What is a Church?

Where the Word of God is preached and believed, where two or three meet in the name of Christ, there is the Church. Whatever else may be said about the Church, this is fundamental.

This statement has never-not even at the present day-been understood in all its revolutionary power. The meeting of two or three must be recognized to be the Church in however imperfect a form. When a father gathers his household round him to expound the Gospel to them in his humble simple way, or where a layman, out of a full heart, proclaims the word of God to a group of young people, there is the Church.

Whoever departs from this rule, whoever thinks that something else has to be added to make this a real Church, has misunderstood the meaning of the very heart of the evangelical Faith.

[The Divine Imperative, Emil Brünner (The Westminster Press, Philadelphia), 1937, page 529

The Division caused by the council of Nicea

      There were many heretical implications and doctrinal changes rooted from the Nicean Council. These implications have caused division among the church body and become the major forefront leading to what we now call Denominations.   The history

When the Roman emperor Constantine saw the great religious division among the different geographical divisions of his empire he became concerned that this might effect the stable condition of the current rule that Rome had on these areas. So out of concern for the Roman empire he put into motion what is historically called the Council of Nicea. Lets get one thing clear. He was not concerned at getting to the truth according to the original manuscripts or what the original twelve Apostles had preached from the beginning. On the contrary, Rome led the way in persecuting these One God, baptized in Jesus name, Holy Ghost filled Christians.

Many of these Christians were fed to the lions, torn apart by the limbs using animals as pulling devices, and burned at the stake. This was done not only for persecution, but as entertainment to the Roman citizens and to show the stand the leadership of the Roman Empire took against these Christians.

But what the Roman Empire didn’t count on was the wildfire like growth this persecution seemed to be causing in the Christian Church. It seemed the more the Christians were persecuted, the more the body of the Christian Church grew. And Rome could do nothing to stop this growth. So, Rome continued to carry on with its persecution of the Christians in hopes of wiping them out. The years passed and the Christian body still grew in number. Then the separation began. During this time of persecution many divisions were born in the church by false prophets as was prophesied by the Lord Jesus:

Mt:7:15: Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Mt:24:11: And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

Mt:24:24: For there shall arise false Christ’s, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

2Pt:2:1: But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

1Jn:4:1: Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

The Roman Emperor Constantine saw these divisions as threatening to the civil harmony of the Empire and he knew he had to do something to stabilize the situation and return Rome to the control it once had on its entire civilization. Constantine was not concerned with truth, he was concerned with peace and control. So, in his imperial wisdom, he implemented a meeting of the religious leaders of these divided areas which were currently under Roman law. The resulting declaration of that meeting would set into motion what is called the Trinitarian Doctrine.

In reading the historical part of this page we observe that the church leaders had great difficulty coming to an agreed declaration which could be unanimously decreed. Many declarations were submitted and turned down for lack of total agreement on the part of the religious leaders. The final declaration was settled and the religious leaders returned to their lands with a new decree to base their religious yet still divided doctrines upon.

  The truth

Now, lets get one thing straight. Decreeing the Biblical Truth was not the intent of the Roman Empire. Peace and stability was the main objective. Control was the issue that had to be settled. Constantine didn’t care that this new decree declared three separate Deities within the Godhead. He didn’t care that the leaders would go home and implement this Trinitarian decree upon their church bodies. He didn’t care about the eternal impact this would effect on the uncountable number of souls that followed this decree and newly formed doctrine. All he cared about was stability and control over the Roman governed nations.

The Trinity is a false man-made doctrine which has led many faithful followers to judgment. It is found nowhere in the original manuscripts. The doctrine the original Orthodox Church leaders implemented to the world has to date led many away from the truth of the original manuscripts concerning the Oneness of God, the proper method of Baptism, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Click on these highlighted words to learn more about each.

This site is not here to bash any denomination. Denominations (or church separations) are all derived from separation from the original Orthodox church body. The Apostolic body of the original church remained mostly silent throughout the Midlevel ages while the Orthodox churches continued with their doctrinal changes and divisions. Yet in recent times the Apostolic Faith Churches have shown a massive revival as prophesied in the Holy Scriptures concerning the last days or (the end times).

This site is here to present the truth according to the written word of God. The history of the Church is at everyone’s availability. You are observing this current page on some type of browser which has the capability of browsing church historical libraries. Make sure you are reading accurate documentation and observe who or what body has written these documentations. For instance, you may be reading about the origins of Trinitarian Doctrine from a Catholic based web site which may implement Catholic Dogma on its web site. Check into other sites that are non-biased. Make sure that what you are reading is the truth. Lets take a look at what some of these church leaders in these large denominations have already done. Its in the history books and headlines daily.

The links provided will give you scriptural backup concerning the Godhead, Baptism, the Deity of Christ, and the true sign of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Trust no man with your soul. Look it up for yourself and make sure the doctrine you are studying is of the original manuscripts written by the Apostles and the letters written to the churches by the Apostle Paul. Study the Greek and Hebrew translations. Please follow the other links on this site if you haven’t already. There is plenty of scripturally accurate documentation for you to observe. Please don’t just close out without knowing the truth. Your soul depends on it. Here is scriptural warning about ignorance.

Hosea:4:6: My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

2 Timothy:4:3: For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears.

  So it was written, so it has become. http://www.thunderministries.com/history/Nicea.html 

The Council of Nicea

“THE DECREE OF HERESY”

What exactly happened at the famous Council of Nicea, when the Roman emperor convened some 250 quarreling Christian bishops?

It was of great importance in Christian and even in world history,” wrote historian W.H.C. Frend about the first Council of Nicea. In Christian history, the doctrine of Christ’s divinity (a doctrine essential and unique to Christianity) was formally affirmed for the first time. In world history, never before had the entire church gathered to determine policy and doctrine (let alone at the bidding of the Roman emperor). The follow article, written by the late writer and biographer Robert Payne (d. 1983), is excerpted and adapted from his “The Holy Fire: The Story of the Early Centuries of the Christian Churches in the Near East” (1957). Forty years of scholarship later, one can rightfully quibble about some historical details (clarifications and some updated findings are in brackets). But no other narrative conveys as well the human dimension of this critical event.

Alexander of Alexandria had called a meeting of the presbyters [priests]. According to the historian Socrates, the aging “pope” [some early senior bishops were called "papa," that is, "father"] “with perhaps too philosophical minuteness” began to lecture on the theological mystery of the Holy Trinity. Alexander had been discussing the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost for some time when he was interrupted by one of the presbyters called Arius, a native of Libya. There is no evidence that Alexander was a profound theologian. He may have bumbled, and it is possible that Arius was justified in accusing Alexander of Sabellianism, a heresy that involved a belief in the unity of God at the expense of the reality of the Trinity. But in combating Alexander, Arius fell into a new heresy, for he announced, “If the Father begat the Son, then he who was begotten had a beginning in existence, and from this it follows there was a time when the Son was not”. Here, at some time in 319, the cry of the Arians–”There was a time when the Son was not”–was first heard. The words were to have an extraordinary influence on the shaping of the church. They were dynamite and split the church in two, and these words, which read in Greek like a line of a song, still echo down the centuries.

THE ISSUE

Alexander was appalled by the new heresy and knew that desperate measures would be necessary to combat it. Once it is admitted that “there was a time when the Son was not,” then a bewildering series of further heresies follows. High as he is, the Son is now infinitely lower than the Father. The words are like a wedge, splitting the monotheism of the church. Athanasius [Alexander's chief deacon assistant] saw the danger clearly, and he seems to have taken over from Alexander the task of refuting Arius. To the credit of Athanasius, he saw clearly that the most dangerous of existing heresies was precisely the heresy announced by Arius. It was a very simple heresy. All Arius said was that if the Father begat the Son, then the Son must have had a birth, and therefore there was a time when the Son of God did not exist. He had come into existence according to the will of the Heavenly Father, and therefore he was less than the heavenly Father, though greater than man. Christ was no more than a mediator between man and God. No, answered Alexander and Athanasius; Christ is absolute God. In our own heretical age, the dispute between Athanasius and Arius may appear to be a splitting of hairs, but it was not so at the time. The historian Gibbon was amused by the thought that Christianity almost foundered on the controversy between homoousios and homoiousios, the fate of humankind hanging on a single iota. But the difference between Christ the mediator and Christ the God is a very real one, and whether Christ is of the same substance [homo-ousios] or a like substance [homoi-ousios] to God the Father is a matter of importance to all Christians, not only theologians. Arianism brought Christ down to earth, making him at once inferior to the Father, and more popular. Following Arius, a person could believe that Christ was no more than a great, virtuous, and superbly godlike hero. Against this conception, Alexander and Athanasius rebelled, and they seem to have been perfectly aware that the heresy had the power to destroy the church as they knew it.

ROUND ONE

Alexander seems to have behaved with patience; there were long private interviews with Arius; special prayers were offered against the emerging heresy. The clergy of Alexandria were assembled to discuss the matter, and most of them signed an urgent letter to Arius, begging him to acknowledge his heresy. Arius refused. Alexander had no alternative but to summon a synod of the bishops of Egypt and Libya and depose Arius and his followers. Thereupon Alexander issued an encyclical, stating tersely that the quarrel had gone beyond his powers of healing, and the views of Arius were anathema. The heresy, which was to grow into an immense poisonous flower, was still only a bud, and not all its implications were visible at first. In his encyclical, Alexander explains some of the consequences of the heresy: “The novelties the Arians have put forward contrary to the Scriptures are these: God was not always a Father . . . the Word of God was not always . . . [for] there was a time when he was not . . . neither is he like in essence to the Father; neither is he the true and natural Word of the Father; neither is he his true wisdom. . . . And the Father cannot be described by the Son, for the Word does not know the Father perfectly and accurately. “Alexander’s letter, which shows signs of having been partly written by Athanasius, is a masterly summary of the heresy in its beginnings, but it suffered from one obvious fault. It was close-knit and logical. The people wanted something they could sing, and this Arius provided in abundance. “There was a time when the Son was not” became a catch phrase. There were many other catch phrases, hymns and songs, “to be sung at table and by sailors, millers, and travelers.” The people took up the cause of Arius, who withdrew to Palestine and later to Nicomedia, where he was protected by the bishop. Here in a corner of Asia Minor not far from Byzantium, Arius continued to taunt the pope of Alexandria, secure in the knowledge that the people were with him. Arius possessed other advantages. Eusebius, the bishop of Nicomedia, had friends at court and was particularly close to Constantia, the sister of Emperor Constantine. Already the evil that had begun in the church of Alexandria was running through all Egypt, Libya, Upper Thebes, Palestine, and Asia Minor.

THE EMPEROR STEPS IN

Inevitably it came to the ears of the emperor, who discussed with Hosius, the saintly bishop of Cordova, what should be done to put an end to the quarrels among the sects. Like James I of England, Constantine regarded unity as “the mother of order,” and he was not overmuch concerned with the theological truths at stake: he decided to send Hosius to Nicomedia and Alexandria with a letter written in his own hand, ordering by imperial rescript an end to the quarrel. The letter–one of the most astonishing letters ever written by an emperor to priests–has come down to us in a version that shows no signs of being edited. It is hot-tempered, querulous, disjointed, and commanding. It is abundantly clear that the emperor is not quite clear in his own mind what the quarrel is about. He observes that “these questions are the idle cobwebs of contention, spun by curious wits,” and he asks, “Who is capable of distinguishing such deep and hidden mysteries?” He recognizes that the contestants are well-armed with arguments, but he can make neither head nor tail of them. The heathen philosophers did better: they quietly agreed to disagree. But these new philosophers are implacable and determined enemies of his peace. Let them make profession of their ignorance of God’s ultimate purposes. It was precisely this profession that Arius and Athanasius were unable to make. Almost in despair, Constantine concludes his letter: “Seeing that our great and gracious God, the preserver of all, has given us the common light of his grace, I entreat you that my endeavors may be brought to a prosperous end, and my people be persuaded to embrace peace and concord. Suffer me to spend my days and nights in quiet, and may I have light and cheerfulness instead of tears and groans. “If Constantine had seriously hoped to put an end to the quarrel, he had acted too late. The quarrel was blazing furiously. “In every city,” wrote a historian, “bishop was contending against bishop, and the people were contending against one another, like swarms of gnats fighting in the air. “Another historian outlined the danger even more acidly: “In former times, the church was attacked by enemies and strangers from without. Today those who are natives of the same country, who dwell under one roof and sit down at table together, fight with their tongues as if with spears. “When Hosius returned from his missions in Nicomedia and Alexandria, he was a defeated man and could only report that he could see no end in sight to the blaze that had begun when an aging pope addressed his presbyters on the subject of the Holy Trinity. There had been bloodshed in the streets; Alexandria and Nicomedia were exchanging defiant taunts. Constantine decided to throw all his influence into the battle.

CALLING THE COUNCIL

He decided to call a general council, the first of that long series of church councils that ended with the Council of Trent (1545-1563). He chose as the seat of the council the small city of Nicea in Bithynia, a few miles from Nicomedia. By Constantine’s orders, 1,800 bishops were invited to attend the council. Messengers were sent to all parts of the empire with invitations. Each bishop was allowed to bring two presbyters and three slaves in his retinue; the services of the public post stations were offered free; from all corners of the empire the bishops descended upon Nicea, crowding the public roads. It was not a good time for traveling. The eastern rivers were flooded with the rains of a late spring, and though the empire, stretching from Britain to the borders of Persia, was nominally at peace, there were marauding soldiers and bandits along the roads. Fewer than 400 bishops answered the imperial summons, but their numbers were swelled by a horde of attendant presbyters, deacons, sub deacons, and laymen. Most of the ecclesiastics came from the East, for Europe and North Africa had not yet been corrupted by the schism. Six bishops and two presbyters represented the West. They were Hosius of Cordova, Caecilian of Carthage, Nicasius of Dijon, Domnus of Strido in Pannonia, Eustorgius of Milan, and Marcus of Calabria. The two Roman presbyters Victor and Vincentius represented the old and dying Sylvester, bishop of Rome. From the East came bishops who had suffered persecution. There was Paul, bishop of Mesopotamian Caesarea, with his hands scorched by flames. Paphnutius of Upper Egypt, famous for the austerity of his life, had had his right eye dug out and the sinews of his left leg were cut during the Diocletian persecution. Bishop Potammon of Heraclea, who had known Antony and lived in the deserts of the Nile, had also lost an eye. There was James, bishop of Nisibis, who wore a coat of camel’s hair, and from the island of Cyprus came Bishop Spyridion, a saintly shepherd who refused to give up tending sheep even when he was elevated to the episcopate, a man who performed miracles to the delight of the Cypriots and to their further delight thundered against virginity, saying that it was right and proper that married people should enjoy themselves in bed. Then there was John, bishop of Persia, from lands outside the empire, and from the unknown north came Theophilus the Goth, a flaxen-haired Scythian from somewhere in Russia. This motley crowd of bishops represented varying traditions of Christianity. There were sharp-featured intellectuals, men of abstruse book learning, capable of splitting hairs by the yard. There were wise old hermits who had spent the previous year clothed in rough goat hair cloaks, living on roots and leaves. There were men so saintly that it was almost expected of them that they would perform miracles during the council. There were cantankerous men, and men riddled with heresies, and men who rode to Nicea in hope of preferment from the hands of the emperor. There were men who came peacefully, intending only to observe and then report to their flock, and there were other men determined to wage war in the council chamber. Yet in the last instance, none of these bishops except Hosius of Cordova was to have any great and final effect upon the outcome of the conference.

ENTER THE EMPEROR

Although five separate accounts of the council have been handed down from eyewitnesses, and there are eight more accounts written by historians of the generation immediately following Nicea, we do not know exactly where the council took place, whether it was in a building specially erected for the purpose or whether it was in one of the imperial palaces. Tradition points to a site on the edge of the lake, a vast marble hall enclosed with columns, and perhaps open to the sunlight. In the center of the hall was a throne on which a copy of the Gospels was placed, and at the far end was another throne for the emperor, carved in wood, richly gilt and set above the level of the unpainted thrones of the bishops. In this hall, early in the morning of Ascension Sunday, while a mist was floating on the lake, the bishops awaited the arrival of the emperor. Few of the bishops had set eyes upon this emperor, who had single-handedly welded the East and West into a single empire and shown himself so devout a Christian. They waited expectantly. At last they heard the tramp of armed guards, and then some high officers of the court, themselves converted to Christianity, entered the hall to announce that the emperor was on his way. The bishops were standing. Soon an avant-courier was seen raising a torch, the signal that the emperor was about to enter, and then like children, these bishops from Syria and Cilicia, Arabia, Palestine, Egypt, Libya, Mesopotamia, Persia, Scythia, and Europe were hushed. Human majesty in the person of Constantinius Victor Augustus Maximus was about to appear before their eyes, and in the history of the world only Octavian, who had ruled the Roman Empire during the life of Christ, had ever reigned over so vast an empire. Constantine wore high-heeled scarlet buskins, a purple silk robe blazing with jewels and gold embroidery, and there were more jewels embedded in his diadem. He was then 51 but looked younger, enormously tall and vigorous, with a high color and a strange glitter in his fierce, lion-like eyes. He wore his hair long, but his beard was trimmed short. He had a thick heavy neck, and a curious way of holding his head back, so that it seemed not to be well set on the powerful shoulders, and there was about all his movements a remarkable casualness, so that when he strode, he gave the impression of someone dancing.

CONSTANTINE’S SPEECH

Having marched slowly across the whole length of the hall, Constantine sat in silence for a while, sitting between Pope Alexander of Alexandria and his closest ecclesiastical adviser, Bishop Hosius of Cordova. All eyes were fixed on him. Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea [or, more likely, Eustathius of Antioch] read a speech of welcome in metrical prose and then chanted a hymn of thanksgiving for the emperor’s victories; then once again there was silence until Constantine collected himself, and speaking in Latin, which was still the language of the court, in a voice that seemed strangely soft and gentle for a man so commanding, he bade the bishops remember that it was the power of God that had dethroned the tyrants, and worse than any battlefield was a civil war between factions of the church. “It is my desire,” he said, “that you should meet together in a general council, and so I offer to the King of All my gratitude for this mercy that has come to me above my other mercies–I mean that there has been granted to me the benefit of seeing you assembled together and to know you are resolved to be in common harmony together. “All this was flattery, for the very purpose of the convocation was to resolve a bitter conflict, and Constantine knew well enough from the petitions he had already received from the bishops that bitterness remained. He continued, “When I gained my victories over my enemies, I thought nothing remained for me but to give thanks unto God and to rejoice with those who have been delivered by me. But when I learned, contrary to all expectations, that there were divisions among you, then I solemnly considered them, and praying that these discords might also be healed with my assistance, I summoned you here without delay. I rejoice to see you here, yet I should be more pleased to see unity and affection among you. I entreat you, therefore, beloved ministers of God, to remove the causes of dissension among you and to establish peace. “There was now no mistaking the threat behind the words, and as though to make his threat more clear, the emperor summoned one of his attendants and silently produced the parchment rolls and letters containing complaints and petitions that the bishops had privately sent him. A brazier was set up. The emperor tossed the petitions into the flames. While they were still burning, he explained that all these petitions would appear again on the day of judgment, and then the great Judge of all things would pass judgment on them: for himself he was content to listen to the public deliberations of the bishops and had not even read these bitter messages sent to him.

VICIOUS DEBATES IN SONG

The conference was now open. At once the Arians and the anti-Arians were at one another’s throats. Denunciation and angry accusation flew across the hall. Everyone was suddenly arguing. There was a wild waving of arms. “It was like a battle in the dark,” the historian Socrates said later. “Hardly anyone seemed to know the grounds on which they calumniated one another. “Constantine had invited Arius to be present and listened earnestly when Arius explained the nature of his beliefs, and he was not particularly surprised when Arius burst out into a long, sustained chant, having set his beliefs to music. These chants and songs were sung by the people, and Arius may have thought the emperor would listen more keenly to chanting than to a disquisition on the faith:

The uncreated God has made the Son A beginning of things created, And by adoption has God made the Son Into an advancement of himself. Yet the Son’s substance is Removed from the substance of the Father: The Son is not equal to the Father, Nor does he share the same substance. God is the all-wise Father, And the Son is the teacher of his mysteries. The members of the Holy Trinity Share unequal glories.

The anti-Arian bishops were appalled, closed their eyes, and put their hands over their ears. It was as though in the middle of a critical debate on the future of the world, someone interrupted with nonsense rhymes or a series of perplexing and meaningless mathematical equations. Yet the heart of the Arian mystery was in these rhymes sung to a music employed by the Alexandrian dance bands. Arius, gaunt, white-faced, his stringy hair reaching to his shoulders, could repulse any theological argument by simply chanting one of these songs, and when Athanasius [or likely another] answered with a close-knit argument, there was consternation, for they seemed to be talking in different languages about different things, like two men from different worlds or different universes.

A STAB AT COMPROMISE

Probably Athanasius was standing just behind Pope Alexander, and therefore very close to the emperor. We know that he attracted the emperor’s attention, but it was not Athanasius who resolved the issue. It seems to have been Hosius who announced that the simplest way of reaching agreement would be to draw up a creed. The first creed presented to the council was written by 18 of the Arian bishops. Couched in scriptural language, this creed stated the Arian position so offensively that bedlam broke loose when it was solemnly presented to the attention of the bishops. At this point, Eusebius of Caesarea suggested a creed that he had first heard as a child, an astonishingly beautiful creed that was to form the basis of the creed finally adopted. Eusebius was careful to say he advanced this creed only because he believed divine things cannot be fully expressed in human language: it was not perfect, but it was as close to perfection as he ever hoped to reach. This creed read:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, 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, the only begotten Son, the Firstborn of every Creature, begotten of the Father before all worlds, through whom also all things were made. Who for our salvation was made flesh and lived among men, and suffered and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the Father, and shall come again in glory to judge the quick and the dead. And in the one Holy Ghost. Believing each of them to be and to have existed, the Father, only the Father, and the Son, only the Son, and the Holy Ghost, only the Holy Ghost . . . .

This creed the emperor accepted, and the Arians, seeing in it nothing that specifically destroyed their position, would have accepted it if their opponents had not seen that this creed failed in any way to resolve the conflict. It was necessary to state the creed in such a way that the Arians would be forced to deny their essential tenets. Pope Alexander discussed the matter with Hosius. Constantine, turning against the Arians he had previously favored, suggested that Christ should be defined as homoousios–one in essence with the Father–and this definition should be included in the creed. The orthodox bishops were gaining strength. A new creed, formed by patching together the old creed and a new, more vigorous statement of the anti-Arian position, was finally announced by Hosius on June 19. It read:

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, of the same substance as the Father, through 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 shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. And those who say “There was a time when he was not” and “He did not exist before he was made” and “He was made out of nothing” or those who pretend that the Son of God is “of another hypostasis or substance” or “created” or “alterable” or “mutable,” the Catholic Church anathematizes.

In this form, the Nicene Creed left much to be desired. It was tortured, blunt-edged, without poetry or rhythm, and without the nobility of the creed of the church of Palestine. But many words that gave a living significance to the original creed–”the Word of God,” “the Firstborn of every creature,” “begotten of the Father before all worlds”–were in fact deliberately omitted to show that the triumphant Alexandrians would allow no compromise, no loophole for the Arians and were bent on avoiding all misunderstanding.

POETRY FROM CHAOS

In its original form, the Nicene Creed was a weapon: it was to become a more sublime article of faith in time, when poetry and ornament and a less abrupt rhythm were fashioned for it by the simple process of adding words. These words, which gave depth and resonance to the Creed, were added at the Council of Constantinople in 381, and finally approved at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Then the second clause came to read:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light from Light, very God from very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from the heavens and was made flesh of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried, and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures, and went up into the heavens, and sits on the right hand of the Father, and is to come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead, and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

So there came about by the slow process of trial and error, as a poet will substitute a new word to a line or resurrect a word used formerly, continually revising his rhythms, an astonishingly beautiful summary of the Christian faith, such a summary as might have come full-grown from the mind of one of the apostles. But in fact this statement of faith came about arduously and slowly, after many bitter contests and many subtle dialectical quarrels, and in the version accepted by the West, there were to be more changes. The words “God from God,” omitted in the original creed of the church of Constantinople, were restored, and there were still more alterations in the coda, for in time the anathemas against Arianism lost their force. No one reading the Western version of the Nicene Creed today need remember that it was originally a hammer struck at heresy. But the heresy remained. All Athanasius’s diatribes, and all the decisions of the council, were powerless to prevent it. Later Athanasius was to write to the Emperor Jovian, saying that Nicea was the occasion for a public proscription of every heresy. For a while he believed that “the Word of the Lord, which was given at the Ecumenical Council of Nicea, remains for ever.” He had good reason to believe that he had won a resounding success. Constantine had been won over. Arius was publicly anathematized. According to the historian Socrates, Constantine issued an imperial rescript ordering that all the books of Arius should be burned “so that his depraved doctrine shall be entirely suppressed and so that there shall be no memorial of him left in the world. “The punishment for concealing any book compiled by Arius was death! Yet some 54 years later, when Gregory Nazianzus was summoned to Constantinople, he found only one small congregation in the city that had not become Arian. In the end, Arianism was to die, and largely as the result of Athanasius’s enduring statement of the orthodox doctrine. But in spite of the anathemas, it was still a living force in the land.

CLOSING BANQUET

The council came to an end on July 25 with a solemn banquet attended by the emperor. They had deliberated for nearly seven weeks, not only about the Arian heresy. An Arabic translation of the canons discussed at Nicea, found in the sixteenth century, shows that they debated on 84 subjects, ranging from the date of Easter (they set the day as the first Sunday, not coinciding with the Passover, after the first full moon following the vernal equinox) to determining whether the clergy could marry (the clergy were enjoined to marry before ordination, but not afterward). Now exhausted, the bishops prepared to make their way homeward. The last speeches had been made. There remained only the ceremonial leave-taking at the banquet, with the emperor sitting at a table in the midst of them. Constantine, stiff with purple, gold, and precious stones, was in good humor. He complimented Athanasius, gave presents to the bishops he favored, and at one point he summoned the unregenerate Bishop Acesius, who possessed a singular regard for the Novatian heresy, which held that only God had the power to pardon sins and that anyone who commits sin after baptism must be permanently refused Communion. Constantine reminded Acesius that the doctrine of the church was now finally established. Acesius made a long speech in defense of his puritan interpretation of the Scriptures. Constantine guffawed, “Ho, ho, Acesius! Now plant a ladder and climb up to heaven by yourself!” And sometime later, Constantine summoned the saintly Bishop Paphnutius and kissed the empty socket, and pressed his legs and arms to the paralyzed limbs, and he was especially gentle to all the other bishops who had suffered under the persecutions. Then the bishops went out through a line of imperial bodyguards with bared swords.

The council was over

http://www.thunderministries.com/history/Nicea.html 

Should Roman Catholicism really be classified as a Christian religion?

Should Roman Catholicism Be Considered
A Christian Religion?
by Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon

doShould Roman Catholicism really be classified as a Christian religion?

No.

Roman Catholicism is not a Christian religion and in this article we will explain why.

Many Evangelical Christians today have very positive feelings about both

the Pope in particular and Roman Catholicism in general. Others are uncertain as to how Roman Catholicism should properly be classified in light of biblical teaching. That such support and/or perplexity is undergirded even by many Christian organizations can be seen in the following response sent out to those inquiring about Catholicism by a leading Christian apologetics ministry. This standard reply was given by a group which specializes in the analysis of comparative religion and cultic theology. In answer to the question, “Is Roman Catholicism Biblical?”, the verbatim response was as follows (copy on file):

1. Does the Catholic Church teach orthodox Christianity? Answer: Yes.

2. Does the Catholic Church teach salvation by good works or by faith? Answer: They teach it by faith.

3. Does the Catholic Church teach another gospel? Answer: No.

This reply would certainly lead many to conclude that Roman Catholicism should be classified as a legitimate Christian faith.

Of course, Roman Catholicism claims it alone is the one true Church on earth. The Catholic Encyclopedia argues, “The term Roman Catholic has come to be the accepted designation of the one true Church….”¹ It also teaches that God has indeed revealed Himself “and that the Catholic faith is that revelation.”² In addition, it describes the Catholic Church as “The Church founded by Jesus Christ,”³ and defines the Church in the following manner, “When the Church is spoken of, it means that visible religious society, founded by Jesus Christ, under one head, St. Peter, and continuing under the governance of his successors, the popes…. It is thus the role of the Church to present the means of salvation given by Christ, [i.e., the sacraments].…”⁴

Under the heading of “Doctrine of the Catholic Church” we read, “It is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the all-embracing means of salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.”⁵

Under “Church Membership,” we find Pope Pius XII cited in his On the Mystical Body of Christ (1943). He teaches that only Catholics are to be considered members of the one true Church. “Actually, only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized, and who profess the true faith [Roman Catholicism], and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body…” [i.e., Protestants].⁶

Finally, under the heading “Protestantism,” we find that the official position “of the Catholic Church was set forth in the twenty-five sessions of the Council of Trent…”⁷ which thoroughly anathematized Protestantism. At least here Protestantism retains its curse.

All this proves that Roman Catholicism claims that it alone is the one true Church on earth, and that Protestant churches are false—or at the very best, to be liberal, inadequate.

But what if it is actually the Roman Catholic Church which fails qualification as the one true Church—according to at least three of its own requirements? The Catholic Church itself has officially defined the identifying marks of the one true Church. In The Catholic Encyclopedia we are told there are four criteria endorsed by the Council of Trent: 1) oneness of doctrine, 2) the generation of true personal holiness dispensed through the Church’s means of sanctification (e.g., sacraments), 3) Catholicity (universality of mission) and 4) apostolicity—teachings and practices derived from Christ and the apostles.⁸

First, can it logically be maintained that the Catholic Church has a “oneness of doctrine?” In the sense of doctrine, the term “Catholicity” was classically defined in the “Vincentian canon” (5th century) as “What has been believed everywhere, always, by all.”⁹ Individual Catholics aside, have even the popes always maintained unity of doctrine? How is this possible with the doctrinal contradictions and controversies in Catholic history, tradition, and Scripture (e.g., the Apocrypha)? What about the serious differences found in the various competing forms of modern Roman Catholicism such as liberal, moderate, conservative, mystical and charismatic? Does Vatican II agree entirely with Trent?

Second, on what biblical basis can true holiness be said to be dispensed through the Roman Catholic Church and its beliefs and practices? Biblically, it is clear that sanctification, or growth in holiness, comes principally through the work of the Holy Spirit applied individually to true believers in Christ through the renewing power of both learning Scripture and obeying it. If so, of what value are the Roman Catholic sacraments and other practices for the process of sanctification? Especially if individual Catholics are attempting to earn their own salvation by good works and are not yet even saved? In fact, by inhibiting personal salvation through unbiblical doctrine and practices, Roman Catholicism inhibits true sanctification because sanctification is not possible without regeneration (cf., Jn. 6:63; Col. 2:23).

Thus, millions of Catholics today think they are Christians when in fact they are Catholics. Of course, the same may be said of Protestants who reject the gospel. Nevertheless, perhaps it is the fact of a largely unregenerate church which explains the strong comments of former Franciscan priest Emmett McLoughlin. In his Crime and Immorality in the Catholic Church he argues as follows:

The purpose of this book is to show that the Roman Catholic Church in its most important work [sanctification] is a failure. Among its members crime and immorality are greater than the unchurched or the members of other churches. Whatever else the Roman Catholic Church may be able to do… it cannot, it has not, and it does not make the majority of its members better and holier….

That the Roman Catholic Church has been one of the most powerful influences in the history of all civilization cannot be seriously denied….

[Nevertheless] It is my contention and my sincere conviction, from my experience in the Catholic educational system, my life of fifteen years in the priesthood, and thirteen years of constant observation and intense study since leaving the Church, that its influence on all civilization has been far more of evil than of good….

Morally, this book will show the high rate of crime and sin among Roman Catholics everywhere, and particularly in the United States. It will also demonstrate that this immorality is not in spite of Catholic education and training, but directly because of it.¹⁰

Today, some have even claimed up to one-third of the 57,000 Roman Catholic priests could be HIV infected—and now, several books exist on priestly pedophilia—with up to 3,000 priests apparently involved.¹¹

The third Catholic test for identifying the one true Church is apostolicity. But if the Roman Catholic Church rejects key teachings of the apostles, how can it logically be considered apostolic—that is, derived from them? Thus, the Catholic Church fails in at least three of its four criteria for evaluation of its own authenticity.

Again, all this raises the question, “Can Roman Catholicism truly be considered Christian?”

Merely having some degree of doctrinal orthodoxy does not, by definition, prove a religion is Christian. For example, in Church history, certain unorthodox or heretical sects have accepted the doctrine of the Trinity and yet denied other cardinal doctrines of the faith. Today, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in the inerrancy of the Bible far more consistently than Catholics. Yet, no one argues they are Christian but themselves. Mormonism provisionally accepts the Bible as the Word of God and in certain ways believes in the atonement of Christ. Yet no religion is more anti-Christian.¹² The Way International teaches “salvation by grace” and other biblical doctrines, yet denies the Trinity and the deity of Christ. They cannot be properly classified as Christian either. Even Muslims are devout monotheists having many moral views in harmony with the Bible. But none of these religions can be classified as Christian because what makes a religion Christian is both a) a fundamental body of correct doctrinal belief that true Christians have always believed in without compromise and b) religious practices and lifestyle among its members that conform to biblical standards.

No one denies that the Catholic Church historically today believes many Christian doctrines. They are monotheists, they believe in the Trinity, that God is Spirit, the reality of sin, Christ as God, the virgin birth, and heaven and hell.

But they also offer many unbiblical doctrines such as salvation by works. Further, even the orthodox doctrines they hold have a tendency to become compromised in various ways. The deity of Christ itself is impacted by Rome’s teaching that Christ is incarnated in the Church.¹³

All this underscores a simple fact. Claims to be Christian need to be thoroughly evaluated with proper attention to 1) word meanings, 2) doctrine as a whole and 3) lifestyle and practices. If we look at Roman Catholic doctrine comprehensively as well as its word meanings and practices, this would seem to require the categorization of Roman Catholicism, as a whole, as not being Christian.

From the perspective of the sociology of religion alone, the Roman Catholic Church indeed may be called a Christian religion, but certainly it cannot be considered a biblically orthodox Christian religion.

Even if we must reduce the issue to a single doctrine, what primarily determines whether a religious body is Christian or not is the basic gospel message of salvation, not how close a given religion can come to the historic doctrines of Christianity. Let’s take an example. Say there is a very powerful and influential worldwide religion with a half-billion members. It’s called “the church of Christianity.”

Say this world religion is orthodox on every major teaching of historic Christianity, such as—the deity of Christ; salvation by faith in Christ alone, the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit, biblical inerrancy, the Fall of man, the virgin birth, incarnation, the Trinity, second coming, the atonement of Jesus Christ, etc.

But now let’s say this religion is only “ninety-nine percent” orthodox. There is only one historic doctrine it refuses to accept. It absolutely rejects salvation by grace through faith alone and teaches that, in the end, a person is ultimately to recognize that they are saved by their faith and their good works.

Is it still a Christian religion? After all, it’s ninety-nine percent Christian. It’s as orthodox as can be in every area but one. In fifty Christian doctrines its teachings are biblical; there is only one doctrine it opposes.

Biblically, such a religion cannot possibly be classified as Christian. Again, how close one gets to Christianity isn’t the issue; it is: Does one accept the gospel or not?

Now, consider Roman Catholicism. The fact that it accepts many Christian doctrines is irrelevant. That it teaches salvation by works proves that it is not a Christian religion. The fact that some are saved within the Roman Catholic Church only means that some, like Luther, have found salvation (by God’s grace) because they studied the Bible—or because Christians witnessed to them and they were saved by hearing the gospel.

But just because there are some people who are saved in Roman Catholicism and because it has a number of biblical teachings is insufficient reason to conclude that Catholicism is Christian and that therefore Christians and Catholics can worship together as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Luther also said this, “If I declare with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of God’s Truth except for that one little bit which the world and the devil are at the moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ no matter how boldly I may be professing Christ….”

The gospel—anything but minuscule—is what the world and the devil have always opposed. And it continues to be opposed today in the Catholic Church. Therefore, Christians who think Roman Catholicism is Christian, “Evangelical Catholics,” who seek to bring their “separated brethren” back to Rome, and Evangelicals who have converted to Rome need to ask where their commitment is to the gospel—that doctrine of salvation by grace alone, that the world and the devil are at this moment attacking. And if their commitment isn’t to taking a strong stand in defense of the gospel, is their commitment really to Christ and His Church? We don’t think so—it cannot be.

On this key issue alone Catholicism fails the test of being Christian. But Roman Catholicism also teaches the following doctrines that negatively impact or deny the biblical teaching on salvation:

• Justification as the infusing of righteousness based on good works, not the imputation of righteousness as a judicial decree of God.

• The Mass “as truly propitiatory” and, in some sense, truly re-sacrificing Christ.

• The seven Catholic sacraments as infusing grace for purposes of sanctification and salvation. (But if the Sacrament of Holy Orders confers supernatural power on Roman Catholic bishops, priests and deacons to “serve as a teacher as Christ Himself,”¹⁴ how is it that Roman Catholic bishops, priests and deacons can so consistently oppose the key teaching of Scripture?)

• Baptism, penance, suffering in purgatory, indulgences etc., as having the power to remit or forgive sin or its punishment.

• Catholicism alone as the one true Church.

No one can deny that given the above teachings relating to salvation, that Catholicism offers a different gospel than the one clearly stated in the Bible.

But Catholicism also teaches doctrines which undermine the authority of the Bible itself:

• The pope as infallible in matters of doctrine and morals. Further, Peter was the first pope, and Christ instituted the office of the papacy.

• Catholic tradition has divine authority and is to be equated with the word of God.

• The Apocrypha is also the word of God.

• The teaching authority of the Church as the final and only correct interpreter of the Bible to its people. This means that individual Christians cannot properly interpret the Bible on their own. This is why the Protestant view of individual interpretation is referred to as a product of “theological rationalism” and condemned by Rome.¹⁵ The Documents of Vatican II teach, “The task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living, teaching office of the Church….”¹⁶

The above teachings indicate that the Catholic Church has also undermined the authority and inerrancy of the Scriptures. But further, the Catholic Church also teaches the following items listed below, again, none of which are biblical:

• Mary was born without sin, is sinless, ascended bodily into heaven and is a “co-Redemptrix” “Mediatrix” and “Queen of Heaven” in God’s plan of salvation. She is to be venerated/”worshipped” and offers all the graces of Christ to men who adore her, whether in the Church or at thousands of her shrines/altars throughout the world.

• Faith is an intellectual assent to the doctrines of the Church. In fact, true faith “demands that we believe” in Roman Catholic doctrines without which we cannot be sanctified or saved.¹⁷ (Apparently then, Christians whose faith in the Bible alone compels them in their conscience to reject Catholic belief are without true saving faith.)

• Catholic saints are to be venerated. True “saints” and “priests” are comprised of an extremely minuscule portion of the body of Christ.

• Sin is to be compartmentalized into moral/venial categories.

Perhaps it would do well to remind Protestants that, historically, one of the greatest enemies of Christianity has been false religion. It is the growth of such religion throughout the world that has remained the most serious threat to the health of the Church and will continue to do so far into the 21st century.

Is Roman Catholicism Christian? In a nutshell, it would seem that there are so many ways in which Catholicism is not biblical that it is logically impossible to classify it as a genuine Christian religion.

All this is why the obstacles between Catholicism and Evangelicalism are insurmountable, at least until there is fundamental biblical reformation in Rome.

Notes

1 Robert C. Broderick, ed., The Catholic Encyclopedia, revised and updated (NY: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987), p. 528, emphasis added.

2 Ibid., p. 44.

3 Ibid., p. 99.

4 Ibid., p. 115.

5 Ibid., p. 170, emphasis added.

6 Ibid., p. 381.

7 Ibid., p. 499.

8 Ibid., p. 371.

9 F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, Press, 1988), pp. 26, 2.

10 Emmett McLoughlin, Crime and Immorality in the Catholic Church (NY: Lyle Stuart, 1964), p. 10.

11 Patrick Dixon, The Whole Truth About AIDS (Nashville: Nelson, 1989), p. 22; cf. Jason Berry, Lead Us Not Into Temptation and US. News and World Report, October 5, 1992.

12 John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Mormonism (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1992).

13 Gerrit C. Berkowuer, The Conflict with Rome (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1958), pp. 191-211; Walter M. Abbot, gen. ed., The Documents of Vatican II (NY: Guild Press, 1966), p. 141; Paul G. Schrotenboer, ed., Roman Catholicism: A Contemporary Evangelical Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1980), p. 41; H. M. Carson, Dawn or Twilight? A Study of Contemporary Roman Catholicism (Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1976), pp. 41-42.

14 Broderick, ed., p. 438.

15 Ibid, p. 514.

16 Abbott, pp. 117-118, emphasis added.

17 Broderick, ed., p. 213

 

http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/roman-catholicism/RC1105W3.htm

Trinity Hinduism & the Nicene Council

The Christian Holy Trinity… and the Hindu Trimurti:
It impressed me to know that the 3 manifestations of Brahman, have some similarities with the Christian “Holy Trinity”, in Hinduism called the “Trimurti”.
- Brahma is like the Father, the creator, the cosmic mind. As God the Father has few temples dedicated to him, in fact only one in all India.
- Vishnu, like the Son, Jesus Christ, the preserver, the cosmic lord… with 9 reincarnations, ten avatar manifestations… and the one to come, Kalkin… however, Jesus is the only one incarnation of God. Vishnu had already 9 incarnations (”avatars”) and he is shown as one them, as fish, tortoise, a boar… the last 3 were Rama, Krishna, and Buddha, who are very popular
- Shiva like the Holy Spirit, destroyer of the bad things to renew the universe, the transcendent Godhead
… so, Hinduism in some way it is a “monotheistic” religion… however the Bible condemns any kind of polytheism, the adoration of anything or anybody besides the only God, because the gods that are not God, are idols or devils (Psalm 96:5).

The Vedas pantheon mythology, includ the Cosmic Trinity of Agni (god of fire), Vayu, (god of air), and Surya (god of energy or life).The Trinity is late-fourth century, having been passed into law during the Nicene Council in C.E. 381. But the idea predates this and even predates Christianity, though in various forms. In other words, the Christians didn’t invent it, they glommed it. And some say they butchered it, as well.

The concept of a Trinitarian godhead harkens from Egypt, and is also part of the Hindu godhead. Both cultures had heavily influenced Roman thought by the time the Trinitarian disputes came about, but by then, Egypt was an important center of Christian power. To try to develop a Trinitarian concept of deity from Hebrew Scripture is a stretch, at best, and even to develop it from Christian scripture is sketchy. When Erasmus published his New Testament, people objected that it did not have any passages which teach the Trinity, so he introduced, on very flimsy evidence, I John 5:7:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Only the King James versions retain this passage without comment: the rest relegate it to footnotes.

Another passage that is used to bolster the Scriptural basis for the doctrine of the Trinity is Matthew 28:20:

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost

This really says nothing about a Trinity, but merely mentions three names. Like the other New Testament writers, Matthew was not very precise in this or any other concept. This precision came later. Other baptismal formulae instruct Christians to baptize in the name of Jesus, and some sects use this parallel to teach that Jesus is the Father and the Holy Ghost, that there is no Trinity.

Consult any Christian primer on the doctrine of the Trinity (like you’d get when you first become saved and take classes to find out what you believe) and you will see just how tough it is to justify deriving this idea from Christian Scripture, which was written by people who were not as sophisticated in self-consistency or as obsessively detailed in their dogma as later scholars became. Before the Nicene Councils consolidated The Dogma Of The One True Faith, Christian ideas along these lines were extremely varied. Many Christian sects, most notably the Jehovah’s Witnesses, reject the Trinity. In fact, their materials are as good as any when trying to balance the pro-Trinity arguments of the so-called orthodox Christians. But contrary to what they say (and the Trinitarians, as well), there was no real consensus and nothing resembling precision on this or any other matter during the first few centuries of the Church.

Nevertheless, the doctrine of the Trinity is very much a litmus test in modern Christian circles. In the Introduction to Robert M. Price’s book Deconstructing Jesus, Price warns:

when an evangelist or an apologist invites you to have faith “in Christ,” he is in fact smuggling in a great number of other issues. For example, Chalcedonian Christology, the doctrine of the Trinity, the Protestant idea of faith and grace, a particular nineteenth-century theory of biblical inspiration and literalism, habits of church attendance, and so on, are all distinct and open questions, or should be. And yet no evangelist ever invites people to accept Christ by faith and then to start examining all these other associated issues for themselves. Not one! The Trinity, biblical inerrantism, for some even anti-Darwinism, are nonnegotiable. They say you cannot be genuinely “saved” if you do not toe the party line on these points. Thus for them, to “accept Christ” means to accept Trinitarianism, biblicism, inerrantism, creationism, and so on. All this, in turn, means that “Christ” has become a shorthand designation for this whole raft of doctrines and opinions, all of which one is to accept “by faith,” on someone else’s say-so. Christ has become an umbrella for an unquestioning acceptance of what some preacher or institution tells you to believe. Once the believer begins to “deconstruct” what “Jesus Christ” has come to denote in his particular religious community, he may discover that his primary religious allegiance has been utilized to manipulate him into transferring the same diehard loyalty to other secondary or tertiary issues, political and cultural. – pp. 11-12

Early Evangelical Christian “cults” books, particularly those modeled after Walter Martin’s classic Evangelical work Kingdom of the Cults, use the doctrine of the Trinity as the primary test of orthodoxy (as well as various degrees of biblical inerrancy and other key issues which distinguish a “true” Christian from a “false” Christian). Many, for example, accept Missouri-based Mormons as Brethren because they are Trinitarian, even though they accept the Book of Mormon as Scripture. Utah-based Mormons, though, are out because they are not Trinitarian.

As I have said in some of my writings, often the key test of loyalty is that you believe a tenet that is both unique to the group and patently absurd. I suggest that the absurdity of the teaching is crucial to the test of loyalty. Believing, for example, that the sun is round, would be no test at all. But to believe the Trinity is quite an exertion, as Thomas Jefferson suggests:

It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticism that three are one and one is three, and yet, that the one is not three, and the three not one… – Jefferson s Works, Vol. IV, p. 205, Randolph’s ed., quoted from John E. Remsberg, The Christ

But Voltaire summarizes this point most succinctly, and with much-deserved sarcasm:

The son of God is the same as the son of man; the son of man is the same as the son of God. God, the father, is the same as Christ, the son; Christ, the son, is the same as God, the father. This language may appear confused to unbelievers, but Christians will readily understand it – quoted from John E. Remsberg, The Christ

There is a short write-up in John Draper’s History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science, in Chapter 2. You can find what Draper says about the further Trinitarian disputes by typing the words “trinity draper” into the Google search engine at the bottom of our front page. This search is set to default to our website, so you can type these words in and return all the chapters in Draper’s book which mention the Trinity. You’ll also get, for example, Ingersoll quoting Draper, but check out Draper first, as he’s the easiest read on our web site to deal with this matter.

Another study would be W. E. H. Lecky’s History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe, but this would be rather scarce. To get what he says (mostly later disputes and oblique mentions, but Lecky’s footnotes are as informative as his text), simply type “trinity lecky” into the search engine.

The most available (that is, readable) studies of the Christian history is in The Dark Side of Christian History by Helen Ellerby. The author covers the Trinitarian disputes from a slightly different perspective. We have a few other excerpts of this book posted, but here’s part of what she says about the Trinity, which is (until now) unposted.

	Once Christianity gained prominence, the orthodox allowed the Roman emperor to directly influence Christian doctrine. To settle ideological disputes in the Church, Constantine introduced and presided over the first ecumenical council at Nicea in 325. In his book The Heretics, Walter Nigg describes the means of reaching a consensus:
		Constantine, who treated religious questions solely from a political point of view, assured unanimity by banishing all the bishops who would not sign the new profession of faith. In this way unity was achieved. ‘It was altogether unheard-of that a universal creed should be instituted solely on the authority of the emperor, who as a catechumen was not even admitted to the mystery of the Eucharist and was totally unempowered to rule on the highest mysteries of the faith. Not a single bishop said a single word against this monstrous thing.
	One of the political decisions reached at the Council of Nicea established the Nicene creed, a means of keeping the belief in singular supremacy intact while simultaneously incorporating Jesus into the image of God. Jesus was not to be considered mortal; he was an aspect of God which could be understood as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. This new Holy Trinity mimicked a much older portrait of divinity that embodied the value of difference. For instance, the vision of God in the Gnostic Secret Book of John, “I am the Father, I am the Mother, I am the Child,” illustrates the concept of synergy where the whole created is greater than the sum of the parts. Another text called The Sophia of Jesus Christ tells how masculine and feminine energies together created a
		… first-begotten, androgynous son. His male name is called ‘First-Begettress Sophia, Mother of the Universe.’ Some call her ‘Love.’ Now the first-begotten is called ‘Christ.’
	Even the later Islamic Koran mistook the Christian Trinity for this archetypal one, referring to it as the trinity of God, Mary and Jesus. The Nicene Creed, however, established a trinity that extolled sameness and singularity. All reference to a synergy, an energy, a magic, that could result from two different people coming together was lost. The council eliminated the image of father, mother and child, replacing the Hebrew feminine term for spirit, ruah, with the Greek neuter term, pneuma. The trinity was now comprised of the father, the son, and a neuter, sexless spirit. Christians depicted it as three young men of identical shape and appearance. Later medieval sermons would compare the trinity “to identical reflections in the several fragments of a broken mirror or to the identical composition of water, snow and ice.” Two popes would ban the seventeenth century Spanish nun Maria d’Agreda’s book, The Mystica l City of God, for implying a trinity between God, Mary and Jesus. All allusions to the value of difference were lost; divinity was to be perceived as a singular image, either male or neuter but never female. Yet, it was their belief in the many faces of God that helped Romans accommodate Christianity, not the uniqueness of Christian theology. Christianity resembled certain elements of Roman belief, particularly the worship of Mithra, or Mithraism. As “Protector of the Empire,” Mithra was closely tied to the sun gods, Helios and Apollo. Mithra’s birthday on December 25, close to the winter solstice, became Jesus’s birthday. Shepherds were to have witnessed Mithra’s birth and were to have partaken in a last supper with Mithra before he returned to heaven. Mithra’s ascension, correlating to the sun’s return to prominence around the spring equinox, became the Christian holiday of Easter. Christians took over a cave-temple dedicated to Mithra in Rome on the Vatican Hill, making it the seat of the Catholic Church. The Mithraic high priest’s title, Pater Patrum, soon became the title for the bishop of Rome, Papa or Pope. The fathers of Christianity explained the remarkable similarities of Mithraism as the work of the devil, declaring the much older legends of Mithraism to be an insidious imitation of the one true faith. – pp. 18-24

Start a Church

If you have been reading the site, and have a similar understanding of the scriptures as we do, and if you live in the North Fort Myers to Sarasota corridor of Tamiami Trail, Florida, and you would like to be part of a regular Christian association, please write church@cfmin.com