• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Pre-Nicene vs Nicene Christianity

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
*This is a discussion thread, not an invitation to debate. I simply wish to hear about, gain a deeper understanding of and hopefully fruitfully engage with a range of viewpoints on this question - Trinitarian Christian, non-Trinitarian Christian, atheist, agnostic, Muslim, Jewish, Baha'i or whatever else.*


Q: Do you have any thoughts on the relative merits of - and/or any substantive differences you feel might exist between - 'pre-Nicaea' Christianity versus 'Nicene Christianity' (i.e. the orthodox version of the religion established following Constantine's ecumenical council in 325 CE, which has defined mainstream Christianity ever since?)

(Or phrased differently) do you think that the post-council/post-Constantine era from the fourth century onwards, changed Christianity in any way from its earlier pre-Nicene varieties? And if so, 'how' did it change and was this a positive or negative change in your own opinion?

By 'Nicene Christianity' I am referring to this:


Nicene Christianity - Wikipedia


Nicene Christianity is a set of Christian doctrinal traditions which reflect the Nicene Creed, which was formulated[1] at the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325 and amended at the First Council of Constantinople in AD 381.[2]

Today's mainstream Christian churches (including all of the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian and Ancient churches, Lutheran and Anglican churches, as well as most Protestant denominations) adhere to the Nicene Creed and thus exemplify Nicene Christianity.

Every contemporary Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox self-identifying Christian is a 'Nicene Christian' (something like 99% of today's Christians belong to a denominational family espousing this doctrinal tradition, as it was the only one to survive past Roman Emperor Theodosius' Edict of Thessalonica in 380 CE and the decrees of the subsequent ecumenical councils).

For your consideration, regarding the three hundred year span of Ante-Nicene Christianity:


Christianity in the ante-Nicene period - Wikipedia


Christianity in the ante-Nicene period was the time in Christian history up to the First Council of Nicaea. This article covers the period following the Apostolic Age of the first century, c.100 AD, to Nicaea in 325 AD.

The second and third centuries saw a sharp divorce of Christianity from its early roots in Judaism...

Fourth- and fifth-century Christianity experienced pressure from the government of the Roman Empire and developed strong episcopal and unifying structure. The ante-Nicene period was without such authority and was more diverse. Many variations in this era defy neat categorizations, as various forms of Christianity interacted in a complex fashion.[1] One variation was proto-orthodoxy which became the international Great Church and in this period was defended by the Apostolic Fathers. This was the tradition of Pauline Christianity, which placed importance on the death of Jesus as saving humanity, and described Jesus as God come to Earth. Another major school of thought was Gnostic Christianity, which placed importance on the wisdom of Jesus saving humanity, and described Jesus as a human who became divine through knowledge.[2]

While the Jewish Christian church was centered in Jerusalem in the first century, Gentile Christianity became decentralized in the second century.[3] Various local and provincial ancient church councils were held during this period, with the decisions meeting varying degrees of acceptance by different Christian groups. Major figures of the second century who were later declared by the developing proto-orthodoxy to be heretics were Marcion, Valentinius, and Montanus.

Since the Nicene Creed came to define the Church, the early debates have long been regarded as a unified orthodox position against a minority of heretics. Walter Bauer, drawing upon distinctions between Jewish Christians, Pauline Christians, and other groups such as Gnostics and Marcionites, argued that early Christianity was fragmented, with various competing interpretations, only one of them eventually coming to dominate.[37] While Bauer's original thesis has been criticised, Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman have further explicated the existence of variant Christianities in the first centuries. They see early Christianity as fragmented into contemporaneous competing orthodoxies.[38][39]

Eamon Duffy notes that Christianity throughout the Roman Empire was "in a state of violent creative ferment" during the second century. Orthodoxy, or proto-orthodoxy, existed alongside forms of Christianity that they would soon consider deviant "heresy". Duffy considers the orthodox and unorthodox were sometimes difficult to distinguish during this period, and simply says that early Christianity in Rome had a wide variety of competing Christian sects.[40]

The Ante-Nicene period saw the rise of a great number of Christian sects, cults and movements with strong unifying characteristics lacking in the apostolic period. They had different interpretations of Scripture, particularly different Christology—questions about the divinity of Jesus and salvation from the consequences of sin—and the nature of the Trinity.

Many variations in this time defy neat categorizations, as various forms of Christianity interacted in a complex fashion to form the dynamic character of Christianity in this era. The Post-Apostolic period was extremely diverse both in terms of beliefs and practices. In addition to the broad spectrum of general branches of Christianity, there was constant change and diversity that variably resulted in both internecine conflicts and syncretic adoption.[45]

These various interpretations were called heresies by the leaders of the proto-orthodox church, but many were very popular and had large followings.
 
Last edited:

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Okay, so this is "just a discussion" so "no one is wrong." For that reason, I guess I'll just say that I don't believe Jesus Christ would recognize what He knew to be true about His relationship with His Father in the creeds established by the Christian Church in 325 A.D. and 381 A.D.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
Here are some of my own thoughts:

When I sift through the works of the early second century heresiologists (such as the indomitable St. Irenaeus of Lyons, with his colourfully entitled mega-tome Against Heresies: On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis (180 CE)) and the surviving manuscripts from some of the many diffuse 'heretical' sects, I cannot but feel slightly struck by the sheer theological pluralism and sociological diversity of Ante-Nicene or 'Early' Christianity.

Some of these primitive Christian sects which existed alongside the proto-orthodox or Catholic Christians like the Valentinian Gnostics were brain-numbingly metaphysical and arcane; others were radically egalitarian, including the holy-spirit guided Montanist church which recognised women as bishops and priests but also encouraged ethical rigorism and strict fasts; another variety were fanatically ascetic, such as the Encratite Christians who forbade marriage and practised vegetarianism; others like the Carpocratians, the Cainites and the Borbonites were sexual libertines who practised polyamory; whilst others again were devoutly Jewish and Torah-observant but also socially radical, such as the Ebionite Christians who adhered to voluntary poverty and rejected the Apostle Paul as an apostate from the law of Moses.

Christianity was the perfect cult, in many ways, to diffuse itself across the cosmopolitan urban centres of the Roman Empire. Which is to say - I've never come across an ancient religion quite like it in breadth of expression.

This makes it all the more remarkable to me, that, by the fourth and fifth centuries (aided by imperial patronage with Catholic Christianity being declared the state religion of the Empire in 380 CE), a single church organisation commandeered by bishops and united by a standardized set of doctrines, liturgical practices - with a uniform 'Catholic' theology - managed to win out. Somehow, out of the cauldron of early Christian 'experimentalism', a monolithic unity was achieved and consolidated as the 'orthodoxy' we know today: that great edifice which the men we call the 'Church Fathers' or Patristics constructed and which every branch of Trinitarian Christianity (99% of modern Christians) still adheres to at least in essence, the Nicene Faith. It was more of an achievement than we oft give them credit for.

To read Against Heresies in-depth is to enter a different world: one in which there was no Christian 'orthodoxy' as such yet but rather a constellation of theologies and sects (with the proto-orthodox being perhaps the largest or at least one of the largest) - sharing some 'core values' but otherwise unbelievably heterogenous. All of them centred around Jesus Christ as their central figure and claimed apostolic succession from his disciples for their, at times, quite disparate dogmas.

I think its instructive to appreciate the perspective of the "losers", because the earliest of them in particular may have had as good a historical claim to one particular 'strand' of the Jesus tradition as the orthodox "winners", perhaps a neglected one. In other words, I don't just discount them as "heresy". There are rubies in the mud - sometimes treasure-troves.
 
Last edited:

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
Okay, so this is "just a discussion" so "no one is wrong." For that reason, I guess I'll just say that I don't believe Jesus Christ would recognize what He knew to be true about His relationship with His Father in the creeds established by the Christian Church in 325 A.D. and 381 A.D.

Thanks Katzpur!

Could you elaborate on some of the ways in which you feel the original Jesus Christ wouldn't have recognised his relationship with God the Father in the creeds of the post-Nicaea era?

And can you identify any pre-Nicene sect of early Christianity (as for instance noted by modern scholarship) that reflects the understanding you do think Jesus himself would have held?

(By 'no one is wrong' I'm not asking folks to be shy about expressing what they think about the matter, I just wish to avoid it turning into a "debate" in which different posters strive to prove that their 'take' is the right or superior one. Understanding other points of view is what I'm after.)
 
Last edited:

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
For the purposes of my reply, I assume that there was such a figure as Jesus, that He was Divine and that the accounts in the Bible are more-or-less accurate as such things go.

Those who were His disciples and inspired by His life and message would of course do their best to represent both the life and the message.

As time passed, people entered the forming religion who were less and less inspired by a presence which receded into the more and more distant past. Their own inclinations and desires led them to try to shape a religion that they liked with some elements that had passed down to them.

Rather than the messenger's message being front-end-center, gradually bureaucracy started taking hold along with committees deciding what was to be an official part of the religion and what was not and a male hierarchy developed.

There were some figures along the way, notably in my view St. Francis of Assisi who harkened back to the original message, but mostly power and privilege motivated those who were running the show. My favorite scene of Brother Sun, Sister Moon where Francis meets the pope illustrates the point (which not being historical).

Starting in the 1960's and continuing today, there are some who question doctrine and try to revive the essential message in various ways including looking at heretical gospels, forming intentional communities etc and even asking WWJD as a way to trying to revive the message without the superstructure of various churches.

And we currently have a pope who seeks to revive the essential message within the structure of an organized church.

All of the later harkens back to ante-nicean Christianity.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
Starting in the 1960's and continuing today, there are some who question doctrine and try to revive the essential message in various ways including looking at heretical gospels, forming intentional communities etc and even asking WWJD as a way to trying to revive the message without the superstructure of various churches.

Very interesting post @sun rise, I welcome your contribution!

Do you have any further thoughts concerning the nature and contents of this "essential message" of early Christianity, which you believe certain modern mystics/thinkers and so forth from the 1960s on have tried to 'revive' (including Pope Francis, harking back to his medieval namesake St. Francis of Assisi)?

I see you alluded to 'heretical gospels' - by which, I presume, you're referring to the largely Gnostic Nag Hammadi corpus discovered in 1945 primarily? Do you think that these texts harbour some elements of this essential message in a better way than Nicene Christianity has preserved it? If so, in what ways specifically?
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
IMO The religion that Constantine approved was highly influenced by his earlier Pagan beliefs. It was nothing like what the first century Christians believed and twists Bible teachings to make them agree with Pagan ideas.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
New IMO The religion that Constantine approved was highly influenced by his earlier Pagan beliefs. It was nothing like what the first century Christians believed and twists Bible teachings to make them agree with Pagan ideas.

Could you elaborate on what leads you to believe that Nicene Christianity 'twisted' earlier teachings to confirm with pagan ideas? Thanks!
 
Last edited:

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Very interesting post @sun rise, I welcome your contribution!

Do you have any further thoughts concerning the nature and contents of this "essential message" of early Christianity, which you believe certain modern mystics/thinkers and so forth from the 1960s on have tried to 'revive' (including Pope Francis, harking back to his medieval namesake St. Francis of Assisi)?

I see you alluded to 'heretical gospels' - by which, I presume, you're referring to the largely Gnostic Nag Hammadi corpus discovered in 1945 primarily? Do you think that these texts harbour some elements of this essential message in a better way than Nicene Christianity has preserved it? If so, in what ways specifically?
The first question you ask relates to how I view the Bible which is as a book which contains the Truth without being literally true or historically accurate. It's struck me that the Sermon on the Mount and especially the two 'greatest' commandments are at the heart of Christianity. They establish the primacy of the law of Love and expand on how Love acts in the world. St. Francis' life as I understand it and Pope Francis' words and actions seem to me to be oriented around embodying that Love in action.

I mentioned the excerpt of Brother Sun Sister Moon and have posted links but in context especially the second clip illustrates the contrast between clergy in love with power and position and the Christian message.


I don't know the Nag Hammadi texts well enough to answer your question. My understanding is that the theology of some texts are pretty far from what is accepted now. But the little I know causes me to believe that Christianity has been ill served by ignoring them especially some like the Gospel of Thomas which I did read many decades ago.

But what my essential point is that it's not the text but how people act that speaks to me. I read in several positive news sites about those who act to help the 'least' often anonymously. I don't know whether or not they call themselves Christian, but to me they're living the essential Christian message of serving the 'least'.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I wish I had something to contribute but when it comes to religions other than the Baha'i Faith I only know enough to be dangerous, and when it comes to history I am even more ignorant, since that was not a subject I studied much in college, even though I spent over 15 years in college. In fact, I did nt even know much about the Baha'i Faith or its history until about eight years ago, when I decided to give religion and God another chance, having all but abandoned them for 42 years, for many personal reasons.

Anyhow, I do have something I want to share that was written by a German Baha'i as part of his dissertation. I do not know where Paul fits in on the time-line of pre- and post-Nicene Christianity, but maybe you could educate me
a little.

Below is an excerpt from the section of a book entitled The Light Shineth in Darkness, Studies in revelation after Christ by Udo Schaefer which explains how Paul changed the Christianity of Jesus. You can read the entire section of the book which includes the references on the link to my thread below.

How Paul changed the course of Christianity

"That the figure of the Nazarene, as delivered to us in Mark’s Gospel, is decisively different from the pre-existent risen Christ proclaimed by Paul, is something long recognized by thinkers like Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Herder and Goethe, to mention only a few. The distinction between ‘the religion of Christ’ and ‘the Christian religion’ goes back to Lessing. Critical theological research has now disputed the idea of an uninterrupted chain of historical succession: Luther’s belief that at all times a small handful of true Christians preserved the true apostolic faith. Walter Bauer (226) and Martin Werner (227) have brought evidence that there was conflict from the outset about the central questions of dogma. It has become clear that the beliefs of those who had seen and heard Jesus in the flesh --- the disciples and the original community--- were at odds to an extraordinary degree with the teaching of Paul, who claimed to have been not only called by a vision but instructed by the heavenly Christ. The conflict at Antioch between the apostles Peter and Paul, far more embittered as research has shown (228) than the Bible allows us to see, was the most fateful split in Christianity, which in the Acts of the Apostles was ‘theologically camouflaged’. (229)

Paul, who had never seen Jesus, showed great reserve towards the Palestinian traditions regarding Jesus’ life. (230) The historical Jesus and his earthly life are without significance for Paul. In all his epistles the name ‘Jesus’ occurs only 15 times, the title ‘Christ’ 378 times. In Jesus’s actual teaching he shows extraordinarily little interest. It is disputed whether in all his epistles he makes two, three or four references to sayings by Jesus. (231) It is not Jesus’ teaching, which he cannot himself have heard at all (short of hearing it in a vision), that is central to his own mission, but the person of the Redeemer and His death on the Cross.

Paul, however, did not pass on the revealed doctrine reflected in the glass of the intellectual categories of his time, as is often asserted; he transformed the ‘Faith of Jesus’ into ‘Faith in Jesus.’ He it was who gave baptism a mysterious significance, ‘so as to connect his mission with the experience of initiates in Hellenic mystery cults’, (232) he turned the last supper into a sacramental union with the Lord of those celebrating it; (233) he was responsible for the sacramentalization of the Christian religion, and took the phrase ‘Son of God’--- in the Jewish religion merely a title for the Messiah --- to be an ontological reality. The idea of the Son of God, come down from heaven to earth, hitherto inconceivable to Jewish thought, (234) was taken from Paul from the ancient religious syncretism of Asia Minor, to fit in with the need at the time for a general savior. It is generally accepted by critical scholarship that the godparents were the triad from the cult of Isia (Isis, Osiris and Horus) and also Attis, Adonis and Hercules. Jesus, who never claimed religious worship for himself was not worshipped in the original community, is for Paul the pre-existent risen Christ……..

This was the ‘Fall’ of Christianity: that Paul with his ‘Gospel’, which became the core of Christian dogma formation, conquered the world, (237) while the historic basis of Christianity was declared a heresy, the preservers of the original branded as ‘Ebionites.’ As Schoeps puts it, the heresy-hunters ‘accused the Ebionites of a lapse or relapse into Judaism, whereas they were really only the Conservatives who could not go along with the Pauline-cum-Hellenistic elaborations’. (238) Schonfield comes to the same conclusion: ‘This Christianity in its teaching about Jesus continued in the tradition it had directly inherited, and could justifiably regard Pauline and catholic Christianity as heretical. It was not, as its opponents alleged, Jewish Christianity which debased the person of Jesus, but the Church in general which was misled into deifying him.’ (239) ‘Pauline heresy served as the basis for Christian orthodoxy, and the legitimate Church was outlawed as heretical’. (240) The ‘small handful of true Christians’ was Nazarene Christianity, which was already extinct in the fourth century……

The centerpiece then, of Christian creedal doctrine, that of Redemption, is something of which—in the judgment of the theologian E. Grimm (244) --- Jesus himself knew nothing; and it goes back to Paul. This is even admitted by some Catholics: ‘Christianity today mostly means Paul.’ (245) And Wilhelm Nestle stated—as noted also by Sabet—‘Christianity is the religion founded by Paul who replaces the Gospel of Jesus by a gospel about Jesus.’ (246) So also Schonfield: ‘Paul produced an amalgamation of ideas which, however unintentionally, did give rise to a new religion.’ (247)……

Measured by the standard of Baha’u’llah revelation, the Pauline doctrine of Justification, the doctrine of Original Sin, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the sacramentalisation of the Christian religion, the whole Church plan of salvation — which not only contradicts the Jewish understanding of God (255) but was also strongly repudiated by the revelation of God which succeeded Christianity (256) — these are a deformation of Jesus’s teaching. Some critical theological scholars have confirmed that these deformations in Christianity started very early, in fact with Paul, and that the arch-apostle, without whom Marcion would not have been possible, was the arch-heretic in Christianity—as Tertullian very rightly saw. (257) Years ago, when I became acquainted with the founder of the Christian religion in the faith of the original community through H. J. Schoep’s Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums, (258) the standard work on the subject, I was deeply impressed. Here Jesus was not the only-begotten Son of God come down from Heaven, crucified and resurrected, nor the unique Saviour, but the messenger of God to whom the Quran testifies and who is glorified by Baha’u’llah. (259)"
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
Could you elaborate on what leads you to believe that Nicene Christianity 'twisted' earlier teachings to confirm with pagan ideas? Thanks!
Pagans believed in the immortality of the soul. The Bible does not teach it and early Christians did not believe it. Pagans believed that a human woman was the mother of their god. The Bible does not teach it and early Christians did not believe it. Pagans had holidays in spring and winter. The Bible does not teach this and these days were simply given new names and adopted by the church around the fourth century.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Its an interesting question and one that seems useful to better understand Christianity. I must admit some of my views on topics such as the trinity, Nicene Creed and even the Catholic Church have changed somewhat since joining this forum. Having come from a Protestant background I’ve come to view Catholicism much more favourably than Protestantism. I’ve moved from being somewhat anti-Trinitarian to having a more neutral stance recognising the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as being consistent with my Baha’i beliefs and even seeing some value in a doctrine that explores their interrelatedness.

The greatest value of the Nicene Creed was perhaps bringing much needed unity to the Christian Church. I feel obligated to neither accept or reject the doctrine of the trinity or Nicene Creed. The biggest question for me as a Baha’i is why was Islam necessary and was it because Christianity had already strayed significantly from its foundation to necessitate a new Revelation from God. If so to what extent did the Nicene Creed contribute? I must add with due respect to my beloved Baha’i sister above, I’m very positive about Paul’s contribution to Christianity and the NT Canon as a whole.

I’m here to learn as you are. Thanks again for another excellent post.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I must add with due respect to my beloved Baha’i sister above, I’m very positive about Paul’s contribution to Christianity and the NT Canon as a whole.
I must add with due respect to my beloved Baha’i brother above, I take no issue with Paul’s contribution to Christianity. I was only sharing what another Baha'i who is "more knowledgeable" than me wrote regarding how Paul changed the course of Christianity. He cited many references, so if you disagree that Paul changed the course, maybe you could share why you disagree.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
I must add with due respect to my beloved Baha’i brother above, I take no issue with Paul’s contribution to Christianity. I was only sharing what another Baha'i who is "more knowledgeable" than me wrote regarding how Paul changed the course of Christianity. He cited many references, so if you disagree that Paul changed the course, maybe you could share why you disagree.

There’s no doubt Paul changed the course of Christianity with 13 of the NT books attributed to his authorship, though modern scholarship reduces that number down to seven as being undisputed and authentic.

Paul the Apostle - Wikipedia

It was round the 4th century that much of the NT Canon was agreed on, so around the time of the two councils when the Nicene Creed were formulated.

Just as Bahá’u’lláh’s works required interpretation and elaboration, so to with the message of Christ. The question is, did Paul fundamentally corrupt or distort Christ’s message? Its a major call to say he did as it renders the NT as a whole corrupted and distorted.

Udo Schaefer as a Baha’i scholar is to be respected but he has no more authority in regards his conclusions than you and I. Peter who was appointed successor by Christ affirmed the legitimacy of Paul (2 Peter 3:14-16) which even the Universal House of Justice makes reference in a letter that largely affirms Paul’s authenticity.

Apostle Paul, a "False Teacher"?

Further, Bahá’u’lláh Himself has spoken of the Gospels as being protected in the Kitab-I-Iqan. If the New Testament was corrupted by Paul’s letters it wouldn’t be protected at all.

You ask for elucidation of the statement made on behalf of the Guardian in this letter of 11 February 1944, "When 'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet." Is it not clear that what Shoghi Effendi means here is that we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Moses and Christ in the Old and New Testaments are Their exact words, but that, in view of the general principle enunciated by Bahá'u'lláh in the "Kitab-i-Iqan" that God's Revelation is under His care and protection, we can be confident that the essence, or essential elements, of what these two Manifestations of God intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in these two Books?
(19 July 1981 to an individual believer)


The Bible
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I suspect that pre-Nicene Christianity is not at all identical to the theology of the first century Jerusalem sect and that there is little we can say about the latter with a great deal of confidence.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
I suspect that pre-Nicene Christianity is not at all identical to the theology of the first century Jerusalem sect and that there is little we can say about the latter with a great deal of confidence.

This is a problem too with 'ante-Nicene Christianity' - although not for lack of confidence in what we can say about it, rather just precisely what "it" was and how meaningful any paradigm is which refers to a kind of homogenous 'belief system' at this time (as later post-Nicene Christians have tended to read back into the period) when there were, apparently, so many competing 'Christianities' in the immediate post-apostolic era - with the proto-orthodox being one of them.

Even as concerns the 'pre-pre-Nicene' Jewish sect based in Jerusalem and led (seemingly from St. Paul's letters and Acts) by Jesus' brother James, what evidence we have suggests there may have been quite a 'broad' diversity and friction within the early movement from Paul's letters, already by the 50s CE.

For instance, we have Paul's famous boast in his Epistle to the Galatians about his 'spat' with the Jerusalem 'Judaizers' dispatched from Jerusalem and with the Apostle Peter over eating with Gentiles in Antioch. Additionally, the church in Corinth - based on scholarship concerning 1 and 2 Corinthians - seems even to have had a kind of 'proto-gnostic' group of early Christian believers, as well as antinomian 'libertines' and 'ascetics'. And that was within one ecclesial community.

All things considered, I think it quite remarkable that the Council of Nicaea managed to command the support of so many bishops in 325 CE and to formulate a doctrinal consensus that 99% of Christians still adhere to today, from out of such 'primeval chaos' (and the bitter ongoing 'Arian' schism at that time).
 
Last edited:

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
The greatest value of the Nicene Creed was perhaps bringing much needed unity to the Christian Church. I feel obligated to neither accept or reject the doctrine of the trinity or Nicene Creed.

I very much agree with you on that Adrian.

The Emperor Constantine himself had written to Antiochene bishops, a few years after the ecumenical council, as follows:


"...How pleasing to the wise and intelligent portion of mankind is the concord which exists among you! And I myself, brethren, am disposed to love you with an enduring affection, inspired both by religion, and by your own manner of life and zeal on my behalf. It is by the exercise of right understanding and sound discretion, that we are enabled really to enjoy our blessings...

Indeed, amongst brethren, whom the selfsame disposition to walk in the ways of truth and righteousness promises, through the favor of God, to register among his pure and holy family, what can be more honorable than gladly to acquiesce in the prosperity of all men?...O holy faith, who givest us in our Saviour's words and precepts a model, as it were, of what our life should be, how hardly wouldst thou thyself resist the sins of men, were it not that thou refusest to subserve the purposes of gain! In my own judgment, he whose first object is the maintenance of peace, seems to be superior to Victory herself; and where a right and honorable course lies open to one's choice, surely no one would hesitate to adopt it. I ask then, brethren, why do we so decide as to inflict an injury on others by our choice? Why do we covet those objects which will destroy the credit of our own reputation?...

Lastly, in accordance with your usual sound judgment, do ye exhibit a becoming diligence in selecting the person of whom you stand in need, carefully avoiding all factious and tumultuous clamor; for such clamor is always wrong, and from the collision of discordant elements both sparks and flame will arise. I protest, as I desire to please God and you, and to enjoy a happiness commensurate with your kind wishes, that I love you, and the quiet haven of your gentleness, now that you have cast from you that which defiled, and received in its place at once sound morality and concord, firmly planting in the vessel the sacred standard, and guided, as one may say, by a helm of iron in your course onward to the light of heaven..."

  • Letter of Constantine to the Antiochians (332)


So we can clearly see what was 'uppermost' in his mind.

If we scrutinize the text of the Nicene creed and its emended form at the Council of Constantinople a few decades later in 381 CE, the most striking element about the document (to my eyes, at least) is the repetition of a key 'word':


We believe in one God....

....And in one Lord Jesus Christ....

....In one holy catholic and apostolic Church....

...one baptism for the remission of sins...

The emphasis upon 'unity' and concordance is overwhelming. One God, one Lord Jesus, one catholic church, one baptism for remission of sin. One.

Indeed, the emperor Constantine's entire purpose in convoking the council - only the second such major church-wide event since the Council of Jerusalem (48 CE) described in Acts that had permitted the admission of Gentiles to the originally Jewish movement on equal terms, albeit without becoming proselytes but by following a 'kind' of Noahide code of conduct - had been to get as many of the feuding bishops of the empire-wide church together from east and west so as to iron out a doctrinal compromise that would bring a decisive end to all disharmony between rival theologies over the 'nature' of the one God, Christology and all the rest.

If one considers that "In the middle of the second century, the Christian communities of Rome were divided between followers of Marcion, Montanism, and the gnostic teachings of Valentinus", the consensus achieved at Nicaea seems like a blinkin' miracle - and that 99% of Christians today, irrespective of denomination, still abide by it doctrinally is even more impressive to me. That settlement lasted.

Evidently, most theologians down the succeeding centuries have been satisfied that the Nicene formula reconciles many of the otherwise impenetrable 'nuances' and seeming contradictions in the New Testament texts on God the Father and Jesus the Son.
 
Last edited:

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Thanks Katzpur!

Could you elaborate on some of the ways in which you feel the original Jesus Christ wouldn't have recognised his relationship with God the Father in the creeds of the post-Nicaea era?

And can you identify any pre-Nicene sect of early Christianity (as for instance noted by modern scholarship) that reflects the understanding you do think Jesus himself would have held?

(By 'no one is wrong' I'm not asking folks to be shy about expressing what they think about the matter, I just wish to avoid it turning into a "debate" in which different posters strive to prove that their 'take' is the right or superior one. Understanding other points of view is what I'm after.)
Hi, Vouthon. I'll get back to you with a more serious response when I have time (probably tomorrow), but the first thing that came to mind was this joke. I don't post it to offend, but just to illustrate the problem I have with the early creeds.

Jesus said, Whom do men say that I am?

And his disciples answered and said, Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead; others say Elias, or other of the old prophets.

And Jesus answered and said, But whom do you say that I am?

Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Logos, existing in the Father as His rationality and then, by an act of His will, being generated, in consideration of the various functions by which God is related to his creation, but only on the fact that Scripture speaks of a Father, and a Son, and a Holy Spirit, each member of the Trinity being coequal with every other member, and each acting inseparably with and interpenetrating every other member, but an economic subordination within God, a division which makes the substance no longer simple."

And Jesus answering, said, "What?"

 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
All things considered, I think it quite remarkable that the Council of Nicaea managed to command the support of so many bishops in 325 CE and to formulate a doctrinal consensus that 99% of Christians still adhere to today, ...
I suspect that the fact that most were not Jews helped.

I am thankful for your sake that the Creed did not include Brevity. :)
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
I suspect that the fact that most were not Jews helped.

Well, had Christianity remained predominantly Jewish in demography after the fall of the Temple in the first century, I would imagine that the Nicene formula certainly wouldn't have passed under any circumstances.

So, I guess that must've been helpful for building the consensus!

I am thankful for your sake that the Creed did not include Brevity.

You're witty, I'll give you that (cheeky but the wit more than makes up for it :p)

If the creed had defined "brevity" as an article of faith, every Christian theologian since St. Augustine himself in the 4th century to Aquinas in the 13th and Karl Rahner in the 20th would've been a soddin' heretic! :D
 
Last edited:
Top