Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
Not quite. The controversy was not within the Church, but Arians who contradicted what the Church had always believed. That's what Athanasius proved; that's why you don't like him.If only opinions were all that mattered.....people would all be more confused than they already are.
Let me give you a run down on what my sources tell me.
The very first Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church (Nicaea in 325 C.E.) started a great controversy within the Church over the Trinity doctrine.
The Arians were not unitarians, a 17th century offshoot of reformism.Two groups of theologians were of such wide influence that they practically split Christianity into two camps, which were theological and political rivals for over two centuries. These were the ‘orthodox’ group led by Athanasius, an archdeacon of the church in Alexandria, and the Arians, (from Arius, a deacon in the same church). . . . The Athanasians were doctrinally trinitarians; the Arians were unitarians.”
Only one was right, the tradition of Arianism was non-existent.The Arians held to “the doctrine that Christ the Son is subordinate to God the Father, and of different substance, because Christ was created by God and so came into being after God.”
The Trinitarians believed what their doctrine is defined as today......“the threefold personality of the one Divine Being,” in which ‘God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost’ are said to be of the same substance, coequal, and alike uncreated and omnipotent.”
They could not both be right....so what transpired is a matter of history.
What's wrong with that???In his book “The Development of Christian Doctrine”, 19th century Catholic Cardinal, John Henry Newman said that it is generally admitted that the Trinity teaching was a gradual development. He wrote that the creeds before Constantine’s time did not make any mention of it. “They make mention indeed of a Three; but that there is any mystery in the doctrine, that the Three are One, that They are coequal, coeternal, all increate, all omnipotent, all incomprehensible, is not stated, and never could be gathered from them.” (page 15)
That's not what Newman said. He said the Trinity doctrine was not explicit in the creeds before Constantine. No creeds were formulated before Constantine that I am aware of.So there is an admission all by itself.....it doesn’t exist as a doctrine mentioned in Scripture.
Because you lack faith in what was accepted in the first 3 centuries by the historic Church.The doctrine did not exist before Constantine’s time. Don’t we have to ask why?
It is impossible to summon a council without the pope. Derailers don't work with me.Constantine professed to be converted to Christianity, doubtless as much due to political factors as religious ones. It was therefore very disturbing to see this doctrinal division, which was a threat to the unity of his empire. So as Pontifex Maximus, that is, Chief Religious Ruler, he summoned the first Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 325 C.E. This is a pagan Roman title and one that the pope carries to this day.
At that time, Constantine was an Arian. He was baptized a Catholic on his death bed. He was present at the council, he did not preside over it. He made no contributions to the authoritive verdicts of the Council of Nicae. His name is not even mentioned in any of its canons. “The Catholic Church was created by the Emperor Constantine when he made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.” Both of these claims are historically false. Although Constantine is often credited with being the first Christian emperor, he didn’t make Christianity the official religion.Although he had not as yet been baptized as a Christian, (something that he did only as he was dying) Constantine presided over this council to which only some 318 bishops came; with their attendants the gathering may have numbered between 1,500 and 2,000. Imagine! An unbaptized pagan Roman emperor determining “Christian” beliefs. He is said to have been a worshipper of Zeus all his life, whilst giving the impression that he had converted to Christianity. He was two faced.
This story, most famously told by Jehovah Witnesses and Fundamentalist Protestants, came out of their necessity to support their lie that there was an apostasy in the early Church. It is their way to explain how their reform and late arrival is justifiable.
continued...