Body: | Click to View
Click to View
Decepto-Meter
Deceptive quote: Trinitarian
Gives false impression that the majority who opposed the Nicene creed believed Jesus is a creature and portray Constantine as practically the author of the Nicene Creed.
Frend, W.H.C.: The Rise of Christianity
How the Anti-Trinitarians Paraphrased the source
"the controversial term, defining the son as Consubstantial with [homoousios] the father was introduced by Constantine. The term was objectionable to any Origenist bishop and had been rejected by Dionysius of Alexandria when used by the Libyan bishops, and the Council of Antioch" "The great majority of the eastern bishops were placed in a false position. they dared not challenge the emperor" (The Rise of Christianity, 1985, W.H.C. Frend, Paraphrased by anti-Trinitarians)
What they left out to deliberately misrepresent the source and deceive you:
It was at this stage that Constantine made his momentous suggestion. Might not the relationship of Son to Father be expressed by the term homoousios ("of the same substance" ). Its use, however, by the Sabellian bishops of Libya had been condemned by Dionysius of Alexandria in the 260s, and, in a different sense, its use by Paul of Samosata bad been condemned by the Council of Antioch in 268. It was thus a "loaded" word as well as being unscriptural. Why Constantine put it forward we do not know. The possibility is that once again he was prompted by Hosius, and he may have been using it as a "translation" of the traditional view held in the West, that the Trinity was composed of "Three Persons in one substance," without inquiring further into the meaning of these terms. The Emperor bad spoken, and no one dared touch the creed during his lifetime. The great majority of the Eastern bishops found themselves in a false position. (The Rise of Christianity, 1985, W.H.C. Frend, p140-141)
Deception exposed
Anti-trinitarians are always trying to leave the impression that Constantine was almost the author of the Nicene Creed. As you can see, this source says we don't know exactly why he put forth the term, but it is likely that he was given the term by his Bishop Hosius.
When Frend says "The great majority of the Eastern bishops found themselves in a false position" he tells us what that position is: "The great majority of the Eastern clergy were ultimately disciples of Origen. Future generations have tended to dub them "Semi-Arian." In fact they were simply concerned with maintaining the traditional Logos-theology of the Greek-speaking Church"
Anti-Trinitarians deceive you into thinking that the "majority who disliked" the Nicene creed, were aligned with the Arians who taught Jesus was a creature. The "majority who disliked" firmly believed that Jesus was God, they didn't like the Greek terms used to describe Jesus deity, not that they rejected the deity itself!
Full Text:
Though the exact course of events is uncertain, it seems that the bishops
soon found themselves divided into three main groups. There was Arius and
his immediate supporters, perhaps numbering about twenty in all. At the
other extreme, and of about the same strength, were the anti-Origenist
clerics who found a spokesman in Marcellus of Ancyra and included
Atbanasius who came as Alexander's attendant. The great majority of the
Eastern clergy were ultimately disciples of Origen. Future generations have
tended to dub them "Semi-Arian." In fact they were simply concerned with
maintaining the traditional Logos-theology of the Greek-speaking Church,
and they mistrusted the fanatical anti-Arianism of Marcellus of Ancyra and
Eustathius of Antioch. The situation was very confused. The debates, it was
said a century later, resembled a battle in the dark, no one knowing
whether he was striking at friend or foe." But quite early on, the Council
decided that Arius's theology was unacceptable. Then, Eusebius of Caesarea,
probably with the idea of clearing himself of the charges of heresy which
he had faced earlier in the year at Antioch, brought to Constantine's
notice the baptismal creed of his own Church. This was accepted as an
orthodox statement, but recent research suggests that it was not in fact
used as the basis of the eventual creed of Nicaea. The real problem which
faced the drafting committee-for such indeed they were-was to exclude
Arius's ideas. Unfortunately, there were many statements defining the
nature of the Son with which Arius could agree. He could accept that Christ
"was before all ages" (i.e., a purely temporal concept) and even that he
was God from God or the power and image of the Father (i.e., divinity
derived from God) but not that he was "truly God from God." It was at this
stage that Constantine made his momentous suggestion. Might not the
relationship of Son to Father be expressed by the term homoousios ("of the
same substance" ). Its use, however, by the Sabellian bishops of Libya had
been condemned by Dionysius of Alexandria in the 260s, and, in a different
sense, its use by Paul of Samosata bad been condemned by the Council of
Antioch in 268. It was thus a "loaded" word as well as being unscriptural.
Why Constantine put it forward we do not know. The possibility is that once
again he was prompted by Hosius, and he may have been using it as a
"translation" of the traditional view held in the West, that the Trinity
was composed of "Three Persons in one substance," without inquiring further
into the meaning of these terms. The Emperor bad spoken, and no one dared
touch the creed during his lifetime. The great majority of the Eastern
bishops found themselves in a false position. Their embarrassment is shown
by the letter which Eusebius of Caesarea wrote to his flock, explaining why
he had agreed. They could see to it that extreme supporters of the Nicene
formulas were removed from authority but the text was sacrosanct. It read:
"We believe in one God, the Father All-sovereign, maker of all things
visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God,
begotten of the Father, only begotten, that is from the substance of the
Father God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not
made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made,
things in heaven and things on earth: who for us men and for our salvation,
came down and was made flesh, and became man, suffered, and rose on the
third day, ascended into the heavens; is coming to judge the living and
dead. And in the Holy Spirit. And those who say, "There was when be was
not," and "Before be was begotten he was not," and that "He came into being
from what is not" ("nothingness"), or those that allege, that the son of
God is "of another sub-stance or essence," or "created," or "changeable,"
or "alterable," these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathernatizes."
The Emperor exerted all his influence toward securing unanimity; and at
length only two bishops stood out. These were old friends of Arius, and
they were excommunicated. But two other senior bishops, Eusebius of
Nicomedia and Tbeognis of Nicaea, refused to sign the sentences directed
against Arius and they too fell under imperial displeasure. Their
opposition showed, however, that Nicene theology would not be completely
acceptable to the East. (The Rise of Christianity, 1985, W.H.C. Frend,
p140-141)
Go To Alphabetical Index Of Deceptive Quotes
Written By Steve Rudd, Used by permission at: www.bible.ca
Click to View
Go To Start: WWW.BIBLE.CA
|