in Scripture.
Alexander argued that Scripture presented God the Father and Jesus as having an equally eternal nature. Arius felt that Alexander’s comments supported a heretical view of God called Sabellianism which taught that the Son was merely a different mode of the Father rather than a different person. Jehovah’s Witnesses argue today that the position held by Arius was superior to that of Alexander’s.
Although some historians believe that the true nature of the original argument has been clouded by time and bias, the dispute became so divisive that it caught the attention of Emperor Constantine. Constantine brought the leaders of the church together for the first ecumenical council in an attempt to end the controversy.
It should be said that both sides of this debate held to a high view of Jesus and both used the Bible as their authority on the issue. Some have even argued that the controversy would never have caused such dissension were it not inflamed by political infighting within the church and different understandings of terms used in the debate.
Arius was charged with holding the view that Jesus was not just subordinate to the Father in function, but that He was of an inferior substance in a metaphysical sense as well. This went too far for Athanasius and others who were fearful that any language that degraded the full deity of Christ might place in question His role as savior and Lord.
Some believe that the position of Arius was less radical than is often perceived today. Stuart Hall writes, “Arius felt that the only way to secure the deity of Christ was to set him on the step immediately below the Father, who remained beyond all comprehension.”{4} He adds that whatever the differences were between the two sides, “Both parties understood the face of God as graciously revealed in Jesus Christ.”{5}
Emperor Constantine
Many who oppose the doctrine of the Trinity insist that the emperor, Constantine, imposed it on the early church in 325 A.D. Because of his important role in assembling church leaders at Nicea, it might be helpful to take a closer look at Constantine and his relationship with the church.
Constantine rose to supreme power in the Roman Empire in 306 A.D. through alliance-making and assassination when necessary. It was under Constantine’s Edict of Milan in 313 A.D. that persecution of the church ended and confiscated church properties were returned.
However, the nature of Constantine’s relationship to the Christian faith is a complex one. He believed that God should be appeased with correct worship, and he encouraged the idea among Christians that he “served their God.”{6} It seems that Constantine’s involvement with the church centered on his hope that it could become a source of unity for the troubled empire. He was not so much interested in the finer details of doctrine as in ending the strife that was caused by religious disagreements. He wrote in a letter, “My design then was, first, to bring the diverse judgments found by all nations respecting the Deity to a condition, as it were, of settled uniformity; and, second to restore a healthy tone to the system of the world . . .”{7} This resulted in him supporting various sides of theological issues depending on which side might help peace to prevail. Constantine was eventually baptized shortly before his death, but his commitment to the Christian faith is a matter of debate.
Constantine participated in and enhanced a recently established tradition of Roman emperors meddling in church affairs. In the early church, persecution was the general policy. In 272, Aurelian removed Paul of Samosata from his church in Antioch because of a theological controversy. Before the conflict over Arius, Constantine had called a small church synod to resolve the conflict caused by the Donatists who argued for the removal of priests who gave up sacred writings during times of persecution. The Donatists were rebuked by the church synod. Constantine spent five years trying to suppress their movement by force, but eventually gave up in frustration.
Then, the Arian controversy over the nature of Jesus was brought to his attention. It would be a complex debate because both sides held Jesus in high regard and both sides appealed to Scripture to defend their position. To settle the issue, Constantine called the council at Nicea in 325 A.D. with church leaders mainly from the East participating. Consistent with his desire for unity, in years to come Constantine would vacillate from supporting one theological side to the other if he thought it might end the debate.
What is clear is that Constantine’s active role in attempting to resolve church disputes would be the beginning of a new relationship between the empire and the church.
Athanasius
The Council of Nicea convened on May 20, 325 A.D. The 230 church leaders were there to consider a question vital to the church: Was Jesus Christ equal to God the Father or was he something else? Athanasius, only in his twenties, came to the council to fight for the idea that, “If Christ were not truly God, then he could not bestow life upon the repentant and free them from sin and death.”{8} He led those who opposed the teachings of Arius who argued that Jesus was not of the same substance as the Father.
The Nicene Creed, in its entirety, affirmed belief “. . . 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, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost.” {9}
The council acknowledged that Christ was God of very God. Although the Father and Son differed in role, they, and the Holy Spirit are truly God. More specifically, Christ is of one substance with the Father. The Greek word homoousios was used to describe this sameness. The term was controversial because it is not used in the Bible. Some preferred a different word that conveyed similarity rather than sameness. But Athanasius and the near unanimous majority of bishops felt that this might eventually result in a lowering of Christ’s oneness with the Father. They also argued that Christ was begotten, not made. He is not a created thing in the same class as the rest of the cosmos. They concluded by positing that Christ became human for mankind and its salvation. The council was unanimous in its condemnation of Arius and his teachings. It also removed two Libyan bishops who refused to accept the creed formulated by the Council.
The growing entanglement of the Roman emperors with the church during the fourth century was often less than beneficial. But rather than Athanasius and his supporters seeking the backing of imperial power, it was the Arians who actually were in favor of the Emperor having the last word.
Summary
Did Constantine impose the doctrine of the Trinity on the church? Let’s respond to a few of the arguments used in support of that belief.
First, the doctrine of the Trinity was a widely held belief prior to the Council of Nicea. Since baptism is a universal act of obedience for new believers, it is significant that Jesus uses Trinitarian language in Matthew 28:19 when He gives the Great Commission to make disciples and baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Didache, an early manual of church life, also included the Trinitarian language for baptism. It was written in either the late first or early second century after Christ. We find Trinitarian language again being used by Hippolytus around 200 A.D. in a formula used to question those about to be baptized. New believers were to asked to affirm belief in God the Father, Christ Jesus the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit.
Second, the Roman government didn’t consistently support Trinitarian theology or its ardent apologist, Athanasius. Constantine flip-flopped in his support for Athanasius because he was more concerned about keeping the peace than in theology itself. He exiled Athanasius in 335 and was about to reinstate Arius just prior to his death. During the forty-five years that Athanasius was Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt, he was banished into exile five times by various Roman Emperors.
In fact, later emperors forced an Arian view on the church in a much more direct way than Constantine supported the Trinitarian view. Emperors Constantius II and Julian banished Athanasius and imposed Arianism on the empire. The emperor Constantius is reported to have said, “Let whatsoever I will, be that esteemed a canon,” equating his words with the authority of the church councils.{10} Arians in general “tended to favor direct imperial control of the church.”{11}
Finally, the bishops who attended the Council of Nicea were far too independent and toughened by persecution and martyrdom to give in so easily to a doctrine they didn’t agree with. As we have already mentioned, many of these bishops were banished by emperors supporting the Arian view and yet held on to their convictions. Also, the Council at Constantinople in 381 reaffirmed the Trinitarian position after Constantine died. If the church had temporarily succumbed to Constantine’s influence, it could have rejected the doctrine at this later council.
Possessing the freedom to call an ecumenical council after the Edict of Milan in 313, significant numbers of bishops and church leaders met to consider the different views about the person of Christ and the nature of God. The result was the doctrine of the Trinity that Christians have held and taught for over sixteen centuries.
Notes
1. Grudem, Wayne, Bible Doctrine (Zondervan, 1999), p. 104.
2. Blomberg, Craig L., & Robinson, Stephen E., How Wide the Divide, (InterVarsity Press, 1997), p. 128.
3. Bruce McConkie in Mormonism 101 by Bill McKeever & Eric Johnson (Baker Books, 2000), p. 52.
4. Hall, Stuart G., Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church, (Eerdmans, 1991), p. 135.
5. Ibid.
6. Hall, Stuart G., Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church, p. 118.
7. Noll, Mark, Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity, (InterVarsity Press, 1997), p. 51.
8. Ibid., 55.
9. Ibid., 57.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid., 60.
©2003 Probe Ministries.
http://www.probe.org/content/view/790/91/
Regards,
Star Traveler
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.