Expert: Brenda Martin - 1/18/2009

Question
QUESTION: Hi Brenda,

I was wondering if you can help me understand a few things about Christianity going on around the time of Constantine I's reign.
First, I am having trouble understanding the difference between Arianism and Sabellianism; so far I think I understand that Arianism believes that there is no real Holy Trinity, but that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are servants of God, rather than being OF him.
Also, I'm confused about the various "versions" of Christianity going on at the time... Novatians, Marcionites, Paulianists, and Montanists... does this mean that at the time while the Church was organizing itself, that Christianity became a sort of umbrella term for beliefs originating in the belief of the holy Father, but with varying doctrines?
Lastly, I am having trouble understanding what exactly is the Council of Nicea, and why it had issues with Eusebius, Athanasius, and Eustathius. Did it not like Eusebius because he followed Arian beliefs?

Early Christianity seems more confusing than it is today!

I hope you can help! Thankyou for your time.

Debbie.

ANSWER: Here is an article Debbie that may answer some of your questions


How Christendom Became Trinitarian

The very first Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church was held in Nicaea in 325 C.E., and it also started a great controversy within the Catholic Church. What was that controversy all about? The issue then was the Trinity doctrine.

Regarding that situation, a modern historian writes: “Two groups of theologians were of such wide influence that practically they split Christianity into two camps, which were theological and political rivals for two centuries [and more!]. These were the ‘orthodox’ group led by Athanasius, an archdeacon of the church in Alexandria, and the Arians, so called from Arius, a deacon in the same church. . . . The Athanasians were doctrinally trinitarians; the Arians, unitarians.” The Latin West, with its headquarters in Rome, was almost wholly Athanasian, whereas the Hellenized or Grecianized Eastern part of the Roman Empire was largely Arian, with its headquarters eventually at Constantinople.

What did the Arians believe? They 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.”

And what did the Trinitarians believe? Their doctrine is defined today as “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.

However, it is generally admitted that the Trinity teaching was a gradual development. Thus Cardinal Newman 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.”—The Development of Christian Doctrine, page 15.

A modern leading Roman Catholic authority testifies in a similar vein: “It is difficult, in the second half of the 20th century, to offer a clear, objective, and straightforward account of the revelation, doctrinal evolution, and theological elaboration of the mystery of the Trinity. . . . One should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. . . . When one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century.”—The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIV, page 295.

Constantine and Nicaea

Constantine professed to be converted to so-called Christianity, doubtless as much due to political factors as religious ones. It therefore was very disturbing to him to see this doctrinal division, he viewing it as 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. Although he had not as yet been baptized as a Christian, he 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.

For about two months the Trinitarians and the Arians wrangled, the Trinitarians often resorting to extremely intolerant tactics. Constantine, noting that the Trinitarians were in the majority, decided in their favour. He “crushed the opposition among the bishops and demanded the signature of all present under the penalty of banishment. Only two bishops of Libya refused; together with Arius and the priests who remained faithful to him, they were exiled to Illyricum,” a territory corresponding to western Yugoslavia today. Arius’ writings were seized, burned, and, upon the penalty of death, all were warned against possessing any of them.

But the triumph of Athanasius and his Trinitarians was short-lived. Constantine, having decided in favour of the Trinitarians, most likely for political reasons, was just as ready to change when the political climate seemed to shift. And thus it occurred when Constantine, just a few years later, moved his capital to Byzantium and built the city bearing his name, Constantinople. Here Arianism was strong, the bishops from this area having signed the Nicene statement only because of fear.

The leading bishop in Constantinople, Eusebius of Nicomedia, was an Arian, and he succeeded in causing Constantine to change doctrinal horses, so to speak. Now it was the Trinitarians that were banned. In 335 Constantine banished Athanasius to Treves, in Gaul (France). Shortly thereafter, and just before he died, Constantine was baptized by Arian bishop Eusebius.

Constantine left the empire to his heirs, some nephews and his three sons, Constantine II, Constantius and Constans. The sons at once got rid of the other heirs and then fought it out among themselves. The one finally to win out was Constantius, a convinced Arian who gradually gained control of the entire empire, East and West, upon the death of his Trinitarian brothers. Out to advance Arianism, he ordered Trinitarian bishops to be replaced with Arian bishops, which changes caused a pagan historian of the times to mock that “the highways were covered with galloping bishops.”

The Trinitarians Finally Win

This Arian domination, however, lasted only until the death of Constantius, for the Trinitarians were still in the majority. This should not seem surprising since, with Satan as the “god of this system of things,” error is generally more popular than truth. (2 Cor. 4:4) Also accounting for the Arians losing out was the fact that they themselves were not unified. They did not endorse a common statement or creed as expressing their beliefs nor did they have a governing body to which to appeal. So they were divided, and how can ‘a house divided against itself stand’?—Matt. 12:25.

But perhaps as much as anything that caused Trinitarians to win out over Arians was that the former were ever ready to resort to violence and force to gain their ends. When Arius got up to speak at the Nicaean Council, we are told, a certain Nicholas of Myra hit him in the face, and, while Arius was speaking, many of the Trinitarian bishops stuck their fingers in their ears and ran out as if horrified at his heresies. Also typical of the intolerance of the Trinitarians was the sit-down strike that Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, manoeuvred so as to prevent even one church building in his city from being turned over to the Arians, as ordered by Emperor Valentinian. Ambrose had his flock remain in the building day and night, singing songs, for two weeks, until the emperor finally yielded to his demand.

Bearing similar testimony to the violent intolerance of the Trinitarians as an effective weapon against the Arians are the contrasting statements made by two of the most noted of Germanic ‘barbarian’ rulers. Clovis, king of the Franks, who embraced Roman Catholic orthodoxy and therefore Trinitarianism, proceeded against the Arian Visigoths in Gaul, saying: “It grieves me that these Arians should hold part of Gaul. Let us march, with the help of God, and reduce them to subjection.” And reduce them to subjection he did. Concerning the harvest that followed this sowing of intolerance, we read that it “is a tale of cruelty, avarice, and treachery, of debauched kings and vindictive queens, for whom [pope] Gregory sought excuses because of their defense of Catholic orthodoxy.”

In striking contrast to the intolerance of orthodox Clovis stood Arian Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths. Zeno, the Roman emperor in the East, commissioned him to take the Italian peninsula, it being held at the time by a king who did not recognize Zeno as ruling over both the eastern and western parts of the Roman Empire. Theodoric conquered Italy, but, as regards religion, his policy was: “Religion is a thing which the king cannot command, because no man can be compelled to believe against his will.”

Another factor that worked in favor of the Trinitarians was that of monasticism, that is, having men lead celibate lives in monasteries. Athanasius was the first prominent Roman Catholic theologian to promote monasticism. Monks not only were a stronghold of Trinitarianism but were ever ready to resort to violence in their zeal for their Trinitarian beliefs.

The fact that the Germanic warriors who invaded the Roman Empire, both its eastern and its western parts, were Arians also worked in favor of the Trinitarians. How did it come about that these ‘barbarians’ were Arians? Because they had been converted by an Arian bishop, Ulfilas. So to espouse Arianism was construed as sympathizing with these invaders.

Perhaps the severest blow against the Arians was delivered by Emperor Theodosius. By means of the official decrees of 391-392 C.E., he imposed Roman Catholic orthodoxy upon all “Christians” and deprived the Arians, as well as all pagans, of their houses of worship. Says a historian: “The legal triumph of the church over heresy [Arianism] and paganism and its evolution from a persecuted sect to a persecuting state church were complete.”

The Arian ‘Barbarians’

From the fifth century on, there were no longer any Arian Roman emperors. However, this did not mark the end of Arianism as a national religion. Far from it! After the death of Theodosius, Rome again became the prey of Arian German invaders who swooped down from the north. Says a Roman Catholic authority: “Despite some persecution, Christianity in this [Arian] form spread with remarkable vigor from the Goths to the neighboring tribes. . . . When they invaded the West and established the various Germanic kingdoms, most of the tribes professed [Arianism] as their national religion and in some instances persecuted those among the Roman population who professed Catholic orthodoxy. . . . But gradually the [Roman] Catholic Church succeeded in eliminating Arianism. In some instances this was achieved by military action that all but wiped out the Germanic element.” This took place during the reign of Emperor Justinian, whose ambition it was to restore the Roman Empire to its former glory and who was notorious for his persecution, not only of the Arians, but also of the Jews and the Samaritans. He even forbade the Jews to read their Scriptures in Hebrew!

But Justinian did not make an end of Arianism. Rome was to have still more to do with the Germanic barbarians, for a few years after Justinian’s death the Lombards, said to have been one of the fiercest of all the Germanic tribes, invaded Italy. Before long they had the greater part of the Italian peninsula under their control. Then in the middle of the seventh century, for one reason or another, the Lombards gradually became Trinitarian Roman Catholics, and so, while they kept on making trouble for the papacy, it was on political or territorial grounds, not religious ones.

Concerning this period we read: “In the ensuing debacle, fortunes alternated, more often as a consequence of political shifts and civil patronage than theological argument.” And as another authority puts it, Arianism “maintained itself for two centuries longer, though more as a matter of accident than choice and conviction.” Incidentally, all such political and military activity on the part of the Arians refutes the charge of some that the nonpolitical, peace-loving Christian witnesses of Jehovah are Arians.

As we note what history has to say about the political activities of the Trinitarians and of the Arians, we cannot help but be impressed with how accurately both Jesus and his apostles foretold what would happen to the Christian congregation. As Jesus put it in one of his parables: “While men were sleeping, his enemy came and oversowed weeds in among the wheat.” And so it was that the field that was originally a wheat field became a weed patch. (Matt. 13:25) And, considering what greed and violence these displayed, one appreciates how accurately the apostle Paul foretold these events: “I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness.” Included among those packs of wolves were both Trinitarians and Arians, the former being the fiercer of the two—Acts 20:29.

NOVATIANS

These were part of two protest movements that spoke out against moral laxity among so-called Christians and against leniency toward apostates in the third-century. However although they spoke out quite rightly about these things, the Novatians and the fourth-century Donatists accepted the chief doctrinal errors of the older established churches.

MARCIONITES

Among other early sects were the Marcionites, the followers of Marcion, the son of an apostate Christian “bishop” in Asia Minor. Marcion believed in two gods, an imperfect “Old Testament” God and a God of love revealed in the “New Testament,” or, rather, in those parts of it that he accepted (some of the writings of Paul and Luke).

PAULIANISTS

The Paulicians from the seventh century onward, whose teachings have been termed “genuine apostolic Bible-Christianity.” They stood solely by the “New Testament,” practiced adult baptism, believed that God in his love had sent an angel to earth who at his baptism became God’s Son. They rejected unscriptural tradition, had no clergy-laity distinction, refused to revere the cross.

MONTANISTS

The sect of the Montanists sprang up in Asia Minor, teaching that Jesus would reign there from Phrygia. They, and others, taught that many fantastic things were going to happen when Christ and his joint heirs were ruling on earth during the millennium. For example, such rulers supposedly would enjoy sensual pleasures of all sorts, including those between the sexes. And they would have material bodies ‘more excellent and ethereal than ours.’ Such extreme views came to be thought of as typical of those believing in the millennium.

“WHILE THE CHURCH WAS ORGANIZING ITSELF, CHRISTIANITY BECAME A SORT OF UMBRELLA TERM FOR BELIEFS ORIGINATING IN THE BELIEF OF THE HOLY FATHER, BUT WITH VARYING DOCTRINES?

No, as you will read; this didn’t happen while true Christianity was “organizing itself” it happened because people had left the teachings of TRUE Christianity, just as Jesus said they would--

This article will explain what happened to TRUE Christianity—

‘Quietly Bringing in Destructive Sects’

“There will also be false teachers among you. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects.”—2 PETER 2:1.

Early Tendency to Form Sects

In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus stated: “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few. Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits.”
(Matthew 7:13-16)

Jesus Christ did not say that true Christianity would become a broad (umbrella), easy, universal, or “catholic,” religion, suited to the “many.” It would be a hard, cramped road, found by only the “few.” These “few” were warned that seemingly harmless “false prophets” would try to sidetrack them onto the “easy” way “that leads to destruction.”

Over 30 years later the apostle Peter wrote: “There also came to be false prophets among the people [of Israel], as there will also be false teachers among you [Christians]. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects and will disown even the owner that bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. Furthermore, many will follow their acts of loose conduct, and on account of these the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively. Also, with covetousness they will exploit you with counterfeit words.”—2 Peter 2:1-3.

“The way of the truth,” the way “that leads to life,” is the way of true Christianity. The “false prophets,” or “false teachers,” are the apostate ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing’ who began to make their presence felt among the early Christians even before the death of Jesus’ apostles. (1 John 2:18, 19; 4:1-3) The apostle Paul also gave warning about such “oppressive wolves.” He identified them as men who would “rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.” (Acts 20:29, 30) From the second half of the first century onward, these false teachers ‘quietly brought in destructive sects,’ exploiting the early Christians “with counterfeit words.” Because of these apostates, “the way of the truth,” true Christianity, was “spoken of abusively.”

Some Early Sects

In the Revelation received by the apostle John about 96 C.E., he records a series of divinely inspired messages reflecting the spiritual conditions then prevailing within the Christian congregations and that could reoccur down through history. Two of these messages reveal the existence of apostate sects that were hated by Christ, the head of the true Christian congregation. Apparently, at least one of these sects tolerated idolatry and fornication.—Revelation 2:6, 14, 15.

Several of the apostle Paul’s letters, written much earlier, indicate that he already had to put up a hard fight against the tendency to form sects. In his first letter to the Christians in Corinth, Paul deplored their inclination to follow men, because it resulted in “dissensions” and “divisions.” (1 Corinthians 1:10-13; 3:1-4) He expressed similar concern in his letters to the Galatians (1:6-9; 5:19-21), to Titus (3:9, 10) and to Timothy.—1 Timothy 1:3-7; 4:1-3; 6:20, 21; 2 Timothy 4:3, 4.

Some Bible scholars are of the opinion that in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians and, more particularly, in his letter to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, he purposely used certain Greek words (such as gno´sis, knowledge, and ple´ro.ma, fullness) in order to refute gnosticism. However that may be, Paul was certainly combating apostate ideas that were later developed by the Gnostic sects. The Gnostics, who flourished during the second century C.E., were dualists, believing that all matter is evil and that spirit is good. They held that salvation comes through mystical “knowledge” (gno´sis). Their belief that the fleshly body is evil led them to either of two extremes: asceticism or fleshly indulgence. So-called Christian gnosticism did much to cause “the way of the truth” to be “spoken of abusively.”

Among other early sects were the Marcionites, the followers of Marcion, the son of an apostate Christian “bishop” in Asia Minor. Marcion believed in two gods, an imperfect “Old Testament” God and a God of love revealed in the “New Testament,” or, rather, in those parts of it that he accepted (some of the writings of Paul and Luke). Another second-century sect was Montanism. Montanus was a “prophet” from Asia Minor who preached the imminent second coming of Christ and the setting up of the New Jerusalem in Pepuza, near the modern city of Ankara, Turkey. He also criticized the increasing power and moral laxity of the clergy class of apostate Christianity. Tertullian became a Montanist. Two other protest movements against moral laxity among so-called Christians and against leniency toward apostates were the third-century Novatians and the fourth-century Donatists. However, both of these schismatic groups accepted the chief doctrinal errors of the older established churches.

“The Man of Lawlessness” Gets Organized

All these sects, and others that have not been mentioned, were varieties of apostate Christianity. But the men who created them were not the only “false teachers” who ‘quietly brought in destructive sects.’ (2 Peter 2:1-3) Peter also foretold that ‘many would follow their acts of loose conduct.’ We have just seen that some of these early sects were created to protest against the loose conduct of the dominant clergy class. So these clergymen should also be numbered among the “false teachers” and their churches considered “destructive sects.”

As already noted, all these apostate sects were contending for supremacy. Each sought to be considered the one and only “orthodox,” “apostolic” and “catholic (universal)” church and, in turn, treated the others as mere heretical sects. At the same time, within the larger, more powerful churches, a clergy class was endeavoring to lift itself up above the rest of the flock. Speaking of this apostasy and the emergence of a dominating clergy class, the apostle Paul wrote: “Let no one seduce you in any manner, because [the day of Jehovah] will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction. He is set in opposition and lifts himself up over everyone who is called ‘god’ or an object of reverence, so that he sits down in the temple of The God, publicly showing himself to be a god.”—2 Thessalonians 2:2-4.

This apostasy was “already at work” in Paul’s day. However, it became fully revealed only after the death of Jesus’ true apostles, when the “restraint” of their presence was removed. (2 Thessalonians 2:6, 7) Little by little, a clergy class began to appear. In the early second century C.E., Ignatius, “bishop” of Antioch, wrote about a three-grade hierarchy of bishops, presbyters (priests) and deacons. “The man of lawlessness” was beginning to take shape.
But the “church father” who really got the clergy class organized into a hierarchy system was Cyprian, “bishop” of Carthage, North Africa, who died in 258 C.E. The authoritative Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique states that Cyprian outlined a monarchical seven-grade hierarchy, the supreme position being occupied by the bishop. Under him were priests, deacons, subdeacons, acolytes (servers), lectors (readers) and exorcists.

An eighth grade—porter, or doorkeeper—was later added in the Western, Latin, or Roman, Church, whereas the Eastern, or Greek, Church settled for a five-grade hierarchy. Thus, by the third century C.E. the composite “man of lawlessness,” the apostate Christian clergy class, was fully “revealed.” It has continued on down through the centuries in all the churches and sects of Christendom that have a special ministry or clerical class.”
End of article.

“WHAT EXACTLY IS THE COUNCIL OF NICEA”

Just a meeting that was called together of bishops & the like, who had the nerve to call themselves “Christians”-- In 325 C.E., a council of bishops in Nicea in Asia Minor formulated a creed that declared the Son of God to be “true God” just as the Father was “true God.” Part of that creed stated:

“But as for those who say, There was [a time] when [the Son] 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 of a different hypostasis or substance, or is created, or is subject to alteration or change—these the Catholic Church anathematizes.”
So anyone who believed that the Son of God was not coeternal with the Father or that the Son was created was consigned to everlasting damnation. One can imagine the pressure to conform that this put on the mass of ordinary believers.

In the year 381 C.E., another council met in Constantinople and declared that the holy spirit should be worshiped and glorified just as the Father and Son were.

One year later, in 382 C.E., another synod met in Constantinople and affirmed the full divinity of the holy spirit.

And so on, council after council why? Because there were always true Christians who would be sticking to the scriptures & speaking out against these false teachings.

“WHY IT HAD ISSUES WITH EUSEBIUS, ATHANASIUS, AND EUSTATHIUS, DID IT NOT LIKE EUSEBIUS BECAUSE HE FOLLOWED ARIAN BELIEFS?”

Eusebius was concerned about the unsettled issue of how the Father and the Son were related. Did the Father exist before the Son, as Eusebius believed? Or did the Father and Son coexist? “If they co-exist,” he asked, “how will the Father be Father and the Son be Son?” He even supported his belief with Scriptural references, citing John 14:28, which says that ‘the Father is greater than Jesus,’ and John 17:3, where Jesus is referred to as the one “sent forth” by the only true God. Alluding to Colossians 1:15 and John 1:1, Eusebius argued that the Logos, or the Word, is “the image of the invisible God”—God’s Son.

Amazingly, though, at the closing of the Council of Nicaea, Eusebius gave his support to the opposing view. Contrary to his Scriptural stand that God and Christ were not coexisting equals, he went along with the emperor.

Athanasius, on the other hand, believed that the Son was equal to God in a certain way. Athanasius was a clergyman who supported Constantine at Nicaea. The creed that bears his name declares: “We worship one God in Trinity . . . The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three gods, but one God.” churchmen of the late third and early fourth centuries, such as Athanasius, reflected this influence as they formulated ideas that led to the Trinity.

EUSTATHIUS

Don’t recognise this name :¬)

The theme is;, True Christianity was corrupted & emerged as what we see today “Christendom” with its false beliefs & practices, the trinity was not taught by Jesus & his early followers, it is a false doctrine that emerged slowly through the centuries, the reason for all the arguing is simple; those who studied the scriptures & were true followers of Christ spoke up for what was truth, while those who established another form of worship contrary to Jesus hated these truths being brought to light.

All the best
Brenda













---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Hi again,

Thankyou for your quick and thorough response! Its really helped me understand what was going on at the time!

I was wondering if you could direct me to the sources of the articles you used? It seems like there might be a wealth of information there that I can learn some more about the subject!

Oh and by the way, I kept reading up on it, and it seems that Eustathius was meant to be the bishop that replaced Athanasius when he was exiled, though technically Athanasius was never really removed from his post - so he was still a bishop during his exile! Eustathius only seems to be a minor "character" in the whole Church debacle!

Answer
"COULD DIRECT ME TO THE SOURCES OF THE ARTICLES YOU USED?"


Sorry but someone else had done the research for me; I took the article from a magazine (awake) written by Jehovah’s Witnesses. The article was entitled; “How Christendom became Trinitarian”

But JW’s have their own website www.watchtower.org  & you can go there & download the information from any one of their publications.

For instance they have printed a book called “Mankind’s Search for God” & it discusses all these aspects & the references for their material are in the back page.

All the best
Brenda