The Canon of Scripture

Bible is derived from the Greek, biblos, meaning book. As such it is applied by Christians, by way of eminence, to the collection of sacred writings of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. The word itself, biblos, is found in Matthew 1:1, “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ…”.

Apparently it originated from the Lebanese town of Biblos, which produces papyrus sheets for writing in ancient times.So the oracles of God, His inspired Word, is collectively known today as the Holy Bible, a book set apart from all the others as unique, one of its kind.

The Old Testament Canon
There are 39 books in the Old Testament, no more and no less, for the simple yet profound reason that only these books have the stamp of divine authority on them.
Only these – before the incarnation of the Son of God – subdivided into the Law (Torah), the Writings (Ketubim), and the Prophets (Nabiim), proceeded from the mouth of the living God, and as such were kept, preserved, read, held dear, believed and obeyed by the covenant people of God before the appearance of Jesus Christ, their long-awaited for Deliverer.

From all the literature of ancient times, only these 39 books carry with them the divine seal, originating from above and being given through the instrumentality of holy men who were moved by the Spirit of God and who spoke with the authority of God.
Only these 39, because these and no more have withstood the test of time, close scrutiny and scholarship. And more than that, they speak to the renewed heart as bearing the imprimatur of the Almighty. Other writings, whether it be by Seneca or Aristotle or Buddha, though ancient, do not enjoy this divine impress.

How were the 39 Old Testament books authorised? Though the Jewish nation had its scribes, scholars and men of authority among them, there is absolutely no evidence that they at some point in time declared these or those books as inspired and therefore canonical.
All the evidence we have is that as they books were written and delivered to the nation they were accepted for what they were: the rule by which the people were to live and abide. They were looked upon as the oracles of God, His authentic message for them which He wanted to be passed on from generation to generation.

These 39 books are canonical by virtue of what they are intrinsically and inherently, as coming from the mouth of God Himself. By virtue of their content, their authorship by God’s prophets in general, and the stamp and seal of their sanctifying power, they were received by the Jews – being entrusted with such a task – as God’s Word. Some contend that the canon of the Old Testament was not closed before the Council of Jamnia (90 A.D.). They say this because there were still some doubts about Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon.

But others, more numerous, such as David Kimchi (1160-1232) and Elias Levita (1465-1549), two Jewish scholars, maintained that the final collection of the Old Testament canon was completed by Ezra and the members of the Great Synagogue, in the fifth century before the coming of Christ.
We have the testimony of the Jewish historian Josephus to the effect that the Old Testament canon was closed in the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus in the time of Ezra. Ezra was peculiarly concerned with the sacred oracles. He is described as the Scribe (Nehemiah 8:1,4,9,13; 12:26,36), and a specialist in the law of Moses (Ezra 7:6), being taught in the commandments of the Lord and teaching His statutes to Israel (Ezra 7:11).
Whatever Ezra and others of like mind did and contributed to the final compilation of the Old Testament canon, it is evident that God’s supervising providence brought the final result about. Ezra and others only recognised what was inspired from its very inception.

The testimony of Josephus
Though unsympathetic with the infant Christian church, Joesephus gives this testimony about the inherited collection of books that the church enjoyed, namely, the Old Testament.

Writing about the year 100 A.D., he states: “For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another (as the Greeks have), but only 22 books, which contain the record of all time; which are justly believed to be divine…It is true our history has been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but has not been esteemed of like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there has not been an exact succession of prophets since that time.* And how firmly we have given credit to those books of our own nation, it is evident by what we do; for, during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them, to take anything from them, or to make any change in them; but it becomes natural to all Jews, immediately and from their very birth, to esteem those books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them and, if occasion be, willingly to die for them” (Against Apion, I.8).
*In this sentence Josephus is referring to the intertestamental uninspired books known commonly as the Apocrypha. Accidentally, such an interesting testimony agrees perfectly with the Protestant position of excluding the Apocrypha from the biblical canon, as against the Romanist position.

Melito of Sardis
“Melito, bishop of Sardis, the capital of Lydia, was a shining light among the churches of Asia Minor in the third quarter of the second century…Melito was a man of brilliant mind and a most prolific author. Tertullian speaks of his elegant and eloquent genius…
“To Melito we owe the first Christian list of the Hebrew Scriptures. It agrees with the Jewish and the Protestant canon, and omits the Apocrypha. The books of Esther and Nehemiah are also omitted, but may be included in Esdras. The expressions “the Old Books,” “the Books of the Old Covenant,” imply that the church at that time had a canon of the New Covenant. Melito made a visit to Palestine to seek information on the Jewish canon” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol.2, page 736-738).
In accordance with the orthodox Jewish and the primitive Christian view, Protestantism excluded the Apocrypha from the Old.

The New Testament Canon
What was the primary factor in the completion of the New Testament canon? Was it the decision of the Roman Catholic church? No; for the obvious reason that the Roman Catholic church (at least as it showed its distinctive features later on) was non-existent at this early stage in history (4th to 5th century).
Romanist apologists, though, insist that it was through the initiative and intervention of the Roman church that we have the Bible as we know it today. Their reasoning is that the church caused the New Testament books to be written, so the church is above the books of the New Testament (she being their originator).
If I, as a jeweller, were to inspect and upon verifying, issue a certificate that a certain ruby is genuine, that does not automatically make me the owner of the precious stone. And yet, this is what the Roman church is saying: in insisting that she recognised the books of the New Testament, that makes her the sole possessor of those same books. As the most, she may be credited with insight and discernment, but not with the ownership (and sole right to interpret) the Scriptures.

The blatant falsity of Rome’s claim needs no answer. The Holy Spirit was He who gave the New Testament writings, just as He moved the prophets to write the Old Testament: same Source (heaven), same Author (God), same method (by inspiration), same instrumentality (holy men).
The fact is, God gave the Bible to His church, and not the church gave the Bible to itself.
Was it the then an accidental drawing together of the various documents? This proposal is even more ludicrous, for in so saying we would be virtually denying the wise and all-powerful providence of God. Nothing happens by accident, not even as sparrow falling to the ground. How much less the collection of the inspired writings into one canon! No Christian would entertain such an absurd thought in his mind, especially as he reads what the Bible says about itself and its origination (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

Was it the decision of the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D.?  Historically, the church was forced to pronounce what constitutes Scripture and what doesn’t. This was because of false teachers,such as Marcion, who were either rejecting parts of the established canon or else adding uninspired writings to the Bible. The Council convened at Carthage was the first gathering of bishops that issued a list of the 27 canonical books of the New Testament, recognising that as inspired, and rejecting all other (sometimes competing) literature. This council was simply the culmination of a current within the church that was needed in order to have the canon of Scripture made known for what it was: fixed and unalterable.

Individual preachers, such as Chrysostom, had already compiled lists of the canonical books, no more and no less, before 397 A.D. But such actions, significant as they may be, are not determining or prime factors in the completion of the New Testament canon (see the final assignment for the real and crucial factor).

The documents that make up the New Testament were recognised as having Apostolic Authority. The church, which hears the voice of her Good Shepherd (John 10), has certainly been instrumental in the recognition of the canonical books. Being what she is – the assembly of the living God – she will not go after strange voice (pseudopigraphical books), but will rather find concord with the voice of her Master, who teaches her by His Word and Spirit.
Though the church of the early centuries had a unique role to play in the recognition of what constitutes the Holy Bible and what not, she was not the primary factor.

The books of the Bible
We have 66 books in the canon of Scripture, no more and no less.
The formal conclusion of the New Testament is at least intimated at the end of Revelation (22:18). The difference of how the two Testament close is highly significant. The anticipatory and unfulfilled hope of the Old Covenant is articulated at the end of the last book, Malachi. It gives an assurance of the coming of another prophet. But on the other hand, no continuing revelation is mentioned at the end of the New Testament. Rather we find an announcement about the Lord’s soon return and thus the consummation of all things at the Eschaton. The natural conclusion is that no other voice will be heard from heaven before the second Advent of Christ.

An important proof of all this is that, since the close of the biblical canon, no attempt was made by anyone to add some other book to the established and recognised sixty-six.As God wrote His message though the instrumentality of holy men, so also He made known the canon of Scripture through men, particularly His people who know Him and hear His voice. The canon, comprising sixty-six books, no more and no less, was recognised by His own covenant people, to whom the Scripture was given to be believed and obeyed.
This is a great wonder. His infallible Word not only was received and written down in incomparable documents, but was also infallibly collected in one volume to be the sole rule of faith (cf. the Greek kanon, meaning measuring rod or rule).The same collection of books was preserved from corruption, destruction or any human and devilish attempt to change it.

The canon was not added to or deducted from; we may rest assured that it is not adulterated by non-inspired writings. God took special care to determine the formation of the canon, as it is also obvious that He ruled its transmission so that His truth may reach to all His elect.
This was His way of giving His Scriptures to His people, and nobody can accuse God that His purpose has somehow failed. So when it comes to determine the crucial and indispensable factor that determined the collecting together of the sixty-six books, it must be expressed as being the wise and all-powerful providence of God, who certainly operates through second causes (His church). But the determinative reason why Jude is in the canon, when it has so much in common with 2 Peter, and why four gospels narrating mostly the same events, instead of just one longer Gospel, the reason must be the inscrutable and ineffable wisdom of God, who thought it proper and fit to give just those sixty-six and no more, with all the repetitions and similarities between books (Kings and Chronicles, and so on).
He knows best, and He knows what issued from Him and what not. There must we rest.
If it were left to mere human agency, I am positively sure the canon would have been far different.

There were principles upon which the church has largely determined which were the inspired books and which not. I emphasise “largely,” because the criterion of apostolicity does not strictly account for Mark, Luke-Acts, and possibly Hebrews.
The criterion of antiquity is really a variation on apostolicity and fails to explain why Paul’s “previous” letter (mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:9) was not included in the canon.No matter how strong the evidence for apostolicity (and therefore of canonicity) may be in many instances and no matter how forceful the arguments in favour of the apostolicity of certain other writings may be, historical judgements cannot be the final and sole ground for the church’s accepting the New Testament as canonical.
Just these sixty-six books God has chosen to preserve, and He has not told us why. In the matter of the New Testament as canon, too, until Jesus comes “we walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Corinthians 5:7). But that faith, grounded in the apostolic tradition of the New Testament, is neither arbitrary nor blind. It has its reasons, its good reasons; it is in conflict only with the autonomy of reason.
I conclude by saying that the books which were to form the future completed canon forced themselves on the Church by their intrinsic prophetic and apostolic authority, as they still do, because the Lord Christ speaks in them.

  © Copyright Paul Mizzi – www.tecmalta.org

Permissions: Quotations must accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement. Any article on ‘Truth for Today’ may be duplicated and distributed in any format, or posted on the Internet, provided that the wording is not altered and no fee is charged. Please include the following statement with every copy or webpage: Copyright Paul Mizzi www.tecmalta.org Used by Permission.

 The above post may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social justice, for the purpose of historical debate, and to advance the understanding of Christian conservative issues. It is believed that this constitutes a ”fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the Copyright Law.

 In accordance with the title 17 U.S. C. section 107, the material in this post is shown without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Federal law allows citizens to reproduce, distribute and exhibit portions of copyrighted motion pictures, video taped or video discs, without authorization of the copyright holder. This infringement of copyright is called “Fair Use”, and is allowed for purposes of criticism, news, reporting, teaching, and parody. This articles is written, and any image and video (includes music used in the video) in this article are used, in compliance with this law: Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 107.

Christian News Service – Worthy News Link to worldwide
Christian news organization

Link to Net Bible Link to Net Bible

Translation and Commentaries

Link to Answers in Genesis Ministries

Link to CNS News

Did Constantine Invent Christian Theology at the Council of Nicea?

 

Recently and continually I hear the atheists and anti -Christians spouting nonsense about how Christian theology was invented and imposed upon the Church by the Roman Emperor Constantine. In an effort to set the record straight and at least for my part get a clearer picture of what happened at Nicea and exactly what role Constantine had, I have endeavor to put together a montage of information and teaching on this vital issue. The church is under attack on all sides. The Darwinist are attacking the 1st 11 Chapters of Genesis. The German Higher Critics have attacked the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. The Bart Ehrman types have attacked the Gospels and the reliability of scripture in general and the Bishop Shelby Spongs have denied anything supernatural is the bible. Liberal theology is attempting to turn Christianity into an outlet for social activism and the “feel good” “name it and claim it” “TELevangelists” have injected “New Age” visualization and positive confession apostasy into the mix.  We who feel called to defend must never give the enemy the opportunity to distort and pervert the truth. Lives depend on people hearing and responding to the truth.

John 8:31-32 (NASB) So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32  and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”

CONSTANTINE THE GREAT: FACTS ON-HAND

Constantine was Roman Emperor from 306-337 AD. Prior to his rule many of the Roman Emperors were openly hostile to the Gospel, killing and persecuting many of the followers of the gospel. The Emperor Nero started this trend in 64 AD, when he took first century followers of the gospel, bound and dipped them in oil, and burned them alive as human torches for lighting in his palace gardens! Successive Emperors Domitian, Marcus Aurelius (of Gladiator movie fame), Diocletian and others continued this kind of treatment. But Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, granting religious tolerance to all views. Constantine became sole emperor of Rome by being victorious in a series of military campaigns against other rivals. During these campaigns he converted to Christianity (from paganism). There is much debate today whether his ‘conversion’ was sincere, or whether he did so for political gain. http://considerthegospel.org/faqs/faq-constantine/

When Constantine came upon the temple mount in Jerusalem, he destroyed the temple of Jupiter that had been built in 135 AD by Hadrian. In building the “Church of the Holy Sepulchre” in 325 AD, Eusebius records how Constantine even removed the soil on the site and dumped it far away. Hadrian had built a temple to Venus on the site and Constantine destroyed and removed every trace of this pagan idolatry. This evidence proves that Jehovah’s Witnesses deliberately misrepresent Constantine as a pagan. Eusebius wrote in 325 AD: “How Constantine Commanded the Materials of the Idol Temple, and the Soil Itself, to Be Removed at a Distance: Nor did the emperor’s zeal stop here; but he gave further orders that the materials of what was thus destroyed, both stone and timber, should be removed and thrown as far from the spot as possible; and this command also was speedily executed. The emperor, however, was not satisfied with having proceeded thus far: once more, fired with holy ardor, he directed that the ground itself should be dug up to a considerable depth, and the soil which had been polluted by the foul impurities of demon worship transported to a far distant place.” (Eusebius , The Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine, book 3, ch 27)

The History of the Trinity  By Jerry Johnson

Numerous cults, like the Jehovah’s Witness and the Oneness Sabellians, continue to misrepresent the historical doctrine of the trinity by stating that the doctrine was formulated at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, thereby implying that the doctrine of the Trinity was NOT believed by the early Church. This is a gross historical error. Though we can say in one sense that the full of the doctrine of the Trinity was written down in creedal form at Nicea and further clarified by the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381, it would be a total distortion of history to say that the doctrine of the Trinity was not believed until Nicea.

So you may ask, “why did the doctrine of the deity of Christ/Trinity need to be explained”?  As the first and second century came and went, the Biblical doctrine on the Nature of God came under attack. The attack, for the most part, took place upon the Deity (state of being God) of the Lord Jesus Christ.  This was the reason for the council of Nicea. The Arians, who got their name from the main proponent of their doctrine, a man named Arius, was teaching that Lord Jesus Christ was NOT God Himself, but, a created lesser god not equal with the father. Nicea was NOT called to create the doctrine of the Trinity, but to confirm that the bible taught Jesus was fully God in accordance with the already accepted teachings of the church. The Council of Nicea was Christological NOT Trinitarian, though it did address the issue.

It must further be noted that Trinitarian Christians do not believe the doctrine of the Trinity because some early Church father said too. Nor do we believe it because of some creed or council decided for us. We believe the doctrine of the Trinity because Scripture teaches that there is but one God (monotheism), and yet there is a person called the Father who is referred to in personal pronouns and is accredited with personal attributes, there is a person called the Son, who is referred to with a personal pronouns and converses with the person of the Father, and there is a person called the Holy Spirit, who is referred to with personal pronouns and personal attributes. Since we hold the Word of God in high esteem, we are forced to conclude that these three persons are the One God.

What follows is a small sampling of the understanding of the nature of God, as understood by the early Church up through the time of Nicea in A.D. 325. This brief reading should settle the question at hand.

Did Nicea CREATE or CONFIRM the deity of Christ/Trinity?

The Didache, which appears to have been a teaching manual for new converts, and is dated at between A.D. 60 to A.D 80 (the latest date suggested in A.D. 150), states, “But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit in living (running) water…..But if thou hast neither, then pour on the head thrice in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. : (J.B. Lightfoot, ed., The Apostolic Fathers, Eerdmans, 1976, 1976, p126.)

Ignatius, writing around A.D. 110-120 in responding against those who denied the eternity of the person of the Son wrote, “We have also as a physician the Lord our God, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin.” (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Eerdmans, 1975, vol.1, p. 52.)

Justine Martyr, another of the defenders of Orthodoxy, who lived between A.D. 114-168 wrote, “For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they receive that washing with water.” (First Apol., LXI. ibid. Vol. 1, p. 183)

 Theophilus, a  Greek who was converted to Christianity, was the first to use the word Trinity in writing in ca, A.D. 170 to describe the relationship between the persons in the Godhead. (E. Calvin Beisner, God in three Persons, Tyndale House, 1984, pg 90. this book is a excellent study on the doctrine of the trinity both exegetically from scripture as well as from Church history)

 Irenaeus, who lived between A.D. 130-200 and was a disciple of Polycarp who was in turn a disciple of the Apostle John, wrote against the Gnostics and stated, “Know thou that every man is either empty or full. For if he had not the Holy Spirit, he has no knowledge of the creator, he had not received Jesus Christ the life; he knows not the Father who is in heaven…..”(Against Heresies 3:16)

 Athenagoras, writing between A.D. 170-180 in response to the Greek thinking that it was absurd for God to have a Son stated, “Nor let anyone think it ridiculous that God should have a Son. For through the poets (He is referring to the poetic Greek philosophers), in their fictions, represent [their] gods as no better than men, our mode of thing is not the same as theirs, concerning either God the Father or the Son”. (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol.2,p.133.). It must be noted that in the construction of this statement, “..either God the Father or the Son” that the word “God ” proceeded by the word “either” demands that “God” is placed before both “Father” and “Son” so that it would render,..”either God the Father or [God] the Son”

 Athenagoras does not stop with his understanding of the Doctrine of the Trinity and Christology, but also has a well developed doctrine of the Holy Spirit when he wrote, “the Holy Spirit Himself also, which operates in the prophets, we assert to an effluence of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun.. who, then would not be astonished to hear men speak of God the Father, and God the Son, and the Holy spirit, and who declared both their powers in union and their distinction in order…(ibid., vol. 2, p.133)

Hippolytus, in his work Against the Heresy of Noetus, who was the forerunner of Sabellius, wrote, “If, then the Word was with God and was also God what follows? Would one say that he speaks of two Gods? I shall not speak of two Gods but of one; of two Persons however and of a third economy (disposition), viz., the grace of the Holy Spirit. For the Father indeed is One but there is [another] Person because there is also the Son; and there is a third the Holy spirit….The economy of the harmony is led back to one God; for God is One. It is the Father who commands and the Son who obeys who is through all and the Holy Spirit who gives understanding; the Father is above all, and the Son who is through all and the Holy Spirit who is in all. And we cannot think of one God, but by believing in truth in Father and Son and Holy Spirit (Against the Heresy of Noetus, chapter 14.) Hippolytus was born on A.D. 170 and died in A.D 236. This commentary was on John 1:1.

 Tertullian, writing between A.D. 190 and the latest A.D. 240, though most scholars say no later than A.D. 220, was the first of the Latin writers to use the word Trinity. He wrote, “The Word, therefore, is both always in the Father, as he says, “I am in the Father,” and is always with God, according to what is written, “and the Word was with God;” and never separate from the Father, since ‘I and my Father, [We ] are one.” (Against Praxeus, chapter 8. ) Note: John 10:30 which states, “I and my Father are one.” The Greek word employed by John for “one” is hen. It is in the neuter and not the masculine followed by sumas which is in the plural. Therefore the transliteration of John 10:30 as “I and my Father, we are one.” The plural “we” related to the subject “I” and my “Father”. Two persons no matter which way you look at it.

 Novatian who wrote no later than A.D. 250 stated, “He [Jesus] never either compared or opposed Himself to God the Father. He remembered throughout His earthly ministry , that He was from the Father.” (Ancient Christian commentary, Intervarsity Press, 1999, vol. III p 241.) The word “from” is ek meaning an extension of one from another. Jesus, as a person was the one from or out of another person, the Father.

 Gregory Thaumaturgus of Neo-Caesarea ca. A.D. 270 wrote….[God is ] a perfect Trinity, not divided nor differing in glory and eternity and sovereignty. Neither, indeed, is there anything created or subservient in the Trinity, nor introduced, as though not there before but coming afterwards;nor, indeed, has the son ever been without the Father, nor the Spirit without the Son, but the Trinity is ever the same, unvarying and unchangeable.” (Beisner, God in Three Persons, pg. 81)

 

We could continue to cite quotes from the first three centuries of the Church, but, the point has been demonstrated. Enemies of the Trinity, who either out of ignorance or deceit maintain that the doctrine of the Trinity was not taught by the early Church have been refuted. Please note that the last quote from Gregory Thaumaturgus was 65 years before the council of Nicea and that the first quote from the Didache, which gave the Trinitarian formula for baptism, was 265 years before the Council of Nicea and no less than 175 years and was possibly written before the Apostles John, Peter and Paul were martyred.

It is very important to clarify exactly what role the Emperor Constantine played in the Council of Nicea, what the purpose for the council was, what happened at Nicea, and briefly how the canon—the Bible as we know it—was formed. Constantine was a Roman Emperor who lived from 274 to 337 A.D. He is most famous for becoming the single ruler of the Roman Empire (after deceiving and defeating Licinius, his brother-in-law) and supposedly converting to Christianity. It is debated whether or not Constantine was actually a believer (according to his confessions and understanding of the faith) or just someone trying to use the church and the faith to his own advantage. Constantine called the Council of Nicea—the first general council of the Christian church, 325 A.D.—primarily because he feared that disputes within the church would cause disorder within the empire. The dispute in mind was Arianism, which was the belief that Jesus was a created being. The famous phrase they were disputing was, “There was when He was not.” This was in reference to Jesus and was declared heretical by the council and thus resulted in the following words about Christ in the Nicene Creed: “God from true God…from the Father…no made.” It was determined by the council that Christ was homoousia, meaning, one substance with the Father.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Constantine-Bible.html#ixzz2bQmQFciD

What Really Happened At Nicea?   James White

The Council of Nicea is often misrepresented by cults and other religious movements. The actual concern of the council was clearly and unambiguously the relationship between the Father and the Son. Is Christ a creature, or true God? The council said He was true God. Yet, the opponents of the deity of Christ did not simply give up after the council’s decision. In fact, they almost succeeded in overturning the Nicene affirmation of Christ’s deity. But faithful Christians like Athanasius continued to defend the truth, and in the end, truth triumphed over error.

 THE BACKGROUND

Excepting the apostolic council in Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15, the Council of Nicea stands above other early councils of the church as far as its scope and its focus. Luther called it “the most sacred of all councils.”3 When it began on June 19, 325, the fires of persecution had barely cooled. The Roman Empire had been unsuccessful in its attempt to wipe out the Christian faith. Fourteen years had elapsed since the final persecutions under the Emperor Galerius had ended. Many of the men who made up the Council of Nicea bore in their bodies the scars of persecution. They had been willing to suffer for the name of Christ.

The council was called by the Emperor Constantine. Leading bishops in the church agreed to participate, so serious was the matter at hand. To understand why the first universal council was called, we must go back to around A.D. 318. In the populous Alexandria suburb of Baucalis, a well-liked presbyter by the name of Arius began teaching in opposition to the bishop of Alexandria, Alexander. Specifically, he disagreed with Alexander’s teaching that Jesus, the Son of God, had existed eternally, being “generated” eternally by the Father. Instead, Arius insisted that “there was a time when the Son was not.” Christ must be numbered among the created beings — highly exalted, to be sure, but a creation, nonetheless. Alexander defended his position, and it was not long before Arius was declared a heretic in a local council in 321.

This did not end the matter. Arius simply moved to Palestine and began promoting his ideas there. Alexander wrote letters to the churches in the area, warning them against those he called the “Exukontians,” from a Greek phrase meaning “out of nothing.” Arius taught that the Son of God was created “out of nothing.” Arius found an audience for his teachings, and over the course of the next few years the debate became so heated that it came to the attention of Constantine, the Emperor.

Having consolidated his hold on the Empire, Constantine promoted unity in every way possible. He recognized that a schism in the Christian church would be just one more destabilizing factor in his empire, and he moved to solve the problem.4 While he had encouragement from men like Hosius, bishop of Cordova, and Eusebius of Caesarea, Constantine was the one who officially called for the council. [5]

 THE PARTICIPANTS AND THEIR VIEWS

The Council of Nicea was mostly Eastern. According to tradition, 318 bishops were in attendance, though most historians believe this number is a bit high. The vast majority came from the East, with less than a dozen representing the rest of the Empire. The council was divided into three groups. Arius was in attendance, at the command of the Emperor, along with a few supporters. Most notable of these were two Egyptian bishops, Theonas and Secundus, as well as Eusebius of Nicomedia. This group represented the viewpoint that Christ was of a different substance (Greek: heteroousios) than the Father, that is, that He is a creature.

The “orthodox” group was led primarily by Hosius of Cordova and Alexander of Alexandria (accompanied by his brilliant young deacon, and later champion of the Nicene position, Athanasius [6]). They represented the view that Christ was of the same substance (Greek: homo-ousios [7]) as the Father, that is, that He has eternally shared in the one essence that is God and in full deity.

The middle group, led by Eusebius of Caesarea (and hence often called the “Eusebian” party), distrusted the term homoousios, primarily because it had been used in the previous century by the modalistic [8] heretic Sabellius and others who wished to teach the error that the Father and the Son were one person. This middle group agreed with the orthodox party that Jesus was fully God, but they were concerned that the term homoousios could be misunderstood to support the false idea that the Father and Son are one person. The middle group therefore presented the idea that the Son was of a similar substance (Greek: homoiousios) as the Father. By this means they hoped to avoid both the error of Arius as well as the perceived danger of Sabellianism found in the term homoousios.

THE ROLE OF CONSTANTINE

We are dependent, in large measure, on the words of Eusebius of Caesarea for our knowledge of many of the events at the council. This is somewhat unfortunate, because Eusebius, the first “church historian,” was a partisan participant as well. Historians recognize that his viewpoint is influenced by his desire for the favor of the Emperor and by his own political and theological goals and positions. Philip Schaff, in reproducing Eusebius’s description of the entrance of the Emperor into the council, speaks of Eusebius’s “panegyrical flattery.” [9] Eusebius presents Constantine in the highest possible terms so as to enhance his own position.

What really was Constantine’s role? Often it is alleged (especially by Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example) that, for whatever reasons, Constantine forced the “same substance” view upon the council, [10] or, at the very least, insured that it would be adopted. This is not the case. There is no question that Constantine wanted a unified church after the Council of Nicea. But he was no theologian, nor did he really care to any degree what basis would be used to forge the unity he desired. Later events show that he didn’t have any particular stake in the term homoousios and was willing to abandon it, if he saw that doing so would be of benefit to him. As Schaff rightly points out with reference to the term itself, “The word…was not an invention of the council of Nicea, still less of Constantine, but had previously arisen in theological language, and occurs even in Origen [185-254] and among the Gnostics….” [11] Constantine is not the source or origin of the term, and the council did not adopt the term at his command.

 

 THE DECISION AND THE CREED

The truth of how the council came to use the term is not difficult to discern. Athanasius notes that the gathered bishops truly desired to express their faith in primarily scriptural language, and they tried to do so. But every time they came up with a statement that was limited solely to biblical terms, the Arians would find a way of “reading” the statement so as to allow for agreement. [12] They were forced to see that they needed to use a term that could not be misunderstood, that would clearly differentiate between a belief in the full deity of Christ and all those positions that would compromise that belief. Therefore, they focused on the term homoousios as being completely antithetical to the Arian position, and at the same time reflective of the scriptural truth that Jesus Christ is not a creature, but is fully God, incarnate deity.

The “orthodox” party had to express clearly to the “middle group” that by the use of the term homoousios they were not in any way attempting to give aid and comfort to the modalists and Sabellians in the East who continued to teach their errors even in the days of Nicea. They were not compromising the existence of three Persons, but were instead safeguarding the full deity of the Persons, and in particular, the Son.13 The resulting creed, signed by all but Arius and two bishops, was quite clear in its position:

We believe…in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one substance (homoousios) with the Father, through Whom all things were made….

The creed also contained the “anathema” (i.e., condemnation) for those who rejected these truths, and for the first time, such anathemas carried with them civil repercussions. Arius and some of his followers were banished, even though for a short time. This set a precedent that eventually would have tremendous impact on culture and church, but it is also a separate issue from the theological proclamation of the council.

Nicea did not come up with something “new” in the creed. Belief in the deity of Christ was as old as the apostles themselves, who enunciated this truth over and over again. [14] References to the full deity of Christ are abundant in the period prior to the Council of Nicea. Ignatius (died c. 108), the great martyr bishop of Antioch, could easily speak of Jesus Christ as God at the opening of the second century. More than once Ignatius speaks of Jesus Christ as “our God.” [15] When writing to Polycarp he can exhort him to “await Him that is above every season, the Eternal, the Invisible, (who for our sake became visible!), the Impalpable, the Impassible, (who for our sake suffered!), who in all ways endured for our sake.” [16] Ignatius shows the highest view of Christ at a very early stage, when he writes to the Ephesians: “There is only one physician, of flesh and of spirit, generate and ingenerate, God in man, true Life in death, Son of Mary and Son of God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord.” [17]

Melito of Sardis (c. 170-180), a much less well-known figure, was tremendously gifted in expressing the ancient faith of the church regarding the deity of Christ:

And so he was lifted up upon a tree and an inscription was provided too, to indicate who was being killed. Who was it? It is a heavy thing to say, and a most fearful thing to refrain from saying. But listen, as you tremble in the face of him on whose account the earth trembled. He who hung the earth in place is hanged. He who fixed the heavens in place is fixed in place. He who made all things fast is made fast on the tree. The Master is insulted. God is murdered. The King of Israel is destroyed by an Israelite hand. [18]

Nicea was not creating some new doctrine, some new belief, but clearly, explicitly, defining truth against error. The council had no idea that they, by their gathering together, possessed some kind of sacramental power of defining beliefs: they sought to clarify biblical truth, not to put themselves in the forefront and make themselves a second source of authority. This can easily be seen from the fact that Athanasius, in defending the Nicene council, does so on the basis of its harmony with Scripture, not on the basis of the council having some inherent authority in and of itself. Note his words: “Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.” [19]

The relationship between the sufficient Scriptures and the “Nicene Bishops” should be noted carefully. The Scriptures are not made insufficient by the council; rather, the words of the council “remind” one of the “religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.” Obviously, then, the authority of the council is derivative from its fidelity to Scripture.

 CANON #6

While the creed of the council was its central achievement, it was not the only thing that the bishops accomplished during their meeting. Twenty canons were presented dealing with various disciplinary issues within the church. Of most interest to us today was the sixth, which read as follows:

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. [20]

This canon is significant because it demonstrates that at this time there was no concept of a single universal head of the church with jurisdiction over everyone else. While later Roman bishops would claim such authority, resulting in the development of the papacy, at this time no Christian looked to one individual, or church, as the final authority. This is important because often we hear it alleged that the Trinity, or the Nicene definition of the deity of Christ, is a “Roman Catholic” concept “forced” on the church by the pope. The simple fact of the matter is, when the bishops gathered at Nicea they did not acknowledge the bishop of Rome  as anything more than the leader of the most influential church in the West. [21]

 THE AFTERMATH

Modern Christians often have the impression that ancient councils held absolute sway, and when they made “the decision,” the controversy ended. This is not true. Though Nicea is seen as one of the greatest of the councils, it had to fight hard for acceptance. The basis of its final victory was not the power of politics, nor the endorsement of established religion. There was one reason the Nicene definition prevailed: its fidelity to the testimony of the Scriptures. During the six decades between the Council of Nicea and the Council of Constantinople in 381, Arianism experienced many victories.

There were periods where Arian bishops constituted the majority of the visible ecclesiastical hierarchy. Primarily through the force of political power, Arian sympathizers soon took to undoing the condemnation of Arius and his theology. Eusebius of Nicomedia and others attempted to overturn Nicea, and for a number of decades it looked as if they might succeed. Constantine adopted a compromising position under the influence of various sources, including Eusebius of Caesarea and a politically worded “confession” from Arius. Constantine put little stock in the definition of Nicea itself: he was a politician to the last. Upon his death, his second son Constantius ruled in the East, and he gave great aid and comfort to Arianism. United by their rejection of the homoousion, semi-Arians and Arians worked to unseat a common enemy, almost always proceeding with political power on their side.

Under Constantius, council after council met in this location or that. So furious was the activity that one commentator wrote of the time, “The highways were covered with galloping bishops.” [22] Most importantly, regional councils meeting at Ariminum, Seleucia, and Sirmium presented Arian and semi-Arian creeds, and many leaders were coerced into subscribing to them. Even Liberius, bishop of Rome, having been banished from his see (position as bishop) and longing to return, was persuaded to give in and compromise on the matter. [23]

During the course of the decades following Nicea, Athanasius, who had become bishop of Alexandria shortly after the council, was removed from his see five times, once by force of 5,000 soldiers coming in the front door while he escaped out the back! Hosius, now nearly 100 years old, was likewise forced by imperial threats to compromise and give place to Arian ideas. At the end of the sixth decade of the century, it looked as if Nicea would be defeated. Jerome would later describe this moment in history as the time when “the whole world groaned and was astonished to find itself Arian.” [24]

Yet, in the midst of this darkness, a lone voice remained strong. Arguing from Scripture, fearlessly reproaching error, writing from refuge in the desert, along the Nile, or in the crowded suburbs around Alexandria, Athanasius continued the fight. His unwillingness to give place — even when banished by the Emperor, disfellowshipped by the established church, and condemned by local councils and bishops alike — gave rise to the phrase, Athanasius contra mundum: “Athanasius against the world.” Convinced that Scripture is “sufficient above all things,” [25] Athanasius acted as a true “Protestant” in his day. [26] Athanasius protested against the consensus opinion of the established church, and did so because he was compelled by scriptural authority. Athanasius would have understood, on some of those long, lonely days of exile, what Wycliffe meant a thousand years later: “If we had a hundred popes, and if all the friars were cardinals, to the law of the gospel we should bow, more than all this multitude.” [27]

Movements that depend on political favor (rather than God’s truth) eventually die, and this was true of Arianism. As soon as it looked as if the Arians had consolidated their hold on the Empire, they turned to internal fighting and quite literally destroyed each other. They had no one like a faithful Athanasius, and it was not long before the tide turned against them. By A.D. 381, the Council of Constantinople could meet and reaffirm, without hesitancy, the Nicene faith, complete with the homoousious clause. The full deity of Christ was affirmed, not because Nicea had said so, but because God had revealed it to be so. Nicea’s authority rested upon the solid foundation of Scripture. A century after Nicea, we find the great bishop of Hippo, Augustine, writing to Maximin, an Arian, and saying: “I must not press the authority of Nicea against you, nor you that of Ariminum against me; I do not acknowledge the one, as you do not the other; but let us come to ground that is common to both — the testimony of the Holy Scriptures.” [28]

 NICEA TODAY

Why do Christians believe in the deity of Christ today?

Is it because they have been forced to do so by legislated theology from councils and popes? No, it is because the Scriptures teach this truth. When orthodox believers affirm the validity of the creed hammered out at Nicea, they are simply affirming a concise, clear presentation of scriptural truth. The authority of the Nicene creed, including its assertion of the homoousion, is not to be found in some concept of an infallible church, but in the fidelity of the creed to scriptural revelation. It speaks with the voice of the apostles because it speaks the truth as they proclaimed it. Modern Christians can be thankful for the testimony of an Athanasius who stood for these truths even when the vast majority stood against him. We should remember his example in our day.

 NOTES

1 The Council of Nicea did not take up the issue of the canon of Scripture. In fact, only regional councils touched on this issue (Hippo in 393, Carthage in 397) until much later. The New Testament canon developed in the consciousness of the church over time, just as the Old Testament canon did. See Don Kistler, ed., Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1995).

2 See Joseph P. Gudel, Robert M. Bowman, Jr., and Dan R. Schlesinger, “Reincarnation — Did the Church Suppress It?” Christian Research Journal, Summer 1987, 8-12.

3 Gordon Rupp, Luther’s Progress to the Diet of Worms (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1964), 66.

4 Much has been written about Constantine’s religious beliefs and his “conversion” to Christianity. Some attribute to him high motives in his involvement at Nicea; others see him as merely pursuing political ends. In either case, we do not need to decide the issue of the validity of his confession of faith, for the decisions of the Nicene Council on the nature of the Son were not dictated by Constantine, and even after the Council he proved himself willing to “compromise” on the issue, all for the sake of political unity. The real battle over the deity of Christ was fought out in his shadow, to be sure, but it took place on a plane he could scarcely understand, let alone dominate.

5 Later centuries would find the idea of an ecumenical council being called by anyone but the bishop of Rome, the pope, unthinkable. Hence, long after Nicea, in A.D. 680, the story began to circulate that in fact the bishop of Rome called the Council, and even to this day some attempt to revive this historical anachronism, claiming the two presbyters (Victor and Vincentius) who represented Sylvester, the aged bishop of Rome, in fact sat as presidents over the Council. See Philip Schaff’s comments in his History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 3:335.

6 Athanasius’s role at the council has been hotly debated. As a deacon, he would not, by later standards, even be allowed to vote. But his brilliance was already seen, and it would eventually fall to him to defend the decisions of the Council, which became his lifelong work.

7 The Latin translation is consubstantialis, consubstantial, which is the common rendering of the term in English versions of the final form of the Nicene Creed.

8 Modalism is the belief that there is one Person in the Godhead who at times acts as the Father, and other times as the Son, and still other times as the Spirit. Modalism denies the Trinity, which asserts that the three Persons have existed eternally.

9 Schaff, 3:624.

10 The only basis that can be presented for such an idea is found in a letter, written by Eusebius of Caesarea during the council itself to his home church, explaining why he eventually gave in and signed the creed, and agreed to the term homoousios. At one point Eusebius writes that Constantine “encouraged the others to sign it and to agree with its teaching, only with the addition of the word ‘consubstantial’ [i.e., homoousios].” The specific term used by Eusebius, parakeleueto, can berendered as strongly as “command” or as mildly as “advise” or “encourage.” There is nothing in Eusebius’s letter, however, that would suggest that he felt he had been ordered to subscribe to the use of the term, nor that he felt that Constantine was the actual source of the term.

11 Schaff, 3:628.

12 Someone might say that this demonstrates the insufficiency of Scripture to function as the sole infallible rule of faith for the church; that is, that it denies sola scriptura. But sola scriptura does not claim the Bible is sufficient to answer every perversion of its own revealed truths. Peter knew that there would be those who twist the Scriptures to their own destruction, and it is good to note that God has not deemed it proper to transport all heretics off the planet at the first moment they utter their heresy. Struggling with false teaching has, in God’s sovereign plan, been a part of the maturing of His people.

13 For many generations misunderstandings between East and West, complicated by the language differences (Greek remaining predominate in the East, Latin becoming the normal language of religion in the West), kept controversy alive even when there was no need for it.

14 Titus 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:1, John 1:1-14, Col. 1:15-17, Phil. 2:5-11, etc.

15 See, for example, his epistle to the Ephesians, 18, and to the Romans, 3, in J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, eds., The Apostolic Fathers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 141 and 150.

16 Polycarp 3, The Apostolic Fathers, 161.

17 Ephesians 7, The Apostolic Fathers, 139.

18 Melito of Sardis, A Homily on the Passover, sect. 95-96, as found in Richard Norris, Jr., The Christological Controversy (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 46. This homily is one of the best examples of early preaching that is solidly biblical in tone and Christ-centered in message.

19 Athanasius, De Synodis, 6, as found in Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series II (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), IV:453.

20Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series II, XIV:15.

21 For those who struggle with the idea that it was not “Roman Catholicism” that existed in those days, consider this: if one went into a church today, and discovered that the people gathered there did not believe in the papacy, did not believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Bodily Assumption of Mary, purgatory, indulgences, did not believe in the concept of transubstantiation replete with the communion host’s total change in accidence and substance, and had no tabernacles on the altars in their churches, would one think he or she was in a “Roman Catholic” church? Of course not. Yet, the church of 325 had none of these beliefs, either. Hence, while they called themselves “Catholics,” they would not have had any idea what “Roman Catholic” meant.

22 Ammianus Marcellinus, as cited by Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), III:632.

23 For a discussion of the lapse of Liberius, see Schaff, III:635-36. For information on the relationship of Liberius and the concept of papal infallibility, see George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1959), 425-29, and Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), I:176-78.

24 Jerome, Adversus Luciferianos, 19, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series II, 6:329.

25 Athanasius, De Synodis, 6, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series II, 4:453.

26 I credit one of my students, Michael Porter, with this phraseology.

27 Robert Vaughn, The Life and Opinions of John de Wycliffe (London: Holdworth and Ball, 1831), 313. See 312-17 for a summary of Wycliffe’s doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture.

28Augustine, To Maximim the Arian, as cited by George Salman, The Infallibility of the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1959), 295.

– See more at: http://www.inplainsite.org/html/council_of_nicea.html#sthash.0YGX8gj4.dpuf

The Nicene Creed   AD 325

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, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten (gennethenta), not made, being of one substance (homoousion; consubstantialem) with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead. And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost. And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not (en pote ote ouk en), or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.

Clement of Alexandria writing in 195 A.D. and 130 years before Nicea “…thank the Alone Father and Son, Son and Father, the Son, Instructor and Teacher, with the Holy Spirit, all in One, in whom is all, for whom all is One, for whom is eternity…” The Paedagogus, III:xii, (ANF 2:295)

Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage  writing in 250 A.D.  and 75 years before Nicea

 “Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” He suggests the Trinity, in whose sacrament the nations were to be baptized.” Epistle LXXII:5, (ANF 5:380)

“Finally, when, after the resurrection, the apostles are sent by the Lord to the heathens, they are bidden to baptize the Gentiles ‘in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ How, then, do some say, that a Gentile baptized without, outside the Church, yea, and in opposition to the Church, so that it be only in the name of Jesus Christ, everywhere, and in whatever manner, can obtain remission of sin, when Christ Himself commands the heathen to be baptized in the full and united Trinity?” Ibid., (ANF 5:383)

The Athanasian Creed   (b. ca. 296-298 – d. 2 May 373)

1. Whosoever will be saved: before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith:

2. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled: without doubt he shall perish

everlastingly.

3. And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the Persons: nor dividing the Substance [Essence].

5. For there is one Person of the Father: another of the Son: and another of the Holy Ghost.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one: the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is: such is the Son: and such is the Holy Ghost.

8. The Father uncreate [uncreated]: the Son uncreate [uncreated]: and the Holy Ghost uncreate [uncreated].

9. The Father incomprehensible [unlimited]: the Son incomprehensible [unlimited]: and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible [unlimited, or infinite].

10. The Father eternal: the Son eternal: and the Holy Ghost eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals: but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated: nor three incomprehensibles [infinites], but one uncreated: and one incomprehensible [infinite].

13. So likewise the Father is Almighty: the Son Almighty: and the Holy Ghost Almighty.

14. And yet they are not three Almighties: but one Almighty.

15. So the Father is God: the Son is God: and the Holy Ghost is God.

16. And yet they are not three Gods: but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord: the Son Lord: and the Holy Ghost Lord.

18. And yet not three Lords: but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity: to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord:

20. So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion: to say, There be [are] three Gods, or three Lords.

21. The Father is made of none: neither created, nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone: not made, nor created: but begotten.

23. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten: but proceeding.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers: one Son, not three Sons: one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore, or after another: none is greater, or less than another [there is nothing before, or after: nothing greater or less].

26. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid: the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshiped.

28. He therefore that will be saved, must [let him] thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation: that he also believe rightly [faithfully] the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess: that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man;

31. God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds: and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God: and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead: and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood.

34. Who although he be [is] God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ.

35. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh: but by taking [assumption] of the Manhood into God.

36. One altogether; not by confusion of Substance [Essence]: but by unity of Person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man: so God and Man is one Christ;

38. Who suffered for our salvation: descended into hell [Hades, spirit-world]: rose again the third day from the dead.

39. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the Father God [God the Father] Almighty.

40. From whence [thence] he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42. And shall give account for their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting: and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire.

44. This is the Catholic Faith: which except a man believe faithfully [truly and firmly], he can not be saved.  Schaff, Phillip. “The Athanasian Creed, Revised Old Version” in The Creeds of Christendom with a History and Critical Notes, Vol. II: The Greek and Latin Creeds with Translations, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book, rpt. 1977) pp. 66-70.

The Defense of an Essential: A Believer’s Handbook for Defending the Trinity Nick Norelli

“Fair Use “ Notice – Title 17 U.S.C. section 107

The above post may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social justice, for the purpose of historical debate, and to advance the understanding of Christian conservative issues.  It is believed that this constitutes a ”fair use” of any such copyrighted material as

provided for in section 107 of the Copyright Law. In accordance with the title 17 U.S. C. section 107, the material in this post is shown without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.