Nicea. Can "Christianity" exist apart from it?

[ChristianHeretic]

This thread is in response to Josiah in another thread who commented:

If you can prove you are right from Scriptures, I will convert. If I can prove nicea/chalcedon is right, you must convert. That's how it works, according to the rules we are both playing by. Nobody gets to decide but Scriptures alone. I believe i have been careful not to place any authority in the antiquity, or authority, or majesty of that council. The fact that so many people have agreed with the decision certainly does place the burden of proof with the detractors of their findings, it wouldn't be the first time that truth has stood on the side of a sharp minority (e.g. Athanasius, Luther, J. Gresham Machen).

I don't have time to deal with this topic now, but we can put it on our "to do" list in the future. I would be interested to know how you came to believe that the Trinity is not Scriptural.

Now, in fairness, he said he didn't have time to deal with this right now, but I figured I'd start the thread anyway and wait on him to join.

Regarding my title, my question is, let's assume that Nicea never happened. We never had the political clout, influence, freedom, whatever to gather this many in one place to discuss our respective views on our interpretation of Scripture. None of the early councils allowed us to determine what the "the most popular view" (ie orthodox view) of "Christendom" was. Let's assume that Origen, Justin Martyr, Arius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius, and many other early apologists were still alive today, arguing the same thing they argued back then. Let's even assume that some of those Biblical converts like those in Antioch in Acts 11:26 or even the thief on the cross were still alive today with their respective measure of wisdom/faith. Would we have the authority to call some of them "Christians" yet withhold the title from others? If so, why? And would Christ Himself condone this practice?

[Josiah]

Good questions! I look forward to debating this. Sometime in August would suit me better, though. Can we postpone 'till then?

[ChristianHeretic]

Sure...I can wait...take your time...

[mikedsjr]

CH, This thread is really a question of whether scripture says Jesus, or shall i say the Trinity, is God. Is this correct? Or is this about whether groups under the heading of something called christian (liberal and conservative) would agree on a definition of God today? I hope I'm not intruding into the conversation.

[ChristianHeretic]

No, absolutely not...everyone's welcome...

Good question. The question is ultimately whether the Trinity is a Biblical concept. But to me these two questions are similar, and will ultimately lead to the same place, so that's why I started it this way. I posed it this way to try to avoid the appeal to popularity route discussions like these typically take. The question, for most of us, is not why the bishops who got together at Nicea or Chalcedon were able to generate a majority who decided on "truth." The question is, at least for me, what is the "truth" and were these bishops right? Or were the Councils of Antioch (325, 341), Tyre (335), Sardica (343) or maybe the Council at Ariminum/Seleucia in 359 AD which was attended by some 400 mostly “orthodox” bishops to help try to reel Christendom closer to only what we can be confident of through Scripture (as they saw Nicea taking various tangents from Scripture)? I posed the question this way partly because in the other post, we were discussing "absolute truth" and how we can know it well enough to call some "Christians" and some "non-Christians", and partly because I don't want to get lost in the weeds of discussing what each of the above councils believed, I'd rather address Scripture and why we believe what we believe today. I'm fine if we want to use the same support that some of these councils used, but to appeal to the majority opinion decided at any of the above councils doesn't do anybody any good.

For instance, why was the one who created the term "Trinity," Tertullian, wrong about his perception that Jesus was not eternal? Why was Eusebius of Caesarea, the "Father of Church History," who was probably the most educated if not solely the most accomplished, bishop present at Nicea, wrong about his interpretation that Jesus was "begotten" at his birth? Or how about Arius, who believed:

"Certainly there is a Trinity…their individual realities do not mix with each other, and they possess glories of different levels."

Why was he wrong? Or more appropriately, do we have the right to tell him he was wrong when many of these things he was contesting go off-script...that is, they are external to the information we can derive from Scripture?

[mitchellmckain]

Regarding my title, my question is, let's assume that Nicea never happened. We never had the political clout, influence, freedom, whatever to gather this many in one place to discuss our respective views on our interpretation of Scripture. None of the early councils allowed us to determine what the "the most popular view" (ie orthodox view) of "Christendom" was. Let's assume that Origen, Justin Martyr, Arius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius, and many other early apologists were still alive today, arguing the same thing they argued back then. Let's even assume that some of those Biblical converts like those in Antioch in Acts 11:26 or even the thief on the cross were still alive today with their respective measure of wisdom/faith. Would we have the authority to call some of them "Christians" yet withhold the title from others? If so, why? And would Christ Himself condone this practice?

The supposition is absurd. It HAD to happen. As people came along and tried to redefine this movement called Christianity which was becoming increasingly popular, the defenders of the faith inevitably had to step up and make it clear what this whole business of being Chrstian was all about to keep other from appropriating it for their own agenda. The councils happened in response to just such an attempt and I see clear indications that they had every intent to be as inclusive and minimalistic as possible because I think their primary interest was in protecting against those who wanted to cut Christianity down to something smaller to their own little cult under their own authority.

BUT...

But this is not to say that any creeds or any definition of "Christianity" should be used to place limits upon the work of God or legitimate religion. It simply acknowledges the fact that there are other religions that reverence Jesus which are quite distinct and different from the one that is called Christianity.

[jordanws]

I don't think Nicea HAD to happen, but it was probably inevitable based on what was going on in history. I really think that God used moments in history to promote his causes, but I also think that sometimes we think we need to take the faith into our own hands. Constantinianism was not something which helped the faith. Had it not happened, the faith would be much more diverse than it is now, and communities would need to decide within themselves which doctrines were worth accepting and which need to be discarded. I really believe that there are only a few distinctives that are essential to be a part of Christendom, and I'm not convinced that a traditional understanding of the Trinity is one of them.

[ChristianHeretic]

I really believe that there are only a few distinctives that are essential to be a part of Christendom, and I'm not convinced that a traditional understanding of the Trinity is one of them.

Why do you believe a belief in the Trinity is an essential part of Christendom?

[jordanws]

I really believe that there are only a few distinctives that are essential to be a part of Christendom, and I'm not convinced that a traditional understanding of the Trinity is one of them.

Why do you believe a belief in the Trinity is an essential part of Christendom?

I actually said the opposite of that - I said "I really believe that there are only a few distinctives that are essential to be a part of Christendom, and I'm NOT convinced that a traditional understanding of the Trinity is one of them."

I do believe that believing Christ is God is a fairly important part of the Christian tradition, but I don't think that necessarily equates to the traditional, classical definition of the Trinity. For example, I have no problem believing that Christ did not always know exactly what was going to happen.

[ChristianHeretic]

I actually said the opposite of that - I said "I really believe that there are only a few distinctives that are essential to be a part of Christendom, and I'm NOT convinced that a traditional understanding of the Trinity is one of them."

I do believe that believing Christ is God is a fairly important part of the Christian tradition, but I don't think that necessarily equates to the traditional, classical definition of the Trinity. For example, I have no problem believing that Christ did not always know exactly what was going to happen.

Sorry, I misread that! So, hopefully, I'm reading you right this time, and why do you think "that believing Christ is God is a fairly important part of the Christian tradition?"

[jordanws]

I actually said the opposite of that - I said "I really believe that there are only a few distinctives that are essential to be a part of Christendom, and I'm NOT convinced that a traditional understanding of the Trinity is one of them."

I do believe that believing Christ is God is a fairly important part of the Christian tradition, but I don't think that necessarily equates to the traditional, classical definition of the Trinity. For example, I have no problem believing that Christ did not always know exactly what was going to happen.

Sorry, I misread that! So, hopefully, I'm reading you right this time, and why do you think "that believing Christ is God is a fairly important part of the Christian tradition?"

No worries

I just think that there is a lot that falls apart if Christ is not God. It's possible that he is/was subordinate to God, or even perhaps that he was a good teacher, but I think that the Gospels and the other books of the NT make a pretty consistent case that he was/is essential to God's plan for salvation - whatever that means.

Basically, I believe that Christ is God, but I'm not concerned with defining whether that's one essence or one substance or whatever. There are some things I'll never know, and most days I'm ok with that. I think we get into a lot of trouble when we try and box God in with too many man-made philosophies. Things like the Trinity can be important tools for explaining how things might work, but that's all they are - tools. To make them more than tools for attempting to explain the Divine would be like trying to prove that a blueprint is actually a house, and not just a representation of a house, if that makes any sense.

[mikedsjr]

Jordan, and how do you arrive at the Trinity not being essential? If you mean the term isn't essential, then i agree. If you mean the definition behind it, then you're breaking from tradition and scripture.

[tirtlegrrl]

I think that it's probably important for Christ to be God in some way, because the power of the Christian message is derived partly from the idea that God entered into our existence and actually absorbed the consequences, the effect, of the mess we made of the world upon himself. If Jesus was just some dude, what did his death accomplish, and why should we worship him? If Christ was not God then worship of him is idolatry.

[jordanws]

Jordan, and how do you arrive at the Trinity not being essential? If you mean the term isn't essential, then i agree. If you mean the definition behind it, then you're breaking from tradition and scripture.

By 'essential' I mean that I believe someone could say that they're not sure about the Trinity, and still call themselves a Christian. The doctrine of the Trinity is something that has been constructed by the church, and while it is valuable, I don't think it is essential for someone to be able to love and follow Christ and his teachings.

[ChristianHeretic]

I think that the Gospels and the other books of the NT make a pretty consistent case that he was/is essential to God's plan for salvation - whatever that means.

I obviously agree with this, but I don't see what this has to do with Jesus' divinity?

I think that it's probably important for Christ to be God in some way, because the power of the Christian message is derived partly from the idea that God entered into our existence and actually absorbed the consequences, the effect, of the mess we made of the world upon himself. If Jesus was just some dude, what did his death accomplish, and why should we worship him? If Christ was not God then worship of him is idolatry.

I agree that the Christian message is that Jesus "absorbed the consequences, the effect, of the mess we made of the world." However, I don't see why this necessarily requires this Messiah, this Anointed One, this Lamb to also be "God?" Would His death have accomplished anything less if He was less than God? The idolatry issue is a tough one, but ultimately, if God ordered that we should worship Baal, would that be idolatry, if in fact we were instructed to do so by our God?

And regarding His death, who actually died? Which "part" of Jesus actually provided the propitiation for our sins? As He was exclaiming, "My God, My God, why have you abandoned me," what part of Jesus remained to provide the sacrifice? The "sacrifice" could not have happened without the death, so what part "died?"