SHORT CHRISTIAN READINGS SELECTED FOR FORMER JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
CONSTANTINE, COUNCILS, AND CREEDS
Author Unknown
(edited)
OUTBREAK TO NICEA (318-325 A.D.)
The first significant challenge of the Deity of Christ came by Paul of Samosata in 268 A.D. The Antiochine school of theologians to which he belonged rejected the equality of substance of Father and Son; believing the Son to be created. Lucian was the first Antiochine teacher of this view. Arius of Alexandria developed his teacher Lucian's subordinationism into a full blown system of thought in which he denied the eternal existence of the Logos and both the personality and the Deity of the Holy Spirit. Apparently one day in 318 A.D., at a teaching session, Bishop Alexander of Alexandria was teaching on the eternity of the Logos. Arius voiced his objection to the view, and after some days of debate, the presbyters of Alexandria agreed with Alexander. As a result, Arius was banned from the Alexandrian churches. He left the city and was well received by Eusebius of Nicodemia, whose theology agreed for the most part with him. Eusebius was a fellow student of Lucian of Antioch and of Eusebius of Caesarea. Although the theology of Eusebius of Caesarea was in fact opposed to Arius', his terminology did not agree with the main body of orthodoxy represented by Alexander. Eusebius of Caesarea thought of himself in agreement with Arius, though he later saw he was not.
The two Eusebiuses both had strong ties with the Emperor Constantine and appealed to him for help for Arius. Constantine talked with representatives of both sides of the controversy, especially with Bishop Hosius of Cordova, a close friend and a longtime aide of Constantine, who supported the orthodox viewpoint of Alexander. Apparently, Constantine did not fully understand the theological issues very well at first, if at all. But he did understand that this problem caused a major division within Christianity; and as a Christian himself, he wished to see this brought to an end. He did all he could to restore unity without political force, but to no avail.
Finally, in the spring of 325 A.D., Constantine, with the encouragement of bishops from both sides, called for a conference of the leading bishops throughout the empire to discuss this and other matters. The council met in Nicea.
The role of the emperor in all this has long been the subject of great debate. It has been argued that his purpose was only political, the unification of a powerful force within the empire, namely the Christian Church. It is more likely, though, that both politics and religion were important to Constantine, for it appears that he inherited from his father an early tendency towards Christianity. His commitment was genuine because even in his later years he sought to be baptized and received it from Eusebius of Nicodemia.
We cannot assume that Constantine understood the issues involved in the dispute. His own opinions were probably more Arian than orthodox, at least at the start of the controversy. But his real desire was simply to believe the Christian faith and it was up to the Church to decide what that faith was. During the council, probably at the suggestion by Hosius, he proposed the addition of the word "homoeousios" (of one essence) to the creed submitted by Eusebius of Caesarea. This might make us think that he had begun to understand the issues, and had seen the truth of the orthodox position. This is possible, but not likely, for his later leanings were consistently Arian.
The Arian creed was soundly rejected by the vast majority of the attendees. Interestingly, most of the bishops present were from the East, where most of the Arians were found; very few bishops came from the West, although the West was solidly Trinitarian. Arius apparently left the council at that time, or was forced to leave. Eusebius of Nicodemia became the main defender of Arianism during the rest of the meetings. Following that, Eusebius of Caesarea proposed a creed to the council which won the general approval of the participants. Its language was scriptural but did not prevent misinterpretation, and that is precisely what the Arian party did with it. Constantine immediately intervened, praising the declaration as orthodox, and urged the bishops to subscribe to it. He felt that only one more word was necessary: "homoeousios". It is surely true that Constantine was the one who formally suggested the term, but it is quite probable, if not certain, he did so at the insistence, or at least the strong encouragement of Bishop Hosius and other orthodox leaders.
The term was not new since it was used by Origen nearly a century before. It was commonplace in orthodox theology, but the object of great scorn by the Arians. The term was crucially needed to prevent Arian misinterpretation.
Following the formal suggestion of the term, there erupted great debate at the council. There were 3 parties: (1) the true Arians who were vastly outnumbered, (2) the true Nicenes who were led by Alexander, Hosius, Eusebius and Athanasius, who outnumbered the Arians but who were still fewer than the third party. (3) the "homoeousians' were the large middle party; also called semi-Arians. Most of them were orthodox in faith even though their vocabulary was different. They argued that the Son was not the same nature as the Father; but a nature "like" the Father's. The formulation was bound to cause misinterpretation. Neither of the other two parties would accept this wording. Only a few held to the doctrine of Arius. Each party presented arguments to support its position.
It was at the Council of Nicea that Athanasius showed his great mental vigor and the promise of becoming the leader of the Nicene party. Though the "homoeousion" party began the council, they were decidedly outnumbered by the middle-of-the-road "homoeousians," the intellectual leadership of Athanasius quickly gave them the upper hand in debate, and many of the middles moved to their side. Athanasius and the orthodox leaders had to argue against two parties.
The great leader of the "homoeousians", Eusebius of Caesarea, signed the creed along with the major portion of his party. Perhaps the explanation of the "inconsistency" in Eusebius' doctrine is in the distinction between the logical and temporal priority. Since the Father generated the Son, He is therefore "before" the Son in the logical sense, though not in the temporal sense.
Although the Council of Nicea ended with a rousing paper victory for the orthodox, the victory was not to be complete until 56 years later at the Council of Constantinople. Shortly after the Council of Nicea, the Arians made a powerful comeback, taking the reins of power in the Church, at least in the East. They also gained the good favor of the emperor Constantine, who banned Athanasius in 335 A.D., and his son Constantius, who became emperor when Constantine died in 337 A.D., a year after the death of Arius. But even while the Arians were in power, they were not completely unified. By the year 362 A.D. the tables were again reversed, and orthodoxy was once again established. The later Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon further ratified the Nicene Creed, providing the church with a theological standard as a test of faith and a protection against heresy.
ARIAN ASCENDANCY (325-361 A.D.)
Arian triumph after Nicea was accomplished by means other than ecclesiastical. Appeals to the emperor, personally and politically, were explained by using ambiguous statements of faith. The 40 years following the Council of Nicea were the darkest hours of orthodoxy. But years proved the great strengthening ground for the Nicene formula and faith, and resulted in blessings. Almost immediately after the Council of Nicea, the Arians turned to political means to gain power.
The creed of Arianism was ambiguous and heretical, not so much for what it said, but for what it didn't say. Constantine, unfortunately, did not realize this and by the time he knew what happened, he had already committed himself to the Arian party. Arianism was an attractive religious system to emperors because its teachings implied that a creature could be divine. (a god), highly exalted and worshipped by the people. The focus was on the unity of the church, rather than the issue of what sort of God the church worshipped.
Violence and upheaval was a result of Arian supremacy. Athanasius was repeatedly banished from Alexandria. In the meantime, he wrote volumes about the Arians. There was extreme abuse and persecution of orthodoxy.
The Arian party knew that it did not represent neither the contemporary Church or the centuries of the Church which preceded it. The Arian claims were not in step with Christianity. However, orthodoxy was not dormant all this time and held councils and wrote letters and books.
Athanasius was the champion of the Nicene Creed and orthodoxy, which claimed that the Word (Logos) of God was not a creature. There were 3 persons of like substance; not separate.
UNION OF ORTHODOXY AND THE FINAL VICTORY (362-381 A.D.)
This Council spelled the death of Arianism after its rise under Constantine. The orthodox parties unified and ended the disagreements over word usage. The language of Trinitarianism was finally completely developed. Most important was that it was recognized by both parties that language it self was not of paramount importance, but what the language meant. And with this agreement, they were able to see that each side meant the same thing while saying it in different ways. So the spiritual victory of orthodoxy was completed by 362 A.D. The next 19 years were spent winning the outward victory - removing Arianism from ecclesiastical and political power.
The task was not easy. The Emperor Valens (reigned 364-378 A.D.) was a fanatical Arian and heavily persecuted the orthodox party. He forced Bishops into exile and handed over their sees to Arians; used physical torment against some, and attempted to make Arianism the final victor in ecclesiastical circles. It became increasingly difficult for the orthodox to worship openly.
Arianism continued to decline in spiritual, intellectual, and moral strength, and with the decline came a loss of support among the common members of the Church. The support of the emperor, great and powerful as it was, could not hope to counterbalance the weight of the decisions of the Church as a body. During the reign of Gratian, the successor to Valens, the orthodox party made great gains in winning back sees. for Gratian was completely disinterested in ecclesiastical affairs, and the Church was free to govern her own life. By now "the Church" had become almost synonymous with the orthodox party, for the majority of members agreed with them against the Arian leadership.
The orthodox bishops and the emperor called the Council at Constantinople, which met in 381, to make final and official the triumph of the Nicene faith. The main purpose of the Council was simply to ratify the Nicene Creed and recognize its place as the confession of the Catholic Church. Constantinople thus marked the final and complete victory of orthodoxy over Arianism in the Church within the Roman Empire and for the most part, outside it as well.
The Council of Constantinople not only marked the victory of orthodoxy over heresy, but also pronounced the independence of the Church from the state. At first glance it might appear that the only reason orthodoxy finally won is that Emperor Theodosius I was orthodox. But this is not really the case. The Church had conquered the throne; not vice versa. The constant characteristic of Arianism from beginning to end was dependence on imperial might for protection and power.
It was not by the power of the empire that orthodoxy won. Had Theodosius not been a Nicene, Arianism would have died under the weight of the orthodox arguments anyway. Orthodoxy had defeated heresy in the past without the help of the emperor, and in time it would have defeated this foe as well.
The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed comes at the end of three-and-a-half centuries of battle against gnosticism, neo-platonism, subordinationism, polytheism, Monarchianism, and finally Arianism, each with many forms. It expresses the faith taught in the New Testament as contrasted with all the variations offered by the unorthodox in the past who failed to represent that faith accurately. The Nicene Creed stands as the great hallmark of truly Christian trinitarianism against all pseudo-Christian trinities.
THE CREED OF NICEA - Nicea 325 A.D.
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, [the only-begotten, that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoeousion) with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth], who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he will come to judge the quick and the dead.
And in the HOLY GHOST.
[But those who say "There was a time when he was not," and "He was not before he was made," or "He was made out of nothing," or "He is of another substance" or "essence" or "The Son of God is created," or "Changeable" they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic church.]
THE NICENE CREED (Constantinople, 381 A.D.)
We believe in one God, the FATHER Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord JESUS CHRIST, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (eons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten; not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And in the HOLY GHOST, the Lord and the Giver of Life, and proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. In the holy Catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
ATHANASIAN CREED -- written early 5th century
The Catholic Faith is this:
That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance (essence). For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one: the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father incomprehensible (unlimited); the Son incomprehensible (unlimited); and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible (unlimited). The Father eternal; the son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; not three incomprehensibles (infinites); but one uncreated; and one incomprehensible (infinite). So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty, and the Holy ghost Almighty. And yet there are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Ghost is Lord. And yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord. So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say: there are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The son is of the Father alone; not made; not created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made nor created, not begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is alone, or after another; none is greater or less than another (there is nothing before, or after: nothing greater or less). But the whole three Persons are co-eternal; and co-equal. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must (let him) thus think of the Trinity.
************************** ****************************
Modern Day Arians: Who are They?
Tommy Dorsett
One of the greatest of the heretics in all of Church history was Arius of Alexandria. He lived from about AD 280 until 336 and had a profound influence upon the Church.
Arius was a presbyter (member of the governing body) of the Alexandrian Church and he taught that doctrine must be completely reasonable to the human mind or it was not biblical.
When human reason becomes the criterion for Biblical doctrine, limitations are placed upon God who is infinite and His Word via man's finite mind.
Therefore, if a certain doctrine is found to be unreasonable in Man's understanding, it would follow that it would also be unscriptural.
The doctrine of Christ had already been responsible for considerable agitation of the Church. Before Arius came on the scene, heresy had already played a major role in forcing the Church to express definite views of doctrine.
Beginning toward the end of the first century and especially into the second and third centuries, Gnosticism pressured the Church fathers into defining and defending some of the major doctrines of Christianity; particularly concerning Christology (the person, nature, and work of Christ).
The teachings of Arius in the fourth century had the same results. In fact, the greatest theological works and statements of faith produced in the early church were a direct result of answering heretics.
So what was it in Arius' doctrine of Christ that made it heresy?
Arius said: "We must either suppose two divine original essences, without beginning and independent of each other, we must substitute a dyarchy for a monarchy, or we must not shrink from asserting that the logos had a beginning of his existence - that there was when he was not (Albert Newman, A Manual of Church History, p. 326).
This action resulted in a schism of the Alexandrian Church which spread quickly throughout the rest of the Church. It eventually led to the Nicene Council where Athanasius, one of the greatest thinkers in Church history, championed Orthodoxy and the Nicene Creed was drafted.
This creed says in part, "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... begotten not made, of one substance with the Father..." (Hoekema, The Four Major Cults, p. 328).
There is no doubt that the closing statement of the creed had Arius in mind as it reads:
"But as for those who say, there was when He was not, and, before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is from a different... substance, or is created, or is subject to alteration or change - these the Catholic [that is, Universal] Church anathematizes," (Ibid).
A summary of the Arian view follows:
1. The son was created out of nothing; hence, he is different in essence from the Father; that he is Logos, Wisdom, Son of God, is only of grace. He is not so in himself.
2. There was, when he was not; i.e., he is a finite being.
3. He was created before everything else, and through him the universe was created and is administered.
4. In the historical Christ the human element is merely the material; the soul is the Logos. The historical Christ, therefore, had no human soul....
5. The Arians held, that although the incarnate Logos is finite, and hence not God, he is to be worshipped, as being unspeakably exalted above all other Creatures, the immediate Creator and Governor of the universe, and the Redeemer of man.
6. The Arians adhered to the Scriptures, and were willing to employ as their own any scriptural statements of doctrine. (A Manual for Church History, p. 327).
From the foregoing, who, then, would be the modern-day counterparts to Arius?
It is the organization which claims that Abel was the first of their number and then proceeds to claim the rest of the men of God mentioned in the Bible were ancestors to their organization.
Then, beginning with Jesus, they give the remaining line of their ancestors as follows:
"(1) Jesus to Paul, (2) Paul to Arius, (3) Arius to Waldo, (4) Waldo to Wycliff, (5) Wycliff to Luther, and (6) Luther to Charles Taze Russell (Gruss, ?Apostles of Denialo, p. 9).
Who are they?
The modern-day Arians are none other than the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Russell was the founder of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the parent organization of the Jehovah's Witnesses. With the exception of Arius, there is no relationship between the Witness and the line of ancestors claimed by them.
Concerning Waldo, Wycliff and Luther, the only similarity is that they worked outside the Church of their day. These men were all Christian leaders.
Arius, however, is truly an ancestor of the Witnesses. Note the similarity of the Watchtower Christology to that of Arius in the following:
1. The only-begotten Son of God, the only Son produced (created) by Jehovah alone.
2. This Son is the firstborn [to the Watchtower, it means first created] of all creation.
3. By means of him (Jesus) all other things in heaven and on earth were created.
4. He is the second-greatest personage in the universe (Reasoning From The Scriptures, p. 209).
5. The Bible is Jehovah God's written Word to humankind. He used some 40 human secretaries over a period of 16 centuries to record it, but God himself actively directed the writing by his spirit. Thus it is inspired by God (Reasoning, p. 58).
6. But Jehovah God has also provided his visible organization, this "faithful and discreet slave," made up of spirit-anointed ones, to help Christians in all nations to understand and apply properly the Bible in their lives.
Unless we are in touch with this channel of communication that God is using, we will not progress along the road to life, no matter how much Bible reading we do (The Watchtower, 1 Dec. 1981, p. 27).
Now there are also some differences between the Christology of Arius and that of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
For instance, whereas Arius would teach that Jesus' human element is merely the material with the Logos being the soul (no human soul), the Jehovah's Witnesses would teach that Jesus was purely man, and as such, he did not possess a soul but he was a living soul.
Also, Arius believed Jesus should be worshipped whereas the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that since one is to worship God alone Jesus should not be worshipped, since he is merely a creature.
However, as demonstrated above, in the most important of doctrines in the Church, Christology, there is more than enough similarity between the two to leave no doubt that the Jehovah's Witnesses are the Arians of our day.
Satan, it appears, is actually limited in the number of tricks he has in his bag. But, he is a rather craft and deceitful fellow and he can take the same old lie that he used over 1600 years ago, take some of the dents out, do a little updating, add a new coat of paint, put it in a brand new package and then sell it as the Truth.
The Apostle Paul, in describing those who would come along and preach another Jesus said:
"For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore, it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servant of righteousness; whose ends shall be according to their deeds," (2 Cor. 11:13-15).
***************************** *****************************
EDITOR'S NOTE: We include this amusing article for its limited educational value. Don't ever expect a Jehovah's Witness to so cooperate, nor provide the responses these hypothetical conversations contains. However, there are several good Biblical and a few other good points that are adaptable to real-world scenarions. We "thank" the author for his well-meaning efforts.
Is Jesus a True or a False God?
By Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
(edited)
When showing Jehovah's Witnesses from the Bible that Jesus Christ is God, it is often best not to question their translation of such key verses as John 1:1 and Titus 2:13. This can be done by sticking to texts such as Isaiah 9:6 and John 20:28 which -- even in the New World Translation (NWT) -- call Jesus "God." That these verses as well as John 1:1 mean that Jesus is Jehovah can be argued using a line of reasoning like the following:
Christian: How many gods are there?
JW: Well, according to 1 Corinthians 8:5, there are "gods many and lords many."
Christian: But, according to John 17:3, how many true Gods are there?
JW: Only one: Jehovah the Father is "the only true God."
Christian: Quite right. Now, would you agree that whatever is not true must be false?
JW: Yes, I suppose so.
Christian: Then, if there is only one true God, all other gods must be false gods, right?
JW: Yes, I can see that.
Christian: Now, according to John 1:1 in the New World Translation, Jesus is a god. Do you agree with that?
JW: Of course.
Christian: Well then, is Jesus a true god, or a false god?
JW: Hmm ... I don't know.
Christian: He can't be a false god, can he, since that would mean the apostle John was guilty of falsely honoring Jesus as a god. Therefore he must be a true God. But Jehovah is the only true God. Therefore, Jesus must be Jehovah.
The usual JW response will be that this argument must have gone wrong somewhere because elsewhere in Scripture creatures are called "gods" without any implication that they are false gods. The texts cited to prove this are always Exodus 7:1, John 10:34 (compare Ps.82:6), and Hebrews 2:7 (compare Ps. 8:5).
An attempt to answer this response by launching into a discussion of the meaning of all these texts would likely result in the discussion being forever sidetracked. Certainly, you may offer to return to the meaning of these texts after finishing the discussion at hand. But I suggest doing an "end run" around these verses that will keep the conversation on track and still show that these verses do not overturn the argument. Here is one approach:
Christian: Those verses that use the plural "gods" cannot possibly be speaking of Jehovah, right?
JW: Of course not, since Jehovah is only one God.
Christian: Right. So these verses could not be misunderstood to be calling creatures "God" in the usual sense. Would you agree?
JW: That's right, but they are still called "gods" in a sense.
Christian: Yes, but whatever "sense" that is, it is not the same sense in which Jehovah is God, right?
JW: Right.
Christian: Now, consider the verses that use the singular "god" of creatures. Most of these clearly are calling creatures "gods" in the sense of false gods, isn't that true?
JW: Yes, but not all of them. Exodus 7:1 says Moses was a god.
Christian: Well, not exactly. Why don't you read it from the NWT?
JW: "Consequently Jehovah said to Moses, 'See, I have made you God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your own brother will become your prophet.'" See, it does call Moses "God."
Christian: More exactly, it says that Jehovah made Moses "God to Pharaoh." Now, what do you think that means?
JW: I think it means that Moses was going to exercise godlike powers over Pharaoh.
Christian: Then why doesn't the NWT translate this verse "make you a god to Pharaoh?"
JW: Uh ... I don't know. Well, maybe it means that Moses stood in God's place, that he represented God.
Christian: So then, Moses wasn't "a god" at all, was he? Wasn't he simply a representative of the only true God?
JW: Hmm. I guess so. But we believe that Jesus is called "God" in this representative sense also -- in John 20:28, for example, when Thomas calls Jesus "my God."
Christian: But surely not in John 1:1, where the NWT calls Jesus "a god." That can't be a "representative" sense.
JW: No, there Jesus is called "a god" because he has godlike powers and qualities.
Christian: But now, you have just admitted that Moses wasn't "a god" in that sense. Is there anyone else in the Bible besides Jesus who is called "a god" -- in the sense of having godlike powers and qualities -- who wasn't a false god?
JW: I can't think of anyone. But why couldn't Jesus be called a god in that sense? He alone was with God at the beginning of the world, assisting Him in the process of creation!
Christian: For the simple reason that the Bible says there is only one God, period (Isa. 43:10; 44:6-8; 1 Cor. 8:4; 1 Tim. 2:5; James 2:19; etc.), and that there is no one who is "godlike" (Isa.40:18, 25; Jer. 10:6-7; etc.). The Bible even denies that powerful rulers (Ezek. 28:2, 9; 2 Thess. 2:4) and spirits (1 Cor. 10:20; Gal. 4:8) are gods.
JW: I didn't know that! But how can Jesus be God when the Bible says that God is his Father?
Christian: How? I don't claim to know how God can be what He is. But I do believe what the Bible says about Him. Do you?
This line of reasoning is not guaranteed to convince a Jehovah's Witness, but it can be helpful in getting the message across.